Ellsberg inadvertently makes the case for why Snowden should have stayed in the U.S.

[ProSense]

Ellsberg:

Daniel Ellsberg: Snowden would not get a fair trial – and Kerry is wrong
Edward Snowden is the greatest patriot whistleblower of our time, and he knows what I learned more than four decades ago: until the Espionage Act gets reformed, he can never come home safe and receive justice

<...>

Snowden would come back home to a jail cell – and not just an ordinary cell-block but isolation in solitary confinement, not just for months like Chelsea Manning but for the rest of his sentence, and probably the rest of his life. His legal adviser, Ben Wizner, told me that he estimates Snowden's chance of being allowed out on bail as zero. (I was out on bond, speaking against the Vietnam war, the whole 23 months I was under indictment).

<...>

As I know from my own case, even Snowden's own testimony on the stand would be gagged by government objections and the (arguably unconstitutional) nature of his charges. That was my own experience in court, as the first American to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act – or any other statute – for giving information to the American people.

<...>

Indeed, in recent years, the silencing effect of the Espionage Act has only become worse. The other NSA whistleblower prosecuted, Thomas Drake, was barred from uttering the words "whistleblowing" and "overclassification" in his trial. (Thankfully, the Justice Department's case fell apart one day before it was to begin). In the recent case of the State Department contractor Stephen Kim, the presiding judge ruled the prosecution "need not show that the information he allegedly leaked could damage US national security or benefit a foreign power, even potentially."

- more -

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/30/daniel-ellsberg-snowden-fair-trial-kerry-espionage-act

Not only was Ellsberg the " first American to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act," but he was also able to make his case to the American people for the entire time.

Snowden "can never come home." There is Snowden's problem right there: He fled the country with stolen Government documents.

Ellsberg mentions another whistleblower charged under the act, Thomas Drake, who also didn't flee the country.

More Ellsberg:

Without reform to the Espionage Act that lets a court hear a public interest defense – or a challenge to the appropriateness of government secrecy in each particular case – Snowden and future Snowdens can and will only be able to "make their case" from outside the United States.

Snowden is free to remain in Russia and make his case. Yet he and his allies are appealing for clemency. He's going to be held accountable one way or the other, a plea or a trial, if he wants to return to the U.S. The thing that strikes me about the defenses of Snowden is how people seem to imply that the consequences of his actions are unusual.

He broke the law. Bruce Schneier:

Edward Snowden broke the law by releasing classified information. This isn't under debate; it's something everyone with a security clearance knows. It's written in plain English on the documents you have to sign when you get a security clearance, and it's part of the culture. The law is there for a good reason, and secrecy has an important role in military defense.

But before the Justice Department prosecutes Snowden, there are some other investigations that ought to happen.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/06/prosecuting_sno.html

Ellsberg might not like the consequences, and he can fight for a different outcome for Snowden, but he (Snowden) had to be fully aware of the consequences. Did he really think that fleeing and releasing the information in the way that he did was going to improve his sitiuation?

Like Ellsberg and Drake, there have been several prominent whistleblowers over the last several years who did not flee the country.

William Binney and Thomas Tamm are whistleblowers who stayed and faced the consequences of their actions. They were not persecuted, they faced prosecution. They are not in jail. In fact, Tamm was the one who exposed Bush's illegal eavesdropping on Americans. Tamm:

“He’s in for a pretty overwhelming investigation,” Tamm, now a criminal defense attorney in Rockville, Md., told POLITICO in an interview. “I think the government will use a lot of their resources to try to find him.”

But if Snowden is returned to the United States, Tamm said, “I think with the right representation, and with the right way of presenting what he did, I think he’ll be able to put his life back together.” Tamm says he’d even be willing to be part of the defense team.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=A9C45FF7-E7EB-44AD-9C5A-D2C7F0B7F276

Snowden's problem is that he and his allies know damn well that he screwed up by fleeing and with his actions overseas. Snowden's information was already out there. Releasing the information and remaining in the country would have sparked the same debate. Such a debate would have likely fueled his case for leniency.

