The fantasy you and Jason P keep spouting is that he gave his materials to China and Russia. You keep spouting that fantasy because you have nothing else with which to vilify him, in your unwavering support of your superiors in the U.S government - other than some lame character assassination psycho babble.
He risked everything to expose government lies and it's breaching of the Constitution. That makes him a hero.
It's no fantasy if I duct-tape a bunch of steaks to myself, jump into a shark tank, and get my leg bitten off by a shark.
Perhaps I just stole a bunch of meat from the butcher shop and decided to take a shortcut through a shark tank on my way home … it wasn't my intention to be eaten by a shark. I just rationalized and miscalculated that the sharks would respect the fact that I chose to eat cow instead of fish and would grant me safe harbor.
Essentially what "hero" did, except in this case the steaks are a stolen hard drive and the sharks are China and the USSR.
But you would have to be a moron to jump into a shark tank with steaks duct-taped to you, right?
Whether "hero" did it consensually or not is a question to be answered. But I’m 100% certain they have whatever info he stole, China and the USSR have.
But I’m 100% certain they have whatever info he stole, China and the USSR have.
Of course you are. You need to believe that because you have nothing else, and you need to tell yourself that he's bad, and that your government superiors are right, despite the fact that your government lied to you repeatedly and spied on you in violation of the constitution. You need to believe that your government are pure and righteous and that those people exposing government wrongdoing are mentally ill, or neurotic, and/or a threat to society, because your whole World-view depends on it. I'm not sure why some people feel this way, and have an in-built need for a superior entity in their lives. Maybe it's a symptom of poor childhood potty training, or something. A need to cling on desperately to whatever they have - in spite of the stink.
As for the Chinese, and Russians being in possession of the documents he stole, the British intelligence services have been in possession of the material - or at least a portion of it - for the past three weeks, and have only so far been able to decipher/unencrypt approx 5% of it. Also, how do you know that Snowden was even in possession of any of the material at the time he revealed his identity to the World? It could be that he'd given the lot to Glenn Greenwald before announcing his identity and whereabouts, and the material could have already been 8000 miles away in Brazil by that time.
And many millions of people in this case are wrong.
Conceited much? Rosa Parks broke the law by sitting at the back of the bus. I suppose in your scheme of things she was a criminal too, right? And the millions who regard her as a hero are wrong?
Conceited? Because I have a differing opinion? Hilarious.
Rosa Parks deserves much better than being compared to Edward Snowden. She never spent a single day of her life enjoying the kind of comforts that will be provided to Snowden by his new friends in Russian intelligence. Please. :roll:
Not a single fantasy anywhere in my posts. Not a one. He did take a job specifically to steal state secrets, he did steal those secrets, he did flee with them first to China and then to Russia. Those are his actions, those are facts, and that is not heroism.
The fantasy you and Jason P keep spouting is that he gave his materials to China and Russia. You keep spouting that fantasy because you have nothing else with which to vilify him, in your unwavering support of your superiors in the U.S government - other than some lame character assassination psycho babble.
He risked everything to expose government lies and it's breaching of the Constitution. That makes him a hero.
First, while I have been discussing Edward Snowden, you seem hellbent on shifting the conversation to me. My "fantasies", my "unwavering support", calling me conceited, and so on. Let's stick to Snowden.
Second, neither one of us knows what Snowden did or did not give the Chinese or the Russians. I personally don't believe he willingly gave them anything. I do however think it highly probable that by now the Russians have found ways to crack into his super-duper-top-secret-encoded laptops. Perhaps the Chinese did not have enough time but the Russians certainly have. If Snowden thought otherwise then he is a fool.
The myth of the heroic Edward Snowden continues to be made. How dare anyone stop and question it...
But I’m 100% certain they have whatever info he stole, China and the USSR have.
Of course you are. You need to believe that because you have nothing else, and you need to tell yourself that he's bad, and that your government superiors are right, despite the fact that your government lied to you repeatedly and spied on you in violation of the constitution. You need to believe that your government are pure and righteous and that those people exposing government wrongdoing are mentally ill, or neurotic, and/or a threat to society, because your whole World-view depends on it. I'm not sure why some people feel this way, and have an in-built need for a superior entity in their lives. Maybe it's a symptom of poor childhood potty training, or something. A need to cling on desperately to whatever they have - in spite of the stink.
As for the Chinese, and Russians being in possession of the documents he stole, the British intelligence services have been in possession of the material - or at least a portion of it - for the past three weeks, and have only so far been able to decipher/unencrypt approx 5% of it. Also, how do you know that Snowden was even in possession of any of the material at the time he revealed his identity to the World? It could be that he'd given the lot to Glenn Greenwald before announcing his identity and whereabouts, and the material could have already been 8000 miles away in Brazil by that time.
Wow. Thank you for the psychoanalysis
You obviously haven’t been reading my other posts where I actually point out problems with my government. My potty training must have given me the ability to see both good and bad :think:
What I’m doing with the Snowden case is taking in information and logically processing it. Whatever bias I have is a mere shadow of the bias you are applying to this case.
I’m not saying he is bad. I’m saying he is incredibly naïve … or incredibly dumb … or in cahoots with another spy network.
Here is how I break it down.
Stealing secrets from the NSA … Takes smarts
Handing over secrets to a news agency … whistle blowing
Finding out he planned to steal the secrets beforehand … espionage
Not going directly to Bolivia or Iceland after stealing secrets … Very dumb
Going to a city surrounded by China … A very risky gamble
Spending all your money in a few weeks … Incredibly dumb
Hoping on a plane to Moscow … Naïve, dumb, or espionage
Stuck in a country under the condition you can’t leak anymore info … Dumb or espionage
That’s how I break it down. He is either an amazing spy or he is the dumbest smart person ever.
The fantasy you and Jason P keep spouting is that he gave his materials to China and Russia. You keep spouting that fantasy because you have nothing else with which to vilify him, in your unwavering support of your superiors in the U.S government - other than some lame character assassination psycho babble.
He risked everything to expose government lies and it's breaching of the Constitution. That makes him a hero.
I don't really think he gave up any info, but to me you are living in a fantasy if you think there isn't a possibility that he did give it up or it was somehow taken from him illegally by Russia and China. He could have easily been hacked.
Anything is possible, but as of now I do not believe he did. At first I did, but I don't think he is that dumb to give it up. But if I was Putin and I knew some guy with so much intel on the US, my first thought would not be, "Wow, what an amazing guy. He is standing up to his country. He holds with him intel that might be helpful to our country. I'll just let him keep it." Just sayin...
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
I don't really think he gave up any info, but to me you are living in a fantasy if you think there isn't a possibility that he did give it up or it was somehow taken from him illegally by Russia and China. He could have easily been hacked.
Anything is possible, but as of now I do not believe he did. At first I did, but I don't think he is that dumb to give it up. But if I was Putin and I knew some guy with so much intel on the US, my first thought would not be, "Wow, what an amazing guy. He is standing up to his country. He holds with him intel that might be helpful to our country. I'll just let him keep it." Just sayin...
Like I said above, the British intelligence agencies have been in possession of the material - or a portion of it - for 3 weeks, and they've still made no headway in their efforts to decrypt it. So that's evidence enough that he took adequate precautions to secure it.
As for Putin, maybe the Russians are simply givng him the respect he deserves, instead of just pouncing on the documents.
He is either an amazing spy or he is the dumbest smart person ever.
Or he's neither. most reasonable people call him what he is - a whistle blower.
As for him not flying straight to Iceland, he's already explained that, and I've posted his comments regarding it here. Keep ignoring them.
Yes. He explained a horribly calculated decision. So is he lying or stupid?
How do you approve of his decision? What would you have done given the time he had to make the decision to going to Hong Kong with a bevy of NSA stolen data?
Would you have done that? After being able to see what wiki dude has gone through? Stuck in a Bolivian embassy for over a year ... A place where the dollar could have left him with a comfortable life ... That is if you planned correctly.
NSA encryption story, Latin American fallout and US/UK attacks on press freedoms
The implications of the prior week's reporting of NSA stories continue to grow
Glenn Greenwald
theguardian.com, Saturday 7 September 2013
'I'm currently working on what I believe are several significant new NSA stories, to be published imminently here, as well as one very consequential story about NSA spying in Brazil that will first be broadcast Sunday night on the Brazilian television program Fantastico (because the report has worldwide implications, far beyond Brazil, it will be translated into English and then quickly published on the internet).
...the fallout continues from our report last week on Fantastico revealing the NSA's very personal and specific surveillance targeting of Brazilian president Dilma Rouseff and then-leading-candidate (now Mexican president) Enrique Peña Nieto (the NSA documents we published about those activities are here). In an interview this week with The Hindu's Shobhan Saxena, Brazil's highly popular ex-president Lula vehemently condemned NSA spying abuses and said Obama should "personally apologize to the world". The New York Times' Simon Romero has a good article from yesterday http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/world ... .html?_r=0 on the thus-far-unsuccessful attempts by Obama to placate the anger in the region from this report. As for the new report coming Sunday night in Brazil, please take note of this adamant statement last week from the NSA, as reported by the Washington Post [asterisks in original]:
"US intelligence services are making routine use around the world of government-built malware that differs little in function from the 'advanced persistent threats' that US officials attribute to China. The principal difference, US officials told The Post, is that China steals US corporate secrets for financial gain.
"'The Department of Defense does engage' in computer network exploitation, according to an e-mailed statement from an NSA spokesman, whose agency is part of the Defense Department. 'The department does ***not*** engage in economic espionage in any domain, including cyber.'"
In Europe this week, President Obama has been making similar claims when asked about NSA spying, repeatedly assuring people that NSA surveillance is overwhelmingly devoted to stopping terrorism threats.
One big problem the NSA and US government generally have had since our reporting began is that their defenses offered in response to each individual story are quickly proven to be false by the next story, which just further undermines their credibility around the world. That NSA denial I just excerpted above has already been disproven by several reports [...], but after Sunday, I think it will prove to be perhaps the NSA's most misleading statement yet.
NSA shares raw intelligence including Americans' data with Israel
• Secret deal places no legal limits on use of data by Israelis
• Only official US government communications protected
• Agency insists it complies with rules governing privacy
• Read the NSA and Israel's 'memorandum of understanding'
Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Ewen MacAskill
The Guardian, Wednesday 11 September 2013
The National Security Agency routinely shares raw intelligence data with Israel without first sifting it to remove information about US citizens, a top-secret document provided to the Guardian by whistleblower Edward Snowden reveals.
Details of the intelligence-sharing agreement are laid out in a memorandum of understanding between the NSA and its Israeli counterpart that shows the US government handed over intercepted communications likely to contain phone calls and emails of American citizens. The agreement places no legally binding limits on the use of the data by the Israelis.
The disclosure that the NSA agreed to provide raw intelligence data to a foreign country contrasts with assurances from the Obama administration that there are rigorous safeguards to protect the privacy of US citizens caught in the dragnet. The intelligence community calls this process "minimization", but the memorandum makes clear that the information shared with the Israelis would be in its pre-minimized state.
The deal was reached in principle in March 2009, according to the undated memorandum, which lays out the ground rules for the intelligence sharing.
The five-page memorandum, termed an agreement between the US and Israeli intelligence agencies "pertaining to the protection of US persons", repeatedly stresses the constitutional rights of Americans to privacy and the need for Israeli intelligence staff to respect these rights.
But this is undermined by the disclosure that Israel is allowed to receive "raw Sigint" – signal intelligence. The memorandum says: "Raw Sigint includes, but is not limited to, unevaluated and unminimized transcripts, gists, facsimiles, telex, voice and Digital Network Intelligence metadata and content."
According to the agreement, the intelligence being shared would not be filtered in advance by NSA analysts to remove US communications. "NSA routinely sends ISNU [the Israeli Sigint National Unit] minimized and unminimized raw collection", it says.
....
The NSA declined to answer specific questions about the agreement, including whether permission had been sought from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (Fisa) court for handing over such material.
The memorandum of understanding, which the Guardian is publishing in full, allows Israel to retain "any files containing the identities of US persons" for up to a year. The agreement requests only that the Israelis should consult the NSA's special liaison adviser when such data is found.
Notably, a much stricter rule was set for US government communications found in the raw intelligence. The Israelis were required to "destroy upon recognition" any communication "that is either to or from an official of the US government". Such communications included those of "officials of the executive branch (including the White House, cabinet departments, and independent agencies), the US House of Representatives and Senate (member and staff) and the US federal court system (including, but not limited to, the supreme court)".
It is not clear whether any communications involving members of US Congress or the federal courts have been included in the raw data provided by the NSA, nor is it clear how or why the NSA would be in possession of such communications. In 2009, however, the New York Times reported on "the agency's attempt to wiretap a member of Congress, without court approval, on an overseas trip".
The NSA is required by law to target only non-US persons without an individual warrant, but it can collect the content and metadata of Americans' emails and calls without a warrant when such communication is with a foreign target. US persons are defined in surveillance legislation as US citizens, permanent residents and anyone located on US soil at the time of the interception, unless it has been positively established that they are not a citizen or permanent resident.
