This. What's most scary to me is the amount of people who are saying, "Well duh of course they are doing it" and not giving a shit. It's the not giving a shit how they go about it that's dangerous. It's the fact that due process is being thrown out the window and the slow, steady erosion of, dare I say it, the constitution, that kind of freaks me out. I would venture to say there is not one senator or congressmen, or member of the executive branch for that matter, who is truly upholding his oath of office to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, not the government status quo. The government was NEVER meant to be as powerful and over reaching as it is. This may just be a gut reaction, but gut reactions serve a purpose. They tell you when something just isn't right. Do I think it's some crazy conspiracy? No. I think it's ignorance, complacency, apathy, and arrogance.
So I'm guessing you're someone who does give a shit, in which case I have a few questions. Are you out there protesting? Do you take extra measures to encrypt information you send and block your IP address? Do you think anything that you do actually makes a difference? I see a lot of people who are big talk when it comes to stuff like this, but few people actually walk the walk. I'm not trying to insinuate that you're one of these people, but I have a hard time believing so many people actually do any of the shit they talk about doing. I'm the only person I know in real life who uses (I guess used to now, I stopped caring) shit like peerblock or a VPN or proxies at all aside from dudes trying to look at porn on networks they shouldn't be looking at porn on.
It would be easier for me to figure out where I stand on all this if the government came out and put some numbers to how effective this is at actually defending the country/catching criminals/terrorists.
I agree with a lot that has been said here already. i think Snowden should have taken a different approach and come in under the whistle blower laws. I think Snowden is going to end up getting "suicided" like the Rolling Stone author just did out in LA. I think that what the Government is doing is wrong on the most basic of levels just as others have said here, not only in regards to the NSA but to other issues like weaponizing the IRS and so on. The Government suffers from a eficacy problem as well as a trust deficit that I don't think it can recover from short of semi-dissolution. What is really interesting to me with this issue is that there has been bipartisan Congressional oversight of this program the whole time. Furthermore, they have set up an entire covert judicial system, so to speak, that handles these matters with all the covert laws, rules, attorneys and judges to go with it. A system that the American people are unaware of but subjected to in all of their dealings with mobile phones and the internet. If you look at the last 12 years of governance in particular, what pieces of the Bill of Rights have not been molested in some way? Sadly, as with this NSA leak, the American people know it and either don't care or don't know how to fix it.
Here's what I like about South Africa: The government employees are too lazy, inept and apathetic to even try any stuff like this. The intelligence service here couldn't find its own asshole with a map, compass and flashlight and have publicly bungled many things many, many times. Even if it was happening, odds are that the person doing the recording would be asleep (just like the Members of Parliament during Session!) or would fuck it up in some other hilarious way. Either way, Snowden is fucked - didn't Iceland say that they did not want him? If that is the case, I think he'll be "disappeared" soon, once the media attention dies down - the stuff going down in Egypt will probably see to that sooner rather than later.
Franklin grew up in an era where the most dangerous weapon around was a tube that fired a 6 pound ball every couple of minutes at a line of slow moving soldiers. The fastest communication in that time period occurred when somebody got on a horse and delivered a letter that was written by hand with quill and ink. The concept of killing hundreds of thousands of people with one bomb, or flying planes into buildings, or sending a message around the globe in less than a second didn't exist. This quote is thrown around as a rallying call when these extremely modern situations pop up in the news. It's extremely outdated thinking and the context it was originally used in had almost no parallel to the situation at hand. Whether you agree with the NSA tactics or not, the goal is not "a little temporary safety." The internet isn't going to go away if we ignore it, and hope that bad guys stop using it. And more importantly, there is a very, very small chance that anything you've ever done in the history of your interneting has been viewed by any working NSA agent. It doesn't work like the x-ray at the airport.
I don't get it. If Ben Franklin said that "those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither", then isn't the government just giving people exactly what they deserve?
No. I am not out protesting. I'm in nursing school and raising a family and that, my friend, takes up nearly every minute of my day. I do not take extra measures to encrypt information I send because I send very little important information through the web. And I do not think that anything I do really has any impact on the political system as a whole. At this point in my life I seriously doubt my vote even counts for much, and maybe all of this is just a giant circle jerk. I've called my congressmen and senators, even written letters to them on a number of issues I have an interest in, and I have no doubt they don't bother listening. In fact, I know they don't. The only thing I feel like I can do at this point is try to support more Libertarian candidates and causes, gently encourage those willing to learn to take an interest in early American history, and pass on the little bit of knowledge I have. I'm not a fool. I know in reality we are nothing but cattle. At the very least I'm aware and engaged, and that's better than the majority of people I know. Most are completely clueless.
