The Lost Promise of Barack Obama:
Snowden, Secrecy, Leaks and Lies.
The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts. -Edmund Burke, statesman and writer (1729-1797)
Clear Deception:
"Nobody is listening to your telephone calls." - President Barack Obama on June 7, 2013 in San Jose, California.
Issue:
What role, if any, should government secrecy play in a democracy? In this era of unprecedented spying by the government, corporations and institutions on citizens this question becomes especially critical as we find two of our most cherished constitutional protections under attack: our First Amendment rights to speech and our Fourth Amendment rights to privacy.
Along with those who have exposed classified government information - including Chelsea Manning, Wikileaks and the whistleblower who uncovered the Justice Department's spying on AP and FOX News reporters - a regular guy named Edward J. Snowden has managed to expose and embarrass the United States government for its massive spying on citizens and foreigners around the globe. The government's secret spy programs are no longer so secret.
Deception:
The Obama Administration and Congress claim that the violation or exposure of government secrecy is a threat to our personal security and that of our nation. This is generally deception.
Reality:
The U.S. government, represented by an ineffectual Congress and an over-reaching Executive Branch, is suffering a surfeit of attacks on its desire to keep many of its operations secret from the public that pays its salaries and which it purportedly represents - and claims that any violation of this secrecy is a threat to our personal security and that of our nation. This is deception. Secrecy, it turns out, is the enemy.
Secrecy in government is a time-honored tradition and often accepted as necessary for the effective functioning of government. It's role can be essential, of course, depending on the type of government a society employs. Dictatorships, monarchies and other repressive forms of government are best served by secrecy. Democracies are not.
In choosing democracy the founding fathers of the U.S. chose, wittingly or otherwise, openness in government. Their choice was to be "a nation of laws, not men" (as spoken then) - a fairly novel concept at the time as they defined it. The result: a land where the rule of law prevails over the whims of any one person or institution - say a king or church or chief executive with too much power. Yet it also means that law itself is open to interpretation, challenge, review and repeal as the people see fit. This is the beauty of democracy and it requires openness and transparency to be effective and just.
Transparency obstructs those who seek to use government for their own ends, however, because in demanding honesty and accountability it allows the light of day to shine upon the machinations of government and those who control its workings. It allows the public to determine in each instance what is right, proper and desirable. Openness underpins everything about our governing process from elections to court proceedings to education to public awareness of the methods our government employs in its service to its constituents.
Is there any place for secrecy in government? Its use in military strategy has long been honored and respected in our society and is perhaps the only place its use is condoned by a majority of U.S. citizens, aside from the secrecy government should employ to keep private our personal information it collects for administrative purposes - such as personal census, financial, health and criminal investigation data.
The year 2013 produced a bumper crop of challenges to government secrecy as used by the Executive Branch, Congress and the Pentagon - and gives rise to essential debate about this secrecy. Unfortunately for us all, the Obama Administration and Congress are trying to protect the secrecy they employ while denying the nation any effective opportunity to debate its validity. Yet this debate must happen if we are to remain free from the tyranny of a too-powerful Executive Branch and a Congress that no longer answers to the constitutional requirements of our democracy.
Elemental Background - The First Amendment:
Prized as the foundation stone of our constitutional democracy, the First Amendment to the Constitution (see "End Bar" below) provides the essential guarantee for the functioning of our society. By ensuring that each of us has the right to express our opinions and hear the opinions of others it ensures protection from tyranny - whether it be the tyranny of rulers, business, organizations or lies from any quarter. As individuals, however, we have traditionally lacked the power to project our voices beyond our immediate circles or the public square. This is where the role of the press becomes paramount as it allows for the collection and dissemination of opinion and information across a much wider audience for the benefit of us all and thereby strengthens democracy.
