Will The Real Ed Snowden Stand Up?

I am as concerned about the potential for federal government overreach as any rational citizen—when such concern is warranted. I add that last qualification because I know that we share the country with those who seem to represent the paranoid fringe—that see every government action as an infringement on personal liberties. Yes, I am very much concerned about the issue of the federal government potentially snooping through my e-mails, listening in on my cell phone calls, or watching where I surf online. To that point, I thank former government National Security Agency (NSA) contracted employee Edward Snowden for bringing such concerns to the American public.
However, I also realize that maintaining the national security is a lot like making sausage; its best to know how not it’s done if you want to continue to enjoy what comes with living in a free society. Before Snowden opted to turn the issue of electronic domestic spying by our government into the “The Edward Snowden Reality Show,” it was easier to view him favorably as a “whistleblower” on questionable government activities. But since his initial revelations about the government’s electronic eavesdropping policy, Snowden has decided to reveal himself (i.e., his identity) to the world as the source of these revelations. In addition, he—in the mistaken, self-centered belief that he would be greeted with flowers and hailed as an information liberator—has been found to have collected other sensitive information materials related to the American government’s clandestine activities with regard electronic surveillance on the nation’s allies and adversaries alike. Some of this information has been subsequently leaked to the international press.

                                                       Edward Snowden

And instead of remaining anonymous as a source of issue concern to the American people, Snowden has seemingly gone out of his way to cultivate a cult of self-importance around himself and his actions. What’s more, Snowden is feeding his narcissism by seeking approval from and asylum in countries whose record of human rights and civil liberties abuses make electronic eavesdropping by the feds seem harmless by comparison. These countries—Russia, China, and Ecuador among them—have wasted little time in using Snowden’s high-profile status and revelations as a cause célèbre to bludgeon America over the head in the realm of geopolitical public relations. These countries can now assert that America is in no position to lecture others about apparent civil liberties violations as they point to the country’s domestic spying…thus giving them a free hand to act without the strength of international condemnation for questionable actions.
And with all of the trouble Snowden has caused for the government both domestically and internationally, the authorities would like to talk with Snowden and “discuss” the legalities of collecting classified information, abusing his security clearance, and (potentially) sharing information with countries the government considers less-than-friendly to the interests of America.  Ironically, these countries don't seem to want the headaches that come accepting Snowden's request for political asylum, as he travels the world seeking refuge from an infuriated U.S. government. In addition, the country’s adversaries now know that, with confirmation, how the U.S. uses electronic surveillance to keep tabs on any moves which might conflict with the nation’s security and global interests.

