Exposing the Dark Forces Behind the Snowden Smears

[Peter Lemkin]

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 84%"]

Secret Report Claims Snowden Aided Terrorists

By Donn Marten[/TD]
[TD="width: 16%"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Mike Rogers



In the manner befitting the defenders of the NSA mass surveillance programs House Intelligence Committee head Mike Rogers has now accused former government contractor turned NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden of putting our blessed troops in danger. Rogers and his crony Congressman Dutch Reppersberger (D-Md) whose district just happens to contain Fort Meade where the the American Stasi headquarters are located used a secret Pentagon report to back their latest media crusade against reforming the fascist spying colossus. Not only are they accusing Snowden of putting our heroic imperial stormtroopers in danger but have like the criminally inclined Michael Hayden come out and hung the traitor label on the man and are now escalating the government's war on accountability by alleging that Snowden helped "terrorists" as well. The conflict of interest ridden Reppersberger who has no place sitting on any serious investigative panel given his close proximity to NSA HQ declared "Snowden handed terrorists a copy of our country's playbook and now we are paying the price, which this report confirms". He is at least partially correct in that fascists who are running this data-mining show view all who challenge their power, especially American citizens with a respect for transparency and the Constitution are indeed "terrorists". This is the way that it works in any authoritarian state run by dangerous control freaks and let's face it, these NSA surveillance programs have never been about actual terrorism prevention anyway, they have been able to prove that they have stopped on single plot against American interests. They are now and have from their inception been about crushing domestic political opposition that gets in the way of their ongoing criminality and consolidation of power.
Not only is the NSA spying on everyone, hoarding and storing data in their Utah facility as well as a location where the Main Core database containing information on political troublemakers (left and right alike), civil libertarians, writers, lawyers, intellectuals and all else who defend the constitution but readying for when the day that The Last Roundup is authorized. This will be when all of Rogers and Reppersberger's "terrorists" will be dealt with, likely when the economic collapse inevitably comes as the current system is unsustainable or perhaps sooner as their fellow traitors in the U.S. Senate are dangerously close to undermining the P5+1 Iran talks and pushing the country into one final, ruinous war. Rest assured that is is coming though and given past history all of what are mocked as tin-foil hat style "conspiracy theories" about internment camps should perhaps be given a bit more of a serious bit of consideration given the existance of programs that have already been revealed and the zeal to defend them. Mr. Obama plans to announce "reforms" to the surveillance programs this coming Friday but they will be largely cosmetic and as effective at restoring a system of checks and balances, the rights of Americans to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and the future of this country as a band aid on a sucking chest wound.
Rogers has already used every opportunity provided to him to attack Snowden, defend the unconstitutional surveillance of millions of law-abiding Americans but Reppersberger has not had quite the media prominence. Notably per his bio he is that he is a member of the so-called Gang of Eight, a powerful of congressional leaders which has an inordinate level of control over legislative policy and is an affront to the Constitution, not that the document matters to any of the elected representatives who are supposed represent the people but instead enrich themselves at the expense of the republic. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' book "Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War" has the beltway punditry and the other arms of the state-corporate media atwitter over his jabs at the conniving political animal Barack Obama and the bloviating boob Joe Biden but it has been largely played down that some of his most withering salvos are directed at the U.S. Congress, an enemy of the American people if there ever were one. Gates vents appropriately at the cancer that has metastasized throughout the legislative branch:
"I saw most of Congress as uncivil, incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities (such as timely appropriations), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned and prone to put self (and re-election) before country."
Yes indeed, that part about putting self "before country" especially applies to the renegade Senate bloc that continues to grow in number and is about to act to eradicate any chance of normalized, non-hostile relations with the new moderate regime in Iran. This would for the first time since the CIA backed 1953 overthrow of democratically elected Iranian leader Mohammad Mosaddeq that hostilities can be dialed down and U.S. business interests could benefit from a new market and open trade with the country. But the meddlesome Saudis and right-wing Israelis cannot tolerate that under any circumstances. The Kingdom's pull on U.S. foreign policy due to being a major source of oil would be torpedoed by improved relations with Tehran and an increasingly malevolent Israeli nationalist state led by the unstable Netanyahu would lose face along with his desired destiny as the historical equivalent of the sainted Sir Winston Churchill. Both are frantically working behind the scenes to support the Senate traitors that Gates exposed as venal, disloyal rats. For the record Gates also "worried about the influence of the Israelis and the Saudis in the White House" and their desire to have problems like Iran "taken care of' while Bush was still president." Bush eventually distanced himself from Cheney's sway and having to this point failed to suck Obama into an attack on Iran the focus has obviously turned to Congress.

Rogers and Reppersberger must be salivating at the prospect of another war, this time a damned big one that will unlike Iraq and Afghanistan require appeals to the public for sacrifices to support the war effort. Perhaps as the conflagration grows and the body count mounts, when conditions deteriorate to the point that Russia and China become involved that there will be a renewed effort to begin conscription for the first time since the Vietnam war era. A national military draft would do much to solve the ongoing problem of joblessness and the NSA will ensure that those who would oppose the restoration of mandatory military service (with the exception of the children and grandchildren of the wealthy and the U.S. Congress) will have been silenced.

[Magda Hassan]

Disgusting hit piece published by the New Republic. Factually incorrect in many areas. Also practically conflates journalists with nazis. This is the 'intellectual' class at work on behalf of their masters. And a shoddy shitty little job it is.

Interesting that this comes the same week that un-named intelligence agents are reported (by whom?) to want to kill Snowden. And the same week that Obama did his NSA apology business as usual speech.

LEAKERS JANUARY 19, 2014

Would You Feel Differently About Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange If You Knew What They Really Thought?

BY SEAN WILENTZ








We live in the age of the leaker. Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald, and Julian Assange are celebrated as heroes on op-ed pages and across glossy magazine spreads.
By exposing the secrets of the government, they claim to have revealed its systematic disregard for individual freedom and privacy. Theirs are not the politics of left against right, or liberals against conservatives, or Democrats against Republicans, but of the individual against the state. To oppose them is to side with power against liberty, surveillance against freedom, tyrannical secrecy against democratic openness.
What's astonishing about their ascent to heroism is the breadth of their support. The embrace of the antiwar left and the libertarian right was to be expected. But effusions of praise for the leakers can also be found throughout the liberal establishment. The New York Times, which has come to rely on the leakers as prize sources, is now crusading on Snowden's behalf. Its editorial page has celebrated him for having "done his country a great service" and supports clemency for the crimes he has committed. A stellar array of liberal intellectuals and pundits, from David Bromwich and Robert Kuttner to Richard Cohen and Ezra Klein, have hailed Snowden, as have elected officials, including Senators Bernie Sanders and Ron Wyden. To criticize the leakers, as the legal journalist Jeffrey Toobin and a few other writers have done, is to invite moral condemnation. Even mild objections to their methods are dismissed as damning proof of either corruption"principle-free, hackish, and opportunistic," in Greenwald's wordsor outright complicity with Big Brother.
So far, the adulatory treatment the leakers have received closely mirrors their own self-presentation. But important caches of evidence have gone largely unexamined by the media. Documents are, of course, the leakers' stock-in-tradeand they have produced quite a few documents of their own. The Internet houses a variety of their writings for message boards, blogs, and magazines. Much of this writing was produced before the leakers entertained the possibility of a global audience. They are documents in which one can glimpse their deepest beliefs and true motives. What they reveal is at odds with the flattering coverage the leakers have received, and goes beyond personal eccentricities or dubious activities in the service of noble goals. They reveal an agenda that even the leakers' most dedicated admirers should question.
Reuters/Ueslei Marcelino/Newscom
Edward Snowden once vilified leakers.


Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange hardly subscribe to identical beliefs, and differ in their levels of sophistication. They have held, at one time or another, a crazy-quilt assortment of views, some of them blatantly contradictory. But from an incoherent swirl of ideas, a common outlook emerges. The outlook is neither a clear-cut doctrine nor a philosophy, but something closer to a political impulse that might be described, to borrow from the historian Richard Hofstadter, as paranoid libertarianism. Where liberals, let alone right-wingers, have portrayed the leakers as truth-telling comrades intent on protecting the state and the Constitution from authoritarian malefactors, that's hardly their goal. In fact, the leakers despise the modern liberal state, and they want to wound it.