The Associated Press:
Known as the "AP", the Associated Press is a business that has long provided a clearinghouse for news articles shared between the various branches of the press. Media outlets, such as newspapers and television networks, subscribe to the AP's services and submit and/or receive news articles for shared publication by multiple outlets. It is an essential service for full realization of press freedom in the U.S. because it allows for the rapid collection and dissemination of news and information across the country. It is a prime example of First Amendment rights in its ability to provide objective information on the operations of government and business without their consent. It can also, of course, jeopardize the effectiveness of the First Amendment if it becomes the over-arching news agency for the country and abuses the power it obtains, but this is thankfully kept in check by the wealth of independent voices available through other outlets (internet, radio, newspapers, public square etc.).
The Justice Department, under the supervision and direction of the Obama Administration and its Attorney General Eric Holder, recently authorized wiretaps of AP reporters' communications. This is a direct assault by the government on First Amendment rights and the rule of law, which prohibits government spying on the media. The Obama Administration deserves condemnation for this affront. Freedom of speech cannot long exist if the people cannot speak to reporters confidentially and without fear of government interference.
Wikileaks and Chelsea (f/k/a Bradley) Manning:
Wikileaks is to the AP what a rebel is to a soldier: it speaks truth without regard for the opinions of those who can kill it. This is not to diminish the value and role of the AP but to highlight the essential value of Wikileaks as a voice not cowed by societal restrictions of association, money, governmental control or access to power. Wikileaks probes into the news that the AP and mainstream press seem unable to obtain but accommodatingly distribute once it is exposed.
Chelsea Manning was a U.S. soldier who witnessed first-hand the deception the U.S. government has been perpetrating upon its own people in its lies about our involvement in our wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. (That the U.S. commits deception and lies is not news or heretical speech - it is acknowledged by the government itself.) Manning saw it as her duty - as a U.S. citizen - to uphold the right of the people to know what is happening in our name and financed by our taxes. To this end she released confidential information on military operations, allegedly to Wikileaks, which distributed it globally via the internet.
The Justice Department, under the supervision and direction of the Obama Administration and its Attorney General Eric Holder, prosecuted Manning for treason and has long attempted to extradite the founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, for presumed prosecution (see "Manning, Wikileaks and U.S. Crimes Abroad). The government claims their actions compromised the security of U.S. citizens, a charge both unproven and debatable; yet rather than have this debate the government seeks to control and suppress it through prosecuting and silencing Manning and Wikileaks.
Edward Snowden and the Guardian:
Edward Snowden formerly worked for both the U.S. government and one of its national intelligence private contractors, Booz Allen Hamilton as an intelligence officer. In his role at Booz Allen he witnessed first-hand the government's program of spying on U.S. citizens in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Aware that the government's program was not only vast - ensnaring virtually all U.S. citizens and the population of much of the developed world - but also illegal, Snowden saw it was his duty to reveal this information to the public. After fleeing the U.S. he released pertinent government documents to The Guardian, a prominent British newspaper.
The Justice Department, under the supervision and direction of the Obama Administration and its Attorney General Eric Holder, want to prosecute Snowden for his release of confidential material - and possibly charge him with treason, a capital defense (potentially punishable by death). Anticipating this possibility, Snowden fled to presumed safe havens rather than risking unjust treatment and trial by staying on U.S. soil.
In each of the cases listed above the Justice Department, under the supervision and direction of the Obama Administration and its Attorney General Eric Holder, has made it clear that it will not let the constitution stand in its way of persecuting those who act contrary to its wishes.
We Have Lost Control of Our Government:
Broad, unfettered spying by government on citizens happens when the public loses control of its government. Nobody knows what is really happening and therein lies the real danger to our democracy and our security. As discussed elsewhere on this site (see Part I: U.S. Spying on U.S. Citizens), the government is spying on U.S. citizens to both a degree unprecedented in our history and in a manner which deprives us of our Fourth Amendment privacy rights (see "End Bar" below). Though this has been going on for years and has been previously exposed by various media outlets, it took Snowden's vast leak of classified documents to get the attention of the mainstream press, the U.S. public and even Congress, the oft-clueless initiators of much of this secret assault on privacy and other constitutional rights.
