;)
Sunday
Jun092013
The Commentariat -- June 10, 2013
** E. J. Dionne: "... too many politicians are making decisions on the basis of a grand, [libertarian] utopian theory that they never can -- or will -- put into practice. They then use this theory to avoid a candid conversation about the messy choices governance requires. And this is why we have gridlock." Read the whole column.
... Glenn Greenwald, et al., of the Guardian: "The individual responsible for one of the most significant leaks in US political history is Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former technical assistant for the CIA and current employee of the defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Snowden has been working at the National Security Agency for the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell. The Guardian, after several days of interviews, is revealing his identity at his request. From the moment he decided to disclose numerous top-secret documents to the public, he was determined not to opt for the protection of anonymity. 'I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong,' he said." The Washington Post story, by Aaron Blake & Greg Miller, is here. ...
... Snowdon -- Seeking Asylum from a Repressive Regime. Timothy Lee of the Washington Post: "... our courts defend constitutional rights less zealously today than they did in [Daniel] Ellsberg's day. Snowden wasn't crazy to question whether he'd be treated fairly by the American justice system. ...
... Gillian Wong of the AP: "China, which has long chafed at U.S. accusations that it carries out extensive surveillance on American government and commercial operations, may now have to make a decision on how to deal with the problem presented by the 29-year-old Edward Snowden, who has come out as the source of the leaks." ...
... Keith Bradsher of the New York Times: "In choosing Hong Kong as an initial place to take refuge from the United States government, the National Security Agency contractor who has acknowledged leaking documents has selected a jurisdiction where it may be possible to delay extradition but not avoid it, legal and law enforcement experts here said." ...
... Barton Gellman & Jerry Markon of the Washington Post profile Snowdon. ...
... Daniel Ellsberg, in the Guardian: "In my estimation, there has not been in American history a more important leak than Edward Snowden's release of NSA material -- and that definitely includes the Pentagon Papers 40 years ago. Snowden's whistleblowing gives us the possibility to roll back a key part of what has amounted to an 'executive coup' against the US constitution." ...
... Charles Pierce: "We are not the country we say we are. What we are arguing about is the distance between the two." ...
... Binyamin Appelbaum & Eric Lipton of the New York Times: "Edward J. Snowden's employer, Booz Allen Hamilton, has become one of the largest and most profitable corporations in the United States almost exclusively by serving a single client: the government of the United States.... The government has sharply increased spending on high-tech intelligence gathering since 2001, and both the Bush and Obama administrations have chosen to rely on private contractors like Booz Allen for much of the resulting work.... 'The national security apparatus has been more and more privatized and turned over to contractors,' said Danielle Brian, the executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit group that studies federal government contracting. 'This is something the public is largely unaware of, how more than a million private contractors are cleared to handle highly sensitive matters.'" CW: Sorry, libertarians, those horrible people reading your e-mails & snooping through your phone bills are not conniving bureaucrats & tools of the Obama administration; they're capitalists! ...
... ** Tim Shorrock in Salon, on the same subject: "With about 70 percent of our national intelligence budgets being spent on the private sector -- a discovery I made in 2007 and first reported in Salon -- contractors have become essential to the spying and surveillance operations of the NSA." ...
... NSA Director James Clapper's "Facts on the Collection of Intelligence...." (pdf) ...
... Congress Likes Spies. Pete Kasperowicz of the Hill: "... while many are outraged at the existence of the NSA program itself, [House Majority Leader Eric] Cantor indicated that Congress will focus on whether Snowden broke any laws when he revealed its existence. Cantor said programs like the one run by NSA are needed to help thwart ongoing terrorist threats against the United States."
Congress Likes Big Banks. M. J. Lee of Politico: "When [Senators] Sherrod Brown and David Vitter introduced a bill in April to crack down on big banks, it was met with great fanfare and excitement from reform advocates eager to see Washington take another whack at Wall Street. But more than a month later, the bill has attracted little support in Congress, even from senators sympathetic to its overarching goal."
