August 22, 2013

Daniel Ellsberg Sees Bradley Manning's Conviction As The BEGINNING OF THE POLICE STATE

cont'


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/22/daniel-ellsberg-bradley-manning_n_3793199.html

August 22, 2013

Kucinich: DO AWAY WITH THE NSA!

Kucinich on the NSA:

"...When I look at the scope of their activities,...how they have illegally spied on Americans,...how they have this wholesale approach towards gathering the most private & personal information of the American people,......how they misled Congress, misled the FISA Court and perhaps even misled the White House. They have gone far beyond the Constitution, and frankly, we now have to make a choice,....we either choose the Constitution or we choose the NSA,.....BUT WE CAN'T HAVE BOTH....."

"...The NSA has to go! Listen,....this is an organization that is out of control,...its gone rogue and its very destructive of a half a dozen cherished constitutional principles and we cannot tolerate it...."

August 21, 2013

This COWARDLY SILENCE Is An Act Of War

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow this week aired a must-watch analysis of the British government’s use of terrorism statutes against Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald’s partner, David Miranda. That Western governments needed such a public reminder that “journalism is not terrorism” is an illustrative commentary on how intense today’s assault is on basic press freedom. That some would consequently depict Greenwald’s promise to be a “more aggressive” reporter as an unacceptable threat — rather than a simple pledge to keep doing his job — is an even more illustrative commentary on the authoritarian mind-set. Indeed, by their own frightening logic, such critics apparently want journalists to react to government thuggery not with defiance and persistence, but instead with apologetic promises to be less aggressive in their reporting and/or pledges to keep quiet in the future. Keeping quiet, of course, is apparently what the U.S. government did in the last few days, and Maddow expertly documents how that reticence is actually one of the big reveals in this latest chapter of the NSA saga. As she shows, British officials gave the United States a “heads up” about their use of anti-terrorism laws against Greenwald’s spouse — and it was the U.S. reaction, or lack thereof, that is so damning:



We have that kind of special relationship with Britain where if our government were outraged that this detention was going to happen, we could have objected, right? We could have at least asked our dear friends, the British government, to not do this. Maybe in the interests of not intimidating the activities of the free press, if not for any other reason. Did our government make any objections when they got advanced notice from Britain that this detention was going to happen? Did our government protest? And if not, why not? I tend to think that we did not protest since it went ahead…If the United States wants to convince the world that the Glenn Greenwalds and Laura Poitrases of the world are correct when they say…that counterterrorism is being used to justify all sorts of things that are not justified by the actual threat of terrorism…including journalism, then putting journalists and their families through marathon interrogations and seizing all their electronics is a really great way to start convincing the world that all that reporting is accurate. Letting our closest allies do it while we stand silent is the same thing as us doing it.



So, to review: A U.S. media outlet, Guardian America, paid for Miranda’s travel, meaning he was clearly working in some sort of a journalistic capacity — specifically, he was assisting the reporting of Greenwald and Laura Poitras (though even if he wasn’t, would such harsh treatment be any more defensible?). The U.S. government was given a “heads up” that Miranda was going to nonetheless be targeted by anti-terrorism statutes on the grounds that his journalistic work “would help terrorism.” Additionally, according to Reuters, the U.S. government was specifically told that the U.K. action was designed “to send a message” to the American-based news outlet. And yet, despite all that, it seems the U.S. government — which is supposed to be an international advocate for and defender of press freedom — chose to do nothing.



As Maddow correctly implies, that kind of diplomatic inaction by the Obama administration is, unto itself, a form of ideological action against press freedom. Such a conclusion becomes all the more self-evident when considering the incident next to President Obama’s other oft-ignored moves to curtail those press freedoms. Remember, as McClatchy reported last month, this is the same president who “personally lobbied” Yemeni dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh to keep journalist Abdulelah Haider Shaye in prison. Shaye’s supposed crime? According to McClatchy, he dared to document a White House-ordered drone strike that killed “dozens of civilians, including 14 women and 21 children.”



cont'




http://www.salon.com/2013/08/21/this_cowardly_silence_is_an_act_of_war/

August 21, 2013

Government SHOULD NOT Define What a Reporter IS--OR ISN'T

Sen. Diane Feinstein and a horde of members of Congress of both parties want to decide who is and who isn't a reporter. Sen. Feinstein says a "real" reporter is a "salaried agent of a media company." She mentions the usual suspects--New York Times, ABC News. She dismisses part-time staff. She dismisses freelancers. She dismisses those who write, often without pay, for the hundreds of alternative publications, and often break news and investigative stories well ahead of the mainstream media. She dismisses anyone who, she says, "have no professional qualifications." The reason she wants to define what a reporter is or isn't is because there's a proposed federal Media Shield Law that would protect reporters from revealing their sources. Forty states and the District of Columbia currently have shield laws. Sen. Feinstein wants to amend the federal bill to take away existing First Amendment protections from anyone not involved in--apparently--salaried establishment media.