The Justice Department, under the supervision and direction of the Obama Administration and its Attorney General Eric Holder, are not only perpetrating this unbridled spying but are attempting to defend it as essential and unobtrusive. Yet - and here is where their deception is readily exposed - they suppress debate. Obama's claim that "nobody is listening to your telephone calls" is an insult to democratic debate because "listening" is no longer required for the government to invade our privacy when the information they most want is what they are getting - who we associate with and when and where - and what we transmit visually in texts, emails, videos and through our daily interactions with the internet. Worse, it comes to pass that the government and its contractors are indeed listening to phone calls without obtaining warrants as required by the constitution. President Obama is lying to his citizens when he claims otherwise.
Snowden's action is all that stood between us and the tyranny of an over-reaching government. As stated in "Manning, Wikileaks and U.S. Crimes Aboad", if we fear exposure of the government spying on U.S. citizens then we fear democracy.
We should question the strength of our democracy when it takes a renegade ex-CIA employee and a British newspaper to inform us of our own oppression.
Resolution:
Our government's secrecy, spying and prosecution of whistleblowers are blatant and criminal violations of our most fundamental rights. If the U.S. public does not protest and stop it then we will live under the tyranny of our government. Whether you consider that benign and desirable or inevitable or alarming, this is the government we have created and under which we live. Hope only then that it is a government that you support and not one that opposes your values - because you will have no voice in how it governs, and it knows where and who you are and with, what you do and what you say and write.
In this era of an increasingly global society, the mass digitization of information and the global internet, the long and oppressive era of government and business secrecy is rapidly coming to a close. The Obama Administration, Congress and the courts should be accommodating this change, not challenging it. The U.S. government must face up to the new reality of the world: secrecy will no longer serve because it has never been an honest approach in a democracy and it can no longer be controlled in the digital era. The U.S. should stop spying on reporters and its own citizens, provide protection to whistleblowers and figure out how to run its affairs in an open manner.
Clear Deception:
"Nobody is listening to your telephone calls." - President Barack Obama on June 7, 2013 in San Jose, California.
Issue:
What role, if any, should government secrecy play in a democracy? In this era of unprecedented spying by the government, corporations and institutions on citizens this question becomes especially critical as we find two of our most cherished constitutional protections under attack: our First Amendment rights to speech and our Fourth Amendment rights to privacy.
Along with those who have exposed classified government information - including Chelsea Manning, Wikileaks and the whistleblower who uncovered the Justice Department's spying on AP and FOX News reporters - a regular guy named Edward J. Snowden has managed to expose and embarrass the United States government for its massive spying on citizens and foreigners around the globe. The government's secret spy programs are no longer so secret.
Deception:
The Obama Administration and Congress claim that the violation or exposure of government secrecy is a threat to our personal security and that of our nation. This is generally deception.
Reality:
The U.S. government, represented by an ineffectual Congress and an over-reaching Executive Branch, is suffering a surfeit of attacks on its desire to keep many of its operations secret from the public that pays its salaries and which it purportedly represents - and claims that any violation of this secrecy is a threat to our personal security and that of our nation. This is deception. Secrecy, it turns out, is the enemy.
Secrecy in government is a time-honored tradition and often accepted as necessary for the effective functioning of government. It's role can be essential, of course, depending on the type of government a society employs. Dictatorships, monarchies and other repressive forms of government are best served by secrecy. Democracies are not.
In choosing democracy the founding fathers of the U.S. chose, wittingly or otherwise, openness in government. Their choice was to be "a nation of laws, not men" (as spoken then) - a fairly novel concept at the time as they defined it. The result: a land where the rule of law prevails over the whims of any one person or institution - say a king or church or chief executive with too much power. Yet it also means that law itself is open to interpretation, challenge, review and repeal as the people see fit. This is the beauty of democracy and it requires openness and transparency to be effective and just.
