I figured this topic needed its own thread.

[Jim Finklestein]

Yeah it didn't seem like an Onion article at all.

I liked it though. :)

[MichaelWeston]

That was a soberingly serious piece from the Onion. I liked it, but it doesn't fit in with your stance in this thread, MW. 

Lol

[Jim Finklestein]

 

NSA PRISM: Pentagon bracing for anti-government activism over climate change disasters

By Nafeez Ahmed, The Guardian
Friday, June 14, 2013 8:37 EDT

Top secret US National Security Agency (NSA) documents disclosed by the Guardian have shocked the world with revelations of a comprehensive US-based surveillance system with direct access to Facebook, Apple, Google, Microsoft and other tech giants. New Zealand court recordssuggest that data harvested by the NSA’s Prism system has been fed into the Five Eyesintelligence alliance whose members also include the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

But why have Western security agencies developed such an unprecedented capacity to spy on their own domestic populations? Since the 2008 economic crash, security agencies have increasingly spied on political activists, especially environmental groups, on behalf of corporate interests. This activity is linked to the last decade of US defence planning, which has been increasingly concerned by the risk of civil unrest at home triggered by catastrophic events linked to climate change, energy shocks or economic crisis – or all three.

Just last month, unilateral changes to US military laws formally granted the Pentagonextraordinary powers to intervene in a domestic “emergency” or “civil disturbance”:

 

“Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.”

Other documents show that the “extraordinary emergencies” the Pentagon is worried about include a range of environmental and related disasters.

In 2006, the US National Security Strategy warned that:

“Environmental destruction, whether caused by human behavior or cataclysmic mega-disasters such as floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, or tsunamis. Problems of this scope may overwhelm the capacity of local authorities to respond, and may even overtax national militaries, requiring a larger international response.”

Two years later, the Department of Defense’s (DoD) Army Modernisation Strategy described the arrival of a new “era of persistent conflict” due to competition for “depleting natural resources and overseas markets” fuelling “future resource wars over water, food and energy.” The report predicted a resurgence of:

“… anti-government and radical ideologies that potentially threaten government stability.”

 

In the same year, a report by the US Army’s Strategic Studies Institute warned that a series of domestic crises could provoke large-scale civil unrest. The path to “disruptive domestic shock” could include traditional threats such as deployment of WMDs, alongside “catastrophic natural and human disasters” or “pervasive public health emergencies” coinciding with “unforeseen economic collapse.” Such crises could lead to “loss of functioning political and legal order” leading to “purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency…

“DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States. Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance.”

That year, the Pentagon had begun developing a 20,000 strong troop force who would be on-hand to respond to “domestic catastrophes” and civil unrest – the programme was reportedly based on a 2005 homeland security strategy which emphasised “preparing for multiple, simultaneous mass casualty incidents.”

The following year, a US Army-funded RAND Corp study called for a US force presence specifically to deal with civil unrest.

Such fears were further solidified in a detailed 2010 study by the US Joint Forces Command – designed to inform “joint concept development and experimentation throughout the Department of Defense” – setting out the US military’s definitive vision for future trends and potential global threats. Climate change, the study said, would lead to increased risk of:

“… tsunamis, typhoons, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and other natural catastrophes… Furthermore, if such a catastrophe occurs within the United States itself – particularly when the nation’s economy is in a fragile state or where US military bases or key civilian infrastructure are broadly affected – the damage to US security could be considerable.”

The study also warned of a possible shortfall in global oil output by 2015:

“A severe energy crunch is inevitable without a massive expansion of production and refining capacity. While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions.”

That year the DoD’s Quadrennial Defense Review seconded such concerns, while recognising that “climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked.”

Also in 2010, the Pentagon ran war games to explore the implications of “large scale economic breakdown” in the US impacting on food supplies and other essential services, as well as how to maintain “domestic order amid civil unrest.”

