Category Archives: The State

UPDATED: Snowden In Search Of Pockets of Freedom

China, Foreign Policy, Government, Intelligence, Media, Propaganda, Russia, Technology, Terrorism, The State

You should have long since said adieu to the quaint idea of absolute freedom. With the triumph of the suprastate over the individual, achieved by rigid central planning and the harmonization of laws across the globe—only pockets of freedom remain. Robert Wenzel of Economic Policy Journal counters mainstream media’s backward reasoning, according to which Edward Snowden is no freedom fighter because he has been protected by two other unfree powers (one spent; the other nascent).

That ridiculous notion has found expression in Henry Blodget’s smarmy tweet:

Snowden flees one paragon of freedom and privacy, China, for another–Russia

The Blodget conceit amounts to thinking in aggregates, reasons Robert Wenzel:

[Blodget] writes as though the circumstances for freedom are the same for everyone in a given country. This is far from the truth. I have written many times that even in a heavily totalitarian state some may be able to live just fine, a surfer dude for example. For others, in the US, time may be already up for some in the financial sector. Anyone putting deals together for very small companies, say, may find it much more attractive to work outside the constraints of US securities laws, which benefit no one other than major established players.

Pax Dickinson, contends Wenzel, is closer to the mark, tweeting sarcastically that, “Snowden should have fled to a noble & free country like the USA where we hold whistleblowers naked in solitary confinement without trial.”

Read Robert’s EPJ post (where you can also catch up on my latest weekly column, “Trying to be neighborly in the Evergreen State”).

Yesterday I heard a legal expert based in Hong Kong venturing that the imperative to hand Snowden over to US authorities was “not within the ambit of the American-Chinese extradition treaty.”

Yippee.

Today came the news, via the intrepid Guardian, that “Edward Snowden heads for Ecuador after flight to Russia leaves authorities in various countries amazed and infuriated”:
Snowden was five hours into his flight from Hong Kong, having already been served one of two hot meals, when news of his departure to Moscow began to electrify media organisations all over the world.
The Hong Kong authorities waited until Snowden was safely out of Chinese airspace before sending out a short press release that confirmed the intelligence whistle-blower had been allowed to leave on Aeroflot flight SU213, bound for Russia.
The 30-year-old had not been stopped on his way to Chek Lap Kok airport, and was allowed to slip away on a hot and humid morning, despite American demands that he be arrested and extradited to face trial for espionage offences.
The reason?
The Americans had mucked up the legal paperwork, the authorities claimed in a statement released at 4.05pm local time.
Hong Kong had no choice but to let the 30-year-old leave for “a third country through a lawful and normal channel”.
If the sudden “discovery” of a flaw in legal proceedings prompted sighs of relief around the island and across the rest of China, there would have been sharp intakes of breath in Washington and London, where diplomats and intelligence officials had been hoping the net around Snowden was finally tightening.

MORE.

UPDATE: Via The New York Times:

…Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, said in an interview from his own refuge in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London that he had raised Mr. Snowden’s case with Ecuador’s government and that his group had helped arrange the travel documents. Baltasar Garzón, the renowned Spanish jurist who advises WikiLeaks, said in a statement that “what is being done to Mr. Snowden and to Mr. Julian Assange — for making or facilitating disclosures in the public interest — is an assault against the people.”
Obama administration officials privately expressed frustration that Hong Kong allowed Mr. Snowden to board an Aeroflot plane bound for Moscow on Sunday despite the American request for his detention. But they did not revoke Mr. Snowden’s passport until Saturday and did not ask Interpol to issue a “red notice” seeking his arrest.
Legal experts said the administration appeared to have flubbed Mr. Snowden’s case. “What mystifies me is that the State Department didn’t revoke his passport after the charges were filed” on June 14, said David H. Laufman, a former federal prosecutor. “They missed an opportunity to freeze him in place.” He said he was also puzzled by the decision to unseal the charges on Friday rather than waiting until the defendant was in custody. …
…While officials said Mr. Snowden’s passport was revoked on Saturday, it was not clear whether the Hong Kong authorities knew that by the time he boarded the plane, nor was it clear whether revoking it earlier would have made a difference, given the Ecuadorean travel document that Mr. Assange said he helped arrange. When Mr. Snowden landed in Moscow, he was informed of his passport revocation.
Mr. Assange said he did not know whether Mr. Snowden might be able to travel beyond Moscow using the Ecuadorean document. “Different airlines have different rules, so it’s a technical matter whether they will accept the document,” he said.

MORE.

Join the conversation on my Facebook page.

