What’s
Wrong Today:
It
is 13 years since 9/11. Since 9/10, Washington has deployed a national security
state, which has caused a significant erosion of our personal liberties. Few
Americans noticed the dark consequences of these changes. The past two US
Presidents have bent America’s laws and have violated some of our most deeply
held rights.
Even
after all of the Edward Snowden revelations, there is no assurance that
anything meaningful will be done by Mr. Obama, or any subsequent administration
to protect the zone of privacy in which most of us believe we have the right to
live. Here is a brief reminder of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution:
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches 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
And
there has been little debate in the mainstream media regarding
the growing power of the security state. What limited attention there was did
not lead to follow-up by the major networks, or by old-school print media,
until Edward Snowden met with Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras and the story
was picked up and followed by the Guardian
and the Washington Post.
Back
in April, Georgetown University hosted an event called Beyond
Orwell, Surveillance, Secrets and Whistleblowing in the Security State.
The event was sponsored by the Lannan Foundation, among the outstanding
jewels of Georgetown.
Daniel
Ellsberg gave the keynote address, after a long and thoughtful introduction by
Glen Greenwald. The
speakers included Jesselyn Radack, Edward Snowden’s attorney, and 3
whistleblowers, Thomas Drake, Coleen Rowley and Ray McGovern. The
discussion was wide ranging and worth reading (or viewing) in its entirety. Corrente
has a transcript of the event. It is a must read for all of us.
Today,
let’s focus on what Daniel Ellsberg said about Edward Snowden’s motives. He
quotes Snowden from a Vanity Fair interview:
life where they witnessed some injustice big or small and looked away, because
the consequences of intervening seemed too intimidating
Ellsberg
asks in his keynote:
says everyone. Is he right? How many people here have had that experience in
your life…How many have not, interestingly?
Ellsberg
says that Snowden’s thought:
to something that I, almost three times as old as he is…would no longer,
could no longer agree with as applying to everyone or even very many people.
That’s the statement, ‘But there’s a limit to the amount of incivility and
inequality and inhumanity that each individual can tolerate. I crossed that
line, and I’m no longer alone’
Ellsberg:
(emphasis by the Wrongologist)
sorry to say that what I’ve learned…in the many years both before and after
the Pentagon Papers is that most officials who were my colleagues at that
point, and people in Congress and people in the media…never do find a degree of wrongdoing or injustice that will lead them
to cross the line of exposing it or resisting it or putting themselves on the
line
When
Ellsberg told Snowden that he was going to be keynoting the Lannan
Whistleblower event, Ellsberg asked: “What message would you think I should
give?” And Snowden said,
you believe something, stand for it, stand up for it
Ellsberg
then had an important rumination on how that effort of conscience makes the
standee a target. He said it is a platitude that all can agree with. In fact,
who would say, “No, don’t stand up for
something”?
In
practice, who stands up? Almost no one. That includes Congress and politicians
everywhere. They follow the advice, “To
get along, go along.” Your mother or father probably told you, (and you
probably tell your own kids): “Of course, you must stand up for what you believe.”
Ellsberg
speaks of the internal voice that says “I’ll go this far, but there’s a line I
will not cross. I will not go that far.” He says humans have this self-image:
“Too much is too much. I will go along with certain things for various reasons,
consequences, but there are things I won’t go along with. There’s a line I
won’t cross.”
How
does this relate to whistleblowers and Congress? Think about how someone in the
know reacted when James
Clapper, Director of National Intelligence lied when he was asked the
question by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), “Are you, (the NSA), is NSA under you,
collecting data, any kind of data at all, on millions of Americans?”
And
Clapper of course, said no. Now, because of Snowden, we know what was unusual
about that lie was not the lie, but the fact the truth was already known to the
Committee.
Wyden
had also given an advance warning of the question to Clapper, who went forward with
the lie. And when Snowden revealed that it was a lie, that the NSA was collecting
data on hundreds of millions of Americans, Clapper’s response was: “Well, it was not true, what I’d said, but
it was the least untruthful statement I could have made.”
Clapper’s
line in the sand was moveable. And when he came up to the point they had
earlier defined as the line that no one should cross (lying to Congress) and
they wouldn’t cross, it moved. Sen. Wyden’s line moved as well. Sen. Wyden did
not say, “You and I both know that your statement is false. You have committed
perjury”.
Clapper
of course, had not deceived the committee. They all knew the reality. Wyden joined
Clapper by not challenging him. He became a partner in the deception of the
American public, and in a violation of the Constitution, and not some minor
part of the Constitution. They were undermining the Fourth Amendment.
Ellsberg
added a thought about personal sacrifice if one is to be a whistleblower. He
reminds us that he was often called a traitor. Ellsberg says:
you’re not willing to be called names like that, which is not easy at all, you
can’t tell the truth that your bosses don’t want told, and that is the line
that…people [must] cross if we are to regain our republic
We
need more Snowdens. People who will say as Snowden did, “There are things worth
dying for.”
Ellsberg
closed with a thought about Nathan Hale. Nathan Hale was a spy for the Colonies
against the British. He was the first American to be prosecuted as a spy. Ellsberg
was the second, 200 years later.
Nathan
Hale was hanged as a traitor. All of the signers of the Declaration of
Independence were traitors in the eyes of the British government. Five of them were
also hanged. Nathan Hale said, “I regret that I have but one life to give for
my country”, quite similar to what Snowden has said.
So,
Ellsberg sees a direct line from Nathan Hale, through him, to Snowden.
And
you, dear Wrongologist readers, you should decide how far to go, what is the
line that for you, shouldn’t be crossed. Then you must work to get your elected
representatives to see it the same way.
Thomas Drake, one of the whistlers, said, this notion that somehow privacy doesn’t matter, but it’s
fundamental to who we are. He reminds us of the motto of the Stasi: (East German Secret
Police): “To Know Everything”.
I can’t remember being near the line. I have spent a lifetime in claims and underwriting, and we really do try to be ethical. That said, I do beleive that those in govt see abuse and learn that it is ok. That was Nixon’s defense.
And I also think we need to acknowledge that even under Bush/Cheney a few folks tried to call out abuses. Still, it remains curious that the right seems to want letter of the law on the 2nd amendment, but seem perfectly will to ignore the rest of the constitution in the service of security. False security to be sure.