Speaking about the group’s conclusions at giant US defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton’s conference facility in Virginia, Lt Col. Mark Elfendahl – then chief of the Joint and Army Concepts Division – highlighted homeland operations as a way to legitimise the US military budget:

“An increased focus on domestic activities might be a way of justifying whatever Army force structure the country can still afford.”

Two months earlier, Elfendahl explained in a DoD roundtable that future planning was needed:

“Because technology is changing so rapidly, because there’s so much uncertainty in the world, both economically and politically, and because the threats are so adaptive and networked, because they live within the populations in many cases.”

The 2010 exercises were part of the US Army’s annual Unified Quest programme which more recently, based on expert input from across the Pentagon, has explored the prospect that “ecological disasters and a weak economy” (as the “recovery won’t take root until 2020″) will fuel migration to urban areas, ramping up social tensions in the US homeland as well as within and between “resource-starved nations.”

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden was a computer systems administrator for Booz Allen Hamilton, where he directly handled the NSA’s IT systems, including the Prism surveillance system. According to Booz Allen’s 2011 Annual Report, the corporation has overseen Unified Quest “for more than a decade” to help “military and civilian leaders envision the future.”

The latest war games, the report reveals, focused on “detailed, realistic scenarios with hypothetical ‘roads to crisis’”, including “homeland operations” resulting from “a high-magnitude natural disaster” among other scenarios, in the context of:

“… converging global trends [which] may change the current security landscape and future operating environment… At the end of the two-day event, senior leaders were better prepared to understand new required capabilities and force design requirements to make homeland operations more effective.”

It is therefore not surprising that the increasing privatisation of intelligence has coincided with the proliferation of domestic surveillance operations against political activists, particularly those linked to environmental and social justice protest groups.

Department of Homeland Security documents released in April prove a “systematic effort” by the agency “to surveil and disrupt peaceful demonstrations” linked to Occupy Wall Street, according to the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF).

Similarly, FBI documents confirmed “a strategic partnership between the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and the private sector” designed to produce intelligence on behalf of “the corporate security community.” A PCJF spokesperson remarked that the documents show “federal agencies functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall Street and Corporate America.”

In particular, domestic surveillance has systematically targeted peaceful environment activists including anti-fracking activists across the US, such as the Gas Drilling Awareness Coalition, Rising Tide North America, the People’s Oil & Gas Collaborative, and Greenpeace. Similar trends are at play in the UK, where the case of undercover policeman Mark Kennedy revealed the extent of the state’s involvement in monitoring the environmental direct action movement.

A University of Bath study citing the Kennedy case, and based on confidential sources, found that a whole range of corporations – such as McDonald’s, Nestle and the oil major Shell, “use covert methods to gather intelligence on activist groups, counter criticism of their strategies and practices, and evade accountability.”

Indeed, Kennedy’s case was just the tip of the iceberg – internal police documents obtained by theGuardian in 2009 revealed that environment activists had been routinely categorised as “domestic extremists” targeting “national infrastructure” as part of a wider strategy tracking protest groups and protestors.

Superintendent Steve Pearl, then head of the National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit (Nectu), confirmed at that time how his unit worked with thousands of companies in the private sector. Nectu, according to Pearl, was set up by the Home Office because it was “getting really pressured by big business – pharmaceuticals in particular, and the banks.” He added that environmental protestors were being brought “more on the radar.” The programme continues today, despite police acknowledgements that environmentalists have not been involved in “violent acts.”

The Pentagon knows that environmental, economic and other crises could provoke widespread public anger toward government and corporations in coming years. The revelations on the NSA’s global surveillance programmes are just the latest indication that as business as usual creates instability at home and abroad, and as disillusionment with the status quo escalates, Western publics are being increasingly viewed as potential enemies that must be policed by the state.

