By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
During a conference held to award Journalist Glenn Greenwald the Siebenpfeiffer Prize for Journalism, Greenwald reported a conversation in which German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel. In this the Vice Chancellor commented to him that the United States threatened Germany with withholding vital intelligence of terrorist activity if the nation granted asylum to Edward Snowden or otherwise allowed him to travel to Germany.
The event shows the extreme measures the Administration is willing to take regarding whistleblowers and others labeled as threats.
The revelation began when Vice Chancellor Gabriel, speaking of the plight of Edward Snowden, was interrupted by an audience member who asked why Snowden was not offered asylum in Germany. Gabriel replied that Germany would be required to extradite Snowden to the United States.
Here is a video via Saarbrücker Zeitung containing excerpts of the Vice Chancellor’s and Mr. Greenwald’s speeches.
Later, when Greenwald had an opportunity to speak to the Vice Chancellor in person, he enquired about the asylum issue. Greenwald later revealed to the public this conversation via Greenwald’s news service.
In the article, Mr. Greenwald wrote of some truly troubling behavior on behalf of the Obama Administration:
Afterward [the ceremony], however, when I pressed the vice chancellor (who is also head of the Social Democratic Party, as well as the country’s economy and energy minister) as to why the German government could not and would not offer Snowden asylum — which, under international law, negates the asylee’s status as a fugitive — he told me that the U.S. government had aggressively threatened the Germans that if they did so, they would be “cut off” from all intelligence sharing. That would mean, if the threat were carried out, that the Americans would literally allow the German population to remain vulnerable to a brewing attack discovered by the Americans by withholding that information from their government.
This is not the first time the U.S. has purportedly threatened an allied government to withhold evidence of possible terror plots as punishment. In 2009, a British national, Binyam Mohamed, sued the U.K. government for complicity in his torture at Bagram and Guantánamo. The High Court ordered the U.K. government to provide Mohamed’s lawyers with notes and other documents reflecting what the CIA told British intelligence agents about Mohamed’s abuse.
In response, the U.K. government insisted that the High Court must reverse that ruling because the safety of British subjects would be endangered if the ruling stood. Their reasoning: the U.S. government had threatened the British that they would stop sharing intelligence, including evidence of terror plots, if they disclosed what the Americans had told them in confidence about Mohamed’s treatment — even if the disclosure were ordered by the High Court as part of a lawsuit brought by a torture victim. British government lawyers even produced a letter from an unnamed Obama official laying out that threat.
The full article may be read HERE.
Later, the Vice Chancellor’s office declined to comment to the German medium Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung about the asylum issue and declared there was no legal basis to offer Edward Snowden asylum.
Deutsche Welle reported the Obama administration has denied the accusation of threatening to withhold information from Berlin, according to Washington newspaper The Hill, which quotes a statement from a senior official calling the suggestion that the US threatened to withhold intelligence “baseless.”
But the question of how “baseless” Glenn Greenwald’s or Vice Chancellor Gabriel’s assertions are is not certainly arguable considering the actions of the Obama Administration in the Snowden matter. All one has to do is look at the past actions of The Administration for guidance.
We have an Administration that declares that the accusations are baseless, yet the same administration’s NSA tapped into Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cellphone, ordered the grounding and search of the aircraft of a head of state on mere suspicion that Edward Snowden might be aboard, and made a similar threat to another NATO ally, the United Kingdom.
The row comes down to a matter of credibility of either side in the Edward Snowden controversy. Who is the more trustworthy, The Obama Administration or Glenn Greenwald?
Sources:
The Intercept
Deutsche Welle
Saarbrücker Zeitung via YouTube
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
We still have a couple years left w/ Obama. It is fascinating to see what the cultists will do and say as there are more and more hissy fits by their leader. I love the fact that Bibi kicked ass in the election. He is a pit bull. There have been times in my lifetime when a pit bull was not needed in Israel. But now, he is desperately needed to keep his country safe. He may be knocking out some Iranian nuclear reactors in the near future.
Good piece–
Unfortunately war and freedom do not mix well.
Remember the Civil War?
Lincoln issued numerous executive orders and military regulations without the initial sanction of Congress. He declared martial law far from combat zones, seized property, suppressed newspapers, and suspended habeas corpus.
How about Word War I and II? Seizures of factories, mines, railroads, price restrictions as well as wartime restrictions on speech occurred. The order by Roosevelt, Executive Order # 9066, which cleared the way for the deportation of Japanese Americans to internment camps resulted in the now famous Supreme Court case Korematsu v. United States. The Court held that is was legal to do so.
Those wars were limited in duration and freedom survived. As the war on terror continues year after year I wonder:
Can freedom survive?
@ Eleazer Bryan
“Those wars were limited in duration and freedom survived. As the war on terror continues year after year I wonder:
“Can freedom survive?”
If there’s a more important question in the world to be asked, EB. I don’t know what it is,
Here’s the answer of James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” circa 1795:
“Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
“In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people.
“The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes and the opportunities of fraud growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could reserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2010/10/james-madison-on-war-
and-liberty.html
I don’t know why the warmongers and armchair warriors and other supporters of what General Smedley Butler called the ultimate “Racket” cannot see that war and freedom are antithetical.
In the case of some, of course, there’s money to be made from it. In the case of others, I suspect that war’s appeal is precisely that it *is* antithetical to freedom.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
Snowden is also a hot potato that no politician wants to touch. I don’t believe Chancellor Merkel wants to jeopardize her present relationship with President Obama. She is biding her time and knows that [from about 01:21:44 about 01:26:00], as with all conflicts, if one waits long enough and comes around again at the problem at a later time (for example, when Obama is no longer at the helm) there might then be new creative solutions available. But she doesn’t push the envelope.
Is this year number three or four that the USA is #1 threat to world peace???
trooperyork
Ever shoot fish in a barrell? Ever blame the guppy for being hit when you really wanted that salmon, instead? So, why are you hitting the guppies instead of letting them go free???
Glenn Greenwald everyday of the week and twice on Sunday is more trustworthy than the Obama Administration.
Also more trustworthy than most well-known authors in the categories of civil liberties and rule of law.
Justice Holmes
Don’t-cha know? America has two sets of laws.
The first set is used to protect the political elite…
… The second set is used to prosecute just-us!
Petraeus and his mistress… er… biographer, are a protected relationship.
However, according to the DOJ, attorney/client privileges are subject to being spied on.
Odd, NO?
Interesting that those who have previously stated that they consider Snowden a traitor are conspicuously absent from this thread, except for one of them.
Israel isn’t doing any better than people who cut the heads off of infidels? That are shooting missiles from hospitals and schools and using children and other civilians as human shields. You think there is a moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas and Hezzbollah
You should get a job in the State Department.
Once again you lie mespo. The Republicans didn’t undercut anything. Any treaty with Iran has to be sent to Congress for its advice and consent. The President can not stop the sanctions s set by Congress by Imperial decree. He has to go to Congress. These are simple facts. The letter was addressed to the Iranians so they could learn what is in the Constitution. We know that it won’t matter to Obama because he doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution.
That is of course if he will stay true to his oath and not act as a tyrant. I doubt that he will. He is a lawless man.
Annie
Seems Israel isn’t doing any better when it comes to human rights and civil liberties.
= = =
The ICC is collecting evidence… since Bibi spilled his guts and told his truth and the Israelis voted, the Palestinians claim of war crimes just became that much more sound. Bibi and his intent to purify Israel sounded eerily similar to a past oppression for which Israel was formed to avoid with a… Never Again. The victim has become the abuser.
As usual your so called facts are twisted buddy boy. Bibi said as presently constituted there is no way there could be a two state solution. Not that he will not accept one if a true peace can be negotiated.
If the PLO, Hamas and Hezzbollah are in arms against Israel and refuse to recognize the State of Israel how can that work? Maybe they can stop shooting rockets and knifing people in bus stops. There have to be major changes if the two state solution can work. It can not be imposed under the threat of nuclear war posed by an Iranian bomb that is President Obama’s goal in all of this.
In fact the people who want a one state solution are the Muslim fanatics that Obama supports. They want one state. A Palestinian state. With the Jews gone. Or dead. Don’t kid yourself.
I think that is Obama’s plan as well. He has learned his lessons well from his advisors like Al Sharpton and Frank Davis and Bill Ayers.
I will be interested to see how the so called friends and allies of Israel in the Democratic aisle of Congress step up in the current conflict.
How much more damage can this Government do to the United States’ Foreign Policy? I mean, if the Republicans can undercut peace deals and the Administration can undercut the Rule of Law… where are we headed?
I’ve never seen an American Government so afraid of it’s own shadow…
issac
Here is a simple question for you:
What have you done to warrant your Government to spy on you?
It’s a simple question which can be resolved in the Fourth Amendment.
Because we’re at war is not an asterisk citation attached in the Constitution.
So what… We’re at war. We are the USA and we have a Constitution that spells out your protections against unwarranted searches of your personal papers and effects. OK… I get it, you have nothing to hide. Then what is your passwords to your online banking and email accounts… If you have nothing to hide then why use passwords to protect your privacy? OK… we’re at war… yet how does such a statement advocate FOR the Fourth Amendment protections for your fellow American?
The NSA stole encryption keys…
IF IT IS LEGAL, WHY STEAL?
@SteveF
Thank you! I am glad that some people have not fallen into the abyss of left-wing navel gazing. Jury nullification is exactly what it is! With a little veneer of sneakiness. . .
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Probably the greatest “check” on government created by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution was the supreme loyalty oath, oath of office, to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution is a wartime charter with emergency clauses already built in. Wartime or terrorism is not an exemption to disobey the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
There is no other loyalty that supersedes the U.S. Constitution for government employees or contractors. Any citizen can send a Freedom of Information Act request to any agency (from your local police department to the NSA) asking them what their supreme loyalty oath is – the agencies themselves will respond – only the U.S. Constitution.
Loyalty should be the top requirement for anyone with such massive authority over regular citizens. The current U.S. Supreme Court just chooses not to enforce this supreme law of the land. Article VI [sections 2 & 3] of the U.S. Constitution is very clear what this means. A president’s loyalty oath is outlined in Article II.
Snowden upheld his top loyalty oath and actually didn’t release “constitutional” programs that were more highly classified, he only released the disloyal “unconstitutional” and criminal activities that betrayed that oath.
Reblogged this on Notes from Self and commented:
Reblogging this because it will give English readers an idea of what I have written about in my German post today. Needless to say I completely agree with this author.
mespo727272
Why do you label anything that you don’t like a Republican innovation?
Though I don’t know you, I get the feeling that you harbor animus against Republicans.
Additionally, read your history, Squeeky is following an old American tradition – jury nullification. It is the last defense of Americans – regardless of political beliefs – against injustice.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/201761/lets-give-edward-snowden-same-deal-general-petraeus-got-leaking-info ”
“General David Petraeus has agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified material and will serve no jail time for his actions. Let’s give the same deal to Edward Snowden.
True, their crimes are different: Petraeus gave classified info to his biographer and girlfriend, Paula Broadwell. Snowden gave classified info to the American people.
There’s another difference: as The Washington Post reported, Petraeus “initially lied to FBI investigators”—he told them he “had never provided Broadwell with classified information.” That was in an interview at CIA headquarters. Snowden in contrast told the truth about what he did, and why he did it. That was in an interview in Laura Poitras’s Oscar-winning film Citizenfour.
And there’s one more big difference: Snowden has done a lot more to defend Americans’ freedom than Petraeus ever did. In fact you might say Petraeus made America weaker as US commander in the Iraq war starting in 2007, a war that created more enemies for the US.”