In his column over the weekend, lauding the “conscience and patriotism” of NSA contractor-turned-whistleblower Edward Snowden, legendary “Pentagon Papers” whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg cited a 1975 warning about the NSA from Sen. Frank Church (D-ID), chairman of the U.S. Senate Select Committee tasked with investigating unlawful intelligence gathering by the NSA, CIA and FBI following the Watergate scandal.
“I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America,” Church said, “and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”
On Wednesday, during a fascinating interview on The BradCast on KPFK/Pacifica Radio, Ellsberg said directly, in the wake of Snowden’s disclosures: “We’re in the abyss. What he feared has come to pass.”
The Guardian has asserted that former NSA contractor Edward Snowden “will go down in history as one of America’s most consequential whistleblowers alongside Daniel Ellsberg and Bradley Manning,” do it seemed the perfect time to chat with Ellsberg about all of this.
He offered a number of thoughts about Snowden himself, from one of the few people in the world who may have real insight into what the 29-year old leaker must be thinking and dealing with right about now, and why he may have chosen to both leave the country and then come out publicly. He describes Snowden as “a patriotic American, and to call him a traitor reveals a real misunderstanding of our founding documents.”
“What he has revealed, of course, is documentary evidence of a broadly, blatantly unconstitutional program here which negates the Fourth Amendment,” Ellsberg said. “And if it continues in this way, I think it makes democracy essentially impossible or meaningless.”
As usual, Ellsberg pulled no punches in his comments on the dangers of our privatized surveillance state; the failure of our Congressional intelligence oversight committees (which he describes as “fraudulent” and “totally broken”); and on those who have been critical of Snowden and of Glenn Greenwald, the journalist from The Guardian who has broken most of the scoops on Snowden’s leaked documents.
He said that folks like attorney Jeffrey Toobin at the New Yorker and author Thomas Friedman at New York Times and Senator Dianne Feinstein “are being very strongly discredited,” by their attacks on Snowden. “The criticisms they’re making, I think, are very discreditable to them in their profession,” he says.
And, while answering to my request for a response to Josh Marshall’s recent piece at TPM, in which Marshall weights his own conscience on this matter and frankly revealing his natural tendency to support the government over whistleblowers in cases like this, Ellsberg was particularly pointed. “Marshall has a lot to be said for him as a blogger,” he said, before adding: “I think what he said there is stupid and mistaken and does not do him credit.” He went on to describe some of Marshall’s comments as “slander” against Snowden.
One other point that merits highlight here for now, before I let ya listen below. The difference between Ellsberg’s circumstances and those in play today.
Ellsberg noted that after leaking top secret Defense Department documents to the New York Times in 1971, detailing how the Johnson Administration had lied the nation into the Vietnam War, President Nixon, at the time, ordered a break-in of his psychiatrist’s office and discussed having Ellsberg “eliminated”.
“All the things that were done to me then,” he noted chillingly, “including a CIA profile on me, a burglary of my former psychiatrist’s office in order to get information to blackmail me with, all of those things were illegal, as one might think that they ought to be.”
“They’re legal now, since 9/11, with the PATRIOT Act, which on that very basis alone should be repealed. In other words, this is a case right now with Snowden that shows very dramatically the dangers of that PATRIOT Act, used as it is. So the fact is, that all these things are legal. And even the one of possibly eliminating him”…
“We’re In the abyss,” indeed…
Download MP3 or listen online below…
[audio:http://bradblog.com/audio/KPFK_BradFriedman_DanielEllsberg_061213.mp3]
UPDATE: Complete text transcript of interview now here. [Courtesy Emily Levy]
They are not legal.
The FISA court just ruled that their 86 page opinion (holding that some of these things violate the 4th Amendment) can be released to the public if the federal district court wants to.
EFF had sued the DOJ in an FOIA process.
Dredd –
Let’s be careful — and accurate — here. The case you’re referring to is about whether a secret decision from the secret FISA court, finding one of the secret surveillance requests was illegal/unconstitutional, should be made public.
The court find — in a very rare decision — to say no to one of the surveillance requests made by the government. The request itself was (theoretically) legally made under the FISA law.