There are people who have minimal qualifications to be a reporter. Many write nothing but screeds. Many have problems with basic language skills. Many have little familiarity with the AP Style Book. Many have an inability to ask probing questions of government officials; many merely transcribe what they're told, whether from the president, a council member, or a local reader who is the focus of a feature. Some of them are paid salaries and are agents of media companies, which Sen. Feinstein believes are acceptable requirements. There are also those who frequently allow "deep background" and "off-the-record" comments. Many news media won't allow sources to go "off-the-record." If the information isn't available to the general public, it shouldn't be available only to reporters. Access to news sources is something reporters enjoy that the average reader doesn't; but there is a responsibility to the reader and viewer and listener not to hide information. There are those who overuse the "veiled news source," which is a part of the Shield Law. A veiled news source could be someone whom the reporter identifies as, "Sources close to the Governor state . . ." Often, the reporter doesn't question a source's motives for why she or he wants to give anonymous information, or if it is merely a "trial balloon" to use the media to put out information; if the people agree, sources become identified; if the public disagrees with a proposal, no one traces the "leak" to politicians or their staffs.




On more than a few occasions, reporters--whether "salaried agents" of a media company, part-timers for that company or for any of thousands of alternative publications or electronic media, or freelancers--have filled in holes in their stories with false identities--"A 55-year-old housewife in Podunka, who asked not to be identified, says . . . " Good reporters seldom use a veiled news source and then have to protect them should there be a court order to divulge the source of information. On rare occasions, however, a reporter, in consultation with an editor, will allow a news source to be anonymous. Granting veiled news source status should not be given unless a source's information and identity puts her or him into significant personal jeopardy--and the information can be verified. But, even if there are reporters who are lazy, who plagiarize, who abuse the veiled news source privilege, there are no enforceable ethics rules in journalism. Reporters aren't licensed--such as physicians, social workers, teachers, contractors, and cosmetologists. Only an editor can discipline or terminate an employee.




Nevertheless, whenever the government says it wants to define what a reporter is or is not--and the public, outraged over something a reporter or news operation did or did not do demands licensing and enforceable codes of ethics--a huge red flag should be in everyone's face. Not one part of the First Amendment determines who or what a reporter is, or what is or is not news. The Founding Fathers didn't forget to include that; they deliberately didn't want to include that. They believed government shouldn't be making those decisions, and the news media, even the media that base their news upon lies and scandal, must be independent. And, yet, government and the news media often wink at the intent of the Founding Fathers and cozy up together. The only thing more outrageous than reporters and sources playing golf or tennis together is reporters schmoozing at political receptions, the women dressed like they were movie celebrities on the Red Carpet, the men in tuxedos. And the reason why they go to these receptions? They claim it's because they "get their information" there. But, "socializing" isn't the only thing that violates the intent of the Founding Fathers. It probably isn't a good practice for Congress to appoint news correspondents to determine who is or is not qualified to receive press credentials--subject to the oversight of House and Senate leaders. Until recently, the establishment press of "salaried agents" refused even to acknowledge that members of the alternative press, even those who have won awards for investigative reporting, should be allowed the privileges that mainstream reporters are allowed. It violates the First Amendment when police agencies and governments at all levels decide who can or can't cover its activities. Usually, the ones excluded are reporters who are not "agents" of an establishment media company.



cont'




http://www.opednews.com/articles/Government-Should-Not-Defi-by-Walter-Brasch-130820-93.html

August 21, 2013

Rep. Dennis Kucinich Slams NSA at "Terms & Conditions May Apply" DC Premiere

August 21, 2013

Still Think Theres NO Difference Between Republicans & Democrats?

Well, here's one difference for starters!......

