Sunday, September 18, 2016


SNOWDEN NEWSLETTER #8, September 18, 2016
Compiled by Dick Bennett for a Culture of Peace, Justice, and Ecology.
  (#1 July 9, 2013; #2 Nov. 1, 2013; #3 Feb. 15, 2014; #4 April 15, 2014; #5 May 25, 2014; #6 Dec. 4, 2014; #7 August 15, 2015)
Thanks to Marc Quigley for entering all of these newsletters in OMNI’s web site.


What’s at stake:  The US Constitution, international law, established human rights, social and economic justice, civil resistance including whistleblowers and leakers, and investigative reporting constitute the most hopeful alternatives to US militarism run amok: empire abroad, police state at home, and incessant warfare to sustain them both as Orwell depicted in his novel 1984.  (Inspired by Francis A. Boyle, Protesting Power). 

No. 7 at end

Contents:  Snowden Newsletter #8, September 18, 2016
Oliver Stone’s Film, Snowden
Review of Film by Stephen Farber (Hollywood Reporter), NADG (Sept. 16,
     2016), and Dick’s Comments
Greenberg’s Critique of the Film, Dick’s Comments
Google Search

Greenwald and Poitras on Snowden
Greenwald, No Place to Hide
Poitras, Citizenfour

Obama Should Pardon Snowden?
Holder’s View of Snowden 5-31-16
Democracy Now Debate in Two Parts: Should Snowden Be Pardoned?  Could
     He Receive a Fair Trial under the Espionage Act?
ACLU’s Ben Wizner Interview, “A Pardon for Snowden”

Whistleblowers and Leakers for the Sake of Honest, Democratic
Mark Hertsgaard’s New Book, Bravehearts: Whistle-Blowing in the Age of
Hertsgaard, The Nation, Pentagon’s Broken Whistleblower System
Moyers’ Morning Reads:  A Second Snowden,” Leaked Documents Reveal
     Drone Secrets


STEPHEN FARBER, “WHITEOUT,” NADG (9-16-16) (The Hollywood Reporter). 
     To Farber, the film is “a tad dull,” the script “pedestrian, sometimes disjointed,” the tale “told in… a hushed and bloodless manner,” whose hero will not “draw intense audience empathy.”   The chief female character “never blossoms into a full-blooded, distinctive character.”  Aside from the Snowden role, “almost none” of the many “good actors” “has a chance to etch an indelible character,” and none matched the “energetic hams” of earlier films” who “chewed the scenery entertainingly.”     Only one character has a chance to get a humorous rhythm going.”  “Stone’s direction is …totally lacking in the fire and flamboyance that sometimes electrified…his earlier films.”  “The story moves along without any real sense of urgency or suspense.”  The film “never achieves the emotional force that Poitras achieved in her” documentary.  The film is “well-crafted but lackluster.”
     What?  It’s well-crafted but in essentials—character and plot—the film lacks vitality?  What’s the problem here?  That the film is not Stone’s Scarface, Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July?
     He himself gives one clue.  “Snowden himself was something of a geek and technocrat, not the kind of flamboyant figure who populated many of Stone’s earlier movies.”  So let’s restart Farber’s review with the question good reviews and teachers of writing ask:  Given his character, how might Snowden have evolved out of his super-patriotism, and survived and then outmaneuvered the two most powerful security organizations in the world?  And then ask what is the film Snowden saying about our country?  And how important is that message?   Then you deal with the film itself and not with the films Farber wished Stone had made.
     Stone’s Snowden fails to inspire “intense audience empathy”?   Well, how does Farber know that, and not if you have paid attention to the questions raised by the film.  
           The story of Snowden’s evolution from robot flag-patriot to thinking patriot lacks “emotional force”?    Greenwald tells the story well, but he is also a boffin and interweaves the technology into the narrative.  The Guardian’s  Luke Harding in his The Snowden Files concentrates on the plot.  Take Chapter 6, “Scoop!: described June 2013.  Snowden was revealing top secret program after top secret program, each one unconstitutional, and each possible certain to lead to prison for the leakers.  At the chapter’s end the top-secret program BOUNDLESS INFORMANT was next.  This program “allows the NSA to map country by country the voluminous amount of information it collects from computer and telephone networks. . . .It revealed that in March 2013 the agency collected a staggering 97 billion intelligence data points from computer networks worldwide” (140).  The NSA was evesdropping on every nation and national leader!  The Guardian was preparing to publish the news despite heavy breathing from “some of the most powerful people on the planet” (which would lead to the destruction of its computer hard-drives by British intelligence agents) (13).  And in the final sentence of chapter 6, Snowden decides to go public and “reveal his identity to the world” (141).  And in the final sentence of chapter 7: “”How much longer could he hold out until the US grabbed him?” (154).  The story of Snowden’s successful resistance to the CIA and NSA lacks “urgency or suspense”?  Rather, Stone packs this “particularly surreal episode in the history of western hournalism and its battels against the state” into two insistent, imperative hours.
    Finally, let’s hear from Greenwald on the significance of Stone’s film.  Snowden “focused the world’s attention on the dangers of ubiquitous state surveillance and pervasive government secrecy.  It triggered the first global debate about the value of individual privacy in the digital age and prompted the way people around the world viewed the reliability of any statements made by US officials and transformed relations between countries.  It radically altered views about the proper role of journalism in relation to government power.   And within the United States, it gave rise to an ideologically diverse, trans-partisan coalition pushing for meaningful reform of the surveillance state” (No Place to Hide, 248).   The film is not dull, pedestrian, hushed, bloodless.  Rather, it portrays resistance, successful resistance, inside the belly of the US NSA/CIA beast, sitting in his hotel room in Hong Kong radiating “a sense of tranquility and equanimity” (Harding 13).    

In a generally favorable critique, Greenberg identifies possible aspects of fiction in Stone’s recounting:  
  • “Many of the NSA crimes that Stone depicts in the film aren’t documented in the very real privacy violations Snowden’s leaks revealed—amounting to blunt political fiction that’s surprising even for Stone, a career-long critic of the federal government.”  
  • Dick:  No, not “many,” but three.   “At one point, an NSA employee casually watches an unwitting Muslim woman in real-time through her laptop’s camera as she removes her niqab and shirt. Later, Snowden narrates how the agency worked to plant malware in power plants, dams, and hospitals in Japan, Mexico, Germany, Brazil, and Austria, the better to shut down those countries’ infrastructure if they become enemies. The final element in Snowden’s decision to blow the whistle comes when he learns that a senior CIA official is reading the email of his girlfriend, Lindsay Mills.”
  • Dick:  Two of these are very minor sexual anecdotes inserted I suppose to attract an audience.  Planting malware to shut down countries, however, is a major allegation that if not true is apparently the one serious historical exaggeration by Stone.
  • Stone made a mistake in allowing these fictions into his almost wholly factual docudramaThis lapse results in Greenberg uncritically quoting Susan Hennessey without question, when her claim is extremely over-generalized:  “’This is a work of fiction, and it doesn’t reflect any reality I’m aware of,’” says Susan Hennessey, a former NSA attorney and now a fellow at the Brookings Institution. ’People go into the movie and aren’t sure what’s real and not real, and they assume some things are fact, and that’s really problematic.’”  That’s a shame, and Greenberg should have focused on explaining the truth to viewers of the film   I have read Glenn Greenwald’s No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State, and watched Laura Poitras’ honored documentary film, Citizenfour, and everything significant and essential to Snowden’s story in Stone’s version fits the accounts given by Greenwald and Poitras.
  • Properly, Greenberg ends his essay with Greenwald’s and Poitras’ facts, not with Hennessey’s wild slander.  Snowden’s ACLU attorney, Ben Wizner, asked Stone if his story was true.  Stone replied: “I had to make all this material work in a two-hour timeframe and not bore people. “But Wizner went on to offer his own answer, pointing to two “deep truths” that underlie any of the fictionalized details of Stone’s story. ‘The United States developed and deployed a system of mass surveillance without democratic consent,’ Wizner said. ‘That’s accurately portrayed. And the person who stepped forward to reveal that did so with sincerity, courage, conviction, and patriotism. And I think that’s also accurately depicted.’”

