To my way of thinking,

Are We Becoming What We Once Hated?

is much too kind to the Deep State that has run the USA for God knows how long. The difference now is that the mask has slipped, or been torn away. (Under Trump, Pomposo and Bolton it has been discarded.) The DS is essentially no different to the way it was 70 years ago, it is merely less well hidden.

The House on the Embankment in Moscow in Soviet times was for privileged people but it allowed for human surveillance of the residents and nighttime arrests took place there. Arrests occurred elsewhere based on the work of informants and police, a system perfected later in the GDR.

It was labor intensive and paper records were the norm. Compare and contrast that with what I found on Google on my “account” when I clicked on “What data we collect” OWTTE. On one day I chose at random I found a map showing the motel I’d stayed at, my automobile route to another city, my detailed movements there, and my destination. All this obviously from my phone. Google didn’t justify its data collection; it just informed me of it. Just one day in my life.

Around the time of Snowden’s bursting onto the scene, an NSA fellow told of employees being able to listen to stored recordings of phone calls, such as a call between a deployed soldier and his wife with entertaining intimate content. (“There’s a good one at….”)

All data just there because of astonishing technology routinely employed, and light years from the labor-intensive methods described earlier involving actual human prioritization and limited resources.

Letter correspondence involves privacy once considered the norm though now the destination and originating addresses for every letter are recorded for posterity (soon to be supplemented by other government license plate readers, high-def surveillance photography, and facial recognition software). Now I understand one has no expectation of privacy in one’s email correspondence because one “knows” that emails are stored at or readable at various transmission without any protective envelope. (I think police must do more than call internet and phone companies and say hand it over but I’m vague on that just now.)

Let us not forget the enforcement role of government auxiliaries such as Antifa and the JDL who can apply educational muscle and gasoline when needed. Charlottesville was ALL about the Alt Right. And local and state police complicity in Antifa violence was as obvious as it was ignored.

i have no way if verifying this statement.

imo there are 2 factions of the deep state in competition. the globalist interventionist faction which off shores jobs and uses the us military as the muscleman to intimidate nations into submission for the benefit of the 1/2 of 1%. the hillary crowd and the ones trying to overthrow trump NOW.

trumps deep state crowd are america first people who understand we have reached the point where we can have america or an empire but no longer BOTH.

the trump voter understands this in their guts which is why he was elected.

its a fight to the death. one side or the other will prevail.

if the hillary crowd wins america will be destroyed as a viable nation within a 20 years if not less.

we will be become irretrievably 3rd world with no coming back.

if you are actually correct in the omnipotence of the deep state for surveilling and controlling the population how is it that hillary clinton is not president?

Easy answer … Trump promised the deep state more than Hillary did. Hill has a thing about personal power and prestige. She thought she had it locked up, and control of the country for the next 50 years through nepotistic political selection. Glorious name going down in history, etc. etc.

Look at Trump. He has delivered a tax “reform” that mostly enrichens members of the deep state. That is all. Illegal aliens now pour across the border at unprecedented rates. Foreign wars loom ripe for the picking. What the deep state wants, it will get.

one question judith!

if you are actually correct in the omnipotence of the deep state for surveilling and controlling the population how is it that hillary clinton is not president?

the truth is much simpler, the infamous “THEY” are not onmipotent and might even be actually incompetent.

look at how the elites have so misjudged russian economic and military power the past dozen years washington now finds itself so far behind russia in missile and ew technonoly and actual latest generation weapons deployed the pentagon dare not pick a fight with moscow lets it go nuclear because its the ONLY way they can now win…. just before dying from the return strike

It is SO complete, their power so tyrannical, the instruments arrayed against the American people so perfectly aligned and synchronized from above they don’t even bother stopping us from noticing and talking about it.

They watch for potential sub-critical mass. When you connect to Unz, a record is kept of the IP address and geographical origin. The timing of posts is monitored, so that within a few weeks they know (or, more correctly, there are records that show) where you sit, and more often than not, a real identifier (such as your in-house email address) of who you are. Name, age, background, affiliations are trivial to obtain from that point.

The surveillance is not done because you, as an individual, are suspect. It’s done because there is an enormous process- and record-keeping storage system available. They do it just to be thorough. There are telltales for key words and phrases, sure. No big deal, just part of classifying minuscule chunks of data.

Only a vanishingly-small subset of US (and global) individuals are worth the record-keeping and analysis. But, so what? It’s there and it can be of use.

It isn’t merely the Snooping State, that’s merely one of their tools. It’s the Soviet-Style media and intelligentsia that controls minds and speech from academia to your very employment that is the actual power. Why, it gets you sent to “sensitivity training”, another word for the old Soviet-Style re-education camps. Straighten out your thinking, or your speech, or you’ll find yourself ruined, maybe even with an insanity label on your back. That’s why everything is hate speech. Hate Speech is the new, Soviet Style crime against the state by which you go to the gulag for your very thoughts, as determined by a judge, appointed and controlled by the State itself, of course.

From sexual and gender and racial politics to anything that smacks of less than complete and utter fealty to Israel (the biggest racism of all), Americans have to live and work and study under this jackboot. The old Soviets would have been appalled at how complete is the current state of totalitarian domination over us all. It is SO complete, their power so tyrannical, the instruments arrayed against the American people so perfectly aligned and synchronized from above they don’t even bother stopping us from noticing and talking about it.

Mr. Giraldi, you have valid points but, if nothing else, the Govmant will make life even more miserable for him than heretofore. That’s what they do. Sadly, The Rule of Law is a term used for grand-standing and little else (I can’t get that hideous picture of Joe Biden pontificating out of my mind.
I like your articles. Thanks

As is increasingly usual, here the word patriot is used in a discussion among people who were raised in different countries (on different continents, even), and some of which are rootless cosmopolitans. That, in addition, happens in a world where patriotism in many places is in the ebb.
It’s, therefore, pretty problematic how much we understand patriotism, how close or different are our understandings, and with what thoroughness we determine it in strangers-yet-public-persons like Snowden.

Bingo

You make a number of good points in this comment and in your original post. I’ll be watching you 😉

Yeah, but the Russians haven’t outlived their usefulness yet. There’s too much POZ.

I’ll probably outlive my usefulness to them too someday. Spite makes one strong and dedicated, though, onto one’s own ending.

This is a good opportunity to witness how a CIA agent returns home.

Let’s all watch.

While questioning Snowden’s story is a perfectly reasonable thing to do (some of it is indeed questionable), I’m rather wary of the kinds of speculations that are made in the above links, since I can imagine plenty of reasons that Snowden might not be completely straightforward about his work with the CIA.

But I meant that on the hypothesis that whatever he has said in public about mass surveillance has been said in good faith, then it seems that he is trying to occupy some middle ground (or to sit on the fence, depending where you are coming from).

I agree.

It’s hard for me to see Snowden as a simple-hearted fellow after taking cursory look on the facts available about him, let alone a more detailed one like this:

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/?s=Edward+Snowden&submit=Search
http://www.spyculture.com/operation-snowden-tom-secker-on-tmr/

I find the characterisations of Snowden as a cypherpunk and an idealist rather surprising. No cypherpunk whom I know would work for the NSA in the first place, and wouldn’t someone who underwent a conversion to cypherpunkery while working at the NSA simply dump the information publicly rather than give it to curators? As for idealism, it seems to me that Snowden has argued rather for principled realism with respect to the balance of personal privacy and state security. Many serious people who have worked for the NSA have argued that mass surveillance is an enormous drain on resources and that if surveillance were targeted and regulated, there would be both more privacy and more state security. But maybe they are wrong and there will always be a ruthless arms race between those who want privacy and those who want authority. In that sense perhaps Snowden’s position is idealistic, but it is a rather moderate kind of idealism.