At first, I’d wondered how this relatively young man had become so self-absorbed with his obsessive sense of self-righteousness …that is, until his father began giving interviews about his son’s decisions. Last month on NBC’s “The Today Show,” Leo Snowden indicated that his wayward son would return to the U.S. if “certain conditions are met,” including “not detaining Snowden before trial.” The older Snowden had planned to outline these and other conditions in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holden, presumably with input from the younger Snowden (See: "Edward Snowden's Father Says Son May Return If Conditions Met") . Would that the rest of us mere mortals could dictate our conditions and desires to the government seeking our arrest for violating the law and jeopardizing national security…. If we were living in the era of the Cold War, no one in their right minds would make such demands. At first, I’d wondered how this relatively young man had become so self-absorbed with his obsessive sense of self-righteousness …that is, until his father began giving interviews about his son’s decisions. Last month on NBC’s “The Today Show,” Leo Snowden indicated that his wayward son would return to the U.S. if “certain conditions are met,” including “not detaining Snowden before trial.” The older Snowden had planned to outline these and other conditions in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holden, presumably with input from the younger Snowden. Would that the rest of us mere mortals could dictate our conditions and desires to the government seeking our arrest for violating the law and jeopardizing national security…. If we were living in the era of the Cold War, no one in their right minds would make such demands. It might be easy to dismiss the senior Snowden’s galling gesture as a father’s protecting his son were it not for also for an open letter he’d subsequently written to the Obama Administration. In the letter, Leo Snowden compared his son’s raising the alarm over domestic electronic spying to Paul Revere’s midnight ride warning Americans of the impending arrival of the invading British Redcoats. In the letter, authored with his lawyer’s help, Snowden presumes to be warning “the American people to confront the growing danger of tyranny and one branch government” (See:  "Edward Snowden’s Father, In Letter, Compares Son To Paul Revere, Assails Administration").  The grandiose comparison was all I needed to know in order to understand that the apple indeed doesn’t fall too far from the tree.
Now, ignoring the fact that if Snowden had engaged in such actions in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 or during the Cold War, there would have been a unanimous call for his head on a silver platter—including from his own family—Snowden’s “well-intentioned” (?) actions were lost as he interjected too much of his own self-importance into the mix. Some might agree with such a hyperbolic comparison, but what separates Snowden’s actions from the grandiose delusions both he and his father harbor is that, unlike Paul Revere, very few are listening to Edward Snowden. Ideally, I would like to attribute such silence to the realization by most Americans that fear of a “tyrannical federal government” is a fringe paranoia of those who place too much emphasis on “states rights” as a gateway to imposing laws at that particular level of government which more than would (ironically) infringe on the rights of others (those seeking open access to abortions, those of the same gender seeking marriage recognition, etc.). However, I know better. The lack of a vocal wholehearted support for Snowden is probably a silent acknowledgement of such unfounded fears.
Granted, the prospect of the government listening in on our phone conversations, gathering information on our text messages, or reading our e-mails is a potentially troubling blow to our individual and collective civil liberties, it pales to the lack of foresight that Snowden’s actions have done to one aspect of the government’s attempt to maintain national security and to prevent future threats.
Granted, the prospect of the government listening in on our phone conversations, gathering information on our text messages, or reading our e-mails is a potentially troubling blow to our individual and collective civil liberties, it pales to the lack of foresight that Snowden’s actions have done to one aspect of the government’s attempt to maintain national security and to prevent future threats. Warning Americans of egregious violations of civil liberties and illegal activities by our government is laudable, but Snowden’s actions not only obscured his intentions, but his narcissism blinded him to the very real world ramifications of his actions to our government’s ability to function in order to maintain national security. Subsequent explanations by the government of its actions revealed that detailed information is not being accumulated in ways such as those depicted in the 1990’s espionage thriller “Enemy of the State.” If revelations of true and real threats by our government are to be considered, they should be done so by someone with more altruistic intentions, and less self-centeredness than an Edward Snowden.

Read More

A Hollywood Solution to Crime (or, “I Have a Dream”)