During the NBC interview, Snowden dug himself into a deeper hole when he admitted, in his own words, that he took damaging information and distributed it and the only thing he has as a defense is that the recipients promised not to reveal the information.

This is the part of Snowden's situation that his allies refuse to acknowledge. They instead lash out and attempt to discredit anyone making that case.

Snowden is in deep shit, not for the information on domestic activities, but for the information that he admits is out there and still, he claims, hasn't been revealed. On that score, he's not about transparency, he's trying to save his ass. The Government is building it's case on the damage that information has done.

Ellsberg and others are taking issue with Kerry stating that Snowden should be held accountable, and they're doing it by lashing out at the U.S. justice system and the nature of the charges. Kerry is a Government official, which system of justice is he suppose to advocate?

Did people expect Snowden's claims to go unchallenged by anyone with the stature to do so? Kerry's statements were similar to what many other Democrats have said.

Expecting any administration official to coddle Snowden is letting a bias get the best of logic. Being surprised that Kerry would point to the justice system is ridiculous.

Snowden and his lawyers know he broke the law. Snowden knows the extent of the information he took, as he admitted tonight. He screwed up. He's a fugitive.

It's interesting to see Kerry being thrown under a bus for calling out a self-confessed spy who stole government documents (some admittedly damaging) and fled the country. What did people expect Kerry to say?

Demanding or suggesting he return to the U.S. to be held accountable is not unusual. Kerry has earned the right to make that call.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. What Ellsberg is saying is that things have changed.

The part you highlight as your presumed case for why Snowden should come back is exactly what Ellsberg is saying would no longer happen in our current environment. That we do NOT have the same justice system we did in 1971, and what happened then would not happen now.

[ProSense]

3. None of the current whistleblowers were jailed. n/t

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. As long as you limit the definition of 'whistleblower', sure.

A hell of a lot of people have pointed out that Snowden doesn't fit that precise definition, so why should he be expected to be treated more like those guys than like Chelsea Manning?

[VanillaRhapsody]

7. because Chelsea Manning is military perhaps?

They are held to a different standard and even sent to different prisons....thus Leavenworth.

I am the daughter of a career veteran....so this shit don't fly past me...

[MohRokTah]

8. What he did was worse than what Chelsea Manning did.

Manning was no whistleblower.

He should be treated no differently.

[karynnj]

37. Manning started as a whistle blower when he released the Iraq tape

The problem is that he did not stop there.

He then released huge volumes of raw State Department cables that - in normal course - would be combined with other information and insight to get a clearer picture of a given country or region. The problems were:
- by design, they contained some frank opinions of foreign nationals, given PRIVATELY ( it's there a privacy issue here too?)
- not all sources are assumed to be accurate, honest or unbiased

Put out indiscriminately, they embarrassed some who people who would not have been as frank in public. It also put out a lot of misinformation.

[msanthrope]

9. Well...we limit definitions in the law so that I cannot charge you with things like "murder"

if you have an abortion.

Here's the thing...we use definitions in the law so that there's less subjectivity in the law.

Tell us why this disaffected white man, who can afford good representation, needs to have the definition of "whistleblower" redefined?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

11. I didn't say we needed to.

The whole argument being put forward in the OP seems to be 'Snowden should return to the US to face the possibility of jail, because the people proposing this believe he would get a fair trial'.

The reality left unspoken is that they also believe he would 'fairly' then be convicted and thrown in jail.

I have to ask, why should Snowden be that stupid? The documents he releases bear the same weight, whether he's in exile in another country or stuck in a jail cell for decades. So exactly how would it benefit him to give in to the people calling him a 'coward' because he doesn't want to spend decades in jail?

And what kind of playground mentality thinks that calling someone names is going to get them to do something that's likely to put them in jail for decades? How stupid are they, and how stupid do they think he is?

[msanthrope]

12. Mr. Snowden has the same duty that we all do...to answer at the bar of the court for

crimes he is accused of, and to comply with lawful authority.

Under the Sixth amendment of the Constitution, there is no "right" to fugitive status, nor is there a right to evade lawful authority.