Whether the Govt follows those rulings and the FISA law is a different issue entirely. But applying for an order and having it turned down is *supposed* to be the way the FISA court works, though it rarely turns down any request from the Government. (In 2012, for example, there were some 1,800 such requests and ZERO of them were denied.)
Brad,
In regards to Josh Marshall and the ” . . . frankly revealing his natural tendency to support the government over whistleblowers in cases like this.”
Josh Marshall is, obviously, deeply embedded in the Cult of Savvy. Do you think this association just makes it too difficult for him (personally or publicly)to accept when outsiders show him how incompetent and, dare we say, evil his “sources” are?
Thanks
I’d have to agree Marshall is compromised, along with Brooks, Sullivan, and a host of others.
Brad @2,
Senator Wyden found out that the court, in an 86 page opinion, ruled against the government:
(FISA Court Rules Domestic Spying Violates Constitution). On at least one occasion, maybe more.
There is no question some of their activities have been illegal.
So the EFF filed suit under FOIA against the DOJ to get a copy of the FISC opinion.
The DOJ said only the FISA court can release one of its opinions, even though the FISA court had ruled some time back that the DOJ or a District Court could release FISC opinions if they chose to.
So, the EFF went back to the FISA court and the court had some choice words for the DOJ.
Now back in the Federal District Court that case will restart, having been stayed.
The EFF is continuing the suit to get the opinion released, now with the aid of the FISA court ruling.
Incidentally, the EFF asked for all such opinions, not just that one case.
So, we will see, probably in July, what the District Court is going to do.
I expect the opinion[s] to be released for our scrutiny.
An 86 page opinion holding that they violated at least the 4th Amendment will show what aspects of their practices are unconstitutional in FISC reasoning.
The other two cases against the military, filed last week, allege 1st and 4th Amendment violations, as well as some statutory violations.
The Posse Comitatus Laws make it a crime for the military to get involved in police work within the nation as well (Will The Military Become The Police – 3).
Torture is illegal too, but since the DOJ is doing nothing about it, one could say “it is legal now” … but it isn’t … they are simply incompetent in their duties.
I expect the federal court in D.C. or the federal court in NY to find illegality like the FISA court did.
Yes, the decisions have not happened yet so we have to be careful not to assume what facts caused the FISC to rule the military’s behavior to have been illegal.
NSA Director walks into a bar:
Bartender: “Hey, did you hear the one about …â€
NSA Director: “Yep.”
Nice joke.
this article was posted at DU @4:30 PM yesterday and locked off by 6:19 pm as off subject in breaking news
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014508382
Here is the new website for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Dredd sedd @ 9:
Wow! Extensive! Who says there isn’t any public transparency for these programs! (Sigh…)
http://www.talktainmentradio.com/podcasts/Fight%20Back%20061213.mp3 Brads interview with Columbus Free Press’ Dr. Fitrakis
Why can’t Greenwald and Snowden “fans” acknowledge that the Guardian has had to back off of their big bombshell, i.e., that the government has unfettered direct access to the servers and databases of Microsoft, Google, Verizon, etc.. It’s turned out to be false and they now admit it. These companies only respond to specific and legal court orders for information. Snowden and Greenwald completely misled all of us about this. Doesn’t the truth even matter? The skepticism and restraint exercised by the Josh Marshall’s of the world has proven to be the correct response to these “revelations”.
Why do you assume that assertion is incorrect given that “back doors” are supposedly built into some of the software and hardware used today? This means the government and contractors may very well have access abilities unknown to the companies denying said access.
Jim @ 12 said:
Um…Let’s be clear here, Jim. They “admitted” no such thing. Here is a very quick review of what we know and don’t know.
Hope that helps clarify your misgivings!
In further support of Brad’s comment @14, consider this statement, as set forth in a June 12 Guardian article [emphasis added]:
The June 12 article belies Jim’s claim @12 that the Guardian admitted its report was false. Instead, the London-based paper reported:
Sound a bit convoluted? Welcome to the plausible deniability that accompanies that Orwellian world we euphemistically refer to as the “intelligence community.”
The DoD is big on hiring civilians, yet:
(see Wikipedia, “National Security Agency”, “U.S. Cyber Command”, “U.S. Strategic Command”).