UPDATE II: The Evergreen State’s Profligate Oink Sector

Constitution, Crime, Debt, Democracy, Government, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Private Property, Taxation, The State

“The Evergreen State’s Profligate Oink Sector” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

“By now, Americans with a modicum of cerebral alacrity have a sense of the attitude among Washington State Democrats toward the immutable right of the people to keep their earnings. You all witnessed the despicable Jim McDermott’s intimidating verbal assaults, leveled at conservative property owners, during the House committee hearing on the den of iniquity and vice that is the Internal Revenue Service. For what is the seeking of ‘tax-exempt status’ if not a plea, directed at our overlords who art in D.C., to keep more of what is rightfully ours?

What Edmund Burke said about the House of Commons in his day applies in spades to a House packed with the likes of Rep. Jim McDermott D-Wash. ‘Designed as a control for the people,’ the House has become a control ‘upon the people.’

And the trend extends to local governments, gone from which are the old-fashioned county governors, once devoted to low taxes and careful spending.

Here goes.

While trying to be neighborly, I made the mistake of being less than reverential about my property taxes in ‘The Evergreen State,’ and in particular, the 51.4 percent appropriated for ‘State and Local Schools.’

I was informed in high decibels that my husband and I, hardworking both, ought to thank our lucky stars for this valuable index—thousands paid per year toward ‘State and Local Schools’—for without it we’d be clueless about … the value of our home. (If anything, taxes distort market prices. But more about the curious fallacy of the benevolent property tax, as a price signal in the housing market, in a follow-up column.)

Yes, siree. The bad tempered diatribe then swerved to the plight of local law enforcement, who, my interlocutor alleged, were powerless to police a squatter camp in the North Bend vicinity, for lack of resources. Some believe that twice did a man from this homeless encampment invade a homestead in the community.

We fork over thousands in property taxes per annum, yet, as was being asserted, the police were without the necessary funds to fulfill the State’s only constitutional duty: protecting the people. Naturally, where the State fails to carry out its sacred duty, as is almost always the case, The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution instantiates the individual’s natural right to do exactly what the heroic homeowners did to safeguard life and property: hastened the intruder’s descent into hell.

Commensurate with the value this Washington-State locality places on limited authority and republican virtues—none at all—law enforcement is not even itemized in the property-tax bill issued.

The truth is that the lion’s share of our property taxes goes toward …

Read the complete column. “The Evergreen State’s Profligate Oink Sector” is now on WND.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION:

• At the WND Comments Section. Scroll down and “Say it.”

• On my Facebook page.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” this week’s “Return To Reason” column

UPDATE I: The “wasteful monstrosity” discussed above was celebrated by the local newspaper’s intrepid reporters. It too is local in name only—for most “local newspapers” are corporately owned. In our case, the pabulum published weekly is by permission of The Seattle Times Co. When our local rag is not reporting on a theatre that will close, a cinema that is hiring, or a pizza place that’ll host “Raise the Dough for Seattle Children’s”—the newspaper simply parrots the partyline on everything. I know, because I line my parrot’s cage with its pages.

Join the conversation on my Facebook page.

UPDATE II (7/24): For more of an idea of the all-pervasive profligacy of the oink sector in my state, check out the “Seattle Parasite-To-Resident Ratio.”

UPDATED: Who Is General Keith Alexander? (We Know What Charlie Rose Is)

Barack Obama, Constitution, Homeland Security, Individual Rights, Intelligence, Liberty, Media, Morality, Natural Law, Propaganda, Regulation, Terrorism, The State

Charlie Rose’s little-watched public television tête-à-tête is in the news because little Obama ran scared into Rose’s loving, all-forgiving embrace, to justify his National Security Agency’s unconstitutional, naturally illicit and all-round reprehensible spying programs.

A worthier and more trustworthy guest on Charlie Rose’s show was James Bamford, who appeared days before the despicable Barack Obama put in a cameo.

Do you want to know a thing or two about FOUR-STAR GENERAL KEITH ALEXANDER—“the Spy Chief Leading Us Into Cyberwar”—who dissembled his way through a House hearing today?

Ignore the “Ass with Ears,” aka Obama. Read “The Secret War: INFILTRATION. SABOTAGE. MAYHEM, on WIRED magazine.

“FOR YEARS, FOUR-STAR GENERAL KEITH ALEXANDER HAS BEEN BUILDING A SECRET ARMY CAPABLE OF LAUNCHING DEVASTATING CYBERATTACKS. NOW IT’S READY TO UNLEASH HELL.”

MORE on WIRED magazine.