OLIVER STONE’S SNOWDEN FILM, Google, 9-15-16, Page one
Democracy Now! - 1 day ago
Snowden is a 2016 American-German biographical political thriller film directed by Oliver Stone and written by Stone and Kieran Fitzgerald. The film is based  IMDb   Rating: 6.3/10 - ‎1,029 votes
Biography · The NSA's illegal surveillance techniques are leaked to the public by one of the ... Director Oliver Stone talks about surveillance and his new film Snowden ...Oliver Stone and Scott Eastwood in Snowden (2016) · Oliver Stone and Joseph Gordon-Levitt in Snowden (2016) · Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Shailene ...
Apr 27, 2016 - Uploaded by Open Road Films
Academy Award®-winning director Oliver Stone, who brought Platoon, ... he pulled it off makes for one of the ...
Snowden was once pegged as an Oscar contender for 2016's awards, but alas, the film was pushed to a May 13th release date, in order to open at the Cannes ...
Democracy Now!
1 day ago - As the much-anticipated movie "Snowden," about one of the most wanted men in the world, hits theaters, we spend the hour with its director, ...
The Hollywood Reporter
Mar 8, 2016 - When Stone (whose films include Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July and Wall Street) was first approached to make the movie, he hesitated.
3 days ago - Oliver Stone's new film has many naysayers. Sure, it has its problems but there are things to recommend it too, writes Sam Adams from the ...
6 days ago - Oliver Stone's new docudrama, starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, is the director's most exciting — and ...

In “No Place to Hide,” Glenn Greenwald writes about Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency and the dangers of government ...
Glenn Greenwald's “No Place to Hide” offers a disturbing overview of the agency's surveillance efforts.
Greenwald's pugilistic skills are on full display in his new book, No Place to Hide. My copy came with CONFIDENTIAL stamped on every page ...
When filmmaker Laura Poitras and journalist Glenn Greenwald flew to Hong Kong to meet Edward Snowden for the first time, Poitras brought her camera with her. The result is a 100% ... Film Critics Circle Best Non-Fiction Film (Documentary) ...
See the film · ‎About · ‎Code Names of the ... · ‎Trailer › Arts › Movies › Citizenfour
The Guardian
Jul 14, 2015 - Film-maker whose documentary about Edward Snowden won an ... Citizenfour director Laura Poitras sues US over 'Kafkaesque harassment'.

CBS News - 15 hours ago
Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a podcast Edward Snowden should ... but he should still return to the U.S. to stand trial, former U.S. Attorney General Eric ...

Democracy Now! Daily Digest
A Daily Independent Global News Hour with Amy Goodman & Juan González
Thursday, September 15, 2016
It has been three years since National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden released classified NSA files to media outlets that exposed global mass surveillance operations ... Read More →
In Part 2 of our debate about whether National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden should be pardoned, we examine whether he could get a fair trial if he returns to the ... Read More →

“A Pardon for Snowden,” The Nation (Sept. 26/Oct. 3, 2016).

The Nation’s Jon Wiener Interviews ACLU’S Ben Wizner, Snowden’s Attorney.  He is clarifying  on Snowden’s Revelations, Extradition, the Espionage Act, Possible Plea  Deal, Possible Pardon.  For example: The tyrannous Espionage Act enables the government to imprison a person merely for providing classified information to an unauthorized person; no other consideration is permissible.   If Snowden came to US it would be for sentencing not for a trial.

New Book Bravehearts by Mark Hertsgaard Features Numerous Past and Present Government Accountability Project (GAP) Clients.   Staff, May 31, 2016
An Investigative Tour de Force Revealing A New Chapter In The Edward Snowden Story And Highlighting The Whistle Blowers Who Pay With Their Lives to Save Ours
By now, almost everyone knows what Edward Snowden did:  leak secret documents revealing that the US government was spying on hundreds of millions of people around the world.  But if you want to know why Snowden did it, the way he did it, you need to know the stories of two other men.
The first is Thomas Drake, who blew the whistle on the very same surveillance ten years before Snowden did and got crushed.  The other is The Third Man, a former senior Pentagon official who comes forward in this book for the first time to describe how his superiors repeatedly broke the law to punish Drake—and unwittingly taught Snowden how to evade their clutches.
When insiders such as The Third Man or Big Tobacco truth-teller Jeffrey Wigand blow the whistle on high-level government or corporate lying, lawbreaking, or other wrongdoing, the public can benefit enormously. Liberty is defended, deadly products are taken off the market, wars are ended.  The whistle-blowers themselves, however, generally end up ruined when they refuse to back down in the face of ferocious official retaliation. This moral stubbornness despite terrible personal cost is the defining DNA of whistle-blowers. The public owes them more than we know.
In Bravehearts, Mark Hertsgaard tells the gripping, sometimes darkly comic stories of these unsung heroes. Deeply reported, impassioned but fair-minded, Bravehearts is for citizens of all nations, especially students, teachers, activists, and anyone wanting to make a difference.
Below is a sample of some of the coverage the book has already received:
*  BBC World Service, Newshour, (43 million listeners), May 26, 2016 (story runs from 26 minutes, 15 seconds to 34:55).
*  New York Times, “Op-Ed Page,” May 26, 2016.
*  KQED (Bay Area NPR affiliate), Forum, May 25, 2016.
*  Democracy Now!, national radio and TV program, May 23, 2016.
*  And the scoop that started it all:  The Guardian, May 22, 2016.
*  And the accompanying Guardian news story reporting Snowden’s reaction to the scoop:
 The Guardian, May 22, 2016.
*  And a video interview with John Crane, GAP client and Pentagon whistleblower who comes forward for the first time in Bravehearts.
*  Finally, The Nation will very soon publish an excerpt from Bravehearts, which will be posted to Mr. Hertsgaard's website.

You can buy the book, preferably at your local independent book shop, or via the HotBooks/Skyhorse website,here!

Bravehearts:  Whistle-Blowing in the Age of Snowden by Mark Hertsgaard
·        Details
Whistleblowers pay with their lives to save ours. When insiders like former NSA analyst Edward Snowden or ex-FBI agent Coleen Rowley or Big Tobacco truth-teller Jeffrey Wigand blow the whistle on high-level lying, lawbreaking or other wrongdoing—whether it's government spying, corporate murder or scientific scandal—the public benefits enormously. Wars are ended, deadly products are taken off the market, white-collar criminals are sent to jail. The whistleblowers themselves, however, generally end up ruined. Nearly all of them lose their jobs—and in many cases their marriages and their health—as they refuse to back down in the face of increasingly ferocious official retaliation. That moral stubbornness despite terrible personal cost is the defining DNA of whistleblowers. The public owes them more than we know.

In Bravehearts, Hertsgaard tells the gripping, sometimes darkly comic and ultimately inspiring stories of the unsung heroes of our time. A deeply reported, impassioned polemic, Bravehearts is a book for citizens everywhere—especially students, teachers, activists and anyone who wants to make a difference in the world around them.     (From the publisher. )

 The National-Security Exposé So Secret Even Edward Snowden Didn’t Know About It

A former senior Pentagon official shows how broken our whistleblower system really is.