Dr Nafeez Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development and author of A User’s Guide to the Crisis of Civilisation: And How to Save It among other books. Follow him on Twitter @nafeezahmed

© Guardian News and Media 2013

 

 

[Jim Finklestein]

 

Retired Federal Judge: Your Faith In Secret Surveillance Court Is Dramatically Misplaced

By Nicole Flatow on Jun 14, 2013 at 6:00 pm

A retired federal judge warned Friday against blind faith in the secret court deciding the scope of U.S. government surveillance. During a panel discussion on constitutional privacy protection in the wake of a leaked Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court decision that revealed widespread NSA data collection, U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner stood up in the audience to counter the statements of conservative law professor Nathan Sales that secret surveillance requests are subject to meaningful judicial review. She cautioned:

As a former Article III judge, I can tell you that your faith in the FISA Court is dramatically misplaced.

Two reasons: One … The Fourth Amendment frameworks have been substantially diluted in the ordinary police case. One can only imagine what the dilution is in a national security setting. Two, the people who make it on the FISA court, who are appointed to the FISA court, are not judges like me. Enough said.

Gertner, now a professor at Harvard Law School who teaches criminal law and criminal procedure, was a civil rights and criminal defense lawyer before being confirmed to the federal bench in 1993. In an interview with ThinkProgress, Gertner explained that the selection process for the secret national security court formed in 1978 is more “anointment” than appointment, with the Chief Justice of the United States — now John G. Roberts — selecting from a pool of already-conservative federal judges those he thinks are most suited to decide national security cases in secret:

It’s an anointment process. It’s not a selection process. But you know, it’s not boat rockers. So you have a [federal] bench which is way more conservative than before. This is a subset of that. And it’s a subset of that who are operating under privacy, confidentiality, and national security. To suggest that there is meaningful review it seems to me is an illusion.

Gertner, an attendee at the American Constitution Society’s national convention, stood up during a panel discussion to make her comment after Sales, a law professor at George Mason University, suggested that individuals have some protection from excessive government surveillance because the Internet Service Providers who field government requests for information have the opportunity to challenge those requests before the secret court. “This isn’t a a paper tiger,” he said. “This is a court that engages in judicial review.” Gertner urged the audience to be skeptical about the court’s oversight, both because of its severely conservative make-up, and its secrecy. The judge whose order was leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden was Judge Roger Vinson, who authored the error-riddled federal court decisionstriking down the Affordable Care Act that even his fellow conservatives rejected.

Gertner also questioned the need for a secret court, noting that national security protections exist within the civilian court system:

I’m very troubled by that. When you get cases in court, in regular civilian court that have national security issues that have classified information, we developed a process whereby the parties would develop security clearances and it could be presented to the court without it being disclosed to anyone else. It is not entirely clear to me why a civilian court with those protections that is otherwise transparent couldn’t do the job. That’s the way we did it before. Then we moved to this national security court. The notion that we have to have a conversation about major incursions on civil liberties and that we have step back and say we don’t really know, we haven’t seen the standards, we haven’t seen the opinions is extraordinary troubling in a democracy.

The surveillance court has authorized almost every request for government surveillance since 1979, and flat-out rejected just .03 percent of the government requests, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. In the wake of the leak, the secret court held Wednesday that its own rules did not prevent the release of its decisions, should a federal court order their release. The plaintiffs will now have to continue their lawsuit to make one particular decision public. Senators introduced a bill this week to require the Attorney General to declassify all major FISC decisions.

 

[Jamie_B]

 

There is no context where what Nancy Pelosi said is acceptable.

 

I've never met an anarchist. The ones I've seen on the internet are generally 19 years old and have barbells sticking out of their nose. People who want less government control aren't Anarchists, they're closer to Constitutionalists.

 

Especially not the context you keep using despite it not being what she was saying.

 

Oh your a Constitutionalist? So then you should support ObamaCare because after all the Constitional system we operate under decided it is the law.

 

Nope, less government in the way of deregulation created the economic problems we have now, and having less government isn't going to fix it.

 

They call it anarchocapitialism for a reason.