August 20, 2013

Just Because You Are Mean DOESN'T Make You Wrong: A DEFENSE Of Glenn Greenwald

I don’t know Glenn Greenwald personally. He could be the world’s kindest, most pleasant, incredibly generous individual in real life, with smiles for all passers-by and 25+ percent tips for every server. He could whistle happy tunes while feeding the city’s homeless, be the understanding shoulder on which all his close friends and family members cry, and even nurse abandoned animals back to health and find them good homes in between 2,000-word articles and argumentative tweets. Why does that seem so unlikely to some of you? You’ve never met someone who’s nicer in real life than on the Internet? Bullsh*t.



I have “met” Greenwald on the Internet. It was, to put it mildly, not exactly a pleasant experience. Insults and straw man arguments mixed wildly with what might otherwise have come across as legitimate critiques, complaints were lodged, high dudgeon was evinced, grudges were held, distance was kept (and much of this was mutual). Anyone who has mixed it up with Greenwald online — and this is a vast universe of people, let us be clear — would likely agree that their interactions follow much the same pattern (after which one can expect a wave of Greenwaldian fan boys to descend on one’s Twitter account like L. Frank Baum’s flying monkeys, all bared-teeth and vicious insults brandished on behalf of the supposed honor of their idol). But this doesn’t mean I know what kind of person the real-life Greenwald is — or that my knowledge of that or lack thereof even matters, when it comes to his reporting or his opinion work.



But I get it. People don’t like Greenwald (or at least the Internet Greenwald). And I get that it is hard to not hold a grudge after being flamed by someone, and it’s hard not to let one’s negative personal opinion of someone impact one’s impression of their work (and, Glenn, if you’re reading, this goes for you, too). And, I see quite clearly the potential for professional jealousy to be evinced by some reporters’ reporters over a “mere blogger” getting what is likely one of the biggest scoops of 2013 (but anyone who has a bigger one can email me) or those people who see his (and his allies’) criticism of the Obama Administration as the major threat to this President’s legacy (which it is and rightly should be). But my friend — and Glenn’s new colleague at The Guardian — Spencer Ackerman summed up how I feel in a few words yesterday after the story about Greenwald’s partner being detained by UK officials under their terrorism law broke.






Greenwald’s partner, David Miranda — like far too many people of color passing through countries like the U.S. and the UK, let’s be clear — was held without charges for 9 hours under that UK’s terrorism law. He was carrying documents for Greenwald on behalf of The Guardian — in other words, he was acting as an employee of a newspaper that has been reporting on potentially unconstitutional violations of Americans’ rights justified under the guise of protecting us from terrorism, and was thus held as a terrorist himself. And the government confiscated all of Miranda’s electronic property (which, you may recall, some people applauding the UK’s actions against Miranda were pretty upset last week about law enforcement’s use of civil forfeiture against people who face no charges and may have done no wrong) even though they arguably didn’t need to keep all of it and were probably confiscating the work product of a journalist’s researcher and a large, journalistic enterprise. But, yes everyone, let’s argue about how Greenwald is an a**hole. Yes, we should’ve had a debate about the Patriot Act at the time. We should have more clarity on the FISA courts, and more oversight of what the Administration is doing with and has done with them. I’m not comfortable knowing that loopholes let the government read my email, even occasionally, and I’m not comfortable with traveling to or even through the UK if the risk is getting stopped for nine hours and having my electronics searched and confiscated because this website has also published stories about the Snowden investigation. Is that really so outré? Are there people who think that the government and the national security apparatus we’ve woven post-9/11 have never overstepped the bounds of what is legal and/or appropriate? Do you not think that someone needs to point that out? Do you not think that the person who does is likely to be a whistleblower type who is probably no saint him- or herself? Or that the reporter(s) who publish that information and lay bare that overreaching might not be the world’s most pleasant people?


Do we really need them to be the types of people we want to have a beer with?


cont'



http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/19/just-because-you-are-mean-doesnt-make-you-wrong-a-defense-of-glenn-greenwald/

August 20, 2013

WeaselAlert O CANADA:Cruz RENOUNCES Canadian Citizenship: Nothing Against Canada,but I’m An American

The Weasel has landed.......



On Sunday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-T) released his birth certificate to the Dallas Morning News. The official document is from the Edmonton branch of the Province of Alberta’s Department of Health, and indicates that the Republican presidential hopeful was born in Calgary to a Cuban father and an American mother. To those who believe natural-born citizenship requires birth on United States soil, like Donald Trump, a Cruz candidacy would present similar eligibility issues to those that both President Obama and his opponent, Sen. John McCain, faced during the 2008 election. Constitutional scholars, including Cruz himself, think the “birther” issue is irrelevant, given that Cruz’s mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware. Her American citizenship, they claim, makes him a natural-born, instead of a naturalized, citizen of the United States.




