Tuesday, December 28, 2021

Spy sector, a company that cooperates with the CIA; Where did Kurz find a new job?

The mysterious company Palantir, founded by entrepreneur Peter Thiel with the support of the CIA, is the new job of former Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz.

SOURCE: JUTARNJI LIST MONDAY, DECEMBER 27, 2021

EPA-EFE/CHRISTIAN BRUNA

Just to recall, Kurz resigned in October this year under growing pressure from the corruption scandal.

Now a former leader of the Austrian People's Party (OVP), he plans to move to the United States, where he will work as a manager for a controversial company, a frequent target of civil liberties and human rights activists.

The company was founded in 2003 by Thiel with a group of other technology investors. Thiel, who was also one of the co-founders of PayPal, claimed that Palantir Technologies Inc. (PLTR) would use software similar to PayPal's fraud detection systems to "reduce terrorism while protecting civil liberties".

But the company has already attracted attention with its choice of names and investors.

Palantir - the magic ball from "The Lord of the Rings"

Palantir is the name of the magic ball from "The Lord of the Rings", a magical object that allows those who use it to get in touch with everyone else who also owns it and give them an insight into the past, present and future. But in the same story, the Palantirs were corrupted by the presence of the evil lord of darkness Sauron, after he too came into possession of one of the magic balls.

Even before they were corrupted, Palantirs were of dubious use: they could only be used by those with strong willpower, and they would be unreliable advisers to everyone - not knowing whether they represented the present or the future, showing their scenes out of context or hiding key information needed to understand what is being seen. With a very unusual choice of name, which evokes more negative than positive connotations, the company began another controversial move - it received a $ 2 million investment from the non-profit investment company In-K-Tel - one of the CIA-owned companies is to provide the spy agency with state-of-the-art technology to support its activities.

The company has grown slowly, largely thanks to contracts with government agencies. In April 2010, it teamed up with Thomson Reuters, owner of the world's leading news agency, to sell its quantitative analysis software tool.

Biden's praise

In June of that year, then-Vice President of the United States Joe Biden indirectly praised that company for the role of its software in combating fraud in government subsidies and announced that the software would be used in combating fraud in Medicare and Medicaid.

Until 2013, the company had long-term contracts with at least 12 U.S. government agencies - including the CIA, National Security, National Security Agency (NSA), FBI, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Marines, Air Force, Command Special forces, the U.S. Military Academy, the Joint Organization for Overcoming Improvised Threats, the Committee on Accountability and Transparency of Reconstruction, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

The company has also been given a lucrative and responsible job of overseeing Iran’s nuclear deal. For the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Palantir was tasked with overseeing Iran's adherence to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an agreement that led to the lifting of sanctions on Tehran in exchange for limiting Iran's nuclear program.

On good terms with Trump

With the election of Republican President Donald Trump, Thiel became the only head of the company from Silicon Valley who remained on good terms with the authorities and became an advisor to the president.

Last year, Palantir also started working for the British public health system in combating coronavirus pandemic. But the company has become increasingly controversial. Back in 2014, it came under media scrutiny for its cooperation with the American Immigration and Customs Service (ICE). Although leading people claimed to cooperate with ICE agents only in detecting criminals, an investigation by the non-profit media Intercept found that for ICE Palantir software is crucial in the deportation of all immigrants.

The company was also under investigation by the British Parliament in 2018, when it was condemned by former Cambridge analysts leader Christopher Wiley, who said that the two companies held meetings and that Palantir used data illegally collected in the Cambridge analytics scandal.

"Maven Project"

The company also found itself in the media due to its readiness to cooperate with the Pentagon in the "Maven Project". It is a secret program for the development of artificial intelligence, which was originally implemented by Google, but the company left the project after a mass protest of its own workers.

It is a technology that could eventually lead to autonomous armed robots - drones and other aircraft that could fire without human orders. Shortly after Google left Maven in 2018, Palantir took over Google's role in developing technologies that critics believe are combat artificial intelligence.

"Our company was founded in Silicon Valley," said Palantir CEO Alex Karp when he announced a public offering of shares last year. "But we seem to share less and less value with the rest of the technology sector. We have chosen our side and we know that our partners appreciate our commitment," he added.

The company went public last year, where the price of its shares jumped from $ 7.25 to more than $ 10 overnight, and today they are selling at $ 18.9, bringing the company's market value to nearly $ 38 billion dollars.

Kurz part of management team

The Austrian Kronen Zeitung writes that Kurz will receive an annual salary of around half a million euros for the currently unknown managerial position, and that he will probably start working in February next year. Kurz is not the only member of the Austrian political elite who started working for a company present in 150 countries.

Former business director of the Austrian Social Democrats (SPO), Laura Rudash, paved the way for him. She left politics in 2015 at the age of 33 and found a job in Palantir. After becoming the youngest chancellor in Austrian history, Sebastian Kurz is only 35 years old today and hopes for a new career outside politics, if accusations of corruption do not keep him in the country in the end.

FASCISM USA
A National Network of Election Deniers will Oversee the 2024 Election

BY NICK LICATA
COUNTERPUNCH
DECEMBER 28, 2021

Photograph Source: Chad Davis – CC BY 2.0

Followers of Donald Trump are methodically placing election deniers, those who believe Biden stole the election through fraudulent voting, in crucial state positions who could legally overturn a popular vote if a Trumper candidate does not win the next presidential election.

The liberal press has covered this effort with Barton Gellman’s article in the Atlantic Trump’s Next Coup Has Already Begun, leading the charge. But as Gellman immediately notes, Trump’s attempt wouldn’t be an armed uprising.

Nevertheless, violence like the January 6 offense on the Capitol could be repeated in the future by right-wing groups like the Oath Keepers, 1st Amendment Praetorian and the Proud Boys. There is no other word than “violence” to describe what happened. At a congressional hearing last week, four officers testified before congress that crowds of people, many wielding weapons, attacked and threatened them. Over one hundred were seriously wounded in protecting our nation’s Capitol.

Reporters from CNBC revealed that an indictment in a Washington federal court described a “conspiracy among at least 18 Oath Keepers in which members of the Oath Keepers planned to move together in coordination with regular communication to storm the United States Capitol.” Another subpoena said that at least 34 people affiliated with the Proud Boys had been indicted by the Justice Department in connection with the riot.

And, the 1st Amendment Praetorian and its chairman, Robert Patrick Lewis, tweeted on the day of the attack on the Capitol that “Today is the day the true battles begin.”

Aside from the threat of violent force to alter the results of a 2024 election, the more substantial threat rests in Trumper Republicans controlling state positions that typically perform perfunctory roles in executing procedures that should be nonpartisan, like counting votes. By resurrecting the vague and rarely used Independent Legislature Doctrine (ILD), Republican-controlled state legislatures could substitute Trump electoral votes for Biden or another Democrat should one win that state’s popular vote. Four Supreme Court Justices have indicated that they consider the ILD as a legitimate doctrine.

However, they can’t use this Doctrine without some justifiable rationale. The cornerstone of a legislator using the Doctrine is that our democracy is about to see a second presidential election stolen. Trumpers are becoming public officials who are willing to believe that there could be significant voter fraud in 2024, regardless of any evidence. That is a hurdle Trump was unable to get past last time.

He failed to convince his Vice President Pence and the majority of the Republicans in Congress of massive voter fraud. It didn’t help him that every court and state election official upheld Biden‘s victory. However, Trump’s repeated insistence that there was massive fraud has been widely accepted by the public.

According to a November 1 poll by the Public Religion Research Institute, Trump convinced 68 percent of all Republicans that the election had been stolen from him. A belief stronger than what the Southern Confederacy held regarding Abraham Lincoln’s election as president. They did not challenge the legitimacy of Lincoln’s victory even though he wasn’t on the ballot in any Southern state.

