I think people have questions about this program.
And so — so as a consequence, I think it is important for us to go ahead and answer these questions — what I’m going to be pushing the IC to do is rather than have a trunk come out here and a leg come out there and a tail come out there, let’s just put the whole elephant out there so people know exactly what they’re looking at, let’s examine what is working, what’s not, are there additional protections that can be put in place and let’s move forward.
And there’s no doubt that Mr. Snowden’s leaks triggered a much more rapid and passionate response than would have been the case if I had simply appointed this review board to go through — and I’d sat down with Congress and we had worked this thing through — it would have been less exciting and it would not have generated as much press — I actually think we would have gotten to the same place, and we would have done so without putting at risk our national security and some very vital ways that we are able to get intelligence that we need to secure the country.”
Notice how he didn’t use the word “traitor” to describe NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Also notice how he eventually admitted, despite all his whining about the leaks, that Snowden’s actions allowed this public debate about mass surveillance to happen in the first place. “[T]here’s no doubt,” he said.
Two months ago, when The Guardian first reported on what the NSA was actually doing, I declared that it was The End Of Obama. Now, we have confirmation. Unlike poor Bradley Manning, who is looking at the end of his freedom for also being a conscientious whistleblower, Snowden has outsmarted the National Security State. He’s landed temporary political asylum in Russia despite having his passport revoked. (He’s got up to a year to plot his next move.) The Guardian and other news outlets continue to reveal astonishing details about the NSA’s never ending assault on the Fourth Amendment which continues to outrage many worldwide. And despite initially vicious, unfair criticism by numerous media commentators and authoritarian government officials, most citizens support Snowden’s uncommon courage. At this point, it’s hard to imagine a successful Espionage Act prosecution for someone many consider to be an honourable man.
But back to the press conference. How has the media reacted to Obama’s latest comments? Glenn Greenwald, one of a small number of Guardian journalists who has written original stories based on Snowden’s leaked documents, has helpfully collected a small sample of the response here. Check out those headlines: “Whistleblower Wins”, “Somewhere In Russia, Edward Snowden Is Smiling”, “Edward Snowden, Patriot”.
Let all of that sink in for a moment. President Obama had just spent a considerable amount of time defending the actions of the intelligence community, offering possible legal reforms to limit its reach and even credited Snowden, albeit begrudgingly, for making it all possible. The result: more criticism.
For the first time that I can remember, the master orator has failed to dazzle with his words alone. It’s not hard to see why. We now have proof that he’s been lying about these secret surveillance programs and what they actually do. And once you’re caught in a lie, it’s very difficult to regain trust. Furthermore, this idea that Obama was going to bring up Prism and Boundless Informant and all these other needless, disturbingly named programs in an open environment to inspire a democratic debate amongst the citizenry and Congress before Snowden acted is so laughable even the constitutional lawyer, desperate to repair the permanent damage to his Presidency, can’t possibly believe what he’s saying. There’s no way he’d pass a polygraph.
Also ridiculous is his assertion that if Snowden believes wholeheartedly in what he did he should come home to face the music. Well, Bradley Manning didn’t run and looked what happened to him. In fact, shortly after his arrest, Obama pretty much declared him guilty three years before military judge Col. Denise Lind did in a secretive sham of a court-martial. Now he’s facing a possible maximum sentence of 90 years for exposing war crimes. (Originally, it was 136 years.) That doesn’t even include the nine months he was psychologically tortured while in military custody which only stopped because of a public outcry. (Manning’s sentence hearing wraps up sometime next week. He’s expected to make a statement.)
And what about these NSA “reforms” Obama proposed? A transparency website? A public advocate to argue against the government in the still-secret FISA court? A civil liberties board? As the Associated Press correctly noted, it’s all smoke and mirrors to try to appease an angry nation. No matter what, Obama continues to give full-throated support to the NSA’s unconstitutional activities. And he wants you to support them, too, so stop complaining about your privacy being violated!
Keep dreaming, Mr. President. No matter what you say and what you pretend you’re going to do, you are not at all interested in changing the status quo. (It’s not in your nature.) And the public is increasingly not interested in having it maintained. So you face a considerable dilemma: continue to defend the indefensible while hounding whistleblowers like Snowden & Manning which will create even more critics or just walk away.
If I were you, I’d choose the latter.
Dennis Earl
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Saturday, August 10, 2013
3:30 p.m.
THE WRITINGS OF DENNIS EARL 
Sophia Bush’s Lack Of Concern For Persecuted Gay Patriots
For years now, actress/activist Sophia Bush has been a major champion of the LGBT community. Need proof? Just look at her official Twitter account. When she’s not sparring with opponents of gay marriage or gay rights in general, she’s voicing her full-throated support for LGBT victims of crime & injustice and celebrating many moments of triumph they achieve on the long road to full equality. When she lectures people about being on the right side of history, in this case, she’s right.