Being a big science fiction buff as well as a Generation Xer, one of my favorite movies of all time is a cult-classic among my kind…director John Carpenter’s 1981 “Escape From New York.”
For the culturally-deprived among you, this classic flick is set in the then-future of 1997, a time when the crime rate in the US had reached 400%, and drastic measures were called for to address the ballooning level of nationwide lawlessness. In the dark world in which the movie takes place, the proposed solution to the runaway crime rate was to transform the island of Manhattan into an inescapable prison, surrounded by 20-foot walls, mined bridges, and guard towers and speed boats encircling the island’s parameter, manned by crack paramilitary troops with orders to shoot-to-kill. The country’s worst criminal elements were sent to the Manhattan Island Facility with the understanding that once they went in, they didn’t come out…a lifetime banishment. Inside, the criminals were allowed to create the world they wanted…a world where the only law was survivor of the fittest.
To me, this movie provided what I have always thought to be an idea solution to the tide of crime and lawless which makes many cities great places to visit, but not live. Why not give them a taste of their own medicine so to speak. Give the criminals what they want; a society without the laws and rules order they so easily chose to disregard anyway. Why not put them in a place where they are allowed to roam free, without rules, without authority of any kind, save that which they themselves craft. Since they chose to prey on anyone they deem prey-worthy and/or easy-pickings, let’s put the worst of them in a place where they take the same chances that many of us take whenever we are simply trying to live our lives day-by-day, a place where they themselves can be either predator or prey among their own kind. In short, let’s outsource the day-to-day maintenance and operation of our prisons to those who know the system the best, the prisoners themselves.
Alcatraz Island provides a great example for this novel approach to crime and punishment. Our government could reopen the former prison, but under an operational scheme radically different from the way it operated under in its heyday. Here’s how the new regime would operate. Provide the facility with electric power, heat, running water and other related necessary functions. However, there should be no guards, no warden, no maintenance crews, no administrative personnel…no direct responsibilities of any kind. Then, give the prisoners free rein of the entire island. The day-to-day functions of the facilities are theirs to maintain. On the first of every month, a helicopter would drop maintenance supplies, food, toiletries, and other essentials to be doled out by whatever would come to pass as authority among the prisoners.
Under this new system, the prisoners would be allowed to create and maintain the society that they want, complete with a prison-based social pecking order, a chance to participate in whatever passes for government on the island, the freedom of association, the chance to engage in same-sex marriage, and the chance to pray to whatever deity they will no doubt wish to express their regret for committing one crime too many to. There would be no direct government violations of the prisoners’ civil liberties. And our society would be provided with the opportunity to abolish the death penalty—a system that clearly has no deterrent value—for this new system, which clearly would deter many would-be bad boys by virtue of the power of imagination alone. The prohibitive effect would be analogous to two kids preparing to fight on a school playground, knowing that an adult is probably within earshot to break up any potential rumble; criminals knowing that they could end up in facility where they would be allowed to fight and survive under what could be considered gladiatorial conditions would be more reluctant to engage behavior which may find them in said situation in the first place. The only law would be survival of the fittest.
There would be many potential advantages to doing this. First, the fear of being sentenced to spend what would surely be an abbreviated life to this facility would eliminate the pride that most criminals have in going to prison. The power and influence of the “no snitching” code among criminals would be rendered moot, considering there would be no traditional authority on the island to inform criminal activity to, and fewer who would care if anyone did. And hinting on an aforementioned notion, the horror stories about life on The Rock would border on legend, scaring any lesser criminal with the slightest hope of rehabilitation feces-less at the prospect of being sent to such a place. Any real expense would be limited to simply keeping the prisoners within the facility. In the case of Alcatraz, expense would be manifested in the form of boats encircling the island, manned with sharpshooters whose orders are to prove that the human body becomes less buoyant when it’s riddled with holes during a water escape attempt.
This could be a model for every major incarceration facility in the country, with the only real expense limited to ensuring that each criminal society within stays there.
Naturally the logistics of such a scheme are open to being tweaked based on feasibility. Maybe the prisoners could be made to wear tamperproof collars of bracelets, which would keep track of their location, as well as their life signs. Maybe sensor nets of could be employed to limit the possibility of escape. But ideally, walls would be reinforced through by way of their physical height and thickness, and each facility itself would be isolated miles from the nearest major population center. And thanks to the geography of America, there are many possible locations to isolate such facilities, such as barrier islands, deep forest, and other distant locales (I’m thinking along the lines of interior Alaska).
Sure, it’s not a perfect solution to the problem of the diehard criminal elements walking among us. And this idea probably has no chance of becoming reality, but I can dream, can’t I?

Read More

Guns & Fear, Part 2

Continued from Part 1 (http://beyond-the-political-spectrum.blogspot.com/search/label/White%20Males)

