And they have the nerve to call whistleblower Edward Snowden a traitor? And people like Woolsey, who openly admit the Constitution must be ignored for security purposes, are patriots?
by Larry Simons
June 12, 2013
On Tuesday night's telecast of Piers Morgan Live, Morgan spoke to Robert James Woolsey, Jr. [former CIA director under Clinton] about the massive NSA surveillance program that was recently whistleblown by American hero Edward Snowden.
Morgan asked Woolsey what his reaction was to Snowden leaking the information. Woolsey explained that Snowden had "no right" to take it upon himself and leak this information, as Woolsey put it, Snowden "arrogated that entire decision to himself, he decided it was him who got to strike that balance, not the elected representatives that we vote for, not the President, not the courts.."
That made me laugh. There would be no such thing as a "whistleblower" if you're going to depend on or expect the very people involved in that which you are whistleblowing to disclose this kind of information themselves. Woolsey was basically saying, "Snowden should not have revealed this damning information, he should have waited until the very people behind violating our Fourth Amendment disclosed this information".
Well, generally anyone who commits a covert act or violates the Constitution and wants to do this in secret probably will not volunteer to reveal that secret information on their own. This is the very reason there are whistleblowers, to reveal information that under any other circumstance would not have been revealed.
watch the clip
The next part in the interview made me laugh out loud. Morgan [who, surprisingly, did a good job with the questions he chose] asked Woolsey what he thought the consequences of Snowden's decision to leak information would be. Woolsey said this:
"Well, the problem is, that once you start explaining to al Qaeda and Hezbollah how you are operating, they can avoid what you're doing. And you can't explain to the American people without explaining to Hezbollah and al Qaeda. Once you're sitting there blabbing about how these decisions are made, you have decided you're going to tell our enemies, those who want to kill us, those who want to fly airplanes into buildings and all the rest, how this all works. And you have decided that yourself, if you're Snowden. So he could well be responsible in the future for many, many deaths...but Snowden has made it easier for them to kill Americans and others".
So, let me get this straight, Woolsey. An employee who worked for a defense contractor as a system administrator at the Hawaii NSA office reveals to the American public that the United States is manufacturing a massive surveillance grid to spy on American citizens [not terrorists] and if there are terror attacks in the future, they will be because a whistleblower informed the American people that their civil liberties are being violated in the most egregious fashion in which this country has never seen? Really?
True, Snowden no doubt violated his employers' code of ethics and must be punished for that, but Woolsey wants Snowden to spend the rest of his life in prison? On what grounds? Whistleblowing that every single person in our government who is either involved in this program or has knowledge of it is violating the Fourth Amendment to our supreme law of the land? Who goes to jail for that?
The most unbelievable part of the interview was when Woolsey goes on to answer a question Morgan asked about Americans being disturbed by the quantity of data that is being amassed by the government and how uncomfortable Morgan feels about everyone knowing about his online activity. Morgan asks, "Why should they [know]?"
Woolsey unbelievably said this:
"Well, they don't know everything about your online activity. It's illegal for them to take some steps with respect to it, such as to get into the substance of the intercept. What this is as far as Americans are concerned, it's what's called meta-data, who's calling who and so-forth.
If you and I talk on the phone to one another every day and then one day I call [unintelligible] al Qaeda in Pakistan, yes, somebody is going to say 'you know, I wonder what has been going on between Woolsey and Piers, let's have a look at that', but routinely and systematically there's no looking into the substance of your calls and mine. It doesn't work that way."
Wait a minute! Didn't Woolsey, just 2 minutes prior to making this comment, say this?:
"Well, the problem is, that once you start explaining to al Qaeda and Hezbollah how you are operating, they can avoid what you're doing. And you can't explain to the American people without explaining to Hezbollah and al Qaeda. Once you're sitting there blabbing about how these decisions are made, you have decided you're going to tell our enemies, those who want to kill us, those who want to fly airplanes into buildings and all the rest, how this all works."
Didn't Woolsey just tell us how it all works? Yes, he did! Why isn't he being arrested and taken into custody? After demonizing Snowden for "blabbing to our enemies" about "how this all works", he tells Morgan how it all works! [At least in the sense that telling him how the program doesn't work is essentially telling our enemies how it all does work]
Why is no one calling Woolsey a traitor? Where are the calls for his arrest? Why is no one saying he committed treason?
Morgan then brings on Ron Paul to counter the argument by rightfully stating that Snowden has done a great service to his country and how media and government love to demonize those who reveal corruption in our government by claiming they have committed treason.