Was I the only one who noticed that RT’s coverage of the inauguration was… snarky? Pretty down to the left as I saw it. So what game is Putin playing here?

As ever, you fail to mention that Snowden might be a deep state agent, not a true leaker. This might be why Russia only gave him “temporary asylum.”
His Wikileaks appeared via the Guardian, Der Spiegel, NYT, WAPO and other MSM outlets. Other outlets included Zionist pornographer, Glenn Greenwald.
A genuine leaker would keep away from such outlets.

Trump does not want Snowden back; Snowden is irrelevant and would only be a distraction at this point.

The situation would be “lose-lose” in a different sense.

If Trump has Snowden prosecuted, he will needlessly anger many good Americans (and I don’t mean the whiny special snowflakes, although many of those would be angered. but right-wing conservative constitutionalists opposed to the police state who view Snowden as a hero).

If Trump does not prosecute, it would look extremely bad that a government employee sworn to secrecy does not do hard time. A very bad precedent considering the United States has 100,000 employees in its intelligence agencies.

Thus , Trump probably prefers that Snowden stay where he is.

He would surely have to do five years of twenty in gaol, meaning a gamble that Trump would still be there to pardon him. He is probably having the time of his life in Russia, like Lee Harvey Oswald did.

[Attacking Trump is the cool thing to do now, and doing so might give Snowden a chance of claiming asylum in a European state.]

Pity Euros are all so cowardly that they wouldn’t give him refuge even to spite Trump. I suppose he might have some chance of avoiding extradition in France as a cinema personality, or in Britain as an autist.

Yes.

There is an inherent, cogent logic to acquiring one’s persecutor’s vices once the tormentor is defeated or escaped, to democracy turning into authoritarianism (and, although at a slower pace, the viceversa).

Sociopolitical history is cyclical. Nothing pushes to democracy like tyranny, and nothing pushes to tyranny like democracy.

A work we have all read, by Edward Gibbons, draws our attention to the likeness of all civilisational sunset.

China’s Taoists warned, “you become what you hate.”
China’s Taoists were wise people.

It is a sad fact that President Obama has been one of the worst at imprisoning whistleblowers. There is a chill on – anyone attempting to show corruption or illegal activities by the military or the government is at risk of lengthy and expensive court cases, which are likely to result in prison terms, loss of livelihood, and perhaps loss of health or early death.

This chill has an effect – people who opine on topics they feel the government might not approve of are now making their speech as anonymous as they can, within their technological expertise. People are afraid to speak their minds, because Big Brother is here, and he is very mean and very active.

If anything ruins our country it will be the chilling effect on free speech by things like the NSA, secret courts, and imprisonment of whistleblowers who are only acting in what they think is the best interest of America and have no desire to harm their own country.

Unfortunately, it might be a long time until the next information hero like Snowden or Manning makes secrets public. Ordinary people do not have the strength of will to subject themselves to the results of such whistle blowing type activities – the government is just too powerful and too willing to use that power against private individuals. The government wants to shovel acts of torture and corruption out of sight by making bogus prosecutions against those who dare to bring those unpleasant and damning facts to light of day.

It is so sad that not one national candidate sees these whistleblower prosecutions as a bad thing, as something to fight against to show Americans one way to improve America.

Too much money to be made from war to give any of it up. Obviously a growth area with unlimited potential.

“the goal that they proclaim is not the goal”…

…is the most astute and least explored observation in not only the this article, but the entire phenomena of the security state.

Where Poitras has missed the boat and is to a certain extent misled, is where professional intelligence information operations will spend high $ and go into hyper-drive/overtime to shape the discourse away from the goal. That strategy can include deliberate leaks accompanied by persecution/prosecution to draw attention to the Mannings & Assangs of this world, to keep the focus of personalities like Poitras off the mark. Katrina vanden Heuval, in her ‘The Nation’ interview with Snowden, brought up a ‘deep state’ concept which Snowden acknowledged but the subject was as quickly dropped. Why? Because they’ve no idea where that trail leads to?

http://m.thenation.com/article/186129-snowden-exile-exclusive-interview

So long as the focus can kept be on personalities revealing facts but not motive, and individual acts & information that distract from an internal ‘deep state’ are the focus, the perpetrators within a security state’s concealed agenda will be winning. In this scenario, if Snowden was unforeseen, Assange has been a tool where the man is the issue, as much as what he has released doesn’t touch where the internal threat of the security state issues from. This becomes a distraction and creates numerous rabbit trails obscuring the source of the malevolent security state behaviors. Poitras hasn’t yet seen through this.

One reason for Poitras myopia is her embrace of the mythology on the left. When your archetype myth is challenged, there is a visceral rejection of evidence that is staring one in the face. In fact Pentagon liaison to the CIA, L. Fletcher Prouty, a man who would be in position to know without a doubt as one of the authors of the so-called Pentagon Papers, long ago fingered Daniel Ellsberg as at the center of a deliberate leak meant to shift responsibility for the failures of Vietnam policies from the CIA to the military. This is the keystone of the deep state disinformation; the people who’ve built information that tends to support Colonel Prouty’s revelation (not a hypothesis) are all on the center right and better positioned to know where the deep state emanates from (the right.)

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is one such organization. Presided over by a Reagan White House attorney, there is no one better positioned to point to a hyper-right-wing Christian religious coup at the Pentagon. Colonel Prouty, an old line conservative, had labeled this deep state cult ‘The Secret Team” and described it as a “new religion.” Harper’s Magazine investigative reporter Jeff Sharlet has documented the related Doug Coe cult extensively. Seymour Hersh has touched on it. It has both Catholic & Protestant members that overlap with Opus Dei and Assemblies of God (and more.) This endeavor had began in the 1930s with Hitler sympathetic businessmen organized into cells based on intelligence agency models. The goal of a elite, weaponized, Christian hierarchy usurping democratic institutions, endeavor based in powerful corporate board interests integrated to our most powerful intelligence agency and military personalities, is nearly in reach.

http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/04/23/sociopaths-democracy/

But so long as the left embraces a mythology induced myopia that precludes a straightforward exam of the reality, the deep state will remain poised to win at the end of a day not so far away-

[…] the Tom Englehardt interview with Laura Poitras wondering […]

Even the NPR review of Citizenfour gets roped into the propaganda. Two highlights:

There’s the now-familiar clip of the NSA head General James Clapper assuring a congressional committee, under oath, that the NSA does not collect data on millions of Americans, not wittingly, he adds.

Oh, that.

Snowden tells Greenwald he’s giving The Guardian and other papers everything he has – not even holding back material that could endanger agents because, he says, he doesn’t want to be the person to make the judgment on what to release.

Poitras doesn’t probe that. Nor does she or Greenwald probe the reasons Snowden turned whistleblower, which are, on evidence, more complex than his horror of unchecked government surveillance.

