Sen. Mark Udall: I knew about the NSA spying, did everything but leak to stop it(blogs.denverpost.com)
blogs.denverpost.com
Sen. Mark Udall: I knew about the NSA spying, did everything but leak to stop it
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/06/06/sen-mark-udall-i-knew-the-nsa-was-spying-did-everything-but-leak-classified-information-to-stop-it/97025/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
10 comments
I have to say I find this oddly disingenuous. Senator Udall is surely aware that he could have offered up this knowledge in a speech on the Senate floor and enjoyed total legal immunity under the US Constitution, with Supreme Court precedent to back him up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause
He may have legal immunity, but pulling stuff like that can easily make him into a pariah making certain he never again accomplishes anything in senate.
I'm not sure what good immunity is if you don't exercise it in difficult cases. I honestly think 99.99% of the people at the NSA and in the Executive branch are vacuuming up that data out of a sincere desire to keep America safe, too. But only members of Congress enjoy the legal immunities of the 'speech or debate' clause; they're invested with the rare power to exercise their conscience in how they fulfill their oaths of office, unlike most of the executive branch.
... all Cases, except Treason ...
This interpretation may be incorrect, but my reading is that treason is one of the very few cases that allows the Executive Branch to take a Congressman into custody in the course of carrying out his duties, but the speech or debate clause is a separate provision.
IOW if I am a Congressperson and and (say) sell secrets to Iran, and the attorney-general obtains sufficient evidence to bring charges (testimony of two people etc.), I can be arrested while traveling to/from, or even while working in, the Capitol. But if I stand up during a debate and reveal information that would be useful to Iran without having had any actual traffic with the Iranian government or a representative, that's quite different.
IOW if I am a Congressperson and and (say) sell secrets to Iran, and the attorney-general obtains sufficient evidence to bring charges (testimony of two people etc.), I can be arrested while traveling to/from, or even while working in, the Capitol. But if I stand up during a debate and reveal information that would be useful to Iran without having had any actual traffic with the Iranian government or a representative, that's quite different.
If leaking information about likely-illegal activities of the government is now treason then we may as well all put on swastikas and be done with it.
I have voted for Udall multiple times now, I think he's a good guy and he's actually quite accessible. He also is part of the Udall political family/dynasty and knows how it's done. I trust him to do what's right upto the point that it costs him political capital needlessly. This story has almost been an open secret, it's kind of surprising that it didn't have legs until now. Now we will get to see if Udall stands up to the plate, I'm expecting an open congressional review
If you are on the Inteligence Committee and you leak stuff it is a very risky strategy as:
1) you will get thrown off the committee and someone more trusted by the agencies will replace you.
2) even after throwing you off the committee they may keep more secret information from the committee and justify it by the risk of the members leaking it as in this example.
You need to try to ensure leak is big enough to break the current system and INCREASE the oversight rather than further reduce it OR to have reached a point where you aren't actually doing any good on the committee in the first place.
1) you will get thrown off the committee and someone more trusted by the agencies will replace you.
2) even after throwing you off the committee they may keep more secret information from the committee and justify it by the risk of the members leaking it as in this example.
You need to try to ensure leak is big enough to break the current system and INCREASE the oversight rather than further reduce it OR to have reached a point where you aren't actually doing any good on the committee in the first place.
Then he did not do enough. Step up as an American, sir.
Read: did everything but risk himself to stop it.
This really is the way to stop this. Support representatives like Mark Udall and Ron Wyden and vote everyone who's supporting PATRIOT and warrantless wiretapping out of office.
Civil liberties should be as big of an issue (if not bigger) during elections as the economy.
Civil liberties should be as big of an issue (if not bigger) during elections as the economy.
Easy to say...
Hard to do...
The original PATRIOT Act passed the Senate by a vote of 99 to 1 I think. The Senator from Wisconsin was the only one to vote against it. Feingold I believe.
He was replaced by a more "law and order" type Senator. I still think to this day it was because he threw wrenches into all of these programs whenever he had a chance. (And sometimes even if he didn't have a chance, he would sabotage the machinery.)
The thing is ... the people of Wisconsin voted him out. Now you can argue that they didn't understand what they were doing... but you can't argue the vote. And this illustrates the problem.
In a nutshell...
There is little political profit in fighting these programs.
THAT, is what we need to find some way to change.
EDIT:
BTW, just a point of fact I think may be relevant here...
Wyden voted YEA for the PATRIOT Act.
Just Sayin'.
Hard to do...
The original PATRIOT Act passed the Senate by a vote of 99 to 1 I think. The Senator from Wisconsin was the only one to vote against it. Feingold I believe.
He was replaced by a more "law and order" type Senator. I still think to this day it was because he threw wrenches into all of these programs whenever he had a chance. (And sometimes even if he didn't have a chance, he would sabotage the machinery.)
The thing is ... the people of Wisconsin voted him out. Now you can argue that they didn't understand what they were doing... but you can't argue the vote. And this illustrates the problem.
In a nutshell...
There is little political profit in fighting these programs.
THAT, is what we need to find some way to change.
EDIT:
BTW, just a point of fact I think may be relevant here...
Wyden voted YEA for the PATRIOT Act.
Just Sayin'.
>Civil liberties should be as big of an issue (if not bigger) during elections as the economy.
This. Fixing broken economy takes years. Fixing broken civil liberties takes decades, if not centuries.
This. Fixing broken economy takes years. Fixing broken civil liberties takes decades, if not centuries.
