Undercover Agents Infiltrated Tar Sands Resistance Camp to Break up Planned Protest

 Earth Island Journal

Latest News

 

Undercover Agents Infiltrated Tar Sands Resistance Camp to Break up Planned Protest

by Adam Federman – August 12, 2013

TransCanada and Department of Homeland Security keep close eye on activists, FOIA documents reveal

After a week of careful planning, environmentalists attending a tar sands resistance action camp in Oklahoma thought they had the element of surprise — but they would soon learn that their moves were being closely watched by law enforcement officials and TransCanada, the very company they

were targeting.

 

 

 

Photos by Laura Borealis/Tar Sand Blockade

 

 

According to documents obtained by Earth Island Journal, investigators from the Bryan County

Sherriff's Department had been spying on a Great Plains Tar Sands Resistance training camp
that took place from March 18 to March 22 and which brought together local landowners,
Indigenous communities, and environmental groups opposed to the pipeline.

On the morning of March 22 activists had planned to block the gates at the company’s strategic oil reserves in Cushing, Oklahoma as part of the larger protest movement against TransCanada’s tar sands pipeline. But when they showed up in the early morning hours and began unloading equipment from their vehicles they were confronted by police officers. Stefan Warner, an organizer with Great Plains Tar Sands Resistance, says some of the vehicles en route to the protest site were pulled over even before they had reached Cushing. He estimates that roughly 50 people would have participated— either risking arrest or providing support. The act of nonviolent civil disobedience, weeks in the planning, was called off.

“For a small sleepy Oklahoma town to be saturated with police officers on a pre-dawn weekday leaves only one reasonable conclusion,” says Ron Seifert, an organizer with an affiliated group called Tar Sands Blockade. “They were there on purpose, expecting something to happen.”

Seifert is exactly right. According to documents obtained by Earth Island Journal, investigators from the Bryan County Sherriff’s Department had been spying on a Great Plains Tar Sands Resistance training camp that took place from March 18 to March 22 and which brought together local landowners, Indigenous communities, and environmental groups opposed to the pipeline.

An excerpt from an official report on the "Undercover Investigation into the GPTSR Training Camp" indicates that at least two law
enforcement officers from the Bryan County Sherriff’s Department infiltrated the training camp and drafted a detailed report about
the upcoming protest, internal strategy, and the character of the protesters themselves.

 

At least two law enforcement officers infiltrated the training camp and drafted a detailed report about the upcoming protest, internal strategy, and the character of the protesters themselves. The undercover investigator who wrote the report put the tar sands opponents into five different groups: eco-activists (who “truly wanted to live off the grid”); Occupy members; Native American activists (“who blamed all forms of government for the poor state of being that most American Indians are living in”); Anarchists (“many wore upside down American flags”); and locals from Oklahoma (who “had concerns about the pipeline harming the community”).

The undercover agent’s report was obtained by Douglas Parr, an Oklahoma attorney who represented three activists (all lifelong Oklahomans) who were arrested in mid April for blockading a tar sands pipeline construction site. “During the discovery in the Bryan county cases we received material indicating that there had been infiltration of the Great Plains Tar Sands Resistance camp by police agents,” Parr says. At least one of the undercover investigators attended an “action planning” meeting during which everyone was asked to put their cell phones or other electronic devices into a green bucket for security reasons. The investigator goes on to explain that he was able to obtain sensitive information regarding the location of the upcoming Cushing protest, which would mark the culmination of the week of training. “This investigator was able to obtain an approximate location based off a question that he asked to the person in charge of media,” he wrote. He then wryly notes that, “It did not appear…that our phones had been tampered with.”

(The memo also states that organizers at the meeting went to great lengths not to give police any cause to disrupt the gathering. The investigator writes: “We were repeatedly told this was a substance free camp. No drug or alcohol use would be permitted on the premises and always ask permission before touching anyone. Investigators were told that we did not need to give the police any reason to enter the camp.” They were also given a pamphlet that instructed any agent of TransCanada, the FBI, or other law enforcement agency to immediately notify the event organizers.)

The infiltration of the Great Plains Tar Sands Resistance action camp and pre-emption of the Cushing protest is part of a larger pattern of government surveillance of tar sands protesters. According to other documents obtained by Earth Island Journal under an Open Records Act request, Department of Homeland Security staff has been keeping close tabs on pipeline opponents — and routinely sharing that information with TransCanada, and vice versa.