What reasons? What evidence?

link:

http://www.npr.org/2014/10/24/358350193/citizenfour-a-paranoid-conspiracy-documentary-about-edward-snowden

“Given me freedom or give me death” – Patrick Henry

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” – Ronald Reagan

“Those who sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve Neither.” – Benjamin Franklin

To those who screech for ever more security, we must ask “ Just how bad does your pussy hurt?”

God Bless Edward Snowden

Snowden is an American hero.

Golly, I don’t have a security clearance. However I do have insecurity clearance. On account of those zany dang CIADIAFBINSA spooky boys mess with my ‘security’ almost every day.

What I find fascinating is how little information on Russia and China Snowden released.

[…] Number of Americans with security clearances. […]

The NSA must love people using iphones/ipads then. Makes you wonder how apple came to the decision to use unremovable batteries.

I’d be all in favor of Greenwald publishing all his communications with Snowden. Snowden, too, is a great writer.

I don’t like Navalny personally. I don’t trust his ‘Yale World Fellows’ (Skull and Bones/NWO ‘vetting’?) fellowship. I think D.C.’s made strong efforts to coopt him but if La Russophobe is attacking him that may be a sign he’s shrugged off those would’ve been his Spaso House handlers. But I agree the prosecution of him looks petty and politically motivated compared to the amount of corruption in the system.

It’s my sincere hope that he represents the beginning of a genuinely (read: not foreign funded) populist opposition in Russia. That’s definitely something Russia needs. Especially since I’m convinced there’s no way an exhausted Putin will stay on until 2024 and I think it was a mistake for VVP to take a third term even though it was Constitutional. Also grimly aware that Medvedev proved weak in the Libya crisis and there was no one else ready to step up. I still think Sergey Shoigu is being groomed to succeed Putin but the rumors about his own personal wealth accumulated during his tenure at McChs will no doubt be promoted soon.

I had a longtime family friend who asked me my opinion of Navalny the other day. I used the analogy he would understand of a Ron Paul or a Gary Johnson — someone who has no initial chance of actually winning beyond a small scale but does plant the seeds for positive ideas to infiltrate the big party and (hopefully) take it over the next decade or more (and for my haters who would say that’s a joke, look at all the Chris Christie fury at Rand Paul in the past few weeks along with neocon trolling of him over one single aide’s now abandoned talk radio schtick — you don’t catch flak unless you’re over the target as the old WWII bomber pilots used to say).

While that patriotic (read: not a laydown for NATO and the West) opposition vehicle won’t be United Russia, maybe something like Fair Russia that is essentially ‘Russian Gaullist’ has a shot. As Anatoly’s documented here, real libertarianism probably has little constituency in more collectively-minded Rus (if libertarians can’t win seats in essentially individualist America or have to settle for doing so in Western states under the GOP label). But there’s always hope at least in rural or Caucasian areas the People will be free to (legally) bear arms again.

Subjective desire? Reasonable expectation? You dance around the subject in the most liberal, leftist of ways. And this shouldn’t be a left or right side issue. Every American is entitled to privacy. Bobby, you may be fine with giving up American freedoms for so-called “safety”, but some of us still believe in the people, and their inalienable rights. And to give up those rights is willful ignorance.

In your wonderful article on Snowden, you stand up for the truth and our constitution, thank you.
But you are missing the point, is it on purpose?
The real reason this is so dangerous is not some vague ancient document, or some intellectual debate about “privacy” or “civil liberties,” but one, tangible, terrifying reality that is summed up in one word.
Blackmail.
Even if a pol or a judge or a high ranking military officer is squeaky clean, this program lets the corporate coup d’etat masters have the goods on all their relatives and friends.
If you think this has not been already used, you are not following the rest of the whistle blowers. Think madame Lindsay Graham for instance. Harry Reid comes to mind as well. What about SCOTUS?
Please have the courage to talk about the real terror of this program.
Blackmail.

Excellent piece, “conservative” in the original meaning of the term, seeking to conserve what is most valuable in our American constitutional traditions.

@marcus

If I’m so willfully ignorant, please cite case law to support your position. A subjective desire for privacy is not the same thing as a reasonable expectation of privacy.

It is imperative to understand the oath of office, of service and of our citizenship. We swear to uphold the Constitution, to defend the Constitution, to protect the Constitution. Nothing in that oath states or implies fealty to the government or the administration or lawlessness by officials large or small.

Snowden is defending our Constitutional rights while exposing the lawless government.

Our nation is nothing without its Constitution. Millions of men and women in uniform and various silent services have served, been lost, died, were crippled and still are on the firing line all over the globe. They do that for the Constitutional rights, not Executive Orders, secret court permissions and bureaucratic claptrap.

The oath of the President is simple. To preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

The entire fealty system of America, from top to bottom, is focused on the Constitution, not government.

Snowden, like Ellsberg, is risking all for the Constitution.

Couldn’t have said it better myself Zach. Bobby you must be willfully ignorant to say that the government by monitoring your emails, web searches, location data, and phone data is not breaking the 4th amendment spelled out below like Zach said.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”

Snowden is a hero and a martyr for Liberty in my eyes.

See the discussion of this on Kremlin Stooge.

… the decision to arrest Navalny following his conviction was a simple procedural error…

You have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about.

Here is the report of the rapporteurs of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as it appears on the Council’s website.

http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/NewsManager/EMB_NewsManagerView.asp?ID=8945&L=2

This differs from what was reported to me by someone acquainted with one of the rapporteurs (who is personally known to me). It has changed the report from an admission that Navalny might have broken the law to a discussion of his sentence being disproportionate on the assumption that he made a mistake. Even to mention the possibility that Navalny might have made a mistake (ie. broken the law) if only in order to challenge the length of his sentence is a significant concession coming from this source.

Dear Anatoly,

It has just been pointed out to me that the reason why Navalny was released was because Article 108 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation precludes a person found guilty at first instance (ie. at trial) of embezzlement from being sent to prison until the sentence comes into effect ie. until determination of his appeal.

In other words the decision to arrest Navalny following his conviction was a simple procedural error which was immediately corrected at the request of the prosecution. Significantly the defence lawyers representing Navalny and who are supposed to be acting in his interests missed the mistake. On the basis of their conduct of the trial that does not surprise me. Whilst they never plumbed the depths of the defence lawyers in the Pussy Riot case overall their conduct struck me as unimpressive. Anyway the incident serves as further evidence of the integrity of the process.

I should say that I remain firmly of the view that the authorities in Moscow want Navalny to stand in the election and are working hard to make sure he does. I should also say I simply do not agree with your interpretation of Malkin’s remarks, which appear to me and which I am sure the European Court of Human Rights will say are innocuous. Lastly, on the subject of Navalny’s conviction uniting the opposition, it is early days but the attempt to convene a meeting of the Coordinating Committee today failed because of the inability to reach a quorum.

Dear Anatoly,

I am struggling at the moment to find time to write my own piece on this case. I am finding it very difficult.

What I will say at the moment is that you are making the fundamental mistake of confusing the VALUE of the goods stolen (in this case 16 million roubles) and the LOSS that KirovLes suffered. In any theft action (which is what this basically is) the only figure that matters is that of the value of the goods stolen. Theft is a crime not a civil wrong and the financial loss suffered as a result of the theft by the owner is not relevant and is not the true measure of the seriousness of the crime. This is elementary law. This is most definitely not a case that falls under Article 165, an argument which by the way Navalny himself has never made.