Yes…I am still talking only to the white males.
With regard to the current health care reform debate and the fear of a loss of “civil liberties” associated with reform proposals, why do white males feel the need to display guns at otherwise “peaceful”—admittedly a loosely-used term given the often raucous nature of the debate—town hall meetings and rallies? It’s not as if health care reform is a rational slippery-slope toward a totalitarian regime reminiscent of America’s Cold War-era adversaries…or is it? Sadly, and not understandably, many of you who feel threatened by the prospect of the federal government getting involved in the business of providing affordable health care insurance for those lacking seems to evoke fears of an encroaching “Socialism” monster coming to, among other things, take both your guns and your civil liberties.
Historically, it’s not as if you have a leg to stand on. There is no historical instance of white males being interned in concentration camps within the borders of America since the end of the Civil War, not based on their identities such as what happened to Japanese-American citizens. There have been no laws created to curtail gun ownership of white males (again, based on identity) in conflict with the Second Amendment, such as black citizens have had to endure…well into the 20th century (see Part 1). With respect to what happened at Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho during the 90s, those tragedies do not measure up to the wholesale violations of civil and individual rights of non-white citizens that have happened many times throughout both the recent and distance history of America. So why do you fear of a loss of civil liberties? What would make otherwise reasonable men fight so hard against potentially reforming a broken system in opposition to their own self interests? The answer is simple: belief.
Like religion, personal beliefs have no place in policy. Beliefs fuel ideological dogma, which in turn impedes the need to change what needs to be changed. In the case of health care reform, it is the irrational belief that “Socialism” will lead to many other negative government actions. Many opponents of health care reform believe that an increase in their taxes to help insure uninsured fellow Americans amounts to an erosion civil liberties. Needless to say, this is unsound reasoning given the fact that their taxes already fund “government-run” health care-related programs for the otherwise uninsured: Medicaid and Medicare. What this amounts to is, based on politically-inspired fear alone, Americans will cherry-pick which programs they support and are willing to allow their taxes to be used for, while ignoring the fact that by simply thinking or looking beyond the rhetoric, they could easily find many other unpopular programs—most with track records—that their taxes already pay for. So why should health care insurance and/or affordability be different?
Again, the fear of a Socialism Boogey Man is at the heart, most of it based on nothing more than ignorance. To illustrate, many these individuals often associate this fear of a socialist encroachment on their lives with the common practice among the former communist regimes of the Cold War era to suppress the various freedoms which we as Americans enjoy. Not only does this lack of knowledge ignores the distinctions between socialism and communism as economic policies, but assumes that a free market automatically equals personal freedom. Just look at modern-day China, an emerging capitalist juggernaut whose citizens dare not cross the boundaries of certain policies ambiguously codified by the state in regards to speech, assembly, religion, or even to have children. On the other hand, many of America’s traditional (and closest) allies may have certain economic policies that critics may slander as “socialist,” but that fact makes these countries no less democratic than ours; most European countries that opponents of health care reform enjoy all of the same rights and freedoms which we as Americans enjoy. In fact, one could argue that these “socialist” countries represent democracy far more readily than America, given their multi-party politics and parliamentary legislative structures. As a further example, in many European countries, the electorate and other special interests are forbidden from making contributions to political candidates for office; the government foots the cost for political campaigns, keeping Big Money out of the democratic process. And thankfully, these realities strongly challenge these over-patriotic Americans’ assertion that our example of democracy is the example of democracy. So again, I ask white males who feel free to intimidate the discourse regarding health care reform by displaying guns why?
Such a groundless, baseless, and uncivil choice of tactics is reminiscent of bloodthirsty and mindless mobs of days past who armed themselves, just before they gathered to lynch, burn, or otherwise do away with those who dared to think differently than they. Is that the message you want to send?

Addendum - (09/02/08)
WUNC, the local National Public Radio affiliate in Chapel Hill, North Carolina aired a segment on it's daily program, "The State of Things" about the word "socialism." It's an interesting look at how both the idea of socialism, and the usage of the word as a loaded term is typically not fully understood (outside of its negative connotation) by those who use it as a political tactic to derail questionable policy proposals. Open minds should give it a listen.

http://wunc.org/tsot/archive/sot0901abc09.mp3/view

Read More

Guns & Fear, Part 1

When I write about the problems that America has in relation to certain socio-political policies, the words of Bill Maher reflect my own thoughts: I love America…its Americans I can’t stand!
As such, I’d like to address just the white American males—particularly those who consider themselves political conservatives—for a few moments. I will pause now to give those who don’t fit that particular demographic time to navigate away from this page, or power-down your computers.

Now that it’s just you and I, please allow me to ask you a question…what’s the deal with the fear that your civil liberties are under assault by the government?
Last Thursday, the Washington Post published an opinion by columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. entitled, “Leave The Guns At Home” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/19/AR2009081902961.html) . The piece was a response to the growing occurrence of guns being brought to and displayed by certain protesters at health reform-related town hall meetings and rallies around the country, even one attended by the president himself. Gun enthusiasts and other supporters of gun-owners’ rights defend these actions as protected by the Second Amendment’s Right To Bear Arms…a right as an American citizen that I fully support. The White House, as its response, has seemingly gone out of its way to assure these conservative gun owners that their rights are fully respected with regard to their right to own and/or carry their weapons.