Edward Snowden has presented his decision to steal nearly two million files from the National Security Agency (NSA) and release them to the world as a simple tale of a political awakening. He recounts the story this way: While working for the CIA in Geneva in 2007, he began having serious misgivings about the Bush-era surveillance state. Even then, Snowden considered leaking classified material. He stayed his hand because of the election of Barack Obama, who had vowed to reform the intelligence system. When the changes he had hoped for didn't arrive, he became bitterly disillusioned. " watched as Obama advanced the very policies that I thought would be reined in," Snowden later told The Guardian. "I got hardened."
That's when Snowden hatched his plan for crippling the NSA. According to a Reuters report, in April 2012, while working as an NSA contractor for Dell, Inc., he began downloading information about eavesdropping programs. Then, last March, Snowden took a job in Hawaii with the government contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, intending to steal an even vaster collection of classified material. "[The job] granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked. That is why I accepted that position," he later confessed to the South China Morning Post. Of course, as he explains it, he undertook his illicit mission with the most principled of motivations. The NSA's activities pose "an existential threat to democracy," he said. Closer examination of Snowden's background, however, suggests that his motives were more complicated.
Snowden's history is very difficult to piece together, not least because the CIA and the NSA are prohibited from confirming or denying details of his work for them. Still, there is enough information available to assemble a provisional profile.
By 1999, a 16-year-old Snowden had moved with his family from North Carolina to Maryland. He had dropped out of high school in his sophomore year and become enamored with computers. Snowden spent increasingly large swaths of his time on Ars Technica, a technology news and information website for self-described "alpha geeks." Soon, he was posting regularly in the site's public chat rooms under the user name "TheTrueHOOHA."[SUP]1[/SUP] Snowden, it seems, mostly engaged in postadolescent banter about sex and Internet gamingand occasionally mused about firearms. "I have a Walther P22," he wrote. "It's my only gun, but I love it to death." The Walther P22, a fairly standard handgun, is not especially fearsome, but Snowden's affection for it hinted at some of his developing affinities.
In May 2004, Snowden enlisted in an Army Special Forces program. He did so, he later told The Guardian, because he felt "an obligation as a human being to help free people from oppression." But he failed to complete the training and was discharged five months later. (He broke both of his legs in a training accident.)
After his discharge, Snowden found work as a security guard for the NSA at its Center for Advanced Study of Language at the University of Maryland, and, later, as an I.T. security specialist for the CIA. In 2007, he was posted to Geneva. Writing on Ars Technica, he described Switzerland as "pretty cool" but also "horrifically classist." (He was, however, impressed with the country's Nigerian immigrants: "Motherfuckers have been there like eight months and speak all three languages.")
Snowden has traced his political conversion to the Bush years. And by the end of Bush's second term, Snowden certainly held the president in low esteem. But not, apparently, his intelligence policies. Nor, it seems, was he drawn to insiders who exposed details of these programs. Quite the opposite: Snowden vilified leakers and defended covert intelligence ops. In January 2009, Snowden lambasted The New York Times and its anonymous sources for exposing a secret Bush administration operation to sabotage Iran's nuclear capabilities. Such infuriating breaches had occurred "over and over and over again," Snowden complained. The Times, he railed, was "like wikileaks" and deserved to go bankrupt; sources who leaked "classified shit" to the Times ought to "be shot in the balls." When an online interlocutor suggested that it might be "ethical" to report "on the government's intrigue," Snowden replied emphatically: "VIOLATING NATIONAL SECURITY? No." He explained, "that shit is classified for a reason."
The Ars Technica posts also complicate Snowden's narrative about Obama. It seems as if he never invested great faith in him. It is true that, during the 2008 election, TheTrueHOOHA compared him favorably to Hillary Clinton, whom he called a "pox." But in the end, he voted for an unspecified third-party candidate.
And nearly as soon as Obama took office, Snowden developed a deep aversion to the new president. TheTrueHOOHA reacted furiously when Obama named Leon Panetta as his new director of central intelligence. But it was Panetta's credentials he objected to, not his stance on surveillance matters. "Obama just named a fucking politician to run the CIA," Snowden erupted. And he became furious about Obama's domestic policies on a variety of fronts. For example, he was offended by the possibility that the new president would revive a ban on assault weapons. "See, that's why I'm goddamned glad for the second amendment," Snowden wrote, in another chat. "Me and all my lunatic, gun-toting NRA compatriots would be on the steps of Congress before the C-Span feed finished."
At the time the stimulus bill was being debated, Snowden also condemned Obama's economic policies as part of a deliberate scheme "to devalue the currency absolutely as fast as theoretically possible." (He favored Ron Paul's call for the United States to return to the gold standard.) The social dislocations of the financial collapse bothered him not at all. "Almost everyone was self-employed prior to 1900," he asserted. "Why is 12% employment [sic] so terrifying?" In another chat-room exchange, Snowden debated the merits of Social Security:

<TheTrueHOOHA> save money? cut this social security bullshit
<User 11> hahahayes
<User 18> Yeah! Fuck old people!
<User 11> social security is bullshit
<User 11> let's just toss old people out in the street
<User 18> Old people could move in with [User11].
<User 11> NOOO
<User 11> they smell funny
<TheTrueHOOHA> Somehow, our society managed to make it hundreds of years without social security just fine
<TheTrueHOOHA> you fucking retards
<TheTrueHOOHA> Magically the world changed after the new deal, and old people became made of glass.

Later in the same session, Snowden wrote that the elderly "wouldn't be fucking helpless if you weren't sending them fucking checks to sit on their ass and lay in hospitals all day."
Snowden's disgruntlement with Obama, in other words, was fueled by a deep disdain for progressive policies. The available postings by TheTrueHOOHA do show concerns about society's "unquestioning obedience to spooky types," but those date to 2010. Contrary to his claims, he seems to have become an anti-secrecy activist only after the White House was won by a liberal Democrat who, in most ways, represented everything that a right-wing Ron Paul admirer would have detested.
After Snowden revealed himself as the NSA leaker, the high-tech and legal expert Joe Mullin published an in-depth investigation of his Ars Technica postings, which concluded, "The Snowden seen in these chats is not the man we see today." Mullin was referring to Snowden's views about leaking government secrets, and to that extent, he was certainly correct. However, there is no reason to doubt that, when Snowden stole the files from the NSA, he still held many of the same views that he expressed as TheTrueHOOHA. Snowden's politics seemed to still be libertarian-right: He sent Ron Paul two contributions of $250 during the 2012 presidential primaries.
Other evidence challenges Snowden's trustworthiness. Snowden implied that, despite his lack of formal education, he had won posts of considerable authority within the NSA, due to his advanced skills as a programmer. But as Reuters has reported, Snowden gained access to mountains of classified material through more prosaic means: obtaining log-ins and passwords from a small number of highly trained co-workers, some of whom have since been fired from their posts. One of Reuters's sources suggested that Snowden acquired the log-ins by telling his colleagues that he needed them "to do his job as a computer systems administrator."
Reading Snowden's selection of writings on Ars Technica, it's hard to see evidence of a savvyor even consistentmind at work. Snowden doesn't seem like a man prepared to become a global spokesman against government surveillance. And the posts certainly don't indicate a man with a master plan. But over a year ago, he began communicating with Glenn Greenwald, a blogger at The Guardian, who possessed precisely the sophistication about politics and media that Snowden lacked.

In the mid-'90s, Glenn Greenwald was an associate at the prestigious corporate law firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, where he had a reputation as a hard-knuckled combatant. But the job bored himhe would later admit to spending hours at work devouring political commentary on the Web.
Greenwald had the background of a conventional liberal. Raised in modest circumstances in South Florida, his first role model was his paternal grandfather, a local city councilman with a socialist bent. At New York University Law School, he was an outspoken advocate for gay rights. Yet in his online travels, he gravitated to right-wing sites such as Townhall, where he could engage in cyber-brawls with social conservatives. Over time, he met some of his antagonists in the flesh and, to his surprise, liked them.
By 1996, Greenwald had co-founded his own litigation firm, where he would spend the next decade. The firm did well, although by Greenwald's own admission, many of the cases he worked were "shitty." It was in his pro bono work that Greenwald discovered his true passion: defending the civil liberties of extremists.
In several cases over a five-year span, Greenwald represented Matthew Hale, the head of the Illinois-based white-supremacist World Church of the Creator, which attracted a small core of violently inclined adherents. In one case, Greenwald defended Hale against charges that he had solicited the murder of a federal judge. Hale was eventually convicted when the federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, produced the FBI informant with whom Hale had arranged the killing. Greenwald's other clients included the neo-Nazi National Alliance, who were implicated in an especially horrible crime. Two white supremacists on Long Island had picked up a pair of unsuspecting Mexican day laborers, lured them into an abandoned warehouse, and then clubbed them with a crowbar and stabbed them repeatedly. The day laborers managed to escape, and when they recovered from their injuries, they sued the National Alliance and other hate groups, alleging that they had inspired the attackers. Greenwald described the suit as a dangerous attempt to suppress free speech by making holders of "unconventional" views liable for the actions of others. His use of a euphemism like "unconventional" to describe white nationalists was troubling, but on First Amendment grounds, he had a strong case and he made it successfully.
Greenwald's pro bono work is not evidence of anything more than a principled lawyer providing hateful people with constitutionally guaranteed counsel. "To me, it's a heroic attribute to be so committed to a principle that you apply it ... not when it protects people you like, but when it defends and protects people that you hate," he recently told Rolling Stone. But Greenwald soon grew restless with litigation of any kind.
In 2005, Greenwald wound down his legal practice and launched his own blog, Unclaimed Territory, producing the sort of impassioned political writing that had fascinated him for a decade. His early postings included detailed accounts of the unfolding Valerie Plame affair and unsparing criticism of Lewis "Scooter" Libby. The blog's chief interestsintelligence policy, civil liberties, media criticism, and national securitywere largely the same as Greenwald's today. So was its style: several lengthy, deeply informed postings a day, pitting the forces of light against the forces of darkness; mixing lawyerly analysis with bellicose hyperbole. Greenwald seemed to take pride in attacking Republicans and Democrats alike; hence, presumably, the title of his blog.
It wasn't long before Greenwald had acquired a dedicated following. In 2007, he became a regular columnist for Salon, where his slashing attacks on the Bush White House made him very popular on the left. Over the coming years, he would win enthusiastic praise from, among others, Christopher Hayes, Michael Moore, and Rachel Maddow, who dubbed him "the American left's most fearless political commentator."
On certain issues, though, his prose was suffused with right-wing conceits and catchphrases. One example was immigration, on which Greenwald then held surprisingly hard-line views. "The parade of evils caused by illegal immigration is widely known," Greenwald wrote in 2005. The facts, to him, were indisputable: "illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone." Defending the nativist congressman Tom Tancredo from charges of racism, Greenwald wrote of "unmanageably endless hordes of people [who] pour over the border in numbers far too large to assimilate, and who consequently have no need, motivation or ability to assimilate." Those hordes, Greenwald wrote, posed a threat to "middle-class suburban voters."
Greenwald has since reversed his position and renounced the post about the "parade of evils." (In his characteristically combative way, though, he blamed the recent rediscovery of his immigration writing on "Obama cultists" out to discredit him.) He ascribes that particular outburst to callow ignorancea rather inadequate defense of remarks made by a seasoned 38-year-old New York lawyer.
By this point, Greenwald had come to reside in a peculiar corner of the political forest, where the far left meets the far right, often but not always under the rubric of libertarianism. He held positions that appealed to either end of the political spectrum, attacking, for example, U.S. foreign policy as a bipartisan projection of empire. Like most of his writings, his critique of America abroad was congenial both to the isolationist paleo-Right and to postNew Left anti-imperialists. His social liberalism struck an individualist chord pleasing to right-wing libertarians as well as left-wing activists. Greenwald began to envisage bringing these groups togetherto dissolve the usual lines of political loyalty and unite the anti-imperialists and civil-liberties activists on the left with the paleoconservatives and free-market libertarians on the rightin a popular front against the establishment alliance of mainstream center-left liberals and neoconservatives.
Agencia Estado via AP Images
Glenn Greenwald vs. the forces of darkness.