Moreover, with much of the world's internet traffic passing through US networks, large numbers of purely domestic communications also get scooped up incidentally by the agency's surveillance programs.
The document mentions only one check carried out by the NSA on the raw intelligence, saying the agency will "regularly review a sample of files transferred to ISNU to validate the absence of US persons' identities". It also requests that the Israelis limit access only to personnel with a "strict need to know".
Israeli intelligence is allowed "to disseminate foreign intelligence information concerning US persons derived from raw Sigint by NSA" on condition that it does so "in a manner that does not identify the US person". The agreement also allows Israel to release US person identities to "outside parties, including all INSU customers" with the NSA's written permission.
Although Israel is one of America's closest allies, it is not one of the inner core of countries involved in surveillance sharing with the US - Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. This group is collectively known as Five Eyes.
The relationship between the US and Israel has been strained at times, both diplomatically and in terms of intelligence. In the top-secret 2013 intelligence community budget request, details of which were disclosed by the Washington Post, Israel is identified alongside Iran and China as a target for US cyberattacks.
While NSA documents tout the mutually beneficial relationship of Sigint sharing, another report, marked top secret and dated September 2007, states that the relationship, while central to US strategy, has become overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of Israel.
"Balancing the Sigint exchange equally between US and Israeli needs has been a constant challenge," states the report, titled 'History of the US – Israel Sigint Relationship, Post-1992'. "In the last decade, it arguably tilted heavily in favor of Israeli security concerns. 9/11 came, and went, with NSA's only true Third Party [counter-terrorism] relationship being driven almost totally by the needs of the partner."
In another top-secret document seen by the Guardian, dated 2008, a senior NSA official points out that Israel aggressively spies on the US. "On the one hand, the Israelis are extraordinarily good Sigint partners for us, but on the other, they target us to learn our positions on Middle East problems," the official says. "A NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] ranked them as the third most aggressive intelligence service against the US."
Later in the document, the official is quoted as saying: "One of NSA's biggest threats is actually from friendly intelligence services, like Israel. There are parameters on what NSA shares with them, but the exchange is so robust, we sometimes share more than we intended."
The memorandum of understanding also contains hints that there had been tensions in the intelligence-sharing relationship with Israel. At a meeting in March 2009 between the two agencies, according to the document, it was agreed that the sharing of raw data required a new framework and further training for Israeli personnel to protect US person information.
It is not clear whether or not this was because there had been problems up to that point in the handling of intelligence that was found to contain Americans' data.
However, an earlier US document obtained by Snowden, which discusses co-operating on a military intelligence program, bluntly lists under the cons: "Trust issues which revolve around previous ISR [Israel] operations."
Sen. Ron Wyden: NSA 'repeatedly deceived the American people'
About the Snowden disclosures, the Oregon Democrat told the NSA chief: 'the truth always manages to come out'
Beta
Glenn Greenwald
theguardian.com, Friday 27 September 2013
The Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday held a hearing, ostensibly to investigate various issues raised about the NSA's activities. What the hearing primarily achieved instead was to underscore what a farce the notion of Congressional oversight over the NSA is.
In particular, the current chair of the Senate Committee created in the mid-1970s to oversee the intelligence community just so happens to be one of the nation's most steadfast and blind loyalists of and apologists for the National Security State: Dianne Feinstein. For years she has abused her position to shield and defend the NSA and related agencies rather than provide any meaningful oversight over it, which is a primary reason why it has grown into such an out-of-control and totally unaccountable behemoth.
Underscoring the purpose of yesterday's hearing (and the purpose of Feinstein's Committee more broadly): the witnesses the Committee first heard from were all Obama officials - Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, NSA chief Gen. Keith Alexander, Deputy Attorney James Cole - who vehemently defended every aspect of the NSA. At the conclusion of their testimony, Feinstein announced that it was very, very important to hear from the two non-governmental witnesses the Committee had invited: virulent NSA defender Ben Wittes of the Brooking Institution and virulent NSA defender Timothy Edgar, a former Obama national security official. Hearing only from dedicated NSA apologists as witnesses: that's "oversight" for Dianne Feinstein and her oversight Committee.
Democratic Sen. Mark Warner stated the obvious to Gen. Alexander: "a lot of Americans have lost trust in what you're doing." But of course they all spent the entire afternoon blaming Snowden and "the media" for this development rather than taking any responsibility themselves. The very idea that meaningful reform of the NSA will come out of this annexed, captured, corrupted Committee is ludicrous on its face.
But there are two members of that Committee who actually do take seriously its oversight mandate: Democrats Ron Wyden and Mark Udall. Those two spent years publicly winking and hinting that the NSA under President Obama was engaged in all sorts of radical and abusive domestic surveillance (although - despite the absolute immunity protection they enjoy as Senators under the Constitution - they took no action, and instead waited for Edward Snowden (who had no such immunity) to bravely step up and reveal to the American people specifically what these two Senators kept hinting at).
Wyden spoke yesterday for 6 minutes - part of of it as monologue and part of it questioning Gen. Alexander - and it's really worth watching the video, embedded below. The Oregon Democrat condemned what he called "the intrusive, constitutionally flawed surveillance system" the NSA built. About Snowden's whistleblowing, he said that NSA officials should have known from "a quick read of history, in America, the truth always managed to come out." And his primary point was this: "the leadership of NSA built an intelligence collection system that repeatedly deceived the American people."
Indeed, if I had to pick the single most revealing aspect of this entire NSA scandal - and there are many revealing ones about many different realms - it would be that James Clapper lied to the faces of the Senate Intelligence Committee about core NSA matters, and not only was he not prosecuted for that felony, but he did not even lose his job, and continues to be treated with great reverence by the very Committee which he deliberately deceived. That one fact tells you all you need to know about how official Washington functions.
...Finally, in case there are any people left who thought that exploiting Terrorism and fear-mongering over it for power was a unique by-product of the Bush era (and really: could there really be any people left who believe that at this point?), Gen. Alexander this week "warned that if Congress hampers the NSA's ability to gather information, it could allow for terrorist attacks in the United States similar to last week's massacre in a mall in Nairobi, Kenya", while Feinstein's deputy Chair, GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss (who revealingly sounds like every Democratic NSA defender I ever hear) said that the recent NSA disclosures "caused huge damage to the US" and "would ultimately claim lives."
Will Eric Holder guarantee NSA reporters' first amendment rights?
The US attorney general vows not to prosecute journalists, but his criminalisation of whistleblowers undermines that assurance
John Cusack
theguardian.com, Wednesday 18 September 2013
Another week and another wave of stories on the NSA and the unconstitutional out-of-control surveillance state hit the digital newsstands, showing once again why the tide is turning. Some revelations are so surreal, it's hard not to assume they're satire. NSA chief Keith Alexander seems to be modeling his ambitions and visions for international spying after General Curtis LeMay's views on nuclear war.
