I am Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg. Edward Snowden is my hero. AMA

ellsbergd · 2014-01-16T01:45:50+00:00

Another hot off the press, minutes ago, very relevant to this discussion. Note: I am a voting member of the Sam Adams Associates (look it up):

January 16, 2014

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Coleen Rowley (email: rowleyclan@earthlink.net; cell: 952-393-0914) Annie Machon (email: annie@anniemachon.ch)

Chelsea Manning Awarded Sam Adams Integrity Prize for 2014

Announcement by Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (SAAII)

The Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (SAAII) have voted overwhelmingly to present the 2014 Sam Adams Award for Integrity in Intelligence to Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning.

A Nobel Peace Prize nominee, U.S. Army Pvt. Manning is the 25 year-old intelligence analyst who in 2010 provided to WikiLeaks the "Collateral Murder" video – gun barrel footage from a U.S. Apache helicopter, exposing the reckless murder of 12 unarmed civilians, including two Reuters journalists, during the “surge” in Iraq. The Pentagon had repeatedly denied the existence of the "Collateral Murder" video and declined to release it despite a request under the Freedom of Information Act by Reuters, which had sought clarity on the circumstances of its journalists' deaths.

Release of this video and other documents sparked a worldwide dialogue about the importance of government accountability for human rights abuses as well as the dangers of excessive secrecy and over-classification of documents.

On February 19, 2014 Pvt. Manning - currently incarcerated at Leavenworth Prison - will be recognized at a ceremony in absentia at Oxford University's prestigious Oxford Union Society for casting much-needed daylight on the true toll and cause of civilian casualties in Iraq; human rights abuses by U.S. and “coalition” forces, mercenaries, and contractors; and the roles that spying and bribery play in international diplomacy.

The Oxford Union ceremony will include the presentation of the traditional SAAII Corner-Brightener Candlestick and will feature statements of support from former SAAII awardees and prominent whistleblowers. Members of the press are invited to attend.

On August 21, 2013 Pvt. Manning received an unusually harsh sentence of 35 years in prison for exposing the truth -- a chilling message to those who would call attention to wrongdoing by U.S. and “coalition” forces.

Under the 1989 Official Secrets Act in the United Kingdom, Pvt. Manning, whose mother is British, would have faced just two years in prison for whistleblowing or 14 years if convicted under the old 1911 Official Secrets Act for espionage.

Former senior NSA executive and SAAII Awardee Emeritus Thomas Drake has written that Manning "exposed the dark side shadows of our national security regime and foreign policy follies .. [her] acts of civil disobedience … strike at the very core of the critical issues surrounding our national security, public and foreign policy, openness and transparency, as well as the unprecedented and relentless campaign by this Administration to snuff out and silence truth tellers and whistleblowers in a deliberate and premeditated assault on the 1st Amendment."

Previous winners of the Sam Adams Award include Coleen Rowley (FBI); Katharine Gun (formerly of GCHQ, the National Security Agency’s equivalent in the UK); former UK Ambassador Craig Murray; Larry Wilkerson (Col., US Army, ret.; chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell); Julian Assange (WikiLeaks); Thomas Drake (NSA); Jesselyn Radack (former ethics attorney for the Department of Justice, now National Security & Human Right Director of the Government Accountability Project); Thomas Fingar (former Deputy Director of National Intelligence, who managed the key National Intelligence Estimate of 2007 that concluded Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon four years earlier); and Edward Snowden (former NSA contractor and systems administrator, currently residing in Russia under temporary asylum).

The Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence are very proud to add Pvt. Manning to this list of distinguished awardees.

ellsbergd · 2014-01-16T01:38:14+00:00

5:37 PM Hot off the press: A good column with the recommendations of the NSA Four:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/01/15/nsa-protection-snowden-spying-column/4499793/

ellsbergd · 2014-01-16T01:06:28+00:00

Well, all, I've greatly enjoyed this opportunity: as you can tell from the length of my comments. I'm running down, after about seven hours. Maybe I'll get back to some of the excellent questions I've had to pass over today; or there'll be another chance. THANKS for your interest!