Along those lines, Greenwald found common ground with the upper echelons of right-wing free-market libertarianism. In August 2007, he appeared at the Cato Institute's headquarters in Washington. "I'm a real admirer of Cato," Greenwald declared, "and of the work that Cato does and has done for the last six years under the Bush presidency." He was not only referring to Cato's criticism of the war on terror. Under Bush, Greenwald explained, "a political realignment" had occurred, one that rendered "traditional ideological disputes" irrelevant. Politics now turned on a fundamental question: "Are you a believer in the constitutional principles on which the country was founded and a believer in the fact that no political leader can exercise vast and unchecked powers?" To this question, Greenwald had a ready answer: "I find myself on the side of the Cato Institute and other defenders of what in the 1990s was viewed as a more right-wing view of limited government power."
Greenwald had identified a vehicle for a political realignment: the presidential candidacy of the old libertarian warhorse Ron Paul. In November 2007, Greenwald called Paul "as vigilant a defender of America's constitutional freedoms ... as any national figure in some time." He acknowledged that "there is at least something in Paul's worldview for most people to strongly dislike, even hate," and he described Paul as "an anti-abortion extremist" and "near the far end" of the right's stance on immigration policy. Still, he believed Paul to be a rare truth-teller, prepared to buck a corrupt bipartisan consensus.
This portrayal required highly selective political reasoning, not to mention a basic ignorance of U.S. history. Paul, a longtime supporter of the John Birch Society, is a quintessential paleoconservative, holding prejudices and instincts that predate the postWorld War II conservative movement founded by William F. Buckley Jr. and others. Paleoconservatives, in their hatred of centralized government and consequent isolationism, regard U.S. history as a long series of catastrophes, starting with the defeat of the Confederacy. From the 1940s to the present, paleoconservatism has thrived on the fringes, in an ideological family tree that extends from the America First Committee to the Birch Society to Paul's political operation.
Savvy about media self-presentation, Paul usually obscures the dark underbelly of this ideological legacy. Since the term "isolationism" has been discredited since the days of America First, Paul calls himself a "non-interventionist." But there's an entire archive to confirm Paul's place in the far-right procession. His newsletters, produced over the years under various titles, disclose a disturbing pattern of racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia (proposing the slogan, "Sodomy=Death"), and conspiracy-mongering. (Paul has implausibly denied writing the newsletters that were published under his name.) The newsletter's racial writings are voluminous: "It is human nature that like attracts like," read one edition of his newsletter. "But whites are not allowed to express this same human impulse. Except in a de facto sense, there can be no white schools, white clubs, or white neighborhoods. The political system demands white integration, while allowing black segregation." Paul aims not to curtail the liberal state and the progressive taxation that underwrites it, but to obliterate them: "By the way, when I say cut taxes," he proclaims, "I don't mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing."
After Paul dropped out of the presidential race in June 2008, Greenwald wrote articles tepidly supporting the Obama campaign, emphasizing the "vitally important" task of defeating John McCain. (Paul had gone on to endorse the racist theocrat Chuck Baldwin of the Constitutional Party.) But he also sought to advance the realignment he had described to Cato. Greenwald appeared in February 2008 as a keynote speaker at Cato's "Annual Benefactor Summit," a conference of high-rolling donors in Las Vegas. Later that year, he appeared at a conference sponsored by the right-wing free-market libertarian Future of Freedom Foundation. In 2008, Greenwald joined with the anti-conservative Firedoglake.com founder Jane Hamsher to back the Accountability Now/Strangebedfellows PAC, with an assist from some of Ron Paul's fund-raisers.
When bloggers confronted Greenwald about his associations with libertarians, the darling of the netroots and MSNBC left angrily batted the claims away as distortions. He need not have reacted so forcefully. Accused of working for Cato, for example, he might simply have said that he believed in addressing any organization that wanted to hear from him and left it at that. Instead, Greenwald attacked his critics as "McCarthyite" purveyors of "falsehoods, fabrications, and lies."
In 2010, Greenwald began attacking the Obama administration from the left on a variety of domestic issues, attacking Wall Street corruption, opposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and decrying inequality. Yet even as he insisted on his left liberalism, he remained a steadfast promoter of Ron Paul"far and away the most anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war presidential candidate in either party." (After Paul's son, then senatorial candidate Rand Paul, questioned the Civil Rights Act, Greenwald agreed with criticism that the remark was "wacky," but insisted that the real "crazies" in American politics were mainstream Democrats and Republicans.) In a debate with The Nation columnist Katha Pollitt, Greenwald justified how progressives could back Ron Paul over Obama. How his vaunted allies would govern over issues that he professes to hold dearSocial Security, Medicare, economic inequality, gay rightsis a subject he has not addressed.
During his political pilgrimage, Greenwald became consumed: For him, the national security apparatus is not just an important issue; it is the great burning issue of our time. He beholds American liberals, and American liberalism, as no less guilty than the so-called conservatives of the Republican Party for expanding and defending, at all costs, brutal American imperialism abroad and tyrannical surveillance at home. It is hard to imagine any system of intelligence gathering Greenwald would endorse.
In 2010, Greenwald spoke to Julian Assange for a Salon column praising WikiLeaks for its "vital" work. His enthusiasm for Assange's mission drew him into the world of computer hackers and security leakersa world where it became possible not simply to criticize the national security state, but to sabotage it.

Ian Kenins/The Age/Fairfax Media
Julian Assange has a history of working with radical allies.