Meanwhile, despite the massive smear campaign against Edward Snowden, opinion polls stand clearly with the truth-tellers. People know they have a right to know what the government is doing in their names. State secrecy is on the run, while American privacy, long rumored dead, is alive and kicking and wants the fight out in the open – in the sunlight and in the public square.
Last month, though, Glenn Greenwald's partner, David Miranda, was detained at Heathrow airport for almost nine hours, while on a journalistic mission paid for by the Guardian. His electronics were seized, and he was forced to hand over his social media passwords under the threat of imprisonment. He was detained under the UK Terrorism Act – for an act of journalism. This was an assault on press freedom that should make every reporter shudder no matter their opinion on the NSA.
The message was sent. It gave a whole new meaning to "Miranda rights". A Miranda warning, in effect.
Perhaps worse, we learned a few days later that the United States had been given a "heads up" by their British counterparts that they were planning on detaining Miranda. The US government didn't lift a finger to stop this blatant attack on journalism and press freedom – even as it has been moving heaven and earth to bring Edward Snowden back to the US. That should be a scandal in its own right.
Now, the US owes its citizens and the international community another "heads up": on whether the United States will do the same to journalists working on NSA stories who are entering the United States. Put simply, will Attorney General Eric Holder, the US State Department, and the FBI promise safe passage to journalists, their spouses and loved ones, and vow not to interfere with their reporting on these NSA stories?
So far, the answer has been far from clear.
Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, the two American journalists at the center of these stories, have been doing their reporting from Brazil and Germany respectively. The US government has not, so far, stated publicly whether they can enter the country without receiving the same outrageous treatment that Miranda received. Or worse.
Can they practice journalism in the United States, without their hard drives being confiscated, without an unconstitutional search-and-seizure taking place at the border? Are they free to enter the United States without being served a subpoena, or even jailed? Unlike the UK, the United States is supposed to be bound by the first amendment of the constitution, which exists to bar such treatment of journalists.
Poitras, a filmmaker and journalist universally respected in her field, has already been a victim of the ever-expanding surveillance state: since her widely praised film My Country, My Country debuted in 2006, she has been detained while crossing the US border over 40 times. She is editing her upcoming film on whistleblowers in Berlin, because of fears her footage will be seized in the United States
She's not alone. Jacob Appelbaum, a security researcher, a Tor developer and journalist in his own right, has been harassed while going over the border for years, simply by virtue of his association with WikiLeaks, whose "crime", apparently, is publishing government secrets in the public interest – something we know established newspapers do all the time.
I should note that I consider both Glenn and Laura friends, as we all sit on the board of the Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) together. But the reason this should concern not only me and the FPF, but everyone in the US, is not because of any specific people; we must look at these assaults from a broader perspective.
We care about the individual journalists under attack – Greenwald, Poitras, Appelbaum, Miranda, Julian Assange, James Risen – and the whistleblowers themselves – Snowden, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, Chelsea Manning, Julia Davis, Russ Tice – in all these fights. But it's not just the risk and courage of the individuals that inspire and call us to action.
We recognize that when the individual rights are being violated, that means my rights, our rights, are being violated too. What happens to individuals in the US happens to the first amendment. Our politicians must have forgotten the basics we all learned in high school civics class.
That's what the FPF was founded for: we needed a movement protecting the first amendment in its broadest reach.
As FPF co-founder and iconic whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg told me last week:
"I've been waiting 40 years for Edward Snowden, and his revelations are the most important in US history, including the Pentagon Papers."
Despite the importance of his revelations, the US purposefully stranded Snowden in Russia by canceling his passport while he was in transit from Hong Kong to Russia, essentially forcing him into exile.
We already know the government will attempt to intimidate and crush whistleblowers who challenge national security state orthodoxy. Genuflect and get in line – or pay the heavy cost. Look no further than Thomas Drake, Bill Binney, and J Kirk Wiebe, three NSA whistleblowers whose homes were raided and lives were destroyed for the cardinal sin of informing the American public about crimes committed by their government.
It's hard to blame Snowden for not wanting to come back and rot in a US jail. Chelsea Manning spent three years in jail awaiting trial, nearly a year of it in torturous conditions. She has now been sentenced to 35 years in prison for leaks exposing war crimes, which have been almost universally acknowledged as having caused no real harm to the US, while those recorded in the "Collateral Murder" video have gone uncharged.
Mr Snowden may have the faint suspicion that his rights would not be protected – given that a prosecution under the Espionage Act would leave him no way to mount a public interest defense if he came back to stand trial. Often, we export our US ideals, sometimes rightfully, sometimes tragically. Now, our action is drenched in irony: Russia is providing safe haven to our American whistleblower, and East Berlin, where the Stasi once roamed, is now where journalists and privacy rights advocates feel safe to work.
Not so in the US these days, it seems. Whether whistleblower, source or journalist: expose crimes, become the hunted. What must students think when they see some of the brightest minds – and the fiercest watchdogs – of a generation unable to practice journalism in America?
Hunter S Thompson once said:
"History is hard to know, because of all the hired bullshit, but even without being sure of "history" it seems entirely reasonable to think that every now and then the energy of a whole generation comes to a head in a long fine flash, for reasons that nobody understands at the time – and which never explain, in retrospect, what actually happened."
He spoke of the end of something – a great wave and the attendant forces and counterforces at play. Now one can feel the rising tide and a see a new wave forming on the edge of the break. Perhaps, soon we can paraphrase the Good Doctor: and with the right kind of eyes almost see the high-water mark of the surveillance state… that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
If we want that moment, we need to stand with those brave enough to confront the crimes of our current national security state. Just two months before the UK gave the US its absurd "heads up" about David Miranda's detention, Eric Holder vowed not to prosecute journalists, saying:
"The Department [of Justice] has not prosecuted, and as long as I'm attorney general, will not prosecute any reporter for doing his or her job."
That begs the question: will the attorney general, as chief law enforcement officer of the country, now go on record that he will guarantee the safe return and safe passage of journalists who have exercised their rights under the first amendment?
Or would we accept the creation of a generation of exiled watchdogs, who are trying to hold their government accountable from afar?
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,800
despite what the gaurdian says, I appreciate having the info but he's still a criminal.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
despite what the gaurdian says, I appreciate having the info but he's still a criminal.
But you have no problem with James Clapper committing a felony by lying to the Senate Intelligence Committee, and with the NSA breaching the U.S Constitution.
despite what the gaurdian says, I appreciate having the info but he's still a criminal.