I have been following the trial in detail. I have absolutely no doubt that this was a fair and properly conducted trial and that Navalny and Ofitserov were properly convicted at the end of it. The issue of legal nihilism therefore simply does not exist. Even the rapporteurs of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (hardly a body favourable to Russia) concede that Navalny may have broken the law. Their objection is to the scale of the sentence, which they claim is disproportionate. As to that, as I have explained repeatedly this sentence is exactly in line with the 5 year sentence a first time offender who pleaded not guilty for this offence would receive in Britain. The opinion of the rapporteurs of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe incidentally makes it very unlikely indeed to say the least that the European Court of Human Rights will interfere with this verdict.

As to whether it is politically wise to send Navalny to prison, simply posing that question is to assume a political motivation behind his prosecution for which there is no evidence and which on the evidence of the conduct of the trial was simply not there. At the end of the day thousands of people are prosecuted on theft charges in Russia every year. To say that Navalny should not have been prosecuted despite the very strong case against him is to argue for selective justice in Navalny’s favour. I not only think that is wrong ethically but it also seems to me extremely unwise politically since it would all but say that the authorities are so afraid of Navalny that he is effectively above the law despite the clear evidence of wrongdoing there is against him.

I must for once also take strong objection to your repeated comparison between the treatment extended to Navalny and that extended to Serdyukov. This is an entirely false comparison. Navalny’s case is a small case of theft. Serdyukov’s case is a massive case or to be more precise a complex web of cases, which may take years to investigate and which are still probably at an early stage in their investigation. We simply do not know at this stage what the outcome of that investigation will be and it is completely wrong to judge that investigation and its outcome now when we have no idea what the result of that investigation will be. It is not a valid argument to say that Navalny should not be prosecuted because Serdyukov so far has not been charged or prosecuted. One cannot make prosecution in one case conditional on prosecution in another totally different and completely unrelated case. That is the route to legal nihilism.

Last but not least I am going to make a prediction. I don’t think this case is going to have anything like the political impact you fear it will. It might lead to a brief surge of sympathy for Navalny in Russia but I expect that to be limited and to have largely dissipated by the time of the Moscow mayoral elections if only because people in Moscow have no interest in electing a mayor who is heading for prison. Incidentally I interpret the decision to release Navalny on bail before his appeal as a device pressed on the prosecutors by the authorities in Moscow to make it possible for Navalny to continue with his election campaign in Moscow. The authorities do not want the idea to take hold that Navalny was convicted to prevent him from standing for election as Moscow’s mayor, especially in an election which they know he will lose, which is why we have had the bizarre manoeuvres of the last few days going back to the extraordinary decision of providing Navalny with nominations from United Russia councillors, whereby the authorities have been pulling out all the stops to deprive Navalny of an excuse to pull out of the election at the same time as Navalny himself has been looking for an excuse to do just that. As for the liberal opposition in Russia, if they want to unite behind a convicted thief who has been sent to prison for 5 years and who cannot therefore stand for election in the future, more fools they.

Abroad the case has attracted far less interest than did Khodorkovsky’s or Magnitsky’s cases not to mention Pussy Riot’s. The European Union has already said that it will not impose any sanctions on Russia because of the verdict (an absurd idea anyway) and it is inconceivable that the US will do so either. Beyond the usual assortment of politicians and leader writers who are in the business of criticising Russia anyway and whatever it does there is absolutely no interest in Navalny’s case in the west where amongst the overwhelming majority of people he is (unlike Pussy Riot) a completely unknown and uninteresting figure. No doubt his name will regularly come up amongst the catalogue of Russia’s sins that gets recited in the west but in the minds of its authors that catalogue is already so long that his name is all but guaranteed in time to fade into obscurity.

I am going to try my best to discuss this case fully in a detailed post on my blog. Unfortunately this has fallen at a particularly unfortunate time for me. Anyway I hope this comment gives some idea of my views.

Those of you saying that NSA spying on millions upon millions of Americans is not a violation of the 4th amendment clearly have never read the amendment. “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.” If our founding fathers had phones and email capabilities, that would be on the list, but they didnt. They had paper messages sent by couriers, which in essence, is the same thing. If you are gullible enough to believe they are justified, then you need to be monitered so you don’t choke on a small toy or lick the window too long.

@Joe

Snowden was born in mid-1983. By most definitions, he is not a Gen-Xer (which, by most definitions, requires one to have been by December 1981). I think it is more accurate to refer to him as a Millennial. Entitlement and narcissism are not traits of Gen-Xers; they are general traits of Millennials, however.

Mr. Giraldi asserts that the United States has engaged in “serial violation[s] of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution through its collection of personal information….”

I don’t see where the “collection of personal information” runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment guarantees persons the right to retreat into their homes and be free of warrantless government intrusions therein. This has been expanded to include other places where the search would involve commission of a trespass, e.g., physically attaching a GPS device to a car, or entering one’s property with a drug-sniffing dog.

Thus, in making his assertion, Mr. Geraldi should at least demonstrate where the alleged trespass occurred. As far as I can tell, individuals have no vested property interest in the data that is collected. And in the absence of a vested property interest, there is no Fourth Amendment violation, which leaves Geraldi with no argument.

I’m not suggesting that Snowden is a traitor. I doubt that he is. But there is no question that his conduct was illegal, and that there is no applicable affirmative defense to that conduct. Nor do see any great boon that Snowden’s leaking has afforded me. Were people really so dumb to believe that the government wasn’t data-mining their electronic communications?

Hmmm….interesting article, but I wonder if most of what you refer to will only be temporary. After all, while the opposition might rally around Navalny for a while, I very much doubt they will keep up the tempo for 5 years. Heck, even Pussy Riot have basically fallen off of the radar screen now. Plus I’m sure the reactionary, nationalist “Liberal” opposition will soon ensure a return to the regularly scheduled programming of infighting and conflicting egos.

On the other hand with Khodorkovsky and Pussy Riot in prison there has been only token problems (mainly from the oligarch trying to carry out his aims behind prison bars). I don’t doubt for a second that if these people were not behind bars that Putin and company would be facing far more headaches as Pussy Riot would undoubtedly continue upping the ante and pushing the boundaries if they ever got away with their church “performance” and Khodorkovsky would probably be using his money to attempt to rally the Russian “liberals” behind him in a run for the presidency. In this he would no doubt be supported 101% by the United States.

I think you are mistaken. This was a great idea, and I mean it without any irony.

First of all, this kills Navalny as a political figure (although I stronly agree with Mark Adomanis: he was never a serious politician, but best understood as an internet troll). He can’t ever run for office again.

Secondly, from behind bars he can’t anymore destabilize the situation in Russia through his “corruption revelations”. There might be some exesses, but same happens and has happened in every country which is developing as fast as Russia with Putin. Like Mark Adomanis put it: “corruption, nepotism, and anomie are the cruel impositions of a tyrant, but are reflective both of the underlying reality of Russian society and of trends”. Russia is on a right path. Economy is growing faster than in any other European country, Russia’s demographics have taken a serious and lasting turn to better.

Thirdly, in the long Russia suffers no PR defeats by jailing Navalny. After all, like Mark Adomanis put it just this week, he and his so called opposition are not just nationalists, but “actually remarkably regressive and reactionary” kind. This kind of forces have no place in any multi-cultural and multi-national country.

