Edward Snowden: saving us from the United Stasi of America
Daniel Ellsberg the original US whistleblower of
Pentagon papers fame, writes about the whistleblower in the US
surveillance scandal that is unfolding now -- Edward Snowden. Earlier in
a TV interview said he would have done the same thing if he was doing
Snowden’s job -- and gone to jail for it:
‘Snowden's whistleblowing gives us a chance to roll back what
is tantamount to an 'executive coup' against the US constitution’
Daniel Ellsberg guardian.co.uk
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.
Since 9/11, there has been, at first secretly but increasingly
openly, a revocation of the bill of rights for which this country fought
over 200 years ago. In particular, the fourth and fifth amendments of
the US constitution, which safeguard citizens from unwarranted intrusion
by the government into their private lives, have been virtually
suspended.
The government claims it has a court warrant under Fisa – but that
unconstitutionally sweeping warrant is from a secret court, shielded
from effective oversight, almost totally deferential to executive
requests. As Russell Tice, a former National Security Agency analyst,
put it: "It is a kangaroo court with a rubber stamp."
Intelligence committees
For the president then to say that there is judicial oversight is
nonsense – as is the alleged oversight function of the intelligence
committees in Congress. Not for the first time – as with issues of
torture, kidnapping, detention, assassination by drones and death squads
–they have shown themselves to be thoroughly co-opted by the agencies
they supposedly monitor. They are also black holes for information that
the public needs to know.
Edward Snowden |
The fact that congressional leaders were "briefed" on this and went
along with it, without any open debate, hearings, staff analysis, or any
real chance for effective dissent, only shows how broken the system of
checks and balances is in this country.
Obviously, the United States is not now a police state. But given the
extent of this invasion of people's privacy, we do have the full
electronic and legislative infrastructure of such a state.
If, for instance, there was now a war that led to a large-scale
anti-war movement – like the one we had against the war in Vietnam – or,
more likely, if we suffered one more attack on the scale of 9/11, I fear
for our democracy. These powers are extremely dangerous.
There are legitimate reasons for secrecy, and specifically for
secrecy about communications intelligence. That's why Bradley Mannning
and I – both of whom had access to such intelligence with clearances
higher than top-secret – chose not to disclose any information with that
classification. And it is why Edward Snowden has committed himself to
withhold publication of most of what he might have revealed.
But what is not legitimate is to use a secrecy system to hide
programmes that are blatantly unconstitutional in their breadth and
potential abuse. Neither the president nor Congress as a whole may by
themselves revoke the fourth amendment – and that's why what Snowden has
revealed so far was secret from the American people.
American people
In 1975, Senator Frank Church spoke of the National Security Agency
in these terms:
Activists in New York's Union Square demonstrate their
support for Edward Snowden. |
"I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America,
and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess
this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so
that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there
is no return."
The dangerous prospect of which he warned was that America's
intelligence gathering capability – which is today beyond any comparison
with what existed in his pre-digital era – "at any time could be turned
around on the American people and no American would have any privacy
left."
That has now happened. That is what Snowden has exposed, with
official, secret documents. The NSA, FBI and CIA have, with the new
digital technology, surveillance powers over our own citizens that the
Stasi – the secret police in the former "democratic republic" of East
Germany – could scarcely have dreamed of. Snowden reveals that the
so-called intelligence community has become the United Stasi of America.
So we have fallen into Senator Church's abyss. The questions now are
whether he was right or wrong that there is no return from it, and
whether that means that effective democracy will become impossible. A
week ago, I would have found it hard to argue with pessimistic answers
to those conclusions.
But with Edward Snowden having put his life on the line to get this
information out, quite possibly inspiring others with similar knowledge,
conscience and patriotism to show comparable civil courage – in the
public, in Congress, in the executive branch itself – I see the
unexpected possibility of a way up and out of the abyss.
Pressure by an informed public on Congress to form a select committee
to investigate the revelations by Snowden and, I hope, others to come
might lead us to bring NSA and the rest of the intelligence community
under real supervision and restraint and restore the protections of the
bill of rights.
Snowden did what he did because he recognised the NSA's surveillance
programmes for what they are: dangerous, unconstitutional activity. This
wholesale invasion of Americans' and foreign citizens' privacy does not
contribute to our security; it puts in danger the very liberties we're
trying to protect.
|