In March TransCanada gave a briefing on corporate security to a Criminal Intelligence Analyst with the Oklahoma Information Fusion Center, the state level branch of Homeland Security. The conversation took place just as the action camp was getting underway. The following day, Diane Hogue, the Center’s Intelligence Analyst, asked TransCanada to review and comment on the agency’s classified situational awareness bulletin. Michael Nagina, Corporate Security Advisor for TransCanada, made two small suggestions and wrote, “With the above changes I am comfortable with the content.”

Then, in an email to TransCanada on March 19 (the second day of the action camp) Hogue seems to refer to the undercover investigation taking place. “Our folks in the area say there are between 120-150 participants,” Hogue wrote in an email to Nagina. (The Oklahoma Information Fusion Center declined to comment for this story.)

It is unclear if the information gathered at the training camp was shared directly with TransCanada. However, the company was given access to the Fusion Center’s situational awareness bulletin just a few days before the Cushing action was scheduled to take place.

In an emailed statement, TransCanada spokesperson Shawn Howard did not directly address the Tar Sands Resistance training camp. Howard described law enforcement as being interested in what the company has done to prepare for activities designed to “slow approval or construction” of the pipeline project. “When we are asked to share what we have learned or are prepared for, we are there to share our experience – not direct law enforcement,” he wrote.

 

At least one of the investigators seemed to have gained the trust of the direct action activists.

The evidence of heightened cooperation between TransCanada and law enforcement agencies in Oklahoma and Texas comes just over a month after it was revealed that the company had given a PowerPoint presentation on corporate security to the FBI and law enforcement officials in Nebraska. TransCanada also held an “interactive session” with law enforcement in Oklahoma City about the company’s security strategy in early 2012. In their PowerPoint presentation, TransCanada employees suggested that district attorneys should explore “state or federal anti-terrorism laws” in prosecuting activists. They also included profiles of key organizers and a list of activists previously arrested for acts of nonviolent civil disobedience in Texas and Oklahoma. In addition to TransCanada’s presentation, a representative of Nebraska’s Homeland Security Fusion Center briefed attendees on an “intelligence sharing role/plan relevant to the pipeline project.” This is likely related to the Homeland Security Information Sharing Network, which provides public and private sector partners as well as law enforcement access to sensitive information.

The earlier cache of documents, first released to the press by Bold Nebraska, an environmental organization opposed to the pipeline, shows that TransCanada has established close ties with state and federal law enforcement agencies along the proposed pipeline route. For example, in an exchange with FBI agents in South Dakota, TransCanada’s Corporate Security Advisor, Michael Nagina, jokes that, “I can be the cure for insomnia so sure hope you can still attend!” Although they were unable to make the Nebraska meeting, one of the agents responded, “Assuming approval of the pipeline, we would like to get together to discuss a timeline for installation through our territory.”

The new documents also provide an interesting glimpse into the revolving door between state law enforcement agencies and the private sector, especially in areas where fracking and pipeline construction have become big business. One of the individuals providing information to the Texas Department of Homeland Security’s Intelligence and Counterterrorism Division is currently the Security Manager at Anadarko Petroleum, one of the world’s largest independent oil and natural gas exploration and production companies. In 2011, at a natural gas industry stakeholder relations conference, a spokesperson for Anadarko compared the anti-drilling movement to an “insurgency” and suggested that attendees download the US Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Manual.

 

The infiltration of the Great Plains Tar Sands Resistance action camp and pre-emption of the
Cushing protest is part of a larger pattern of government surveillance of tar sands protesters.

 

LC Wilson, the Anadarko Security Manager shown by the documents to be providing information to the Texas Fusion Center, is more than just a friend of law enforcement. From 2009 to 2011 he served as Regional Commander of the Texas Department of Public Safety, which oversees law enforcement statewide. Wilson began his career with the Department of Public Safety in 1979 and was named a Texas Ranger — an elite law enforcement unit — in 1988, eventually working his way up to Assistant Chief. Such connections would be of great value to a corporation like Anadarko, which has invested heavily in security operations.

In an email to Litto Paul Bacas, a Critical Infrastructure Planner (and former intelligence analyst) with Texas Homeland Security, Wilson, using his Anadarko address, writes, “we find no intel specific for Texas. There is active recruitment for directed action to take place in Oklahoma as per article. I will forward any intel we come across on our end, especially if it concerns Texas.” The article he was referring to was written by a member of Occupy Denver calling on all “occupiers and occupy networks” to attend the Great Plains Tar Sands Resistance training camp.

