Litbrit Discusses Edward Snowden on the BBC

Deborah Newell Tornello (aka Litbrit) recently spoke on the BBC show World Have Your Say about Edward Snowden. The subject was is Snowden an American hero. Litbrit staunchly believes Snowden is a hero.

Ron Wyden MoJo Interview

Sen. Ron Wyden has an interesting interview with Mother Jones. You should read the whole interview. The portion where Gen. James Clapper lied under oath to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is amazing. Wyden asked Clapper is the NSA data collecting spying on American citizens. Clapper was caught lying by saying no. Clapper and his people were then going to maintain this charade.

RW: I've taken the view that I personally believe I can make the best contribution by complying with the rules and having the opportunity to try to be a watchdog inside the committee. For example, the questions I asked [Director of National Intelligence] Gen. [James] Clapper at the open hearing with respect to whether the government collects any data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans, that was an example of an area where we felt strongly we were complying with the rules and doing vigorous oversight.

That stemmed from a situation where the head the National Security Agency said that they were not holding any data at all on millions of Americans. And I was very, very troubled by that and another statement that no dossiers were being kept, and we couldn't get straight answers. So I sent Gen. Clapper the question in advance that I was going to ask. And in effect when you have a cleared official making a statement like that in public, that they don't hold any data at all, I thought it was important to get the record straight.

MJ: Then he had to basically admit that he was not telling the truth.

RW: After the hearing, one of my staff went to a secure room and said that this was inaccurate and needed to be corrected. Gen. Clapper's people said they knew it was inaccurate and they still wouldn't correct it. At that point it never, or at least for quite some time, would never have been known. Then there were the [Snowden leaks] and Gen. Clapper started offering one answer after another with respect to why he did it.

This is an administration that admits it lies to a U.S. Senator and is completely shameless abiyt it.

Glenn Greenwald Said What?

I have defended Glenn Greenwald in the past. However, this quotes from Greenwald comes off as a threat to the United States.

"Snowden has enough information to cause harm to the U.S. government in a single minute than any other person has ever had," Greenwald said in an interview in Rio de Janeiro with the Argentinean daily La Nacion.

"The U.S. government should be on its knees every day begging that nothing happen to Snowden, because if something does happen to him, all the information will be revealed and it could be its worst nightmare."

Greenwald's work getting Snowden to reveal the level of wiretapping is important journalism. Greenwald damages himself when he airs thinny-veiled threats at the U.S. government. It comes off as bullying and may make the public less sympathetic to Snowden's legal status.

Edward Snowden Statement

In Russia, Edward Snowden held a press conference, in the company of Sarah Harrison of Wikileaks. Snowden made this statement to the media.

Hello. My name is Ed Snowden. A little over one month ago, I had family, a home in paradise, and I lived in great comfort. I also had the capability without any warrant to search for, seize, and read your communications. Anyone’s communications at any time. That is the power to change people’s fates.

It is also a serious violation of the law. The 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution of my country, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and numerous statutes and treaties forbid such systems of massive, pervasive surveillance. While the US Constitution marks these programs as illegal, my government argues that secret court rulings, which the world is not permitted to see, somehow legitimize an illegal affair. These rulings simply corrupt the most basic notion of justice – that it must be seen to be done. The immoral cannot be made moral through the use of secret law.

I believe in the principle declared at Nuremberg in 1945: "Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring."

Accordingly, I did what I believed right and began a campaign to correct this wrongdoing. I did not seek to enrich myself. I did not seek to sell US secrets. I did not partner with any foreign government to guarantee my safety. Instead, I took what I knew to the public, so what affects all of us can be discussed by all of us in the light of day, and I asked the world for justice.

That moral decision to tell the public about spying that affects all of us has been costly, but it was the right thing to do and I have no regrets.

Wikileaks reports that the US Ambassador to Russia told Human Rights Watch that the United States government does not consider Snowden a whistleblower. The Ambassador asked Human Rights Watch to relay this message to Snowden.The United States government considers Snowden a fugitive.

Alan Grayson Speaks On NSA Spying

Rep. Alan Grayson is unsatified with the assurances provided by President Barack Obama on NSA spying. Grayson feels that the Obama administration is going to extreme measures in the name of national security.

David Gregory's Poor Journalism

I have not been a fan of Meet the Press host David Gregory. My long-standing view is that Gregory is a dancing buffoon that publicly admitted on Twitter it is not his job to fact-check the statements of his guests. This past Sunday, Gregory framed a question in a manner that accused Guardian columnist Glenn Greewald of breaking the law.

"To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden, even inhis current movements, why shouldn't you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?" heasked.

Greenwald replied that it was "pretty extraordinary that anybody who would call themselvesa journalist would publicly muse about whether or not other journalists should be charged with felonies," and that there was no evidence to back up Gregory's claim that he had "aided" Snowden.

