Ecuador, not US friendly

[Andrew D]

I wonder why the broad strokes of these programs needed to be classified in the first place. As Sue U points out, at least some of these programs have been common knowledge for a while.

But beyond that, why is it necessary to keep these programs secret from actual or potential terrorists? What are they going to do? Resort to smoke signals?

If publicizing these programs forces actual and potential terrorists to resort to such slow and more easily disruptible methods of communication as in-person carriers, that seems to me a gain for the U.S.

Of course, I am no expert in such matters. So if there is some real detriment caused to U.S. national security from these revelations, I would like to see it. Thus far, though, I have not.

[rubato]

Snowden needs to decide between "going on the lam forever" and "turning himself in on his own time".


I don't think he can do the former.


I agree with AndrewD that there is no evidence he caused us any harm.

yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

remember how he [Obama]made Gitmo an issue in the first campaign?

Have you noticed what he has said about Gitmo lately?

He recently said this:

No person has ever escaped from one of our super-max or military prisons in the United States. Our courts have convicted hundreds of people for terrorism-related offenses, including some who are more dangerous than most GTMO detainees. Given my Administration’s relentless pursuit of al Qaeda’s leadership, there is no justification beyond politics for Congress to prevent us from closing a facility that should never have been opened.

Today, I once again call on Congress to lift the restrictions on detainee transfers from GTMO. I have asked the Department of Defense to designate a site in the United States where we can hold military commissions. I am appointing a new, senior envoy at the State Department and Defense Department whose sole responsibility will be to achieve the transfer of detainees to third countries. I am lifting the moratorium on detainee transfers to Yemen, so we can review them on a case by case basis. To the greatest extent possible, we will transfer detainees who have been cleared to go to other countries. Where appropriate, we will bring terrorists to justice in our courts and military justice system. And we will insist that judicial review be available for every detainee.

Isn't he still making Gitmo an issue?

And isn't he still right on that issue?

[Big RR]

Is he still making it an issue? Well closing and transferring the persons into federal prisons, yes. Assuring speedy and fair trials for those who have been detained for more than a decade? I don't think so, but you tell me your view. Many have not even yet been formally charged with anything, yet they sit in prison. His "issue" with Gitmo during the campaign included getting these people charged and tried, but he has not done much in that area. Yes, congress blacks him, but as I said before there is much he can do by executive order to move toward the concerns which were part of his campaign if he wanted to--he obviously does not.

As for being right on the issue, what he says is right--what he does (or what he refrains from doing) is not.

edited to add: BTW, I only raised Gitmo as an example of how the president chose to posit himself as a champion of civil rights during the campaigns, not to derail this thread; if others would like to discuss Gitmo, I would suggest moving it to another thread.

[Andrew D]

I don't understand why you want you dump so much blame on Obama while cutting Congress so much slack.

Obama has been trying for years to get Congress to let him transfer the Gitmo detainees to federal prisons in the U.S. Congress has steadfastly refused to let him do that.

What do you expect of him? He's the President, not the King.

He has also done what he can to get the already-cleared detainees transferred to other countries. And he has used his "bully pulpit" to drum up popular support and pressure Congress.

What do you want from him?

[Big RR]

I'm not defending congress; but then, they're doing pretty much what I expected (at least based on the republican campaign rhetoric). Obama is not; he's trying to be on both sides of the issue. As I have said, there is much he can do to get fair and open (not to mention speedy) trials through the military tribunals, much he can do to change the rules to allow press access to Gitmo and to allow the detainees (for want of a better word) access to counsel, and he can use the "bully pulpit" much more forcefully. Unfortunately, he's chosen not to do that.

I know it's not easy, but one of the president's jobs is to lead, as far as I can see, Obama shies away from that. It's a common thing presidents (especially recent (post-Carter) democratic ones) do, trying not to do anything that can get them criticized, and ending up doing nothing (and blaming congress for it).