The requirement that Presidents be natural-born stems from an idea most succinctly articulated by Alexander Hamilton in “Federalist #68,” in which he notes “the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in [American] councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?” In the case of Cruz, his status as a natural-born citizen would seem to preclude him from being such a creature. However, Canadian lawyers inform the Morning News that Cruz’s Calgary birth automatically granted him Canadian citizenship because his father, Rafael Cruz, had moved to Canada in the 1960s and was considered a permanent resident at the time of Cruz’s birth in 1970. Canadian law stipulates that the child of a permanent resident is conferred Canadian citizenship.




The result is that Cruz apparently currently retains his citizenship in both the United States and Canada. No one claims that Cruz is a Canadian Manchurian candidate but, as the last two presidential elections have proven, any question about a candidate’s eligibility to hold the Office of the Presidency will find traction in certain portions of the electorate. Unless, that is, Cruz publicly renounces his Canadian citizenship. His spokeswoman, Catherine Frazier, indicates that is unlikely to happen: “Senator Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen. To our knowledge, he never had Canadian citizenship, so there is nothing to renounce.”







http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/19/release-of-sen-ted-cruzs-canadian-birth-certificate-sparks-questions-about-dual-citizenship/

August 20, 2013

WHY David Miranda's Detention Should MAKE YOU NERVOUS

David Miranda, who was detained for eight hours and 55 minutes by British authorities over the weekend because they thought he was carrying NSA documents for The Guardian, is taking legal action against the government — a move that could crystallize the conflict between state security and journalism. The British government's conflation of journalism with terrorism in the case of David Miranda is problematic largely because journalism, like terrorism, is no longer performed by discrete, centralized entities. Instead, journalists and those performing journalism around the world operate in small cells or individually. You post a video of police detaining a suspect to your Facebook wall, and you're committing an act of journalism — one that authority figures may not see as subject to First — or Fourth — Amendment protections. In the battle with the security state, those who might commit acts of journalism have three choices: acquiesce, push back, or step away.



Miranda, who is Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald's partner, is choosing option two. The BBC reports that Miranda is taking legal action of an unspecified nature, challenging his detention and seeking to prevent the government from reading the information on the devices it collected. What that information is may only be known by filmmaker Laura Poitras, the person with whom it originated in Berlin, but there's little doubt it includes encrypted files related to the Snowden leaks. The British Home Office released a statement about the Miranda incident. It reads, in part:







The most important word in that statement is "would." Not "could" help terrorism — a standard so loose that it might apply to millions of pieces of information and real-world objects. But "would." The British appear to be echoing the NSA's line that detailing how the government does its work is itself an aid to terrorists. (A claim perhaps undermined by the recent embassy closures.) It also appears to echo the argument made by the government in the Bradley Manning case: publishing information is aiding the enemy. There are some to whom this argument is compelling. The British paper The Telegraph defends the authorities' action in detaining Miranda, as does the editor of Kernal magazine. (His article begins "PRISM blogger Glenn Greenwald’s Brazilian boyfriend, David Miranda…," providing a clear indicator of where his argument was headed.)



Rising to the defense of the American government is Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker. Toobin was criticized for his critique of the Snowden leaks earlier this month; Tuesday's essay is a continuation of that critique. "To be sure, Snowden has prompted an international discussion about surveillance," Toobin argues, "but it’s worthwhile to note that this debate is no academic exercise. It has real costs." Those costs are literal — the NSA having to build new surveillance systems — and figurative: "What if there is no pervasive illegality in the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs?" Toobin states that there is "no proof of any systemic, deliberate violations of law" revealed by Snowden, then noting of the Post revelations about privacy violations that "it’s far from clear, at this point, that the N.S.A.’s errors amounted to a major violation of law or an invasion of privacy." Incidental violations of privacy law, averaging seven a day, are acceptable to Toobin, as a cost-saving measure. Those specific defenses aside, the intentions of the British authorities cannot be considered outside of the context of their behavior. Late Monday afternoon, Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger revealed the paper's encounters with British authorities over this information. In a weirdly archaic move, representatives of the government's intelligence arm physically destroyed hard drives containing Snowden information, as though that limited their ability to travel. The authorities threatened Rusbridger, prompting the paper to decide to move its reporting on the topic out of the country. And then there's the treatment of Miranda himself. For eight hours, he was denied the right to his own counsel. The end result was confiscation of his electronic media, something that could have been accomplished in less than an hour. But, Reuters reported on Monday, that wasn't all that the authorities hoped to accomplish.






