The U.K. Guardian asked readers to consider who should receive the Nobel Peace Prize this year. The winner, with 40% of the vote is Bradley Manning, edging out #2 vote-getting Julian Assange.
Today, I received the following communication from Electronic Frontier Foundation:
More than five years ago, EFF filed the first lawsuit aimed at stopping the government's illegal mass surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans' private communications. Whistleblower evidence combined with news reports and Congressional admissions revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) was tapped into AT&T’s domestic network and databases, sweeping up Americans’ emails, phone calls and communications records in bulk and without court approval. On August 31, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear a warrantless wiretapping double-feature to decide whether EFF's two cases can proceed. At stake will be whether the courts can consider the legality and constitutionality of the National Security Agency’s mass interception of Americans’ Internet traffic, phone calls, and communications records.Here's the full report, and it is stunning. Consider even the following paragraph, and remember that this supposed to be your country, a country supposedly run by the People:
Hepting v. AT&T, our case challenging the telecom giant’s illegal collaboration with the NSA, faced a barrage of attacks from the government -- including outrageous claims that national security prevented the courts from considering whether AT&T and the government were breaking the law and violating the Constitution. When that gambit seemed to be failing, the White House and the telecoms led a lobbying campaign to convince Congress to pass a law threatening to terminate our suit. When that law passed we filed a follow-up suit directly against the government, Jewel v. NSA, to open a second front in our fight to stop the spying.For another easily accessible description of these problems, visit EFF's FAQ.
I just finished reading Bruce Levine's article at Alternet: "8 Reasons Young Americans Don't Fight Back: How the US Crushed Youth Resistance." It is a rare day when I read a detailed article with which I so completely agree. Here are eight reasons why the great majority of young Americans passively accept massive social injustice, incessant warmongering, and a stunning amount of lying and betrayal by most of their so-called leaders: 1. Student-Loan Debt. 2. Psychopathologizing and Medicating Noncompliance. 3. Schools That Educate for Compliance and Not for Democracy. 4. “No Child Left Behind” and “Race to the Top.” 5. Shaming Young People Who Take Education—But Not Their Schooling—Seriously 6. The Normalization of Surveillance. 7. Television. 8. Fundamentalist Religion and Fundamentalist Consumerism. I highly recommend Levine's article for more details on each of these reasons. I especially agree with his arguments that by fighting back, young Americans perceive that they are putting at risk their chances of engaging in the material good life that they crave. Fighting back, and even speaking out in person, can destroy one's chances of getting a "good" job. [More . . . ]
Have you ever heard of the "Internet Pornographers Act of 2011"? Until today, I hadn't either. Here's what this proposed law provides, according to Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic:
[U]nder language approved 19 to 10 by a House committee, the firm that sells you Internet access would be required to track all of your Internet activity and save it for 18 months, along with your name, the address where you live, your bank account numbers, your credit card numbers, and IP addresses you've been assigned . . . As written, The Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 doesn't require that someone be under investigation on child pornography charges in order for police to access their Internet history -- being suspected of any crime is enough.No probable cause is even required. It's Big Brothers' dream come true. Now we'll watch to see whether any Congressional representative who has the willingness to oppose this bill because it violates civil liberties will be accused of approving of child pornography. That is the kind of argument that one might expect in the modern-day Congress.
Consider this description of the N.S.A., from Jane Meyer's New Yorker article called "The Secret Sharer," regarding Thomas Drake (since publication, Drake has resolved his case and is not headed for prison). The N.S.A. is
an agency that James Bamford, the author of “The Shadow Factory” (2008), calls “the largest, most costly, and most technologically sophisticated spy organization the world has ever known.” . . . Even in an age in which computerized feats are commonplace, the N.S.A.’s capabilities are breathtaking. The agency reportedly has the capacity to intercept and download, every six hours, electronic communications equivalent to the contents of the Library of Congress. Three times the size of the C.I.A., and with a third of the U.S.’s entire intelligence budget, the N.S.A. has a five-thousand-acre campus at Fort Meade protected by iris scanners and facial-recognition devices. The electric bill there is said to surpass seventy million dollars a year.