[Jim Finklestein]

Snowden answering questions right now.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower

[Jamie_B]

Some food for thought - http://boldprogressives.org/2013/06/how-the-national-security-state-is-really-welfare-for-the-rich/

[Jim Finklestein]

It gets even better...

 

http://rt.com/usa/nsa-secret-fisa-documents-025/

 

 

Secret documents reveal rules allowing NSA warrantless use of US data

 

New documents have been leaked shining further light on the top-secret surveillance programs operated by the NSA. According to The Guardian, the National Security Agency can retain and use information obtained through domestic communications.

According to two documents published in full by the newspaper on Thursday, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has approved a handful of policies that allow the National Security Agency to make use of intelligence on United States persons.

President Barack Obama and his administration’s top intelligence chiefs have previously denied the NSA targets American citizens in the wake of classified documents leaked earlier this month.

The two new documents — including one-marked “top-secret” — were both authorized by Attorney General Eric Holder on July 29, 2009, and were leaked two weeks-to-the-day since The Guardian first began publishing NSA papers attributed to former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden. Earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against Holder and other Obama administration officials for a number of constitutional rights they alleged to have been violated under the surveillance practices previously disclosed by the newspaper.

The new documents, The Guardian reports, details how the NSA can:

• Keep data that could potentially contain details of US persons for up to five years;

• Retain and make use of "inadvertently acquired" domestic communications if they contain usable intelligence, information on criminal activity, threat of harm to people or property, are encrypted, or are believed to contain any information relevant to cybersecurity;

• Preserve "foreign intelligence information" contained within attorney-client communications;

• Access the content of communications gathered from "U.S. based machine[s]" or phone numbers in order to establish if targets are located in the US, for the purposes of ceasing further surveillance.

These powers vested in the NSA come notwithstanding other provisions included in the documents that discuss safeguards that are meant to be employed in order to avoid targeting US persons.

“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,” Glenn Greenwald and James Ball write for The Guardian.

The reporters go on to quote from a FISA document they claim to have seen that shows that the secretive intelligence court can compel companies to give the government private data pertaining to US citizens without offering any explanation.

Instead, they write, a FISA judge “declares that the procedures submitted by the attorney general on behalf of the NSA are consistent with US law and the Fourth Amendment.”

Under the FISA Act, the government can warrantlessly eavesdrop on phone and Internet conversations if one of the parties involved is reasonably sought to be outside of the United States. And while the Obama administration insists that surveillance programs authorized by FISA do not target US persons, the latest leak shows that the government can still collect, retain and analyze seized intelligence of Americans even when it’s clear that they are within the country.

"In the absence of specific information regarding whether a target is a United States person," it states "a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States or whose location is not known will be presumed to be a non-United States person unless such person can be positively identified as a United States person."

“If it later appears that a target is in fact located in the US,” The Guardian reports, “analysts are permitted to look at the content of messages, or listen to phone calls, to establish if this is indeed the case.”

On Wednesday this week, NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake told RT that the FISA authorization process operates essentially as “a rubber stamp court,” and said, “The oversight is simply an artificial mechanism to give the appearance of oversight.”

“They’ve basically unhinged themselves from the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution,” Drake said.

[Homer_Rice]

Doesn't walk the walk...

 

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6fnfVJzZT4[/media]

[Khatmandude]

Doesn't walk the walk...

 

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6fnfVJzZT4[/media]

 

Makes me sick to watch that....

[BengalBacker]

And you guys wonder why some of us are cold dead handers.

[Homer_Rice]

And you guys wonder why some of us are cold dead handers.

What I am curious about is how easily one can skate past every civilized remedy right into a Hobbesian nightmare and call it a solution.

[|Elflocko|]

And you guys wonder why some of us are cold dead handers.

 

Oh, we get it.  "Some of us" just understand that your tiny, ego-boosting arsenal would be fucking worthless if the government and whatever corporate puppet who happens to be in power decides to take you out.