In May 2010, Julian Assange delivered an address that neatly captured his bizarre historical understanding and the messianic sense of mission that pervades WikiLeaks. Speaking to the Oslo Freedom Forum about state censorship and human rights in the West, Assange declared that the American slogan emblazoned on the gates of GuantánamoHONOR BOUND TO DEFEND FREEDOMis a worse "perversion of the truth" than the signs at Nazi concentration camps proclaiming that work makes you free.He went on to offer an eccentric sketch of contemporary history. "The alliance that once existed between liberals and libertarians and the military-industrial complex in opposing Soviet abuses in the cold war is gone," Assange said. Since 1991, the "natural interests" of the malevolent forces in the worldauthority, the intelligence agencies, and the militaryhad taken over. The task for today's freedom fighters, he concluded, is to "find secret abusive plans and expose them where they can be opposed before they are implemented." It is an animating ideology that could only have emerged from Assange's own singular history.
Born and raised into the 1970s Australian counterculture, Assange's biological father abandoned the family before he was born. In 1980, his mother, Christine, became involved with Leif Meynell, a member of a new-age cult known as the Family. The couple had a son together, but when the relationship broke down, Christine became fearful that Meynell would seize their child. She took the boys on the run, moving dozens of times during Assange's teenage years. Along the way, Assange developed an entrenched distrust of authority and a prodigious talent for computer-programming. By the time he was 16, he was becoming a gifted hacker.
Working with two other hackers under the name International Subversives, Assange used the pseudonym Mendax to hack into the systems of various major institutions, including the U.S. Air Force's 7th Command Group. In 1994, he was charged with 31 counts of hacking and related crimes, which carried the possibility of a ten-year prison term. When the case came to trial the following year, Assange pleaded guilty to 25 of the hacking charges and was only required to pay a small amount in damages. The experience set him on the intellectual path that would lead him to found WikiLeaks.
Assange had never understood the charges against him. The way he saw it, he had neither stolen information nor harmed the sites he accessed; his crime was victimlessif it was a crime at all. While awaiting trial, he read Solzhenitsyn and identified with the doctors and scientists who were thrown into the gulag. As Raffi Khatchadourian observed in a New Yorker profile, Assange came to see "the defining human struggle not as left versus right, or faith versus reason, but as individual versus institution."
Assange's manifesto, "Conspiracy as Governance," completed in 2006, lays out his core philosophy. Authoritarian power, he wrote, was lodged in conspiracies of operatives who, "in collaborative secrecy, work[ed] to the detriment of a population." In order to destroy that apparatus, Assange reasoned, the defenders of "truth, love, and self-realization" must disrupt the authority's communication systems and cut off its secret information flows. Stealing and leaking a regime's secrets were thus vital tactics in the struggle against authoritarian evil. In 2006, Assange launched WikiLeaks to put these ideas into practice.
The site's early scoops exposed a random mélange of material, including protocols for the treatment of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, secret manuals of the Church of Scientology, the actor Wesley Snipes's tax returns, and a list of contributors to Minnesota Republican Norm Coleman. Then, beginning in February 2010, came the Chelsea Manning leaks of a vast trove of classified documents, many of them concerned with Iraq and Afghanistan. Over the next 18 months, WikiLeaks would release hundreds of thousands of these documents, including the so-called "Iraq War Logs" (until then the largest leak of classified material in the Defense Department's history) and a quarter of a million unclassified, confidential, and secret U.S. diplomatic cables. Five major news organizationsThe New York Times, The Guardian, El Pais, Le Monde, and Der Spiegelpartnered with WikiLeaks to run stories based on the Manning documents. Suddenly, Assange was an international celebrity, and the accolades and awards poured in, including the Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal and the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism.
And then, just as suddenly, the whirlwind veered off path. In August 2010, two Swedish women leveled accusations of sexual violence against Assange, and prosecutors sought his extradition from the United Kingdom. It was the beginning of a spectacularly weird sequence of events that landed Assange in asylum inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in 2012, where he remains. He and his defenders protested that the entire affair was a set-up; his U.K. lawyer, Mark Stephens, claimed the heroic leaker had been caught in a "honey trap" laid by "dark forces."
In the wake of the WikiLeaks frenzy, Assange often tried to clarify where he stood politically. His simultaneous embrace of leftist icons such as Noam Chomsky and right-wing libertarians seemed to indicate that he was open to ideas from either end of the political spectrum, so long as they were directed against authoritarianism. Finally, in 2013, Assange proclaimed, "The only hope as far as electoral politics presently ... is the libertarian section of the Republican Party."
Yet even that declaration was misleading. In practice, Assange has a history of working closely with forces far more radical than the Republican Liberty Caucus. Late in 2012, Assange announced the formation of the WikiLeaks Party in Australia. The party nominated Senate candidates in three states, with Assange running for office in Victoria. (He stumped via Skype from his refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy.) It had been expected that WikiLeaks would ultimately throw its support to the Green Partyespecially after the party's National Council voted in favor of such a move. Instead, WikiLeaks aligned with a collection of far-right parties. One was the nativist Australia First, whose most prominent figure was a former neo-Nazi previously convicted of coordinating a shotgun attack on the home of an Australian representative of Nelson Mandela's African National Congress. Members of the WikiLeaks Party blamed the flap on an "administrative error"; mass resignations from the party's leadership followed. Those who quit cited a lack of transparency in the party's operations, and some pointed to remarks Assange had made blasting a Green Party proposal to reform Australia's harsh treatment of asylum seekers. For his part, Assange welcomed the walkout, saying that it had eliminated elements that were "holding the party back." He won 1.24 percent of the vote.
Even more disconcerting was Assange's expanding relations with official Russia. In October 2010, just before WikiLeaks reached the acme of its influence with the release of the State Department cables, Assange vowed that WikiLeaks would expose the secrets not just of the United States but of all repressive regimes, including that of Russia. In an interview with Izvestia, a formerly state-controlled daily, he explained, "We have [compromising materials] about your government and businessmen." The same day, Kristinn Hrafnsson of WikiLeaks told a reporter, "Russian readers will learn a lot about their country."
Unlike the Americans, though, the Russians put WikiLeaks on notice. The day after Hrafnsson's interview appeared, an anonymous official from Russia's secret police, the FSB, told the independent Russian news website LifeNews.ru, "It's essential to remember that given the will and the relevant orders, [WikiLeaks] can be made inaccessible forever."
Then, something strange happened: A few days after Assange was arrested on sexual assault charges, Kremlin officials emerged as some of his most vocal defenders. The Moscow Times reported that Vladimir Putin himself had condemned Assange's arrest: "If it is full democracy, then why have they hidden Mr. Assange in prison? That's what, democracy?" Putin's indignation was echoed by other top Russian politicians, including State Duma Deputy Gennady Gudkov, who observed, "The real reason for his arrest is to find out by any means who leaked the confidential diplomatic information to him and how."
Within weeks, contacts commenced between WikiLeaks and elements favorable to Putin's ruling party. The promised damning documents about Russia never saw the light of day. The Moscow Times article also recounted how the Russian Reporter, a Putin-friendly publication, had gained "privileged access" to "hundreds of [American diplomatic] cables containing Russia-related information."
These contacts began when, according to The Guardian, Assange made batches of the State Department cables available to Israel Shamir, a Russian-born Israeli journalist who was involved with WikiLeaks. After Shamir took the cables to Moscow, he traveled to Belarus. There, he met aides to the dictator Alexander Lukashenko, who was then campaigning in a sham election. (Shamir, a controversial figure within WikiLeaks, has evolved into a vociferous Holocaust denier, obsessed with Jewish power.) Not long after Shamir arrived, according to accounts published by the Index on Censorship and the American online magazine Tablet, local news outlets started reporting that the official media was preparing to publish secret documents about the Belarusian opposition.
On December 19, 2010, Lukashenko declared himself reelected with 80 percent of the vote. His nearest opponent, the respected dissident Andrei Sannikov, carted off to jail, where he has reportedly been tortured. After the election, Shamir wrote a glowing account of Lukashenko's government in CounterPunch, denouncing the opposition as "the pro-Western Gucci' crowd." He also boasted that WikiLeaks had exposed American "agents" in Belarus, according to an account in the New Statesman.
The boasts were ugly but not idle. The next month, a state-run newspaper published what it claimed were excerpts from cables provided by Shamir, which supposedly identified prominent dissidents, including Sannikov, as paid American agents. James Ball, a former WikiLeaks employee who now works for The Guardian, has written that when he and others raised questions about Shamir's actions, "we were told in no uncertain terms that Assange would not condone criticism of his friend."
The Belarusian affair coincided with a deepening of Assange's connections to Putin's government. Without much public commentary, Assange has acquired something like Russian government media sponsorship. In April 2012, he launched a half-hour political TV showeventually named "The Julian Assange Show"on the Kremlin-funded and -controlled RT television network and website. His first guest was the normally furtive Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. At a moment when Assange's bright light seemed to be fading, the Russians gave him his own outlet on a network whose primary mission is to advance Putin's political line. (Greenwald has defended Assange's association with RT, arguing that working for the Russian network is no different from writing for major U.S. outlets such as The Washington Post, NBC, and The Wall Street Journal, all of them supposedly corrupted by their right-wing corporate ownership.) Assange's connections to Putin's regime would appear to have something to do with the next chapter in the NSA controversyhow and why Edward Snowden came to seek asylum in Russia.

On May 20, Snowden fled Hawaii with hard drives full of NSA material and arrived in Hong Kong, where he was joined by Greenwald and his associate, the filmmaker and activist Laura Poitras. The day after the pair revealed to the world Snowden's identity as the NSA "whistle-blower," Assange praised him as a "hero" from within the Ecuadorian Embassy. In time, Assange would disclose that WikiLeaks was paying for Snowden's travel and lodgings and providing him with legal counsel. In mid-June, Assange's confidante, the WikiLeaks editor Sarah Harrison, arrived in Hong Kong and joined Snowden. From this moment on, Assange and WikiLeaks became central to the Snowden story.
In initial interviews with Greenwald and Poitras, Snowden said he willingly accepted the risk of going to prison and that he wanted to end up in a country with strong protections for privacy rights, possibly Iceland. But the Obama administration indicated that it regarded Snowden as a serious criminal, and before long, it became clear that Snowden's chief concern was in finding a country that could safely get him out of Hong Kong, no matter how despicable its own record on privacy rights.
On June 21, according to a report in the Russian newspaper Kommersant, Snowden took up residence at the Russian consulate in Hong Kong. Two days later, he and Harrison boarded an Aeroflot flight for Moscow. Reports vary about who exactly steered Snowden to the Russians. But WikiLeaks has claimed the credit, tweeting that it had helped to arrange for Snowden to gain "political asylum in a democratic country." Izvestia divulged that the Kremlin and its intelligence services, in collaboration with WikiLeaks, had completed Snowden's escape.
Within days of Snowden's arrival in Sheremetyevo airport, powerful Russians expressed interest in having him work with the Putin government. Senator Ruslan Gattarov, a Putin ally, offered to hire Snowden as a consultant for a Duma working group that would investigate whether U.S. Internet firms gave information about Russians to Washington. Kirill Kabanov, a member of Putin's so-called Human Rights Council, called for the Kremlin to grant Snowden political asylum; Putin had offered to consider such a request soon after news broke about Snowden's thefts.
On July 12, having been holed up at the airport for three weeks, Snowden held an event widely described as a press conference to announce that he would be seeking temporary asylum. He spoke not before the hundreds of journalists who had flocked to the airport, but before a carefully selected group of invitees that included "pro-Kremlin figures in the guise of civic activists," according to a posting on The New Yorker website by Russia expert Masha Lipman. Also in attendance was Anatoly Kucherena, a prominent attorney who serves on the pro-Kremlin Public Chamber and the body appointed to oversee the FSB, and who has since become Snowden's lawyer and sole spokesman to the world.
In his statement Snowden praised the international resistance to "historically disproportionate aggression," by which he meant the U.S. attempts to bring him to justice. "Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless. By refusing to compromise their principles in the face of intimidation, they have earned the respect of the world." No credible public figure has praised Russia's increasingly vile record on civil liberties for many years. For Snowden and for WikiLeaks, it appears, what really counts in the field of human rights is a willingness to protect Edward Snowden.
The payoff of the Snowden affair for Putin and the Russians thus far has been substantial. Just as the Kremlin's human rights reputation, already woeful under Putin, has spiraled downward, it is able to swoop in to rescue an American political outlaw, supposedly persecuted by the Obama administration. The dissident journalist Masha Gessen has observed, "The Russian propaganda machine has not gotten this much mileage out of a U.S. citizen since Angela Davis's murder trial in 1971."
More than that, the Russians have used Snowden to embarrass the United States with one very specific complaint. The Putin regime has long hated the central role that the United States plays in setting the rules of the Internet through the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and wanted to assert maximum control over the Internet within its own borders. With Snowden, it had scored the ultimate data point in its casethe crucial evidence that the United States was manipulating the Internet for its own nefarious means. "We need to quickly put these huge transnational companies like Google, Microsoft and Facebook under national controls," Gattarov told an interviewer. "This is the lesson Snowden taught us."