Again....tell me why this disaffected white guy gets to evade the law that we must all obey.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

13. Because he did.

He doesn't have a 'right' to. He just 'has'.

Just like thousands of other people every year who do.

I'm not arguing that he should, I'm arguing that he would be stupid on a personal level to actually return to face the music. Not that it is 'just' or 'good for society' or any such malarkey.

And that I don't think anyone whining about him evading justice is going to make him change his mind.

[ProSense]

15. So you're

"I'm not arguing that he should, I'm arguing that he would be stupid on a personal level to actually return to face the music. Not that it is 'just' or 'good for society' or any such malarkey. "

...arguing that he should stay in Russia?

He's free to do so, as I stated in the OP.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

18. He's said he'd prefer not to.

And he'd said, iirc, that he was headed on to Cuba before the US yanked his passport while he was in Russia.

Personally, I don't care what he chooses to do. He can be smart, he can be stupid, he can be anything in between.

Actually, I take that back, I do care about one thing he chooses on - I want him to release the rest of the documents. After that, he's completely out of the picture.

[msanthrope]

27. Well, tell Bartleby to release the rest and be done with it. nt

[former9thward]

14. Good thing you weren't advising Civil Rights advocates in the 50s/60s.

"No, you must go to the back of the bus. Its the law and we must comply with it."

[ProSense]

17. There is

"Good thing you weren't advising Civil Rights advocates in the 50s/60s."

...a difference between standing up to unjust laws through civil disobedience and fleeing the country with stolen Government information.

MLK: Letter from a Birmingham Jail

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

Civil disobedience is not fleeing to Russia.

[former9thward]

21. And you get to decide what a "unjust" law is.

Not.

[ProSense]

24. Where the hell did I even imply that? n/t

[Mojorabbit]

60. i think Mr Ellsberg probably has a better sense of the lay of the land than

a random poster on a board who is defends govt spying at every opportunity and is vehemently anti Snowden. Just saying.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

19. I've noticed that the people who keep advocating for him to be in jail

are never the same people who actually seem to have been in favour of the documents being made public in the first place.

Even though they keep pointing back to past civil rights types who went to jail for unjust laws, they don't want him in jail because they think it will make his case stronger. They simply want him punished for having broken the laws.

[former9thward]

23. Of course, it is very transparent.

[ProSense]

41. Why did you bring up "Civil Rights advocates"? n/t

[ProSense]

42. What

I've noticed that the people who keep advocating for him to be in jail are never the same people who actually seem to have been in favour of the documents being made public in the first place.

Even though they keep pointing back to past civil rights types who went to jail for unjust laws, they don't want him in jail because they think it will make his case stronger. They simply want him punished for having broken the laws.

...does that even mean? No one is disputing releasing the documents on domestic surveillance. The discussion is about the other information Snowden stole and his fleeing the country. In the NBC interview, he admitted to taking that information and distributing it.

[msanthrope]

26. No...that's where you are wrong. MLK broke an unjust law and answered at the bar of the court.

So did Rosa Parks, and every other civil rights leader.

You are comparing these brave people to a coward who fled because if he went to jail, he wouldn't have a computer.

[former9thward]

47. MLK and Rosa Parks did not face life in prison.

MLK in his entire career never did more than a short time in jail at a time. What would have been your advice to Nelson Mandela? Stay and make your case to the authorities? He did not. He fled South Africa but eventually was caught and imprisoned for decades.

[former9thward]

48. Name a civil rights leader who faced life in prison and stayed.

The ones who did fled to Cuba and elsewhere although you probably would not recognize them.

[msanthrope]

50. MLK. Rosa Parks. Every single civil rights leader faced a life sentence because of the nature of

the danger of their confinements. They could have been killed at any time.

Ira Einhorn faced a life sentence and ran. Was that his right????

[former9thward]

51. Well now you are moving the goalposts.

Not unusual. Now you are claiming they did not have the sentence of life but they "faced a life sentence". When was MLK mistreated in jail? Where does he say that he was? In many cases when he was sentenced because he refused to pay a fine the jailers arranged for the fine to be paid because they did not want him there.