Igor Volsky of Think Progress: "Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) became the fifth Republican to endorse the comprehensive immigration reform bill that the Senate began considering on Sunday, telling CBS' Face The Nation that the measure is a 'thoughtful bipartisan solution to a tough problem.' She predicted that Republicans won't filibuster the legislation, dealing a blow to Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT), who are seeking to undermine the effort." ...
... Pretend-President Paul Is Also King of Congress. Megan Wilson of the Hill: "Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said on Sunday that his Senate colleagues would have to go through him in order to win support from the House to successfully pass comprehensive immigration reform. 'What they have in the Senate has zero chance of passing in the House,' Paul said on Fox News Sunday.... The libertarian senator has said he wants to bolster border security measures, a rallying cry for many Republicans. 'I am the conduit between conservatives in the House who don't want a lot of these things and more moderate people in the Senate who do want these things,' he said. 'They're going to have to come to me and they're going to have to work with me to make the bill stronger if they want me to vote for it.'" CW: I wonder if he thinks this is how to make friends in Washington. ...
... Seung Min Kim & Jake Sherman of Politico: "Speaker John Boehner ... is beginning to sketch out a road map to try to pass some version of an overhaul in his chamber -- a welcome sign for proponents of immigration reform.... The speaker wants House committees -- Judiciary has primary jurisdiction -- to wrap up their work on a version of immigration legislation before the July 4 recess. And he would like immigration reform to see a House vote before Congress breaks in August." CW: sure hope Boehner is coordinating everything with Li'l Randy.
Those pansy librul New York Times Editors don't think terrorists should enjoy Second Amendment freeeedoms: "In his final months in Washington, Senator Frank Lautenberg was resolute in reintroducing a favorite measure of his: a gun safety proposal that would close a gaping loophole in the law that allows people on the government's terrorist watch list to buy guns and explosives from licensed dealers.... Such is the power of the gun lobby, which, among other contrived arguments, sees the measure as an infringement on Second Amendment rights.... Mr. Lautenberg's ... Senate colleagues ... could honor him ... by letting his bill,S. 34, see the light of floor debate. A companion measure in the House, H.R. 720, has been offered repeatedly by Representative Peter King of New York and similarly bottled up. It is tragic that lawmakers show more fear of the gun lobby than of suspected terrorists...."
Libertarian Conor Friedersdorf of the Atlantic: "Measured in lives lost, during an interval that includes the biggest terrorist attack in American history, guns posed a threat to American lives that was more than 100 times greater than the threat of terrorism. Over the same interval, drunk driving threatened our safety 50 times more than terrorism.... It is not rational to give up massive amounts of privacy and liberty to stay marginally safer from a threat that, however scary, endangers the average American far less than his or her daily commute."
Meghashyam Mali of the Hill: "The top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) on Sunday said the scandal over the Internal Revenue Service targeting of Tea Party groups was 'solved,' and that he was ready to 'move on.' ... Cummings said that interviews with IRS employees had shown that no one at the White House had a role in pushing for the higher scrutiny on Tea Party groups, citing the testimony of an IRS employee who described himself as a 'conservative Republican.' ... Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) called [Cummings'] statements urging an end to the probe 'extreme and reckless.'" CW: Issa is making an ass of himself. Cummings is an extraordinarily cautious, moderate speaker -- one of the wise old men of Washington:
Obama 2.0. James Mann, in a Washington Post op-ed, looks into Samantha Power 's writings to glean what kind of U.N. ambassador she will be.
Obama 2.0. Matt Spetalnick of Reuters: "President Barack Obama on Monday will nominate longtime adviser Jason Furman to be his new chief White House economist, an administration official said. Furman, who will replace economist Alan Krueger as chair of the White House's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), has a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University and has advised Obama since his 2008 election campaign. Furman has been instrumental in formulating administration policies on taxes, the response to the U.S. recession, the formulation of a sweeping healthcare overhaul and efforts to avoid a 'fiscal cliff' at the end of last year." ...