Some of the documents stolen by Edward Snowden have revealed worrisome excesses on the part of the NSA. Any responsible whistle-blower, finding evidence of these excesses, might, if thwarted by her or his superiors, bring the evidence of those specific abuses to the attention of the press, causing a scandal, which would prod Congress and the NSA itself to correct or eliminate the offensive program.
The leakers and their supporters, however, see things very differently. To them, national security is not a branch of the government; it is the government, or it is tantamount to being the government: a sinister, power-mad authority. As Greenwald has argued: "The objective of the NSA and the U.S. government is nothing less than destroying all remnants of privacy. They want to make sure that every single time human beings interact with one another, things that we say to one another, things we do with one another, places we go, the behavior in which we engage, that they know about it." It is impossible, therefore, to reform this clandestine Leviathan from the inside. And so the leakers are aiming at de-legitimating and, if possible, destroying something much larger than a set of NSA programs. They have unleashed a torrent of classified information with the clear intent of showing that the federal government has spun out of control, thereby destroying the public's faith in their government's capacity to spy aggressively on our enemies while also protecting the privacy of its citizens. They want to spin the meaning of the documents they have released to confirm their animating belief that the United States is an imperial power, drunk on its hegemonic ambitions.
According to the leakers' own evidence, however, this interpretation is simply not the case. The files leaked so far strongly indicate that the U.S. intelligence system, although in need of major reform, is not recklessly spying on its citizens. The President's Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies found serious problems with the NSA's data collection, and recommended, among other restrictions, outlawing the NSA's practice of amassing and storing the phone records of virtually all Americans. Yet it also showed persuasively that the NSA has acted far more responsibly than the claims made by the leakers and publicized by the press.
There are many examples of such sensationalism. Early on in the affair, for example, Snowden's most spectacular charge was that, at his desk, without a warrant, he could eavesdrop on anyone "even the president, if I had a personal email." Several weeks later, Greenwald, writing in The Guardian, revealed a document that purportedly substantiated that claim"training materials" for a supposedly "top secret" program called xKeyscore, described in the document as the NSA's " widest-reaching' system for developing intelligence from the internet." The gist of Greenwald's article was widely reprinted in the American press.
Inspected carefully, however, the documents are plainly not "training materials." Instead, they are more likely the PowerPoint version of a puffed-up marketing brochure, possibly or even probably from an outside contractor trying to sell the program to the NSA. The title slide dates from January 2007, which means that they predate important legislation passed in August 2007 and July 2008 that sharply checked the NSA. And the slides say absolutely nothing about giving users the power to read e-mails, with or without a warrant. Greenwald's article does cite another set of xKeyscore materials which dates from 2012, and which might well prove that the article's claims and Snowden's statement were accurate and truthful. But Greenwald and The Guardian have not made those materials public, and when the defense writer Joshua Foust, who pointed out many of these criticisms, subsequently questioned them about the documents, Guardian editors replied that they had no intention of releasing them. The champions of "transparency" have been remarkably opaque when they choose to be.
A similar pattern recurs with other supposedly damning documents. Among those cited by The New York Times, in its editorial supporting clemency for Snowden, is one that purportedly proves "the N.S.A. broke federal privacy laws, or exceeded its authority, thousands of times per year, according to the agency's own internal auditor." But the Times was drawing on a Washington Post report that failed to say whether the "thousands" of violations amounted to a significant proportion of the total uses of the database, or only a relative handful, within the margin for human error. The Timesalso failed to emphasize that, according to the document, the vast majority those violations, as audited in the first quarter of 2012, were due to simple human or mechanical error and that there was no way of knowing whether the balance involved serious, as opposed to technical, violations of law. The findings, finally, came from an internal audit by the NSAan indication that the NSA takes steps to police itself.
The leakers have gone far beyond justifiably blowing the whistle on abusive programs. In addition to their alarmism about domestic surveillance, many of the Snowden documents released thus far have had nothing whatsoever to do with domestic surveillance. As Fred Kaplan has pointed out in Slate, Snowden has exposed NSA operations to track the Taliban in Pakistan, monitor e-mails for intelligence of developments in Iran, and more surveillance abroad. These operations, Kaplan notes, were neither illegal, improper, or, in the context of contemporary global affairs, immoral. Regardless of whether any of these documents in any way compromised U.S. interests abroad, they were plainly not the revelations of "whistle-blowers" seeking to secure Americans' constitutional rights. They are the revelations of leakers, out to damage their bugaboo national security behemoth.
Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange have largely set the terms in the debate over transparency and privacy in America. But the value of some of their revelations does not mean that they deserve the prestige and influence that has been accorded to them. The leakers and their supporters would never hand the state modern surveillance powers, even if they came wrapped in all sorts of rules and regulations that would constrain their abuse. They are right to worry, but wrongeven paranoidto distrust democratic governments in this way. Surveillance and secrecy will never be attractive features of a democratic government, but they are not inimical to it, either. This the leakers will never understand.

Sean Wilentz is a contributing editor at The New Republic and the George Henry Davis 1886 Professor of American History at Princeton University.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/11625...ey-believe

[Peter Presland]

I think that this thread would benefit from the inclusion of at least 2 names that do not appear to have been mentioned to so far:

1. Sibel Edmonds. I personally rate her highly. She started her Deep politics education as a naive 2nd generation immigrant patriot who offered her language skills to the FBI in the wake of 9-11. She learned quickly. There's probably little need to rehearse her story here, other than to opine that she has insights into the realities of being a genuine whistleblower that lend her research and opinions on the subject particularly authoritative.

2. Pierre Omidyar. Billionaire joint-founder of Ebay and owner of Paypal. Not much to say other than, a billionaire does not become a genuine threat to the State and remain a live billionaire for long. If he knows what's good for him and his fortune he is soon co-opted into one or other - or many - branches of 'The Establishment'

So why do they need to be included in this thread? It's a complex story but can be summarised thus:

Edmonds has published a series of articles that raise serious questions about Greewald and his involvement in the Edward Snowden affair. They are not hit-pieces, they are thoughtful, well-researched and include serious questions that those who would put him on a pedestal need to address equally seriously. They include his relationship with Pierre Omidyar whose is financing Greewald's new publishing venture and whose companies have substantial financial (and therefore no doubt other) relationships with the NSA, no less.

For my money this is emphatically NOT a binary, black and white issue of Saint Greenwald -v- his wicked detractors; rather it is one of complex individuals, motivated by varying degrees of fame, fortune, greed, altruism etc etc - with the SIS's in their practiced role of stirring the pot, muddying the waters and generally blowing smoke in and around all the mirrors they control.

I have posted a series of articles about all this on Wikispooks linked from here, including Greenwalds latest apologia - cum - mia-culpa.

[Peter Lemkin]

What Obama Really Meant Was ...