Ira Einhorn? You are comparing some killer who stuffed a body in a trunk to MLK or Snowden? Wow...

[msanthrope]

52. MLK was sentenced to hard labor. Yes...that is mistreatment. nt

[former9thward]

54. He was released after one week.

As I'm sure you know.

[msanthrope]

66. You know you're the one who brought up civil rights leaders... and now you seem to be

down playing the dangers they faced in jail. I'm not understanding the point you're trying to make.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

16. And btw,

do you go to the police and turn yourself in every time you commit a crime?

Every time you pass the speeding limit, do you call the police and demand a speeding ticket? Or do you evade lawful authority, just because you did succeed in doing your crime without getting caught?

Or do you think that you have a right to 'evade lawful authority' only on specific crimes, and not on others?

I see a lot of rocks being thrown in glass houses, or else you guys are the saintliest bunch of 'never ever committed a crime in my entire life' people.

[msanthrope]

28. Speeding is comparable to espionage? Well, let's put it this way...under your rubric,

I have the right to evade a cop car trying to pull me over for speeding.

I have a right to run from the warrant issued for my arrest.

Yes? Is that how it works? Snowden has charges filed against him....he should answer them.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

30. Sorry, you keep mischaracterizing what I say.

You're the one who keeps calling these things a 'right'. I never do.

I said people commit crimes, and sometimes those crimes aren't found out til later, or aren't found out at all. That that's simply the way life is. I didn't say anyone has any sort of 'right' to evade justice, sometimes that they do. And that people will then evaluate for themselves whether they want to turn themselves in, based on what the possible outcomes would be.

If the outcome is a $50 ticket, rather than the possibility of decades in jail, you'd think people would be far more likely to 'face justice'. And yet, every day I go out on the highway, I see hundreds or thousands of people breaking the law, and none of them decide to 'face justice'. So why should I expect anyone who does something with far worse penalties to want to do so?

[msanthrope]

32. So, Ira Einhorn's reluctance to come home was somehow understandable? nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

33. Sure.

Now we're getting somewhere. You finally seem to understand that I'm not advocating FOR a given outcome, but just pointing out human nature.

[msanthrope]

36. Ok....I get that botb Einhorn and Snowden had/have something to fear. nt

[karynnj]

44. Snowden raised the issue by suggesting he wants to return

If he ever wants to live in the US, his only alternative is to return and face trial.

There is also a question to you and others who are explicitly saying he cannot get a fair trial. What, in your opinion would a fair trial entail? From what I can get out of what Ellsberg and people here have said is that he should be able to argue as a defense that the motive was that people had to know this information. I would suggest that the reason this can not be used is that it is the exception, not the rule. Where Ellsberg might have a point is that the espionage laws should not be used for leaking to the media. The problem is that opens a huge can of worms where leaking to the media is used to accomplish what giving the information to a country intended.

Frankly, I suspect that even if the jury was allowed to stand in for the public at large to determine if this was information that people needed to see - he might fail - as they would have to agree that over 1 million - not examined documents - all needed to be given to uncleared people for the public good. Another question is that in a criminal case the government has to get everyone to agree with them. If the jury were to be used to determine what the public needs to know, should that also be determined to be what even one person thinks? As it is, I also think the jury system, by its very nature, already will - even if that defense in not allowed - have at least one person reject the government case unless the Government really make the case of how indiscriminate he was in what he leaked.

However, let's say there is a trial and it is proved that he intentionally and with intent did leak classified information. What then could happen if the majority of the country believes it was done in good faith and they agree it was warranted. This could be the basis for a popular movement to ask people to petition the President to pardon him. If, there the majority of people really feel this should be done, won't this actually become a voting issue for 2016?

What I see among his advocates is that their idea of a fair trial is that there should be no trial - as he did nothing wrong. A few go further and almost think he should be honored in some way.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

58. I don't think

he could get a fair trial in the sense that I don't think that our trial system is ever actually 'fair', although I've actually only mentioned that before in non-Snowden threads, I think. Our justice system arose from the Roman system, and still allows far too much chicanery in the courtroom and dependence on how good a lawyer you can buy.