Good piece AK, you are absolutely correct in your assessment. The IC is out of control and needs to be publicly reigned in to avoid doing any more damage. But I guess it’s just a small part in a larger battle being waged. Oh well, Russia, never a dull moment!

A great article.

Yes it looks like a banal and ham-fisted proceding. But then, look at who’s doing all the squealing, grunting, and rooting? The guy was a loud mouth subversive; everybody knows that. Prediction: this is another story without legs.

Perhaps another point, that Bloomberg View has included, is Navalny’s nationalist stance on the Pugachev demos. One might speculate on how Pugachev could change things, both for Navalny and for Russia?

“Putin Will Regret the Navalny Verdict”:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-18/putin-will-regret-the-navalny-verdict.html

Good for the Globe is not equal to good for Globocop. I prefer to think and rethink about our relationship as interhuman to unhurt human beings.

Everyone would do well to remember that when it comes to religion and politics, nothing is ever what it appears on the surface. It is very likely that the Snowden affair is nothing more than an elaborate attempt on the US government’s part to install a spy in Russia, who is posing as a genuine whistle blower fleeing from justice. Just how much has this supposedly high school drop-out revealed that was not already known to anyone who bothered looking? And what better way to discredit and neutralize influential and effective investigative reporters like Glen Greenwald and Phillip Giraldi than by fooling them into accepting such an obvious hoax? If you look at the way Putin is now backing off on allowing Snowden into Russia as a fugitive spy, it appears he may have already figured it out, and is now simply playing along to see what the next move will be from the US.

First, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the information being collected by the NSA (i.e., phone records) don’t need a warrant to be collected. Second, even though that is true, the NSA still got a warrant to collect them from the FISA court. Nothing that has so far been revealed about what the NSA has done is either: a) unconstitutional or b) illegal.

on one hand you have the People of the Nation. On the other you have a Corporate-Government Mafia organization. The Mafia is controlling the Nation as a means to accumulate power for itself against the best interests of the People. Like the Mafia would do if it was running any neighborhood. Exposing Mafia control methods is no crime against the People.

Snowden is loyal to the People, the Mafia regard him as a traitor.

So exactly how has the USG violated the 4th Amendment? All the programs were done IAW congressionally enacted law, and any of the surveillance laws that have made it to the USSC have been found constitutional. You premise your entire argument on the premise that the USG has acted in violation of the Constitution, but offer absolutely no explanation of how this is so. You can argue the laws are bad ideas and should be repealed, and you may be right, but throwing out an accusation that the USG is violating the Constitution is reckless without providing explanation.

Snowden is a hero and could potentially be the catalyst that pushes us to fix our corrupt government.

Nothing, unfortunately, new here, either.

PG, agreed – a “traitor” no. a narcissistic whiney, gen-x, faux victim? perhaps. as an American I admire what Snowden did. it just seems that other before him; Ellsberg, Manning, et al did it with a tad less arrogance. but again, this stuff (surveillance) has been a open secret. the idea that “bad guys” were unaware of the scope and capabilities of the NSA and other intelligence agencies is, in my opinion, childish. the bigger question for me is; how do these emotionally/psychologically weak people get security clearances? or do they “breakdown” after being hired? either way, I feel no more/less threatened than I did before May 2013.

I don’t use the term ironic very often as it is ridiculously over-used. Still, I can’t help finding this case deeply so, in that if Snowden had only shared our secrets with the Israelis, he might now have a job waiting for him at the Woodrow Wilson Center or perhaps AEI.

He did violate his contract. For that he should be given the kind of punishments the other, more orthodox NSA whistle-blowers. These were rather light if I recall.

P.S. Ed, people who surveill, steal from, intimidate, and harass peaceful American citizens — often without a judicially issued warrant based on probable cause — don’t deserve “a break in these tough economic times.” They are criminals and thugs and deserve imprisonment and severe disapproval and criticism.

WE, peaceful Americans, are the ones who deserve a break from the bullies and thieves who call themselves “the government.” They are little more than the largest, most powerful, most ruthless gang with a great propaganda and indoctrination operation.

What does revealing the US’s spying activities on the EU, China, and Germany count as? Clearly those documents were not leaked because Edward Snowden felt they were unconstitutional overreaches on the American public.

Ed, it’s touchingly naive that you believe “‘We the People’ are still the government.” Hell no, we’re not.

Moreover, how can someone be “trustworthy” if the very purpose, definition, and effect of their job is to carry out federal-government functions that are nowhere authorized by the U.S. Constitution? How can a DEA or ATF agent be “trustworthy”, or what does “trustworthy” even mean, when his agency’s very existence violates the Constitution and infringes on Americans’ rights?

While the IRS agent is stealing other Americans’ earnings, should they respect or praise him as “trustworthy” because he doesn’t take any of the loot for himself (other than his salary, benefits, and pension, that is)?

While the ATF agent is infringing on other Americans’ Second Amendment / self-defense rights, should they respect or praise him as “trustworthy”?

While the FBI or NSA agent is reading or listening to or searching through our “private” e-mails, phone conversations, and IMs, does it help us that he is somehow “trustworthy”?

A very interesting assessments of Snowden are in Russian media. The verdicts revolve mostly around idealism, “not finding the niche” and the lack of proper education. Some parallels were even drawn with US citizens who moved to the communes in the jungles of South America to live out their utopian dreams. For me personally, somehow, Dean Reed comes to mind.

Actually, one can also reasonably claim the the US part in surpressing the Boxer Rebellion also counts as having been at war with China, as the Chinese do see this as such.

“apart from a brief and limited intervention in the Russian Civil War in 1918.”

Just to clarify a small point, PG, the “brief and limited intervention” in Russia lasted from September 1918 until April 1, 1920, roughly 19 months. Somebody might get the impression from your piece that U.S. troops were there only in 1918. Most Americans are probably totally unaware of our intervention in Russia’s civil war. I only became aware of it upon reading the first book I ever read by George Kennan back in the 60’s, “Russia and the West Under Lenin and Stalin.” I remember being startled at the revelation but can’t remember why.

“U.S. soldiers did indeed fight against the Chinese in Korea, but it was a U.N. authorized police action, not a war.”

Or, as we might refer to Korea today, a “kinetic military activity.” Our rhetoric hadn’t evolved so far by the early 50’s.

I totally agree with your main point.

Small correction – there is another crime mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: counterfeiting (Article I, Section 8).

I don’t think enough people are concerned about the degree of spying going on in the world today.

Why does the U.S. government keep tabs on me? I don’t know, but I’m none too happy about it. I like to visit from time to time, but now I wonder whether I should go and submit my person to the tender mercies of the U.S. security apparatus?

It is alarming.

And it’s the same thing with every state on earth.

Where and how can I hide? Why should my snark and ill thought out posts on the web indict me for all eternity?

Perhaps the Internet is not the great thing I thought it was. Every sword has two edges…

Ah, yeah. Because the classified information was not specifically provided to an enemy of the US, and he has not rcvd any consideration from said enemy, revealing classified information and fleeing to russia is not necessarily the act of a traitor. Now, of course if he writes a book, and then profits indirectly from providing US classified secret information, we might have to reconsider the charge. Really, I am still kind of confused that there were people in the US, other than those that get to serve on jury’s, that were unaware of what the NSA was likely doing. Of course it was not on the evening news until now, but it seemed like it was allot of other places since I first remember seeing it on that liberal biased PBS frontline documentary at least a year ago. I assume that some part of the massive homeland security industry is collecting some kind of info on just about all of us, so I enjoy walking around naked inside my house and mooning the windows every once in awhile. I’m also kind of put out that a right wing stand would rest on the right of a young operative to decide for the rest of the country what was best, in order to justify using his access to reveal what so many said was in the national interest to keep a secret. Sounds allot like that GOP political strategy that claims ideology follows political advantage in everything other than starving the beast.

