Sun
Jun 9 2013
11:50 pm
By: michael kaplan

from the new york times:

The revelation came after days of speculation that the source behind a series of leaks that have transfixed Washington must have been a high-level official at one of America’s spy agencies. Instead, the leaker is a relatively low-level employee of a giant government contractor, Booz Allen Hamilton, that has won billions of dollars in secret government contracts over the past decade, partly by aggressively marketing itself as the premier protector of America’s classified computer infrastructure.

(the term 'architecture of oppression' is used in snowden's statement below:

(link...)

gonzone's picture

An architecture of

An architecture of authoritarianism would fit as well.

Greg H's picture

sometimes....

...you have to destroy liberty in order to protect it from terrorists.
It's sort of like trashing your house and throwing your TV and jewelry in the garbage before thieves can steal it. :-/

WhitesCreek's picture

What am I missing?

I have more questions than answers on all this. I realize that there is a risk in oversimplifying but it seems that we have government agencies who can ask corporations to spy on we the people, but if someone tells us the government has private corporations spying on us, then the person who tells us is a criminal. What am I missing?

michael kaplan's picture

there are clearly some

there are clearly some 'privatization' issues here. it will be interesting if/when this matter goes to the courts ...

similar issues have been raised regarding killing and torture in iraq and afghanistan by private contractors.

and as we know, private contractors were held responsible for the production of weapons of mass destruction in nazi germany. but that was then.

CE Petro's picture

Not

This has nothing to do with a "Privatization issue" whatsoever, when more than a half a million private contractors have access to our (US) secrets.

The writing is on the wall, so to speak, on how this will play out, when it goes to the courts. Even Snowden himself said exactly what the Obama administration will do -- charge him under the Espionage Act (you know, the Act used to prosecute SPIES, not Whistleblowers!). Why would Snowden say that? Because this is the how the Obama administration rolls, the administrations MO. Considering recent history, I'd say Snowden's analysis on what will happen to him is on the money.

The DOJ confirmed yesterday they've started a criminal investigation.

CE Petro's picture

The simple answer

is that is part of the current administrations War on whistleblowers.

The government effectively maintains that sharing information about American policies with the American public is as bad as secretly dealing top-secret information to one of our enemies.

More importantly, scroll down to the bottom of the article to the section under "Your Data in a Driftnet"

In other words, even as the government has increasingly been targeting whistleblowers as spies, it has made it easier — potentially far, far easier — for law enforcement to access the contact information of journalists the government deems to be witnesses, via their communication with sources, to a “crime.”

I think this is what it feels like when you're fighting assimilation into the Borg -- a whole lot of fear and no place to hide.

Knoxoasis's picture

Who is hiring these

Who is hiring these contractors?

Blaming contractors is like blaming the car in a DUI related death. Ultimately the person behind the wheel is responsible.

michael kaplan's picture

The central defense in the

The central defense in the Eichmann trial was that he was just following orders. That didn't sell well in the Israeli courtroom ..

Knoxoasis's picture

I'm not suggesting that

I'm not suggesting that following illegal orders gets one off the hook. But if you concentrate on those carrying out the orders rather than those giving them you are looking in the wrong direction.

michael kaplan's picture

Yes, that was the theme (or

Yes, that was the theme (or at least one of the themes) in Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem: The Banality of Evil

Her thesis (I quote Wiki here) is that the great evils in history were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths, but by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal.

There was much criticism at the time of the Israeli court's verdict, for the reason you state. I think a similar controversy will surround this case, and could even extend (as it should) to what contractors knew/did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Knoxoasis's picture

Because you say so?

Because you say so? No one in the White House has blamed contractors or suggested they went beyond their contracted duties. They were doing what they were told to do, by the elected officials who are defending the program.

They only thing we know the contractors did that was against the wishes of their employers was revealing the existence of the program.

Skinny's picture

In repy to Michael Kaplan

There are many people who can't think for themselves who believe the government decides what is right and wrong or what is good or bad. There are many who believe that if the government says it's right, then it must be right.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives