It Wasn't Spying - It Was A Legitimate Investigation

(Caricature of Donald Trump is by DonkeyHotey.)

Donald Trump first tried to claim the Mueller Report exonerated him completely, but that didn't last long because people can read -- and the portion of the report that was released was devastating. Now he is trying another lie.

He is saying that there was no need for an investigation in the first place, and that the FBI had simply spied on his campaign because the Democrats paid for the Steele Dossier which was untrue and used as a justification for the spying.

First, while not everything in the Steele Dossier has been verified, most of it has, and nothing in it has been proven to be untrue.

Second, the investigation was not started because of the Steele Dossier. It was started because a Trump campaign aide got drunk in a bar and bragged to Australian officials about all the contacts with Russia that the campaign had. The Australians reported that to the FBI, who found it credible enough to investigate.

Third, there was no spying on the Trump campaign. There was a legitimate investigation to determine if officials were conspiring with Russia to harm the United States (and it's allies) -- and nothing was done without the approval of FISA judges.

Here is some of what former federal prosecutor Liam Brennan had to say in The New York Times:

In Mr. Trump’s case, the F.B.I. started its investigation in July 2016, after Australia informed the United States that Mr. Papadopoulos claimed that Russia had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. The F.B.I. used an undercover investigator — the research assistant, who went by the name Azra Turk — and Stefan Halper, a professor in Britain and longtime informant, to make contact with Mr. Papadopoulos (Mr. Halper also made contact with two other campaign officials, Sam Clovis and Carter Page).

In light of the information coming from Australia, this conduct was actually a relatively unintrusive way to start an investigation. . . .

In its investigation into Russia’s potential connection to the Trump campaign, the F.B.I. obtained warrants to surveil the communications of Mr. Page and the campaign chairman Paul Manafort. The F.B.I. sought the wiretaps from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, rather than a district court, because the applications contained sensitive foreign intelligence information. Ordinarily, to get to the FISA Court, the agents prepare an application and send it for review to the supervisor, the chief division counsel, the special agent in charge and then a unit supervisor at F.B.I. headquarters. It then goes to the National Security Division at the Justice Department for a verification procedure before arriving at a FISA judge who does a review of the material to see whether surveillance is warranted. In Mr. Page’s case, most of the judges reviewing his application were actually Republican appointees.

The process of obtaining a FISA warrant to wiretap is slightly different from the process used in a district court, but the authorized surveillance technique — in other words, the “spying” — is the same. Again, this is a common investigatory method when the government can show probable cause to a court. The F.B.I. wiretapped Representative Rick Renzi in an extortion and racketeeringinvestigation. Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois was wiretapped trying to sell President Barack Obama’s former Senate seat. Associates of Mayor Joe Ganim of Bridgeport, Conn., were also secretly recorded in a wide-ranging corruption investigation. . . .

The “spying” rhetoric casts a cloud of illegitimacy over the Russia probe and the F.B.I. and undermines the special counsel’s findings. This is useful misdirection: Mr. Mueller’s conclusion that the Trump “campaign anticipated receiving derogatory documents and information from official Russian sources that could assist candidate Trump’s electoral prospects” challenges Mr. Barr’s declaration that the evidence showed “no collusion.” In that light, it’s not hard to see who’s serving the truth and who’s serving the president.

Nearly 3 Out Of 4 Republicans Are Remarkably Stupid

I seldom agree with Republicans on policy, but I was still shocked at the results of this poll. It seems that 72% of Republicans believe highly-ranked law enforcement officials (in FBI) broke the law to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president -- and 55% strongly believe that!

They believe Donald Trump's ridiculous accusation that the FBI planted a spy in his organization, and that spy was to gather information to keep Trump from becoming president.

This accusation simply makes no sense. If they wanted to prevent a Trump presidency, why did they wait until months after he was in office to admit there was an investigation starting in the summer of 2016 to see if the Trump campaign was colluding with a foreign government? Wouldn't it have made more sense to announce that before the election (like they did with the Clinton investigation)? Announcing the Clinton investigation and keeping the Trump investigation quiet seems to show the FBI actually was working in favor of Trump -- not against him.

Trump won the Electoral College by a razor-thin margin in a few states. If the FBI had really wanted to prevent his presidency, releasing information about their investigation before the election could easily have done that.

But common sense and facts are not things the current Republican base respect. They only care about the incessant flow of lies coming from the mouth of their orange demagogue. For them, whatever Trump says is true -- regardless of how ridiculous it is or how many facts prove it to be false.

The FBI has never embedded a spy in a presidential campaign, and they didn't do that with the Trump campaign. They were simply investigating some bragging by a Trump aide that Russia was providing help to the campaign. The FBI was just doing its job!

The chart above shows the result of a new Rasmussen Poll -- done on May 22nd and 23rd of a national sample of 1,000 likely voters, with a 3 point margin of error. The chart shows only the responses of Republicans.

-----------------------------------------------------------

And that's not the only stupid thing Republicans believe. As the chart below shows, 48% of Republicans (and 50% of Trump voters) still believe there were 3 to 5 million fraudulent votes cast in the 2016 election (which is the only reason their orange narcissist didn't win the popular vote) and another35% of both groups aren't sure. Once again, more than 3/4's show their idiocy. There is not a shred of evidence that even a hundred fraudulent votes were cast in 2016.

This chart is from a Huffington Post / YouGov Poll -- done between May 17th and 20th of a national sample of 1,000 voters, with a 3.7 point margin of error.

Trump Administration Actually Apologizes (Or Did They?)

Last Thursday, White House Press Secretary tried again to defend Trump's outrageous claim that President Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower. He told the press:

"Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command . . .didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he didn't use the FBI, and he didn't use the Department of Justice. He used GCHQ. What is that? It's the initials for the British Intelligence Spying Agency."

