Daniel Ellsberg: Edward Snowden: saving us from the United Stasi of America

[cali]

Have at it.

n my estimation, there has not been in American history a more important leak than Edward Snowden's release of NSA material – and that definitely includes the Pentagon Papers 40 years ago. Snowden's whistleblowing gives us the possibility to roll back a key part of what has amounted to an "executive coup" against the US constitution.

Since 9/11, there has been, at first secretly but increasingly openly, a revocation of the bill of rights for which this country fought over 200 years ago. In particular, the fourth and fifth amendments of the US constitution, which safeguard citizens from unwarranted intrusion by the government into their private lives, have been virtually suspended.

The government claims it has a court warrant under Fisa – but that unconstitutionally sweeping warrant is from a secret court, shielded from effective oversight, almost totally deferential to executive requests. As Russell Tice, a former National Security Agency analyst, put it: "It is a kangaroo court with a rubber stamp."

For the president then to say that there is judicial oversight is nonsense – as is the alleged oversight function of the intelligence committees in Congress. Not for the first time – as with issues of torture, kidnapping, detention, assassination by drones and death squads –they have shown themselves to be thoroughly co-opted by the agencies they supposedly monitor. They are also black holes for information that the public needs to know.

<snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/10/edward-snowden-united-stasi-america

[ProSense]

1. This is what you call

The government claims it has a court warrant under Fisa – but that unconstitutionally sweeping warrant is from a secret court, shielded from effective oversight, almost totally deferential to executive requests. As Russell Tice, a former National Security Agency analyst, put it: "It is a kangaroo court with a rubber stamp."

For the president then to say that there is judicial oversight is nonsense – as is the alleged oversight function of the intelligence committees in Congress. Not for the first time – as with issues of torture, kidnapping, detention, assassination by drones and death squads –they have shown themselves to be thoroughly co-opted by the agencies they supposedly monitor. They are also black holes for information that the public needs to know.

...moving the goal post (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3000315). The administration followed the law, but now it's time to dismiss the FISA court and call out the Congress as useless.

Legislative history

Introduced in the Senate as S. 1566 by Edward Kennedy (D–MA) on May 18, 1977
Committee consideration by: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Committee on the Judiciary
Passed the Senate on March 20, 1978 (95-1)
Passed the House on September 7, 1978 (246-128)
Reported by the joint conference committee on October 5, 1978; agreed to by the Senate on October 9, 1978 (Without objection) and by the House on October 12, 1978 (226-176)
Signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 25, 1978

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act

(Snowden)...Showed Hong Kong Newspaper Documents Revealing US Hacking Attacks On China (updated 2x)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023001669

[cali]

3. no I don't call it moving the goalposts. I call it a well reasoned article by someone with a fuck

of a lot more credibility than the likes of YOU.

[ProSense]

4. I call it moving the goal post, and

"I call it a well reasoned article by someone with a fuck of a lot more credibility than the likes of YOU."

...and I seriously doubt your "credibility."

[cali]

5. it's not my credibility that's the issue. It's Ellsberg's.

Now continue on trashing him, dear.

[ProSense]

6. Actually,

"Now continue on trashing him, dear."

...I was disagreeing with him, and I still seriously doubt your "credibility."

[newfie11]

21. +1. nt

[sabrina 1]

10. American hero Daniel Ellsberg, under the bus!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Perhaps Bernie Sanders will be this generation's Mike Gravel.

Instead of Gravel we get the likes of Feinstein and Graham.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg

In late 1969—with the assistance of his former RAND Corporation colleague Anthony Russo and the staff of Senator Edward Kennedy—Ellsberg secretly made several sets of photocopies of the classified documents to which he had access; these later became known as the Pentagon Papers. They revealed that the government had knowledge, early on, that the war could most likely not be won, and that continuing the war would lead to many times more casualties than was ever admitted publicly. Further, as an editor of the New York Times was to write much later, these documents "demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance".[9]

Shortly after Ellsberg copied the documents, he resolved to meet some of the people who had influenced both his change of heart on the war and his decision to act. One of them was Randy Kehler. Another was the poet Gary Snyder, whom he'd met in Kyoto in 1960, and with whom he'd argued about U.S. foreign policy; Ellsberg was finally prepared to concede that Gary Snyder had been right, about both the situation and the need for action against it.[10]

