It is obviously outrageous that the three branches of U.S. federal
government have failed to protect its citizens, and foreign citizens,
as well as their countries, from what, in principal, is illegal
seizure of sensitive and private information.
It
is again obviously outrageous that without publicly announcing any intention to investigate other obvious government officials or
government contractors for alleged security violations, the U.S.
Justice Department is reportedly pursuing just one. That is Edward J.
Snowden, a former federal contract employee, being charged and
pursued for allegedly stealing government property, and for
disclosing classified information.
Snowden
is still said by the press to be waiting for days inside a transit
area of a Moscow's Sheremetevo Airport with the blessing of President
Vladimir Putin, while Snowden now reportedly awaits for asylum there
instead of in hesitant Ecuador.
So
Snowden, a three-month employee of the federal consulting firm Booz
Allen Hamilton, was fired in June from his $122,000 a year job for
his conduct. He is now reported by The New York Times to have been an
infrastructure analyst who "looks for new ways to break into
Internet and telephone traffic around the world." So get this now!
If The Times' report is correct, The U.S. Government was
facilitating burglaries of even its country-allies' confidential data
worldwide.
And
we, the public, are being told by the highest of government officials
to "trust us": even though they admit it is true that while millions of
phones and Internet computers in the United States were being
monitored, only the few terrorist suspects had their private
communications intercepted. Yet the government still collected the
identifications, phone numbers and times of calls of all of their
citizens supposedly without a single monitoring of those billions of
conversations. Foreigners' calls, what about them? Those calls, say
government officials, were more closely monitored because of
potential terrorism threats. Oh, so again, all the millions of
innocent foreigners' calls were not monitored, even once?
We,
the public, are expected to believe all that?
For
the sake of confidence in these questionable defenses from our
government, we the people need a detailed investigation of this
extremely questionable security system supposedly aimed at protecting
our country from terrorists. And, we don't need that probe from the
U.S. Congress, the U.S. Federal court or the office of President
Obama. Why? All three of those branches of government were involved
in one way or another in the National Security Agency's highly
questionable and probably illegal operations. They all approved the
operations and since Snowden's expose of them, none of those branches
has pronounced serious remedies.
Hopefully,
the U.S. General Accountability Office will continue its honest
critiques, but the next time with guaranteed action by all three
governmental branches to correct the severe problems. Here is what it
said in September 2011: " Until
the Department of Homeland Security ensures that its components and
programs are in compliance..., there will be limited assurance that
its data-mining systems have been adequately reviewed, are delivering
required capabilities, are appropriately protecting individual
privacy, and maintain appropriate transparency to the public." It
is this homeland security department that is supposed to lawfully respond to the
threats of terrorism. However, its officials apparently did little to
actually comply with the GAO's report conclusions all the way back in
2011.
It
would seem that the improbable should happen! The United Nations must
somehow announce sternly that all nations, especially the United
States, need to comply with its written civil rights principals: "
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with
his privacy, family, home or correspondence..." But obviously, the
UN's International Law needs enforcement. Where's the announcement?!
" International
human rights law lays down obligations which States are bound to
respect. By becoming parties to international treaties, States assume
obligations and duties under international law to respect, to protect
and to fulfill human rights. The obligation to respect means
that States must refrain from interfering with or curtailing the
enjoyment of human rights. The obligation to protect requires States
to protect individuals and groups against human rights abuses. The
obligation to fulfill means that States must take positive action to
facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights."
The
UN's International Court of Justice needs to step forward and take up
the matter of illegal security intercepts worldwide.