That was just another lie. And it was even a worse lie than Trump's original lie -- because it accused the British government, America's closest ally, of spying on the president-elect of the United States. It was a lie that could easily have damaged relations between the United States and Great Britain -- and the British were quick to deny it had ever happened.

The Trump administration is not viewed very favorably in Great Britain anyway. A large poll showed that a majority of the British public did not want Trump to visit their country, and the British parliament voted to ask the prime minister to rescind her invitation for Trump to visit. The Trump administration couldn't afford to further damage relations with Great Britain. That means an apology was in order.

But Trump, because of his serious narcissistic disorder, is incapable of apologizing for anything -- not for an outrageous lie nor an egregious mistake. He is quick to demand apologies from others, but absolutely refuses to apologize for his own errors.

A real president would have immediately picked up the phone and called the British prime minister, and issued a personal apology. That would have been the appropriate and ethical thing to do. But our narcissist-in-chief could not bring himself to do that -- not even to smooth over relations with our closest ally.

So, he sent two of his White House flunkies to do what he would not do -- apologize. General McMaster apologized to Sir Mark Lyall Grant, the prime minister's national security advisor. Sean Spicer apologized to Sir Kim Darroch, Britain's ambassador to the United States. The two flunkies also promised British officials that it would not happen again. Considering Trump's loose mouth, complete disregard for truth, and his chaotic administration, I doubt that's a promise that can be kept.

This is probably as close to an apology we'll ever hear from our liar-in-chief. Enjoy it, because it is unlikely to ever happen again.

NOTE -- It looks like I may have spoken too soon. Spicer is now saying he just "explained" the situation to Ambassador Darroch, but did not apologize -- and Trump is saying they did nothing to apologize for. He's wrong, of course.

I'm so ashamed that Trump is in the White House. To my British friends -- Your country is definitely owed an apology, but don't hold your breath.

Senate Renews Patriot Act (Under A Different Name)

(This image of NSA spying is by Occupy, and was found at Daily Tech.)

For one whole day it was illegal for the American government to spy on its citizens, as the Patriot Act expired at the end of May -- but the United States Senate (in a bill already approved by the House of Representatives) decided constitutional rights weren't nearly as important as security (i.e., spying on Americans).

Yesterday, the Senate approved the new spying bill (with its name changed from the Patriot Act to the USA Freedom Act -- a misnomer if there ever was one) on a 67 to 32 vote. And the most embarrassing thing is that only two Democrats voted against the terrible bill -- Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin. Every other Democrat voted to allow the NSA to continue its spying.

I know they are assuring us that they have fixed the bill, and the government will no longer be collecting massive amounts of data on Americans. But didn't they tell us the same thing when they passed the original Patriot Act? And that didn't seem to matter, since the NSA used the bill to spy on Americans. Why would it be different this time?

They tell us that the government would no longer be keeping the massive amounts of data being collected. That job would be turned over to private companies. What is the difference? The government can still access that data by asking a secret court for it (and if you think that secret court would turn the government down, then I have some ocean-front property here in Amarillo that I'll sell you real cheap).

I was tempted to congratulate the 30 Republicans who voted against the bill, but it turns out only a few of them voted that way to protect citizens rights -- most of them voted against the bill because they want a stronger bill, with more spying.

Either those in Congress are complete fools (and don't understand what they've done), or they just don't care about the constitutional rights of American citizens -- maybe both. It's time to replace most of these idiots -- in both parties.

(This cartoon image is by Stuart Carlson at carlsontoons.com.)

Green Party Supports USA Freedom Act - Calls For More

Green Party Shadow Cabinet member Shahid Buttar issued the following statement on October 8th:

The Green Shadow Cabinet joined dozens of grassroots advocacy organizations from across the political spectrum, comprising a diverse array of organizations representing millions of Americans from every region of the country signing a letter to Congress calling for substantial reforms to surveillance authorities. The letter initiated by the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC), supports the USA FREEDOM Act, but recognizes that while the legislation would be a step in the right direction, it does not go nearly far enough to protect fundamental constitutional rights.

The letter states, that “[w]hile we hope the USA FREEDOM Act would impose restraints on mass violations by the NSA and FBI, we recognize that, as currently drafted, S. 2685 fails to address [several specific] vital concerns.” It specifically notes several surveillance authorities left unconstrained by the USA FREEDOM Act, such as Internet surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the back door search loophole, and domestic spying conducted in secret under Executive Order 12333. The letter also addresses checks and balances, noting the need to overcome judicial deference to illegitimate executive secrecy, the broken classification system, and inadequate protections for whistleblowers.

Shahid Buttar, Green Shadow Cabinet Civil Rights Enforcement Director, and BORDC’s executive director, said, “Voices from every region of the U.S., and across the political spectrum, agree that Congress must stop the NSA dragnet. This coalition letter represents the united voice of diverse Americans who want our rights back.”

Green Shadow Cabinet Attorney General, Kevin Zeese, commented that, "The Congress has thus far turned a blind eye toward the dragnet surveillance of the NSA that turns constitutional protections from unreasonable searches on its head. The passage of this first step will only begin to correct the problems of NSA surveillance, and much more is needed. Indeed, on the agenda for Congress should be disbanding the NSA, which does more to harm than help the security of the United States and its people.”

Read more on the People's Blog for the Constitution - Here

Good News For An American Hero

If Edward Snowden hadn't revealed secret NSA files, the American people would still not know that the U.S. government was conducting a massive spying operation against its own citizens. He did the American people a big favor by exposing this illegal spying, and should be considered a hero by all freedom-loving people in this country.

But the federal government does not like to be embarrassed by having its illegal actions brought to light, and they will go to great lengths to severely punish anyone who exposes those misdeeds. And that is what they are trying to do to Snowden -- punish him severely for embarrassing the government.

