For many civil libertarians, the American political system appears caught in a vicious loop. While Americans are demanding change and hold both parties at record lows, the party elite have changed nothing. (Indeed, a new poll shows the Democrats at a new low and now in danger of losing not just the White House but Congress). The leading candidate for the Democrats is Hillary Clinton (who has also been shown to have low numbers in recent polls). The Republicans are pushing another Bush. For many libertarians and civil libertarians, Clinton is a non-starter. She supported the wars under Bush as well as the Libyan intervention under Obama. She is the very face of the Democratic establishment for many. That image was reinforced last week at the University of Connecticut, when Clinton discussed Edward Snowden and expressed utter confusion why he would ever do what he did.
Clinton responded to questions about NSA surveillance with the same mantra heard in both the Bush and Obama Administrations: there are people out there who want to hurt us and we were just trying to protect you. She made it sound like she was talking about events 100 years ago:
“People were desperate to avoid another attack, and I saw enough intelligence as a senator from New York, and then certainly as secretary [of State], that this is a constant—there are people right this minute trying to figure out how to do harm to Americans and to other innocent people. So it was a debate that needs to happen, so that we make sure that we’re not infringing on Americans’ privacy, which is a valued, cherished personal belief that we have. But we also had to figure out how to get the right amount of security.”
The campaign has begun. We did nothing wrong because we were fighting terrorists but we will look for the right balance . . . and by the way, I am delighted that we are having this debate (even after the Administration fought to prevent any disclosure of the programs that led to the debate).
It was Clinton’s comments on Snowden that are likely to outrage many civil libertarians. While not calling him a traitor like others (which would not go over well given the polls showing Snowden as viewed as a whistleblower), Clinton came off as passive aggressive — openly expressing bewilderment that he did what he did when he could have just come to the government with his concerns.
“When he emerged and when he absconded with all that material, I was puzzled because we have all these protections for whistle-blowers. If he were concerned and wanted to be part of the American debate, he could have been. But it struck me as—I just have to be honest with you—as sort of odd that he would flee to China, because Hong Kong is controlled by China, and that he would then go to Russia—two countries with which we have very difficult cyberrelationships, to put it mildly.”
I can understand why our ruling political elite would find Snowden odd. He broke the rules and went outside of a carefully controlled duopoly system of control. He embarrassed many, including Clinton, who sat by quietly as the national security system invaded the privacy of every American citizen. Indeed, for people in the establishment who have spent their lives reinforcing that system, someone like Snowden is more than an anomaly. He is someone who not only broke the rules but threw away his career to make these disclosures. For people like Clinton, he could just as well be a man from Mars.
Just for the record, as many of you know, I represented the prior whistleblower who first revealed this program years before Snowden. He tried to use the system. Happily he was not charged and is doing well. However, as I have testified in Congress, the whistleblower system referred to by Clinton is a colossal joke. First, as Clinton must know (but did not mention), there are exceptions under the whistleblower laws for national security information. Second, the House and Senate oversight committees are viewed as the place that whistleblowers go to get arrested. There is a revolving door of staff back and forth to the intelligence agencies and people like Dianne Feinstein have denounced Snowden as a traitor. For those of us who have practiced in this area, many of us find it “odd” that Clinton would think that Snowden could use that system. While one can still criticize Snowden for breaking classification laws, the suggestion that he could have used the whistleblower system is demonstrably untrue if you are familiar with the laws or the history of such cases.
Clinton added that “I think turning over a lot of that material—intentionally or unintentionally—drained, gave all kinds of information, not only to big countries, but to networks and terrorist groups and the like. So I have a hard time thinking that somebody who is a champion of privacy and liberty has taken refuge in Russia, under Putin’s authority.”
Of course, many would “have a hard time thinking that somebody” who blindly supported the rise of the national security state and multiple wars would hold forth n privacy and liberty. Yet, none of this matters. Lobbyists have been reportedly giving millions to Clinton in speeches while Democratic leaders are already preparing the ground for her to be the next nominee. There is nothing “odd” about that in America’s duopoly.
Source: National Journal
Paul Schulte:
“Annie – since you are on here anonymously, for all I know you are a 15 year old boy who used his mother’s picture.”
You’re here anonymously, too, Paul. Tacking on a last name doesn’t mean a thing.
Anon, agreed. I miss Gene and Mike. They were able to cut through anyone’s B.S.
James – although there may be some truth in your statement, I would like to see some data to back it up.
Annie said, “Paul, sorry I must be rude here. If your spinal stenosis is advanced enough, one does not just “soldier on”. What an incredibly IGNORANT thing to say.”
It’s unwise to provide personal information on a blog, especially to some of the folks who’ve been posting here as of late.
“James – would you back that last statement up with some data?”
Sure. Pretending to be a life-threatening position to show how manly you are is by definition cowardly.
Paul, I find you a repulsive and reprehensible person. What I KNOW is that as a person who has advanced spinal stenosis and as a nurse, to suggest that someone can just “soldier on” is stupid beyond belief. Now don’t address me any further today.
Annie – as you know, I do not either follow orders or directions.
Annie – since you are on here anonymously, for all I know you are a 15 year old boy who used his mother’s picture.
Annie – really, did I say that we had the same level of the condition? No. I just said I had the same condition and I soldiered on. For all you know, my condition is worse than yours. As a former nurse, that statement would be considered very unprofessional. As I have told many of you on here before, you need to read what I said, not what you think I said.
James – would you back that last statement up with some data?
I have the same condition you do Annie and I have just soldiered on. More importantly, what is Hillary’s stand on torture? She was Sec. of State and a US Senator. She was also touted as co-president during the Clinton administration. She should have an answer to that salient question.
“You guys are aware that as part of their training Navy SEALS are water-boarded.”
Not one single SEAL believes they are in any real peril. Pretty cowardly if you ask me.
“James – just for clarity sake, you are both supporting and attacking the current administration.”
Sorry it’s so confusing. Perhaps public service isn’t that cut and dried after all.
You guys are aware that as part of their training Navy SEALS are water-boarded.
Yep, the spinal stenosis is no joke. I’ve had it since 2006, I do well with muscle relaxers on occasion and not overdoing it. My career as a nurse is pretty much over, I can do an occasional sedentary private duty job, but they are pretty rare, even sitting too much makes me flare up on occasion.
How can she align herself with Rand Paul, especially in light of her recent comments about waterboarding and her hawkish rhetoric? She is nothing more than hot air. If I were a conservative I would be ashamed of her. What is Rand Paul’s stance on torture, I wonder?
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/hannity-gallantly-defends-palins-torture
(Annie forgive me for speaking out of turn. I was cured of stenosis in 2004-05 using the Pettibon method via a gifted technician. You may have already considered/tried it. I just recall the horrible pain I no longer have.)
And for Topic’s Sake, no more political dynasties, please. We can do much better.
I think she was drunk. She does this to provoke the left. I cant say I blame her, she got hammered by the press and by the left.
I listened to her debate against Biden and she is just the same, a populist with an underlying belief in the power of government.
I guess it just goes to show that you hate the negative traits you have which you see in other people.
That is why Palin so upsets the left, nothing but a pretty, empty head with a populist mentality. They see themselves.
Paul, I think what Palin said was despicable. Glad to see that you and Sean Hannity are standing behind her.
SWM – I think waterboarding is an enhanced interrogation technique, not torture. But you are welcome to your own opinion.
Paul wrote: “if he is on the run, how does he get elected? Would love to see his acceptance speech.”
????
if he is on the run, how does he get elected? Would love to see his acceptance speech.
????