The enduring anger from Trump being a victim in the last election is reminiscent of the South’s belief that they were forced to fight the Northern non-slave states from destroying their culture. Therefore, they had a right as sovereign states to leave the Union and, by violence if necessary, to preserve their freedom from Yankee domination.

A similar belief can be seen in a recent PRRI poll that found 12 percent of Americans believing both that the election had been stolen from Trump and that “true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.” In other words, to save their country from liberal democrats.

That fear is fanned today by right-wing broadcasters, some of whom follow the QAnon conspiracy that if Democrats continue to run the country, they will allow rampant child pedophilia. Embracing extreme beliefs is not new in our history. When Abraham Lincoln was elected as president, many Southern politicians saw that as an act of war. They predicted Union armies would seize their slaves and force white women to marry black men.

Former Trump presidential advisor Steve Bannon is one of the more popular right-wing broadcasters with over a hundred thousand listeners. The day before Trumpites stormed the Capitol on January 6, he told his listeners that “All hell will break loose tomorrow. It’s them against us. Who can impose their will on the other side?” Congress wants to know what Bannon communicated with Trump, as the mass rally on the National Mall turned into a march on to the Capitol to stop confirming the election results.

A September ProPublica investigation detailed how Bannon’s continuing radio broadcasts encourage election deniers to challenge the 2024 election by becoming election poll ballot counters and precinct officers. According to Bannon, President Trump lost because the Republican Party sold him out. As a result, Bannon has pushed a “precinct strategy” for taking over various counties’ Republican Party leadership.

Following his broadcasts, thousands flooded into local county Republican meetings to replace established Republican Party leaders with new Trump-supporting members. ProPublica contacted GOP leaders in 65 key counties, and 41 reported an unusual increase in signups after hearing Bannon say, “This is your call to action.” There has been no similar increase in Democratic Party precinct officers who vote for local party leadership.

These lowly positions play a critical role in getting out the vote because they go door to door, distribute literature, and talk to residents to vote for their party’s candidates. As a result, more precinct officers increase voter turnout for their party’s candidate. But even more importantly, in some states, they help pick poll workers, and in others, they help determine members of boards that oversee elections. The new Republican recruits for these positions are not like the traditional conservatives who ran the party. Instead, these folks are fired up and often embrace unproven conspiracies espoused by far-right groups.

The New York Times has highlighted instances where election deniers are running and winning critical election oversight positions that the parties have largely ignored in the past. The Times provided an example of a pastor who attended the January 6 rally who said he attended because he was “standing for the truth to be heard” about the stolen election. He returned to his conservative Pennsylvania township, ran, and won the office that administers polling on Election Day. The Times concluded that “Until this year, races for administrative positions like a judge of elections were non-competitive to the point of being more or less volunteer opportunities.”

Meanwhile, according to Gellman’s article in the Atlantic, officeholders receive death threats and harassment from Trump supporters. As a result, nonpartisan voting administrators are being driven to contemplate retirement. Gellman sites Vernetta Keith Nuriddin, 52, who left the Fulton County, Georgia, election board because she had been bombarded with threatening emails from Trump supporters, one of which read, “You guys need to be publicly executed … on pay per view.” She knew colleagues on at least four county election boards who resigned in 2021 or chose not to renew their positions. Are these isolated incidents or a part of a wave to sweep public officials out of office who are not willing to fight for the Trump version of reality?

There has been no evident effort by Democrats to track to what extent Republicans are putting election deniers in crucial positions to supervise election counts. Perhaps Democrats, and liberals in general, believe that our democracy will survive, while Republicans and right-wing adherents see our democracy being threatened by liberal Democrats and Socialists. An October poll found that 71 percent of Republicans believe democracy is facing a “major threat,” as compared to just 35 percent of Democrats.

The Republican Party, since Trump knocked out all the establishment Republican candidates in 2016 to become the party’s presidential candidate, is becoming dominated by a Manichean zeitgeist that the US is now in a struggle between the good and the evil. And they clearly see liberalism and liberal democracy as evil.

The role of the Republicans is to save our nation from the Democrats’ inability or unwillingness to protect our nation’s three most essential freedoms. These are defined as protecting human life from abortion, protecting our freedom to defend ourselves from stopping the government from controlling our access to guns, and defending our borders from an invasion of foreigners who do not think, act or look like us.

Republicans have held these views for a long time, but with Donald Trump, they found someone willing to throw out liberal democracy altogether because it is corrupt by attacking all three of these freedoms.

There is some irony in that Trump acts as a revolutionary in tearing down our government. But rather than leading a violent overthrow (which lingers in the background as a possibility), he is astutely attacking democracy’s governing norms. The most critical norm is that our democracy works. By arguing that the last election was a fraud, without any evidence, Trump directly undermines the founder’s belief that the peaceful transfer of power from one national leader to another was their most outstanding achievement. Moreover, America was exceptional in being a democracy ruled by-laws, while other nations were ruled by a single monarch ordained by that nation’s dominant religion.

Trumpers could shape elections rules based on their beliefs instead of performing their duties based on evidence. That hyper-partisan approach will continue to fragment our nation. Consider that the federal government’s legitimacy already appears to be crumbling. According to the Grinnell College National Poll taken in October 2021, there is a grand canyon size gap between Democrats and Republicans in trusting election results. Only 38 percent of those leaning to and being Republicans have “Very or Somewhat Confidence in votes being counted correctly in the next election in 2022.” Meanwhile, those who lean to or are Democrats score 82 percent on that question.

Autocrats in other countries, past and present, have used the anger of the many to consolidate power in the hands of the few. This transfer has occurred because a hollowed-out shell of a democracy could not stop it. In his extensive Atlantic piece, Gellman concludes that Donald Trump came closer than anyone thought he could to toppling a free election a year ago. Yet, he is preparing in plain view to do it again. Unfortunately, Gellman misses the damage currently underway to our national perception of democracy, which has always been widely supported but shallow in understanding.

If that damage is lasting, it is not just the election results of 2022 or 2024 at risk but perhaps most importantly of what occurs in 2028. What happens if a Trumper candidate wins in 2024 but refuses to concede defeat in 2028? A replay of January 6, 2020 would be likely, but not necessarily with a storming of the Capitol. The vice president at that time may have no qualms as to which votes to count. A legal challenge to that power grab would be decided by a Supreme Court dominated by right-wing justices who have strongly supported the three significant freedoms previously described that Trumpers have championed.

The solution is not in providing more social welfare programs, as much as they are needed, but in addressing the importance that we survive as a secular democracy, not as an autocratic theocracy. The path forward must be a nonpartisan clarion call for all citizens to unite around conserving the rules and norms of democratic behavior, which protect the freedom of everyone to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nick Licata is author of Becoming A Citizen Activist, and has served 5 terms on the Seattle City Council, named progressive municipal official of the year by The Nation, and is founding board chair of Local Progress, a national network of 1,000 progressive municipal officials.

BE AFRAID VERY AFRAID

Belarus could host nuclear weapons

Minsk’s long-awaited constitutional reforms hint at a big changes in the country’s foreign policy

28 Dec, 2021

Belarus has unveiled its proposed new constitution, opening up the possibility of the country stationing nuclear weapons on its territory and potentially enabling veteran leader Alexander Lukashenko to stay in office until 2035.

The changes, which were promised in the wake of the unrest that followed last year’s disputed presidential election, were released for public debate on Monday.

Among the proposed changes, a passage in the current constitution that requires the country to stay out of major geopolitical conflicts appears to have been removed. According to the existing version, last modified in 2004, Belarus “aims at making its territory a nuclear-free zone, and the state – neutral.” However, in the latest draft the section has been replaced by a pledge that “rules out military aggression from its territory against other states,” opening up speculation that Minsk could allow atomic weapons to be deployed within its borders.

In addition, if approved, the new constitution would bring in term limits for presidents, restricting them to two five-year stretches in office. However, a clause in the text stipulates that this only applies to “newly elected presidents,” which would potentially allow Lukashenko to stay in office for another decade after his current term expires in 2025. Lukashenko has governed the Eastern European nation for more than 27 years.

