3 felonies a day makes everyone an easy target

This posting offers some interesting insight into why tech companies seem to have so easily rolled over and given the US government access to their customers' data. "We know what happened in the case of QWest before 9/11. They contacted the CEO/Chairman asking to wiretap all the customers. After he consulted with Legal, he refused. As a result, NSA canceled a bunch of unrelated billion dollar contracts that QWest was the top bidder for. And then the DoJ targeted him and prosecuted him and put him in prison for insider trading -- on the theory that he knew of anticipated income from secret programs that QWest was planning for the government, while the public didn't because it was classified and he couldn't legally tell them, and then he bought or sold QWest stock knowing those things. This CEO's name is Joseph P. Nacchio and TODAY he's still serving a trumped-up 6-year federal prison sentence today for quietly refusing an NSA demand to massively wiretap his customers." https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-June/008815.html Not too different to what happened to Elliot Spitzer after he went after Wall St bankers a little too enthusiastic ally. The authorities suddenly developed an intense interest in his activities. This is a non-partisan issue and goes back a long way. Kennedy went after his opponents using the IRS, as did Nixon.

Hi All, I used to have a TS clearance with the US Navy, during the Vietnam war. I wholeheartedly agree with the tone of what Tim said, in the original post. I'm not privy to any of the details, but it has the very same "feel" of the US Government ~ 40 years ago. Back around 1972 I very seriously considered doing what Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning recently have done. I was young and idealistic. I thought it would make a significant difference to America and the world. Luckily for me, Daniel Ellsberg did pretty much the same thing just before me. Then I saw how he was persecuted, and how very little it really changed things. So, instead, I decided to follow the advice of the wise old man in the brothel, and of Captain Orr, in the movie Catch 22. (I strongly suggest you (re)watch it.) I gave up on America and went somewhere better. I've lived in Australia since 1984, and been a citizen here since 1985. Our standard of living is the 2nd best in the world, while the USA's is the 16th.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#Inequality-adjusted_HDI
Our democracy is the 6th best in the world, while the USA's is the 21st.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=DemocracyIndex12
Sure, Australian governments of both persuasions are embarrassingly sycophantic toadies to the USA (in the MISTAKEN belief that we're accumulating "defence IOUs"), but at least we don't have the destructive power that my native homeland has. I just want to keep my head down, enjoy what's left of my life, and hope that the USA and China neutralise each other -- so the rest of the world can get on with living a good life. Cheers, Carl Turney Bayswater, Vic, AU On 11/06/13 17:10, Tim Josling wrote:
This posting offers some interesting insight into why tech companies seem to have so easily rolled over and given the US government access to their customers' data. ...

Quoting Carl Turney (carl@boms.com.au):
Back around 1972 I very seriously considered doing what Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning recently have done. I was young and idealistic. I thought it would make a significant difference to America and the world.
Luckily for me, Daniel Ellsberg did pretty much the same thing just before me. Then I saw how he was persecuted, and how very little it really changed things.
One of the things many people don't recall about the Ellsberg Pentagon Papers case is that, disappointingly, he did _not_ win his criminal prosecution court case[1] on grounds of the rightness and legality of his actions, or those actions' necessity in serving the public interest. Rather, he 'won' solely because the trial was cancelled by the presiding judge, who (twice) ruled that government lawyers had tainted their case. The trial was halted and declared a mistrial because the FBI had compromised the case by wiretapping a conversation between the defendant and his lawyer -- and then claimed that it had lost all relevant records of that wiretapping, too. A new trial commenced with a fresh jury, and then that trial, too, was declared a mistrial when it emerged that White House operatives Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy had burglarised the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist looking for information damaging to the defence, at which time the judge dismissed all charges in recognition of government misconduct. So, Ellsberg was never vindicated in court. He was merely never put through a complete trial because U.S. District Judge William Matthew Byrne, Jr. would not permit tainted criminal prosecutions. Anyway, shockingly, there is no legal shield in the USA to protect government whistleblowers or anyone else from certain criminal charges for revealing government secrets, particularly espionage. Governmant whistleblowers put in front of such charges before Ellsberg -- and now Manning.
I just want to keep my head down, enjoy what's left of my life, and hope that the USA and China neutralise each other -- so the rest of the world can get on with living a good life.
FWIW, I keep hoping that both of those countries will relax and remember that they are both essentially mercantile states rather than empires, and logically should on self-interest grounds alone have no interest in attempting to interfere in other people's affairs. [1] To be clear, in this specifc context, I am not referring to the famous 'Pentagon Papers' civil case about prior restraint of the pres, New York Times Co. v. United States, (per curiam) 403 U.S. 713, 91 S. Ct. 2140, 29 L. Ed. 2d 822 (1971), which the _New York Times_ won on a 6-3 decision. but rather a criminal trial of Ellsburg and associate Tony Russo for theft and espionage initiated by a Los Angeles grand jury.

I garbled a small part of that.
Anyway, shockingly, there is no legal shield in the USA to protect government whistleblowers or anyone else from certain criminal charges for revealing government secrets, particularly espionage. Governmant whistleblowers put in front of such charges before Ellsberg -- and now Manning.
Should have been: 'Government whistleblowers were never previously put in front of such charges before Ellsberg -- and now Manning.' My point was that the two botched attempts under pressure of the Richard Nixon administration to prosecute Ellsberg were the first-ever real attempt to bring up journalistic whistleblowers up on espionage charges for publishing government secrets, and that the Manning trial is the predictable second effort, given that the initial effort to set precedent at Ellsberg's expense didn't succeed, but wasn't discredited as a general approach, either. Note that authorities in the USA prosecuting a leaker differs from (and is far, far easier than) attempting either prior restraint or retributionn against the publications themselves, that send out government secrets to the public. The latter actions remain, for now, off limits -- that much of the rather shredded First Amendment still standing. (Many would say that mainstream publications self-censor so thoroughly that government control over them would be superflous.) Before anyone says 'Wikileaks' as a counterexample: Nope. The USA's Feds claim[1] to loathe Wikileaks and have taken a number of petty indirect measures to impede the group (e.g, but there's been nary a peep about gagging it. Just Private Manning -- and threats but no real action against Assange. [1] I'm among the many observers speculating that most Feds are privately delighted at Wikileaks's airing of diplomatic cables, as, say, those cables' scathing assessments of Middle-Eastern dictators (etc.) have been precisely what State Department would have loved to say in public, if only it weren't impolitic.
participants (3)
-
Carl Turney
-
Rick Moen
-
Tim Josling