But you have no problem with James Clapper committing a felony by lying to the Senate Intelligence Committee, and with the NSA breaching the U.S Constitution.
I think i see where your priorities are.
Care to share where I said that? See, exposing illegal activity by committing illegal activity is still wrong, no matter how important the info was to the american public at large.
I'd think mr snowden would do well to follow the example of Ms. Manning in taking responsibility for his actions.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
exposing illegal activity by committing illegal activity is still wrong, no matter how important the info was to the american public at large.
Maybe according to you it is. Some would say the means justifies the ends, especially when it involves reigning in those who are abusing their power.
Byrnzie...
While I do agree with this statement you have made, you have consistently defended the need for due process and legalities. At least in this matter, you have become somewhat conflicted.
exposing illegal activity by committing illegal activity is still wrong, no matter how important the info was to the american public at large.
Maybe according to you it is. Some would say the means justifies the ends, especially when it involves reigning in those who are abusing their power.
Byrnzie...
While I do agree with this statement you have made, you have consistently defended the need for due process and legalities. At least in this matter, you have become somewhat conflicted.
Are you referring to the illegality by James Clapper of lying to the Senate Intelligence Committee, or to the illegality of Edward Snowden of stealing government documents in order to expose government lies and it's mass surveillance operation, which breaches the U.S Constitution?
In Chinese Government parlance, Edward Snowden engaged in 'subversion of State power', and is therefore a criminal who should be prosecuted and imprisoned. Something that many people on this message board clearly agree with, despite being quick to mention China in relation to lack of freedoms, and totalitarianism. Funny that.
Are you referring to the illegality by James Clapper of lying to the Senate Intelligence Committee, or to the illegality of Edward Snowden of stealing government documents in order to expose government lies and it's mass surveillance operation, which breaches the U.S Constitution?
Specifically... neither. I was just curious as to your comment which seemed to be in contrast to what seemed to be your steadfast beliefs. You have consistently asserted to allow for due process is and the comment I made reference to didn't seem to be in line with these 'typical' beliefs. I wasn't arguing against it... it just seemed atypical.
More significantly for me... you have been relatively quiet lately. I was wondering what was going on.
More significantly for me... you have been relatively quiet lately. I was wondering what was going on.
I've become addicted to Fifa 14.
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
If he committed an act of treason to expose what the general government is illegally doing to the people then I'm good with his "crime". Were people hurt because of it? Not that I'm aware of.
Comments
We would be stealing if we took the internet from the government. :ugeek:
Perhaps I just stole a bunch of meat from the butcher shop and decided to take a shortcut through a shark tank on my way home … it wasn't my intention to be eaten by a shark. I just rationalized and miscalculated that the sharks would respect the fact that I chose to eat cow instead of fish and would grant me safe harbor.
Essentially what "hero" did, except in this case the steaks are a stolen hard drive and the sharks are China and the USSR.
But you would have to be a moron to jump into a shark tank with steaks duct-taped to you, right?
Whether "hero" did it consensually or not is a question to be answered. But I’m 100% certain they have whatever info he stole, China and the USSR have.
Of course you are. You need to believe that because you have nothing else, and you need to tell yourself that he's bad, and that your government superiors are right, despite the fact that your government lied to you repeatedly and spied on you in violation of the constitution. You need to believe that your government are pure and righteous and that those people exposing government wrongdoing are mentally ill, or neurotic, and/or a threat to society, because your whole World-view depends on it. I'm not sure why some people feel this way, and have an in-built need for a superior entity in their lives. Maybe it's a symptom of poor childhood potty training, or something. A need to cling on desperately to whatever they have - in spite of the stink.
As for the Chinese, and Russians being in possession of the documents he stole, the British intelligence services have been in possession of the material - or at least a portion of it - for the past three weeks, and have only so far been able to decipher/unencrypt approx 5% of it. Also, how do you know that Snowden was even in possession of any of the material at the time he revealed his identity to the World? It could be that he'd given the lot to Glenn Greenwald before announcing his identity and whereabouts, and the material could have already been 8000 miles away in Brazil by that time.
Conceited? Because I have a differing opinion? Hilarious.
Rosa Parks deserves much better than being compared to Edward Snowden. She never spent a single day of her life enjoying the kind of comforts that will be provided to Snowden by his new friends in Russian intelligence. Please. :roll:
First, while I have been discussing Edward Snowden, you seem hellbent on shifting the conversation to me. My "fantasies", my "unwavering support", calling me conceited, and so on. Let's stick to Snowden.
Second, neither one of us knows what Snowden did or did not give the Chinese or the Russians. I personally don't believe he willingly gave them anything. I do however think it highly probable that by now the Russians have found ways to crack into his super-duper-top-secret-encoded laptops. Perhaps the Chinese did not have enough time but the Russians certainly have. If Snowden thought otherwise then he is a fool.
The myth of the heroic Edward Snowden continues to be made. How dare anyone stop and question it...
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
You obviously haven’t been reading my other posts where I actually point out problems with my government. My potty training must have given me the ability to see both good and bad :think:
What I’m doing with the Snowden case is taking in information and logically processing it. Whatever bias I have is a mere shadow of the bias you are applying to this case.
I’m not saying he is bad. I’m saying he is incredibly naïve … or incredibly dumb … or in cahoots with another spy network.
Here is how I break it down.
Stealing secrets from the NSA … Takes smarts
Handing over secrets to a news agency … whistle blowing
Finding out he planned to steal the secrets beforehand … espionage
Not going directly to Bolivia or Iceland after stealing secrets … Very dumb
Going to a city surrounded by China … A very risky gamble
Spending all your money in a few weeks … Incredibly dumb
Hoping on a plane to Moscow … Naïve, dumb, or espionage
Stuck in a country under the condition you can’t leak anymore info … Dumb or espionage
That’s how I break it down. He is either an amazing spy or he is the dumbest smart person ever.
Or he's neither. most reasonable people call him what he is - a whistle blower.
As for him not flying straight to Iceland, he's already explained that, and I've posted his comments regarding it here. Keep ignoring them.
I don't really think he gave up any info, but to me you are living in a fantasy if you think there isn't a possibility that he did give it up or it was somehow taken from him illegally by Russia and China. He could have easily been hacked.
Anything is possible, but as of now I do not believe he did. At first I did, but I don't think he is that dumb to give it up. But if I was Putin and I knew some guy with so much intel on the US, my first thought would not be, "Wow, what an amazing guy. He is standing up to his country. He holds with him intel that might be helpful to our country. I'll just let him keep it." Just sayin...
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Like I said above, the British intelligence agencies have been in possession of the material - or a portion of it - for 3 weeks, and they've still made no headway in their efforts to decrypt it. So that's evidence enough that he took adequate precautions to secure it.