That having been said, it's his decision if he wants to come back and put himself at risk of winding up behind bars. Even the people who have been saying he could get a 'fair trial' elsewhere in this thread base their judgment on his race and relative wealth, which to me is not a matter of 'fairness' but just an acknowledgement that he has some of the unfairness inherent in our system tilted in his favour by virtue of those attributes. Likewise, any notion of a pardon would have nothing to do with 'fairness', but simply whether or not he could convince enough people to support such, and the President were willing to bow to that demand.

So I neither advocate for him to stand trial, nor to not stand trial. He's arranged it so that he can, currently, avoid doing so if he wants to, and 'the ball is in his court'. If he decides to, he can.

I also would simply like to see the rest of the documents released. I strongly disagree with the notion that much at all of what a country does using public funding should be shrouded in secrecy from the very public that pay for it to be done. We should always be able to know what is done with our tax dollars, so that we can choose to rid ourselves of 'representatives' who do things with our money of which we don't approve. There cannot truly be 'taxation with representation' when the representatives don't actually let you know what they're doing in your name. I know I personally never would have approved of kidnappings, torture, murder, yet until people like Chelsea Manning revealed the existence of such activities, my 'representatives' were free to allow such to go on in my and other Americans' names, funded by tax money.

[ProSense]

61. Yes,

"So I neither advocate for him to stand trial, nor to not stand trial. He's arranged it so that he can, currently, avoid doing so if he wants to, and 'the ball is in his court'. If he decides to, he can. "

...it's in his court. He is the one who put himself in that position.

Snowden could have released the relevant information and remained in the country, but he went beyond that.

Snowden, as he indicated in his NBC interview, believes the information is potentially damaging enough to have made a deal (very strange) to keep it out of the public domain. Yet he has no control over what happens to that information.

Assange threatens to release Snowden info that Greenwald says could endanger lives
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2014/0520/Assange-threatens-to-release-Snowden-info-that-Greenwald-says-could-endanger-lives

He decided to flee with information he deemed damaging and decided to release that information.

[ProSense]

10. Huh? None of the current whistleblowers were jailed.

Stay on point.

[randome]

56. But they had to DO stuff, damnit! And it was hard work, too!

Doe-eyed Snowden should not have to put himself through that!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[msanthrope]

5. Really? Tell us why Ellsburg got a fair trial but Snowden can't. Tell us which corrupt

jurist he would be facing. Which incompetent jury.

I want you to tell us the differences in the federal bench between now and 1971 that have made it impossible for a disaffected white man who can afford great representation to get justice.

[elias49]

38. The "Patriot Act" is what will destroy whistleblowers from now on,,,

I trust you're familiar with that draconian piece of shit "Act"
Everything has changed since Ellsburg. Open your eyes.

[msanthrope]

39. That's a great theory except that Snowden isn't charged under the Patriot Act. nt

[elias49]

40. The Patriot Act has set in motion

the sorts of crap the NSA and the CIA are up to their armpits in. You can't truly believe that the Patriot Act was good for the USA.
Or maybe you do...

[msanthrope]

49. Actually, I've written before how I think the upcoming section 215 fight is far

more important than this squabble. If you want real reform, that's where we need to fight.

But Snowden isn't charged under the Patriot Act.

[pnwmom]

55. And what Ellsburg did is very different from what Snowden did.

Ellsburg released limited information for a specific purpose. The comparable thing for Snowden to have done would have been to leak the information about US internal surveillance.

Instead, Snowden basically downloaded everything he could get his hands on, including untold amounts of information about international spying, and handed it over to nobody-knows-who -- but it is extremely unlikely that China and Russia haven't obtained all of it.

Ellsburg can defend him all he wants -- but Snowden didn't do the same thing Ellsburg did. Their situations just aren't comparable.