The government claims he harmed this country by revealing the secret spying on American citizens. That is pure bull. Nobody was harmed -- just some bureaucrats embarrassed. Now they want to throw him in prison for most of the rest of his life. They claim he will get a fair trial, but if anyone believes that then I wish you would contact me -- because I have some nice oceanfront property in Amarillo that I'll give you a great deal on.

Fortunately, Snowden is not stupid enough to think he would be treated fairly by the federal government. He has fled the country, and is currently residing in Russia (the first country that offered him refuge). Some other countries have offered him permanent residence, but the U.S. and its European buddies have refused to let any plane carry him to any of those countries (mostly in South America).

Snowden's permission to stay in Russia expired on August 1st, and for a few days he was in limbo -- not knowing what would happen. But it has now been announced that the permission to stay in Russia (and continue his work in computer technology) has been extended for another three years. And if he chooses to do so, he can apply for Russian citizenship.

This is good news -- but hopefully, someday the U.S. government will come to its senses and allow him to come home without punishment, recognizing that he really has done a great favor to the citizens of this country.

(The caricature of Edward Snowden above is by DonkeyHotey.)

Green Party Says Snowden Couldn't Get A Fair Trial In U.S.

Most of the politicians in this country, of both parties, like to pose as though they are shocked about the massive spying on U.S. citizens done by the NSA, but the truth is that they are just embarrassed that the government (which they oversee) was caught doing it. If they were truly shocked at the spying and opposed to it, they would be lauding Edward Snowden as a hero instead of calling him a criminal and wanting to jail him. These politicians just want to string him up as an example to future whistleblowers who might be tempted to expose federal crimes to the people of this country. They say he would get a fair trial if he returned. I don't believe that -- and neither does the Green Party. Here's what Green Party Shadow Cabinet member Kevin Zeese had to say in an article released on July 8th:

Edward Snowden submitting to prosecution in the United States, would be like Alice going into the courtroom in Wonderland.

Alice stood before the King and Queen of Hearts who served as the judges. Knaves were chained on the ground before them. The jurors, Alice realizes are ‘stupid things.’ The first witness against her was the Mad Hatter who is as mad as the culture he represents. The guinea pigs who protest are immediately “suppressed” by having the mouths tied up and being put into a bag and sat on by the King so their protests cannot be heard. The most important evidence in the trial was secret, a poem for which the author is unknown and concludes:

For this must ever be a secret,
Kept from all the rest,
Between yourself and me.

Alice realized the courtroom; with the icons of a justice system – a judge, jury, witnesses – was really a sham that mocks a legitimate legal process.  To confirm her realization the King said after the meaningless secret poetry evidence, that it was “the most important piece of evidence” and “Let the jury consider their verdict.” The Queen retorts “No, no!  Sentence first; verdict afterwards.”

Last week former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined with the current Secretary of State John Kerry in urging Edward Snowden to come home and face prosecution. 

Clinton told The Guardian that he should “return knowing he would be held accountable and also able to present a defense.” When asked about whether he could really present a defense, Clinton said:

“In any case that I’m aware of as a former lawyer, he has a right to mount a defense. And he certainly has a right to launch both a legal defense and a public defense, which can of course affect the legal defense.”

In fact, under current U.S. law Snowden would face a criminal process with virtually no defense, a pre-ordained outcome and he would be silenced during the process. The law he would be charged under, the Espionage Act, provides for no real defense and the due process afforded would be inadequate resulting in an unfair trial and lengthy sentence.

On June 14th federal prosecutors in Alexandria, VA filed espionage charges against Edward Snowden. Snowden became the eighth person to be charged under the 1917 Espionage Act during the Obama presidency, more than double all previous presidents combined. As a result there is recent experience with how these cases are prosecuted. Under the three current felony charges Snowden faces up to 30 years in prison. The prosecutors could add additional charges when Snowden is indicted.

Recent court decisions, including the prosecution of Chelsea Manning, have interpreted the Espionage Act to not to require proof that the person accused intended to commit espionage. If the person intended to blow the whistle on illegal activity and was acting in the public interest, as in the case of Snowden and the NSA, that would not be a defense.

It would not be relevant that former U.S. intelligence officials had given Snowden an award for integrity in intelligence. The fact that a judge on the FISA surveillance court, David Saylor, acknowledged “The unauthorized disclosure . . . have engendered considerable public interest and debate…” Even the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, acknowledged “I think it’s clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen.” And, that the reporters who worked with Snowden to publish the documents won the top journalism award, the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. All of this would not be relevant under the Espionage Act.

The jury would not be allowed to consider how the leaks were a public service, not espionage. Almost certainly, the judge in Snowden’s prosecution would not allow any arguments along those lines and exclude all such evidence. Unlike other criminal laws violation of the Espionage Act is a strict liability law -- there is no defense for a whistleblower who has admitted they leaked the documents, i.e. the fact of the leak is espionage even if the intent was to serve the public interest by exposing crimes by the government. As a result, even though Snowden was not a spy committing espionage -- in the traditional sense of the term as someone spying for a foreign enemy -- the law could still be applied to him. 

In addition, rather than due process allowing a legitimate defense as is required by the Constitution, his trial would rely on warped procedures that actually prevent the basics of a fair trial. It is very likely that Snowden would be denied bail and held in prison pending trial despite the constitution providing for a right to bail, especially since he fled the nation and sought political asylum in a foreign country. Being incarcerated pending trial makes mounting a defense very difficult and would result in communication with the public and the media being impossible. Clinton has it backward, unlike his current situation, where Snowden can explain himself and the importance of documents being released, he would be silenced.

As in the Manning and other national security cases, it is likely that much of the evidence in the trial will be classified as secret which will limit the number of people who can see it and result in the public and the media not being shown all of the evidence, despite the Constitution requiring a public trial.  As in the case of Chelsea Manning, large portions of the trial will be out of public view because the government will claim national security secrets will be breached if the trial were a completely public trial. This will keep the public uninformed of the real nature of the facts and in the dark when the inevitable conviction results. Pundits supporting the security state will say “well, you can’t criticize the verdict because you do not know what the judge and jury knew; you did not see all the evidence.”

Finally, the trial will be held in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. This is where the grand jury has been based.  The jurisdiction of this court includes the Pentagon, Pentagon City, Crystal City and Rosslyn, areas concentrated with military, security and intelligence contractors as well as people working in the Pentagon and their relatives. The Alexandria federal court is known to be very much a pro-security state court in part because of the make-up of the jury pool. Is this the “impartial jury” the Constitution envisions?  Thus, it will be impossible for Snowden to get a fair trial. 

Why should Snowden submit to a judicial process that would so unfair and obviously unjust? Surely Clinton, a former lawyer, and Kerry are well aware that Snowden would be prosecuted in a phony Kangaroo court where the deck would be stacked against him and the process would be unfair, so their comments are false rhetoric, like Kerry calling on Snowden to “man-up,” comments designed to confuse the public. They know that what they are suggesting would result in Snowden facing an unfair prosecution with a pre-ordained conviction resulting in a lengthy sentence.

Should Edward Snowden submit to this mocking of legitimate trials, where there is no real due process or any opportunity to prove his innocence? That is what U.S. security state trials have become. A sham of justice, something that Edward Snowden should never submit to.

Kerry Trashes His Liberal Persona By Attacking Snowden

Secretary of State John Kerry has a proud liberal past -- from his involvement with the anti-war movement as a decorated veteran to his service for years in the United States Senate. But his ridiculous response to Edward Snowden's TV appearance made him look more like a right-wing apologist.

After Snowden gave an interview to NBC News, Kerry felt it necessary to try and denigrate Snowden, instead of taking the high road and just letting the rather tepid interview fade away. Taking a person shot at Snowden, Kerry said:

"This is a man who has betrayed his country."

"He should man up and come back to the US."

"The fact is, he has damaged his country very significantly. I find it sad and disgraceful."

Frankly I had thought Kerry was better than that. I guess I was wrong. Snowden did not "betray his country". He was a whistleblower who exposed the massive and unconstitutional spying the United States government was doing on its own citizens. That spying was a clear abuse of the nefarious Patriot Act, and showed that both Presidents Bush and Obama had been lying when they said assured Americans that they were not being spied upon. Snowden is a hero who struck a blow for the constitutional rights of all Americans. I understand that Kerry was just trying to defend the government as its representative, but in saying Snowden "betrayed" his country, Kerry abandons his own progressive principles.

As for the statement that Snowden should "man up and come back", I consider that to be an unnecessary and rather cowardly statement. It's easy for a man in a powerful position like Kerry to make fun of someone else, but we all know that there's no way Snowden could get a fair trial from the United States government if he did come back. Snowden embarrassed some powerful people, and they want their revenge. They have poisoned the public view of Snowden, and there is no way any trial blow could be considered just.

I will go along with the "sad and disgraceful" part -- not for Snowden, but for Presidents Bush and Obama (both of whom owe the American people a big apology for spying on them). When the Patriot Act was passed, progressives warned that it would be abused by the government and used against American citizens. That has been proven to be true (and is probably still happening).

In attacking Snowden in this way, John Kerry is trashing his own proud liberal past. He should be embarrassed.

(The caricatures of Edward Snowden and John Kerry are by DonkeyHotey.)

Repeal The Patriot Act And Stop Spying On U.S. Citizens

(The cartoon image above is by Nate Beeler in The Columbus Dispatch.)

"Too many people have been spied upon by too many Government agencies and too much information has been collected. The Government has often undertaken the secret surveillance of citizens on the basis of their political beliefs, even when those beliefs posed no threat of violence or illegal acts on behalf of a hostile foreign power. . .

Governmental officials -- including those whose principal duty is to enforce the law --have violated or ignored the law over long periods of time and have advocated and defended their right to break the law.

The Constitutional system of checks and balances has not adequately controlled intelligence activities. Until recently the Executive branch has neither delineated the scope of permissible activities nor established procedures for supervising intelligence agencies. Congress has failed to exercise sufficient oversight, seldom questioning the use to which its appropriations were being put. Most domestic intelligence issues have not reached the courts, and in those cases when they have reached the courts, the judiciary has been reluctant to grapple with them."

Those words could be describing the massive government spying on its own citizens that the U.S. government is doing today, but they're actually from a report by the Church Committee in 1976 (U.S. Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities). The idea of the U.S. government illegally and unconstitutionally spying on American citizens is not new. The government has been doing that for decades now. The COINTELPRO program by the FBI back in the 60's and early 70's gathered information on over a million citizens -- and it was just one of many spying programs the government was engaging in.

But as egregious and unconstitutional as these programs were, they look like a drop in the bucket when compared to the massive spying on U.S. citizens that is currently happening. The federal intelligence and policing agencies saw a golden opportunity after the 9/11 tragedy in 2001, and they used that tragedy to con Congress and the American people into thinking more spying was needed to protect this country from "terrorism". Congress responded by passing the Patriot Act and the public accepted it -- both out of fear, and without realizing the awesome and unconstitutional power they were granting the government.

The government promised that they would not use these new powers to spy on American citizens, but just to gather information on foreign nationals who posed a danger to the United States. They lied. No government power ever goes unused, and they had been given the power to spy on (gather data on) hundreds of millions of people -- both citizens and non-citizens. And that's just what they did. They collected and stored data on untold millions of American citizens -- and they did it in secret and without getting a search warrant (as required by the Constitution). And most people were blissfully ignorant of this until it was exposed by Edward Snowden.