As for Putin, maybe the Russians are simply givng him the respect he deserves, instead of just pouncing on the documents.
How do you approve of his decision? What would you have done given the time he had to make the decision to going to Hong Kong with a bevy of NSA stolen data?
Would you have done that? After being able to see what wiki dude has gone through? Stuck in a Bolivian embassy for over a year ... A place where the dollar could have left him with a comfortable life ... That is if you planned correctly.
:idea:
NSA encryption story, Latin American fallout and US/UK attacks on press freedoms
The implications of the prior week's reporting of NSA stories continue to grow
Glenn Greenwald
theguardian.com, Saturday 7 September 2013
'I'm currently working on what I believe are several significant new NSA stories, to be published imminently here, as well as one very consequential story about NSA spying in Brazil that will first be broadcast Sunday night on the Brazilian television program Fantastico (because the report has worldwide implications, far beyond Brazil, it will be translated into English and then quickly published on the internet).
...the fallout continues from our report last week on Fantastico revealing the NSA's very personal and specific surveillance targeting of Brazilian president Dilma Rouseff and then-leading-candidate (now Mexican president) Enrique Peña Nieto (the NSA documents we published about those activities are here). In an interview this week with The Hindu's Shobhan Saxena, Brazil's highly popular ex-president Lula vehemently condemned NSA spying abuses and said Obama should "personally apologize to the world". The New York Times' Simon Romero has a good article from yesterday http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/world ... .html?_r=0 on the thus-far-unsuccessful attempts by Obama to placate the anger in the region from this report. As for the new report coming Sunday night in Brazil, please take note of this adamant statement last week from the NSA, as reported by the Washington Post [asterisks in original]:
"US intelligence services are making routine use around the world of government-built malware that differs little in function from the 'advanced persistent threats' that US officials attribute to China. The principal difference, US officials told The Post, is that China steals US corporate secrets for financial gain.
"'The Department of Defense does engage' in computer network exploitation, according to an e-mailed statement from an NSA spokesman, whose agency is part of the Defense Department. 'The department does ***not*** engage in economic espionage in any domain, including cyber.'"
In Europe this week, President Obama has been making similar claims when asked about NSA spying, repeatedly assuring people that NSA surveillance is overwhelmingly devoted to stopping terrorism threats.
One big problem the NSA and US government generally have had since our reporting began is that their defenses offered in response to each individual story are quickly proven to be false by the next story, which just further undermines their credibility around the world. That NSA denial I just excerpted above has already been disproven by several reports [...], but after Sunday, I think it will prove to be perhaps the NSA's most misleading statement yet.
NSA shares raw intelligence including Americans' data with Israel
• Secret deal places no legal limits on use of data by Israelis
• Only official US government communications protected
• Agency insists it complies with rules governing privacy
• Read the NSA and Israel's 'memorandum of understanding'
Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Ewen MacAskill
The Guardian, Wednesday 11 September 2013
The National Security Agency routinely shares raw intelligence data with Israel without first sifting it to remove information about US citizens, a top-secret document provided to the Guardian by whistleblower Edward Snowden reveals.
Details of the intelligence-sharing agreement are laid out in a memorandum of understanding between the NSA and its Israeli counterpart that shows the US government handed over intercepted communications likely to contain phone calls and emails of American citizens. The agreement places no legally binding limits on the use of the data by the Israelis.
The disclosure that the NSA agreed to provide raw intelligence data to a foreign country contrasts with assurances from the Obama administration that there are rigorous safeguards to protect the privacy of US citizens caught in the dragnet. The intelligence community calls this process "minimization", but the memorandum makes clear that the information shared with the Israelis would be in its pre-minimized state.
The deal was reached in principle in March 2009, according to the undated memorandum, which lays out the ground rules for the intelligence sharing.
The five-page memorandum, termed an agreement between the US and Israeli intelligence agencies "pertaining to the protection of US persons", repeatedly stresses the constitutional rights of Americans to privacy and the need for Israeli intelligence staff to respect these rights.
But this is undermined by the disclosure that Israel is allowed to receive "raw Sigint" – signal intelligence. The memorandum says: "Raw Sigint includes, but is not limited to, unevaluated and unminimized transcripts, gists, facsimiles, telex, voice and Digital Network Intelligence metadata and content."
According to the agreement, the intelligence being shared would not be filtered in advance by NSA analysts to remove US communications. "NSA routinely sends ISNU [the Israeli Sigint National Unit] minimized and unminimized raw collection", it says.
....
The NSA declined to answer specific questions about the agreement, including whether permission had been sought from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (Fisa) court for handing over such material.
The memorandum of understanding, which the Guardian is publishing in full, allows Israel to retain "any files containing the identities of US persons" for up to a year. The agreement requests only that the Israelis should consult the NSA's special liaison adviser when such data is found.
Notably, a much stricter rule was set for US government communications found in the raw intelligence. The Israelis were required to "destroy upon recognition" any communication "that is either to or from an official of the US government". Such communications included those of "officials of the executive branch (including the White House, cabinet departments, and independent agencies), the US House of Representatives and Senate (member and staff) and the US federal court system (including, but not limited to, the supreme court)".
It is not clear whether any communications involving members of US Congress or the federal courts have been included in the raw data provided by the NSA, nor is it clear how or why the NSA would be in possession of such communications. In 2009, however, the New York Times reported on "the agency's attempt to wiretap a member of Congress, without court approval, on an overseas trip".
The NSA is required by law to target only non-US persons without an individual warrant, but it can collect the content and metadata of Americans' emails and calls without a warrant when such communication is with a foreign target. US persons are defined in surveillance legislation as US citizens, permanent residents and anyone located on US soil at the time of the interception, unless it has been positively established that they are not a citizen or permanent resident.
Moreover, with much of the world's internet traffic passing through US networks, large numbers of purely domestic communications also get scooped up incidentally by the agency's surveillance programs.
The document mentions only one check carried out by the NSA on the raw intelligence, saying the agency will "regularly review a sample of files transferred to ISNU to validate the absence of US persons' identities". It also requests that the Israelis limit access only to personnel with a "strict need to know".
Israeli intelligence is allowed "to disseminate foreign intelligence information concerning US persons derived from raw Sigint by NSA" on condition that it does so "in a manner that does not identify the US person". The agreement also allows Israel to release US person identities to "outside parties, including all INSU customers" with the NSA's written permission.
Although Israel is one of America's closest allies, it is not one of the inner core of countries involved in surveillance sharing with the US - Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. This group is collectively known as Five Eyes.