So, why hasn’t she said a word about Bradley Manning? The former American army analyst was officially sentenced today to 35 years in prison for leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents (plus a video) to WikiLeaks, the adversarial website dedicated to holding global governments accountable since much of the media can’t be bothered. The heroic whistleblower’s tragic farce of a court-martial (he also loses all future pay & benefits and is now dishonourably discharged from the military) got scant coverage on cable news channels and not nearly enough in mainstream newspapers (although journalists like Alexa O’Brien, Kevin Gozstola and the Freedom Of The Press Foundation relentlessly documented the proceedings online).
Manning was deeply troubled by what he experienced in Iraq, particularly the lack of concern for civilians harmed and killed by the American military. When he tried to speak up about it to his superiors and fellow soldiers, no one cared. Before he made his decision to leak to WikiLeaks, he initially tried getting The New York Times and The Washington Post to listen. They didn’t care, either.
And, judging by her complete silence on the matter, neither does Sophia Bush. Which is odd because Manning is gay/transgendered. You would think that fact alone would warrant Ms. Bush’s interest. You would be wrong. You would also think that because Manning was psychologically tortured for much of the first year he spent in custody (which only stopped because of a public outcry), this blatant violation of the Eighth Amendment would also inspire some kind of a public comment from her. Again, you would be wrong.
So why the lack of outrage? Only Ms. Bush knows for sure but my guess would be that defending Manning would strongly conflict with her undying love and support for her hero, the “unicorn” President Obama. (In this recent interview, she says she’s worked with him and the First Lady “on a few [unspecified] things.” I bet none of them involved transparency.) Despite claiming that she’s been disappointed with his first term (she put most of the blame on Republican obstructionism, however, as if he has no other way to work around that) and even admitting to me on Twitter that he isn’t perfect (so harsh), when has she ever uttered a single, substantial criticism about the 44th President of The United States? Has there ever been a peep of protest about drones, Gitmo, the drug war, secret mass surveillance, the war on whistleblowers, the war on the press, his plan to drill in the melting Arctic and the dirty wars being fought far away from Congressional oversight in numerous countries in Africa and The Middle East? If there is, I’ve haven’t seen it, read it or heard it.
But back to my point. For all the kindness and warmth she freely shows for the LGBT community generally, where is the kindness and warmth for Bradley Manning specifically? Is it because he exposed the lies of this administration (and the previous one), not to mention countless war crimes, that she is indifferent to his cause? Is stubbornly supporting a disappointingly heartless, gutless, lying Obama preferable to her than the humble, courageous decency and honesty of Manning? Put simply, is a man who exposes war crimes less worthy of support than a man who commits them and covers them up?
Also curious is her lack of comment on Glenn Greenwald, the openly gay journalist who has led the way in reporting the shocking secrets of the American surveillance state, a subject he’s been writing about for years. Earlier this week, Greenwald’s husband, Brazilian David Miranda, who often assists him in his work, was on his way back home from a trip to Germany to visit filmmaker Laura Poitras, a fellow collaborator on the NSA beat, when he made a pit stop in Britain. (He was in Berlin to retrieve materials for The Guardian journalist.) Unfortunately, he was flagged and not allowed to board his connecting flight. Then, he was grilled by the Heathrow Airport police for nearly nine hours about his association with Greenwald and the NSA stories he’s been writing. He also had all his electronics confiscated and had to give up passwords or be thrown in jail.
How were they able to do this? Easy. Through a section of The 2000 British Terrorism Act, a supremely broad law which allows them to detain and question “suspicious” passengers who have very little due process rights. Anyway, after Greenwald wrote about it on The Guardian website, it has become a major worldwide scandal, most notably in Britain where a injunction has been filed on Miranda’s behalf to retrieve the confiscated items and prevent any public official from retrieving the data contained within (which probably can’t happen away because much of it is encrypted). As the world hopes to get answers from David Cameron’s increasingly authoritarian government on the embarrassing episode, there’s also a growing British political movement to re-examine the BTA.
But does Sophia Bush say a word about any of this? Does she show any concern for an innocent gay man detained and interrogated by the British authorities for reasons not at all to do with terrorism in order to send a sinister message to another innocent gay man, a respected journalist highly critical of both the American and British federal governments? Keep dreaming. Honestly, is she not taken aback by the fact that the Obama administration was well aware of what was going on and apparently approved? Is that the kind of President you support, Ms. Bush? One who intimidates and persecutes whistleblowers & journalists (gay or straight) and their loved ones because they care about criminal actions committed by your hero’s administration and want justice for them? Then again, you defended Lance Armstrong up until last summer, so the answer must be yes.
You know what, carry on fighting the good fight against Vladimir Putin’s ruthless anti-gay campaign in Russia and keep defending gay marriage and the LGBT community in general. I wholeheartedly support you in doing all of that. But at the same time, maybe you should think about defending Bradley Manning, David Miranda and Glenn Greenwald, as well. Otherwise, you look awfully selective about which gay folks you stand by.
I mean, if Lady Gaga can voice her welcome concern for Manning, why can’t you?
Dennis Earl
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Thursday, August 22, 2013
2:17 a.m.
- Commentary
- Politics
- Scolding The Beautiful
on August 22, 2013 at 2:17 am Comments (3)