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/what..._20140119/

Posted on Jan 19, 2014

By Chris Hedges

Remarks by the President on Review of Signals Intelligence(if he had told the truth)Department of Injustice
Washington, D.C.
11:15 a.m. EST
THE PRESIDENT: A small, secret surveillance committee of goons and thugs hiding behind the mask of patriotism was established in 1908 in Washington, D.C. The group was led from 1924 until 1972 by J. Edgar Hoover, and during his reign it became known as the Federal Bureau of Investigation. FBI agents spied upon and infiltrated labor unions, political parties, radical groupsespecially those led by African-Americansanti-war groups and the civil rights movement in order to discredit anyone, including politicians such as Henry Wallace, who questioned the power of the state and big business. Agents burglarized homes and offices, illegally opened mail and planted unlawful wiretaps. Bureau leaders created blacklists. They destroyed careers and sometimes lives. They demanded loyalty oaths. By the time they were done, our progressive and radical movements, which had given us the middle class and opened up our political system, were dead. And while the FBI was targeting internal dissidents, our foreign intelligence operatives were overthrowing regimes, bankrolling some of the most vicious dictators on the planet and carrying out assassinations in numerous countries, such as Cuba and the Philippines and later Iran, Guatemala, Vietnam, Chile, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Throughout American history, intelligence services often did little more than advance and protect corporate profits and solidify state repression and imperialist expansion. War, for big business, has always been very lucrative and used as an excuse to curtail basic liberties and crush popular movements. "Inter arma silent leges," as Cicero said, or "During war, the laws are silent." In the Civil War, during which the North and the South suspended the writ of habeas corpus and up to 750,000 soldiersdied in the slaughter, Union intelligence worked alongside Northern war profiteers who sold cardboard shoes to the Army as the spy services went about the business of ruthlessly hunting down deserters. The First World War, which gave us the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act and saw President Woodrow Wilson throw populists and socialists, including Socialist leader Eugene V. Debs, into prison, produced $28.5 billion in net profits for businesses and created 22,000 new millionaires. Wall Street banks, which lent $2.5 billion to nations allied with the United States, made sure Wilson sent U.S. forces into the senseless trench warfare so they would be repaid. World War IIwhich consumed more than 50 million lives and saw 110,000 Japanese-Americans hauled away to internment camps and atomic bombs dropped on defenseless civiliansdoubled wartime corporate profits from the First World War. Why disarm when there was so much money to be made from stoking fear?
The rise of the Iron Curtain and nuclear weapons provided the justification by big business for sustaining a massive arms industry, for a huge expansion of our surveillance capabilities and for more draconian assaults against workers and radicals. The production of weapons was about profits rather than logic. We would go on to produce more than 70,000 nuclear bombs or warheads at a cost of $5.5 trillion, enough weapons to obliterate every Soviet city several times over. And in the early days of the Cold War, with Hoover and Joe McCarthy and his henchmen blacklisting anyone with a conscience in government, the arts, journalism, labor unions or education, President Harry S. Truman created the National Security Agency, or NSA.
Throughout this evolution, Americans were steadily shorn of their most basic constitutional rights and their traditions of limited government. U.S. intelligence agencies were always anchored in a system of secrecywith little effective oversight from either elected leaders or ordinary citizens. Meanwhile, totalitarian states like East Germany offered a sterling example of what our corporate masters might achieve with pervasive, unchecked surveillance that turned citizens into informers and persecuted people for what they said in the privacy of their homes. Today I would like to thank the architects of this East German system, especially Erich Mielke, once the chief of the communist East German secret police. I want to assure them that the NSA has gone on to perfect what the Stasibegan.
In the 1960s, the U.S. government spied on civil rights leaders, the Black Panthers, the American Indian Movement and critics of the Vietnam War, just as today we are spying on Occupy activists, environmentalists, whistle-blowers and other dissidents. And partly in response to these revelations decades ago, especially regarding the FBI's covert dirty tricks program known as COINTELPRO, laws were established in the 1970s to ensure that our intelligence capabilities could not be misused against our citizens. In the long, twilight struggle against communism, and now in the fight against terrorism, I am happy to report that we have eradicated all of these reforms and laws. The crimes for which Richard Nixon resigned and the abuses of power that prompted the formation of the Church Commissionare now legal. The liberties that some patriots, including Daniel Ellsberg, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, have sought to preserve have been sacrificed at the altar of national security. To obtain your personal information, the FBI can now freely issue "national security letters"to your bank, doctor, employer or public library or any of your associates without a judicial warrant. And you will never be notified of an investigation. We can collect and store in perpetuity all metadataof your email correspondence and phone records and track your geographical movements. We can assassinate you if I decide you are a terrorist. We can order the military under Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act to arrest you, strip you of due process and hold you indefinitely in military detention centers. We can continue to throw into prison those who expose the illegality of what we are doing, or force them into exile, as all totalitarian secret police forces from the SS to the KGB to the East German Stasi have done. And we can torture.
The fall of the Soviet Union left America without a competing superpower. This threatened to delegitimize our massive spending on war and state security, now more than 50 percent of our budget. But a group of Islamic radicals who had never posed an existential threat to our country emerged to take the place of the old communist bloc. The politics of fear and the psychosis of permanent war were able to be continued. The war on terror placed new and in some ways more complicated demands on our intelligence agencies. Our illegal and disastrous occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and our indiscriminate bombing of other countries, along with the war crimes Israel is carrying out against the Palestinian people, are driving people in the Muslim world into the arms of these militant groups. We are the most hated nation on earth. At the same time, globalizationour corporate policy of creating a worldwide neofeudalism of masters and serfsmeans we must spy on citizens to prevent agitation and revolt. After all, if you are a worker, things are only going to get worse. To quash competitors of American companies, we spy on corporations in Brazil, including Brazil's biggest oil company, Petrobras, and on corporations in Germany and France. We also steal information from the leaders of many countries, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose personal cellphone we tapped. However, Ms. Merkel, who grew up in East Germany, should not, as she has done, accuse us of being the Stasi. We are much more efficient than the Stasi was. We spied successfully on U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in addition to Pope Francis and the conclave that elected him last March. Senior U.N. officials and Roman Catholic cardinals are highly susceptible to recruitment by al-Qaida. The reasons are classified. I won't share them with you. Believe me.
Threats to the nation raised new legal and policy questions, which fortunately our courts, abject tools of the corporate state, solved by making lawful everything from torture to wholesale surveillance. I would like to take a moment to thank our nation's compliant judges, the spineless deans of most prestigious law schools and most law professors and lawyers for refusing to defend the Constitution. They have been valued partners, along with the press, in our campaign to eradicate your civil liberties.
The horror of September 11th was masterfully manipulated by the security state and our for-profit military-industrial complex. These forces used the attacks as an excuse to increase the massive pilfering of taxpayer dollars, especially by the Department of Homeland Security, which has a public budget of $98.8 billion. The truth, however, is the system of internal security is so vast and so secret no one in the public has any idea how large our programs are or how much we spend. It is true that our 16 intelligence agencies missed the numerous signs and evidence leading up to the 9/11 attacks. In short, they screwed up, just as they did when they failed to anticipate the fall of the Shah of Iran or the collapse of the Soviet Union, or when they told us Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. But we have a rule in Washington: Never reform failed bureaucracies or hold government officials accountable; rather, give them more money. Keep failure secret.
It is a testimony to the hard work and dedication of the men and women of our intelligence community that over the past decade we've taken enormous strides in making the Middle East a caldron of rage. New capabilities and new laws have turned us into the most efficient killers on the planet. Relationships with foreign intelligence services have expanded, creating one immense, global corporate system of surveillance and security that obliterates the rights of people at home and abroad. Taken together, these efforts have killed hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. We have terrorized whole countries from the sky and forced millions to become refugees. This will ensure endless war, which ensures endless profits for those who make warwhich is the point.
Over the last six months, I created an outside Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies to make recommendations for reform. This group is led by the same intelligence chiefs who carry out the abuses. The chancellor of Germany has, like many of our other allies, demanded we stop spying on citizens of that nation. But, unfortunately for the chancellor, as well as for you, my fellow Americans, we will continue to do whatever we want
The folks at the NSA and other intelligence agencies are our nation's voyeurs and peeping Toms. They read your electronic bank and medical records. They know what you and your kids post on Facebook and Instagram. They have all of your emails and text messages. They track your movements through the GPS on your cellphone. They are not alone. Corporations of all kinds and sizes track your online searches and what you buy, then they analyze and store the data and use it for commercial purposes; that's why those targeted ads pop up on your computer and your smartphone so often.
Given the unique power of the state, it is not enough for leaders to say "trust us, we won't abuse the data we collect." History has too many examples of such trust being breached. Our system of government is built on the premise that our liberty cannot depend on the good intentions of those in power; it depends on the law to constrain those in power. And that is why Congress and our courts have rewritten our laws, from the NDAA to the FISA Amendment Act, to strip you of legal protection.
I would not be where I am today were it not for the courage of dissidents like Martin Luther King Jr. who were spied upon by their own government. But I, like Bill Clinton, have sold out those true patriots and gutted those government programs that made possible my own education and ascent into systems of elite power. As president I understand, as do Bill and Hillary, that political power is about us, not about you. I know where power in this country lies. It does not lie with the citizen. It lies with Wall Street and corporate boardrooms. And since my vanity demands that I be famous, wealthy and powerful, I work hard for these centers of power. None of these centers of power want to see any curbs on the security and surveillance state. And so I will make sure there are none.
As a senator, I was critical of practices such as warrantless wiretaps. But as president I have carried out a far more extensive assault on civil liberties than my predecessor, George W. Bush. I have used the Espionage Act eight times to charge patriots such as Edward Snowden who exposed crimes of the state. And I have lied to you often, as I did in the original version of this speech, to defend the right of our security and surveillance apparatus to spy on you without judicial warrants.
As a presidential candidate in 2008 I promised to "reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime." I promised to close our detention center in Guantanamo Bay. I said I would revisit the Patriot Act. I told you I would overturn unconstitutional executive decisions issued by the Bush administration. I said I would shut down our black sites. And I promised an end to extraordinary rendition. I told you as president last summer that the NSA "cannot target your emails" and that all of our surveillance programs were subject to the full control of Congress. I have, along with our Congress and our highest courts, eradicated the Fourth Amendment, which once protected citizens from government intrusion into their persons, homes, papers and effects. And, to be frank, the only reason I am talking to you today about spying is because Edward Snowden has, through his leaked documents, illustrated that everything I and others in government have promised to do or told you about domestic and international surveillance is a lie.
Today I am announcing a series of cosmetic reforms that my administration intends to adopt administratively or will seek to codify through Congress.
First, I have approved a new presidential directive for our signals intelligence activities both at home and abroad that sounds impressive but means nothing.
Second, we will institute a few bureaucratic programs and procedures to give you the illusion of greater transparency while we continue to sweep up and store your personal information, including your telephone metadata.
Third, I propose more amorphous and undefined protections for government activities conducted under Section 702.
Fourth, the FBI's national security letters will not be touched. But we could and should be more transparent in how government uses this authority. We really should. But we won't. To make you feel better, however, I have directed the attorney general to amend how we use national security letters so that this secrecy will not be indefinite, so that it will terminate within a fixedthough unspecifiedtime unless the government demonstrates a need for further secrecy. That need might last forever.
This brings me to the program that has generated the most controversy these past few monthsthe bulk collection of telephone records under Section 215. Why is this necessary? It is necessary because in a totalitarian state the secret police must gather information not to solve crimes but, as Hannah Arendtpointed out, "to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a certain category of the population." We need all of your emails, phone conversations, Web searches and geographical movements for "evidence" should we decide to seize you. And my apologies to Sen. Bernie Sanders, but we can't make exemptions for members of Congress, especially when they come from Vermont. If you think you are innocent, or that you have nothing to hide, you do not understand what is happening. Justice, like truth, is no longer relevant. Ask Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange or Edward Snowden, along with whistle-blowers like Thomas Drake, where justice and truth got them. One of the main tasks of any security service is blackmail, a tactic the FBI used to try to get Martin Luther King to commit suicide. So if you have any dirt we want to know about it.
I will propose turning over the storage of all your data to a third party, perhaps a private corporation. This will offer you no protection, but it should provide a good government contract to one of my major campaign donors.
The cosmetic reforms I'm proposing today will, I hope, give the American people greater confidence that their rights are being protected, even as our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, along with our courts, continue to eviscerate those rights. I recognize that there are additional issues that require further debate, such as your constitutional right to halt the wholesale capturing and storing of your personal information and correspondence and evidence of your geographical movements. But don't expect me to help. I sold out long ago.
The bottom line is that people around the world, regardless of their nationality, can be assured that the United States follows everything they do or say. It does not matter if they are ordinary people or foreign leaders. I am not going to apologize for monitoring the communications of friends and allies. We know what we are doing. We know why this is important. The effects of declining incomes for working men and women, the massive debt peonage that keeps people trapped, the slashing of government assistance programs, the chronic, long-term unemployment, and the effects of climate change will eventually trigger volatile unrest. We are ready. The likelihood of totalitarianism no longer comes from fascism or communism. It comes from corporations. Corporations, for which I work, fear those who think and write and speak out and form relationships freely. Individual freedom impedes their profits. And the surveillance system I am protecting today is designed to keep these corporations in power.
Our democracy is a fiction. We seek to maintain this fiction to keep you passive. Should you wake up, we will not shy away from draconian measures. I believe we can meet high expectations. Together, let us chart a way forward that secures your complete subjugation, the iron rule of our corporations and our power eliteat least until we make the planet wholly uninhabitablewhile we continue to snuff out the liberties that once made our nation worth fighting for.
Thank you. May God bless you. May God bless Corporate America.