... Paul Krugman: "I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like the sudden intellectual collapse of austerity economics as a policy doctrine. But while insiders no longer seem determined to worry about the wrong things, that's not enough; they also need to start worrying about the right things -- namely, the plight of the jobless and the immense continuing waste from a depressed economy. And that's not happening. Instead, policy makers both here and in Europe seem gripped by a combination of complacency and fatalism.... So here's my message to policy makers: Where we are is not O.K. Stop shrugging, and do your jobs." ...
... Abenomics. Joe Stiglitz, in the New York Times: "In the five years since the financial crisis crippled the American economy, a favorite warning of those who have urged forceful government action, myself included, has been that the United States risked entering a long period of 'Japanese-style malaise.' Japan's two decades of anemic growth, which followed a crash in 1989, have been the quintessential cautionary tale about how not to respond to a financial crisis. Now, though, Japan is leading the way. The recently elected prime minister, Shinzo Abe, has embarked on a crash course of monetary easing, public works spending and promotion of entrepreneurship and foreign investment.... The new policies look to be a major boon for Japan. And what happens in Japan, which is the world's third-largest economy and was once seen as America's fiercest economic rival, will have a big impact in the United States and around the world."
Bill Keller: "I've come to think there may be a better way to accomplish diversity [on college campuses]: namely, by shifting attention from race to class."
News Ledes
Guardian: "Ratings agency Standard & Poor's has upgraded its outlook for the US economy [to] stable from negative, two years after its controversial downgrade caused a political and economic firestorm."
CBS News/AP: "Moved by the Assad regime's rapid advance, the Obama administration could decide this week to approve lethal aid for the beleaguered Syrian rebels and will weigh the merits of a less likely move to send in U.S. air power to enforce a no-fly zone over the civil war-wracked nation, officials told The Associated Press Sunday."
NBC News: "A fifth victim of the horrific shooting spree in Santa Monica, Calif., was confirmed dead Sunday as law enforcement officials revealed the name of the suspected gunman. John Zawahri, 23, was identified by police as the heavily armed man who rampaged through a mile-long stretch of the coastal city Friday, dressed head to toe in black and carrying an AR-15 assault rifle as well as a duffel bag stuffed with as much as 1,800 rounds of ammunition.... Law enforcement officials also confirmed that the two of the gunman's victims -- a pair found dead in a burning house fewer than 20 blocks away from the campus where the shooting spree came to a bloody climax -- were Zawahri's 55-year-old father, Samir, and 24-year-old brother, Christopher. Zawahri ... allegedly murdered the two men before setting his father's house ablaze just before 12 p.m. and fleeing the scene on foot...."
AP: "Seven heavily armed Taliban fighters launched a pre-dawn attack near Afghanistan's main airport Monday, apparently targeting NATO's airport headquarters with rocket-propelled grenades, heavy machine guns and at least one large bomb. Two Afghan civilians were wounded and all the attackers were killed after an hours-long battle."
AP: "The two Koreas will hold their highest-level talks in years Wednesday in an effort to restore scrapped joint economic projects and ease animosity marked by recent threats of nuclear war."
Reuters: "The [U.S.] government has recovered 400 pages from the long-lost diary of Alfred Rosenberg, a confidant of Adolf Hitler who played a central role in the extermination of millions of Jews and others during World War Two. A preliminary U.S. government assessment reviewed by Reuters asserts the diary could offer new insight into meetings Rosenberg had with Hitler and other top Nazi leaders, including Heinrich Himmler and Herman Goering. It also includes details about the German occupation of the Soviet Union, including plans for mass killings of Jews and other Eastern Europeans."
Share Article
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.
Reader Comments (13)
I've only just now had time to read Marie's commentary on the NSA brouhaha. It is as fine an explication of the salient issues as I've read anywhere (and as good an explanation as any as to why we all come here to visit as often as we do).
