Manning and Snowden light path for the US to return to its better self

[bemildred]

The closing arguments in the trial of Bradley Manning, where prosecutors are trying to persuade the judge that leaking to the press constitutes the treasonous act of aiding the enemy, came fast on the heels of the most significant bipartisan response to leak-based national security journalism that we have seen since the 1970s: Wednesday's vote on the Amash amendment in the House. At no time since the Obama administration launched its war on national security journalism and its sources has the critical role of leaks and journalism been clearer. Without Edward Snowden's whistleblowing and Glenn Greenwald's reporting, NSA surveillance would still have been in the dark, protected by secrecy and bolstered by the "least untruthful" lies James Clapper delivered to Senator Ron Wyden.

Wednesday's vote in the House may well yet turn out to be a turning-point on much more than just NSA surveillance – because dragnet surveillance of phone metadata is only one manifestation of our post-9/11 constitutional PTSD.

On Wednesday, Republicans such as Mike Rogers and Michele Bachmann joined House Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi and Republican Speaker John Boehner in voting with President Obama that we should be governed by our fears, rather than our values. But Jim Sensenbrenner, who introduced the original Patriot Act in 2001, joined 93 other Republicans and a majority of House Democrats, including Democratic leaders Clyburn and Becerra, to support Representative Amash's proposed amendment to block NSA dragnet surveillance. And although this coalition lost the vote, its breadth and depth may mark the beginning of America's awakening from a long panic- and anger-induced constitutional hiatus.

We suffered a terrible blow on 11 September 2001. We responded with fear and anger. A fight-or-flight response is adaptive in any species. For us, given our power, fight was the only response we could imagine. But however understandable and justified the initial response, anger and panic can neither continue to define who we are, nor lead us to continue to sacrifice a broad set of constitutional rights.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/26/manning-snowden-us-better-self?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theguardian%2Fmedia%2Frss+%28Media%29

[railsback]

1. So, they're going to bring manufacturing jobs

and raise wages for everyone? Can't wait!

[struggle4progress]

2. That's a confused mishmash. Let's consider the case of Tarek Mehanna,

whom (Benkler says) was handed a 17 year sentence "for publishing a hateful speech"

The notion -- that Mehanna's sentence is simply "one of the most egregious violations of the First Amendment" -- is (unsurprisingly) another of Glenn Greenwald's little tales, but the actual facts of the case seem rather more complicated: Mehanna was convicted of lying repeatedly to Federal agents, regarding his 2004 trip to Yemen and the current whereabouts of one of his friends, and terrorist conspiracy offenses related to the lies: the jury also found Mehanna had conspired to kill persons abroad

That is, Mehanna was not simply accused of and sentenced for translating and posting "hateful speech" online. Rather, the government offered a more complicated series of charges, and a narrative involving foreign travel for the purposes of terrorist training, obstruction of an investigation into the travel, and coordination with a prohibited organization, as part of a murder conspiracy, And the jury agreed entirely

We might actually be able to learn something from Mehanna's statement to the judge: ... this trial was not about my position on Muslims killing American civilians. It was about my position on Americans killing Muslim civilians, which is that Muslims should defend their lands from foreign invaders ... Taken in combination with his conviction at trial, and the larger context of the Bushista wars, the statement suggests quite clearly what the effects of the war have been, not only in terms of civilian suffering but in terms of ideological development of civilians and those who sympathesize with the civilians -- matters which we cannot morally ignore. But the long statement also strongly suggests that Mehanna's conviction was entirely proper under US law

The unconscionably sloppy analytical stance, of persons such as Benkler and Greenwald, is a major problem, on my PoV. If one wants to discuss the Mehanna case, one should discuss it on the actual merits of the case, including Mehanna's views, rather than attempt to create misleading outrage about first amendment issues.