I like when people say "the NSA isn't reading about your porn habits, get over yourself." It reminds me that I'm smarter than most people. Look, I don't even bother to draw the blinds when I jerk off, you think a random government spook finding out my porn habits is what worries me? No, what worries me is a modern J Edgar Hoover with the ability to blackmail every single congressional, senatorial and presidential candidate, as well as every nominee for a cabinet position, federal bench, or ambassadorship. I worry about the fact that the Department of Justice has asserted that interpretations of the law are secret. I'm going to be telling my grandkids about the old days when we lived under the rule of law the way you tell your grandkids about the old days when women had hairy muffs and didn't suck dick. I worry about the fact that surveillance is about control.
That's where my concerns lie as well. I don't mind the government being able to access this data when they have a valid reason to suspect someone of espionage or terrorism, but if you're targeting your own citizenry there needs to be transparency and accountability. This program has neither right now. I also hope this whole scandal will resolve itself through the court systems. I believe there is already a case being brought against it, and I'm sure it will eventually reach the supreme court. While no governmental system can ever be perfect, at least we have one were there are avenues to address these kind of injustices when they arise.
A couple additional thoughts on this: The government is not going to assassinate Snowden or have him suffer any other violent result, including capital punishment. Theres no way in hell that Obama, who has an investment in his legacy, is going to let this guy get killed for being a whistle blower, especially when he promised protection for whistle blowers and greater transparency during his campaigns. Regardless of how hollow his promises may or may not have been in that regard, appearances are everything. Aetius makes a good point, and it can be extrapolated even further. The detractors might be right IF the government wasnt already involved in: 1. Selling guns to Mexican cartels and then fucking up the tracking process; 2. Scrutinizing certain groups for taxation based on political affiliation; 3. Trying to cover up the details around the murder of an ambassador and his staff; 4. Spying on the press; 5. Fucking up intelligence analysis so much to the point where we end up in a war; This list goes on and on. And this is not an indictment of President Obama particularly, I have no idea whether he was directly involved in these or not. But it is the current state of our government and its frightening to add in surveillance and basically wiping their collective asses with the 4th Amendment. As for Snowden, hes kind of an idiot unfortunately. I hate to armchair quarterback his actions, but it makes him look like a criminal if he just runs and hides in Venezuela. Although he technically is a criminal, he could sway the court of public opinion and possible even the press (who arent too happy with the government for reasons listed above) his way if he was smart about it. Who knows, maybe thats wishful thinking.
Bingo. We know now that there were excesses during the Cold War in the hunt for communists, and certainly in the War on Drugs. It's already pretty clear the scary potential during the War on Terror. Hoover had MLK and Lennon watched, for fuck's sake.
This. Most of the information on me, you, and everyone like us is pretty boring/harmless/useless. The information gathered about our political leaders and their families isn't always so boring, useless, or harmless. And honestly, I don't like it being collected without a reason. I wouldn't let a police officer just enter my apartment and start digging through my belongings, so I don't see why my indignation at this type of surveillance and collection isn't justified. That said, they're doing it, they're going to do it, and they'll not stop doing it, until we change our leaders.