By Mark Hertsgaard. The Nation,  JUNE 1, 2016

Three years after Edward Snowden’s revelations regarding the National Security Agency’s massive surveillance program, Eric Holder has decided that Snowden may have done the right thing after all. His whistleblowing was “a public service,” the Obama administration’s former attorney general said on a podcast released May 30. Snowden should still be prosecuted, Holder added—leaking top-secret documents is illegal, after all—but his disclosures helped in “raising the debate.”
Snowden welcomed Holder’s about-face, which buttresses Snowden’s longstanding offer to return home and face trial if he is allowed to offer a “public-interest” defense for his actions. In a tweet, Snowden seemed bemused but hopeful about the evolution in officialdom’s views:
2013: It’s treason!
2014: Maybe not, but it was reckless
2015: Still, technically it was unlawful
2016: It was a public service but
Meanwhile, dramatic new disclosures offer fresh insights into why Snowden did what he did and raise tantalizing questions about additional secrets that may lurk in the documents he released. On May 22, my own exposé of a secret new chapter in Snowden’s story was published in my book, Bravehearts: Whistle-Blowing in the Age of Snowden. The exposé details extraordinary revelations from John Crane, a former senior Defense Department official who has come forward publicly for the first time about what he witnessed inside the Pentagon.
A solidly built Virginian with flecks of gray in a neatly trimmed chinstrap beard, Crane had been an assistant inspector general at the Pentagon, where he’d handled whistleblower cases from 2004 until 2013, when his bosses forced him out because he insisted on standing up for the legal treatment of whistleblowers. In dozens of hours of interviews, Crane told me how his superiors, allegedly, broke the law repeatedly while dealing with whistleblowers—­obstructing justice, withholding and probably destroying evidence, and then lying to a federal judge about it, among other crimes.
Given this bureaucratic hostility to whistleblowers, Crane said he understood why Snowden might decide his only workable option for exposing the NSA’s surveillance was to break the law by leaking documents to the press. Yet Crane lamented Snowden’s actions. “Someone like Snowden should not have felt the need to harm himself just to do the right thing,” Crane told me.
“When I was at NSA, everybody knew that for anything more serious than workplace harassment, going through the official process was a career-ender at best,” Snowden told my Guardian colleague Ewen MacAskill in response to Crane’s revelations. “If your boss in the mailroom lies on his timesheets, the [inspector general] might look into it. But if you’re [former NSA executive] Thomas Drake, and you find out the president of the United States ordered the warrantless wiretapping of everyone in the country, what’s the IG going to do? They’re going to flush it, and you with it.”
“Flush” is an apt term for what the Pentagon did to Drake. If you want to know why Snowden did what he did, the way he did it, you have to know the stories of both John Crane and Thomas Drake. As Snowden has said, “If there hadn’t been a Thomas Drake, there wouldn’t have been an Edward Snowden.”
Drake was a much higher-ranking official in the NSA who tried, 10 years earlier, to blow the whistle on the same NSA activities that Snowden revealed. But Drake, a career military man, followed the rules, raising his concerns through official channels—first with his superiors at the NSA, then with the agency’s congressional overseers.
In return for his obedience, Drake’s house was raided in 2007. He was fired, stripped of his security clearance, threatened with life in prison, and eventually reduced to working as a clerk in an Apple store, the only job he could find.
But not everyone in the government tried to throttle him. Crane felt so strongly about the value of whistleblowers that he carried in his pocket a copy of the Whistle­blower Protection Act and the US Constitution so he could cite them during workplace conflicts. Crane fought for the lawful treatment of Drake not because Crane was for or against the NSA surveillance; he did it because the law required that all government whistleblowers be given anonymity and other protections when they report “waste, fraud, or abuse,” as every federal employee is obligated to do.
Crane later detailed his allegations in affidavits he filed with the federal Office of Special Counsel after he became a whistleblower himself, following his forced resignation. The OSC, which adjudicates whistleblower cases throughout the federal government, ruled in March that there was a “substantial likelihood” that Crane’s charges are true. This finding in turn triggered a requirement for Defense Secretary Ashton Carter to organize a fresh investigation of Crane’s allegations, which the Justice Department is conducting.
The supreme irony? The Pentagon officials who led the charge against Drake ended up unwittingly teaching Snowden how to evade their clutches. Drawing on the example of Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defense Department adviser who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971, Snowden removed key documents from the NSA database and gave them to independent journalists Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald, who, along with MacAskill, began publishing articles based on Snowden’s revelations.
“The sad reality of today’s policies is that going to the inspector general with evidence of truly serious wrong­doing is often a mistake,” Snowden told MacAskill regarding Crane’s revelations. “Going to the press involves serious risks, but at least you’ve got a chance.”