Embattled Belarusian leader Lukashenko says constitutional vote to help smooth his exit from office to be held within 6 months

The amendments, which are subject to public consultation, tighten up requirements for Belarusian citizens seeking to be elected as the country’s president, bumping the minimum age from 35 to 40 years, as well as increasing the required period of permanent residency from 10 to 20 years ahead of the election.

Individuals who have held, or hold, dual citizenship or residency permits in foreign countries would be disqualified from running for office. The draft document also envisions immunity for former presidents, and grants them the perk of becoming a lifetime senator.

The process of reforming the constitution has been repeatedly presented by Lukashenko as a precursor to him stepping down from the country’s top job. According to him, the task “cannot be given to an unknown president,” as it would be a “disaster.”

However, a number of opposition figures have claimed that the changes amount to little more than a delay tactic, designed to shield him from calls to resign following widespread street protests after he was declared the victor in last summer’s election, with around 80% of the vote. The opposition, and many international observers, insist the poll was rigged.

The constitutional changes would also empower the so-called All-Belarusian People’s Assembly, which is currently a general meeting of the Belarusian government with top officials and industry leaders held every five years. The assembly lacks any real powers, with its critics claiming it only serves to demonstrate the alleged universal support for the Belarusian leadership.

Under the new constitution, however, the assembly would get a vast number of different powers. It would be able to depose a president found guilty of “systematic” violation of the constitution or other “serious offense,” establish guidelines for foreign and internal politics, set military doctrine, and adopt other program documents.

The assembly would also be able to throw out any act by any governing body or official – except for court rulings – should it consider them unfit for the interests of “national security.” The draft also defines marriage as a “union between a man and a woman.”

Following the public debate and any potential revisions, the changes will be put to a referendum, expected to be held in February next year. The amendments need to garner the support of more than 50% of voters, with at least half of all citizens turning out to vote.

Russia claims it knows NATO’s true mission

Russia’s foreign minister has shared some stern words amid another spat between Moscow and the military bloc

By Layla Guest

FILE PHOTO. © Reuters / Alessandro Bianchi

NATO’s goal is to fill a void left over from the fall of the USSR, Moscow’s top diplomat has claimed, hitting out at the US-led military bloc as Russia seeks to obtain guarantees that it will not advance closer to its borders.

Speaking as part of an interview on Monday, Sergey Lavrov said that “NATO is now a purely geopolitical project to develop the territory which was left abandoned after the disappearance of the Warsaw Pact and after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is what they are doing.”

Read more Ukraine proposes peace plan for Donbass

“But the fact that they have now already swung, as [Russian President Vladimir] Putin said, onto our doorstep, of course, we cannot be indifferent,” the veteran official said.

Lavrov went on to accuse the West of wanting to foment a conflict in Ukraine and put the blame on Moscow for any subsequent provocation. “I don't rule out that there's this desire to fuel militaristic sentiment, to wage a little war, blame us and then impose a round of sanctions to suppress our competitive ability,” he said.

According to him, Washington and NATO member countries are “pumping weapons, boasting that since 2014 they have supplied [Ukraine] with ammunition, weapons and strike systems worth 2.5 billion dollars.”

The diplomat said that Russia will firmly insist on the inviolability of the Minsk Agreements, but said that if another party breaks the accords aimed at establishing peace in eastern Ukraine, they should face up to the consequences.

The Minsk Protocol is a ceasefire package that was inked in 2014 in a bid to put an end to the war in Donbass. The conflict broke out after the events of the Maidan, when violent street protests toppled Kiev’s democratically elected government. This eventually led to the two self-proclaimed Lugansk and Donetsk Republics declaring their independence. Neither Moscow, Ukraine, nor any other UN member state, recognizes their sovereignty.

Lavrov’s remarks come amid reignited tensions between the US-led military bloc and Moscow in recent weeks. On Sunday, Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov said the expansion of NATO closer to Russia’s borders is a question of “life or death” as officials seek to obtain guarantees ruling out the organization widening eastwards.

Read more US can’t be trusted to honor its promises – Putin

Moscow has issued two separate documents to the military bloc and the US, imploring for Kiev’s long-held ambitions to ascend to not be realized, as well as calling for current members to desist military activity on Ukraine’s territory, as well as in Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus, and Central Asia.

Putin has previously insisted that the last Soviet premier, Mikhail Gorbachev, was given assurances by Western leaders that NATO would not expand into the space left after the collapse of the USSR. A tranche of documents was declassified in 2017, and was subsequently widely viewed as showing that American, British, and German officials verbally assured the Kremlin in the 1990s that NATO would not push into Eastern European countries, before then admitting members such as Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.

The Warsaw Pact was a collective defense treaty established by the Soviet Union and several other satellite states in Central and Eastern Europe. It ceased to exist in 1991 before the USSR collapsed in 1991.

Perth suffers four consecutive December days of 40C for first time ever

The West Australian
Tue, 28 December 2021

People cool off at Scarborough Beach on Boxing Day.

Credit: Matt Jelonek/Matt Jelonek

Perth has sweltered through four consecutive December days above 40C for the first time ever.

The mercury at the Bureau of Meteorology’s central Perth observation station in Mount Lawley tipped 40.7C at 2.20pm on Tuesday, after the city’s warmest Christmas Day on record (42.8C), a blistering Boxing Day (43.5C) and a 41-degree Monday.

Only twice in recorded history, in 2016 and 1933, has Perth experienced four days in a row of 40C plus heat.

Those records were both set during the city’s hottest month – February.

Bureau meteorologist Luke Huntington said a stationary weather trough hanging over the coast was preventing the Fremantle Doctor sea breeze from offering its usual afternoon reprieve.

“It has pretty much prevented those cooling sea breezes that we usually see during the afternoon,” he said.

“And it is very unusual to get that four days in a row of over 40C, and we’ve seen that extreme heatwave, so that’s very rare.

“A lot of the time when we do get the heat, we get the north-easterly (winds) for the morning period and then we see the sea breeze push through in the afternoon which gives us a little bit of relief.

“But we haven’t really seen that with this event, the sea breezes have been pretty much non existent along the coast and through inland parts which has made (the heat) particularly worse.”

The hot weather will continue tomorrow, with a top of 38, before some welcome relief on Thursday - with a predicted top of 32.

Perth’s long range weather forecast:

Wednesday: 24-38 degrees

Thursday: 19-32

Friday: 20-33

Saturday: 19-33

Sunday: 18-34

Monday: 19-34

Iraq: Flash Floods - Emergency Plan of Action (EPoA), DREF Operation n° MDRIQ014

Format: Situation Report
Source: IFRC
Posted: 28 Dec 2021
Originally published: 27 Dec 2021
Origin: View original

Attachments

Download document(PDF | 801.53 KB)

A. Situation analysis

Description of the disaster

Heavy rains have slammed the Kurdish region after one of the driest years in decades. On 17 December 2021, heavy rainfalls hit the country's northern Kurdish region. The heavy rains overnight caused a flash flood in Erbil, the region’s capital, and Kirkuk Governorate, located in Northern Iraq. The incident caused widespread damage to houses, infrastructure, and vehicles. Muddy water swept into people’s homes in Erbil's Daratu, Qushtapa, Shamamk, Zhyan, Roshinbiri, and Bahrka neighbourhoods in the early hours of the morning, forcing individuals out of their houses. According to the Kurdish region government on 19 December, 14 people were reported dead by the floods and more than 7,000 people are affected by these floods, while IRCS carried further rapid assessments to confirm with the affected families. More are feared missing while search and rescue operations are ongoing. Officials urged residents to stay off the roads and avoid flooded areas. The floodwaters had receded, and government authorities had started to clear flood debris in affected areas.