Johann
I agree with most of what you say, except for the point where the complete coverage that you say is impossible – its now possible or at least will very soon possible. Technology is now no longer a limiting factor, having a microphone in every now would be feasible, the only thing stopping it is a general resistance from society, but looking at the general lack of interest in the growing surveillance state, even this will with time be accepted.

Obama is a traitor to the Constitution. Snowden is a traitor to Obama. A double negative. By my calculation that makes Snowden a patriot.

Spin it any way you want. The question is which side are you on? Will you stand with the government or the constitution? With the Police State or with the people?

For now it is still possible to claim (or feign) neutrality. Unless you work directly or indirectly for Leviathan. Or unless you have already expressed an opinion one way or the other on line or on the phone. Or unless you support the Democratic or Republican political parties. They ARE the government after all.

For what it’s worth, I recommend you cast your lot with the Fascists. They have the military and police. They have the spooks and mercenaries. They work for the people who have all the money. They know where you are and what you are thinking. Resistance is futile.

I think you make a big mistake with respect to outside relations. Brazil (and the rest of SA) will use this for the repatriation of gmail and facebook like services. They couldn’t do this before because they didn’t officially know that the NSA was reading every word on those services.

Unfortunately Mr. Giraldi, the only way to get these types of programs under control as well we both know is to have a very acutely aware populace as to what is going on, a congress that cares more about the constitution, rule of law, and the people they espouse to represent than their egos and re-election agenda, and a President that cares for the same.

None of these are present. And it pretty much ensures what we all know will happen. Snowden will go away one way or another, and this issues will end with some superficial changes and wrist slapping but nothing more.

President Obama, enjoys the expansion of the security state just as much as the so called conservatives in congress. The people are not well enough informed to see past the rhetoric about Snowden to understand that this is the kind of government intrusion that our founding fathers were deathly afraid of and fought to keep out of the hands of the government.

As much as I wish or hope that people would wake up and cry for the justice we are due, I just don’t see it happening. I see us being lulled back into silent acceptance through one means or another. And it makes me awfully sad.

There is an irrational fear of terrorism. With or without a spy program, the chance of one being killed by a terrorist is minuscule. On the other hand, tens of thousands of people are murdered every year by common criminals. That is an order of magnitude larger threat and something to be concerned about. But law enforcement cannot really protect citizens from common criminals either. They can only investigate and pursue the perpetrators after the fact. One must arm and protect himself or herself. Complete security would require cameras and microphones in every house, building, street, and complete coverage of the countryside, which of course is impossible. And if it were possible, even the most fearful among us would probably not want that.

Bottom line – This country was founded on the principles of freedom, not fear. Those in our government who are willfully violating the 4th amendment are the criminals.

Excellent article. One remark however: In the last sentence the author mentions that maybe those that say “the government could not be trusted” are right. I’d like to remind Mr. Giraldi that “We the People” are still the government, officially anyway, and that those who work for “the government” of the United States directly are many individuals, and some are more trustworthy than others. In general, I think we all need to give each other a break whenever possible in these tough economic times…

Americas founding fathers were all traitors to the British crown. Depending who calls you a traitor, it is not always a bad thing, the national securicrats and the usual warmongering gang that are calling Snowden a traitor tells me that Snowden is right.

I appreciate an article that avoids the false dichotomy – “is Edward Snowden a hero or traitor”. One does not have to consider him a hero, or a noble figure, in order to recognize that from what we’ve seen so far the only thing he’s done is akin to playing Toto and pulling back the curtain to expose to the common man the workings of a system that foreign governments, large corporate interests, and the properly-connected were already well aware of, and that those with technical savvy (including those in terrorist organizations) could already guess at.

I suspect that to some extent the American media has been pushing this dichotomy, allowing them to focus on painting Snowden with increasingly less flattering hues, since it distracts from what most of us should be focusing on – why is it that the Government can systematically be operating a system that most Americans are at least somewhat uncomfortable with, while the media has with only a few exceptions stayed relatively mute about the growth and omnipresence of the security state?

Uh, Snowden has not been charged with treason–at least not legally. (And no, I don’t consider him a “traitor”, as he isn’t seeking to betray his homeland to some other country).

What he has been charged with is espionage, and his conduct is consistent with that charge. Whether he’s a hero or a heel I won’t get into.

Dear Alex,

There is a section in the Fifth Amendment in the US Constitution that relates to record-keeping and this section may be the one violated by the NSA surveillance. If surveillance systems are regarded as record-keeping systems, then they fall under the scope of the Fifth; the issue involved is self-incrimination which might arise when people post information about themselves on social networks which government authorities might later use as the basis to press charges against them.

….and it’s still closed as I write this. Unbelievable! I have never seen that happen before. And on a Russia related story.

Dear Anatoly,

Viz the comment from the head of the NGO I know exactly who you mean.

This is not realism. It is straightforward appeasement. It’s exactly the mentality that would have surrendered the Kuriles to Japan and the South Ossetians to Saakashvili and which brought Russia in the 1990s to the brink of disaster

As for Lokshina, here is her account of her meeting with McFaul that she has given to VoR. Notice that she can’t resist having a dig at Putin. She is utterly wrong by the way when she says that Putin has no role in deciding asylum grants. As granting asylum is an issue of state sovereignty the head of state in a republican system such as Russia’s most definitely is involved in deciding asylum claims. In fact he is the person who makes the final decision as Correa did in Assange’s case. Lastly in any conventional asylum claim Lokshina would be doing Snowden no favours by harping on the fact that he only wants asylum in Russia as a passport to get out of Russia and to go to South America. As we have discussed in some jurisdictions such as Britain’s comments like that would be grounds to refuse a request for asylum.

http://english.ruvr.ru/news/2013_07_12/Snowden-seems-to-be-more-optimistic-about-his-claim-HRWs-deputy-head-3526/

Both Lavrov and the Russian Migration Service have issued statements that Snowden has not yet submitted his asylum application to the Russian Migration Service, which is the agency with appropriate jurisdiction to handle asylum claims. These comments should be seen for what they are – advice to Snowden on how to make his asylum claim correctly. This is essential in Snowden’s own interests since neither he nor Russia can afford for there to be any doubt as to the legality of any grant of asylum by Russia to Snowden. It is essential if the grant of asylum is to be defended through international law that the procedure is followed correctly and that everything is done by the book. Snowden has good grounds for seeking asylum and it would be both a disaster and completely stupid if any grant to him of asylum could be questioned because of a silly and unnecessary decision to cut procedural corners. This is by the way the only asylum claim I have ever heard of in which the Foreign Minister of the country applied to has publicly advised the asylum seeker about the correct procedure to make his asylum claim. It is a measure of the help Russia is implicitly giving Snowden despite the odd way he is going about his claim.

