Heed the Message, Kill the Messenger

            As someone who has spent some time on the wrong end of both the judiciary and penal systems of this great land, I find it rather cute that Fareed Zakaria thinks that Edward Snowden should turn himself in to stand trial for his alleged crimes against the U.S. Zakaria's assertion that Snowden would get a fair trial if he were to return to his homeland is similarly adorable.

           

            Clearly Mr. Zakaria imagines a world where whistleblowers are lauded for their dutiful service to the American people and where the wrongdoers who have been exposed take their lumps and hang their heads in shame. To call this worldview naive would plumb the depths of understatement to be sure. Has Zakaria never heard of Mark Binney, whose entire family was held at gunpoint while the FBI stormed his house in 2007 after Binney addressed waste and ethics violations within the NSA through the proper channels?

           

            Or maybe Zakaria needs to be reminded of the federal prosecution brought against former NSA executive Thomas Clarke, who also blew the whistle on his employers for waste of taxpayers' dollars as well as fraud and illegal spying on those same taxpayers. Like Binney, Clarke tried to voice his concerns the officially sanctioned way, through the chain of command, up to and including Congress. For his troubles, he was rewarded with months of punishing harassment by his superiors, FBI raids of his home, legal prosecution under the Patriot Act, and eventually loss of employment and income. The Government eventually dropped all but one minor charge, but not before they were made to look like bumbling idiots on a national broadcast of 60 Minutes...and not before Clark's life lay in shambles.

            No, Snowden should just sit tight where he is and ride this one out way over there in Putinland. There hasn't been a reasonable facsimile of fairness towards a United States whistleblower since Daniel Ellsberg all the way back in the early 70s; and even that media circus only turned out well for Ellsberg because Tricky Dick had been caught with his hand so far into the cookie jar that he just had to leave the damn thing dangling from his arm while he signed his resignation with the other hand.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-edward-snowden-should-agree-to-stand-trial-in-the-us/2014/10/23/70b7322a-5aef-11e4-b812-38518ae74c67_story.html

V is for Villainy

            Up to this point, the bulk of the Snowden leaks have been about spying. Representatives of our government's executive branch, it would seem--mostly via the NSA--have been sticking their ever elongating, Pinocchio-like noses in places where they shouldn't be. Increasingly, their favorite target, in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment, is the private communications of American citizens.

            This latest gem, however, courtesy of Britain's GCHQ (the U.K. equivalent of the NSA), gives all that previously reported criminal behavior a run for its money. Apparently, in the world of covert actions against its citizenry, GCHQ has a Sterling reputation for ruthlessness which far outdoes anything the American Intelligence Community is capable of.

            The Brits, as we observe in this Wired article decided to do away with due process all together and launch a DDoS (distributed denial of service) cyber attack against the IRC (internet relay chat) rooms allegedly used by the civil disobedience collective known as Anonymous.

            These DDoS attacks effectively shut down their target's ability to function for an indefinite amount of time. The problem is that whereas a larger, more sophisticated and secure system like those maintained by the government usually suffer only short interruptions with little or no damage; smaller, private end users systems are not robust enough to withstand the attack, and often suffer real and lasting damage. The tactic, therefore is an asymmetric response to Anonymous's protests.

            In GCHQ's defense, it's not like Anonymous hasn't allegedly been launching similar types attacks against various British governmental websites....

            Ok, wait, back up on that last part. There was a key word that should have stood out, now let me see, where was it? Oh, right, there it is: allegedly, as in suspected, but not confirmed. Allegedly, as in innocent until proven guilty.

            I guess GCHQ is practicing vigilante, tit-for-tat justice by the chat room now. It's unlikely it will be called on its illegal behavior, but if it was, what defense would it mount on its behalf? It appears, by its current behavior that it would probably point across the courtroom at whomever stands accused on Anonymous's behalf and shout, "He started it!"

http://www.wired.com/2014/02/comes-around-goes-around-latest-snowden-revelation-isnt-just-dangerous-anonymous-us/

The "Patriot" Act

            I'm going to give James Kirchick the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he did in fact attend some journalism classes in his time at the prestigious Yale University. My guess, however, based on the hopped-up rhetoric of this latest screed against Edward Snowden, is that Kirchick missed class on the days that his esteemed professors lectured on the merits of substance over bombast.

           

            In 633 words, Kirchik manages to sling insults, resort to name-calling and to question Snowden's patriotic loyalties--but nowhere in this article is there any actual discernible proof that Snowden did anything treasonous or potentially damaging to American National Security.

           

            When Snowden denies any relationship with the Russian government, Kirchick glibly remarks, "And those 'little green men' in Crimea are not Russian troops." While this might be the author's pale attempt at humor, it hardly qualifies as evidence of any treachery on Snowden's part. Where else was he going to go once his passport was revoked? Sure, there are other countries that, like Russia, don't have extradition treaties with the U.S. but that would leave him exposed to capture and return to a country where he is certain to get an unfair trial.

           

            Next Kirchick states, "Snowden insists he did not bring his digital documents to Moscow and that the Russians thus have no access to America’s national security secrets. But even if he didn’t carry the files with him, there remains plenty of classified information he could have provided his hosts by other means." Ok, like what? Kirchik leaves us hanging.

           

            The Russians don't appear to be torturing Snowden. Furthermore, what would Snowden's motive be? He was well-paid as an NSA contractor; his politics seem to ring true as those of a genuinely pro-civil rights American. If his purpose was to sell us out--for money he didn't need-- to the Russians, why resurface? Surely a man with his skill set is capable (with the help of the Russian FSB) of disappearing into the woodwork of the largest country in the world.

           

            Snowden's motives are clear. He has stated in interviews again and again that his intent was to report surveillance abuses that the CIA, the NSA, and the White House itself were perpetrating in direct violations of our Constitutional rights. To some of us such invasions of our privacy without probable cause are still important enough to defend. Even if one has nothing to hide, surveillance without probable cause is, by definition, one of the main components of a security state.

           

            Kirchick's motives, however much he insinuates himself as part of the millennials " who have sacrificed so much over the past decade by serving their country in the armed services or, indeed, the NSA" are a bit murkier. In claiming that Snowden "breaks his oath, deceives his colleagues, filches top-secret documents, flees to Red China, and then whines about how the people whom he lied to and stole from tried to prevent him from getting away with it?" Kirchick reveals a naiveté--or his indifference-- about what happens to whistleblowers who expose government wrongdoing. Just ask Daniel Ellsberg, Joseph Wilson or William Binney.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/edward-snowden-traitor-article-1.1811878