Iraq has witnessed record-low rainfall this year, but officials have warned of sporadic heavy rains due to climate change. Experts have warned that record low rainfall, compounded by climate change, is threatening social and economic disasters in war-scarred Iraq. The disastrous heavy rains came at a time when Iraq was suffering with severe droughts, where seven million Iraqis have been already affected and most of the agricultural land is completely affected by the droughts spell and left people with more vulnerabilities. IFRC on the behalf of IRCS, launched the DREF operation for droughts to cater the pressing needs of the affected population in three governorates. These three governorates are amongst the hotspot governorates affected by the current drought.

Iraq is at risk of multiple disasters ranging from the natural disasters such as drought, sandstorm, heatwaves, floods, desertification and epidemics to man-made ones. Due to its diverse topography, Iraq is exposed to multiple natural hazards. Floods and epidemics pose the greatest risks in the country, followed by earthquakes and drought. The number and frequency of disasters is growing. These disasters accounted for approximately 45 per cent of deaths and 80 per cent of economic losses from disasters in the country. Recent decades have seen an alarming increase in the frequency of disaster occurrences each year and the magnitude of their social, economic and environmental impacts. Climate change continues to evolve as a critical threat to the development in Iraq, fuelling conflicts, humanitarian sufferings and population displacement. In recent years, Iraq has endured blistering temperatures and repeated droughts, but it has also been subjected to intense flash floods, which are exacerbated when torrential rain falls on sun-baked earth. Iraq is particularly vulnerable to the effects of extreme weather patterns, most likely caused by climate change due to its underdeveloped infrastructure. More heavy rain is expected in the coming days, according to the Regional Meteorology Department.

Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald & Chris Hedges on NSA Leaks, Assange & Protecting a Free Internet

STORYDECEMBER 24, 2021

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists Glenn Greenwald and Chris Hedges discuss mass surveillance, government secrecy, internet freedom and U.S. attempts to extradite and prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. They spoke together on a panel moderated by Amy Goodman at the virtual War on Terror Film Festival after a screening of “Citizenfour” — the Oscar-winning documentary about Snowden by Laura Poitras.

Transcript
This is a rush transcript.

AMY GOODMAN: Today, a special on two people who will not be home for the holidays: Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. In this special broadcast, we spend the hour with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, along with two Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists, Glenn Greenwald and Chris Hedges.

I recently moderated a discussion with them at the virtual War on Terror Film Festival after a screening of Citizenfour, the Oscar-winning documentary about Edward Snowden by Laura Poitras. The documentary chronicles how Snowden met with Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald in a hotel room in Hong Kong in June 2013 to share a trove of secret documents about how the United States had built a massive surveillance apparatus to spy on Americans and people across the globe. It was the biggest leak ever to come out of the NSA.

After sharing the documents, Edward Snowden was charged in the United States for violating the Espionage Act and other laws. As he attempted to flee from Hong Kong to Latin America, Snowden was stranded in Russia at the airport after the U.S. revoked his passport. He was granted political asylum and has lived in Moscow ever since.

I began by asking Edward Snowden to talk about why he chose to blow the whistle on the NSA.

EDWARD SNOWDEN: I grew up in the shadow of government. Both my parents worked for the government, and I expected that I would, as well.

September 11th happened when I was 18 years old. And it was one of those things that really changes the politics not only of the people but of the place. And at the time, I didn’t really question that. It just seemed like, you know, we had this new problem. Everybody on TV is saying we can deal with it. And when everybody else was protesting the Iraq War, I was volunteering to join it. And that’s because I believed the things that the government was saying — not all of them, of course, but I believed that the government was mostly honest, because it seemed to me unreasonable that the government would be willing to risk sort of our long-term faith in the institution of government for short-term political advantage. As I said, I was a very young man.

And I ended up going to work for the CIA undercover overseas out in the diplomatic platforms. Then I moved into contracting, which is really — you’re still working for the government, in government offices, taking the directives from government managers, working on government equipment, but the badge that you wear that identifies you changes from blue to green — the color of money, because most people go into contracting still working for the government in these classified spaces because you make basically twice as much for the same work. And then I worked in Japan for the NSA, before eventually bouncing back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, until I ended up in Hawaii in a little place called the Office of Information Sharing.

And it was only here — and I was the sole employee of the Office of Information Sharing; they didn’t realize how good I would be at that job, and neither did I — that I could see the whole picture, which was, at the same time that I was beginning to identify with the government, the government was beginning to identify less with its citizens and the public of the world, more generally.

What had happened was, as — you know, we grew up with this idea of the private citizen, because we have no power or influence relative to the great institutions of the day, and the public official— right? — where we know everything about them and what they’re doing, who they’re meeting with and what their policies are and what their interests are. We scrutinize them because they order our lives. Their directives determine what happens tomorrow. Well, that was being inverted. And because of the new war on terror, all the old norms, all the old ideals could be tossed away and replaced with a new system.

And that was the system of mass surveillance, that we were not publicly told about. The government knew it was likely unconstitutional and certainly illegal, but they continued with it anyway, because they argued to themselves, at least, it was necessary. It was not necessary, and it would take some time to establish that with facts, and that’s the story that we’ve gotten the years since.

But, in brief, realizing this, through the documentation of the architecture of the system, how it came to be, who was involved in building it and authorizing it and constructing it, which fell to people like me, who did not realize at each step of our careers what it was we were actually building, because the need-to-know principle collapsed your universe to your work. You didn’t realize what the office next door to you was doing. You weren’t supposed to, for those of us who did know. And it was only by breaking down those barriers, the fact that I moved from CIA to NSA, that I moved from actual officer of government to a contractor working for private companies extending the work of government, then finally working in this office where I could see sort of everything, not just at my agency but many other agencies, that I saw the large picture. And that was fundamentally that the government had lied not only to me but to all of us.

And this, to me, seemed like something, publicly, broadly, we had to know, because if government is, in a democracy, intended to be mandated by the consent of the governed, but we don’t know what it is that they’re doing, then that’s not consent, or it’s not informed consent. If consent is not informed, it’s not meaningful. And so I started writing to journalists. That brought me eventually to Glenn. And that’s where the story goes from there.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about that, that reaching out to Laura Poitras and Glenn? And yes, I want you to tell the story again because there are many who haven’t seen the film, and it is that act that — and we’ll introduce Glenn — when you decided to leave everything that you knew so well, where you felt so safe, to enter a world where, as you said, you had no idea where you would end up.

EDWARD SNOWDEN: Well, when you first enter on duty at the CIA, they take you in a dark room. It’s a very solemn ceremony. You raise your hand and say, you know, “I,” — state your name, whatever — “do solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” They talk about the oath of secrecy. There is no oath of secrecy. There is a Standard Form 312, classified nondisclosure agreement, whatever, that you sign, which is what they’re actually referring to, but it’s not an oath. It’s a civil agreement.

Now, on the other hand, you do take this oath of service, as they describe it. And this, for me, is what animated [inaudible] forward. What happens when you have conflicting obligations? On one hand, you’re supposed to keep these secrets of government, because this is all classified information that we’re discussing. The fact that the government is breaking the law is itself a secret. But when the government’s lawbreaking is a violation of the Constitution that you entered into duty to uphold, what then do you do?

You know, I talked to my colleagues. I talked to my bosses. They wanted nothing to do with this. Many of them agreed that it was wrong, but they said, “You know, it’s not my job to fix it. It’s not your job, either.” And they knew what would happen as a result. Everybody knew the government was going to be extremely unhappy. And everybody who has done this in the past has ended up charged and imprisoned as a result of this.

But, for me, I felt that I had an obligation to do this. And so I gathered information that I believed was evidence of unlawful or unconstitutional activities. And I could have published it myself. I could have just put it up on the internet, established a website, possibly could have made it so it would not likely track back to me. However, I thought if I just declared myself the president of secrets and that I made some mistake — right? — there wasn’t much process involved there. The problem that got us into this situation was that the government itself was acting as a kind of unitary power. The office of the executive, the president of the United States, was saying that, “Look, you know, we decide what we will and won’t do. The courts have no role in this. The Legislature has no real role in this. Oversight hasn’t been functional for years,” which I’m sure the other panelists will describe. But I didn’t want to replicate that.

