Snowden’s Father Calls Out Obama On Nuremberg Crimes

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
August 1, 2013

wantyou2

Predictably, the corporate media, the official propaganda outlet for the establishment, has refused to post or publish an open letter sent to Obama by Lon Snowden, the father of Edward Snowden. This callous refusal should finally convince any who may have had any doubt that the United States is anything but a tyrannical national security state with a state-run media no different than the one in Cuba, China or Iran.

Edward Snowden’s unwarranted persecution and vilification by the globalist propaganda media is part of a larger campaign to snuff out investigative media.

Glenn Greenwald eluded to this during a conversation about the persecution of Pfc. Bradley Manning with CIA operative Anderson Cooper and CNN legal analyst and establishment insider Jeffrey Toobin. In response to Toobin’s defense of Manning’s unjust persecution and probable life sentence, Greenwald said the former Harvard Review editor  was arguing “for the end of investigative journalism.”

As the indisputable assassination of investigative journalist Michael Hastings makes painfully obvious, the government is not merely attempting to persecute journalists who refuse to act as stenographers for the national security state, but is actively killing them. The United States is now on par with Mexico, Iran, Colombia, and Russia, countries that stand accused of murdering journalists.

The letter penned by constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein and sent by Lon Snowden to Obama follows. Below it is a video of the exchange between Greenwald and the apologist for a vindictive and murderous state, Jeffrey Toobin, who counts as his close friend Supreme Court justice Elena Kagan.

July 26, 2013
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500

Re: Civil Disobedience, Edward J. Snowden, and the Constitution

Dear Mr. President:

You are acutely aware that the history of liberty is a history of civil disobedience to unjust laws or practices. As Edmund Burke sermonized, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

Civil disobedience is not the first, but the last option. Henry David Thoreau wrote with profound restraint in Civil Disobedience: “If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine.”

Thoreau’s moral philosophy found expression during the Nuremburg trials in which “following orders” was rejected as a defense. Indeed, military law requires disobedience to clearly illegal orders.

A dark chapter in America’s World War II history would not have been written if the then United States Attorney General had resigned rather than participate in racist concentration camps imprisoning 120,000 Japanese American citizens and resident aliens.

Civil disobedience to the Fugitive Slave Act and Jim Crow laws provoked the end of slavery and the modern civil rights revolution.

We submit that Edward J. Snowden’s disclosures of dragnet surveillance of Americans under § 215 of the Patriot Act, § 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments, or otherwise were sanctioned by Thoreau’s time-honored moral philosophy and justifications for civil disobedience. Since 2005, Mr. Snowden had been employed by the intelligence community. He found himself complicit in secret, indiscriminate spying on millions of innocent citizens contrary to the spirit if not the letter of the First and Fourth Amendments and the transparency indispensable to self-government. Members of Congress entrusted with oversight remained silent or Delphic. Mr. Snowden confronted a choice between civic duty and passivity. He may have recalled the injunction of Martin Luther King, Jr.: “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it.” Mr. Snowden chose duty. Your administration vindictively responded with a criminal complaint alleging violations of the Espionage Act.

From the commencement of your administration, your secrecy of the National Security Agency’s Orwellian surveillance programs had frustrated a national conversation over their legality, necessity, or morality. That secrecy (combined with congressional nonfeasance) provoked Edward’s disclosures, which sparked a national conversation which you have belatedly and cynically embraced. Legislation has been introduced in both the House of Representatives and Senate to curtail or terminate the NSA’s programs, and the American people are being educated to the public policy choices at hand. A commanding majority now voice concerns over the dragnet surveillance of Americans that Edward exposed and you concealed. It seems mystifying to us that you are prosecuting Edward for accomplishing what you have said urgently needed to be done!

The right to be left alone from government snooping–the most cherished right among civilized people—is the cornerstone of liberty. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson served as Chief Prosecutor at Nuremburg. He came to learn of the dynamics of the Third Reich that crushed a free society, and which have lessons for the United States today.

Writing in Brinegar v. United States, Justice Jackson elaborated:

The Fourth Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

These, I protest, are not mere second-class rights but belong in the catalog of indispensable freedoms. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart. Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government. And one need only briefly to have dwelt and worked among a people possessed of many admirable qualities but deprived of these rights to know that the human personality deteriorates and dignity and self-reliance
disappear where homes, persons and possessions are subject at any hour to unheralded search and seizure by the police.

We thus find your administration’s zeal to punish Mr. Snowden’s discharge of civic duty to protect democratic processes and to safeguard liberty to be unconscionable and indefensible.

We are also appalled at your administration’s scorn for due process, the rule of law, fairness, and the presumption of innocence as regards Edward.

On June 27, 2013, Mr. Fein wrote a letter to the Attorney General stating that Edward’s father was substantially convinced that he would return to the United States to confront the charges that have been lodged against him if three cornerstones of due process were guaranteed. The letter was not an ultimatum, but an invitation to discuss fair trial imperatives. The Attorney General has sneered at the overture with studied silence.

We thus suspect your administration wishes to avoid a trial because of constitutional doubts about application of the Espionage Act in these circumstances, and obligations to disclose to the public potentially embarrassing classified information under the Classified Information Procedures Act.

Your decision to force down a civilian airliner carrying Bolivian President Eva Morales in hopes of kidnapping Edward also does not inspire confidence that you are committed to providing him a fair trial. Neither does your refusal to remind the American people and prominent Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate like House Speaker John Boehner, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann,and Senator Dianne Feinstein that Edward enjoys a presumption of innocence. He should not be convicted before trial. Yet Speaker Boehner has denounced Edward as a “traitor.”

Ms. Pelosi has pontificated that Edward “did violate the law in terms of releasing those documents.” Ms. Bachmann has pronounced that, “This was not the act of a patriot; this was an act of a traitor.” And Ms. Feinstein has decreed that Edward was guilty of “treason,” which is defined in Article III of the Constitution as “levying war” against the United States, “or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

You have let those quadruple affronts to due process pass unrebuked, while you have disparaged Edward as a “hacker” to cast aspersion on his motivations and talents. Have you forgotten the Supreme Court’s gospel in Berger v. United States that the interests of the government “in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done?”

We also find reprehensible your administration’s Espionage Act prosecution of Edward for disclosures indistinguishable from those which routinely find their way into the public domain via your high level appointees for partisan political advantage. Classified details of your predator drone protocols, for instance, were shared with the New York Times with impunity to bolster your national security credentials. Justice Jackson observed in Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York: “The framers of the Constitution knew, and we should not forget today, that there is no more effective practical guaranty against arbitrary and unreasonable government than to require that the principles of law which officials would impose upon a minority must be imposed generally.”

In light of the circumstances amplified above, we urge you to order the Attorney General to move to dismiss the outstanding criminal complaint against Edward, and to support legislation to remedy the NSA surveillance abuses he revealed. Such presidential directives would mark your finest constitutional and moral hour.

Sincerely,
Bruce Fein
Counsel for Lon Snowden
Lon Snowden

 

Advertisements

Bracelets that Track Mental, Emotional Responses

Pushing vaccines on the entire world is apparently not the only goal of the infamous Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which is reportedly now funding research into human tracking bracelets capable of gauging both emotional and physical responses to various stimuli. According to The Washington Post (WP), the Gates Foundation has already quietly spent more than $1 million on research into the biometric bracelets, which could forever alter the way students learn and teachers teach.

What is the real agenda behind tracking bracelets?

In a controversial move that was only recently brought to light, the Gates Foundation allegedly forked over about half a million dollars to South Carolina’s Clemson University late last fall, and another more than $600,000 to the National Center on Time and Learning (NCTL), a group dedicated to improving student achievement. Both grants were intended to fund test studies on the effectiveness of the “galvanic skin response” bracelets, which assess the physiological responses of students to learning material.

The idea is that when a student, for instance, is exposed to new lesson plans from his teacher, the bracelet will detect electrical changes on his skin and inside his body which can be used to assess how well he is learning the information. The bracelet may also detect various cognitive responses in that student’s brain which indicate whether or not a particular teaching style is effectively engaging him according to his learning abilities and types.

Tracking bracelets could further dehumanize American education

On the surface, the bracelet concept may appear as though it could actually help improve the quality of education in America. After all, what bad could come of monitoring innate emotional and cognitive responses to external stimuli for the purpose of improving the methods by which teachers educate their students?

On the other hand, tracking students in this way could open the door for an even more dehumanized approach to education. Standardized testing, numbers-based teacher assessments, and various other outcome-based educational formats have already largely eroded the human element that used to play an integral role in American education.

The bracelets could also further thwart the educational environment to cater specifically to what students want rather than what they need. Using students’ emotional responses to various learning material as a metric of how well a teacher is performing is a flawed approach that could send many quality, veteran educators packing their bags.

When controversy about the tracking bracelets, and particularly the Gates Foundation’s research funding, first began to arise, supporters of the technology denied that their use would affect the learning environment negatively. Deborah Veney Robinson, a Senior Communications Officer at the Gates Foundation, for instance, is quoted in a recent Forbes piece as saying that the bracelets would not be used to evaluate teacher performance, a claim made by the bracelets’ opponents.

But if they are not intended to evaluate teacher performance, then what, exactly, are they for? This is a valid question that many educators and education researchers are now asking. Surely the Gates Foundation has some type of agenda with the program that it is not fully disclosing.

“Why do they want bracelets with wireless sensors for children and teachers that can gauge physiological reactions?” asked Diane Ravitch, an education expert and Research Professor of Education at New York University (NYU), who is skeptical of the Gates Foundation’s intent with the research. “What’s the purpose of this research? I don’t understand what those bracelets are for. Still don’t.”

Based on the Gates Foundation’s other agendas, it is not too far of a stretch to assume that tracking bracelets could one day be used to weed out students or teachers that do not buy into the vaccine agenda, for instance, or those that oppose phony environmental hoaxes such as global warming. By monitoring what is being taught and how students respond to it, Big Brother could theoretically read the human mind in real time, which has some fairly disturbing implications.

How long will it be before schools begin requiring that students link up to the system via tracking bracelets so that authorities can essentially monitor and control human thought? Will the bracelets one day be modified to deliver an electric zap to students that get out of line, or that diverge from the information being taught to them? There truly is a brave, new world before us, and the Gates Foundation is helping to pave the way directly to it.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.washingtonpost.com

http://www.forbes.com

http://dianeravitch.net

Iraq War Vet Beaten, Tased by Cops at Las Vegas Airport

An Iraqi War veteran says Metro officers beat him at McCarran International Airport. Action News has video of the alleged beating two months ago. National guard Sergeant Mark England says the officers beat him with a nightstick and shot him with a taser after an argument with TSA agents at the airport. The Metro officers involved are still working and Metro says based on the video Action News showed them they believe the officer didn’t do anything wrong.