[David Guyatt]

I have posted a series of articles about all this on Wikispooks linked from here, including Greenwalds latest apologia - cum - mia-culpa.

Excellent resource on this subject Peter.

I was astonished to see a name I had completely forgotten about -- Yoishi Shimatsu, in the "Saving agent Snowden From His Handlers Greenwald & Omidyar" article. Yoichi did some excellent work of the Aum Shinriyko cult - it must be well over a decade ago (20 years --- I just checked), that were up to some strange activities in the Australian outback (this in addition to their infamous Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway).

Anyway, I am getting off the subject as usual. Like you I am a huge fan of Sibel Edmonds. The more I read her, the greater my respect becomes.

[R.K. Locke]

Sibel Edmonds and James Corbett have both done some very good work on this subject recently. Jon Rappoport has also covered it very well on his blog. Here is one of his more recent pieces:


http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/0...nce-state/


Snowden and the final purpose of the Surveillance State
Jan 16
by Jon Rappoport

Snowden and the final purpose of the Surveillance State

by Jon Rappoport

January 16, 2014

http://www.nomorefakenews.com

I've written much about Edward Snowden, his back-story, and the questions that surround him (full archive here). But here, I want to discuss the aftermath, because no matter how you view Snowden and what he has done, he is now being used as a symbol.

Take a hero who has broken through the veil of secrecy, who's stolen the golden eggs from the goose's eyrie, who's escaped…

And put him through the meat grinder of the press.

Raise him up, put him down, praise him, excoriate him, threaten him, isolate him, adore him, and sooner or later he begins to fade from view.

His profile, his public persona has been chopped up so many different ways into so many disparate pieces that, eventually, the symbol of him no longer carries any real force.

Meanwhile, the NSA and the Surveillance State continue on. They weather the storm. Despite the exploding scandal and the fall-out, and even though certain modes of collecting information may be reduced, new strategies emerge.

Therefore, the Surveillance State becomes even more powerful than it was.

Snowden rocked the boat, but the boat has been repaired. It sails on with even greater assurance.

And regardless of how the public responds to Snowden and the NSA, it is only a partial response, because the true aims of the Surveillance State are a mystery to most people.

Surveillance is coming at us from all angles. Chips, drones, TSA checkpoints, smart meters, back-doored electronic products, video cameras, spying home appliances; our phone calls and emails and keystrokes and product purchases are recorded.

The government and its allied corporations will know whatever they want to know about us.

What then?

What happens when all nations are blanketed from stem to stern with surveillance?

Smart meters give us one clue. Public utilities, acting on government orders, will be able to allot electricity in amounts and at times it wishes to. This is leading to an overarching plan for energy distribution to the entire population.

Claiming shortages and limited options, governments will essentially be redistributing wealth, in the form of energy, under a collectivist model.

National health insurance plans (such as Obamacare) offer another clue. Such plans require every citizen to be assigned a medical ID package, which is a de facto identity card. In the medical arena, this means cradle-to-grave tracking.

Surveillance inevitably leads to placing every individual under systems of control. It isn't just "we're watching you" or "we're stamping out dissent." It's "we're directing your participation in life."

As a security analyst in the private sector once told me, "When you can see what every employee is doing, when you have it all at your fingertips, you naturally move on to thinking about how you can control those patterns and flows of movement and activity. It's irresistible. You look at your employees as pieces on a board. The only question is, what game do you want to play with them?"

Every such apparatus is ruled, from the top, by Central Planners. When it's an entire nation, upper-echelon technocrats revel in the idea of blueprinting, mapping, charting, and regulating the flows of all goods and services and people, "for the common good."

Water, food, medicine, land use, transportationthey all become items of a networked system that chooses who gets what and when, and who can travel where, and under what conditions.

This is the wet dream of technocrats. They believe they are saving the world while playing a fascinating game of multidimensional chess.

As new technologies are discovered and come on line, the planners decide how they will be utilized and for whose benefit.

In order to implement such a far-reaching objective, with minimal resistance from the global population, manufactured crises are unleashed which persuade the masses that the planet is under threat and needs "the wise ones" to rescue it and them.

We watch (and fight in) wars and more wars, each one exacerbated and even invented. We see (planned) famine. We are told about desperate shortages and a frying Earth. We are presented with phony epidemics that are falsely promoted as scourges.

The only response, we are led to believe, is more humane control over the population.

On top of that, we are fed an unending stream of propaganda aimed at convincing us that "the great good for the greatest number" is the only humane and acceptable principle of existence. All prior systems of belief are outmoded. We know better now. We must be good and kind and generous to everyone at all times.

Under this quasi-religious banner, which has great emotional appeal, appears The Plan. Our leaders allocate and withhold on the basis of their greater knowledge. We comply. We willingly comply, because we are enlisted in a universal army of altruistic concern.

This is a classic bait and switch. We are taught to believe that service for the greater good is an unchallengeable goal and credo. And then, later, we find out it has been hijacked to institute more power over us, in every way.

The coordinated and networked surveillance of Earth and its people is fed into algorithms that spit out solutions. This much food will go here; that much water will go there; here there will be medical care; there medical care will be severely rationed. These people will be permitted to travel. Those people will be confined to their cities and towns.

Every essential of lifemanaged with on-off switches, and the consequences will play out.

An incredibly complex system of interlocking decisions will be hailed as messianic.

Surveillance; planning; control.

The surveillance is expanded, not because we are constantly under threat and must be protected from terrorists, but because we can then be labeled and entered on to 10 billion squares of the game board, to be moved around or held in place.

This is the vision.

It isn't ours. It never was. But we are not consulted.

Instead we are made witness to watershed events: the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing; the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center; the 2001 assault on the Trade Center and the Pentagon. These ops paralleled the unleashing of better and more far-ranging methods of surveillance.

We are profiled down to the threads on our clothing and DNA in our cells. But what is our profile of the technocrats and their bosses?

They are divorced from human life. They live in a vacuum. They take pleasure from that vacuum.

In 1982, I interviewed Bill Perry, who had just left his job as PR chief at Lawrence Livermore Labs, where scientists design nuclear weapons. Perry had been given the kind of job PR people long for. But one day, when he passed the desk of a researcher and listened to his complaints about budget limitations, Perry said, "Listen, America already has the means to blow up the whole planet eight times. What more do you need?"

The researcher looked up at him with a genuinely puzzled expression. He said, "You don't understand, Bill. This is a problem in physics."

In the same detached sense, the technocrats who want to calculate and direct our future, move by move, minute by minute, see us as components of a complex and very interesting problem.

Yes, they indeed expect to exercise power and control. But they also live in an abstraction. They deal their answers from that realm. They exercise cool passion. They see, for example, that not every single twitch of thought of every person on earth is yet mapped, so they want to finish constructing the means by which they can chart those "missing elements." They want to complete the formula.

They view their research as a wholly natural implication of the mathematics they can manipulate. They swim in technology and they want to extend its architecture. To abandon the program would be tantamount to denying their own intelligence. They climb the mountain because it is there.


They do perceive that one factor does not fit their algorithms: the free individual. It's the wild card.

Therefore, they are compelled to analyze freedom and break it down into DNA functions and brain processes. They assume, because they must, that the free individual is an illusory idea that flows from some older configuration of synaptic transmission, at a time in our evolution when we needed it. But now, they suppose, the engineering of human activity and thought has superseded such quaint notions. Now we all can be tracked, traced, and studied on a different and wider scale. Now we can be seen for what we really are: a hive.

