A big "FU" to the United States by other countries? [View all]

[ProSense]

IMO, Snowden is a coward and a hack. I distrust his intentions and find the distortions of the information and the hypocrisy of trying to create an international incident by exposing U.S. state secrets to countries that aggressively violate human rights to be disturbing.

I know people love the idea of poking this country in the eye, but I don't see how this current situation helps in the big picture. It will only serve to steel the resolve of countries that will use this as an opportunity to say to the U.S.: you have no reason to talk.

If anyone thinks that's good, then s/he is completely naive. I mean, is the goal is to have one of these other countries take the lead in challenging human rights abuses? Is it to knock the United States off its high horse? After Iraq and torture, this country likely deserves that. The Bush years were despiriting. What I don't get is why anyone would use the current outrage about NSA domestic surveillance programs to try to damage relations with other countries. What's the point, and is it worth it?

France, Too, Is Sweeping Up Data, Newspaper Reveals
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/world/europe/france-too-is-collecting-data-newspaper-reveals.html

(Washington, DC) – The Communications Law that the Ecuadorian National Assembly approved on June 14, 2013, seriously undermines free speech. The law includes overly broad language that will limit the free expression of journalists and media outlets.

The government had proposed a Communications Law in 2009 but it faced opposition in the National Assembly. The new National Assembly that formed in May with a majority of members from President Rafael Correa's political party approved a modified version of the original bill.

“This law is yet another effort by President Correa to go after the independent media,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director. “The provisions for censorship and criminal prosecutions of journalists are clear attempts to silence criticism.”

The law, which applies to both broadcast and print media, includes the following problematic provisions:

- more -

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/17/ecuador-end-assault-free-speech

The majority of us were opposed to Bush's illegal spying, but that debate was focused on domestic surveillance, spying on Americans.

The current debate about foreign surveillance is almost surreal, with people pretending that they had no idea about U.S. spying, as if it's an activity unique to this country. That is the mission of the NSA and of its counterparts around the world.

NYT editor's blog: Snowden’s Questionable New Turn
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023034825

The focus on foreign surveillance arose from Snowden's notion about what the U.S. shouldn't be doing, and the focus has now shifted to sticking it to the United States.

There was a right way and a wrong way to approach NSA accountability, Snowden's international escapade was not it.

On the domestic side, the debate should have been ongoing, and in the aftermath of the leak, it should have remained the focus. The debate also needs to be on the facts. Greenwald does his best to make this about Obama (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023068613). Snowden broke the law. I've said that, to have people respond: Snowden knows he broke the law. No one can dispute that he will be held accountable by law. One of the first actions from his supporters was to petition the WH for a pardon. His bid for asylum is also an acknowledgment that he broke the law and seeks to avoid prosecution, albeit framed as an attempt to escape "persecution."

Through all of this, there is little focus on the facts, a lot of hype and no real push for solutions.

For example, one of Greenwald's recent releases got little attention after it was pointed out that safeguards were in place.

Documents Detail N.S.A. Surveillance Rules

By SCOTT SHANE

<...>

On Thursday, in the latest release of documents supplied by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor now believed to be hiding in Hong Kong, The Guardian published two documents setting out the detailed rules governing the agency’s intercepts...They show, for example, that N.S.A. officers who intercept an American online or on the phone — say, while monitoring the phone or e-mail of a foreign diplomat or a suspected terrorist — can preserve the recording or transcript if they believe the contents include “foreign intelligence information” or evidence of a possible crime. They can likewise preserve the intercept if it contains information on a “threat of serious harm to life or property” or sheds light on technical issues like encryption or vulnerability to cyberattacks.

And while N.S.A. analysts usually have to delete Americans’ names from the reports they write, there are numerous exceptions, including cases where there is evidence that the American in the intercept is working for a terrorist group, foreign country or foreign corporation.

The documents, classified “Secret,” describe the procedures for eavesdropping under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, including an N.S.A. program called Prism that mines Internet communications using services including Gmail and Facebook. They are likely to add fuel for both sides of the debate over the proper limits of the government’s surveillance programs.

They offer a glimpse of a rule-bound intelligence bureaucracy that is highly sensitive to the distinction between foreigners and “U.S. persons,” which technically include not only American citizens and legal residents but American companies and nonprofit organizations as well. The two sets of rules, each nine pages long, belie the image of a rogue intelligence agency recklessly violating Americans’ privacy.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/us/politics/documents-detail-nsa-surveillance-rules.html

<...>

Today, in the latest release of classified NSA documents from Glenn Greenwald, we finally got a look at these minimization procedures. Here's the nickel summary:

The top secret documents published today detail the circumstances in which data collected on US persons under the foreign intelligence authority must be destroyed, extensive steps analysts must take to try to check targets are outside the US, and reveals how US call records are used to help remove US citizens and residents from data collection.

I have a feeling it must have killed Glenn to write that paragraph. But on paper, anyway, the minimization procedures really are pretty strict. If NSA discovers that it's mistakenly collected domestic content, it's required to cease the surveillance immediately and destroy the information it's already collected. However, there are exceptions. They can:

<…>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023060180

WaPo: New documents reveal parameters of NSA’s secret surveillance programs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023058091

The debate briefly returned to: Oh, what about the next Republican President? What is preventing a discussion about the facts of the infomration directly above?

Claiming that opposition to Snowden's actions is equivalent to being an "apologist" for the NSA is part of the problem. His actions are a separate issue from the debate on NSA accountability.

There is little attention being paid to proposed solutions: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023135750

What's the goal of this debate? Isn't it to understand the problem and fix it, to rein in excesses?

In a country where surveillance has been part of the fabric of law enforcement and national security, with the acknowledgment that it's a necessity, the debate is about how to do it while protecting Americans, classified information and the Constitution.

That's not apologizing for the NSA. That's the reality.

This is the reason that while Senators like Udall and Wyden are critical of the program, they're offering a fix. You can bet there will be those who don't think it goes far enough, and others who will dismiss it.

One thing is certain, whether it’s a SCOTUS decision or a Congressional fix, the U.S. surveillance program, the 61-year-old NSA, isn't going anywhere.

I suspect that any fix in operation can earn the label unconstitutional. I suspect that if the Church Committee existed today and proposed the FISA court, it would be challenged as such.

You don't have to love it. You never did. You can push elected officials for accountability, but will you be satisfied?

My beef is there is no need to distort the facts to debate the issue. That is what Snowden's leak did, and I might add, intentionally.

The NSA doesn't need to be sensationalized to spark a debate. The facts of its operation are enough to do just that, as evidenced by the years of challenges mounted by civil liberties organizations.

The hyperbole is getting thick.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023163029