Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: 'I Have Been to the Darkest Corners of Government, and What They Fear Is Light' [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)19. The State Targets Dissenters Not Just 'Bad Guys'
Greenwald: From MLK to Anonymous, the State Targets Dissenters Not Just "Bad Guys"
Don't believe the argument that mass surveillance is only a problem for wrongdoers. Governments have repeatedly spied on anyone who challenges their power
by Glenn Greenwald
Published on Tuesday, May 13, 2014 by The Guardian
The following is an excerpt, as it appeared in The Guardian newspaper on Tuesday, from Glenn Greenwald's latest book, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State, published on May 13, 2013 by Hamish Hamilton:
A prime justification for surveillance that it's for the benefit of the population relies on projecting a view of the world that divides citizens into categories of good people and bad people. In that view, the authorities use their surveillance powers only against bad people, those who are "doing something wrong", and only they have anything to fear from the invasion of their privacy. This is an old tactic. In a 1969 Time magazine article about Americans' growing concerns over the US government's surveillance powers, Nixon's attorney general, John Mitchell, assured readers that "any citizen of the United States who is not involved in some illegal activity has nothing to fear whatsoever".
The point was made again by a White House spokesman, responding to the 2005 controversy over Bush's illegal eavesdropping programme: "This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner. These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people." And when Barack Obama appeared on The Tonight Show in August 2013 and was asked by Jay Leno about NSA revelations, he said: "We don't have a domestic spying programme. What we do have is some mechanisms that can track a phone number or an email address that is connected to a terrorist attack."
For many, the argument works. The perception that invasive surveillance is confined only to a marginalised and deserving group of those "doing wrong" the bad people ensures that the majority acquiesces to the abuse of power or even cheers it on. But that view radically misunderstands what goals drive all institutions of authority. "Doing something wrong" in the eyes of such institutions encompasses far more than illegal acts, violent behaviour and terrorist plots. It typically extends to meaningful dissent and any genuine challenge. It is the nature of authority to equate dissent with wrongdoing, or at least with a threat.
The record is suffused with examples of groups and individuals being placed under government surveillance by virtue of their dissenting views and activism Martin Luther King, the civil rights movement, anti-war activists, environmentalists. In the eyes of the government and J Edgar Hoover's FBI, they were all "doing something wrong": political activity that threatened the prevailing order.
SOURCE: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/05/13
Gee, WillyT. Wonder what all our posts make us?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
220 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
'I Have Been to the Darkest Corners of Government, and What They Fear Is Light' [View all]
Octafish
May 2014
OP
Because it's very different. Also, the USG is both buying AND selling our info in the marketplace.
merrily
May 2014
#85
It was not intentional. In fact, I had edited my original version of that sentence
merrily
May 2014
#182
Yes, no and maybe. I stand by my statement, as it was phrased, in the context in which I made it.
merrily
Jun 2014
#215
Oh, I know...that's more what I was thinking when I first posted, actually.
BlancheSplanchnik
Jun 2014
#216
I agree that there is the left and then there is the left. (We need some new vocabulary words, but
merrily
May 2014
#105
Thanks..and if you go to the link he has news reports to back up all of his statements
KoKo
May 2014
#50
Is this some kind of federal holiday that the anti-Snowden crowd is taking off?
JDPriestly
Jun 2014
#203
Rather than protect the First Amendment, they attack the whistleblower and the reporter.
Octafish
May 2014
#69
Me too. I was going to say that sound you hear is the security-state apologists heads exploding. nt
silvershadow
May 2014
#77
How can anyone not get that he is a hero of epic proporations, with a fearless heart of justice?
DesertDiamond
May 2014
#9
And This Matters To You Why? - Seems Irrelevant To Others - Further Where Is The Proof?
cantbeserious
May 2014
#86
Yes - The Cognitive Dissonance In Left Leaning Authoritarians Is Surely Debilitating
cantbeserious
May 2014
#88
The left lionized Ellsberg for revealing info that happened to embarrass a Democratic President.
merrily
May 2014
#90
This *did* hit the fan during the Bush administration. Does nobody else remember 2005?
Recursion
May 2014
#92
Are you saying th left all supportive of Bush at that time? Is that your point about my post?
merrily
May 2014
#103
Congress can pass any law it wants, at which point the sanctioned activity is "legal"
Recursion
May 2014
#118
No, that is "merely wrong." Violations of the Constitution do not become legal when Congress
merrily
May 2014
#119
I had already answered your question. BTW, how many of my questions and point have you avoided
merrily
May 2014
#122
Well, now you've resorted to pretending I said things I never said. Know another word for that?
merrily
May 2014
#125
Do you mean the South China Morning Post? Is this the interview you're referencing?
merrily
May 2014
#108
Do you seriously think that China and Russia did not know which of their systems
JDPriestly
Jun 2014
#204
"That meant the NSA was secretly and indiscriminately collecting the telephone records
yodermon
May 2014
#15
The case cited by the poster does not dispose of the legality issue as to what is going on now.
merrily
May 2014
#134
The applicability of Smith v. Maryland to the NSA's blanket surveillance activities is questionable.
Maedhros
May 2014
#36
You do understand that the court is there literally for the purpose of interpreting the law... right
TroglodyteScholar
May 2014
#62
Trog, you are right. Case law can overturn statute law. Marbury v. Madison, 1803.
Manifestor_of_Light
May 2014
#67
Don't conflate a court interpreting a statute--which Congress can overrule by enacting a new law--
merrily
May 2014
#159
Nothing you say here is incorrect nor does it contradict what I said. So we agree!
Vattel
May 2014
#166
Google "Gov. George Wallace denied a Supreme Court decision was the law of the land."
merrily
May 2014
#158
The point is kind of pedantic, but even when a court does overturn an earlier decision
Vattel
May 2014
#180
Yes, it does. Unless and until Plessy was overturned, it was the law of the land.
merrily
May 2014
#185
You are quite right that in the case of common law, judges make law and and change law.
Vattel
May 2014
#189
Not in those exact words, but that was the implication, given that the subject was whether judges
merrily
May 2014
#198
So no spying? No wiretaps? No investigations? What a perfect world you must live in.
randome
May 2014
#21
Our Constitution is a contract entered into by representatives of the people of the US.
JDPriestly
May 2014
#29
The Social Security Administration does not compile and analyze your data with huge
JDPriestly
May 2014
#60
If the laws need to be updated, I don't have a problem with that. Why would I?
randome
May 2014
#104
A couple of other whistleblowers tried to warn us without bringing out the huge array of
JDPriestly
May 2014
#172
Which still avoids answering, let alone, asking, the question of whom the NSA monitors.
randome
May 2014
#96
Exactly. It's modified legally only by amendment. Let someone put a modification to a vote.
merrily
May 2014
#137
'Allies' as in liberal thinkers of DU. Not 'allies' as in international espionage.
randome
May 2014
#161
No they'll never end spying, its been going on since mankind first days
LiberalLovinLug
May 2014
#191
How is it that you know the answer as to whether the NSA's actions are directed at American
JDPriestly
May 2014
#53
And was this info from the NSA provided as a consequence of international monitoring?
randome
May 2014
#100
Well, at least bringing up that point out of nowhere spared you from the Constitutional issues.
merrily
May 2014
#107
The NSA was not supposed to turn its powers on the citizens of the United States.
Octafish
May 2014
#24
Yes. I know about Gehlen. I will have to read Blowback. Somehow I missed it. Thanks.
JDPriestly
May 2014
#75
+10000 I wish I could rec this post. It should be on the top of every forum.
woo me with science
May 2014
#169