Throughout 1970, Ellsberg covertly attempted to persuade a few sympathetic U.S. Senators—among them J. William Fulbright, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and George McGovern, a leading opponent of the war—to release the papers on the Senate floor, because a Senator could not be prosecuted for anything he said on the record before the Senate. Ellsberg told U.S. Senators that they should be prepared to go to jail in order to end the Vietnam War.[11]

Ellsberg allowed some copies of the documents to circulate privately, including among scholars at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). Ellsberg also shared the documents with New York Times correspondent Neil Sheehan under a pledge of confidentiality. Sheehan broke his promise to Ellsberg, and built a scoop around what he'd received both directly from Ellsberg and from contacts at IPS.[12]

On Sunday, June 13, 1971, the Times published the first of nine excerpts and commentaries on the 7,000 page collection. For 15 days, the Times was prevented from publishing its articles by court order requested by the Nixon administration. Meanwhile, Ellsberg leaked the documents to The Washington Post and 17 other newspapers.[13][14] On June 30, the Supreme Court ordered publication of the Times to resume freely (New York Times Co. v. United States). Although the Times did not reveal Ellsberg as their source, he went into hiding for 13 days afterwards, suspecting that the evidence would point to him as the source of the unauthorized release of the study.[15]

On June 29, 1971, U.S. Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska entered 4,100 pages of the Papers into the record of his Subc.ommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds—pages which he had received from Ellsberg via Ben Bagdikian—then an editor at the Washington Post. These portions of the Papers were subsequently published by Beacon Press[16]

[graham4anything]

26. +100% yup.

[cherokeeprogressive]

2. Come on cali. You KNOW Ellsberg is and has always been a right wing shill.

Besides, this data collection is for your own good.

[shawn703]

7. Hyperbole much, Ellsberg?

[frylock]

15. Germany decries NSA surveillance as ‘Stasi methods’

An outraged Germany plans to put pressure on President Obama to end America’s Internet surveillance program, calling such tactics akin to East German’s secret police security program.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/12/germany-decries-nsa-surveillance-stasi-methods/#ixzz2W4ZHNxmn

[BeyondGeography]

8. Al Franken thinks that's absurd

[frylock]

14. yeh well the germans are saying the same as ellsberg..

I think they may know a little more than Al Franken when it comes to this subject matter.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/12/germany-decries-nsa-surveillance-stasi-methods/

[BeyondGeography]

22. The Germans know more about PRISM than a Senator who is regularly briefed on it

Ok.

[frylock]

35. derp?

[cali]

23. and Pat Leahy, more extensively briefed, far, far more experienced

and more credible than junior Senator Franken, does not.

Franken v Leahy. Hmm who has more credibility? I'll take my Senator every single time.

For that matter my other Senator, also far more experienced than Franken, doesn't agree with Al either.

[BeyondGeography]

24. Leahy is a good man

He also wouldn't touch the Stasi parallel with a 10-foot pole.

[cali]

30. no, he wouldn't.

He does not agree with Franken. He sees this a very dangerous indeed.

Look, I don't think using the word "Stasi" is helpful in this argument, but it's hardly the most critical element of it.

[BeyondGeography]

31. Fair enough n/t

[treestar]

9. Ellsberg has lost it

[sabrina 1]

11. And off we go. Another great American hero under the bus!! It's almost funny to watch. Is there

anyone left whose reputations used to be stellar during the Bush years and who, like Ellsberg are still saying exactly the same things they said then, who hasn't 'lost it' in your opinion? How about Amy Goodman, I saw her described here this week as 'part of a ratfucking pack'. How about Ron Wyden? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller??

It's comical to watch. To think I used to think our side was different. Talk about naive.

[treestar]

12. He's lost it

If he was a hero once, he's lost it now. Or is trying to get attention. We are not required to agree with him forever.

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. For 25 years at least, Daniel Ellsburg has made cash in only one way: speaker circuit for lefties

What else would he say?

Why tip the cash cow?

[ReRe]

18. You probably say the same thing about ...

...oh, people like Howard Zinn, and oh, Noam Chompsky, you know, those "types"?