Two concepts she mentions condense her position. The fungibility of constitutional protections and rights and idea of balance in society.
I wasn't sure about the fungibility idea right away, the idea of equivalency, until I turned it sideways. I've always held to the belief that no constitutional question can be settled by looking at each section of that document as inviolate and obdurate, observable only as a fixed position. Such an interpretation, as we see for example from the cold-dead-hands crowd, negates the organic, cellular essence of the Constitution, and the hopes, I believe, of the founders that we might thoughtfully, carefully, negotiate the overlaps in rights and protections contained therein.
For instance, we are entitled to a free and open press. But accused citizens are also entitled to a fair trial. Fair trials can be a difficult to achieve with less than scrupulous "reporters" running around making evidence-less claims and pronouncing guilt before a trial has begun (lookin' at you Nancy Grace). These are competing claims that can seem insoluble. But somehow we manage.
Which brings us to the concept of balance. And not just constitutional balance. Competing claims and rights clash almost daily. Yes, we have a right to do certain things but not, perhaps, if it infringes on the rights of others, without some clever and fair navigation. This is what the Second Amendment crowd refuses to see. So gun owners think they are free to buy automatic weapons without background checks out of the trunks of cars at gun shows, but the rest of us have a legitimate concern that this opens the door to other societal problems. We're right to be concerned. And they are concerned that their right to own a weapon not be curtailed. So there must be a balance between these claims and needs and rights and hopes in order for society to avoid dysfunction and collapse.
And as Marie and David Simon have pointed out, we need to appreciate other forms of balance, especially regarding who knows what all about our private lives. You pays your money and you takes your chances, or words to that effect. This doesn't mean that we should simply accept that someone is going to be listening to all our conversations and reading our mail and parsing our trash, especially if it's done illegally. But it's an acknowledgement that it's possible.
As a young man I was an extreme idealist( my standard response to what I considered unacceptable transgressions was "But, but...it's wrong!"). It's part of what drew me to Glenn Greenwald's writing in the first place. However, at this point in my life I recognize that a black and white approach to everything can be self-defeating and ultimately maddening. But I'm sure glad there are people like Greenwald out there. And Marie Burns.
Helping to strike the balance. And providing a little pragmatism to calibrate the idealism.
To add a little historical perspective to the debate, of which I admit I often deal with bouts of short term memory loss as well.
In 2006 we were presented with this gem of revelations:
NSA Has Massive Database of Americans' Phone Calls
http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
So essentially the PRISM program we're meeting today is effectively the evolution of Bush/Cheney's mutant offspring. Yet reinforcing the "Bush-Obama Continuum Theory" at least in intelligence gathering. But to be honest once the foundations of the machine were laid and the vacuum turned up full blast, I find it hard to believe Obama could have showed up on day one and said "Nope, cut that shit out." Maybe it's possible, but the legacy he inherited was one of a hijacked government run amok. The President has executive powers indeed, but with so much tax payer money already earmarked for further development of the collection of the "dark side" that Cheney loves so much, changing course would have taken an enormous effort.
But then again, we also have to entertain the idea that well, frankly, Obama's OK with it. And gave it his blessing.
Regardless, I share Pierce's sentiments regarding this whole debacle. Whatever Clapper wants to publish to prove all's well and normal, I don't believe you. Hell, since I'm outside the borders and regularly read Al-Jazeera, that means they're coming after me.
Better go stuff some pillows under the door.
What was that noise?
@Akhilleus: You wrote, "As a young man I was an extreme idealist( my standard response to what I considered unacceptable transgressions was 'But, but...it's wrong!')."
A couple of days ago, I was trying to remember what kind of "child philosopher" I was, & what I recalled was the image of myself, looking up at some adult & protesting, "It's not fair!" So I think we started out at more-or-less the same place, and that place has led each of us to predictable, if more sophisticated & nuanced, political philosophies today.