It doesn't have to be the kind of reform that takes decades:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1968
I think you may be referring to changes that preserve current power and political structures, but that's not required.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1968
I think you may be referring to changes that preserve current power and political structures, but that's not required.
I can't help observing that de Gaulle's party actually increased its parliamentary majority to record levels in the election that took place in June 1968; it signalled the beginning of the end of De Gaulle's political career but institutionally the protests were a total bust.
I think that if this Senator had publicly and openly leaked the documents, he'd be very difficult to prosecute(no jury would convict him), and arresting a US senator would be so much of an overreach by the NSA that it couldn't survive.
It's just a pity nobody on the intelligence committee has the backbone ti stand up for their constituents.
It's just a pity nobody on the intelligence committee has the backbone ti stand up for their constituents.
They should be, but often people vote on party lines regardless of vote history. Sure, some people may look into vote history, but not the majority.
* Stop the wars
* Stop the spying
* Save the children
Blah blah ...
The terrorists will persist. Globe trotting capitalist crisis will persist.
Radical ideologies don't die, easily.The problem is Action <-> Reaction. You spit on me, I plot revenge.
What will happen after another deeply painful attack ?
Everyone usually just hand-waves and says "Do something !"
This is when american hypocrisy is updated to 11.0.
"I want to be comfortable ! They are the idiots, kill them ! I don't care who ! Don't tell me how, Just do it ! Don't bother me, I need to workout ! I want to bang this person you see ... "
So, faux laws are created, damage is done, lives are saved, movies are made, everyone feels icky about the new laws and then we get new presidents and new laws like new muffins.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
* Stop the spying
* Save the children
Blah blah ...
The terrorists will persist. Globe trotting capitalist crisis will persist.
Radical ideologies don't die, easily.The problem is Action <-> Reaction. You spit on me, I plot revenge.
What will happen after another deeply painful attack ?
Everyone usually just hand-waves and says "Do something !"
This is when american hypocrisy is updated to 11.0.
"I want to be comfortable ! They are the idiots, kill them ! I don't care who ! Don't tell me how, Just do it ! Don't bother me, I need to workout ! I want to bang this person you see ... "
So, faux laws are created, damage is done, lives are saved, movies are made, everyone feels icky about the new laws and then we get new presidents and new laws like new muffins.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
"Civil liberties should be as big of an issue (if not bigger) during elections as the economy."
I laughed, because I can't even bring myself to make statements like that anymore.
I laughed, because I can't even bring myself to make statements like that anymore.
What is civil liberty? Whats wrong with the economy? Meh. What's my tax break? Welcome to New Zealand.
If he had access to documents showing the extent of this program he should have read them into the Congressional Record, like Mike Gravel did with the Pentagon Papers.
The only reason Mike Gravel had a copy of the Pentagon Papers is because Ellsberg sought him out, so Gravel wasn't himself the "leak", and Gravel knew that the NYT and others already had a copy (they were publishing parts).
Right, but the documents were still classified at the time so he could have prosecuted for publicly disclosing them had he not taken advantage of his position to read them into the record. The point is that there is a Constitutionally guaranteed mechanism for Congressmen to disclose alarming classified information they have access to.
[deleted]
Leon Panetta leaked classified info to the makers of Zero Dark Thirty, and there were no repercussions (hell, he even got promoted to Secretary of Defense). I really doubt there would have been repercussions if Udall had leaked this information. While I'm glad that Udall is fighting for civil liberties, this doesn't exactly seem like material fit for an updated version of Profiles in Courage.
The idea of the Panetta leaks were to promote a positive view of the US war on terror.
Speaking of Zero Dark Thirty: I always wondered about the relation between its director Kathryn Bigelow and Robert Bigelow. Is there a connection?
Speaking of Zero Dark Thirty: I always wondered about the relation between its director Kathryn Bigelow and Robert Bigelow. Is there a connection?
So? The seemingly random enforcement of laws is a hallmark of dictatorships.
A walrus eats food. Obama eats food. Obama is
therefore a walrus.
Your neighbor committed a crime. Hitler committed
a crime. Your neighbor is literally Hitler.
I'm responding to someone that was indirectly saying:
- Dictatorships randomly enforce laws.
- The US Government is randomly enforcing laws.
- The US Government is therefore a dictatorship.The US is acting dictatorial.
So...
- A walrus eats food.
- Obama eats food.
- Obama is acting like a walrus.
So...
- A grocer who uses plastic bags within the city of Seattle is breaking the law
- A mass murderer is breaking the law
- A mass murderer is acting like a grocer who uses plastic bags within the city of Seattle
Magnitude matters.
- A grocer who uses plastic bags within the city of Seattle is breaking the law
- A mass murderer is breaking the law
- A mass murderer is acting like a grocer who uses plastic bags within the city of Seattle
Magnitude matters.
Oh god, so he is a walrus..
no, but I can find the flaw in your analogy.
Only insofar as it is the hallmark of government.
Everything but actually bringing it to public attention.
Sen. Mark Udall cannot be held accountable. Look at how Bradley Manning is being treated for leaking classified documents.
Unlike Bradley Manning, Senator Udall enjoys the privilege of legal immunity for anything he says on the floor of the Senate. Manning was not invested with such responsibility, or freedom.
Bradley Manning is a goddamn hero.
But he isn't a senator.
Came here to post the same thing. Leave it to a politician to protest something after its out in the open, after the public is already outraged.
[deleted]
"... was broadly securing tens of thousands of Americans’ phone records ..."
make that millions?
make that millions?