[alcibiades_mystery]

33. I think all three generally believe(d) what they're saying

I don't think they (obviously, Ellsburg and Chomsky) have any incentive to examine their own positions, though. Chomsky, for one, churns out the same argument applied to any situation whatsoever, and has done so for going on 45 years. I get that some people consider that to be a matter of "principle." For my money, it's what makes him particularly uninteresting as an intellectual. Everyone on the left gets to go through a "Chomsky Phase." He does good work, and often acts as a gateway to more serious and novel ways of thinking. It's the people who get stuck at that Chomsky Phase who worry me: perpetually 19 and "subversive," they end up abandoning any real political action for minor and tired critiques. It's a weakness on the left. Left politics has so much more to offer than the likes of such speaker circuit lefties. On balance, their contribution is a wash.

[ReRe]

34. So Zinn (RIP), Ellsberg & Chomsky...

... are wrong thinking? Their ideas are all washed up?

So, do tell... "left politics has so much more to offer than the likes of" those three. Where do we find this substance in left politics that you speak of? Three names or items please.

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. thank you for posting this. I read the article myself earlier today - but shied away from posting.

so thank you for having more guts than me

[ReRe]

20. First paragraph is the most important

K&R

.... statement in the whole article. Thanks for the OP, cali.

How can anyone say that Daniel Ellsberg is not worthy of respect? Insinuating that he is just "putting on a show for money?" Whoever says that is not a Democrat. That is the comment from a stasi-winger bully. And thank God they are sitting at their computer in the comfort of their own home with the doors locked. Because if they were sitting next to me saying something like that, I might not put up with it. That's why they do what they do: they want to fight. All I can say to that is: Life is too short. Make love, not war. Be Nice. Chill.

[randome]

25. Ellsberg didn't dump the Pentagon Papers on the doorstep and then go into hiding.

He is worthy of respect. He is also wrong. Big difference between Ellsberg and Snowden.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[WinkyDink]

27. Easy to say, from a discussion board.

[randome]

32. Easy to make allegations from an 'undisclosed location' in Hong Kong, too.

No evidence. Just accusations, allegations and hyperbole from Snowden. So far.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[graham4anything]

28. Technicalities from the people who did Watergate led to all charges dropped..(wiki paragraphs)-

We now know those who later did Watergate did illegalities, which later got all charges dropped because of the technicalities.
However, that did not mean he was innocent, had they not used gonzo tactics
(and note-it is now known that Watergate was directly about documents that showed Nixon sabatoged the peace talks of 1968).

wiki-(the free encyclopedia)-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg

He and Russo faced charges under the Espionage Act of 1917 and other charges including theft and conspiracy, carrying a total maximum sentence of 115 years. Their trial commenced in Los Angeles on January 3, 1973, presided over by U.S. District Judge William Matthew Byrne, Jr.

On April 26, the break-in of Fielding's office was revealed to the court in a memo to Judge Byrne, who then ordered it to be shared with the defense.[22][23]

On May 9, further evidence of illegal wiretapping against Ellsberg was revealed in court. The FBI had recorded numerous conversations between Morton Halperin and Ellsberg without a court order, and furthermore the prosecution had failed to share this evidence with the defense.[24] During the trial, Byrne also revealed that he personally met twice with John Ehrlichman, who offered him directorship of the FBI. Byrne said he refused to consider the offer while the Ellsberg case was pending, though he was criticized for even agreeing to meet with Ehrlichman during the case.[23]

Due to the gross governmental misconduct and illegal evidence gathering, and the defense by Leonard Boudin and Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson, Judge Byrne dismissed all charges against Ellsberg and Russo on May 11, 1973 after the government claimed it had lost records of wiretapping against Ellsberg. Byrne ruled: "The totality of the circumstances of this case which I have only briefly sketched offend a sense of justice. The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case."[23]

As a result of the revelation of the Fielding break-in during the trial, John Ehrlichman, H R Haldeman, Richard Kleindienst and John Dean were forced out of office on April 30, and all would later be convicted of crimes related to the Watergate scandal. Egil Krogh later pleaded guilty to conspiracy, and White House counsel Charles Colson pleaded no contest for obstruction of justice in the burglary. "The court concluded that Nixon, Mitchell, and Haldeman had violated the Halperins' Fourth Amendment rights, but not the terms of Title III. The Halperins were awarded $1 in nominal damages in August 1977."[25][26]

[cantbeserious]

29. Yes - The Surveillance State Is Out Of Control

eom

[reusrename]

36. It's not so much an "executive coup" as it is a "corporate coup."

Other than that, it's spot on.