So I felt I could check my own worst impulses and suspicions by partnering with journalists — right? — who could then take my bias out of the equation, look at what the documents said, actually go to the government for a clarification where things weren’t here and to challenge government, but to do their own investigations, to go to companies for comment and everything like that, and find the best possible version of the truth, right? What is the most accurate representation of this? And of that superset of their investigation, what is the subset of that that’s in the public interest to know?

And working in absolute secrecy, again, with Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald, eventually Barton Gellman and Ewen MacAskill, I shared this archive of information with them, on — through the conditions that they publish, for example, only what they believe is in the public interest to know, not merely what I thought was useful to them. And that’s what brought us to this hotel room in Hong Kong, where I could explain what these documents actually meant for the first time, because, as Glenn can sort of testify to, these were very dense, technical documents, and they’re the sort of thing that journalists in the public world had never seen before, because they were so highly classified.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that does bring us to Glenn Greenwald. Glenn, talk about your first contacts with Ed Snowden, when you decided to make that trip to Hong Kong, the risks that you were taking — at the time, you worked for The Guardian — taking on all the institutions that you knew could certainly take you down.

GLENN GREENWALD: I recall, you know, in the weeks leading up to our ultimate meaning, Ed was kind of fixated on the idea that we all fly to Hong Kong to meet with him. And, you know, we still didn’t know who he was. We didn’t know in which agency he worked. And the fact that he wanted us to go to Hong Kong made everything much more confusing, because why would somebody with high-level access to top-secret documents of the U.S. security state — usually you would expect to find a person like that, you know, in the kind of underworld of Arlington, Virginia, not Hong Kong.

And I remember telling Ed, you know, “Look, I trust you. I feel like what you’re saying intuitively is genuine. But before I get on a plane and fly all the way literally across the world to the other side of the world, show me something that demonstrates that you’re authentic, that you actually have material that makes all of this worthwhile.” And he said, “I’m going to give you the tiniest tip of the iceberg.” And we spent, I don’t know, a good two weeks setting up just an encryption system to let him do that.

He sent me, I think, 20 documents. And even though those documents were, as he said, just the tiniest tip of the iceberg, they were shocking. You know, I mean, just the mere fact alone that top-secret documents had leaked for the first time ever from the NSA, the most secretive agency within the world’s most powerful government, was already momentous enough, independent other content. But among the documents were parts of what we were able to report as the PRISM program, the cooperation on the part of what at the time were the nine tech giants of Silicon Valley with the NSA, widespread data sharing, giving over wholesale information about their users to the NSA with no judicial checks, no legal framework, no democratic accountability. So, suffice to say, Ed sufficiently excited me and lured me.

I think that night I called my editor at The Guardian and demanded to fly to New York the next day, which I did. I met with her, Janine Gibson, showed her what I had, and everyone immediately knew that this was going to be one of the most important stories in the history of modern journalism, just based on those tiny number of documents, let alone the full archive. And that next day — so it was very fast — Laura and I boarded a plane from JFK direct to Hong Kong.

And, you know, I talked about before how I had spent the 16 hours so engrossed with the documents that by that point we had had not necessarily the best operational security ever reading top-secret NSA documents, you know, on a public passenger jet while flying across the world, but I knew this was, by this point, the kind of first opening ever into this sprawling, undemocratic security state. And I couldn’t help myself. I needed to see what was in there. And then we landed in Hong Kong 16 hours later.

And then, the very next morning, through a plan that Ed devised that involved lots of kind of spycraft, which was really important — we didn’t know at the time what U.S. government authorities knew about Ed and what he was doing and what we were doing, what Chinese authorities might have known, what local Hong Kong intelligence officials might have known. So all of that stealth was so important. But it was a huge blur. You know, we were 12 hours in a different time zone, had hurtled ourselves within a very short amount of time over to Hong Kong to meet someone we knew nothing about, you know, and I’ll never forget the moment that Ed walked in.

And I think both Laura and I — we’ve talked about this before — were shocked by many things, including his young age. You know, I thought the whole time I was talking to somebody who was likely 60 or 65 years old, in, you know, I think, part because of the sophistication of Ed’s insights, but also, you know, the thing that struck me so much and that to this day is a critical part of my worldview of how I look at things was, unlike most sources who, understandably, when they’re turning over top-secret documents to journalists and doing something the government regards as a crime, and therefore want to conceal their identity, from the start, you know, Ed’s posture was “I don’t want to hide. I want to identify who I am. I want to explain to the public why I’m doing what I’ve done and why I think it was so important.” And so, you know, my belief was that he was probably 65 or 70. It’s, I think, a lot easier to say, “I’m willing to risk life in prison,” if life in prison means 10 or 15 or 20 years of life expectancy rather than, you know, 60 or 70. So we were shocked by that.

And we went up to Ed’s hotel room and, Laura being Laura, immediately turned on the camera and, me being me, immediately began interrogating Ed. I think we had like maybe 10 seconds of niceties before I forced him into this very intense interrogation. We were sitting maybe a few feet apart from one another in this small hotel room. And by the end of the day, I was convinced that Ed was authentic, that the documents he had given us were genuine, and that this was a story that the public had an immediate right to know, should have known years ago.

And the courage and the kind of principled conviction that drove Ed to do what he did, I think, immediately infected both myself and Laura. Ewen MacAskill, The Guardian journalist, joined us the next day. And he, I think, was contaminated by that, as well. And I think that eventually that made The Guardian very passionate and willing.

And that act, as we all know, created these reverberations that really to this day last, that the government is always trying to spy on what it is that we’re doing — they particularly target marginalized and vulnerable groups; at the time, the hot, you know, number one on their list was obviously Muslim communities around the world, including in the United States — and that journalism and whistleblowing is one of the few, if not the only, means we have to find out what they’re doing and to guard against their abuses.

AMY GOODMAN: Journalist Glenn Greenwald. He won the Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on Edward Snowden’s leaked NSA documents. When we come back, we’ll continue our discussion with Glenn and Ed Snowden and be joined by another Pulitzer Prize winner, the journalist Chris Hedges. We’ll talk about surveillance, internet freedom, Julian Assange and more.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, as we continue our discussion with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists Glenn Greenwald and Chris Hedges. I asked Ed Snowden to talk about what he felt was most significant about the documents he leaked in 2013 exposing the NSA’s massive surveillance apparatus.

EDWARD SNOWDEN: The most important thing about the stories of 2013 that I think people can look was it was not a story about surveillance. It was a story about democracy. The surveillance system, the global mass surveillance system, was the product of a failure in governance, where we the public had sort of lost our seat at the table of democratic governance, because secrecy, the state secrets regime and the classification animal had grown to such a size that it was allowed to push public oversight further and further to the fringes of the decision-making apparatus, until it was basically no longer present at all. What that meant was for the first time in history there was the technical capability and the political reality that it was possible to construct a system that had not existed before.

Now, what did that system do? In history, traditionally, government surveillance has occurred in a targeted manner, whether it is the police going, “We suspect this person of a crime,” going to a judge, showing their basis for it, establishing probable cause, the judge OKs it. Then they put teams over this person. They have people follow them when they leave their house in the morning. They have another team go inside their house and place listening devices, place video surveillance, you know, copy their notepads, take photographs of whatever’s going on, flown their hard disks, whatever. This is a human-enabled capability. And that put necessary constraints on how frequently it could be used. And as the government agents are sort of following this person through their life, sitting down in the cafe behind them, you know, trying to see who they meet with, writing down license plates and all these things, they don’t hear every word that the person says, generally, but they get the idea. They see who they met with. They see how long they were there with that person. They see where that person went afterwards, because they sent someone to follow them.