Now that the massive spying on citizens has been exposed, the government is trying to do a little public relations to repair their image. The president (and some members of Congress) recently revealed a plan to introduce legislation that would stop the government storage of this "meta-data", and would leave that storage to the various telecommunications companies (who supposedly could destroy it after some undetermined period of time). The idea is to convince American citizens that the massive spying is going to stop, but the truth is that the government will still have access (secretly) to all of the same information.

This proposed bill is akin to putting a band-aid on a bullet wound -- it might do a tiny bit of good, but it falls far short of fixing the problem and the patient (democracy) will probably still die. Much more needs to be done, and nothing less than a full repeal of the Patriot Act . Some will say that the law is needed to protect this country -- but you don't protect a democracy by turning it into a police state (where the government can spy on its citizens at will).

Public Is Not Buying In To Obama's NSA Spying Changes

(This caricature of President Obama is by DonkeyHotey.)

A few weeks ago Edward Snowden revealed the extent of the NSA's spying on American citizens. And while many didn't like what Snowden did, most Americans were shocked at the abuse by the NSA of the Patriot Act and the extent of their spying on American citizens (something we were assured would not happen when the law was passed).

Stung by the revelation of the massive spying, President Obama recently assured Americans that he was making changes to the program that would protect the privacy rights of Americans. Unfortunately, the "changes" proposed by the president amounted to nothing more than window dressing. The government will still have access to whatever information it wants, that access will still be secret, and citizens will not be able to know if or when they are being speed upon. In short, there is absolutely no reason to believe any privacy rights will be protected.

The president was just trying to soothe voters, while leaving the vast spying apparatus in tact. But the American people aren't as stupid as he evidently thought they were. The results of a new survey by the Pew Research Center (done between January 15th and 19th of 1,504 nationwide adults, with a margin of error of 2.9 points) shows a huge majority of the American public doesn't believe the proposed changes will do anything to protect citizen privacy rights.

Note also that this refusal to believe those changes will protect privacy rights crosses all political lines. Republicans (86%), Independents (78%), and Democrats (56%) all have significant majorities believing the changes will make no difference. And there is a vast 52 point difference between those in the public at large who say it will make no difference (73%) and those who think it will offer protection for rights (21%).

President Obama's attempt to reassure the public has failed. And even more important perhaps, it has also failed to stem the growing tide of opposition to the NSA spying program. Note in the chart below that opposition to the NSA spying has grown in the last few months in every demographic group. Personally, I hope this opposition continues to grow. Maybe then we can finally get rid of the odious (and unconstitutional) Patriot Act.

Edward Snowden - Heroic Whistleblower Or Traitor ?

(This image of Edward Snowden is from the flickr.com page of DonkeyHotey.)

A few months ago, Edward Snowden started releasing secret government information. That information confirmed what many has suspected -- that the U.S. government, through the NSA, was conducting a massive spying program on it's own citizens. This spying violated the constitutional rights of American citizens, and showed the government had lied when it said it would not use the Patriot Act to spy on Americans. It also showed the need for more safeguards in this technical age to protect citizen privacy.

After starting to release this information, Mr. Snowden had to leave this country to avoid being charged with a crime (and probably put in prison for the rest of his life). He currently is living in Russia. This poses a question that Americans should decide for themselves. Is Snowden a heroic whistleblower who should be praised, or is he a traitorous criminal who should be prosecuted?

I have made no secret of how I feel on this blog. I believe he is an American hero, who acted to defend the rights of American citizens. And it looks like I'm not alone in that belief. In a recent editorial at the New York Times, the editorial board of that newspaper came to the same conclusion. Here is some of what they said:

Considering the enormous value of the information he has revealed, and the abuses he has exposed, Mr. Snowden deserves better than a life of permanent exile, fear and flight. He may have committed a crime to do so, but he has done his country a great service. It is time for the United States to offer Mr. Snowden a plea bargain or some form of clemency that would allow him to return home, face at least substantially reduced punishment in light of his role as a whistle-blower, and have the hope of a life advocating for greater privacy and far stronger oversight of the runaway intelligence community.

Mr. Snowden is currently charged in a criminal complaintwith two violations of the Espionage Act involving unauthorized communication of classified information, and a charge of theft of government property. Those three charges carry prison sentences of 10 years each, and when the case is presented to a grand jury for indictment, the government is virtually certain to add more charges, probably adding up to a life sentence that Mr. Snowden is understandably trying to avoid.

The president said in August that Mr. Snowden should come home to face those charges in court and suggested that if Mr. Snowden had wanted to avoid criminal charges he could have simply told his superiors about the abuses, acting, in other words, as a whistle-blower.

“If the concern was that somehow this was the only way to get this information out to the public, I signed an executive order well before Mr. Snowden leaked this information that provided whistle-blower protection to the intelligence community for the first time,” Mr. Obama said at a news conference. “So there were other avenues available for somebody whose conscience was stirred and thought that they needed to question government actions.”

In fact, that executive order did not apply to contractors, only to intelligence employees, rendering its protections useless to Mr. Snowden. More important, Mr. Snowden told The Washington Post earlier this month that he did report his misgivings to two superiors at the agency, showing them the volume of data collected by the N.S.A., and that they took no action. (The N.S.A. says there is no evidence of this.) That’s almost certainly because the agency and its leaders don’t consider these collection programs to be an abuse and would never have acted on Mr. Snowden’s concerns.