Snowden had plenty of criticisms of the mainstream media; one reason he didn’t take his revelations to The New York Times was his distrust of the paper after its editors agreed to President George W. Bush’s request, just before the 2004 election, not to publish a story by Times reporters that began to uncover the NSA’s surveillance activities. “Hiding that story changed history,” Snowden later told Greenwald. Not until December 2005 did the Times finally publish the story.
Snowden further grasped that a whistleblower who took his concerns to the media had to bring plenty of ammunition in the form of official documents that could not be brushed off as mere hearsay. A sitting government can usually withstand a negative story if it’s prominent for only a day or three. To capture the public’s attention and put real pressure on government, the revelations must pierce the 24/7 media babble and make news not just for a few days, but for weeks. That in turn requires not just a single exposé, no matter how sensational, but a continuing stream of newsworthy information.
Again, the Pentagon Papers proved instructive. “If you’re going to shoot at the King, you have to shoot to kill,” Ellsberg told me in reflecting on Snowden’s achievements. “The media don’t want to risk angering the King if they don’t have documentary proof.” Thus, whistleblowers who leak to the press “have to put out documents, and they have to put out a lot of them if they want to have a big effect.”
Yet even as Snowden put out a lot of documents, he eschewed the WikiLeaks model of releasing all the information at his disposal. He held back certain documents and removed specifics from others, for fear of revealing information that could put US operatives in danger or imperil legitimate security objectives. Snowden argued that democratic governance did not mean the public had to know the names of each NSA surveillance target. What it meant was that “we as Americans and members of the global community have a right to know the broad outlines of government policies that have a significant impact on our lives.” Snowden gave trusted journalists final authority to decide which parts of the information he disclosed should or should not be published. For all the attacks that critics have leveled on his supposed recklessness, his actions were carefully modulated, which strengthened their impact—and his credibility.
And their impact may soon be felt anew. Greenwald recentlyannounced, via his column at The Intercept, that he and his colleagues were beginning “to release large batches of Snowden documents to the public—and to open the [Snowden] archive to greater access by foreign and U.S. journalists.” Again, Greenwald and his colleagues took the precaution of redacting certain names as well as inviting the NSA to comment on the documents before publication. The goal of this newly broadened access to the Snowden archive, Greenwald explained, is to “enhance public understanding of these extremely powerful and secretive surveillance agencies.”
Nothing about Edward Snowden impressed the experts at the Government Accountability Project—a Washington NGO that is arguably the world’s leading whistleblower-advocacy group and has provided legal representation for Snowden, Drake, and Crane—more than his sheer effectiveness. Yes, Snowden was courageous; yes, his revelations were eye-popping. But over the nearly 40-year history of GAP, its attorneys had counseled thousands of whistleblowers in both the public and private sectors who had displayed great courage and brought forward astonishing revelations. (See Bravehearts for examples.)
What distinguished Snowden, they said, was his ability to draw lessons from the experiences of previous whistleblowers and formulate a strategy that avoided the usual bureaucratic traps and delivered exceptional results. Of course, since releasing classified documents without authorization is unequivocally illegal, Snowden had to be willing, like Ellsberg before him, to break the law and face the consequences.
“It comes down to the difference between lawful whistleblowing and civil-disobedience whistleblowing,” said GAP legal director Tom Devine. “None of the lawful whistleblowers who tried to expose the government’s warrantless surveillance activities—and Drake was far from the only one who tried—had any success. They came forward and made their charges, but the government just said, ‘They’re lying, they’re paranoid, we’re not doing those things.’ And the whistleblowers couldn’t prove their case because the government had classified all the evidence.”
The key to Snowden’s success, Devine continued, was that he “took the evidence with him. So when the government issued its usual denials, he could produce document after document showing they were lying. That is civil-disobedience whistleblowing. And in the national-­security area, civil-disobedience whistleblowing is what works.”
Snowden had more than one wish when he first went public. Besides alerting people around the world to the unprecedented and secret surveillance that the US government was subjecting them to, he also hoped to encourage more whistleblowing. Snowden “told me…that he wanted to show that you could come out and tell the truth about something you thought was wrong and you didn’t have to hide,” said Barton Gellman, who reported on Snowden’s disclosures for The Washington Post.
Three years later, Snowden remains committed to this goal but has clearer ideas about how to achieve it. “We need iron-clad, enforceable protections for whistleblowers, and we need a public record of success stories,” he told MacAskill. “Protect the people who go to members of Congress with oversight roles, and if their efforts lead to a positive change in policy, recognize them for their efforts. There are no incentives for people to stand up against an agency on the wrong side of the law today, and that’s got to change. We can’t fix the problems if we don’t know what they are, and for that we need whistleblowers.”