The relationship between the US and Israel has been strained at times, both diplomatically and in terms of intelligence. In the top-secret 2013 intelligence community budget request, details of which were disclosed by the Washington Post, Israel is identified alongside Iran and China as a target for US cyberattacks.
While NSA documents tout the mutually beneficial relationship of Sigint sharing, another report, marked top secret and dated September 2007, states that the relationship, while central to US strategy, has become overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of Israel.
"Balancing the Sigint exchange equally between US and Israeli needs has been a constant challenge," states the report, titled 'History of the US – Israel Sigint Relationship, Post-1992'. "In the last decade, it arguably tilted heavily in favor of Israeli security concerns. 9/11 came, and went, with NSA's only true Third Party [counter-terrorism] relationship being driven almost totally by the needs of the partner."
In another top-secret document seen by the Guardian, dated 2008, a senior NSA official points out that Israel aggressively spies on the US. "On the one hand, the Israelis are extraordinarily good Sigint partners for us, but on the other, they target us to learn our positions on Middle East problems," the official says. "A NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] ranked them as the third most aggressive intelligence service against the US."
Later in the document, the official is quoted as saying: "One of NSA's biggest threats is actually from friendly intelligence services, like Israel. There are parameters on what NSA shares with them, but the exchange is so robust, we sometimes share more than we intended."
The memorandum of understanding also contains hints that there had been tensions in the intelligence-sharing relationship with Israel. At a meeting in March 2009 between the two agencies, according to the document, it was agreed that the sharing of raw data required a new framework and further training for Israeli personnel to protect US person information.
It is not clear whether or not this was because there had been problems up to that point in the handling of intelligence that was found to contain Americans' data.
However, an earlier US document obtained by Snowden, which discusses co-operating on a military intelligence program, bluntly lists under the cons: "Trust issues which revolve around previous ISR [Israel] operations."
...
Out shopping at Trader Ivan's ...
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Sen. Ron Wyden: NSA 'repeatedly deceived the American people'
About the Snowden disclosures, the Oregon Democrat told the NSA chief: 'the truth always manages to come out'
Beta
Glenn Greenwald
theguardian.com, Friday 27 September 2013
The Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday held a hearing, ostensibly to investigate various issues raised about the NSA's activities. What the hearing primarily achieved instead was to underscore what a farce the notion of Congressional oversight over the NSA is.
In particular, the current chair of the Senate Committee created in the mid-1970s to oversee the intelligence community just so happens to be one of the nation's most steadfast and blind loyalists of and apologists for the National Security State: Dianne Feinstein. For years she has abused her position to shield and defend the NSA and related agencies rather than provide any meaningful oversight over it, which is a primary reason why it has grown into such an out-of-control and totally unaccountable behemoth.
Underscoring the purpose of yesterday's hearing (and the purpose of Feinstein's Committee more broadly): the witnesses the Committee first heard from were all Obama officials - Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, NSA chief Gen. Keith Alexander, Deputy Attorney James Cole - who vehemently defended every aspect of the NSA. At the conclusion of their testimony, Feinstein announced that it was very, very important to hear from the two non-governmental witnesses the Committee had invited: virulent NSA defender Ben Wittes of the Brooking Institution and virulent NSA defender Timothy Edgar, a former Obama national security official. Hearing only from dedicated NSA apologists as witnesses: that's "oversight" for Dianne Feinstein and her oversight Committee.
Democratic Sen. Mark Warner stated the obvious to Gen. Alexander: "a lot of Americans have lost trust in what you're doing." But of course they all spent the entire afternoon blaming Snowden and "the media" for this development rather than taking any responsibility themselves. The very idea that meaningful reform of the NSA will come out of this annexed, captured, corrupted Committee is ludicrous on its face.
But there are two members of that Committee who actually do take seriously its oversight mandate: Democrats Ron Wyden and Mark Udall. Those two spent years publicly winking and hinting that the NSA under President Obama was engaged in all sorts of radical and abusive domestic surveillance (although - despite the absolute immunity protection they enjoy as Senators under the Constitution - they took no action, and instead waited for Edward Snowden (who had no such immunity) to bravely step up and reveal to the American people specifically what these two Senators kept hinting at).
Wyden spoke yesterday for 6 minutes - part of of it as monologue and part of it questioning Gen. Alexander - and it's really worth watching the video, embedded below. The Oregon Democrat condemned what he called "the intrusive, constitutionally flawed surveillance system" the NSA built. About Snowden's whistleblowing, he said that NSA officials should have known from "a quick read of history, in America, the truth always managed to come out." And his primary point was this: "the leadership of NSA built an intelligence collection system that repeatedly deceived the American people."
Indeed, if I had to pick the single most revealing aspect of this entire NSA scandal - and there are many revealing ones about many different realms - it would be that James Clapper lied to the faces of the Senate Intelligence Committee about core NSA matters, and not only was he not prosecuted for that felony, but he did not even lose his job, and continues to be treated with great reverence by the very Committee which he deliberately deceived. That one fact tells you all you need to know about how official Washington functions.
...Finally, in case there are any people left who thought that exploiting Terrorism and fear-mongering over it for power was a unique by-product of the Bush era (and really: could there really be any people left who believe that at this point?), Gen. Alexander this week "warned that if Congress hampers the NSA's ability to gather information, it could allow for terrorist attacks in the United States similar to last week's massacre in a mall in Nairobi, Kenya", while Feinstein's deputy Chair, GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss (who revealingly sounds like every Democratic NSA defender I ever hear) said that the recent NSA disclosures "caused huge damage to the US" and "would ultimately claim lives."
Will Eric Holder guarantee NSA reporters' first amendment rights?
The US attorney general vows not to prosecute journalists, but his criminalisation of whistleblowers undermines that assurance
John Cusack
theguardian.com, Wednesday 18 September 2013
Another week and another wave of stories on the NSA and the unconstitutional out-of-control surveillance state hit the digital newsstands, showing once again why the tide is turning. Some revelations are so surreal, it's hard not to assume they're satire. NSA chief Keith Alexander seems to be modeling his ambitions and visions for international spying after General Curtis LeMay's views on nuclear war.
Meanwhile, despite the massive smear campaign against Edward Snowden, opinion polls stand clearly with the truth-tellers. People know they have a right to know what the government is doing in their names. State secrecy is on the run, while American privacy, long rumored dead, is alive and kicking and wants the fight out in the open – in the sunlight and in the public square.
Last month, though, Glenn Greenwald's partner, David Miranda, was detained at Heathrow airport for almost nine hours, while on a journalistic mission paid for by the Guardian. His electronics were seized, and he was forced to hand over his social media passwords under the threat of imprisonment. He was detained under the UK Terrorism Act – for an act of journalism. This was an assault on press freedom that should make every reporter shudder no matter their opinion on the NSA.