Wilson is not the only former law enforcement official on Anadarko’s security team; Jeffrey Sweetin, the company’s Regional Security Manager, was a special agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration for more than 20 years heading up its Rocky Mountain division. At Anadarko, according to Sweetin’s profile on Linkedin, his responsibilities include “security program development” and “law enforcement liaison.”

Other large oil and gas companies have recruited local law enforcement to fill high-level security positions. In 2010, long-time Bradford County Sheriff Steve Evans resigned to take a position as senior security officer for Chesapeake Energy in Pennsylvania. Evans was one of a handful of gas industry security directors to receive intelligence bulletins compiled by a private security firm and distributed by the Pennsylvania Department of Homeland Security. Bradford County happens to be ground zero for natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale, with more active wells than any other county in the state. In addition to Evans, several deputies of the Bradford County Sheriff’s office have worked for Chesapeake — through a private contractor, TriCorps Security — as “off-duty” security personnel. TransCanada has also come to rely on off duty police officers to patrol construction sites and protest camps, raising questions about whose interests the sworn officers are serving.

Of course for corporations like TransCanada and Anadarko having law enforcement on their side (or in their pocket) is more than just a good business move. It gives them access to classified information and valuable intelligence — essential weapons in any counterinsurgency campaign.

Adam Federman, Contributing Writer, Earth Island Journal

Adam Federman is a frequent contributor to Earth Island Journal. You can find more of his work at adamfederman.com</

The Moral Imperative of Activism

Published on Monday, August 12, 2013 by Common Dreams

The Moral Imperative of Activism

by Ray McGovern

 

That America is in deep moral and legal trouble was pretty much obvious to everyone before Edward Snowden released official documents showing the extent to which the U.S. government has been playing fast and loose with the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

 

The 1965 Selma-to-Montgomery march was a key point in the civil rights movement. (File: Wikimedia)

 

Snowden’s revelations – as explosive as they are – were, in one sense, merely the latest challenge to those of us who took a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. That has been a commitment tested repeatedly in recent years, especially since the 9/11 attacks.

 

After all the many troubling disclosures — from torture to ”extraordinary renditions” to aggressive war under false pretenses to warrantless wiretaps to lethal drone strikes to whistleblowers prosecutions to the expanded “surveillance state” – it might be time to take a moment for what the Germans call “eine Denkpause,” a “thinking break.” And it is high time to heed and honor the Noah Principle: “No more awards for predicting rain; awards only for building arks.”

 

This is our summer of discontent. The question we need to ask ourselves is whether that discontent will move us to action. Never in my lifetime have there been such serious challenges to whether the Republic established by the Founders will survive. Immediately after the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin told a questioner that the new structure created “a Republic, if you can keep it.” He was right, of course; it is up to us.

 

So let’s face it. The Obama White House and its co-conspirators in Congress and the Judiciary have thrown the gauntlet down at our feet. It turned out that we are the ones we’ve been waiting for. As Annie Dillard, one of my favorite theologians, has put it, “There is only us; there never has been any other.” And as one of my favorite activists/prophets continued to insist, “Do not say there are not enough of us. There ARE enough of us!”

 

It seems we are guided far more by profits than by prophets. And without prophetic vision, the people perish.

 

Besides threats to basic constitutional rights and gross violations of international law, there are other pressing issues for Americans, especially the obscene, growing chasm between the very rich and the jobless (and often homeless) poor. There is widespread reluctance, even so, to ask the key questions?

Is it right to fire teachers, police and firefighters; to close libraries; leave students in permanent debt; gut safety-net programs – all by feigning lack of money? Yet, simultaneously, is it moral to squander on the Pentagon and military contractors half of the country’s discretionary income from taxes – an outlay equivalent to what the whole rest of the world put together spends for defense?

 

It seems we are guided far more by profits than by prophets. And without prophetic vision, the people perish.

 

Profit Margin

 

America’s lucrative war-making industry operates within a fiendishly self-perpetuating business model: U.S. military interventions around the world (including security arrangements to prop up unpopular allies and thus to thwart the will of large segments of national populations) guarantee an inexhaustible supply of “militants, insurgents, terrorists or simply ‘bad guys’” – a list that sometimes comes to include American citizens.

 

These troublemakers must be hunted down and vaporized by our remote killing machines, which inflict enough destruction and stir up enough outrage to generate even more “militants, insurgents, terrorists or simply ‘bad guys.’”

 

And, in turn, the blowback toward the United States — the occasional terrorist attack — creates enough fear at home to “justify” the introduction of draconian Third Reich-style “Enabling Act” legislation not very different from the unconstitutional laws ushering in the abuses in Germany 80 years ago.