Bottom of Form

October 16, 2015
As we continue our effort to keep you up-to-date on how money corrupts American government and politics, as well as other news of the day, we’re pleased to publish this daily digest compiled by’s John Light.
“A second Snowden” –> That’s what Wired’s Andy Greenberg is calling the source of internal documents from America’s drone wars that were leaked to The Intercept. “The revelations about the CIA and Joint Special Operations Command actions include primary source evidence that as many as 90 percent of US drone killings in one five month period weren’t the intended target, that a former British citizen was killed in a drone strike despite repeated opportunities to capture him instead, and details of the grisly process by which the American government chooses who will die, down to the ‘baseball cards’ of profile information created for individual targets, and the chain of authorization that goes up directly to the president,” Greenberg writes in summary. Access the full report at The Intercept.

My blog:
War Department/Peace Department
See newsletters on Assange and Wikipedia, Civil Disobedience, Civil Liberties, Civil Resistance, Democracy, 4th Amendment to Constitution, Human Rights, Imperialism, International Law, Investigative Reporters, Lawlessness, Manning, Militarism, National Security State (NSS), NSA, Pentagon, Secrecy, Snowden, Surveillance, Whistleblowers, and many more.
An informed, vocal, insistent citizenry—preeminently our hero whistleblowers--is the best defense of our democracy, not ten U.S. Navy carrier strike groups, 800 military bases around the world, and bombing 7 sovereign nations.

FIVE MOST RECENT 2016 NEWSLETTERS:  Russia, Climate, Climate/Anthropocene, Israel/Palestine, Hiroshima/Nagasaki (August)

None of the senators or representatives publishes his e-mail address, but each can be contacted by filling in forms offered through his website.
Senator John Boozman: (202)224-4843
Senator Tom Cotton: (202)224-2353
Rep. Rick Crawford, 1st District: (202)225-4076
Rep. French Hill, 2nd District: (202)225-2506
Rep. Steve Womack, 3rd District: (202)225-4301
1119 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
3333 Pinnacle Hills, Suite 120
Rogers, Arkansas 72758
Rep. Bruce Westerman, 4th District: (202) 225-3772

Contents:  Snowden Newsletter #7, August 15,  2016

Code Pink to President Obama: Return Snowden’s Passport

Snowden’s Statement to VfP on NSA vs. Freedom
Related Books:  Michael Glennon’s
National Security and Double Government; Pilisuk and Rountree, The Hidden Structure of Violence

David Fidler, ed.  The Snowden Reader
Ted Rall, Snowden Graphic Reader
Laura Poitras’ Citizen Four Documentary Wins Oscar
Snowden 2015 Google Search
Greenwald and Fishman, NPR Is Laundering CIA Talking Points
Nadia Prupis, NSA Phone Surveillance Ruled Illegal

Dick, Why Criticize Your Government and Not Others
Contact Your Representatives
Recent OMNI Newsletters


No comments:

Dick's Wars and Warming KPSQ Radio Editorials (#1-48)

Dick's Wars and Warming KPSQ Radio Editorials (#1-48)