Transparency obstructs those who seek to use government for their own ends, however, because in demanding honesty and accountability it allows the light of day to shine upon the machinations of government and those who control its workings. It allows the public to determine in each instance what is right, proper and desirable. Openness underpins everything about our governing process from elections to court proceedings to education to public awareness of the methods our government employs in its service to its constituents.
Is there any place for secrecy in government? Its use in military strategy has long been honored and respected in our society and is perhaps the only place its use is condoned by a majority of U.S. citizens, aside from the secrecy government should employ to keep private our personal information it collects for administrative purposes - such as personal census, financial, health and criminal investigation data.
The year 2013 produced a bumper crop of challenges to government secrecy as used by the Executive Branch, Congress and the Pentagon - and gives rise to essential debate about this secrecy. Unfortunately for us all, the Obama Administration and Congress are trying to protect the secrecy they employ while denying the nation any effective opportunity to debate its validity. Yet this debate must happen if we are to remain free from the tyranny of a too-powerful Executive Branch and a Congress that no longer answers to the constitutional requirements of our democracy.
Elemental Background - The First Amendment:
Prized as the foundation stone of our constitutional democracy, the First Amendment to the Constitution (see "End Bar" below) provides the essential guarantee for the functioning of our society. By ensuring that each of us has the right to express our opinions and hear the opinions of others it ensures protection from tyranny - whether it be the tyranny of rulers, business, organizations or lies from any quarter. As individuals, however, we have traditionally lacked the power to project our voices beyond our immediate circles or the public square. This is where the role of the press becomes paramount as it allows for the collection and dissemination of opinion and information across a much wider audience for the benefit of us all and thereby strengthens democracy.
The Associated Press:
Known as the "AP", the Associated Press is a business that has long provided a clearinghouse for news articles shared between the various branches of the press. Media outlets, such as newspapers and television networks, subscribe to the AP's services and submit and/or receive news articles for shared publication by multiple outlets. It is an essential service for full realization of press freedom in the U.S. because it allows for the rapid collection and dissemination of news and information across the country. It is a prime example of First Amendment rights in its ability to provide objective information on the operations of government and business without their consent. It can also, of course, jeopardize the effectiveness of the First Amendment if it becomes the over-arching news agency for the country and abuses the power it obtains, but this is thankfully kept in check by the wealth of independent voices available through other outlets (internet, radio, newspapers, public square etc.).
The Justice Department, under the supervision and direction of the Obama Administration and its Attorney General Eric Holder, recently authorized wiretaps of AP reporters' communications. This is a direct assault by the government on First Amendment rights and the rule of law, which prohibits government spying on the media. The Obama Administration deserves condemnation for this affront. Freedom of speech cannot long exist if the people cannot speak to reporters confidentially and without fear of government interference.
Wikileaks and Chelsea (f/k/a Bradley) Manning:
Wikileaks is to the AP what a rebel is to a soldier: it speaks truth without regard for the opinions of those who can kill it. This is not to diminish the value and role of the AP but to highlight the essential value of Wikileaks as a voice not cowed by societal restrictions of association, money, governmental control or access to power. Wikileaks probes into the news that the AP and mainstream press seem unable to obtain but accommodatingly distribute once it is exposed.
Chelsea Manning was a U.S. soldier who witnessed first-hand the deception the U.S. government has been perpetrating upon its own people in its lies about our involvement in our wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. (That the U.S. commits deception and lies is not news or heretical speech - it is acknowledged by the government itself.) Manning saw it as her duty - as a U.S. citizen - to uphold the right of the people to know what is happening in our name and financed by our taxes. To this end she released confidential information on military operations, allegedly to Wikileaks, which distributed it globally via the internet.
The Justice Department, under the supervision and direction of the Obama Administration and its Attorney General Eric Holder, prosecuted Manning for treason and has long attempted to extradite the founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, for presumed prosecution (see "Manning, Wikileaks and U.S. Crimes Abroad). The government claims their actions compromised the security of U.S. citizens, a charge both unproven and debatable; yet rather than have this debate the government seeks to control and suppress it through prosecuting and silencing Manning and Wikileaks.