These activity records were now available for the first time in a form called metadata. Things that are analogous to what a private detective would get from following you around in your daily life and taking pictures and writing down notes were now being produced by the smartphones in our pockets, by the laptops on our desk or on the couch next to us. But it was also coming from your TV. It was also coming from your car, you know, the systems inside of that. It was coming from automated license plate readers. All of these things for the first time were producing information, that now the government went, “What if we didn’t have to go to a judge in every individual case and say we thought this person was up to no good? What if, under the aegis of the threat of terrorism, we could say we want to collect all information that could potentially, theoretically, be relevant to a terrorism investigation before we need it? And we’ll simply say, 'Look, we're not going to look at this information if you’re not suspected of a crime, but we will still gather it about you as though you were committing a crime.’”

This is what changed, and this is what continues today. What has actually happened that expands this to an even greater state of alarm is that now this is a business model. Now corporations are getting into this, and they’re competing against each other to see who can provide a similar product, an even more attractive product, not just to governments, who they do sell this information to as a service, but also to advertisers and anyone else who’s willing to pay. That’s what’s changed.

AMY GOODMAN: Which brings us to the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges. Chris, you’ve spent decades exposing how governments wield lethal power, from Central America to the Middle East to the Balkans. Ed Snowden said that behind his disclosures was the balance of state power versus people’s power to meaningfully oppose that power. Can you talk about the significance of what Ed just said in terms of exposing the wars that the U.S. has engaged in to this day?

CHRIS HEDGES: I would focus narrowly on what everything that Ed exposed for the press. So, when I began reporting the war in El Salvador in '83, when we got secret or classified information, they were documents. We didn't transfer anything electronically. And this was the traditional way. But in order to get those documents, you had contacts with people who were willing to pass them to you.

And so, what happened — and this was under the Obama administration — the aggressive use of the Espionage Act against anyone who would reach out — Kiriakou, Drake were mentioned, and others — shut down traditional investigative journalism, which I did periodically as a foreign correspondent and then did after 9/11 when I was based in Paris covering al-Qaeda in Europe and the Middle East. And so, friends of mine — I left the paper in 2005, but friends of mine who were still doing investigative reporting at the paper said, in terms of getting any information on the inner workings of power, of government, it has become impossible. And I won’t quote her, but a former colleague of mine at the paper, an investigative journalist, said, even when she speaks to someone at the DOJ or anyone else, they’re nervous about even reciting official policy over the phone, something that sounds like a press release, because they don’t want to get tagged for speaking to a journalist. In fact, they’re already tagged.

And so, I think it’s important to understand that what Ed did and what Glenn did is the only way left. Jeremy Hammond was another figure. When I sued Obama over Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act, which overturned the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibited the military from being used as a domestic police force, we used the emails — I think there were some 3 million emails — Hammond had hacked into with Stratfor, a private security firm like the one Ed worked for, and the Homeland Security, where they were — the chat was trying to tie domestic opposition groups to foreign terrorist groups. So, I mean, they were asking, “Was anything posted on this particular site, this jihadist site?” so they can use terrorism laws against them.

And so, the last readout, as a journalist, comes from figures like Ed, but, of course, the cost is catastrophic. In his case, if he was not in Moscow and they had grabbed him, he would be facing the kind of charges that Julian Assange is facing — who didn’t leak, by the way, didn’t hack into anything; he just published the material. So, I think, for me, what’s been so distressing about the modern kind of period is that that wholesale surveillance, that ability to follow anyone, has really shut down our traditional access to people with a conscience inside systems of power, which is the only way that we can do any real reporting on the national security state. And it’s left — and you see what they’ve done to Ed, what they’ve done to Glenn. I mean, after he published that, he wasn’t sure whether he could come back to the United States. So, that, for me.

And then, in speaking about the crimes of empire, I mean, that gets into another issue, which is the collapse of foreign correspondents, because as revenues have fallen to the floor, all the foreign bureaus are gone. There’s no reporting. People will pull a clip from — you know, disseminated out of Syria or something that somebody has sent out, but that’s not reporting. So, there’s a giant black hole about what’s happening, which was, of course, again, what made the Iraqi and Afghan War Logs so important.

And then, I will, just in defense of people there, most of whom are now freelance — and covering a war is very expensive, I mean, if you want to be safe. So, I was driving in Bosnia a $100,000 armored car, you know, satphones, all this kind of stuff. But it is dangerous. I think the danger level has exponentially increased, not so much from Sarajevo, where the Serbs were intentionally trying to shoot journalists, indeed shot 45 foreign correspondents. But you can’t go into the caliphate. I mean, you can’t go in with — into Syria with many of these groups, because you’ll get kidnapped. But that has created, for me, as somebody who was overseas, a just terrifying — it’s drawn a veil on what the empire is doing.

And, you know, to quote Thucydides, the tyranny that Athens imposed on others, when he’s attacking the death of Athenian democracy and the rise of the Athenian Empire, it imposes on itself. So I guess my last point would be that many of the techniques of surveillance and control that Ed exposed were often first tested. I mean, Gaza is a laboratory for the Israeli military and intelligence service, and they will talk about it as being tested against the Palestinians. So we often see on the outer reaches of empire the techniques that gravitate back to the United States, as of course they have.

EDWARD SNOWDEN: First off, you’re absolutely right about the laboratory aspect. I’ve said before, all of this stuff moves from war front to home front. And we see these same kind of techniques that were present in the archive of material that I provided to journalists in 2013, being used to, you know, map the movements of cellphones in Afghanistan, being applied by the FBI against Black Lives Matter protesters just within the span of 10 years. I mean, this stuff moves fairly quickly, from something that seems exceptional capability that can only be used in war, far away, against, you know, the other, it moves right here home to being used on your neighbors or you.

But you spoke about this dynamic that, you know, it’s just something I perseverate on — I think about this a lot — which is, it’s become more difficult to access officials and have them tell you anything, much less than the truth about anything. The relationship between sources and the journalists that they work with, in context of power, I think, all over the place, has become a threat. But those doors have really been closed. And this has, I think, enormously increased the necessity but also the power of documentary releases, you know, things like Chelsea Manning provided, things like I provided, Ellsberg provided in the '70s, but also we see in the case of this Facebook person, Frances Haugen. It feels as though we're in — everybody talks about this post-truth dynamic, where the actual facts of a case are disputed as frequently as the interpretation of them. People try to deny what the obvious truth is. And it seems like documentation has a way around that.

I would just ask: Where do you think things are headed from here, if we no longer have access to factual information from the government? You have a much greater history of doing this than a lot of us here do. Amy, you’ve also seen this your entire life. Democracy Now! is one of the few outlets that I think reports aggressively on this. Government is perennially deceptive. It’s snowing on us in regards to what is happening, because they want us to view the facts of our reality through their preferred lens. When they begin shutting out the voting public from the facts of our reality, what they actually are, and at the same time any documentary release is quite literally criminalized, what happens next?

CHRIS HEDGES: Well, what happens next is East Germany, which I covered, except that we’re far more efficient than the Stasi. And I just — I’ll let Glenn, because he’s written on this better than I have — I don’t think the Facebook whistleblower is a whistleblower. I think she’s a tool of the security and surveillance state, and they’re using her to justify the kind of censorship they want against people like you and Glenn.

So, you know, this gets into a whole other analysis, but we’ve undergone what John Ralston Saul calls a corporate coup d’état. It’s over. Anytime you have a tiny cabal that seizes power, in our case corporate, and all of the institutions, especially the democratic institutions, are deformed to essentially buttress and increase that power and wealth, then, of course, you’re leaving the vast majority, you know, the 99%, if we want to use that term, as — the whole process is about disempowering them. And that surveillance has to become more draconian.