 

With only muted murmur from “progressive” supporters, the Obama administration has continued much of the post-9/11 assault on constitutional rights begun by George W. Bush – and in regard to Barack Obama’s aggressive prosecutorial campaign against “leakers,” Obama has taken these transgressions even further.

 

Are we to look on, like the proverbial “obedient Germans,” as Establishment Washington validates the truth of James Madison’s warning: “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”

 

Yet, while countless billions of dollars are spent on “security” against “terrorism,” little attention is devoted to the truly existential threat from global warming. Can we adults in good conscience continue to shun the dire implications of climate change?

 

This question was again brought home to me personally on Aug. 6, as our ninth grandchild pushed her way out into a world with challenges undreamed of just decades ago. When she is my age, will she rue joining us last Tuesday? I can only hope she will forgive me and my generation for not having the guts to face down those whose unconscionable greed continues to rape what seemed to be a rather pure and pleasant planet when I made my appearance seven short decades ago.

 

Prophets on the Margin

And, then there is the worship of “free market” idolatry which has savaged America’s Great Middle Class and expanded the ranks of the desperate poor. The late Rabbi Abraham Heschel had challenging words for us: Decrying the agony of the “plundered poor,” Heschel insisted that wherever injustice takes place, “few are guilty, but all are responsible.” He added that, “Indifference to evil is more insidious than evil itself.”

 

“Success or efficiency are placed where they belong: in the background. They are not irrelevant, but they are far from central." –Daniel Berrigan

 

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., warned: “A time comes when silence is betrayal … We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak…. There is such a thing as being too late…. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with lost opportunity…. Over the bleached bones of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: ‘Too late.’”

 

Amid these daunting challenges – endless war, encroachment on liberties, environmental devastation and economic disparity – there is also the question: Are our churches riding shotgun for the System.

As truly historic events unfold in our country and abroad, I often think of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Lutheran pastor who founded the Confessing Church as an alternative to the overwhelming number of Catholics and Lutherans who gave priority to protecting themselves by going along with Hitler. How deeply disappointed Bonhoeffer was at the failure of the institutional church in Germany to put itself “where the battle rages.”

 

This is the phrase Martin Luther himself used centuries before: “If, I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing him. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved and to be steady on all the battlefield, except there, is mere flight and disgrace if one flinches at that point.”

 

No one has put it better than a precious new friend I met on a “cruise” in June/July 2011 hoping to reach Gaza – author and poet Alice Walker – who said: “Activism is my rent for living on this planet.”

 

As some of you know, that attitude found her a passenger on “The Audacity of Hope” — the U.S. Boat to Gaza. On July 1, 2011, we made an activist break for the open sea and Gaza but were able to sail only nine nautical miles out of Athens before the Greek government, under strong pressure from the White House, ordered its Coast Guard to intercept us, bring us back to port, and impound our boat.

 

Okay to be Angry?

Recalling the anger I felt at the time, I was reminded that, all too often, people are conflicted about whether or not to allow themselves to be angry at such injustice – whether it be in Gaza, on the Aegean, or elsewhere. I had been in that category of doubt, until I remembered learning that none other than Thomas Aquinas had something very useful to say about anger.

 

In the Thirteenth Century, Aquinas wrote a lot about virtue and got quite angry when he realized there was no word in Latin for just the right amount of anger — for the virtue of anger. He had to go back to what Fourth-Century Doctor of the Church John Chrysostom said on the subject: “He or she who is not angry, when there is just cause for anger, sins.”

 

Why? Because as John Chrysostom put it, “Anger respicit bonum justitiae, anger looks to the good of Justice, and if you can live amid injustice without anger you are unjust.”

 

Aquinas added his own corollary; he railed against what he called “unreasoned patience,” which, he said, “sows the seeds of vice, nourishes negligence, and persuades not only evil people but good people to do evil.”

 

Frankly, I have not thought of us activists being virtuous — but maybe we are, at least in our willingness to channel our anger into challenging and changing the many injustices here and around the world. There should be no room these days for “unreasoned patience.”

 

One saving grace peculiar not only to the ancient prophets and theologians but to the Alice Walkers and Medea Benjamins of today is that they did not get hung up on the all-too-familiar drive for success. That drive, I think, is a distinctly American trait. We generally do not want to embark on some significant course of action without there being a reasonable prospect of success, do we? Who enjoys becoming the object of ridicule?

 

The felt imperative to be “successful” can be a real impediment to acting for Justice. One prophet/activist from whom I have drawn inspiration is Dan Berrigan. I’d like to share some of the wisdom that seeps through his autobiography, To Dwell in Peace.