UPDATE: “No Rose Can Mask the Stench of Obama’s Tyranny,” writes Brother William N. Grigg: “Like a skunk that has grown inured to its own smell, Barack Obama is oblivious to the dense musk of tyrannical arrogance that he customarily emits. As someone who is statist to down to his chromosomes, Mr. Obama considers government’s power to be illimitable, and individual freedom to be a revocable gift conferred by those who presume to rule the rest of us. This was made abundantly – and redundantly – clear in a recent interview Obama gave to the repellently sycophantic PBS host Charlie Rose regarding the totalitarian NSA surveillance program. …”

MORE.

Join the conversation on Facebook.

UPDATED: Author Of A Book About Her Vagina Faults Edward Snowden For Not Discussing His Privates (Or Hers)

Conspiracy, Feminism, Gender, Intelligence, Pseudo-intellectualism, Sex, The State

Only in America could a woman like Naomi Wolf come to be regarded as a philosopher-king. The author of a book about her own vagina has found fault with Edward Snowden for his clarity, eloquence and familiarity with the law under which he will likely be prosecuted.

Well of course Wolf would be discomfited (as indicated in her “Is Edward Snowden an agent of the state or a CyberWarrior battling for our freedoms?”) by Snowden’s piercing clarity; after all her strong suit—her comfort zone—lies not in the cerebral cortex but down South.

Actually, scratch that: Wolf’s vagina, or so I read in the unanimously bad reviews her book got, is in as bad a shape as her brain.

UPDATE (6/17): Here are excerpts from Edward Snowden’s Q & A at the Guardian. Warning to Naomi Wolf and others burdened by fishy logic: Nowhere does Snowden mention Wolf’s vagina (the title of her …book). Ergo, he is probably “Not Who He Purports to be.”

1) Why did you choose Hong Kong to go to and then tell them about US hacking on their research facilities and universities?

2) How many sets of the documents you disclosed did you make, and how many different people have them? If anything happens to you, do they still exist?

Answer:

1) First, the US Government, just as they did with other whistleblowers, immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treason and that the disclosure of secret, criminal, and even unconstitutional acts is an unforgivable crime. That’s not justice, and it would be foolish to volunteer yourself to it if you can do more good outside of prison than in it.

Second, let’s be clear: I did not reveal any US operations against legitimate military targets. I pointed out where the NSA has hacked civilian infrastructure such as universities, hospitals, and private businesses because it is dangerous. These nakedly, aggressively criminal acts are wrong no matter the target. Not only that, when NSA makes a technical mistake during an exploitation operation, critical systems crash. Congress hasn’t declared war on the countries – the majority of them are our allies – but without asking for public permission, NSA is running network operations against them that affect millions of innocent people. And for what? So we can have secret access to a computer in a country we’re not even fighting? So we can potentially reveal a potential terrorist with the potential to kill fewer Americans than our own Police? No, the public needs to know the kinds of things a government does in its name, or the “consent of the governed” is meaningless.

Q: Why did you just not fly direct to Iceland if that is your preferred country for asylum?

Answer:

Leaving the US was an incredible risk, as NSA employees must declare their foreign travel 30 days in advance and are monitored. There was a distinct possibility I would be interdicted en route, so I had to travel with no advance booking to a country with the cultural and legal framework to allow me to work without being immediately detained. Hong Kong provided that. Iceland could be pushed harder, quicker, before the public could have a chance to make their feelings known, and I would not put that past the current US administration.

1) Define in as much detail as you can what “direct access” means.

2) Can analysts listen to content of domestic calls without a warrant?

Answer:

1) More detail on how direct NSA’s accesses are is coming, but in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want. Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on – it’s all the same. The restrictions against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time. Additionally, audits are cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake justifications. For at least GCHQ, the number of audited queries is only 5% of those performed.

Question:

What are your thoughts on Google’s and Facebook’s denials? Do you think that they’re honestly in the dark about PRISM, or do you think they’re compelled to lie?

Perhaps this is a better question to a lawyer like Greenwald, but: If you’re presented with a secret order that you’re forbidding to reveal the existence of, what will they actually do if you simply refuse to comply (without revealing the order)?

Answer:

Their denials went through several revisions as it become more and more clear they were misleading and included identical, specific language across companies. As a result of these disclosures and the clout of these companies, we’re finally beginning to see more transparency and better details about these programs for the first time since their inception.

They are legally compelled to comply and maintain their silence in regard to specifics of the program, but that does not comply them from ethical obligation. If for example Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Apple refused to provide this cooperation with the Intelligence Community, what do you think the government would do? Shut them down?

…

MORE.

Join the conversation on Facebook.