AMY GOODMAN: Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges, formerly with The New York Times. We’ll continue with Hedges, Edward Snowden and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald when we come back. And we’ll talk more about the imprisoned publisher Julian Assange.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, as we continue our discussion with National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists Glenn Greenwald and Chris Hedges. I asked Ed Snowden to talk about U.S. attempts to prosecute and extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who suffered a mini stroke in a British prison in late October as he fought to avoid extradition to the United States to face espionage charges. He faces 175 years in prison. A British court has now ruled in favor of the Biden administration’s appeal to extradite Assange to face charges in the U.S., in a ruling condemned by journalists around the world as a major blow to press freedom. This is Ed Snowden.

EDWARD SNOWDEN: I think what a lot of people miss — and we see this in the public responses to sort of leaking, whistleblowing, whatever you want to call that, this documentary release — is both sides of the aisle, Democrat, Republican — honestly, pick any country, pick their political dynamic, it doesn’t matter — power does not respond well to its bad behavior or misbehavior being exposed. That’s very clear. And that’s what happened in my case. That’s what will happen in every case. There is no course or access to courts or process or protection for someone who makes the government uncomfortable or produces a large enough political threat, an entirely political threat, a nonviolent publication of truthful information.

This is all Julian Assange has ever done. All of the charges against him that you see the government talk about — communicating national defense information, espionage, conspiracy, there’s even an entirely constructed hacking charge under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which is supposed to show [inaudible] military computers or something but is absolutely ridiculous because, for one, it never actually happened. It’s the product of a 20-second conversation between a supposed Chelsea Manning, supposed Julian Assange, because the chat transcript is pseudonymous; they don’t even know it’s these people. But then it’s describing this alleged Manning trying to access the administrative account for the personal machine, the work machine that’s being used to copy this material. It’s not going to provide any additional access, I can tell you — I work with these kind of machines, I understand how it was. It was entirely a source protection conversation. It was entirely about how could Manning protect their identity, if indeed this was Manning, from being discovered. Now, the government is presenting that as if, you know, Julian Assange hacked the Pentagon or whatever. It’s absolutely ridiculous. If you look at the constellation of all of this, you know Julian is one of history’s greatest criminals, you know? [inaudible] less time than they’re threatening Assange with. And what was Assange’s crime? Telling the truth about something that the government did not want to be told.

And then, you know, Chris mentioned this other Facebook person, and I think a lot of people miss this. It doesn’t really matter why a whistleblower or anyone else publishes this material, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s Facebook’s dirty laundry. It doesn’t matter whether it’s John Podesta’s risotto recipes. It doesn’t matter whether it’s material regarding the absolute government’s internal truth of mass surveillance. The whistleblower is the mechanism. They are the lever. We don’t have to like them, but they don’t truly matter once they’ve done this. And this is why, you know, it’s wonderful, the support that I receive, and I very much hope that Julian will receive more of it. He absolutely hasn’t, particularly from the press, which is, I think, one of the great media tragedies of our time. But the response should be a little bit like, you know, “Thank you very much for your whistleblowing, but now please stop telling us what we should do about Facebook. You are not specially placed to answer a public conversation. We’ll listen to you. We’ll hear you out, sure. But you shouldn’t be treated as the speaker of God’s honest truth simply because you held it in your hand and provided it to someone else.” That’s a wonderful thing. It’s a public interest gesture, right? But I think a lot of the opposition people have to this is there is an elevation where the whistleblower label is applied to someone, and then everything they say from then is supposed to receive additional weight. Perhaps it could, but their statements shouldn’t really be evaluated any differently than another person’s.

GLENN GREENWALD: You know, it’s interesting. I was reflecting on what I had said at the beginning, which is that in some ways these events that we’re convened to discuss seem like they were 10 lifetimes ago, and in a lot of ways anything that happened before Trump does, and then in other ways a lot of it seems like it happened just yesterday. And I think the reason for that is, is because sometimes there are really important details that we’ve forgotten.

So, Chris mentioned and alluded to, for example, the Stasi, and I remembered just now — I probably haven’t thought about this in several years even though it’s incredibly important and revealing — that when there was a report around the time we were doing the Snowden reporting that the NSA had been spying, under President Obama, on the personal cellphone of Angela Merkel. She called Obama, indignant, enraged, by all accounts, and very meaningfully, given that she had grown up in communist East Germany under the actual Stasi — it wasn’t an abstraction to her but a very vivid memory — invoked the Stasi and said, essentially, “What you’re doing is what they did.” And that caused German newspapers to go and interview Stasi agents, former agents of the Stasi. And what they said about these Snowden revelations were, “We would have loved to have had the capacity that the NSA developed, but it was beyond anything that we could have possibly dreamed of. What they have done is so far beyond anything we were capable of doing or even thought about doing. This is ubiquitous surveillance that they’ve created.” And I thought that was really poignant. And sometimes that — details like that have gotten lost.

I think the reason, on the other hand, though, it seems like yesterday is because so many of the kind of battles that were waged as a result of what Ed did and the fallout are very much with us today. You know, I think that at the time when we started the reporting and the debates that were provoked by them unfolded, the focus was on the infringement of our right to privacy. Obviously that was an important part of the story. But I always felt like the story was about a lot more than that. One part of it was whether or not we actually have a democracy in anything other than name only, if incredibly consequential events are being undertaken in the dark without anybody knowing about what’s being done. You know, one of the things that was so striking is, when we revealed these programs, it wasn’t just the public and the media that had no idea the NSA was doing any of these things, it was members of the Intelligence Committee and members of the National Security Committees and the U.K. Parliament who wrote op-eds saying, “We had no idea any of this was happening.” And so, for me, a big part of what we were doing was waging a battle on behalf of the public’s right to know.

And so much of the reason that there was so much intense backlash against the story and against Ed, the reason eight years later he’s still in Russia, and then, when Donald Trump floated the idea of a pardon on a bipartisan basis, people were so outraged — the reason they were so angry about it wasn’t necessarily because of the right to privacy aspect, it was because of their ability to make consequential decisions, the most consequential decisions, without anyone knowing about what they’re doing, was imperiled by these revelations. And that’s the same reason that Julian Assange is now in prison, not necessarily because they’re specifically angry about what he revealed in 2010 or 2016, or even the Apple Vault revelations; what they’re really angry about is that he represents, still, a weapon that prevents them from doing what is most important to them, which is the ability to run the world, including societies that are ostensibly democratic, without anyone knowing what they’re doing.

But the other aspect of it I think is really important with regard to this whole, you know, Facebook disclosures and the debate that’s taking place over how we combat things like misinformation and fake news, as a result of Frances Haugen, but even before that, is — you know, I had mentioned that that first day that I interrogated Ed, what I wanted to know and needed to know more than anything was — you know, you’re 29 years old, you have a loving family, you have a girlfriend with whom you’ve had a very fulfilling relationship, you have this incredibly bright future ahead of you — why would you want to risk your entire life, spending the rest of your life in a high-security prison, for this cause? Like, why is this important enough to you to do? And what finally convinced me about Ed’s motives was when he told me about how a free internet was so central to everything that he was able to do in his life, growing up, you know, in a lower-middle-class home without the ability to travel internationally and lots of those privileges that people who come from wealth have, that the internet was his gateway into exploring the world, something with which I had identified so much. And so, in a lot of ways, I saw our cause back then not necessarily this more limited definition of protecting the right of privacy, but protecting a free internet, this invention that is singularly capable of empowering people and emancipating people and enabling us to communicate and organize without centralized corporate and government control.

And I see so many of the current controversies about how much censorship there should be online that comes from Facebook and Google, the anger that Facebook and Google aren’t censoring enough, which I think is the big takeaway from these disclosures from Frances Haugen, debates about how much the government should be controlling the internet, very much a central part of that same battle that was being waged when Ed came forward, when Julian came forward, which is: Can centers of power around the world tolerate any kind of instrument, like the internet, that enables people to interact freely, to think freely, to develop ideas freely, to organize freely, outside of the control of centralized authority?

