We previously discussed how terribly confused Hillary Clinton appeared in discussing National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden. She just could not understand why he would not have trusted the government to deal with any problems or why he would not come back to the United States. Now, Secretary of State John Kerry is offering his own brand of macho advice to the kid: “man up and come back to the United States.” Sure leaders have called for him to be tried as a traitor and either incarcerated for life or executed. Sure, he is not guaranteed to see all of the evidence used against him or even be guaranteed a federal trial as opposed to a military tribunal. However, Kerry appears ready to give him an “attaboy” on his way to solitary confinement under Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) that cut off virtually any contact with the outside world.
As we discussed with Clinton, the ruling class in Washington finds Snowden perfectly incomprehensible. Every aspect of our political system has long been tied down and controlled by the two parties. For such leaders, someone like Snowden is nothing short of an alien visitation — someone who throws away his career and possible freedom for what he claims to be principle. To make matters worse, Snowden is viewed as a whistleblower, if not a hero, by many in the United States and around the world. (However, polls in the U.S. are conflicting. A majority are glad that the disclosures were made but other polls show that a majority believes Snowden should stand trial. Making things even more precarious for people like Clinton is that younger people have particularly rallied to the side of Snowden as a whistleblower). While President Obama implausibly claimed that he would have reviewed these abusive programs without Snowden’s disclosures, Snowden was clearly the cause of multiple investigations and reforms of these programs.
Snowden committed the ultimate crime in Washington: he embarrassed leadership in both parties. 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 and Kerry, he could just as well be a man from Mars.
Kerry said that Snowden really needs to “stand up in the United States and make his case to the American people.” Indeed, Kerry declared that “A patriot would not run away. … He can come home but he’s a fugitive from justice.” Like Clinton, Kerry cannot imagine why Snowden would not trust the system: “If he cares so much about America and he believes in America, he should trust the American system of justice.”
As someone who has held top clearances since the Reagan administration, I do not support the release of classified information. However, as someone who has litigated national security cases from terrorism to espionage cases, there is every reason for Snowden to be leery of our system as it currently stands in the post 9-11 world. I have great faith and love for our legal system, but national security law has become increasingly draconian and outcome determinative due to various changes in the last decade. This Administration has continued the use of secret legal opinions and secret evidence in cases. The agencies continue to classify information to prevent the public or defendants from reviewing potentially embarrassing or conflicting material. President Obama has refused to close tribunal proceedings and maintains the same claim of his inherent authority to decide whether people go to real courts or the widely ridiculed tribunal proceedings. Even if in the federal system, the government would hit Snowden with SAMs to cut off any contact and impose limitations on even his cleared counsel in speaking with him. At trial, federal judges are increasingly barring arguments from defendants as “immaterial” even when those arguments are the real reason for their actions.
Thus, the Justice Department would likely move to exclude arguments that disclosure was necessary because Snowden had no real alternative for reform. He might be even prevented from arguing that he was seeking to protect citizens from the systemic and comprehensive denial of privacy. Even if some of that motivational argument were allowed, it would likely trigger an instruction that that is no defense to the charges. Sentencing enhancements routinely used by the Justice Department would guarantee a life sentence if convicted for Snowden.
As for utilizing the system to make these disclosures before he fled, Snowden had little reason to trust the congressional oversight committees or the agencies themselves. 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, 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. While one can still criticize Snowden for breaking classification laws, the suggestion that he could have used the whistleblower system is hardly self-evident if you are familiar with the laws or the history of such cases.
Whatever Snowden decides, it is clear that if he returns he will be quickly put in isolation and would be virtually certain of conviction with a life sentence. That is assuming that some leaders do not get their way in calling for a death penalty case. That is certain a lot to “man up” to.
King George’s henchman to Paul Revere:
“Man up and come home and face the music.”
Kerry telling someone to man up. That’s a good one, on par with Michael Jackson being Bad.
Good ole’ Kerry. Ineffective against Vladimir Putin the Bear, claiming Israel needs to submit to the Palestinians, when they have said they will only be satisfied when Israel is no more. He’s no Condi Rice.
But, but, but .. Kerry can kite-surf. Surely he is competent to be SOS
I support any of Snowden’s disclosures that fall under whistleblowing. I just hope he did not reveal classified information that would endanger any covert ops. I’ve only read the barest summaries of his information, so I do not know if any were objectionable on those grounds.
We learned about the extent of the NSA spying because of him, and others, and for that the nation should be grateful. Our government was caught overreaching it authority. Again.
Darren Smith,
Hear, hear! Snowden already “manned up” exponentially more than the brave and courageous Secretary Kerry ever contemplated.
Snowden took on the world’s only superpower as the Founders did the entire British Empire. That would scare the beheysoos outta me; prohibitively so. Maybe Snowden is actually a hero of sorts.
Even if Snowden scored a secret federal trial instead of a military tribunal, imagine the kind of careful screening of the jury pool the government would get away with. I don’t believe for a second that people would be randomly selected to serve.
What the NSA is doing, reminds me of an Outer Limits thriller…..O.B.I.T 1963. It knows everything you say and do.
There’s a glitch, a murder, a whistle blower and a senate investigation. And guess who did it? Full Video is 60 min.
https://archive.org/details/TheOuterLimits-Tos-1×07-O.b.i.t.avi_90
Mr. Kerry, Ed snowden already manned up when he first went public with the NSA scandal.
He and Chelsea Manning had more courage and self sacrifice than the political class in D.C ever had.
Angrymanspeaks,
That’s what Roberts said, “watch whom you vote for.” Seriously. Roberts et. al. had but one job and that was to declare Obamacare unconstitutional. He didn’t and he rationalized with his “it’s a tax” ideological accommodation. The Constitution prevails, not your admonition to “not vote the same clowns back into office” and not Roberts’ scolding to watch whom we vote for. Sorry, the electorate cannot vote out the Constitution. Madison warned against amending the Constitution and he produced the Bill of Rights to end discussion of amending. The Constitution is clear English that even elementary school students can understand. One does not need to be an elite intellectual to comprehend the Constitution. It’s the perversion, corruption and criminal “interpretation” of the Constitution that needs to be addressed. The criterion is not whether you like it, as Roberts believes, the criterion is whether you can read it in the Constitution.
I must apologize for my dullness. I am not making the connection between the electorate voting out the constitution and my comment.
That’s what Roberts said about what?
Where did I ask for or recommend a constitutional amendment? To what end?
It may be just me but you’ve sure got me corn-fused’
Tapping someone’s smartphone resources, like a microphone or camera, is tantamount to stealing one’s bandwidth. Who wouldn’t favor, in a heartbeat, a class-action lawsuit?
Paul,
“Only we the people can change this system. Do not vote the same clowns back into office. We have a choice, choose someone different.”
There was a day when I would have agreed with you but living as a conscious human being for 55 years has rather changed that opinion.
Now I’m just a simple country philosopher and not a legal genius or a political scientist (which title is a subject for discussion all it’s own but for another time) but it seems to me that the Party of the President doesn’t really matter.
You can elect anyone you wish but agencies like the NSA, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security and many other parts of the government are designed to continue to act regardless of who sits in the big chair.
There is a logic to this that makes it seem un-American to disagree with it. Who could disagree with uninterrupted national security? Who can recommend that we overhaul the entire bureaucracy every four or eight years in response to our changing political climate?
“Eeeeze’ a puzzlement”
It is a fact; as far as I have seen; that a large percentage of the people who are attracted to bureaucratic work are conservative by nature as well as by political philosophy.
This is true of any bureaucracy.
I worked for a public library system for 13 years as a s
supervisor in the Circulation Department. This is the department that enforces the rules, collects fines, check you out etc.
I was uncomfortable around most of my staff and most of the Circulation staff all over the 10 branches because most had a definite conservative leaning.
Reference Department; Librarians; tended to be more Progressive in much of their thinking though truthfully not as progressive as they would like to think they are.
But I digress.
It’s the soul of simplicity for a conservative leadership to convince a conservative bureaucracy to act on behalf of a conservative party.
If the entire infrastructure of the government is of the Right-Wing; how can we expect a four year transient of a more progressive party to accomplish real change?
If “The Establishment” will only support the agenda of a Republican president; the Democrats must be aware of this and if they are; they must be complicit in this farce we call Democracy.
So who we elect is purely academic from over here. Someone is running this country into the ground; maybe the whole world. I don’t think it’s either political party or politician alone.
It gets scarier from there on and I will wind up pointing out that the name for a conspiracy theorist whose theory is proven to be true, is a Prophet so I will shut up now.
FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029-6140191.html
I’d like to pick the brain of the FISC Judge that agreed with the NSA’s reasoning that made Angela Merkel an associate of A-Q.
We have been LIED to.
The Edward Snowden clips NBC didn’t broadcast on TV
http://thedesk.matthewkeys.net/2014/05/edward-snowden-unaired-nbc-clips/
On President Obama’s campaign promise for government reform:
On the government’s use of 9/11 in defense of spy programs:
On the government’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment:
Manning, Kiriakou, Drake, and others have been prosecuted for revealing Governmental High Crimes.
And Congress does nothing but excuse the High Crime cover-ups.
“Off the table” resounds…
Chicken vs. Egg
Which came first:
~ The Fourth Amendment
~ FISA
Which was born out of the need to protect citizens from unwarranted searches of person, place or effect (aka cell phone) DURING actual blood shed on our land?
Which was born out of an Administration bent on spying?
Which is relevant TODAY?
Why do lawmakers refer to 9/11 as if that happened today for their justification to continue these practices against their citizens, tomorrow?
Kerry arranged four months in the rear in a “naval reserve” ski boat in Vietnam as resume enhancement. He awarded himself medals. Kerry FOLLOWED violent street war protests on the television from the comfort of his living room. Kerry arranged a marriage for money. Kerry has never held a job or met a payroll. Kerry imposed taxation and never created any wealth. Nothing disingenuous or cowardly there. A brave and courageous leader to be sure. I’m sure Kerry and Obama “strike fear in the hearts of men” and adversaries around the globe.
Meanwhile, Putin is taking Ukraine and China is taking the South China Sea (sinking Vietnamese fishing boats).
After the fact… laws were passed to make immune, agents that assisted in cooperating in violations of CIVIL LIBERTIES that the American people could use in civil courts to seek Justice. This was in 2008. Since then… ?
Man up?
R E M E M B E R:
We are having this discussion about spying NOT because High Officials let it be known about illegal acts…