The message was sent. It gave a whole new meaning to "Miranda rights". A Miranda warning, in effect.
Perhaps worse, we learned a few days later that the United States had been given a "heads up" by their British counterparts that they were planning on detaining Miranda. The US government didn't lift a finger to stop this blatant attack on journalism and press freedom – even as it has been moving heaven and earth to bring Edward Snowden back to the US. That should be a scandal in its own right.
Now, the US owes its citizens and the international community another "heads up": on whether the United States will do the same to journalists working on NSA stories who are entering the United States. Put simply, will Attorney General Eric Holder, the US State Department, and the FBI promise safe passage to journalists, their spouses and loved ones, and vow not to interfere with their reporting on these NSA stories?
So far, the answer has been far from clear.
Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, the two American journalists at the center of these stories, have been doing their reporting from Brazil and Germany respectively. The US government has not, so far, stated publicly whether they can enter the country without receiving the same outrageous treatment that Miranda received. Or worse.
Can they practice journalism in the United States, without their hard drives being confiscated, without an unconstitutional search-and-seizure taking place at the border? Are they free to enter the United States without being served a subpoena, or even jailed? Unlike the UK, the United States is supposed to be bound by the first amendment of the constitution, which exists to bar such treatment of journalists.
Poitras, a filmmaker and journalist universally respected in her field, has already been a victim of the ever-expanding surveillance state: since her widely praised film My Country, My Country debuted in 2006, she has been detained while crossing the US border over 40 times. She is editing her upcoming film on whistleblowers in Berlin, because of fears her footage will be seized in the United States
She's not alone. Jacob Appelbaum, a security researcher, a Tor developer and journalist in his own right, has been harassed while going over the border for years, simply by virtue of his association with WikiLeaks, whose "crime", apparently, is publishing government secrets in the public interest – something we know established newspapers do all the time.
I should note that I consider both Glenn and Laura friends, as we all sit on the board of the Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) together. But the reason this should concern not only me and the FPF, but everyone in the US, is not because of any specific people; we must look at these assaults from a broader perspective.
We care about the individual journalists under attack – Greenwald, Poitras, Appelbaum, Miranda, Julian Assange, James Risen – and the whistleblowers themselves – Snowden, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, Chelsea Manning, Julia Davis, Russ Tice – in all these fights. But it's not just the risk and courage of the individuals that inspire and call us to action.
We recognize that when the individual rights are being violated, that means my rights, our rights, are being violated too. What happens to individuals in the US happens to the first amendment. Our politicians must have forgotten the basics we all learned in high school civics class.
That's what the FPF was founded for: we needed a movement protecting the first amendment in its broadest reach.
As FPF co-founder and iconic whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg told me last week:
"I've been waiting 40 years for Edward Snowden, and his revelations are the most important in US history, including the Pentagon Papers."
Despite the importance of his revelations, the US purposefully stranded Snowden in Russia by canceling his passport while he was in transit from Hong Kong to Russia, essentially forcing him into exile.
We already know the government will attempt to intimidate and crush whistleblowers who challenge national security state orthodoxy. Genuflect and get in line – or pay the heavy cost. Look no further than Thomas Drake, Bill Binney, and J Kirk Wiebe, three NSA whistleblowers whose homes were raided and lives were destroyed for the cardinal sin of informing the American public about crimes committed by their government.
It's hard to blame Snowden for not wanting to come back and rot in a US jail. Chelsea Manning spent three years in jail awaiting trial, nearly a year of it in torturous conditions. She has now been sentenced to 35 years in prison for leaks exposing war crimes, which have been almost universally acknowledged as having caused no real harm to the US, while those recorded in the "Collateral Murder" video have gone uncharged.
Mr Snowden may have the faint suspicion that his rights would not be protected – given that a prosecution under the Espionage Act would leave him no way to mount a public interest defense if he came back to stand trial. Often, we export our US ideals, sometimes rightfully, sometimes tragically. Now, our action is drenched in irony: Russia is providing safe haven to our American whistleblower, and East Berlin, where the Stasi once roamed, is now where journalists and privacy rights advocates feel safe to work.
Not so in the US these days, it seems. Whether whistleblower, source or journalist: expose crimes, become the hunted. What must students think when they see some of the brightest minds – and the fiercest watchdogs – of a generation unable to practice journalism in America?
Hunter S Thompson once said:
"History is hard to know, because of all the hired bullshit, but even without being sure of "history" it seems entirely reasonable to think that every now and then the energy of a whole generation comes to a head in a long fine flash, for reasons that nobody understands at the time – and which never explain, in retrospect, what actually happened."
He spoke of the end of something – a great wave and the attendant forces and counterforces at play. Now one can feel the rising tide and a see a new wave forming on the edge of the break. Perhaps, soon we can paraphrase the Good Doctor: and with the right kind of eyes almost see the high-water mark of the surveillance state… that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
If we want that moment, we need to stand with those brave enough to confront the crimes of our current national security state. Just two months before the UK gave the US its absurd "heads up" about David Miranda's detention, Eric Holder vowed not to prosecute journalists, saying:
"The Department [of Justice] has not prosecuted, and as long as I'm attorney general, will not prosecute any reporter for doing his or her job."
That begs the question: will the attorney general, as chief law enforcement officer of the country, now go on record that he will guarantee the safe return and safe passage of journalists who have exercised their rights under the first amendment?
Or would we accept the creation of a generation of exiled watchdogs, who are trying to hold their government accountable from afar?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
But you have no problem with James Clapper committing a felony by lying to the Senate Intelligence Committee, and with the NSA breaching the U.S Constitution.
I think i see where your priorities are.
I'd think mr snowden would do well to follow the example of Ms. Manning in taking responsibility for his actions.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Maybe according to you it is. Some would say the means justifies the ends, especially when it involves reigning in those who are abusing their power.
Byrnzie...
While I do agree with this statement you have made, you have consistently defended the need for due process and legalities. At least in this matter, you have become somewhat conflicted.
Are you referring to the illegality by James Clapper of lying to the Senate Intelligence Committee, or to the illegality of Edward Snowden of stealing government documents in order to expose government lies and it's mass surveillance operation, which breaches the U.S Constitution?
Specifically... neither. I was just curious as to your comment which seemed to be in contrast to what seemed to be your steadfast beliefs. You have consistently asserted to allow for due process is and the comment I made reference to didn't seem to be in line with these 'typical' beliefs. I wasn't arguing against it... it just seemed atypical.
More significantly for me... you have been relatively quiet lately. I was wondering what was going on.
I've become addicted to Fifa 14.