If this was an Obama administration official saying this to Gregory, the questions he should have asked were is the Justice Department going to indict Greenwald? How exactly did Greenwald aid and abetted Edward Snowden? Are you willing to go on the record with these accusations? If this administration official couldn't answer the first two questions and wad.'t willing to go on the record then he was bullshitting Gregory. Gregory could have checked with other sources. Most likely Gregory recited what his unnamed source told him ithout ever fact-checking his statements.

Quote of the Day

"This House intel hearing is seriously called 'How Disclosed NSA Programs Protect Americans & Why Disclosure Aids Our Adversaries.'"

Spencer Ackerman

FISA In Wonderland

Only the Bush administration would have the audacity to admit to warrantless wiretapping and then back a Senate bill granting immunity to telecommunication companies.

WASHINGTON —An intelligence bill the Senate is scheduled to take up after it returns Dec. 3 would block Americans from learning details of any warrantless surveillance program the federal government conducted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the American Civil Liberties Union says.

The bill would grant immunity from lawsuits to communications companies for any "intelligence activity involving communications" that was "designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack" or attack preparations. Telecoms would need to show they received a "written request or directive" from the administration vouching that the programs were "lawful" to stop lawsuits.

Liz Rose, spokeswoman for the Washington office of the ACLU, says the language is a "blank check" that would cover not only a warrantless wiretapping program the Bush administration has acknowledged but any unconfirmed or previously unknown program. Last year, USA TODAY and other media reported that some U.S. telecoms also shared customer calling information with the National Security Agency as part of an anti-terrorism program that the administration has not confirmed.

Many of the illegally monitored calls were domestic. The White House has not explained why it is necessary to listen to the calls of American citizens. What is clear is the Bush administration has used the NSA to violate the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Christopher Dodd has been outspoken against the FISA bill. Qwest admitted they were approached by the Bush administration to paticipate in warrantless wiretapping. They declined because of legal concerns. Verizon and AT&T have been silent on the matter.

We know that the Bush administration has admitted to warrantless wiretapping. Quest told the media they were asked to paticipate. Why haven't members of the administration being brought up on criminal charges?

Another matter is how can lawmakers consider legislation that clearly goes against the Constitution? The federal government has become as surrealistic as Alice In Wonderland.

Senate Ducks Wiretap Controversy

The Senate Intelligence Committee will not investigate the warrantless NSA wiretaps. This just proves that Pat Roberts never fails to disappoint. Robert told the Washington Post, "The administration is now committed to legislation and has agreed to brief more intelligence committee members on the nature of the surveillance program. The details of this agreement will take some time to work out." Roberts fails to go into the details of what those details are.

I will give some details. The Huffington Post reports on rumors that Karl Rove threatened to black ball any Republican Senator who votes to curtail the President's power to illegally wiretap. Sen. John D. Rockefeller said, "It is more than apparent to me that the White House has applied heavy pressure in recent days, in recent weeks, to prevent the committee from doing its job." Rockefeller is speaking of Dick Cheney's behind closed door meetings with Republican Congress members.

A Zogby poll finds that 52% of Americans favor impeaching the President over the illegal wiretaps. An Ipso poll is 50% think the wiretaps are illegal to 48% believing they're just. 2% are undecided. Given time, the polls will creep towards the White House's disadvantage. This administration is fresh out of political capital.

Necessary and Proper Clause

Here is the U. S. Department of Justice's letter about the President authorizing the NSA warrantless wiretaps to members of congress.

The President's constitutional authority to direct the NSA to conduct the activities he described is supplemented by statutory authority under the AUMF. The AUMF authorizes the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, ... in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." § 2(a). The AUMF clearly contemplates action within the United States, see also id. pmbl. (the attacks of September 11 "render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad"). The AUMF cannot be read as limited to authorizing the use of force against Afghanistan, as some have argued. Indeed, those who directly "committed" the attacks of September 11 resided in the United States for months before those attacks. The reality of the September 11 plot demonstrates that the authorization of force covers activities both on foreign soil and in America.

Apparently, no member of DoJ has heard of the Necessary and Proper Clause.

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

The President can not disobey the law the suit his whims. Cogress decides what the executive powers through legislation. George Will explains.

Besides, terrorism is not the only new danger of this era. Another is the administration's argument that because the president is commander in chief, he is the "sole organ for the nation in foreign affairs." That non sequitur is refuted by the Constitution's plain language, which empowers Congress to ratify treaties, declare war, fund and regulate military forces, and make laws "necessary and proper" for the execution of all presidential powers . Those powers do not include deciding that a law -- FISA, for example -- is somehow exempted from the presidential duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

The reason the White House doesn't want to go through the FISA warrant process is because they have been spying on political opponents.

Rich Lowry of the National Review wrote a comedy masterpiece on the NSA wiretaps.

The president has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to defend the United States. If he can bomb the nation's enemies overseas without a court's approval, he certainly can listen to their conversations.

Rich, Congress has to make both acts legal. There are public defenders who barely got through law school who have better legal minds. Has this man ever heard of the War Powers Resolution?