 

But I'm sure that your fully automatic fully loaded thingamajig will make you feel great as a predator drone blows up your house from 20 miles away.

 

Whatever makes you feel better...

[|Bengal Migration|]

And you guys wonder why some of us are cold dead handers.

Not really. I'll own a gun as soon as (if) I get back home. But it's not gonna do much good against a drone, I'm afraid..

[BengalBacker]

What I am curious about is how easily one can skate past every civilized remedy right into a Hobbesian nightmare and call it a solution.

 

I never said it was a solution, but it is a right to protect yourself and your family. Your stance always seems to be, if we're all nice to each other and help each other out, there's no need to have a gun. Wonderful sentiment and lofty goal, but there are a lot of scenarios where it ignores what I think is reality in favor of wishing for the best.

[BengalBacker]

 

Oh, we get it.  "Some of us" just understand that your tiny, ego-boosting arsenal would be fucking worthless if the government and whatever corporate puppet who happens to be in power decides to take you out.

 

But I'm sure that your fully automatic fully loaded thingamajig will make you feel great as a predator drone blows up your house from 20 miles away.

 

Whatever makes you feel better...

 

 

If that's truly what you think, your outrage should be directed at the government who you think would turn its own military against good citizens who believe in their constitutional rights.

[|Elflocko|]

 

 

If that's truly what you think, your outrage should be directed at the government who you think would turn its own military against good citizens who believe in their constitutional rights.

 

In case you haven't noticed, this country has a long sordid history of turning against its own citizens.  If not to that fact, to what was your shrill, hollow, YOU'LL TAKE IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!!!!!!!11111!!!!!!1!!1!!! referring...?   :mellow:

[BengalBacker]

 

In case you haven't noticed, this country has a long sordid history of turning against its own citizens.  If not to that fact, to what was your shrill, hollow, YOU'LL TAKE IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!!!!!!!11111!!!!!!1!!1!!! referring...?   :mellow:

 

Oh I know they might do it, otherwise I wouldn't feel so strongly about the second amendment.

 

Shrill? Hollow? All CAPS AND BIG FONT?

 

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

 

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

 

 

(take out all the god crap)

[|Elflocko|]

 

Oh I know they might do it, otherwise I wouldn't feel so strongly about the second amendment.

 

Shrill? Hollow? All CAPS AND BIG FONT?

 

 

(take out all the god crap)

 

First, I apologize for the snark; we had just gotten home from a party and I need to learn to stay the hell out of this forum when I've been drinking.

 

I just don't understand your obsession with firearms and never will...

[Homer_Rice]

 

I never said it was a solution, but it is a right to protect yourself and your family. Your stance always seems to be, if we're all nice to each other and help each other out, there's no need to have a gun. Wonderful sentiment and lofty goal, but there are a lot of scenarios where it ignores what I think is reality in favor of wishing for the best.

 

Oh, c'mon now. All your "hunker in a bunker" scenarios are apocalyptic fantasy. What remains unclear to me is whether or not you understand this. And while there are many fine works of fiction that explore that premise, the real world--or reality, if you will--depends upon a different set of standards. Among those standards are values built up over thousands of years of history which urge that humans act (as much as possible) in accordance with the divine and not succumb to all this lowest common denominator violence porn. Cold, dead hands, my ass. The best defense for your family is a healthy society which reveres due process of law. The best defense for your family is an enlightened understanding that we help the weak and seek to uplift the poor. The best defense for your family insists upon providing not only an education for its population but also equitable employment as well as other, more recreational means of making a life worth living.

 

Our society is imperfect. And while that is occasionally a cause for dismay, we do have some very positive attributes in our culture. Ignore (or be ignorant of) these at one's peril.