The Obama White House purports to be open to the idea of guns outside the president's appearances. “There are laws that govern firearms that are done state or locally,’ Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman, said on Tuesday. “Those laws don't change when the president comes to your state or locality." (Dionne Jr., Washington Post, 08/20/09)

Surely then, there is a double-standard as it relates to this desire not to cater to the baseless fears of conservative gun owners and scare them even more.

In 2006, a New York state official (who was a Democrat) joked stupidly that one of his colleague should "put a bullet between the president's eyes," referring to President Bush. Within hours, he profusely apologized, and not long after that, Republicans were calling for his resignation. It was a reasonable reaction to the suggestion that a sitting president be fatally removed from office. (Stone, “Guns at Obama Rallies: Where’s the Outrage?” Newsweek, 08/18/09. http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/08/18/guns-at-obama-rallies-where-s-the-outrage.aspx)

Strangely, these “thinking” conservative white males should have more of an allegiance to common sense than their own political ideologies; after all, the last time a gun was brought to a meeting where a sitting president was attending was when John Hinkley was trying to impress actress Jodie Foster. And one has to wonder what the response would be if leftist activists exercised the same right to carry and bear arms at an event staged by conservative politicians; would their rights to carry be as respected? History says no. We saw this in California back in 1967 when former president and arch-conservative Ronald Reagan was the state’s law-and-order governor. Reagan, seeking to stop the militant Black Panthers from exercising their legal right at the time to carry weapons in the open, signed the Mulford Act, which then prohibited “the carrying of firearms on one’s person or in a vehicle, in any public place or any public street” (keeping in mind that the Panthers adopted the policy of openly carrying weapons as a perceived defense against the Oakland, California Police Department, a government arm with many documented complaints of unprovoked brutality, excessive force, civil rights violations against them). That particular instance was just another in a long history of instances where local, state, or federal government engaged in the interference or suppression of civil liberties of non-WASP males. Shall I mention the post-Civil War and Reconstruction era-enacted Black Codes of the South, which in many instances forbade black ownership of guns? How about the many illegal lynchings of blacks and other hyphenated-Americans at the hands of “good Christians” as local government turned a blind eye? The decimation of entire black towns such as Rosewood, Florida and Tulsa’s Greenwood District (sometimes called the “Black Wall Street” due to the existence of many black-owned businesses that were the basis for the district's economic success) in 1921? How about the internment of thousands of Americans of Japanese heritage during the Second World War?
Need a more contemporary example? With respect to the good people of both Chicago and Washington D.C., the high rates of homicides among their large minority populations defies the logic of the tight controls each that cities’ government has on handgun ownership. The local laws, which prohibit purchasing and/or owning a handgun within their city limits limit any chance that the law-abiding citizens of these cities have to defend themselves in the face of gun-toting criminals who don’t allow themselves to be bound by such hindrances as these laws. And it's obvious these tight controls haven’t done anything to stem the tide of the record numbers of handgun-related murders in each city in recent years, controls that impede the desire and right of self-protection. I could go on ad nauseum.
Listing these historical occurrences are not by any means an attempt to elicit or impose feelings of racial guilt in white males, nor are they meant to make you look bad from a historical perspective. But they are meant to put the issue in perspective. Each instance had/has the willing assistance of some level of government, and I (or the rest of America for that matter) have yet to see any such policies enacted or enforced in areas populated by largely non-minority (i.e., white) citizens. There have been no such similar instances (at least to my knowledge) where the wholesale hindering or ignoring the civil liberties (not to mention affecting the very lives) of white male citizens occurred to any similarly measurable level...including instances of forbidding the ownership or use of guns for self-defense. The bottom line is that the white male fear of having one’s weapons taken away, or of having their rights limited by government is not fully understood in light of the lack of any similar or discernible instances where laws and/or local ordinances were passed to curtail their rights. So how is it that you fear gun-control or civil liberty violations when government has a tradition of working—for better or worse—in your interests?
I will again now pause, this time to allow you to either try to formulate a justification for this apparent irrational dissonance (something I’m sure will be predictably along the lines of, “Yeah, but those instances were different…") or to try to search your memory banks for similar instances where white males’ gun ownership rights or civil liberties were so imposed upon by any level of government on a level of scale.

A gun-toting protester identified as William Kostric stands in the crown at a Phoenix, Arizona health care reform rally.

To Be Concluded...

Read More