Thursday, August 8, 2013

Edward Snowden: "The Nullifer" "My understanding is that espionage means giving secret, or classified information to the enemy. Since Edward Snowden shared information with the American people, his indictment for espionage could reveal, or confirm that THE US GOVERNMENT VIEWS YOU, AND ME AS THE ENEMY." Ron Paul I don't have the slightest idea of what Edward Snowden's notions are of the concept of nullification, but the essence of his heroic whistle-blowing in its behalf is certainly consistent with it's principle. And even while this episode continues to unfold, the hordes of the NSA's minions engaged in illegal domestic espionage continue to whine, and rant about the inappropriateness of his methods. Rather than transfer reams of classified intelligence material to investigate journalists, they say, Snowden should have gone through "official channels". Among those channels are supervisors, inspectors general, and individual members of congress. Any of these might have assisted Snowden in raising the necessary awareness of the problems that he saw while maintaining the operational security of the programs in question. Thus sayeth the "government agents"(read: system lackeys) It should be patently obvious to even the most casual observer that all such channels are bound to fail for anyone trying to seriously expose unlawful behavior. If any of Snowden's supervisors had any intentions of of putting an end to the unconstitutional programs being carried out by the NSA, it is highly unlikely that they would have needed any prodding by a lower level agent such as Snowden in the first place. Surely these men were as aware of the nature of the offenses as was Snowden. Thus, had they any inclinations to be faithful to the fourth amendment themselves, they would not be in need of any urging from a subordinate. It is possible, and even indeed likely that the inspector general was unaware of the extent of the spying, and may even be inclined to investigate the claims of illegal secret data mining, and the storage of private communications between Americans. This does not mean that such an investigation would ever lead to the exposure of the programs, or of them being ended. And, it most certainly would not be a safeguard of the freedoms of the persons responsible for the complaint. Indeed, it is highly likely that the person, and affects of the plaintiff would very likely come under scrutiny, and be subject to additional hardship as a subsequent reward for their forthrightness. The last option, that being Snowden going before congress, is so preposterous in its potential for effect that it is laughable to suggest it with a straight face. Congress authored, and wrote the legislation authorizing the spy programs in the first place. Congress established the FISA courts, and it approves the appointment of all senior government officials that provide the oversight of the NSA, and other intelligence agencies. Why should anyone ever believe that any senator is going to consider exposing the programs that they have birthed by asking questions of its legitimacy in this, or any other instance? For the record, congress was made aware of the extra-legal snooping that has been in the works for at least two years, and until this recent whistle-blowing by Snowden reached the ears of the general public, they expressed little in the way of concern for what was going on. The question must then be raised: is congress entirely impotent when it comes to providing a check against executive power, or is it complicit in expanding it? Irregardless, anyone suggesting that future whistle-blowers work through "official channels" are advocating a solution that will fail to deal with the particulars inherent to it. In this respect it is much like the prior instances of opponents of nullification suggesting an appeal to the courts, or the election of new representatives to overturn unconstitutional legislation. They are in effect saying: we don't want to hear it; go away! But for those interested in effecting real change, this answer is not an answer! It clearly didn't work for Bradley Manning, or Daniel Ellsberg when these men had the temerity to leak classified information that demonstrated the evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the government. Thus, the cry to use only "official channels" to correct government abuse of power in theory makes no sense, and empirically this has been the case as shown(quo ero demonstratum). Rather than wait for someone in authority in the government to make the right decision for "WE THE PEOPLE", we must take the bull by the horns through the power of the people in "the several states" via the enactment of the tenth amendment. This position will place us in direct opposition to what is taking place at the federal level. The enactment of the tenth is legal, constitutional, and requires only the right application of "The Rosa Parks method" to get the job done. The best repository for the statutes of liberty is in the hands of the people! The revolution is televised.