These are certain things that you will not easily find in U.S. media like Jimmy Carter declaring that we no longer have a functioning democracy in this country. Another is reading about Snowden as a whistleblower. The White House has been highly successful in telling media not to refer to Snowden as a whistleblower and enlisting various media allies to attack him as a clown and a traitor or mocking his fear of returning home. This week you had to read Moscow Times or other foreign sites (or a link on Reddit) to learn that Snowden has won this year’s Whistleblower Award established by German human rights organizations.
The award handed down by the Association of German Scientists (VDW) and the German branch of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA) comes with a small financial reward that will be given to Snowden’s legal representatives. Such awards will bolster his claim for asylum.
While there is no evidence thus far of any motivation by Snowden except his desire to reveal an unconstitutional program, the media has largely complied with a demand of the White House that he not be called a whistleblower as Obama officials and members of Congress denounce him. The problem is that many Americans and foreigners view him as a whistleblower and some as a hero. Likewise, the effort to get Americans to embrace a new surveillance-friendly model of privacy has largely failed though most average Americans feel helpless in a system with a locked monopoly of power by two parties.
As I have noted before, it brings to mind the successful effort to convince media to call waterboarding “enhanced interrogation” in the media rather than “torture” as it has long been defined by courts. Snowden is a whistleblower in my mind. It is true that the Administration can argue that these programs were lawful to the Supreme Court’s precedent stripping pen registers of full constitutional protection in Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). Many of us disagree with that ruling, but this is a new application of the precedent. While the government has long sought the information for individuals, the Administration is essentially issuing a national security letter against the entire population. Moreover, it does appear that violations have occurred in these programs.
Putting aside the legality issue, whistleblowers are defined more probably by public interest organizations. For example, The Government Accountability Project, a leading nonprofit handling whistleblowers, defines the term as “an employee who discloses information that s/he reasonably believes is evidence of illegality, gross waste or fraud, mismanagement, abuse of power, general wrongdoing, or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. Typically, whistleblowers speak out to parties that can influence and rectify the situation. These parties include the media, organizational managers, hotlines, or Congressional members/staff, to name a few.”
Snowden clearly fits that more common definition of whistleblower, even if the government contests the application of statutory protections. Many can legitimately question Snowden’s chosen means for objecting to this program. However, the hostile and dismissive treatment by the establishment reflects an obvious fear of the implications of this scandal. We saw the same full court press in defining Julien Assange in a way that avoids calling him a journalist or a whistleblower. He is just an Assange. Well Snowden is just a Snowden in the view of U.S. media . . . until he can be called a prisoner.
https://twitter.com/HouseJudDems/status/360107762421731330
RT if you agree- We can protect Americans without shredding our civil liberties. Rein in the NSA today. pic.twitter.com/Wp8g4HlTJ6
Nancy Pelosi is a No on @repjustinamash amendment.
6:51 PM – 24 Jul 2013
The Amash-Conyers amendment is narrowly defeated, 205-217.
”
The Amash-Conyers amendment is narrowly defeated, 205-217.
6.53pm ET
Each party is highly split on the vote.
guardian
“The House Dem leadership channels Dick Cheney in urging vote against Amash/Coneyrs bill to defund NSA bulk spying” read the rest at Glenn’s twitter feed
The point is, Dredd, is that the money trail is discoverable without supernatural methods, but it does take time, manpower and legal tools.
Gene H. 1, July 24, 2013 at 4:30 pm
Halliburton.
For details, I’d need subpoena power (and you know this).
=========================
Indeed.
So, the case is made.
Following the immunity is an easier way to show a linkage to the realm of “too big to jail” … i.e. immunity from prosecution.
So don’t waste your time trying to get a subpoena to look at bank records so as to “follow the money.”
Just ask who has immunity from prosecution (whether they should have such immunity or not under our old laws) and you know who is epigovernment (epi (above) + government) = epigovernment).
PS: If I am getting paid by the hour I would not mind the “follow the money” thingy, but contract work is my Forte’ …
John
1, July 24, 2013 at 1:22 pm
I am conflicted about Snowden. Here is a guy who reportedly deliberately sought out a defense contractor to do what he did. So while he might perform some “whistleblowing” that can be appreciated, I think the intended criminality (mens rea) makes him less of a whistleblower and more of a criminal.
I think some of civil libertarians on both sides of the political aisle are blinded by their own grandiose idealism.
———————-
What grandiose idealism? Snowden wasn’t the law breaker….and the facts ‘ve heard are directly oppositional to ” stealing massive amounts of top secret information and then making freely available for the world to see.”
Latest from the Guardian, live blog: ”
Watching this rapid-fire debate, it’s almost impossible to determine the party of any given speaker. Roughly, it’s a liberal Democrat and far-right conservative coalition vocally in favor. But exceptions abound, and a number of far-right stars, like Michele Bachmann, oppose it.
The supporters of the amendment appeal to the program’s unconstitutionality. Opponents argue that (a) metadata collection isn’t intrusive at all and (b) we’re at war, with terrorists.”
“A bipartisan amendment to the defense authorization bill to curtail the NSA’s surveillance power has been approved for a vote, possible as soon as Wednesday. The amendment, introduced by Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), co-sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and over 30 other bipartisan members, would substantially curtail the NSA’s domestic spying.
The amendment [pdf] basically defunds the NSA’s dragnet collection of every bit of metadata on all phone records as well as other bulk records that have not yet been revealed. The amendment still would allow the NSA to collect information under the original intent—and understanding—of the law, that is information actually related to actual investigations.
The NSA and its supporters are, of course, fighting back. They’ve introduced a second amendment intended to peel support away from the Amash amendment. What this second amendment, from Rep. Richard Nugent (R-FL), does is to pretend that it will withhold funding for bulk collection, but it actually just reiterates what’s already in the law, and it just reiterates the status quo.” Daily Kos
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23430126
White House attacks plans to curb NSA data collection
The White House is urging Congress to reject an attempt to stop the National Security Agency (NSA) collecting Americans’ phone records.
With a key vote coming up, President Barack Obama’s spokesman said curbs on the NSA would “hastily dismantle” a vital counter-terrorism tool.
Halliburton.
For details, I’d need subpoena power (and you know this).
Gene H. 1, July 24, 2013 at 3:01 pm
Dredd,
Not magic. Patience, perseverance and an attention to detail. Locard’s Principle still applies.
======================
Then please give me some examples of Cheney bank accounts through following the money.
I have already given you examples of his immunity.
@Elaine M.
First: Amazing. Thanks? for the post.
The rot is systemic, and it is most epidemic in the places that were meant to be the keepers and holders of the core principles.
When such violations of core principles are decreed to not be, there really is no hope.
—–
In stories like this I sometimes will try and understand the underlying rational for the decision. Not to agree w it but to understand the thinking that it is based upon. I do this under the notion that there must be some other unifying principle in play that I don’t see, and certainly I am not utilizing in my assessments.
I wonder if anyone knows or can articulate what that might be in this case. Something beyond the simple accusations that it is all corrupt. Yes. Of course. But what is the express justification/thinking for this decision.
In this, and in all such cases, many of which show up as blog posts by JT here, we are told What happened, but we don’t often get to see Why it happened. And that leaves us with the sense of being informed without actually being informed.
——
Does anyone know of a good site to find out the details of cases like this.
I tried to find the actual court case, dockets and whatever info/source material might be available not only on this case but in others.
I notice that most often while reporting on these cases the reporters don’t always provide court and docket references.
I tried Findlaw.com. Searching for Chevron. Or Chevron Microsoft returned no results.
I will try and send emails to the reporters. Perhaps someone here knows the court and case nbr?
Dredd,
Not magic. Patience, perseverance and an attention to detail. Locard’s Principle still applies.
typo: “They point is that we can’t touch them or their money.”
should be” “The point is that we can’t touch them or their money.”
@Ken
Your point received detailed treatment by Dan Carlin. Here are some links to his work. He is a good thinker on these subjects, and has a distinctly different angle on these conversations ….
In short he makes the point about our elections that we , the citizenry, do not get to actually vote for anyone that the parties, and the powerful, have not already “allowed” to be voted upon.
So the sham is that while we have every appearance of free elections and democracy, in practical fact we are not actually exposed to ideas or people who do not essentially meet with the upper level approval.
I think most on this board will appreciate this fellow.
http://www.dancarlin.com//disp.php/csarchive
This one is particularly good in flipping our arrogance, in the form of David Brooks in this instance, on its head and doing some serious reflection.
http://www.dancarlin.com//disp.php/csarchive/Show-257—Monopolizing-the-Democracy/Egypt-Coup-David%20Brooks
Michael
Gene H. 1, July 24, 2013 at 11:31 am
“Sometimes it is too hard to follow the money, but it is much easier to follow the immunity.”
They usually go hand in hand, Dredd.
=============================
Indeed.
But try following the Dick Cheney bank accounts through the chasms and mazes within the secret banking systems around the world.
Then notice that he brags about torture and other war crimes in public utterly unfettered by any fear of accountability.
Anyone can follow the immunity, but it takes magic to follow the real money trail of the epigovernment.
That is why they want us to follow the money.
When all we have to do is observe the obvious immunity.
They point is that we can’t touch them or their money.
We can still blow the whistle from time to tiem, but it doesn’t make music anymore like it once did.