Paul then made an interesting point that Obama should thank Snowden for forcing him to be more transparent, stating “Matter of fact, I think the president ought to send him a thank you letter, because the president ran on transparency and we’re getting a lot of transparency now. So finally we’re getting the president to fulfill his promise about transparency, so that’s pretty exciting for me.”
Morgan then had the Fourth Amendment posted on the screen and read it to Woolsey, after which Morgan asked this question to Woolsey:
"I just don’t see how you can say what is going on here in complete secrecy from 99 percent of the people it is being done to lives up to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It is palpably a breach isn’t it?"
Brilliant question, in which Woolsey replied:
"Well, it depends on whether or not you want to preserve the country’s ability to operate in a world of terrorism in which a lot of terrorists are very technically sophisticated. If you want to defend the country you’re going to have to defend it."
Morgan then said, "Right, I understand that…but that wasn’t the question", which Woolsey insisted, "It is the question. It is the question. That balance between security and liberty is the question".
No, it was NOT the question Woolsey, you big fat un-American lying bastard. Morgan asked you how the NSA program lives up to the Fourth Amendment, and you could not answer his question. In fact, your answer was basically an admittance that the Constitution has to be ignored in order for the NSA program to operate. Woolsey is also flat out saying that there is no way terrorism can be dealt with unless the Constitution is trashed. And that, of course, is complete bullshit.
Morgan then asks, "Where is the probable cause for the 99.9% of the information being effectively seized here?"
"Given the fact that this system was put together by the people's elected representatives, it's been upheld by the courts, that it's monitored by the FISA court, that it's monitored by the Attorney General and officials in the executive branch.. and that it is systematically supported by the people, like the chairman of the senate intelligence committee, Senator Feinstein, I think you would have to say that the government on this subject has done a reasonable job of balancing these two very important interests. If you try to look at liberty without considering security at all, you're putting on blinders".
Total bullshit Woolsey. Complete, 100%, certified, bona fide bullshit. First of all, no one gives a shit how long your list is of politicians, judges or agencies is, because if the program is not being done legally and Constitutionally [which it's not], it wouldn't matter if Jesus Christ himself approves it.
The bottom line is, Morgan asked you a specific question, "Where is the probable cause for the 99.9% of the information being effectively seized here?", and you refused to fucking answer it, because you know goddamn well you have no probable cause. You're violating the Constitution and you do not give a fuck, because you are an anti-American scumbag.
Morgan then went back to Congressman Paul, where Paul stated, "What he’s doing is repealing the Magna Carta. You can’t just do these kind of things. And this one is not only repealing the principles of liberty, but it’s destroying the Constitution."
Paul then made an excellent point about the difference between how people like Edward Snowden are treated compared to the people in Washington who attack our liberties on a daily basis.
"So my question should be to all of you who defend this nonsense is, ‘What should the penalty be for the people who destroy the constitution?’ They’re always worried about how they’re going to destroy the American citizens who tell the truth to let us know what’s going on, but we ask the question, ‘What is the penalty for the people who deliberately destroy the Constitution and rationalize and say, “Well, we have to do it for security”?’
Great question, and I am quite sure it would have been another question Woolsey dodged.
Woolsey is an un-American piece of garbage. This is the same fuck nut who, in February of 2012, said that Iran would attack the Statue of Liberty. According to PrisonPlanet writer Kurt Nimmo, Woolsey is a high-ranking neocon who is connected to the Council of Foreign Relations and neocon think tanks.
Nimmo wrote last year, "Woolsey is a high ranking neocon and one of the original signers of the January 26, 1998, Project for the New American Century letter sent to then president Clinton. He is a Rhodes scholar and Council on Foreign Relations insider connected to the Scowcroft Commission, the Rumsfeld Commission, and is affiliated with a number of neocon organizations and think tanks, including the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Americans for Victory Over Terrorism.
He is the former chairman on Freedom House, a CIA front, which makes sense considering Woolsey’s pedigree. He is also the chairman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, another neocon operation funded by the Bronfmans and home to a number of war on Islam advocates including Newt Gingrich, Joe Lieberman, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, Frank Gafney and others. It is considered a refuge for the PNAC crowd."
One has to ask themselves, who are the real terrorists? Those who want to kill us or those who want our rights and freedoms stripped from us? Keep in mind one thing: A terrorist can inflict a great deal of death and destruction. But, one thing he cannot do is take our freedom away. Only government can do that.