Thanks for your comments.
Marie
@"Angry and with good reason" wrote of my post "Why I'm Not Freaking Out," "This column is bullshi*, and as an apologia it fails utterly. In an attempt to defend the indefensible, Ms. Burns creates false equivalencies, uses bad behavior to justify further bad behavior, and ascribes unnamed nefarious motives to those who disagree. Propoganda of the highest (or should I say lowest) order."
I urge you to read the anonymous comment, which appears under my "Not Freaking Out" post.
The major disadvantage to holding with unbending vigor to a particular principle is that it can cause people like Angry to misread or mishear practically everything written or said by anyone who doesn't totally ascribe to their strict principles. As most readers will see, Angry does a lot of misreading of my post.
One thing Angry seems to have missed is a point I don't think I could have made more clear (I repeated it three times) -- that privacy is power. What Angry is really angry about is not so much that I don't wholeheartedly agree with him (or her) but that I am part of the vast ho-hum conspiracy committed to robbing him of some of his personal power, or what he characterizes as his "most fundamental right ... to be left alone."
From this flows his diatribe, not all of which I disagree with. But, as contributor Ken Winkes pointed out yesterday (and earlier) "... if we preserve our independence by scrabbling for a living in the wilderness we don't have much, either...." What Winkes' remark suggests is that Angry's entire premise is faulty. Anyone who lives in society does not have a "fundamental right to be left alone."
Citizenship comes with rights, yes (see, Bill of), but also with responsibilities. Of course we don't all agree (and over time and circumstance we change our own opinions on this, too) on just what those responsibilities should be. But only a person who doesn't have a rudimentary understanding of the sociopolitical dynamic would falsely claim a fundamental right to unfettered privacy.
Ironically, Angry doesn't grant other people the same "right" he claims for himself. "I waited a day to respond to this column in the hopes that there would be some other voice of sanity out there. But apparently not," s/he writes. So not only does Angry claim that I am insane, so is every reader/slacker who failed to be "the voice of sanity." Translation: You and I do not have the right to disturb Angry (it's a violation of his right to be left alone), but s/he is free to disparage us. What could possibly be wrong with that?
Hint to Angry, based on personal experience: it's a good idea to read what you write when you are angry, because it might not make sense.
Marie
Back in the good old tribal days, if you were broken from your clan and your obligations to it, your odds of being picked apart by a predator went WAY up. When societies got organized (for example, ancient Greeks), ostracism was a severe punishment. History says we humans value our association with our society, even though sometimes it is a pain. Balance.
And, anecdotally, I had a Mandarin teacher a few years back, born and raised in China, who said that he had no concept of the existance of privacy while growing up (not just commie stuff, more Chinese family and neighbor stuff, the village or hutong life). He said that the first few years of living in the U.S. freaked him, because he was separated from all of the familiar intrusive obligations -- but after a few years, he said, he thought of his relatively unfettered, private U.S. life as a wonderful way to live.
Privacy is important, but as Marie notes, not a be-all end-all. For me, it is enough to get some when I want it, but I would never want to live in Ted Kaczinsky's (sp?) cabin to have it all the time as a primary good.
E.J. Dionne's piece on Libertarianism raises questions I've brought up many times in the past both here and to those who describe themselves as Libertarian, and the fact that there are no Libertarian states (except in fantasy novels in an a few bat infested belfries) proves the point that Libertarianism is a political pipe dream.
Dionne refers to the work of Robert Nozick, but Nozick, many years after writing the highly influential "Anarchy, State, Utopia" recanted, declaring that he had missed some extremely important elements of political structures and society that Libertarianism simply dismisses, elements such as people.
So, in theory, Libertarianism, much like straight-jacketed Christianity, offers a simplistic solution to difficult issues. Not much thinking involved, more like bumper sticker philosophy. Which is why, I'm guessing, such (un)worldly philosophers as Li'l Randy proclaim themselves lovers of both schools of thought (all the while polishing his crown and boning up on the concept of Lèse-majesté for when he gets a chance to imprison all who refer to him as Aqua-Buddha, Li'l Randy, and Worst Toupee in the West).