Therefore, we must be instructed, within tight limits, about our various functions.

I'm reminded of a statement attributed to Nobel Laureate, Alfred Szent-Giorgi: "In my search for the secret of life, I have ended up with atoms and electrons, which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line, life has run through my fingers. So, in my old age, I am retracing my steps…"

Today's technocrats will admit no such disappointment or existential crisis. They flourish with great optimism as they design the future world and its single society. If they run out of pieces of their puzzle to study, they'll try to track the motion of every atom and electron and quark in the universe. They'll delight in it.

Knowing all this, we know the terms of the war we are in.

The Central Planners have an equation: "free=uncontrolled=dangerous."

By the gross terms of that equation, they lump us in with thugs and murderers and terrorists. They even see the normal functioning of the brain as a threat, as an intrinsically defective process, and they have long since decided that organ must be corrected with drugs and electromagnetic interventions.

We, on the other hand, must assert, in every way possible, that freedom is real and inviolable, and we must back that up with our actions.

When individual freedom is no longer discussed in great depth by people who should know better, when it is left to wither on the vine, many programs and structures are built to take its place. But if freedom seems like a weak response to the Surveillance State and its goals, remember this: all the State power I've been enumerating is organized to curtail freedom, stop it, end it, make it obsolete. That enormous effort wouldn't be necessary if freedom were merely a passing fancy. It isn't. It's an eternal force.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

[Magda Hassan]

Weekend Edition January 24-26, 2014


Enemies of the State

Why Edward Snowden Terrifies Sean Wilentz

by SHELDON RICHMAN
If I understand Princeton historian Sean Wilentz correctly, progressives ought not to be grateful to Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and Glenn Greenwald for exposing government spying because they are not card-carrying progressives. ("Would You Feel Differently About Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange If You Knew What They Really Thought?") Apparently they have either hung out with libertarians, praised or supported a libertarian, or said something sympathetic to some part of the libertarian philosophy which cancels out anything they might have gotten credit for. (Wilentz is no stickler for consistency, since he criticizes Greenwald for taking libertarian positions now and also for making anti-immigration statements in the past. So is he too libertarian, Professor, or not libertarian enough? For an analysis of Wilentz's McCarthyite tactics, see Justin Raimondo.)
The problem for Wilentz is that when guys like these disclose that the government conducts comprehensive surveillance in ways that would have made O'Brien drool, it puts the entire progressive agenda in jeopardy. He writes,

To them, national security is not a branch of the government; it is the government, or it is tantamount to being the government: a sinister, power-mad authority.… It is impossible, therefore, to reform this clandestine Leviathan from the inside. And so the leakers are aiming at de-legitimating and, if possible, destroying something much larger than a set of NSA programs. They have unleashed a torrent of classified information with the clear intent of showing that the federal government has spun out of control, thereby destroying the public's faith in their government's capacity to spy aggressively on our enemies while also protecting the privacy of its citizens. They want to spin the meaning of the documents they have released to confirm their animating belief that the United States is an imperial power, drunk on its hegemonic ambitions. [Emphasis added.]

At first glance, that seems odd. If individuals are willing to risk their lives and liberty to reveal that the government vacuums up vast quantities of information on everyone without probable cause or even grounds for suspicion why do their larger agendas matter? Shouldn't progressives care about this even if they disagree with other things the leakers believe?
But it matters to Wilentz. Employing a dubious logic, he apparently reasons thusly: We have a government worthy of support because of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and protection from "our enemies." Leaks which reveal that this government spies on us indiscriminately erode confidence in that government and, by implication, all those good things. Therefore, people with apparently libertarian motives who leak that information are to be reviled.
If you caught that bit of question-begging above, well done! Wilentz repeatedly assumes what is in dispute. For example, he fears that "the public's faith in their government's capacity to spy aggressively on our enemies while also protecting the privacy of its citizens" is being destroyed, yet he never gets around to showing that the government can do both things. He claims, without evidence, that the government is worthy of allegiance and is not "an imperial power, drunk on its hegemonic ambitions." But as Henry Farrell writes at Crooked Timber, "There's plenty of evidence both of imperialism and hegemonic drunkenness."
Wilentz commits another bit of question-begging. He says Snowden, Assange, and Greenwald share a "political impulse that might be described … as paranoid libertarianism."
Oh my! The qualifier paranoid suggests that libertarians unreasonably believe that the government may not have the best interests of regular people at heart. Wilentz assumes without argument that we libertarians are wrong about that. But if we're right, then paranoia is a baseless charge. So Professor Wilentz is obligated to show that we are wrong before he uses that defamatory qualifier.
He will have a tough time pulling off that feat, for throughout American history the government has destroyed as much freedom as it could get away with. As Chris Hedges sums up (in a mock Obama speech, "What Obama Really Meant Was …"),

Americans were steadily shorn of their most basic constitutional rights and their traditions of limited government. U.S. intelligence agencies were always anchored in a system of secrecy with little effective oversight from either elected leaders or ordinary citizens.…
In the 1960s, the U.S. government spied on civil rights leaders, the Black Panthers, the American Indian Movement and critics of the Vietnam War, just as today we are spying on Occupy activists, environmentalists, whistle-blowers and other dissidents. And partly in response to these revelations decades ago, especially regarding the FBI's covert dirty tricks program known as COINTELPRO, laws were established in the 1970s to ensure that our intelligence capabilities could not be misused against our citizens. In the long, twilight struggle against communism, and now in the fight against terrorism, I am happy to report that we have eradicated all of these reforms and laws.

Wilentz seems to live in fear that the baby the welfare/warfare state will be thrown out with the bathwater the admitted "abuses" by the NSA. (He does not regard the NSA as abusive per se.) "Where liberals, let alone right-wingers, have portrayed the leakers as truth-telling comrades intent on protecting the state and the Constitution from authoritarian malefactors, that's hardly their goal," Wilentz writes. "In fact, the leakers despise the modern liberal state, and they want to wound it."
If only it were so.
Peter Frase at Jacobin makes an interesting point when he sees in Wilentz's article "an attempt to conflate the ideal of the liberal state with the existing national security state, in an attempt to force defenders of the welfare state to also embrace the authoritarian warfare state." He continues,

I think that when leftists set themselves up as defenders of government against libertarian hostility to the state, they unwittingly accept the Right's framing of the debate in a way that's neither an accurate representation of reality nor a good guide to political action.
The Right, in its libertarian formulation, loves to set itself up as the defender of individual liberty against state power. And thus contemporary capitalism often referred to by that overused buzzword, "neoliberalism" is often equated in casual left discourse with the withdrawal of the state.
But in the works that developed neoliberalism as a category of left political economy, this is not how things are understood at all. Neoliberalism is a state project through and through, and is better understood as a transformation of the state and a shift in its functions, rather than a quantitative reduction in its size.…
The growth of the surveillance state … clearly makes up a central part of the neoliberal turn, and is not something ancillary to it.

Aside from Frase's placing libertarians on the Right, this is good stuff. (Likewise, Wilentz explicitly places FFF on the Right, demonstrating either his poor research skills or his sense of humor.) Both the establishment Left and the establishment Right offer flawed package deals: the former's consists in the welfare/warfare state, while the latter's consists in the warfare/"free"-enterprise state. (Enterprise is not really free because the political environment is deeply corporatist.) In practice, the two are hardly different except for their rhetorical emphases. The point is to hold various constituencies in line by having them believe they must accept the whole package.
Neoliberalism is corporate statism, not the freed market. As Frase says, "it's a state project through and through." But contrary to Frase, libertarians (unlike most conservatives) know better than to conflate "contemporary capitalism" with "the withdrawal of the state," although at times many libertarians talk as if they don't. Otherwise, Frase gets it right. The welfare state, warfare state, and corporate state are of a piece. The government interventions needed to assist well-connected economic interests and to carry out world hegemony create permanent structural economic problems and hardships for the most vulnerable in society. To buy off the victims and reduce the chance of civil strife, the power elite builds an intrusive welfare bureaucracy designed to toss crumbs to the trapped population. In other words, the welfare state is a mechanism of social control made necessary by the corporate-welfare/warfare state.
So in the end, despite his errors and calumnies, Wilentz is right in a way he doesn't know. One cannot critique the surveillance state without critiquing the rest of the existing political apparatus.
Sheldon Richman is vice president and editor at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va. (www.fff.org).
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/24/w...n-wilentz/

[Lauren Johnson]

bump:

The welfare state, warfare state, and corporate state are of a piece. The government interventions needed to assist well-connected economic interests and to carry out world hegemony create permanent structural economic problems and hardships for the most vulnerable in society. To buy off the victims and reduce the chance of civil strife, the power elite builds an intrusive welfare bureaucracy designed to toss crumbs to the trapped population. In other words, the welfare state is a mechanism of social control made necessary by the corporate-welfare/warfare state.

[Peter Lemkin]

.....with the clear intent of showing that the federal government has spun out of control...

Oh, my - perish the thought! - how could they!?!

[Magda Hassan]

bump:

The welfare state, warfare state, and corporate state are of a piece. The government interventions needed to assist well-connected economic interests and to carry out world hegemony create permanent structural economic problems and hardships for the most vulnerable in society. To buy off the victims and reduce the chance of civil strife, the power elite builds an intrusive welfare bureaucracy designed to toss crumbs to the trapped population. In other words, the welfare state is a mechanism of social control made necessary by the corporate-welfare/warfare state.

Indeed. The modern welfare state was created by 19th century warfare state actor Otto Von Bismark. Too keep European aristocracy from being murdered by their serfs and pawns. A profoundly reactionary policy. Yet most in the US and UK think it socialist.