[msanthrope]

2. Precisely...Ellsburg got a fair trial. nt

[former9thward]

20. A fair trial, LOL

Yeah a judge who was shamed into throwing out the case when it came out that the judge had been offered the FBI Director job. The government met privately with him during the trial at least twice. The government broke into his psychiatrist's office and tried to find dirt on Ellsburg. The government illegally wiretapped him and then claimed they lost the tapes.

That is your idea of a "fair trial".

[msanthrope]

29. Yes....and thus, when the chicanery was exposed, the case was tossed. That's a fair

trial. That's exactly the result that should happen.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

31. Laugh.

So in your books, if the chicanery hadn't been discovered, and he had gone to jail, that likewise would have been a 'fair trial'?

Your calling the outcome 'fair' seems to rest on something that came in from outside the trial.

[msanthrope]

34. No..that would not have been fair. nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

35. Ok, I'll accept that then.

But I think it does point out that the 'fairness' of our justice system often rests not on the people being tried, but on those trying them.

[VanillaRhapsody]

6. Whooops That'll leave a mark!

[whatchamacallit]

22. Just when I think this shit couldn't get any dumber...

[ProSense]

25. You respond. n/t

[elias49]

43. As do you...

always there with a last word. Or the first. One wonders whether you do anything other than sit at the keyboard in frenzied support data collection by the NSA. And - for the record - understand that I don't blame President Obama for the overreach of the NSA...it's a big fucking bureaucracy. But it's wrong IMO. If you think what the intelligence industry is doing is OK, just say so. Lots of people don't

[ProSense]

45. You apparently

"One wonders whether you do anything other than sit at the keyboard in frenzied support data collection by the NSA."

...have an active imagination.

"And - for the record - understand that I don't blame President Obama for the overreach of the NSA...it's a big fucking bureaucracy. "

Thanks for sharing. Feel free to get anything off your chest at any point. LOL!

[elias49]

53. Great imagination, thanks

but really...4,000 posts in the past 90 days!! That's like 45 posts per day! I just don't have that kind of time myself. Good deal for you!
And that's not my imagination. That's for sure.

[ProSense]

57. LOL!

"Great imagination, thanks but really...4,000 posts in the past 90 days!! That's like 45 posts per day! I just don't have that kind of time myself. Good deal for you!"

I like a good discussion. There are more than 10 posts in this thread. It's likely that I've exceeded the 45 post average already today.

Well, this has been fun. LOL!

[Katashi_itto]

70. If it's even one person doing that.

[n2doc]

46. Doubleplusgood!

Minitrue is proud of your efforts this week!

[Tarheel_Dem]

59. K&R!!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. We have a number of political dissidents who "broke the law" and sought asylum here.

Maybe Kerry should tell them to "man up", go home, and face the music.

[ProSense]

63. Oh brother

"We have a number of political dissidents who "broke the law" and sought asylum here."

There's that hyperbolic nonsense again. Snowden isn't a friggin "dissident."


There Are 12 Million Stateless People Around The World, But Edward Snowden Isn’t One Of Them
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023149095

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. If not, what is he?

Is he not being pursued for political reasons. I.e. exposing government secrets? Is the NSA not a part of the government? Is the guy who blocked the tanks in Beijing a dissident or just someone directing traffic without authority? He most certainly "broke the law". If he were here should we deport him to China?

[ProSense]

65. No,

"Is he not being pursued for political reasons. I.e. exposing government secrets? "

...he's wanted for a crime, which is why his lawyers have engaged the Government to seek a plea.

Bruce Schneier:

Edward Snowden broke the law by releasing classified information. This isn't under debate; it's something everyone with a security clearance knows. It's written in plain English on the documents you have to sign when you get a security clearance, and it's part of the culture. The law is there for a good reason, and secrecy has an important role in military defense.

But before the Justice Department prosecutes Snowden, there are some other investigations that ought to happen.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/06/prosecuting_sno.html

[Cha]

67. So stay in Russia, Snowden. Problem solved. I'm betting ol Putin will let you keep

spouting your anti-American Propaganda bullshit as long as you want, sucker.

[UTUSN]

68. R#11 & K n/t

[Katashi_itto]

69. Good to see Ministry Of Truth hard at work.