Ok, a lot of territory to cover here, but I'll try to be as brief as possible: I. Follow the money. Anytime I am presented with a political issue, or a legal one, I follow the money first. This doesn't pan out, and there are certainly plenty of other ways to go about examining issues like this, however, I choose this one. For the FY 2010, these were the largest budget items (by % of GDP): 1. Defense: Between 6-7% (This includes the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - but they are often excluded from 'budget' and excluding them results in a defense budget of around 5% of GDP - and it's not because wars are not part of defense spending, it's to make the number look less than Medicare). 2. Medicare: 5.3% 3. Social Security: 4.8% There are currently 16 governmental agencies charged with defense. Keep in mind, you've heard pundit after pundit say 'we (the govt) can't keep up, so it is necessary to use private subcontractors). Thus, you have the funnel of money, going down through agencies (like the NSA and CIA) down to private subcontractors to supply the government with services and goods. In short, the defense part of the budget accounts for approximately $1 trillion. A year. That's a lot of money. II. Snowden was a private contractor employee. Is anyone else bothered that a private (and for profit) company has access to the type of information this guy had access to? I sure as hell am. Especially when I never contracted with that company (directly) for goods and services. This is not to say he didn't violate the law, he was under contractual obligation (and had a Top Secret clearance) to not reveal anything regarding his work. But the fact he was a private employee scares me. There's a lot of money out there. If there is no surveillance, or war, how do these private contractors in this business make money? In short, they don't. For the most part, companies like this one, and Blackwater et. al. only exist on contracts with the federal government. Is there any doubt that they would attempt to justify the necessity of their services? Would such justifications perhaps rest on faulty premises? I don't know, I haven't examined the justifications, but these are issues that come to mind. III. Fourth Amendment. The 4th Amendment provides: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Does this cover electronic communications? I think it does. Courts (including the Supreme Court) have come out on both sides of this issue. However, the fact that the administration (including Bush's administration) felt the necessity to set up a court to 'review' such programs (done in secret) tells me that they feel that SOME search and seizure is going on here (as opposed to say, searching your garbage on the street - which depending on the state is not necessarily a search or seizure as it is in public view). IV. The Safeguards. What we've heard, and precious little, is that Congress and the FISA court have guarded your rights. They have conducted oversight (though most members of Congress have no idea how the program works by their own admission) and the Court reviewed these programs and theoretical warrant requirements is secret (which raises a problematic Constitutional problem, namely that there aren't supposed to be secret courts). V. What IS Being Searched. So, according the government the content of our communications isn't being searched. Given the fact that the government has only admitted to what has been publicly revealed (by Snowden) begs the question: If my kid gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar, do I believe him (after lying to me previously about stealing cookies at all) when he tells me that 'oh, I'm just storing them, I'm not eating them?' Or do I go ahead and investigate a little bit, you know, just so I'm not taking the thieves' word on the extent of his theft. This is the same thing. The government claims they are not reviewing content. They also claimed they weren't gathering evidence on Americans without a warrant electronically. False in one, false in all? I'm not sure, but I certainly don't see enough questions being asked about what actually has actually been collected and stored. VI. Snowden's Running from the Law. Is the fact that Snowden ran evidence of nefarious activity on his part? Sure, I'd say so. But then again, let's look at what his activity was: exposing a potentially far reaching and unConstitutional search and seizure en masse of Americans' communications. VII. Military Protocol The military does not allow the 'following orders' defense (generally). If a superior officer gives you an order that you know (or have good reason to suspect) is illegal, you are obligated not to follow it and report the potential offense. But it depends on the actual order. VIII. Conclusion It is too soon to say (for me) what Snowden is guilty of, if anything. He released Top Secret information about activities that may well be inherently in violation of the US Constitution. Before I go all 'espionagy and treasony' on his ass, I'd like to know exactly what the government was doing (and ordering others to do) before I find that Snowden did anything wrong. Even under a contract theory - a contract for illegal activities is not enforceable. Nor is the revelation of the existence of that contract (and in fact, not revealing illegal activity may well be punishable). So I'd like to see more information on what our government was doing (and Snowden on their behalf) before I decide if Snowden is a criminal or hero.
The point I'm making is that if you don't even take the time to do simple things that actually make a difference at least for you individually when you've already admitted the only thing you do won't ever change anything, then you're in exactly the same boat as the people who you say are completely clueless. I honestly think we're past the point where just voting in another group of people will change anything. Choosing between Democrats and Republicans clearly does not make a difference, Bush started the PRISM program and Obama has expanded it and there have been many programs with the same intent for years and years before that. Even if we elected a bunch of libertarians who rail constantly about constitutionality they will be bought or blackmailed, and if they stand their ground they'll be forced out of office before they can change anything.
If you think they would try him by a jury of his peers, you're sadly mistaken. I'm no legal beagle, but aren't espionage cases tried in a military court?
Courts-martial are only for members of the armed forces as the UCMJ only applies to them. So unless they take him to gitmo and hold trials the way they do there (military tribunal, no jury) then no.
Relevant piece on the differences between the situation faced by Snowden and the one faced by the leaker of the Pentagon Papers; by the leaker of the Pentagon Papers himself: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/daniel-ellsberg-nsa-leaker-snowden-made-the-right-call/2013/07/07/0b46d96c-e5b7-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_print.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... print.html</a>