[Lord Jim]

Obama was prevented from shutting down Gitmo because of overwhelming bi-paritisan opposition in the Congress, (who used the power of the purse to block him from using any funds for closing Gitmo or transferring its inmates) backed up by popular support that has been consistently 2-1 or more in opposition to closing Gitmo....

Congress, backed by popular support, serving as a check on the actions of The President....

That's how our democracy is supposed to work...

[Big RR]

Indeed it is, but it is also supposed to work both ways--the executive has a lot that he can do to put a check on congressional actions as well--if he decides to act.

[Sue U]

... popular support that has been consistently 2-1 or more in opposition to closing Gitmo....

Yeah, no. At the time of Obama's first inauguration, more than half of Americans supported closing Gitmo. Over the last four years there has been a war of attrition in public opinion, with a gradual slide toward keeping it open. But frankly it is an issue that does not get sustained (let alone serious) media attention, except when it is flogged as the question "tearing the liberal coalition apart."

Support growing to close Guantanamo prison: senator
Reuters
June 9, 2013

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican Senator John McCain said on Sunday there is increasing public support for closing the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and moving detainees to a facility on the U.S. mainland.

"There's renewed impetus. And I think that most Americans are more ready," McCain, who went to Guantanamo last week with White House chief of staff Denis McDonough and California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, told CNN's "State of the Union" program.

http://news.yahoo.com/support-growing-c ... 37217.html

Public Supports Closing Guantanamo
By Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta
January 22, 2009

In ordering a suspension of legal action against suspected terrorists at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, President Obama is taking a popular path, albeit one without particularly widespread or bipartisan support.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that 53 percent of Americans said the United States should shutter the controversial facility in Cuba and find another way to deal with the prisoners there. But 42 percent of those polled, including 69 percent of Republicans, said terrorism suspects should remain at the prison. Most Democrats (68 percent) and independents (55 percent) said they would prefer another way to handle the detainees.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009 ... tanamo-bay

Obama Tears Liberal Coalition Apart With New Promise To Close Guantanamo Bay
by Noah Rothman | 1:48 pm, May 1st, 2013

Time and again, President Barack Obama has demonstrated that his opponents underestimate his political acumen at their own peril. The president is nothing if not calculating. Which is why it is not entirely clear, when asked at a Tuesday press conference about an ongoing hunger strike among the inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison facility, why Obama took the opportunity to reiterate his nearly 6-year-old pledge to close the controversial facility. Gitmo, as it is referred to, is an issue that resonates almost exclusively on the left. While, according to opinion polling, the prison facility is broadly popular, its continued operation remains a spot of contention within the president’s liberal coalition. By not simply dismissing the issue of Guantanamo, the president has created a rift between his center-left supporters and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

While there has been no regular public opinion polling on Guantanamo bay in more than a year, the polling on the issue of the prison facility has consistently showed a trend towards acceptance of the facility over the course of Obama’s first term.

According to a Washington Post poll released on February 4, 2012, 70 percent of respondents either “strongly” or “somewhat” approved of the policy of keeping the prison facility open. Only 24 percent expressed disapproval. The Post revealed that 67 percent of self-described “moderate” or “conservative Democrats” approved of keeping the prison facility open, while 53 percent of self-identified “liberal Democrats” also supported keeping Guantanamo Bay operating.

This is the culmination of a trend towards acceptance of the Guantanamo Bay facility after it hit its nadir of popularity in 2008-2009. This unpopularity is partially attributable to the fact that opposing the facility’s continued operation was a litmus test for presidential candidates during the 2008 Democratic primary cycle.

A CNN/ORC poll released on March 29, 2010, showed that support for closing the Guantanamo Bay prison facility had dropped 12 points over the course of 14 months. A CNN/ORC poll taken just prior to Obama’s first inauguration showed that 51 percent of adults said that the prison should be closed. In 2010, that number had shrunk to 39 percent.