In retrospect, Mr. Snowden was clearly justified in believing that the only way to blow the whistle on this kind of intelligence-gathering was to expose it to the public and let the resulting furor do the work his superiors would not. Beyond the mass collection of phone and Internet data, consider just a few of the violations he revealed or the legal actions he provoked:

■ The N.S.A. broke federal privacy laws, or exceeded its authority, thousands of times per year, according to the agency’s own internal auditor.

■ The agency broke into the communications links of major data centers around the world, allowing it to spy on hundreds of millions of user accounts and infuriating the Internet companies that own the centers. Many of those companies are now scrambling to install systems that the N.S.A. cannot yet penetrate.

■ The N.S.A. systematically undermined the basic encryption systems of the Internet, making it impossible to know if sensitive banking or medical data is truly private, damaging businesses that depended on this trust.

■ His leaks revealed that James Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, lied to Congress when testifying in March that the N.S.A. was not collecting data on millions of Americans. (There has been no discussion of punishment for that lie.)

■ The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court rebuked the N.S.A. for repeatedly providing misleading information about its surveillance practices, according to a ruling made public because of the Snowden documents. One of the practices violated the Constitution, according to the chief judge of the court.

■ A federal district judge ruled earlier this month that the phone-records-collection program probably violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. He called the program “almost Orwellian” and said there was no evidence that it stopped any imminent act of terror.

The shrill brigade of his critics say Mr. Snowden has done profound damage to intelligence operations of the United States, but none has presented the slightest proof that his disclosures really hurt the nation’s security. Many of the mass-collection programs Mr. Snowden exposed would work just as well if they were reduced in scope and brought under strict outside oversight, as the presidential panel recommended.

When someone reveals that government officials have routinely and deliberately broken the law, that person should not face life in prison at the hands of the same government. That’s why Rick Ledgett, who leads the N.S.A.’s task force on the Snowden leaks, recently told CBS News that he would consider amnesty if Mr. Snowden would stop any additional leaks. And it’s why President Obama should tell his aides to begin finding a way to end Mr. Snowden’s vilification and give him an incentive to return home.

The American "Split-Personality" On NSA Spying Exposure And Edward Snowden

(The photo above is by Jim Lo Scalzo and is from the New York Times website.)

I posted yesterday about the decision of a federal judge that the massive spying on American citizens being done by the NSA is unconstitutional. I agree with that decision -- and because of that, I consider Edward Snowden to be a whistleblower hero. If it were not for Mr. Snowden, Americans would still be unaware of the spying being done on them by the NSA.

And there is now evidence that the American people think it was a good thing that this spying was exposed. A new Rasmussen Poll (done on December 14th and 15th by questioning 1,000 nationwide likely voters, with a margin of error of 3 points) shows that 59% of Americans, a significant majority, think it is a good thing that the huge NSA program of spying on Americans was exposed.

Now a reasonable person would think that since a majority of Americans like the spying exposure, and a federal judge has declared it to be unconstitutional, then most people would be ready to admit Mr. Snowden was a heroic whistleblower -- and that the government should consider giving him an amnesty from prosecution for performing this heroic act.

After all, there are only two ways of looking at this. Either the spying exposure was a good thing, and Snowden is a hero who should be given amnesty -- or the spying exposure was a bad thing, and Snowden is a traitor who should be prosecuted. But Americans seem to have a split-personality on this issue. While a significant majority thinks Snowden's exposure of the spying was a good thing, very few of them would call him a hero (12%), or think he should be given amnesty (21%).

To me, this is illogical. I don't understand how anyone could think the exposure should be considered a good thing, but Snowden was a bad person for doing it (and should be prosecuted). Some might say that while it was a good thing, it was still against the law, and that's why he should be punished. I disagree. If it's against the law to expose unconstitutional behavior by our government, then that is a bad law -- and it should be nullified, not enforced.

A Federal Judge Finally Recognizes The Unconstitutionality of Government Spying

(The cartoon image above is by Dave Granlund at davegranlund.com.)

After the tragic happenings on September 11th of 2001, the United States government acted out of fear, and with no regard for the constitutional rights of American citizens -- rights that the Founding Fathers considered important enough to put into writing. They passed the Patriot Act -- a law that allowed government agencies to bypass the "probable cause" safeguards that required a court order before invading the privacy of any person in this country.

Of course, the government assured citizens that the new law would not be used to spy on American citizens. They said those new powers would only be used to keep track of foreign terrorists, and Americans would only be spied on if they were in contact with those foreign terrorists. They lied! As is usual with government, any government, they abused their new powers -- taking them to the extreme, and spying on millions of American citizens (who were not terrorists, and had no contact with terrorists).

And they did it in secret. Although many of us on the left (along with many Libertarians) had expected this, and had warned our fellow citizens that abuses would occur and the Constitution would be violated, the enormous extent of the government spying was not known until Edward Snowden exposed it to the world. The government tried to label him a criminal (as did many on the right), but the truth is that he was just a whistleblower, who loved his country enough to risk his own safety and freedom to expose the massive and unconstitutional spying on citizens by the government.

Once this spying was exposed, one would have expected that our elected officials would act to curb it. But they didn't. They did nothing except to make excuses (out of fear that speaking out for constitutional rights would end their political careers). Personally, I consider them cowards, who violated their oath of office by harming instead of defending the Constitution.

Fortunately, there is at least one federal judge with the integrity and political courage to defend and uphold the Constitution. Judge Richard J. Leon, a George Bush appointee to the United States District Court in the District of Columbia, declared the massive NSA spying program to be unconstitutional yesterday, and issued a restraining order to stop the spying (although he stayed that order to allow the government time to appeal). Judge Leon said:

"I cannot imagine a more 'indiscriminate' and 'arbitrary invasion' than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval. Surely, such a program infringes on 'that degree of privacy' that the Founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment."