Lastly here is evidence of what I am sure both of us always suspected, that Snowden and Greenwald will soon discover as Julian Assange and Wikileaks to their cost previously did, that the Guardian is a false friend. Here is the first utterly predictable article (to you and me) in the Guardian by Peter Beaumont denouncing Snowden for thanking Russia for offering him asylum.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/13/edward-snowden-anna-politkovskaya

As if Snowden had any choice in the matter and as if Politkovskaya etc had anything to do with Snowden and as if it were in Snowden’s interests to insult the only government which is both able and willing to protect him.

Dear Anatoly,

Thank you for your very kind words though I feel the facts spoke for themselves.

As to your point about some people within Russian officialdom being PR masochists I cannot agree more. Here we have a situation in which Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are looking to Russia on a human rights question against the US on the subject of the treatment by the US of an internationally recognised human rights dissident who is fleeing the US and is seeking Russia’s protection They have done so moreover after being summoned to a meeting with McFaul the US ambassador in Moscow who told them to pass on a message to Snowden that he is not a whistleblower. In reality that message was intended for the human rights agency and not for Snowden. Bear in mind the degree to which Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have over the last few years become subordinate to US foreign policy and have become dependent on US funding. The response of the human rights agencies was to ignore McFaul’s message and to back Snowden’s asylum bid to Russia. In other words the piper chose for the first time to refuse to play the payer’s tune. Tell me when has such a thing ever happened and when human rights agencies have looked to Russia instead of the US? Yet instead of being delighted some people in Russia seem to be sorry. Who are these people? I sometimes get the impression that the so called foreign policy “realists” in Russia are an even greater danger to Russia than the romantics.

PS: You are of course absolutely right that Snowden’s comment about wanting asylum in Russia only temporarily so that he can fly to South America later is actually discourteous to Russia though I am sure he does not mean it that way. Some countries (including Britain) would treat such a comment as grounds to refuse a request for asylum. I think that Russia is big minded enough to understand Snowden’s feelings and will overlook this comment.

Incidentally there is a brief video circulating of Snowden’s meeting with the human rights activists in which he came across to me as humorous and charming.

Dear m,

You are very welcome and I would be most interested to read your paper. Could you tell me where to find it?

The latest news about Snowden is that he has a called a meeting with human rights activists at Sheremetievo airport where he has apparently said that he has decided to remain in Russia (ie. accept Russia’s asylum offer) since the US has made it impossible for him to go to South America. He has apparently also said that he still intends to go to South America when he can.

If this is true then I think Snowden has made the correct decision and by first informing human rights activists (from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) he has announced it in the correct way. As I said before I don’t think any unbiased person would criticise him for the decision he has made.

The one observation I would make is that Snowden is perhaps being a little premature in assuming that the Russian offer of asylum is still there. As of this moment the only offer of asylum Russia has had is the one he withdrew. He presumably will have to make a new application for asylum and it is not a foregone conclusion that it will be granted. Bear in mind that grants of asylum are supposed to be a privilege within the discretion of the country that grants them. It is a very odd way to make an asylum request to a country whose offer of asylum one has previously turned down to say that one is only making it because one cannot asylum somewhere else. Some countries (Britain for example) might treat such an approach as discourteous and even see it as grounds to refuse asylum. However I sincerely hope and believe that Russia is open minded enough to understand Snowden’s problems and the reasons for his behaviour and to overlook the rather odd way he has gone about things.

Thanks for the worthy reply. I hope y. read my upcoming paper on what is called the bend(in logic), the confinement within context of a principled affair. There are indeed many facets to the devolvement of the Snowden situation.

Dear m,

I think this is overcomplicated.

Russia has accepted Snowden as a political refugee. Putin on two occasions has said as much. As I think we both agree Russia has good grounds to do so. Russia has refused to hand Snowden over to the US, which is the country from whose persecution Snowden says he is fleeing. That is consistent with Russia’s legal obligation to someone it has recognised as a political refugee. Russia has taken steps to protect Snowden by preventing him from boarding flights that would have been intercepted by the US. That is also consistent with Russia’s legal duty to protect someone it has recognised as a political refugee. Snowden applied for political asylum to Russia. Russia in returned offered Snowden asylum on the standard condition that he not abuse his asylum in a way that might complicate further his host country’s (Russia’s) already difficult relationship with the US.

Let me stress that the latter is a totally standard condition to asylum grants. It does not mean that Snowden would be silenced. He would still be in a position to explain the reasons for his actions. What he would not be able to do save with the prior agreement of the Russian authorities is disclose further classified information about US intelligence operations. Greenwald has all but said that Snowden has already provided all the information he wanted to disclose so this should not be a problem for him. In fact far from being a problem for Snowden it arguably helps Snowden since it serves to emphasise a point Snowden himself is anxious to make, which is that he is not working for foreign governments like Russia’s or China’s in order to harm the US.

Unwisely in my opinion, possibly because he is receiving poor legal advice (I understand the person from Wikileaks who is with him is not a lawyer and does not have professional legal training) Snowden chose to reject Russia’s asylum offer by withdrawing his asylum application.

On one point I do agree with you and that is that the US has behaved in an inappropriate and at times grossly illegal way. Anatoly has discussed this fully in his article but briefly, the US has brought a prosecution against Snowden that is obviously intended to deny Snowden what would otherwise be his right, which is to make a Public Interest defence. The best explanation for that decision is that the US wants to curtail discussion of whether the surveillance programmes Snowden has disclosed violate the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. It has conducted a publicity campaign against Snowden branding him a traitor to his country and someone who has damaged US national security, which clearly violates the legal presumption of innocence, which on the question of Snowden’s alleged treason is both untrue and actually defamatory and which in relation to the alleged damage to US national security is debatable and controversial and is anyway a matter that should be decided by the Court that eventually tries Snowden if he is ever tried. What such comments do is confirm something that Snowden has been saying in his asylum claims, which is that he is unlikely to get a fair trial if he returns or is sent to the US.

The US has threatened countries that have sought to grant Snowden asylum, openly interfering with the asylum process. It has arranged for its allies to intercept, bring down and search the private aircraft of a head of state travelling from an international energy conference in gross violation of the internationally recognised principle of absolute immunity conferred on travelling heads of state. To understand the enormity of that action try to imagine the consequences if some country, say Russia or China, sought to ground and search Air Force One with the President on board in order to capture a Russian or Chinese dissident who happened to be travelling with the President.

All this whilst the US government is headed by someone who was previously a professor of constitutional law. The fact that the US whilst doing all these things has carried on preaching to the governments of Russia and China and to the authorities in Hong Kong about their need to observe “the rule of law” by handing over Snowden shows just how detached from reality some people in the US government have become.

By contrast Russia has gone by the book throughout this whole affair.

Relevancy is lost here, yours practicality should have markers of contextual overview to make it significant. Systemic flaws of the system are taken into consideration to understand and define an issue of principle in your comment, that might be the wrong way around. Not Snowden is at cause, but world ethics. Law is to be distanced, it does not generally, certainly not here, offer structure to morality and ethical concern. The overt subscription of Putin, to asylum conditionally, is in itself politicising of the worst kind. The man can stay, the principles are out, then whether this is the overt excuse, it still is to be translated into the covert message of ‘you can have but one enemy here, the imperial US, your friends, your loyalty is now to belong to Russia, and we will make sure the choice is not yours’. It is not a Potential but a Power game played. It includes a strong hierarchical sense to the contrary of systemic ethics on top, worldwide, highly effecient in it’s application. No single man can cope, no rickety democracy can cope, the Snowden case is -the- example of a global, timeless issue. m.