Democrats surveyed in the 2010 CNN/ORC poll still agreed that the prison should close but self-identified independents had flipped. Three quarters of surveyed independents in 2010 said that the facility should remain open whereas a majority had favored shuttering it in early 2009.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/obama-tears- ... anamo-bay/

[Crackpot]

The last thing he needs to do is give the republicans an excuse for not getting anything done. The best thing he can do at this point is exactly what he has been doing which is letting the tea party and by exemption the rest of the republicans shoot themselves in the foot in hopes that he can gain enough seats in the house to implement policy

[Big RR]

And then he will do what? After he can't blame the repubs for getting nothing done, do you really think he'll stick his neck out and do something (not spout off rhetoric, actually do something)? I don't.

[Crackpot]

Depends if he learned his lesson from the last time he had majority

[Long Run]

It's reasonable to ask if he actually wants to close Gitmo. Knowing that Congress will not permit closing it, he can wring his hands about how he'd like to close it but Congress won't let him. This is a sop to the people in his base of support who care about this issue. But he doesn't have to worry about the actual fallout that would ensue if the prison were closed. He obviously hasn't spent any political capital to try to get his way (like he did in his futile attempt at the symbolic gun control initiative), so I doubt this is anymore than a political talking point.

In contrast, the Administration is right in trying to bring this hack to justice. We can't have every mid-level contract employee and above thinking they have the right to decide what secret information shouldn't be kept secret.

[Sue U]

This is a sop to the people in his base of support who care about this issue.

Except the people in his base of support who care about this issue are not really mollified by a talking point (see, e.g., Big RR and me).

The two things I fault Obama for the most are his failure to close the Guantanamo prison and his abdication of leadership on healthcare reform, both of which he had the political capital to achieve right off the bat. His calculus of political caution resulted in degrading that capital and bungling both issues.

[Crackpot]

I wouldn't call it political caution at least not on the part of heatlthcare. I that he seemingly thought that Congress could do it wothout him keeping them in line.

[Big RR]

That's one interpretation; the other is that he wanted someone else to blame when the program's problems became apparent. Given most of his actions as president, I think the latter is the true reason.

[Crackpot]

Dr you' e been against Obama ever since you realized he wasn't lying about being for the war in Afganistan

[Big RR]

No, although I will say that's a position I disagreed with him on from the start. I have a lot bigger arguments with his actions while president than that. Indeed, he's lived down to my expectations of him.

As for being "against" him, I'm not; I judge him by his actions. He's tried to work with congress on immigration reform, and it looks like a reasonably good bill might come through, so I'll give him credit there. There are other accomplishments as well. But in most cases, he shies away from controversy, especially with his actions.

[Gob]

Justice Secretary Rimsky Yuen said Hong Kong officials weren't sure who to look for because the US government got Snowden's middle name wrong in documents filed to back its arrest request.

He said Hong Kong immigration records listed Mr Snowden's middle name as Joseph, but the US government used the name James in some documents and referred to him only as Edward J. Snowden in others.

"These three names are not exactly the same. Therefore, we believed that there was a need to clarify," Mr Yuen said on Tuesday.

Mr Yuen said US authorities also failed to provide Mr Snowden's passport number. He said officials received the arrest request on June 15 and sent a request June 21 for clarification. Two days later, Mr Snowden flew to Moscow.

"Up until the moment of Snowden's departure, the very minute, the US Department of Justice did not reply to our request for further information. Therefore, in our legal system, there is no legal basis for the requested provisional arrest warrant," Mr Yuen said. In the absence of such a warrant, the "Hong Kong government has no legal basis for restricting or prohibiting Snowden leaving Hong Kong.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/whats-in-a- ... z2XTciqTpj

[Lord Jim]

My, my, I must say I am truly impressed by the number of national security experts we have on this board...

All of these folks who are so cocksure that the information released by The Traitor Snowden did no harm to US security must have access to some information that the President, every single department and agency head that is concerned with national security, and the chairmen and ranking members intelligence members of the Senate and House intelligence committees (both Republicans and Democrats) don't....

Because to a man or woman, every single one of those officials has publicly stated that the classified information that Snowden has now revealed to our enemies has done great harm to US security....

In other words, anyone who actually knows something about this, believes the information released has been extremely damaging....

Nothing personal, but you'll forgive me if I decide to go with the the view of the folks who are actually in a position to know the facts...

Now, I am quite sure that what I've said here will undoubtedly bring a comment from some quarter along the lines of, "Yeah, well the folks you describe are the same types who were all telling us that Saddam Hussein had WMD a few years ago", so I might as well go ahead and deal with that preemptively....

There's no valid comparison between these two things; they are completely different. There is a world of difference between reaching conclusions based on fragmentary intelligence about the capabilities of a hostile nation where we had few intelligence assets, and the ability to evaluate the importance of one of our own programs, about which the players know all the relevant facts. Apple and oranges.

On top of that, thanks to his travel itinerary, The Traitor Snowden has now delivered additional information about US intelligence sources and methods into the hand of both the Russians and the Chinese. (If you believe that either of those two would allow him to leave their soil without having copied every single thing he has in his possession related to US intelligence gathering, I have some ocean front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.)

Everything he has in his possession must now be considered compromised. He probably has less than he has claimed (this bottom feeder is obviously a congenital liar with delusions of grandeur) but no doubt whatever he has represents additional enormous damage to US Security.

Now, as for the program itself...

From everything I have seen and read, there is no operation conducted by the US government subjected to more extensive and detailed scrutiny and oversight than this one is. The program is administered jointly with participation and review of all three branches of government, with numerous checks and safeguards in place to avoid violating any US citizen's rights. That this process is conducted outside of public view, (ie outside of the view of our enemies) seems to me a self-evident necessity.

Apparently the program has also produced intel that has foiled at least fifty terrorist plots. So what we have is a well administered program, with full oversight, doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing and producing significant and valuable results.

We should stand up and applaud. Would that the rest of what the government does could be run so well...

Somebody around here was complaining that there was no one to argue the other side at the FISA Court hearings....

Yeah, and, so what? When the cops or a DA go to a judge to argue probable cause to obtain a warrant for a search or a wiretap, nobody's there arguing the other side either. Perhaps the folks who think some sort of "opposing counsel" ought to be present at FISA hearings also believe that mob bosses should be notified whenever the government seeks a warrant to tap their phones so they can send a lawyer to argue against it....

Someone else around here also asked if I believe that there is any time it would be acceptable for someone to release classified information...

Sure, (and the law provides for this) when it doesn't endanger national security. Many times things have been classified to cover-up criminality, or incompetence, or things that are just politically embarrassing...

For example, I would not have supported prosecuting whoever it was that revealed that the Pentagon was paying $400 for hammers and $600 for toilet seats some years back...The person who did that performed a public service with no national security implications....

But what The Traitor Snowden did here certainly does not fall into any acceptable category.

If there is any good news to this at all it is the fact that his continued stay in Moscow must mean that our government is really working hard to get him back here to answer for his crimes against his country, and that there's a decent chance that he will finally be sitting in the prison cell he so richly deserves. ..

In addition to punishing him for the serious espionage he has committed against the security of our nation, it is also very important that when we catch someone who does something like this that we make an example out of them, and punish them with maximum severity. This is essential because with so many folks having access to classified intelligence, it's important to have a serious deterrent in place to make future traitors of this ilk less likely...

We need to get the message across to any other self absorbed malignant narcissists who think this would be a good path to follow, that if they go down this road they will stand a good chance of getting The Needle...

However, I am not completely lacking in compassion... I would allow TTS to save his miserable life and avoid the death penalty he could receive under the espionage laws, if he cooperates fully and provides us with the full story about everything he stole and how was able to do it so we can improve our security protocols and help prevent more instances like this in the future.

If he did this, he would be helping to save American lives, which would at least in part help him atone for the lives he has put in danger.