The judge is right. Of course this is not the end of the fight for our constitutional right of privacy. The government will undoubtably appeal (since no government willingly gives up any power it has seized). We just have to hope now that there are more judges (at the appeals level and on the Supreme Court, where this will eventually go) with the integrity, intelligence, political courage, and love of country demonstrated by Judge Leon.

There's No Limit To United States Spying

The newest information to come to light out of the files released by Edward Snowden is that the United States was spying on our German friends -- including listening in on the phone line of German Chancellor Angela Merkel (pictured above). Merkel is mad as hell about it, and didn't believe President Obama when he called her to deny it.

This should not surprise anyone. We already knew the U.S. had spied on the French, and some are already saying we have done it to the British also. And a new newspaper report from The Guardian says the Italians are now accusing the U.S. of spying on them too. It would not surprise me at all if all of these reports are true. The United States has been spying on everyone -- both friend and foe. After all, if a government will spy on its own citizens (and we know that happened, and is probably still happening), what would stop them from doing it to everyone else?

The reason this was done is because of a flaw shared by all governments (of every kind), and that is that any government will do whatever it has the capability to do (and simple ethics and morality will not prevent that -- nor will the fact that it may not even make sense). And the American government has the awesome capability to spy on the entire world (or at least anyone in the world they want to spy on), so they do it -- and it does not make any difference which party is in the White House.

But why spy on our friends, instead of just our enemies? Simply because we have the capability to do it, but don't have the will-power to rein in that power. Now we will probably have to pay a price for that ridiculous spying on our friends. German officials are already questioning whether they want to enter into an economic trade agreement with the U.S. because of the spying. This will undoubtably affect our relationship with many nations in many ways.

The Patriot Act and our seemingly endless capabilities to eavesdrop of anyone anywhere should not be taken to have given our government an unlimited license to spy. The government should not be spying on its own citizens, and it should not be spying on friendly nations (because the negative effects will far outweigh any imagined benefit).

One of the most reasonable comments I have heard so far come from Senator Bernie Sanders, in a letter he wrote to President Obama about the spying. Bernie said:

“The strained relations with our allies as a result of wholesale NSA eavesdropping have impacted our ability to work with these countries in combating terrorism and advancing common economic goals. Clearly, in the complex and difficult world we now find ourselves, it is imperative that we try to improve our relations with friendly countries, not exacerbate them.”

“I hope you will work with me and other members of Congress in support of legislation that ends the current reckless activities of the NSA, and to develop policies which protect civil liberties and privacy rights while keeping our nation safe.”

If there is any good to come out of this mess, it is that maybe now these nations we consider friends will hesitate to back any future military invasions the U.S. wants to engage in on nations that pose no security risk to us (but are invaded just because we don't like their government, or their form of government). And maybe their hesitation will cause our own leaders to have second thoughts.

Green Party Blasts Secret "Black Budget"

While most Americans don't realize it, the budget items for the federal government that are openly debated don't cover the entire federal budget. There is a secret "black budget" that funds many intelligence activities (including spying on American citizens). And this is not a small budget, comprising at least $52.6 billion each year (and maybe much more). Here is what Green Party Shadow Cabinet member Marsha Coleman Adebayo had to say about this "black budget" in a missive written on September 18th:

The existence of a secret U.S. budget, amounting to a well-financed shadow government, used to spy on American citizens and monitor their daily activities, was always derisively consigned to insane conspiracy theorists. However, recent revelations by National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden have exposed details of the secret budgets used by the intelligence community, known as the “Black Budget.”

The reported amount of this budget is approximately $52.6 billion. These funds are in addition to the congressionally-approved budgets of the Armed Forces and the Department of Defense of $526.6 billion dollars for a total of more than half a trillion dollars. According to the National Priorities project: “In the Obama administration 2014 fiscal year, the administration is seeking a $526.6 billion budget for the Department of Defense, not including war funding or nuclear weapons activities at the Department of Energy.”

According to the Washington Post, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA) and National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) receive nearly 68% of the black budget. During a peacetime economy, the budgets of the five intelligence agencies have grown exponentially while funds for urban cities and social services have dwindled. For example, the CIA budget was increased to $14.7 billion dollars, a 56% increase since 2004. The NSA budget for domestic and international spying has increased to $10.8 billion dollars or 53% since 2004. The NRO, the office purportedly responsible for designing, building and operating the country’s imagery satellites increased its budget to $10.3 billion dollars or 12% increase since 2004. The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGIA) that provides imagery and map-based intelligence increased its budget to $4.9 billion dollars or an increase of 108% since 2004. Finally, in 2004 the General Defense Intelligence Program that conducts, collects and documents human and technical intelligence and media management within the DoD increased its budget to $4.4 billion dollars.

These kinds of intelligence organizations have operated in repressive government to control populations, such as East Germany’s Stasi organization that deterred dissent, free speech and basic civil liberties of its people. Edward Snowden’s revelations continue to inform and illuminate the American media and public about a government operating in the shadows without accountability to the people or any pretense of adhering to democratic principles. We can only assume that there are additional funds unreported within these secrecy organizations. Yet, the country suffers from high structural unemployment, skyrocketing poverty rates, inferior education for low-income communities, infrastructure decline and environmental degradation.

The recent 50th anniversary of the historic March on Washington reminds us of the FBI surveillance of Dr. Martin Luther King in the 1960s that escalated after the march under the pretext that he was affiliated with communist organizations. This FBI surveillance earned King the label of “the most dangerous Negro in America.” Had the U.S. civil rights movement that was celebrated on the National Mall with pomp and presidential ceremony occurred today, the $56.2 Billion dollar budget and its thousands of foot soldiers would have left no stone unturned to undermine and destroy the movement and its leaders.