This is a very good article indeed Anatoly.

I am no authority on US constitutional law. However Snowden’s letter to the Nicaraguan government asking for asylum there has made clear that he believes that the surveillance programmes he exposed violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the US Constitution. I don’t think many people would agree with him on the supposed violation of the Fifth Amendment but there is a strong current of legal opinion that says that on the Fourth Amendment he may be right.

The government’s response is that its surveillance programmes do not violate the Fourth Amendment because permission has to be obtained from the FISA court. The problem is that starting from around 2008 the FISA court seems to have started approving not just requests for surveillance on specific groups or individuals (as required by the Fourth Amendment) but requests for blanket surveillance of ever larger classes of persons extending practically to the whole US population. There is some argument about the nature of some of this surveillance and whether or not the way it is done actually violates the Fourth Amendment about which I do not have the expert knowledge to given a definite view but I have to say that these arguments look to me dubious and at times even like sophistry.

Anyway since the FISA court conducts its proceedings in secret and since by definition its proceedings are not adversarial (there is no one to argue against any request from the government) there is no losing party that can appeal its decisions allowing those decisions to go unchecked. I have seen the FISA court described as a “secret alternative Supreme Court” and whilst that is an exaggeration it is not a total misdescription.

In summary, there is genuine concern as to the legality of some of the things that Snowden has exposed and about some of the decisions the FISA court has been taking, which the government’s response to Snowden’s exposures has not resolved.

A whistleblower who exposes illegal activity even if he breaks the law can rely in most developed jurisdictions on the so called Public Interest defence ie. that his law breaking should be excused because it is done in the public interest. The Public Interest defence is apparently not as well developed in the US as it is in Europe, However I understand that if Snowden were being prosecuted for say theft he would be able to cite the Public Interest defence. Obviously in any prosecution where Snowden was allowed to argue a Public Interest defence the legality of the surveillance programmes he exposed would be the central issue in the case, which is presumably something he would welcome and even wants.

The concern is that the government is prosecuting Snowden under provisions that originate in the 1917 Espionage Act and is engaging in a sustained public campaign to brand him a “traitor” who has injured US national security because the Public Interest defence is not available in cases that involve national security. Since Snowden would not be able to raise the Public Interest defence in a prosecution under the Espionage Act the legality of the surveillance programmes he has exposed would not be considered at his trial despite the widespread concerns about this. The whole issue would be kicked as we say in England into the long grass.

I should make it clear that on my reading of the Espionage Act there is no doubt that Snowden’s actions do fall under its provisions. It is another matter whether it is just or right to prosecute him as a whistleblower under the provisions of an Act that was passed in wartime to deal with spies. Snowden claims he is not a spy but a whistleblower who acted to disclose to the American people who the Constitution says are the sovereign power of the US (“We the People etc”) actions that he says violate the Constitution. As a matter of simple common sense I do not understand how someone can be called a “traitor” if he has acted to inform the sovereign people of the violation of their rights or how it harms national security to expose violations of the Constitution.

Legally the way to argue this and to challenge the propriety of Snowden’s prosecution under the Espionage Act would be to say that it violates the First Amendment to the Constitution. The trouble is that US courts have been wrestling with the question of whether prosecuting whistleblowers under the Espionage Act violates the First Amendment ever since the Pentagon Papers case in 1971 and have been unable to come to a clear or final view. It would be a threadbare defence for Snowden to rely on and since in the absence of a Public Interest defence it is the only defence he has left if it is rejected (as is surely likely) his conviction would be a foregone conclusion and his trial would be a formality.

Prosecuting someone on the basis of a provision that is intended to deny him of a defence he would otherwise be entitled to is a dubious proposition at best. Given that it is arguably being done in this case to suppress discussion of possibly unconstitutional activity it explains why many people including Amnesty International, I believe the American Civil Liberties Union and ultimately myself consider that Snowden falls within the definition of someone who has a well founded fear of persecution for his political beliefs or actions were he to return or be returned to the US. On the strength of that I would say and Amnesty International says that he is a political refugee. As Putin’s statements make clear the Russian authorities take the same view. It is on that basis that Snowden has claimed asylum in various countries and why Russia has refused to accede to US demands to hand him over.

For the rest you have summarised the points I have made very well. I would just add a few points:

1. In any discussion of Russia’s actions it is important to understand that Russia has offered Snowden asylum on what are absolutely standard terms. It is Snowden who for his own reasons is refusing this offer of asylum and who is seeking asylum elsewhere. As you know I think he is wrong to do so. I should say that I am equally sure that if Snowden had applied to China for asylum they would have granted it. Comments made about him in the People’s Daily have all but said as much. The problem is not that Russia and China do not want to help Snowden. The problem is is that he does not want their help or at least only wants it on his own impossible terms.

2. I have no information about this but I strongly suspect that the reason the European countries agreed to enforce the air blockade on Snowden is because of US threats to withdraw intelligence cooperation if they didn’t. All European states depend to a greater or lesser extent on intelligence sharing with the US whose intelligence gathering operation is on an entirely different scale to their own. The exception is Britain whose intelligence gathering operation Snowden has revealed that it has to all intents and purposes fused with that of the US.

3. I don’t think Russia can be accused of complicity or capitulation before the US air blockade. On the basis of comments Correa and other Ecuadorian officials have made there is no doubt it is the Russians who have prevented Snowden from boarding the planes he has wanted to take to South America. Had he boarded any of those planes he would never have got to South America. The planes would have been intercepted and he would have been arrested and would be in the US by now. Russia has defeated US attempts to capture Snowden and so far from helping the US’s attempts to capture Snowden it is obstructing them.

4. I think the US has mishandled this affair. As Susan Rice for once has correctly said, the amount of damage Snowden’s revelations had done to the US’s relations with the outside world was limited. A number of countries may put on a show of indignation but as Putin said in his interview with RT in reality they all surely knew or suspected what was going on already. If the US had allowed Snowden to go to South America the strong probability is that the fuss about the surveillance programmes he has exposed would have died down even in the US and that he would in time have been captured by the US anyway whenever whatever South American government was sheltering him fell as it surely eventually would. Forcing Snowden to stay in Moscow keeps him in the one place (other than China, Iran or North Korea) where he is beyond the US’s reach. Forcing the US’s European allies to violate international law in the way that happened over Morales’s aircraft will have caused considerable anger and embarrassment even if this is only being expressed behind the scenes. It only gives further publicity to Snowden’s plight and to his allegations and makes the US look a bully.

5. I think the best outcome is for the US government to drop the charges under the Espionage Act and to allow Snowden to return home so that he can be tried for theft and cite the Public Interest defence as his defence. If the surveillance programmes are constitutional as the government says then it has nothing to fear from this course. If the surveillance programmes are unconstitutional because they violate the Fourth Amendment then the sooner this is established the better. To argue otherwise is to say that the US Constitution is no longer in effect and I cannot believe anybody in the US is prepared to say that.

6. Since I don’t think the US government has any intention of dropping the charges under the Espionage Act I think Snowden should stay where he is and accept the Russian offer of asylum which has been made to him. Given his absence of options I don’t think anyone would criticise him for doing so other than those who are criticising him and calling him a traitor already or those who for whatever reasons don’t really have his true interests at heart.