 

In any case, your characterization of my supposed outlook puts me in mind of Hamlet's pithy statement to Horatio:

 

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

 

And while that quote rocks (!) it is also true that folks often miss the point. Horatio is the more or less impartial observer to Hamlet's devolution into madness. Horatio is not a slave to his passions, as Hamlet is. And most of all, as Marcellus tells Horatio earlier in that same play: "There is something rotten in the state of Denmark." And that's true. But what many people forget is that by the time Hamlet finishes acting out his fantasies, Denmark is well and truly fucked.

 

 

They tell us, sir,...

<snip>

give me liberty or give me death!

Learn a little more of Henry's life, for crying out loud. There is as bit more to him than this fine bit of rhetoric.

[Jamie_B]

 

 

If that's truly what you think, your outrage should be directed at the government who you think would turn its own military against good citizens who believe in their constitutional rights.

 

 

When those citizens think they need to skirt those constitutional rights because they think 2nd amendment remedies are a better solution.....

[Jamie_B]

 

Oh, c'mon now. All your "hunker in a bunker" scenarios are apocalyptic fantasy. What remains unclear to me is whether or not you understand this. And while there are many fine works of fiction that explore that premise, the real world--or reality, if you will--depends upon a different set of standards. Among those standards are values built up over thousands of years of history which urge that humans act (as much as possible) in accordance with the divine and not succumb to all this lowest common denominator violence porn. Cold, dead hands, my ass. The best defense for your family is a healthy society which reveres due process of law. The best defense for your family is an enlightened understanding that we help the weak and seek to uplift the poor. The best defense for your family insists upon providing not only an education for its population but also equitable employment as well as other, more recreational means of making a life worth living.

 

Our society is imperfect. And while that is occasionally a cause for dismay, we do have some very positive attributes in our culture. Ignore (or be ignorant of) these at one's peril.

 

In any case, your characterization of my supposed outlook puts me in mind of Hamlet's pithy statement to Horatio:

 

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

 

And while that quote rocks (!) it is also true that folks often miss the point. Horatio is the more or less impartial observer to Hamlet's devolution into madness. Horatio is not a slave to his passions, as Hamlet is. And most of all, as Marcellus tells Horatio earlier in that same play: "There is something rotten in the state of Denmark." And that's true. But what many people forget is that by the time Hamlet finishes acting out his fantasies, Denmark is well and truly fucked.

 

 

Learn a little more of Henry's life, for crying out loud. There is as bit more to him than this fine bit of rhetoric.

 

 

Pretty much this.

 

In fact fiscal conservatives should be in favor of the educational aspect of homers post for this reason

 

http://www.cpbn.org/pressrelease/education-vs-incarceration-real-cost-failing-our-kids

[Jim Finklestein]

RUN SNOWDEN, RUN!! Hope he gets to Ecuador.

[Jim Finklestein]

I guess this is a good place to put this.  Certainly food for thought..  Hours before his accident, Michael Hastings emailed his staff saying he would have to "go off the radar" for a while because the FBI was investigating him and that he was working on a big story.  I would normally have shrugged off a story like this in the past, but recent events have made me scratch my chin.

 

Story here:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/22/michael-hastings-email_n_3484118.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

[Jim Finklestein]

I follow him on facebook.

 

Robert Reich

"A PR bonanza for China and Russia," is how one CNN commentator puts it; Fox calls it "a major embarrassment for the President." The're referring to Snowden's journey from Hong Kong to Moscow to Havana. But the real embarrassment and concern should be the continuing inadquacy of safeguards on the U.S. government's systemic spying on Americans. Apologists say there's no evidence of abuse. Of course not. How could there be? The 11 judges who approve NSA requests for information are appointed by the Chief Justice in secret. Their decisions are made in secret, without any public record. They cannot be reviewed or overruled. I don't believe the Obama administration has abused its authority but how can we be sure? And what about a future administration? The 4th Amendment was designed to protect American citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures; the Framers of the Constitution understood that a democracy cannot function if people are unwilling to criticize their government for fear of recrimination. Snowden's escape is riveting. But the lack of safeguards on government snooping is chilling.