As whistleblowers face life in prison, like Bradley Manning, or suffer exile, like Edward Snowden, we now have a glimpse into the biology of the U.S. shadow government that's viciousness abroad is matched by cruelty at home. It allows cities and populations like Detroit to decay while exhorting the rich culture of Motown and the African heritage that gave rise to the music that became a global anthem. Children, particularly black children, are perishing for lack of basic nutrition, disproportionate exposure to environmental toxins, a lack of access to quality education and an over exposure to societal violence continues while the national security state demands more power and money.

This week, the Huffington Post reports that, based on internal U.S. government documents, “the NSA in partnership with the British government, has secretly been unraveling encryption technology that billions of Internet users rely upon to keep their electronic messages and confidential data safe from prying eyes.”

Welcome to the world of the U.S. national security state.

Massive Gun Owner Database

One of the arguments against any new gun regulations that has been made is that it would be the first step toward the government compiling a database of all gun owners, which would make it easier for the government to then start seizing the guns of American citizens. It was a silly argument, but it worked -- because it frightened many gun owners into opposing any new regulation (even such a sensible law like checking the background of all people wanting to buy a firearm).

That argument is now a moot one though. The government doesn't have to compile such a database (if indeed, it ever wanted to do so), because the National Rifle Association (NRA) has already done that.

Now some of you may be saying that the NRA having that kind of database is much different from the government having one. I disagree. Do you really think the government couldn't access that NRA database anytime it wanted to (and probably without anyone knowing it)? The government is already secretly snooping on its citizens (through the internet and phone calls). Tapping into such a database would just be one tiny step further.

We've known that the NRA leaders are not very bright for a while now. But campaigning against a government database of gun owners, and then creating such a database, takes their stupidity to new and dazzling heights.

The Emerging American Police State

(This 2006 image of Daniel Ellsberg is by Jacob Appelbaum.)

Dr. Daniel Ellsberg is a personal hero of mine. Back in 1971, while he was working as a military analyst at the Rand Corporation, he released a secret military study on Vietnam (which became commonly known as the Pentagon Papers) to newspapers, including the New York Times. His action was very similar to those of modern whistleblowers Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning.

Ellsberg turned himself in in June of 1971. He said:

"I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision."

He was put on trial for espionage in 1973. But when it was learned that the federal government had wiretapped Ellsberg, and refused to submit those wiretaps to the court (saying they had "lost" them), the judge dismissed all the charges. He determined that a fair trial could not happen without all the evidence -- including the evidence the government didn't want the court to have.

Ellsberg's actions were very similar to those of modern whistleblowers Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning. He was just lucky there was a large and growing anti-war movement at the time, and that he got a judge who actually believed in justice. And Dr. Ellsberg has spoken out for Snowden and Manning recently.

But he has gone even further, telling The Huffington Post that he sees the United States morphing into a "police state". I think he is right, especially considering the massive spying operation the federal government is currently engaging in against American citizens. Here is how Dr. Ellsberg puts it:

"We have not only the capability of a police state, but certain beginnings of it right now. And I absolutely agree with Edward Snowden. It's worth a person's life, prospect of assassination, or life in prison or life in exile — it's worth that to try to restore our liberties and make this a democratic country."


"When people understand that their every conversation of every kind on phones, email, chat logs whatever, is being recorded and can be retrieved, that will certainly curtail people's freedom of speech over any digital means."

"It gives the government blackmail capability over the population at large . . . With the digital stuff alone, we have a surveillance capability that outmatches any police state in the history of humanity." 

Most Americans Believe Snowden Is A Whistle-Blower And Not A Traitor

Controversy has followed Edward Snowden since he released "secret" U.S. government documents showing just how massive and pervasive the NSA's spying on American citizens really is. The government wants to arrest him and toss him in prison, and have been searching for him since he left Hong Kong. He is now believed to be in a Russian airport, waiting to go to a country that will grant him asylum (probably Venezuela).

Some (including me) have said he should not be arrested, or tried for any crime. He simply let the American people know what the government was doing. No harmful secrets were revealed, and the government should have been upfront with citizens on their massive spying apparatus in the first place. Secrets, especially unnecessary secrets, should not be kept by a democratic government -- since the people need to know what their government is doing so they can be informed voters.

What do the American people think about Snowden? Do they agree with the government and see him as a traitor who should be put in prison? Or do they think he is just a whistle-blower, who did a good thing by exposing the spying on Americans by their government? A new Quinnipiac University Poll (conducted between June 28th and July 8th of 2,014 registered voters nationwide -- with a margin of error of 2.2 points) answers that question. And it looks like a significantly large majority of Americans disagree with the government.

About 55% of Americans say Snowden is just a whistle-blower (while only 34% say he is a traitor). And that belief cuts across political lines -- with 55% of Republicans, 49% of Democrats, and 58% of Independents calling him a whistle-blower. Only 38% of Republicans, 39% of Democrats, and 30% of Independents say he is a traitor. The numbers remain much the same when other demographic groups are considered. Here are those numbers (with the first number being those who say "whistle-blower", and the number in parentheses those who say "traitor"):

Men...............57% (34%)
Women...............52% (35%)

Whites...............56% (33%)
Blacks...............42% (43%)
Hispanics...............57% (37%)

Military households...............49% (39%)

College degree...............52% (38%)
No college degree...............56% (32%)

Under $50k...............58% (31%)
$50k-$100k...............55% (33%)
Over $100k...............52% (42%)

18 to 29...............68% (23%)
30 to 44...............60% (29%)
45 to 64...............51% (38%)
65 & over...............48% (39%)

The Obama administration is on the wrong side of this issue, and so is Congress. Both need to get together and repeal the Patriot Act -- the ridiculous law that allowed this massive surveillance of American citizens. And they need to leave Snowden alone. He did the American people a favor, and should not be punished for it.