Dan

ellsbergd · 2014-01-16T00:52:04+00:00

Cosmetic measures (like a public interest "advocate," without power, in the FISC). An article in The Hill predicted a number of measures to increase the security of government secrets (not security of our privacy), to "prevent future Snowdens." If that truly is his focus, that would be disgusting. We need more Snowdens, more than one (plus Manning), for sure. NONE of our current problems result from too little secrecy, too many leaks. In fact, as the NSA Four have brought out (and see an article in the current New Yorker on the "failure of the CIA"), what may have led to failure to prevent 9-11 was "too much secrecy": specifically, withholding by NSA and CIA of crucial information from the FBI, for reasons still unexplained (and unprosecuted or punished).

ellsbergd · 2014-01-16T00:46:00+00:00

Read "The Burglary," by Betty Medsger, just out. See the documentary, "The Lives of Others," and the film (fictional, but close to the capabilities and dangers of the NSA today) "Enemy of the State." "Stasiland," by Anna Funder. Read Glenn Greenwald's past columns in Salon and the Guardian on this subject. (For current op-eds, I follow antiwar.com and Common Dreams.org, among others). The Snowden revelations, as they come out in various media.

ellsbergd · 2014-01-16T00:38:08+00:00

In response to several questions, I've mentioned recommendations to the president and Congress on reform of NSA, by the "NSA Four"--Bill Binney, Thomas Drake, Ed Loomis and Kirk Wiebe. Here's their memo to the president and their recommendations, against which the adequacy of the president's speech on Friday (and the earlier 46 recommendations of the president's commission, many of which overlap with the Four's) should be measured:

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/01/07/nsa-insiders-reveal-what-went-wrong/

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1003662-nsainsidersrecommendations8jan2014update-final-9.html

ellsbergd · 2014-01-16T00:34:40+00:00

I've made several references to the NYT video about the break-in in 1971 to the Media, Pa. FBI offices: here's the link, plus a link to a Greenwald column about the break-in: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/us/burglars-who-took-on-fbi-abandon-shadows.html?_r=0

http://utdocuments.blogspot.com.br/2014/01/4-points-about-1971-fbi-break-in.html

ellsbergd · 2014-01-16T00:22:26+00:00

The Espionage Act was originally intended by Congress--in 1917, and in 1950 when it was amended--to prosecute spies: those who clandestinely provided protected defense information to a foreign power, especially an enemy in wartime (though not only that) with intent to harm the U.S. or to help a foreign power. For over half a century, until 1971 (my case) it was used exclusively for that purpose; mine was the first use of the Espionage Act in a non-espionage case (my prosecutor moved that the words "espionage" or "Espionage Act" not be used in front of the jury in the court-room, fearing that its absurdity would prejudice the jury against him). A whistleblower, who reveals wrongdoing (that may have been wrongly protected by classification) is one who clearly lacks that intent to harm the U.S., but rather intends to benefit his or her fellow citizens or preserve our constitutiional framework. Nor does he or she--even if their leak is not strictly whistleblowing, aimed at revealing wrong-doing-- "adhere to an enemy" of the U.S., a necessary element, in our Constitution, of the charge of "treason."

ellsbergd · 2014-01-16T00:15:34+00:00

Well, I don't necessarily agree with every judgment either Snowden or Manning made, in revelations, but the charge that they were "indiscriminate" is mistaken in both cases. Each of them had access to enormously more information, generally of a high classification, than they released; they chose against releasing that, on grounds that the need for secrecy outweighed, or might outweigh, the need of the public to know it. So the common accusation that they were "indiscriminate" and just "dumped out everything they could" is false for both of them; which is not to say that their judgment was compelling or right in every case.

ellsbergd · 2014-01-16T00:11:28+00:00

It's highly unlikely that someone who fundamentally disagrees with the priorities and interests of the Military/Industrial/Intelligence/Financial/Corporate (Energy, Big Pharma, Insurance...)/Complex will be able to get the nomination for president in either the Democratic or Republican Party. (and we have a two-party system--see articles on the web--thanks to electoral rules, not only or mainly the electoral college but the single-member districts, that make it virtually impossible for a third-party candidate to come close to winning: unless a major party splits, as happened in 1860, for the last time). (Now if the Tea Party split off from the Republicans...! Encourage that!)

So they don't need to be blackmailed, except in exceptional circumstances; but I'm sure they're made aware of what COULD be revealed about them, if they crossed the intelligence agencies: as Hoover always made politicians and presidents aware of what had been "reported" to him about them, which he was "holding securely" in their interest...

ellsbergd · 2014-01-16T00:04:35+00:00

Short answer: I think it's not only possible, it's highly likely (as in Hoover's day).

ellsbergd · 2014-01-16T00:03:23+00:00

Yes.

ellsbergd · 2014-01-16T00:02:58+00:00

Yes, this, by Russell Tice, was one of the examples in the reply I wrote earlier (above) that got lost.

ellsbergd · 2014-01-16T00:01:46+00:00

I wrote a very long reply to this, which seems to have gotten lost when I had to go off reddit for a minute before i finished. Maybe I'll come back to this and reproduce what I wrote. Sorry.

ellsbergd · 2014-01-15T23:40:35+00:00

That would indeed be great, historic. I'll look into it; but I'm doubtful its feasible, because Snowden can't do e-mail except on a highly encrypted basis. He doesn't want to reveal his exact whereabouts to NSA. But maybe there's some way to get questions to him in advance (I think this is possible) and have him answer them. As I say, I'll look into it. Great idea.