@MikeS : “The Constitution is only as good as the people who are sworn to uphold it….”
—-
It occurred when read this comment that there are 2 types of “people, as good as… ”
Those who consciously and intentionally use their positions of power for some ill and/or corrupting purpose. Getting something for themselves, their company, getting a corporate position later.. Small view vs some larger commitment to the welfare of the country. Standard stuff.
And then the other deeper and more pernicious meaning:
That we truly have men and women in power who simply have no internal stuff. There is no substantial character in our body politic. Daily in this blog examples are reported illustrating not just the venality of those in power, but more critically, the simple inability to know how to do or be anything better.
We are governed by people who… are not good.
Not necessarily in a moral way. They are not “bad people”. You’d have a beer with them. But they are not good for the country. They do not seem to understand the larger points of principle beyond the small confines and definitions of party dogmas.
Your right Mike… dead on. It is a cancer that has been in the body for a v.long time. One could make a case starting, I suppose, from basically any point in our history. But I don’t think it is possible to deny that the trajectory of our nation, and its relationship to the underlying values as embodied in our founding documents, has taken a discernible shift onto a different trajectory since 9/11.
Something changed then. The powerful used it as an opportunity to instantiate policies and beliefs that had been resisted, like some viral cancer, by the body politic to that point. (Thinking of Naomi Klien’s Shock Doctrine).
A common reference point is the insidious Patriot Act. I would add that we allowed other pathogens in at that time as well, including our double-think dealing in such matters as torture, homeland, hate us for our freedoms, “its our due”, citizen, privacy, off budget wars, and etc.
Well known stories, at least by this crowd.
All imposed on the nation by these 2 types of “not good” people. The unwitting and dull. The venal and focused. And few in opposition, like maybe Bernie Sanders, who try to counter the forces….with only limited or symbolic success.
To me the question that is raised by the overwhelming stories and points in this blog and other places is whether the trend can actually, not just theoretically, be reversed? And if it can, how could it? It is going to take some uncharacteristic truth telling. Not something we are known for – as is the point of the original post.
And we are dealing with the very roots of power and the powerful. And they are not much inclined to let it go. When the issues like Snowden, Privacy, Laws, Police power and like start getting exposure the push back is swift, monolithic, and shrill. And it induces fear into the body politic. (Ted Cruz comes to mind.)
Fearful then. Instilling Fear into the daily dealings of our public square. It is this fearfulness that I take to be the essential shift in our public consciousness in the 9/11 era. And we have xenophobic responses to it. THEY, are out to get us. And THEY must be destroyed. Fear is the hallmark of these days. (It is all reminiscent of “The Grand Inquisitor”)
And this, I take to be the essence then, of “not good men/women” in positions of power. They are too often fearful and reacting in fearful ways – which sometimes become laws and policy, or in the other case are the ones who are inculcating the fear.
“The Constitution is only as good as the people who are sworn to uphold it….”
We are not in good hands.
So it seems to me.
Feeling a bit dark today I suppose in light of this well articulated post, and other more focused examples like the Hastings case.
ARE,
The Jordan Commission hasn’t been around for sixteen years. Barbara Jordan died in 1996. But she was on the right track as far as immigration reform goes and I agree that news organizations trying to purge the terms “illegals” and “illegal immigrants” is little more than corporate sponsored PC nonsense. A=A. An immigrant who is here without documentation and without following the process is here illegally and ergo an illegal immigrant. Without question, immigration needs reform. It’s a mess. But covering the truth with euphemistic language helps no one but those interested in maintaining a cheap labor force based on illegal immigrants. Such a practice is not only inherently unfair, it damages the economy by stifling wages in the larger economy. Once again, greed proves to be shortsighted and stupid. The Jordan Commission proposals need to be revisited.
Jordans illness and death was a real tragedy of Texas and the USA. She was remarkable that a gay, black woman could get the respect and admiration of all parties in the Texas legislature to such an extent that they would name her Governor for a short time when the Governor was out of state. It shows that there is still hope for Texas politics and politicians, though the latest crop of GOPers does not give one any hope for that now.
I have to note that it is not only the government which is pushing for propoganda in our media. One of the most obnoxious things I have seen is the push to purge the term illegals or illegal immigrants from the media. The AP finally gave in to the censors of big corporations, and decided that undocumented is the term to be used, despite the FACT that 40% of illegals entered the US legally, and have more documdents than most Americans. I guess that they like New Speak better than the truth.
The media also refuses to even acknowledge the existence of the Jordan Commission which put forward a real bipartisan program, and Congress is now trying to re-invent the wheel. They also demonize any who are opposed to enforcement as bigots and rightwingers. I doubt that such folks would call Rep. Jordan anything other than a liberal, yet they have no problem surpressing any mention of her last great work for the USA.