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.
Then why did you ask if I forgot or skipped something if you did not read the pertinent information? Why post articles you have not actually read in detail? It doesn’t matter if you read my posts or not, but to make erroneous remarks about what I write without actually reading it adds nothing to the conversation.
And don’t forget the “and their families” part. What I would be interested in would be a poll comparing active duty military, veterans, and their families, to see if spouses vote differently than their husbands, for instance for a candidate they feel is more likely to end an armed conflict in which their husband serves.
I am also interested to know what constitutes “their families” – spouses only? Grown children? Cousins?
Help.
Comment caught.
Thanks
True Karen, I admit I don’t read many of your comments lately.
See bullet point # 3 above, Annie. I believe I discussed this in detail. With bullet points. Which you also didn’t seem to read. Sheesh! And don’t forget bullet points 1 & 2.
Annie,
Great link at 11:10 – very informative. Thanks.
Frankly, I was surprised that so many enlisted men and women support Obama because I think of the military as primarily a conservative organization.
But why is anyone surprised that a university whose purpose is to graduate professional soldiers is lukewarm to a speech that proposes a less war-like foreign policy? Their biz is war.
Is there controversy that West Point grads are careerists who hope for successful, decorated,and respected careers? A good war every so often presents better opportunities. I’m pretty sure I read that somewhere.
I’m also not the least bit surprised that the military would prefer a CIC who also served. That’s perfectly rational.
Annie,
Great link at 11:10 – very informative. Thanks.
Frankly, I was surprised that so many enlisted men and women support Obama because I think of the military as primarily a conservative organization.
But why is anyone surprised that a university whose purpose is to graduate professional soldiers is lukewarm to a speech that proposes a less war-like foreign policy? Their biz is war.
Is there controversy that West Point grads are careerists who hope for successful, decorated,and respected careers? A good war every so often presents better opportunities. I’m pretty sure I read that somewhere.
I’m also not the least bit surprised that the military would prefer a CIC who also served. That’s perfectly rational.
Feynman, I retrieved your comment.
Folks, Feynman’s comment is above at 1:04
37% would vote for Romney. Did you skip that page Karen?
1st page of interactive poll. 44% of veterans and their families would vote for Obama.
http://www.reuters.com/article/interactive/idUSBRE84C02120120513?view=small&type=domesticNews
Annie – I looked at the link to an article that referred to the Reuters poll, and then found the poll. Did you actually read it? Because in the poll you, yourself posted, this is what stood out:
1) The poll compared veterans “and their families” with nonveterans; not veterans and nonveterans.
2) The poll showed overwhelming support for Republicans vs Democrats in every single question with one exception.
3) One the first question, only, it showed Obama with a 7 point lead over Romney for veterans AND THEIR FAMILIES, but it also had 18% who would vote for another party or not vote. As has been stated in my earlier links, Ron Paul was popular among the military. So that means that more veterans AND THEIR FAMILIES would not vote for Obama than would.
So, although the poll claimed to compare military with nonmilitary, they actually muddied the waters by including family members. Which would explain how polls that actually compared active duty, veteran, and nonmilitary would have different figures. And your own poll showed they believed the country was going in the wrong direction, the Republican Party would better take care of Veterans’ needs, and the Republican Party had a better strategy for the country.
You’ve got to actually read these polls before you post, not just an article’s headline!
Loose the dogs of war and they will be beholden.
Nick,
just because Annie’s poll is not proving your point does not make it any less authoritative.
Annie – I think he can tell you to go to bed, whether you follow directions or not is another matter.
http://www.reuters.com/article/interactive/idUSBRE84C02120120513?view=small&type=domesticNews
This is the poll. Duh Spinelli.
If the Stars and Stripes didn’t think it a worthy piece from Rueters, they wouldn’t have printed it. STARS and STRIPES.
And Spinelli, you don’t get to tell me when I should go to bed.
Nick – you and Paul are cracking me up. Paul – 104 already! When our summer heat hits I wilt by 100.
Karen – the important thing is that it reaches 100 for 5 straight days. That kills the pollen and the hay fever season ends. Not yet, though.
John, It’s hard for some folks to understand. But, the military men and women loved Bush and hate Obama. That’s just the fact. Military are conservative. Hell, they like Mitt 2-1 simply because he was a Republican. EVERYONE but one person gets it. Pathetic.
With a combat infantryman’s badge and a Purple Heart, I’m gonna guess there is no such thing as a war weary young cadet graduating from West Point. Those young men are ready to break things and kill people, at the drop of a hat, for God and country. It takes a while to work that out of them.
The Stars and Stripes is just a linked piece to the Reuters. It is NOT A POLL. The article uses the words “Seem” to favor. The POLL in the Military Times gave Obama 25% approval and Romney favored 2-1. This is insane. Where are your supporters??? Go to bed.
Nick S., I just saw comments from yesterday that I deleted as containing personal insults against another poster in violation of the civility rule.
John
Sorry. I didn’t mean Paul. I meant Snowden.
==========================================
the walrus was paul, but he’s on an ice flo not a snow den