Edward Snowden and the Guardian:
Edward Snowden formerly worked for both the U.S. government and one of its national intelligence private contractors, Booz Allen Hamilton as an intelligence officer. In his role at Booz Allen he witnessed first-hand the government's program of spying on U.S. citizens in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Aware that the government's program was not only vast - ensnaring virtually all U.S. citizens and the population of much of the developed world - but also illegal, Snowden saw it was his duty to reveal this information to the public. After fleeing the U.S. he released pertinent government documents to The Guardian, a prominent British newspaper.
The Justice Department, under the supervision and direction of the Obama Administration and its Attorney General Eric Holder, want to prosecute Snowden for his release of confidential material - and possibly charge him with treason, a capital defense (potentially punishable by death). Anticipating this possibility, Snowden fled to presumed safe havens rather than risking unjust treatment and trial by staying on U.S. soil.
In each of the cases listed above the Justice Department, under the supervision and direction of the Obama Administration and its Attorney General Eric Holder, has made it clear that it will not let the constitution stand in its way of persecuting those who act contrary to its wishes.
We Have Lost Control of Our Government:
Broad, unfettered spying by government on citizens happens when the public loses control of its government. Nobody knows what is really happening and therein lies the real danger to our democracy and our security. As discussed elsewhere on this site (see Part I: U.S. Spying on U.S. Citizens), the government is spying on U.S. citizens to both a degree unprecedented in our history and in a manner which deprives us of our Fourth Amendment privacy rights (see "End Bar" below). Though this has been going on for years and has been previously exposed by various media outlets, it took Snowden's vast leak of classified documents to get the attention of the mainstream press, the U.S. public and even Congress, the oft-clueless initiators of much of this secret assault on privacy and other constitutional rights.
The Justice Department, under the supervision and direction of the Obama Administration and its Attorney General Eric Holder, are not only perpetrating this unbridled spying but are attempting to defend it as essential and unobtrusive. Yet - and here is where their deception is readily exposed - they suppress debate. Obama's claim that "nobody is listening to your telephone calls" is an insult to democratic debate because "listening" is no longer required for the government to invade our privacy when the information they most want is what they are getting - who we associate with and when and where - and what we transmit visually in texts, emails, videos and through our daily interactions with the internet. Worse, it comes to pass that the government and its contractors are indeed listening to phone calls without obtaining warrants as required by the constitution. President Obama is lying to his citizens when he claims otherwise.
Snowden's action is all that stood between us and the tyranny of an over-reaching government. As stated in "Manning, Wikileaks and U.S. Crimes Aboad", if we fear exposure of the government spying on U.S. citizens then we fear democracy.
We should question the strength of our democracy when it takes a renegade ex-CIA employee and a British newspaper to inform us of our own oppression.
Resolution:
Our government's secrecy, spying and prosecution of whistleblowers are blatant and criminal violations of our most fundamental rights. If the U.S. public does not protest and stop it then we will live under the tyranny of our government. Whether you consider that benign and desirable or inevitable or alarming, this is the government we have created and under which we live. Hope only then that it is a government that you support and not one that opposes your values - because you will have no voice in how it governs, and it knows where and who you are and with, what you do and what you say and write.
In this era of an increasingly global society, the mass digitization of information and the global internet, the long and oppressive era of government and business secrecy is rapidly coming to a close. The Obama Administration, Congress and the courts should be accommodating this change, not challenging it. The U.S. government must face up to the new reality of the world: secrecy will no longer serve because it has never been an honest approach in a democracy and it can no longer be controlled in the digital era. The U.S. should stop spying on reporters and its own citizens, provide protection to whistleblowers and figure out how to run its affairs in an open manner.
End Bar: The First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
FIRST: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
FOURTH: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.