EDWARD SNOWDEN: What is happening to Julian Assange today and WikiLeaks, this case, as Glenn said, I don’t think any — any reasonable person believes it has anything to do with what he did in 2009, with publishing the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs and the Guantánamo Bay Files, which received rewards all over the world, high prizes in journalism. Everyone recognizes it today as a public interest story of historic importance. It is the best work that WikiLeaks has ever done.

GLENN GREENWALD: And The Guardian, New York Times, El País, every major news outlet around the world participated because of that recognition.

EDWARD SNOWDEN: Right, absolutely. And it’s like you just — this was a positive event, even though the administration obviously hated it. But we’re not in that world now, right? We’re 2020, 2021. We are far from it. And now it’s dug up, and now it’s used against him. And I think everyone recognizes the question is why, or should recognize the question is why.

This is a case of political character that asserts a political crime, and political crimes never qualify for extradition. And then, what is a political crime? Political crime is any crime in which the victim is the state itself. Assassination is not a political crime, because the head of state is still a person, right? You shoot the president, the archduke, whatever, you still qualify for extradition because you’ve harmed an individual. The state as an apparatus, when you are publishing its misdeeds, and that is itself held up to be criminal, there is no more political crime, which makes Julian Assange a political criminal, or a political prisoner. They certainly want to make him a political prisoner. If Assange is a criminal, we all are criminals, because we all want to know the truth. We all deserve to know the truth. And we must know the truth, at least the outlines of it, in order to exercise our roles as citizens in a free society. Glenn said, again, that he believed in 2013 the motivating force for his participation is the free internet. I’d go further and say it’s the free society.

CHRIS HEDGES: About the press, they hate — I’m talking about institutions like the Times — they hate Julian. And they hated him when he was giving them that information. And the reason they hate him is because he shamed them into doing their job. I don’t know if I told you, Amy, but every time I sat with Bill Keller, who couldn’t stand me, of course, and wanted me out of The New York Times, he would bring you up. He goes, “Well, I guess you could work for Democracy Now!” I mean, he had this thing about you, well, because you —

EDWARD SNOWDEN: High praise.

CHRIS HEDGES: You shamed him. That’s what the alternative press does: It shames them. But there’s a real hatred, because they want to present themselves as the journalistic and kind of moral center. And so, that’s why the press, after these revelations, turned with a vengeance.

GLENN GREENWALD: I think that the Julian case is so important, not only because he is still in Belmarsh, but because it does provide this prism into all of these issues. It was, ironically, Bill Keller who was the first person to smear Julian’s personality, by writing a column where he said, “I have worked with Julian. He smells. His socks are so dirty. They don’t even come up to his ankles.” This media — the role of the media in all of these things that we’re talking about, the corporate media, I think, is so crucial, because, obviously, if the media were out there, like they were doing under Trump, saying that Joe Biden is imperiling press freedoms, and raising their voice, it would be a lot more difficult to do what they’re doing to Julian, but they’re not.

And I think it gets back to what Chris said: Julian was doing the kind of whistleblowing and reporting, like Ed was doing, that the government doesn’t want. And what they do, what they think is reporting, is when the CIA comes to you or the FBI comes to you and says, “Here’s the information we want to be published,” and then they go and publish it. And I think they are a huge impediment to so many of the goals that we’ve been talking about trying to reach, but also a crucial instrument that’s being used by these centers of authority to maintain these repressive structures in place.

AMY GOODMAN: In the little time we have left, Ed, you know, Julian Assange is in the Belmarsh prison, faces 170 years in prison in the United States. Yahoo News revealed that the CIA had a — was plotting to kidnap or assassinate him. If we could end by you commenting specifically on that, and also, then, in your own case, what is your hope of returning home? What communications are you having with the Biden administration? Is there any hope?

EDWARD SNOWDEN: Well, I definitely haven’t communicated with the Biden administration. I didn’t communicate with the Trump administration. We’re not really calling each other every day. But, you know, that’s quite a ways back.

My case, I’m just going to set it aside, because it’s — you know, there’s no movement, and it doesn’t really matter. History will be the judge. If they want to force me into exile, fine. You know, I’m not going to be miserable. I will make as positive an impact on the world as I can, from the situation that I can.

About the case with Julian and the assassination plans against him, the rendition plans against him, it’s really an extraordinary story. You who are listening, haven’t read this, you absolutely should. You know, the CIA was planning out of the White House, and their partners in London, having gun fights in the streets of London. If, you know, they had to shoot out the tires of a plane, who was going to do that? Which service was going to do it? Just absolutely — you know, it’s crazy. It’s hard to believe — or it should be hard to believe, but, unfortunately, in the direction that our society is progressing in the post-9/11 period, it is becoming more familiar. And I think that’s uniquely threatening.

It’s funny. When I came forward in 2013, in Citizenfour, I think there’s a comment in the film where I’m like, you know, “The embassy is right up the street. They could rendition me, hire the Triads and whatever, you know, just try to off me.” Whether they do it hands-on or whether they say, “Oops, it was an accident. He fell,” to me, those things were possible. And at the time, even journalists who were working with me — Barton Gellman, Washington Post at the time, said he thought that was, you know, a little bit ridiculous. But years later, as he began to see he himself was subjected to surveillance, he saw that the U.S. intelligence services had been keeping tabs on his reporting before he was ever involved with me. And, of course, now we see things like Julian. Force is not a barrier to the state when it comes to securing their objectives. And I believe anything they could have done to stop this story, they would have done, if they believed it did it. If that meant taking action against me, if that meant taking action against a journalist, I believe they would have done it.

In the case of Julian Assange, that thinking has been vindicated. Julian Assange is not a whistleblower. That’s not a judgment on him. That’s the fact. He is not the source; he is the publisher. That means he should be less at risk than the whistleblowers. And yet somehow he has ended up more at risk. Now, the question is: How is that possible? Has Assange changed? And when you look at what the charges against him are, not really — talking about things that happened in the distant past. What has changed is the nature of the state and its relationship to the press. And if we let that be established, with them murdering Assange, not with a gunshot in the streets of London, not with a drone, but with concrete in Belmarsh or Florence or whatever prison they put him in, that is not better. Whether you kill someone fast or you kill someone slow, if you are killing them because you don’t like what they say, that is, I think, a final judgment on the state rather than on the victim of the state.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden, along with Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists Glenn Greenwald and Chris Hedges. I spoke to them as part of our discussion at the virtual War on Terror Film Festival. We’ll link our entire discussion at democracynow.org.

And that does it for today’s show. Democracy Now! is produced with Renée Feltz, Mike Burke, Deena Guzder, Messiah Rhodes, Nermeen Shaikh, María Taracena, Tami Woronoff, Charina Nadura, Sam Alcoff, Tey-Marie Astudillo, John Hamilton, Robby Karran, Hany Massoud and Mary Conlon. Our general manager is Julie Crosby. Special thanks to Becca Staley, Paul Powell, Mike Di Filippo, Miguel Nogueira, Hugh Gran, Denis Moynihan, David Prude and Dennis McCormick. I’m Amy Goodman. Remember, wearing a mask is an act of love.
The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

Up Next
Snowden Reveals How He Secretly Exposed NSA Criminal Wrongdoing Without Getting Arrested

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment

Tuesday, December 28, 2021

Spy sector, a company that cooperates with the CIA; Where did Kurz find a new job?

Palantir - the magic ball from "The Lord of the Rings"

Biden's praise

On good terms with Trump

"Maven Project"

Kurz part of management team

Iraq: Flash Floods - Emergency Plan of Action (EPoA), DREF Operation n° MDRIQ014

Attachments

Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald & Chris Hedges on NSA Leaks, Assange & Protecting a Free Internet

About Me

Tuesday, December 28, 2021

Spy sector, a company that cooperates with the CIA; Where did Kurz find a new job?

Palantir - the magic ball from "The Lord of the Rings"

Biden's praise

On good terms with Trump

"Maven Project"

Kurz part of management team

Attachments

Related Content

Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald & Chris Hedges on NSA Leaks, Assange & Protecting a Free Internet