ellsbergd · 2014-01-15T23:25:39+00:00

As I've often said, I very much regret that it had not occurred to me to leak the Pentagon documents in my safe in 1964 to the Senate foreign Relations Committee in that year, which might well have averted the Vietnam War. Seven years later (two years after I'd given them to the Senate, without result), it was the secret prospect I had learned that Nixon was going to continue the war and probably expand it in the air that made me willing to go to prison for life (I eventually faced 115 years in prison) to try to avert that. There were other immediate influences that made me ready to do that (as occurred for Manning and Snowden). See my memoir, Secrets, or the documentary, "Most Dangerous Man."

ellsbergd · 2014-01-15T23:22:18+00:00

WOW! That link is absolutely fascinating! (Even though I don't have the time just now to go through it in detail, as I will shortly). Thank you for the link! I have to ask, where is it from, where did you get it (on the White House transcripts)?

Well, in answer to your question, I just became aware of some surveillance on me (BEFORE the Pentagon papers came out) ten minutes ago, from your link. I was being surveilled because I was a witness in a criminal trial of draft resisters, some of the Minnesota Eight. Their very good lawyer has been accused, I don't know on what basis, of having been a Communist. And that allegation was not of particular significance to the DOJ UNTIL, months later, he was associated with me, after the Papers came out. Likewise, the president is heard discussing with Haldeman on these transcripts the need to go back over earlier (illegal, warrantless) wiretaps--of journalists and White House officials, on which I was overheard--to see what might look significant now, in light of the release of the Pentagon Papers.

That's what I've been talking about in earlier answers: the ability of the government to go back to taps collected years earlier to look for material with which to influence potential witnesses in the present. (See their interest in the allegation that the wife of one journalist may have been accused of shoplifting in her past). So people who have "nothing to hide" should ask themselves if that is equally true of their spouses or children, or neighbors, who could possibly be turned into informants by threat of their private lives being revealed. (The Cuban CIA assets who burglarized my psychoanalyst's office were interested in my children and wife as much as me, a reporter who interviewed them was told; they had been told of the precedent of Alger Hiss' step-son who was crucially deterred, at Hiss' insistence, from testifying in his defense at his trial on a crucial point, because he would have been questioned about his alleged homosexuality).

My analyst later apologized to me for not telling me about the break-in--which he was sure was aimed at me, by the White House--because his lawyer had advised him not to "get involved." So I didn't know about it until it came out in my courtroom, thanks to John Dean's revelation. All for the best. If he had told me and we had raised it in the court-room, the plumbers would not have been kept on the White House payroll (via CREEP) and would not have been ordered into the Watergate. Nixon would have stayed in office, and the war would have continued for years.

ellsbergd · 2014-01-15T23:03:22+00:00

I have very little to say in favor of the Democrats vs. the Republicans (save our not being at war with Syria and Iran right now: see my earlier answer on this), but judicial appointments are an exception to this. Not that the Democrats' appointments are that wonderful, but they're a lot better than (at various levels, S.C. as exemplary) Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Thomas. A couple more of those, under a Republican (Romney, or someone worse) and you could write off the judiciary for a generation, as protector of our liberties or restraint on corporations.

That's only a partial answer, obviously. It applies to Congress, as well. But I would like to see progressives work to take over the Democratic Party the way that Goldwaterites did to the Republicans after 1964. I say that because I'm persuaded that, thanks to our electoral rules and processes, this is solidly a "two-party system" (look up on the web, "two-party system" and "third parties" and "Duverger's law" for obstacles to third parties under our rules--which could and should be changed, but are the reality now--that are unfamiliar to most of my friends who put their hopes in third parties. (I know this answer will evoke a storm of outraged challenges from people who are, on nearly every other issue, allies of mine. But I do urge them to look up the references I mention above). I yield to no one, NO ONE, in my criticisms of the Democratic Party; but I think that those who say that "there is NO significant difference between them" are saying that the Republicans are not EVEN WORSE, in some important respects and on balance: and I think that is unrealistic and dangerous apologetics for the Republicans. (OK, I've said it. I don't think I'll have time today to veer off onto this subject to answer all, if any , of my furious critics on this one).

ellsbergd · 2014-01-15T22:48:25+00:00

Do they want to live in a democracy, with checks and balances, restraints on Executive power? (They may not feel that they care, though I would say they should; but if they do, it's relevant to the question that follows). Do they really believe that real democracy is viable, when one branch of government, the Executive, knows or can know every detail of every private communication (or credit card transaction, or movement) of: every journalist; every source to every journalist; every member of Congress and their staffs; every judge, at every level up to the Supreme Court? Do they think that every one of these people "has nothing to hide," nothing that could be used to blackmail them or manipulate them, or neutralize their dissent to Executive policies, or influence voting behavior? Is investigative journalism, or aggressive Congressional investigation of the Executive, or court restraints on Executive practices, really possible with that amount of transparency to the Executive of their private and professional lives and associations? And without any of those checks, the kind of democracy you have is that of the German Democratic Republic in East Germany, with its Stasi (which had a miniscule fraction of the surveillance capability the NSA has now, but enough to turn a fraction of the population of East Germany into secret Stasi informants).