In other words, intimidation.




cont'




http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/08/why-miranda-detention-should-make-you-nervous/68519/

August 20, 2013

Did Manning Help AVERT WAR In Iran?

From U.S. embassy cables leaked by Pvt. Bradley Manning, you can easily imagine how the propaganda game might have played out, how Americans could have been panicked into supporting another unnecessary war in the Middle East, this time against Iran. Except that Manning’s release of the documents spoiled the trick. The gambit might have gone this way: One morning, a story would have led the front page of, say, the Washington Post citing how the widely respected International Atomic Energy Agency and its honest-broker Director-General Yukiya Amano had found startling “evidence” that Iran was nearing a nuclear bomb – despite a longstanding U.S. intelligence estimate to the contrary and despite Iranian denials.


Next, the neocon-dominated opinion pages would ridicule anyone who still doubted these “facts.” After all, these articles would say, “even” the IAEA, which had challenged President George W. Bush’s claims about Iraq in 2002, and “even” Amano, who had initially believed Iran’s denials, were now convinced. Neo-con think tanks would rush to join the chorus of alarm, dispatching WMD “experts” to TV talk shows bracing the American people on the need for military action. From Fox News to CNN to MSNBC, there would be a drumbeat about Iran’s perfidy. Then, as hawkish Republicans and Democrats ratcheted up their rhetoric – and as Israeli leaders chortled “we told you so” – the war-with-Iran bandwagon might have begun rolling with such velocity that it would be unstoppable. Perhaps, only years later – after grave human costs and severe economic repercussions – would the American people learn the truth: that the IAEA under Amano wasn’t the objective source that they had been led to believe, that Amano was something of a U.S.-Israeli puppet who had feigned a pro-Iranian position early on to burnish his credentials for pushing an anti-Iranian line subsequently, that after he was installed, he had even solicited U.S. officials for money and had held secret meetings with Israelis (to coordinate opposition to Iran’s nuclear program while maintaining a polite silence about Israel’s rogue nuclear arsenal).



However, because of the actions of Bradley Manning, the rug was pulled out from under this possible ruse. The U.S. embassy cables revealing the truth about Amano were published by the U.K. Guardian in 2011 (although ignored by the New York Times, the Washington Post and other mainstream U.S. news outlets). The cables also drew attention from Web sites, such as Consortiumnews.com. So, the gambit could not work. If it had been tried, enough people would have known the truth. They wouldn’t be fooled again – and they would have alerted their fellow citizens. Bradley Manning had armed them with the facts. And this scenario, while admittedly hypothetical, is not at all far-fetched. When the cables were leaked about a year after Amano’s appointment, his IAEA was busy feeding the hysteria over Iran’s nuclear program with reports trumpeted by think tanks, such as the Institute for Science and International Security, and by the Washington Post and other U.S. news media.



Revealing Cables

According to those leaked U.S. embassy cables from Vienna, Austria, the site of IAEA’s headquarters, American diplomats in 2009 were cheering the prospect that Amano would advance U.S. interests in ways that outgoing IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei wouldn’t; Amano credited his election to U.S. government support; Amano signaled he would side with the United States in its confrontation with Iran; and he stuck his hand out for more U.S. money. In a July 9, 2009, cable, American chargé Geoffrey Pyatt said Amano was thankful for U.S. support of his election. “Amano attributed his election to support from the U.S., Australia and France, and cited U.S. intervention with Argentina as particularly decisive,” the cable said. The appreciative Amano informed Pyatt that as IAEA director general, he would take a different “approach on Iran from that of ElBaradei” and he “saw his primary role as implementing safeguards and UNSC [United Nations Security Council]/Board resolutions,” i.e. U.S.-driven sanctions and demands against Iran. Amano also discussed how to restructure the senior ranks of the IAEA, including elimination of one top official and the retention of another. “We wholly agree with Amano’s assessment of these two advisors and see these decisions as positive first signs,” Pyatt commented. In return, Pyatt made clear that Amano could expect strong U.S. financial support, stating that “the United States would do everything possible to support his successful tenure as Director General and, to that end, anticipated that continued U.S. voluntary contributions to the IAEA would be forthcoming. … Amano offered that a ‘reasonable increase’ in the regular budget would be helpful.”




cont'


http://consortiumnews.com/2013/08/19/did-manning-help-avert-war-in-iran/