working on what I believe are several significant new NSA stories, to be
published imminently here, as well as one very consequential story
about NSA spying in Brazil that will first be broadcast Sunday night on
the Brazilian television program Fantastico (because the report has
worldwide implications, far beyond Brazil, it will be translated into
English and then quickly published on the internet). Until then, I'm
posting below the video of the 30-minute interview I did yesterday on
Democracy Now with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez about our NSA
encryption story and ongoing US/UK attacks on press freedom (the
transcript of that interview is .
I have linked the interview with Amy Goodman and Juan
There is - of course - more, including some links, but you should find
about these yourself.
2. Perhaps I'm out of step
and Britons just don't think
privacy is important
Next, a - possibly - pessimistic piece by Henry Porter, who writes for
the Observer and the Guardian:
Here is the main theme of his
story, that seems quite right to me, pessimistic or not:
(..) all summer I
have been puzzling over the lack of reaction in Britain to the Snowden
revelations about US and UK communications surveillance, a
lack that at some moments has seemed even more remarkable than the
revelations themselves. Today, apparently, we are at ease with a system
of near total intrusion that would have horrified every adult Briton 25
years ago. Back then, western spies acknowledged the importance of
freedom by honouring the survivors of those networks; now, they spy on
their own people.
We have changed, that is
obvious, and, to be honest, I wonder whether I, and others who care
about privacy and freedom, have been left behind by societies that
accept surveillance as a part of the sophisticated world we live in.
Even so, the neglect of the Snowden story by the British media does
I think he is right, and there
is considerably more in his article, that ends thus:
(..) this is not
about the much-denigrated quality of privacy, but about political
power. What the Guardian-New York Times stories of last week
tell us is that we are much less free than we supposed and that
unrestricted surveillance will become a menace to us all. That should
be a vital concern for journalists, even at the BBC.
He also frames some hypotheses
or at least questions about the reasons for this,
but I don't think he got that right. Here are my own reasons
most people are
most people are ill
most people don't really
understand the issues
most people are afraid
of "the authorities"
most people take an
optimistic view (if they are not involved): "O no, that will not happen
But whatever the explanations,
I agree with Henry Porter about the facts.
3. Congress Denied Syrian Facts, Too
Next, an article by Robert
Parry, who writes for Consortium News:
Rep. Alan Grayson,
D-Florida, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also said
the House Intelligence Committee had to make a formal request to the
administration for “the underlying intelligence reports” and he is
unaware if those details have been forthcoming, suggesting that the
classified report – like the unclassified version – is more a set of
assertions than a presentation of evidence.
“We have reached the
point where the classified information system prevents even trusted
members of Congress, who have security clearances, from learning
essential facts, and then inhibits them from discussing and debating
what they do know,” Grayson wrote in
an op-ed for the New
York Times on Saturday.
“And this extends to
matters of war and peace, money and blood. The ‘security state’ is
drowning in its own phlegm. My position is simple: if the
administration wants me to vote for war, on this occasion or on any
other, then I need to know all the facts. And I’m not the only one who
feels that way.”
That is to say: the US
government tries to convince Congress by mere assertions without real
evidence: "Trust me", says the president, and that should be enough.
Wesley Clark: Wars were planned
to help see this a bit more clearly, here are two pieces of video by
general Wesley Clark, who says the wars we are seeing undertaken by the
U.S. were planned, and were planned quite long ago:
Here is a brief quote from the
above video, which plays in October 2001. General Wesley
Clark says, and reports from October 2001:
This is a memo
[from the Secretary of Defense - MM] that describes how we are going to
take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and then
Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran.
He also does it in the
following video, where there is more information, and that starts with
Clark's saying the Bush government was "a policy coup",
Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and some more:
Note the above is quite clear:
According to general Wesley Clark, the wars that have been initiated by
the U.S. since the 1990ies all are part of a plan, that existed already
in 1991. What president Obama is telling you, or indeed the U.S.
Congress, are just lies that try to push it through and make it seem
acceptable, and also to make it seem "no war" (which in Kerry's words
requires "boots on the ground", as if that is what war means).
I think what general Clark said is far more likely to be true than
anything Obama and his government assert about the war or "war" they
P.S. Sep 9, 2013: Deleted a footnote I had left
standing, without reason.
It is more proper
that law should govern than any one of the
citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the
supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to
be only guardians, and the servants of the laws.
(And I note the whole file I
from is quite pertinent.)
ME/CFS (that I prefer
to call M.E.: The "/CFS" is added to facilitate search
is a disease I have since 1.1.1979: