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
And John Yoo is a professor at Berkley. Mistakes are made.
Are you comparing the Turley Blog with “Legal Insurrection”?
Millions of sycophants? I think sycophants expect something in return. Are millions expecting something in return?
All those people who voted for GWBush (2000 not included) sycophants?
Perry wins by millions. Are those all sycophants?
Like Prof Turley who is a law professor at George Washington, the Legal Insurrection blog is run by a law professor at Cornell.
The bottom line is the “official” oversight safety nets failed at every turn in keeping our agencies within constitutional bounds: IGs, Congress, Department of Justice, federal judges, etc. – all taxpayer funded watchdogs failed to police the crimes and human rights abuses perpetrated by our agencies against both foreigners and American citizens.
We can thank Snowden, Manning, Drake, Kiriakou and others for doing the job of our official government watchdogs for them – at no cost to taxpayers!
syc·o·phant [sik-uh-fuhnt, -fant, sahy-kuh-] Show IPA
noun
a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite.
Origin:
1530–40; < Latin sȳcophanta < Greek sȳkophántēs informer, equivalent to sŷko ( n ) fig + phan- (stem of phaínein to show) + -tēs agentive suffix
Related forms
syc·o·phan·tic, syc·o·phan·ti·cal, syc·o·phant·ish, adjective
syc·o·phan·ti·cal·ly, syc·o·phant·ish·ly, adverb
syc·o·phant·ism, noun
Synonyms
toady, yes man, flunky, fawner, flatterer.
Nothing like using a source named “Legal Insurrection”.
MikeA, The sad part is there are millions of Clinton sycophants that believe every word she says. And, they vote!
Paul,
I would call the Rosenberg’s traitors. They were private citizens.
Tokyo Rose (who was innocent) was called a traitor. She was a private citizen.
Do you think an oath is required in order to be classed as a traitor?
Elaine,
Thanks for the comment which makes it abundantly clear that Paul is badly misinformed.
To those who may suggest that it is a minor matter, I disagree
Paul said :
According to Warren’s family it was all a rumor, not fact, but she not only made it fact but registered as minority faculty at Harvard. Now Harvard will not release her employment information, but they touted her as a woman of color to make their quota. She smeared herself. The Cherokee are pretty upset with her.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Paul, you are entitled to your own opinions. Do not pass them off as fact in an attempt to smear a respected politician just because she is a Democrat.
What part of what I said about Warren is incorrect? Please provide facts, not her political bio. BTW, I do not respect her. I think she is a lying twit, but her state elected her, so they deserve her. I think the same about McCain if that make anyone feel any better.
I find Mrs. Clinton’s comments to be disingenuous and made in bad faith. Both major political parties have forfeited any claims to being guardians of American liberties. The suggestion that Mr. Snowden could have availed himself of the protections afforded whistleblowers is laughable. And it is hardly surprising that Mr. Snowden is living in Russia. It is one of the few stable countries that could not be expected to roll over in the face of U.S. demands for his extradition. Is Mrs. Clinton truly puzzled? I think not.
Mike – if I were Snowden I would have gone where he did to. I cannot believe Hillary is that dense.
Paul, you would probably be interested in watching the “Thomas Drake Luncheon” at the National Press Club (www.press.org) in March of 2013.
Every American should watch this in my view, it’s a great piece from beginning to end.
Being an outsider of the duopoly, let me tell you Palin v Warren would be a perfect match. It would end the duopoly overnight.
Paul, some chronology is in order. The Bush Administration systematically destroyed all internal whistle-blower channels for intelligence employees to raise vaid concerns or report criminal activity by their agencies.
The Bush crew then went after the inspectors general of intelligence agencies, including the CIA, to essentially purge the honest IGs (agency watchdogs) out of the oversight system. They also punished or jailed whistleblowers and even went after reporters.
Snowden swore a supreme oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constiution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Legally this loyalty oath supercedes all other loyalties in a government employee’s job duties and authorities. Every cop, attorney general and every member of Congress are bound by this same loyalty oath.
Snowden is far more loyal than his critics and turned down a 6 figure salary to uphold his supreme oath – as for his critics, not so much!
Ross – I have an acquaintance who was formerly in the intelligence community. He said that when he heard that Snowden had gone to Hawaii, he knew there was going to be trouble. Security was lax there. His feeling was the Snowden knew about the lax security and knew it would be easier to acquire the information there. He feels that the deliberate move to Hawaii is what makes Snowden a traitor.
I still have an open mind. I think Snowden was a contractor, not sure if there was an oath of office. There might have been a loyalty oath.
Elaine, Warren being smeared by these folks will only help her in the long run, IMO. The over the top insults and rhetoric thrown at this very intelligent and principled woman is seen as exactly what it is, by those who would vote for her and other rational independents.
I am personally conflicted about Snowden. On the one hand I am glad he did it, on the other hand, he gave up secrets that help the enemy. We found out some stuff we should have known or should not have been done. On the other hand the enemy has been able to adjust to what we have been doing to monitor them.
Harvard: Warren Got Job Only On Merits As Teacher
By The Associated Press
May 7, 2012
http://www.wbur.org/2012/05/07/elizabeth-warren
BOSTON — A Harvard Law School professor and former Reagan administration official is calling “false” and “complete nonsense” any suggestion that Elizabeth Warren enjoyed an affirmative action advantage in her hiring as a full professor.
Harvard Law School professor Charles Fried, who served as U.S. Solicitor General under President Reagan, said the Democratic Senate candidate was recruited to be a tenured professor because she was preeminent in the fields of bankruptcy and commercial law.
Fried, a member of the appointments committee that reviewed Warren, said the subject of her Native American ancestry was never mentioned.
Fried said the notion that Warren “attained her position and maintains her reputation on anything other than her evident merit is complete nonsense.”
State Republican Party Chairman Bob Maginn had asked Harvard to review Warren’s hiring.
Paul Revere – Edward Snowden. Synonymous?
Hillary, Edward Snowden went to the press and proved that Obama, like Bush, was, yet again, criminally violating the Constitution. What difference, at this point, does it make?
The Smearing of Elizabeth Warren
By Ed Kilgore
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_05/the_smearing_of_elizabeth_warr037062.php
Excerpt:
Until today, I was only vaguely aware that Scott Brown’s campaign and its allies were trying to make a big deal out of Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren’s past self-identification (and once, her identification by Harvard Law School) as a “Native American.” It mainly caught my attention because, like Warren (and for that matter, like many white people I’ve known from North Georgia or Oklahoma), I have a Cherokee ancestor, a great-great-grandmother as it happens, though I’ve never self-identified myself that way.
Then I ran across a Boston Herald (the original source of the whole story) column by a certain Howie Carr that shows exactly how ugly and overtly racial this attack-line has become. It’s not, in fact, really about Elizabeth Warren, but about an increasingly aggressive effort on the Right to invent a nightmare-world where incompetent women and minorities are lording it over the poor afflicted white male.
Keep in mind that there is not a shred of evidence that Warren ever benefitted in any way from her self-identification; indeed, every university who’s hired her in the course of her very distinguished academic career has indicated they weren’t even aware of it, and certainly didn’t make it a factor in employing her.
That doesn’t deter Carr from asserting that “Pocohantas” Warren “parlayed the racial-spoils racket all the way to a tenured position at Harvard Law,” or that her case “shows just how morally and intellectually bankrupt ‘affirmative action’ is.” For good measure, he lurches into an equally unsubstantiated claim that President Obama got a “free pass to Columbia and Harvard Law” because of his race.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/cherokee-genealogist-to-elizabeth-warren-your-native-american-issue-has-not-been-put-to-rest/
Dredd-
If you are going to make statements about SEAL training and classify elements of it as “dumb” at least know something about it.
First, SEALs don’t go to “boot camp” to become SEALs…they got to Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training (“BUDs”). BUDs lasts a little over 6 months. They go to BUDs either after Naval Boot Camp, OCS, or after time with the fleet where they compete for a slot in a BUDs. After BUDs, there is even more special training, including SQT, before they are actually awarded their trident and become SEALs. It can take almost two years.
Second, they are not water boarded at BUDs (although water boarding, while far from pleasant, is a relative cake walk compared to the prolonged agony of actual SEAL training).
Third, SEALS get water boarded at SERE school or Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape. SERE is for all US Special Forces (although different branches maintain different SERE schools), pilots, some civilian contractors, and basically anyway who has a high probability of operating behind enemy lines and getting caught.
Do I think water boarding is torture? Yep. Most definitely. Do I think our government should water board enemy combatants? No. We should be better than that. But do I think it’s “dumb” that our government water boards during SERE? Definitely not. Our enemies would (and have) done far, far worse. And our military needs to be trained to deal with it. Both physically and mentally.
The Founders opposed and acted against the British Empire. Snowden opposed and acted against a tyrannical and oppressive, unconstitutional government. They sound a lot alike to me. How would Snowden look on Mt. Rushmore?
Elizabeth Warren listed herself as a woman of color (a minority). Harvard has yet to say whether they counted her as a woman of color in their hiring quota. She did drop this designation after being hired on at Harvard.
BTW, as a progressive she sure seems to have a lot of money.