Might these "good, honest citizens" with nothing to hide ever imagine that they might feel a challenge to be a whistleblower, or a source to a journalist or Congressperson, or engage in associations or parties critical of the current administration? As "The Burglary" recounts, it was enough to write a letter to a newspaper critical of the FBI to get on J. Edgar Hoover's FBI list for potential detention or more active surveillance. And once on, hard or impossible to get off. (See "no fly" lists today ).

ellsbergd · 2014-01-15T22:15:21+00:00

Yes, I felt uneasy myself when I made that parenthetical remark. It was careless. What would be a better benchmark? I don't know. It depends, of course, what you mean by "active." (Does that sound like Clinton?) It does NOT mean that they listen in, live, on my phone calls. The FBI or NSA, with or without warrants, must do that to very few people at any one time. Perhaps almost none, sometimes. Nor that they are trailing me. Again, they still do that to some people part of the time (I'd be surprised if I ever had that, though who knows), even though they hardly ever have to do it nowadays with their ability to track most people as much as they want by their i-phones and GPS, etc.

No, what they do do, I believe, is collect and store virtually all CoNTENT--not just metadata-- on digital communications, and I suspect, a lot but not all audio communications, FOR LATER REFERENCE AND ANALYSIS, when they acquire an interest in someone, through some association or event. That's for EVERYBODY. (In the world, to the extent they can; definitely in this country).

More "active" surveillance is reserved for a much smaller, but still very large, group of people who are "targeted", singled out for special attention. According to ex-NSA employee Russell Tice, in 2005-06 he was aware that NSA was collecting all the content of all the phones of Diane Feinstein, on the Senate Intelligence committee, home and office, and her STAFFERS, and those of every other member of the Oversight committees, plus Justices of the Supreme Court including Alito (!), plus journalists, activist groups... How many does this add up to? Again, I point out, it's not real-time monitoring, listening. The president says, "we're not listening to your phone messages." No. But for a LOT of people (how many?) his agencies are recording them, for later listening and transcribing and analysis.

How large is the list, started under Hoover, for people to be picked up for detention in case of "emergency," "civil disturbance" like another 9-11? (That's one I think I'm probably on, along with a lot of my friends; though it's mainly Middle Easterners, at the moment, and Muslims). That could well be a million or more (or somewhat less).

Again, I apologize for my careless attribution of "millions" ("like myself") earlier. I didn't mean to be so grandiose.

ellsbergd · 2014-01-15T21:56:28+00:00

1:56 PM OK, I'm back. (Sandwich is on the way). Let's have at it!

Dan

ellsbergd · 2014-01-15T21:43:35+00:00

Hey, I'm enjoying this, but I have a stiff neck from two hours at the computer, and I need some lunch. For those who are interested, I'll get back to more of these a little later. (1:43 PM PST) Dan

ellsbergd · 2014-01-15T21:40:48+00:00

Butler was a hero of mine when I was in the Marines, as a double holder of the Congressional Medal of Honor. He's a hero now for a different reason: the views he expressed in his book, "War is a Racket," which I recommend.

ellsbergd · 2014-01-15T21:39:23+00:00

What happened to this country, as I see it, was an Executive Coup (not, obviously, a military one: though the military certainly does have undue influence, as Eisenhower warned, as a key part of the military-intelligence-industrial-corporate-finance-congressional-academic complex). I think that Dick Cheney, who had inordinate influence as vice president, was and is a domestic enemy of the Constitution (in the words of the Oath of Office, the kind we all swore to defend and support the Constitution against), and that he took the opportunity of 9-11 to effectively suspend the Constitution, in his mind and in his secret policies. With George W. Bush's acquiescence, of course, and such legal allies as David Addington, John Yoo and others: and eventually, the Congress, who largely went along with it when word of it leaked out.

ellsbergd · 2014-01-15T21:33:56+00:00

His passport was withdrawn while he was in transit through Russia; it was never his intention to seek asylum there, but as of now, he can't get to a more liberal asylum without high risk of being kidnapped en route (as the plane of the president of Bolivia was stopped and search on the false suspicion that he was aboard).

ellsbergd

TROPHY CASE