I don't guess he'll be such a proponent of small government if he gets to be king ( I can already see his gold encrusted royal platform shoes).
Like many utopian political philosophies, Libertarianism can be safely supported because it's never been tested. And never will be.
Patrick
And look at where all that privacy got Ted Kaczynski.
Just read the Guardian piece linked today on RC covering some background on Edward Snowden.
Is it just me or does anyone else find his career trajectory a tad weird? No high school degree (doesn't say when he got his GED), a cup of coffee in the Army, work as a security guard, from checking ID's at the door to an IT specialist with the CIA, from there to Geneva and then Hawaii working for an extremely well connected private contractor, pulling down $200 grand. I'm not suggesting anything nefarious here but it all sounds pretty odd. I guess if he really was that good as a hacker he found a good company to work for. At least for a while. Now I read that he's looking for asylum in a country that values personal privacy. Like mainland China.
Huh?
(I know I'm simplifying things a bit, and plenty of great IT people are largely self-taught, but the whole thing is playing out like some theater of the absurd extravaganza.)
My guess is that the one thing that will come out of this is that the CIA, NSA, and Booz Allen Hamilton will be sending future prospects to a medium, a psychiatrist, and a proctologist. And maybe asking to see if the prospect has any giveaway stickers on their personal laptop before giving them the keys to the spy-mobile.
Wickipedia sheds a little light on the career of Edward Snowden,
but not much. Apparently he plans to get to Iceland. (?).
In the brief realm of reality:
Not being a child molester or serial miscreant of some sort, I can't imagine what private secrets Uncle Sugar, Bank of America, or Amazon could possibly learn about me that they don't already know.
I first started reading Greenwald when he wrote "The Undiscovered Country" blog. I've continued to follow him as he's moved up in the world, but his shrill voice startied to get on my nerves. The sky is always falling with Glen. I'm with Marie-- give it a rest or put some more balance in your worldview. As the old saw goes: If your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
There's another angle on these NSA revelations that IMO deserves some more scrutiny. Personal power and privacy aside.
In the very informative article by Tim Shorrock in Salon linked above, he explains en gros the modern evolution of the agency from a government run affair to "one of the most privatized agencies in government today." The fundamental shift occurred in 2000 with the internet revolution.
"The outsourcing plan was finalized in 2000 by a special NSA Advisory Board set up to determine the agency’s future and codified in a secret report written by a then-obscure intelligence officer named James Clapper. “Clapper did a one-man study for the NSA Advisory Board" ” recalls Ed Loomis, a 40-year NSA veteran who, along with Binney and two others, blew the whistle on corporate corruption at the NSA."
Ok so let me get this straight. We privatized the NSA, one of THE most vital agencies we collectively depend on to ensure our National Security, on the basis of a report written by one guy, a then-obscure officer...? Must've been a fucking genius. There was an Advisory Board but I think such a huge strategic shift (RISK!) in intelligence deserves a more broad and comprehensive assessment. And this guy is now the Head Honcho dividing up approx. "$6 billion in private contracts."
I'm not sure what to make of this Snowden whistleblowin' fella', but I agree with Ak in a slight puzzlement of his history leading up to having apparent access to (nearly) any and all knowledge. His grandiose claims of being able to out undercover agents throughout the world withthe click of a button could be just grandstanding. But this privatization process seems very risky while we hand out Top Secret Clearance cards to an ever-expanding army of the intelligence community. Giving such access should require extreme scrutiny or we're just setting ourselves up for a future, much more compromising leak to come.
This conversation should be between the social contract between the citizenry and the government AND the relationship of government contracts with private corporations concerning vital National Security issues.
To repeat what a commenter said on Daily Kos: Why do so many people think the government cares about their secrets?