 

Berrigan writes that after he, his brother Phil, and a small group of others had used homemade napalm to burn draft cards in Catonsville, Maryland, in May 1968 at the height of the Vietnam War, Dan mused about why he took such a risk:

“I came upon a precious insight. … Something like this: presupposing integrity and discipline, one is justified in entering upon a large risk; not indeed because the outcome is assured, but because the integrity and value of the act have spoken aloud. …
“Success or efficiency are placed where they belong: in the background. They are not irrelevant, but they are far from central. I was in need of such reflections as we faced the public after our crime. … All sides agreed — we were fools or renegades or plain crazy. …
“One had very little to go on; and one went ahead nonetheless. … The act was let go, its truth and goodness were entrusted to the four winds. Indeed, good consequences were of small matter to me, compared with the integrity of the action, the need responded to, the spirits lifted.”

The more recent prophets and activists I have known have generally been able to do this — to release the truth of the act to the four winds. And I am sure that helps them avoid taking themselves too seriously.

 

Anticipate the Jut-Jaw

Here’s how Dan Berrigan recounts the immediate aftermath of the action at Catonsville:

 

“We sat in custody in the back room of the Catonsville Post Office, weak with relief. …  Three or four FBI honchos entered portentously. Their leader, a jut-jawed paradigm, surveyed us from the doorway. His eagle-eye lit on Philip. He roared out: ‘Him again! Good God, I’m changing my religion!’

 

“I could think of no greater tribute to my brother.”

 

The Berrigans help affirm for me that this God of ours is a God of laughter, and we are the entertainment. And that’s just one reason a light touch seems to be required. Will we be successful? Wrong question. The right one is will we be faithful? Will we dare to go with the Berrigans to where the battle rages.

 

I am very much looking forward to being able to refresh my spirit, and also my sense of humor, with some later-day prophets at the upcoming Conference on the Moral Imperative of Activism, Aug. 16-17, at the National Kateri Tekakwitha Shrine in Fonda, New York.

 

Let me close with a poem written by the German writer Peter Gan in 1935 during the Third Reich. I think it summons us in a thoughtful way to contemplate who we are and what we are called to do – today.

 

But first the most important thing:

 

“What are you doing in these great times?

“Great, I say, for times seem great
to me, when each man driven
half to death by the era’s hate,
and standing in the place he’s given,

“Must willy-nilly contemplate
no less a thing than his own BEING!
A little breath, a second’s wait
May well suffice – you catch my meaning?”

 

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. During his career as a CIA analyst, he prepared and briefed the President's Daily Brief and chaired National Intelligence Estimates. He is a member of the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

more Ray McGovern

  

Thousands in Asheville Declare: 'This is a Movement'

Published on Tuesday, August 6, 2013 by Common Dreams

Thousands in Asheville Declare: 'This is a Movement'

Moral Monday demonstrations come to mountains as protests 'follow the legislators home'

- Lauren McCauley, staff writer 

 

 

 


Over 5000 protesters packed downtown Asheville Monday to add their voice to the growing Moral Monday demonstrations. (Photo: @NoShock/ Twitter)“It’s nothing like being in the mountains with folks who know how to fight,” Rev. William J. Barber II, president of the North Carolina chapter of the NAACP, told a crowd of over 5,000 who packed into Asheville's Pack Square Park Monday evening.

As the Raleigh-based state legislature departed for their summer break, Moral Monday protesters took their demonstration on the road. Monday marked the 14th straight week of calling out the GOP-majority legislature and governor’s attack on education, social and economic equality and voting rights.

The Asheville Police Department gave varying estimates that the crowd swelled to anywhere from 5,000 to 10,000 people.

Cheering on the rousing speakers, protesters sang and carried signs focusing on the many issues currently being wracked by the state GOP: “Don’t steal our water,” “Protect voting rights, “Stop killing public education.”

"If all we do is despair—and even all we do is rally—we will not have met the challenge before us today,"Julie Mayfield, co-director at WNC Alliance, told the crowd. "Everyone has a role. Find yours and together we can put North Carolina back on track."

Later, the Citizen-Times reports, Barber led the crowd in new rendition of a civil rights song, “Ain’t Gonna Let Apodaca Slow Us Down,” —referencing Sen. Tom Apodaca, a Henderson County Republican.

The local NAACP and the other groups behind the demonstrations have vowed to bring the movement to all 13 of North Carolina's congressional districts.
As Barber said during a Monday afternoon news conference, their goal was to "follow the legislators home."

“You can’t do wrong in Raleigh and then hide back home,” he declared during the rally.

Advocating for members of the crowd to get more people registered to vote, Barber said that by taking the protests on the road the people of North Carolina will prove to the government that there is widespread support behind the Moral Monday demonstrations, AP reports.

“This is no momentary hyperventilation and liberal screaming match,” Barber said. “This is a movement.”

Below, watch some of the rousing moments from Barber's speech before the Asheville crowd.

Asheville's Citizen-Times compiled the following video with voices from Mountain Moral Monday.

_____________________

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

GAP Statement on Edward Snowden & NSA Domestic Surveillance

Government Accountability Project

GAP Statement on Edward Snowden & NSA Domestic Surveillance

by Government Accountability Project on June 14, 2013 ( The Whistleblogger / 2013 ) 

 

 

Recently, the American public learned that the National Security Agency (NSA) has conducted, and continues to conduct, wholesale surveillance of U.S. citizens through a secretive data-mining program. The program collects the phone records, email exchanges, and internet histories of tens of millions of Americans who would otherwise have no knowledge of the secret program were it not for the disclosures of recent whistleblowers. The latest of these whistleblowers to come forward is former Booz Allen Hamilton federal contractor employee, Edward Snowden.

As the nation’s leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) would like to be clear about its position on each of the following points that relate to these significant revelations:

I. SNOWDEN IS A WHISTLEBLOWER.

Snowden disclosed information about a secret program that he reasonably believed to be illegal. Consequently, he meets the legal definition of a whistleblower, despite statements to the contrary made by numerous government officials and security pundits. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky), Sen. Mark Udall (D-Co), Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Ca), Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky), and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) have also expressed concern about the potential illegality of the secret program. Moreover, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wi) who is one of the original authors of the Patriot Act – the oft-cited justification for this pervasive surveillance – has expressed similar misgiving.

 

II. SNOWDEN IS THE SUBJECT OF CLASSIC WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION.

Derogatory characterizations of Snowden‘s personal character by government officials do not negate his whistleblower status. On the contrary, such attacks are classic acts of predatory reprisal used against whistleblowers in the wake of their revelations.Snowden’s personal life, his motives and his whereabouts have all been called into question by government officials and pundits engaged in the reflexive response of institutional apologists. The guilty habitually seek to discredit the whistleblower by shifting the spotlight from the dissent to the dissenter. Historically, this pattern of abuse is clear from behavior towards whistleblowers Daniel Ellsberg, Mark Felt, Frank Serpico, Jeffrey Wigand, Jesselyn Radack, and recent NSA whistleblower Tom Drake.

III. THE ISSUE IS THE MESSAGE AND NOT THE MESSENGER.

As a matter of course, whistleblowers are discredited, but what truly matters is the disclosure itself. Snowden’s revelations have sparked a public debate about the balance between privacy and security – a debate that President Obama now claims to welcome. Until Snowden’s disclosures, however, the government had suppressed the facts that would make any serious debate possible.

IV. PERVASIVE SURVEILLANCE DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD FOR CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

Many have condemned Snowden for disclosing classified information, but documents are classified if they reveal sources or methods of intelligence-gathering used to protect the United States from its enemies. Domestic surveillance that is pervasive and secret is only a valid method of intelligence gathering if the country’s enemies include most of its own population. Moreover, under the governing Executive Order it is not legal to classify documents in order to cover up possible misconduct.

V. THE PUBLIC HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO KNOW.

In a democracy, it is simply not acceptable to discover widespread government surveillance only after a whistleblower’s revelations. Because of Snowden’s disclosures we now know that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper deliberately misled the Senate Intelligence Committee when he stated on March 12, 2013 that the NSA did not purposefully collect any type of data from millions of Americans. Regardless of the justification for this policy, the public has a Constitutional right to know about these actions.

Unfortunately, the responsibility has fallen on whistleblowers to inform the public about critical policy issues – from warrantless wiretapping to torture. Whistleblowers remain the regulator of last resort.

VI. THERE IS A CLEAR HISTORY OF REPRISAL AGAINST NSA WHISTLEBLOWERS.

By communicating with the press, Snowden used the safest channel available to him to inform the public of wrongdoing. Nonetheless, government officials have been critical of him for not using internal agency channels – the same channels that have repeatedly failed to protect whistleblowers from reprisal in the past. In many cases, the critics are the exact officials who acted to exclude national security employees and contractors from the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012.

Prior to Snowden’s disclosures, NSA whistleblowers Tom Drake, William Binney and J. Kirk Wiebe, all clients of GAP, used internal mechanisms – including the NSA chain of command, Congressional committees, and the Department of Defense Inspector General – to report the massive waste and privacy violations of earlier incarnations of the NSA’s data collection program. Ultimately, the use of these internal channels served only to expose Binney, Drake and Wiebe to years-long criminal investigations and even FBI raids on their homes. As one example, consider that Tom Drake was subjected to a professionally and financially devastating prosecution under the Espionage Act. Despite a case against him that ultimately collapsed, Drake was labeled an “enemy of the state” and his career ruined.

VII. WE ARE WITNESSING THE CRIMINALIZATION OF WHISTLEBLOWING.

During the last decade, the legal rights for whistleblowers have expanded for many federal workers and contractors, with the one exception of employees within the intelligence community. The rights of these employees have significantly contracted. The Obama administration has conducted an unprecedented campaign against national security whistleblowers, bringing more Espionage Act indictments than all previous administrations combined.

Moreover, at the behest of the House Intelligence Committee, strengthened whistleblower protections for national security workers were stripped from major pieces of legislation such as the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (for federal employees) and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 (for federal contractors). If those protections existed today, Snowden’s disclosures would have stood a greater chance of being addressed effectively from within the organization.

The actions already taken against Snowden are a punitive continuation of what has become a "War on Whistleblowers." Through a series of retaliatory measures, the federal government targets federal employees who speak out against gross waste, illegality, or fraud, rather than prosecuting individuals engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors. So far as we know, not one person from the NSA has yet to suffer any consequences for ordering, justifying or participating in the NSA’s domestic spying operation.

It is the opinion of GAP that recent events suggest the full might of the Department of Justice will be leveled at Snowden, including an indictment under the Espionage Act, while those who stretched their interpretation of the Patriot Act to encompass the private lives of millions of Americans will simply continue working.

VIII. IN THE SURVEILLANCE STATE, THE ENEMY IS THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

If every action has an opposite and equal reaction, the whistleblower is that reaction within the surveillance state. Dragnet electronic surveillance is a high-tech revival of tactics used to attack the civil rights movement and political enemies of the Nixon administration. Whistleblowers famously alerted the public to past government overreach, while helping to defend both national security and civil liberties.

In contrast, secrecy, retaliation and intimidation undermine our Constitutional rights and weaken our democratic processes more swiftly, more surely, and more corrosively than the acts of terror from which they purport to protect us.

Contact: Bea Edwards, Executive Director
Phone: 202.457.0034, ext. 155
Email: BeaE@whistleblower.org
Contact: Louis Clark, President
Phone: 202. 457.0034, ext. 129
Email: LouisC@whistleblower.org
Contact: Dylan Blaylock, Communications Director
Phone: 202.457.0034, ext. 137
Email: DylanB@whistleblower.org

Choosing Against the Surveillance State

OpEdNews Op Eds 6/11/2013 at 01:24:49
 

Choosing Against the Surveillance State

By Norman Solomon (about the author) 


Source: Consortium News

George Orwell's image of Big Brother.

In Washington, where the state of war and the surveillance state are one and the same, top officials have begun to call for Edward Snowden's head. His moral action of whistleblowing -- a clarion call for democracy -- now awaits our responses.

After nearly 12 years of the "war on terror," the revelations of recent days are a tremendous challenge to the established order: nonstop warfare, intensifying secrecy and dominant power that equate safe governance with Orwellian surveillance.

In the highest places, there is more than a wisp of panic in rarefied air. It's not just the National Security Agency that stands exposed; it's the repressive arrogance perched on the pyramid of power.

Back here on the ground, so many people -- appalled by Uncle Sam's continual morph into Big Brother -- have been pushing against the walls of anti-democratic secrecy. Those walls rarely budge, and at times they seem to be closing in, even literally for some (as in the case of heroic whistleblower Bradley Manning). But all the collective pushing has cumulative effects.

In recent days, as news exploded about NSA surveillance, a breakthrough came into sight. Current history may not be an immovable wall; it may be on a hinge. And if we push hard enough, together, there's no telling what might be possible or achieved. The gratitude that so many of us now feel toward Edward Snowden raises the question: How can we truly express our appreciation?

A first step is to thank him -- publicly and emphatically. You can do that by clicking here to sign the "Thank NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden" petition, which my colleagues at RootsAction.org will send directly to him, including the individual comments.

But of course saying thank-you is just one small step onto a crucial path. As Snowden faces extradition and vengeful prosecution from the U.S. government, active support will be vital -- in the weeks, months and years ahead.

Signing the thank-you petition, I ventured some optimism: "What you've done will inspire kindred spirits around the world to take moral action despite the risks." Bravery for principle can be very contagious.

Edward Snowden has taken nonviolent action to help counter the U.S. government's one-two punch of extreme secrecy and massive violence. The process has summoned the kind of doublespeak that usually accompanies what cannot stand the light of day.

So, when Snowden's employer Booz Allen put out a statement Sunday night, it was riddled with official indignation, declaring: "News reports that this individual has claimed to have leaked classified information are shocking, and if accurate, this action represents a grave violation of the code of conduct and core values of our firm."

What are the "code of conduct" and "core values" of this huge NSA contractor? The conduct of stealthy assistance to the U.S. national security state as it methodically violates civil liberties, and the values of doing just about anything to amass vast corporate profits.

The corporate-government warfare state is enraged that Edward Snowden has broken through with conduct and values that are 180 degrees in a different direction. "I'm not going to hide," he told the Washington Post on Sunday.

"Allowing the U.S. government to intimidate its people with threats of retaliation for revealing wrongdoing is contrary to the public interest."

When a Post reporter asked whether his revelations would change anything, Snowden replied: "I think they already have. Everyone everywhere now understands how bad things have gotten -- and they're talking about it. They have the power to decide for themselves whether they are willing to sacrifice their privacy to the surveillance state."

And, when the Post asked about threats to "national security," Snowden offered an assessment light-years ahead of mainline media's conventional wisdom: "We managed to survive greater threats in our history ... than a few disorganized terrorist groups and rogue states without resorting to these sorts of programs. It is not that I do not value intelligence, but that I oppose ... omniscient, automatic, mass surveillance. ... That seems to me a greater threat to the institutions of free society than missed intelligence reports, and unworthy of the costs."

Profoundly, in the early summer of 2013, with his actions and words, Edward Snowden has given aid and comfort to grassroots efforts for democracy. What we do with his brave gift will be our choice.

Norman Solomon is the author of many books, including "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death," which has been adapted into a documentary film. For more information, go to: www.normansolomon.com

How to Avoid PRISM on the .NET

SALON

Sunday, Jun 9, 2013 12:00 PM UTC

How to navigate the Internet around PRISM

Google and YouTube may be under NSA surveillance, but you can still surf the web without Big Brother watching

By Kris Holt

Topics: the daily dot, Internet, FBI, NSA, Prism, Surveillance, Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Technology News, Media News, Business News, Politics News

 

(Credit: Annette Shaff/Shutterstock.com)

 

 

This article originally appeared on The Daily Dot. 

 

 

Recently released National Security Agency documents indicate the U.S. government is “tapping directly into the central servers” of your favorite Internet services as part of a secret program called PRISM.

So much for those privacy policies, huh?

The Guardian and Washington Post revealed the stunning extent of the PRISM snooping operation: the NSA and FBI are monitoring Microsoft, Google, YouTube, Yahoo, Facebook, Skype, Apple, and others.

Those companies have largely denied the reports, saying they never allowed the government direct access to their servers. Government officials have admitted the program exists, however, and President Obama himself defended it as legal in a Friday morning press conference.

Naturally, privacy advocates are up in arms over the government having access to their Internet data in this way, even if officials claim PRISM only targets non-U.S. residents and citizens. These are some of the biggest companies on the Internet, and they probably know more about you and your activities than anyone else around.

Yet there are still ways you can use the Internet without having to surrender your personal information, data, and Internet habits to those firms in the program.

It might be best to use services based outside of the U.S., where the American government has no jurisdiction—bearing in mind that other governments may have their own surveillance programs, and anything you share publicly might be scooped up by security agencies anyway.

That said, here’s your guide to using the Internet without using PRISM companies.

Social networking/Instant messaging

With Facebook perhaps out of the question, Twitter might be your best answer for keeping up with your friends. The company is not included in the list of PRISM firms and has a long track record of standing up for user privacy, fighting courts on a number of occasions to avoid revealing users’ true identities. Privacy advocate group the Electronic Frontier Foundation in May awarded Twitter full marks for its efforts in protecting users from government monitoring.

Sure, Twitter was ablaze with people joking about the government tracking all your public tweets (they are stored in the Library of Congress, after all), but many Twitter employees were stunned by the news of PRISM. Meanwhile, private accounts and direct messages appear to be off limits.

Reddit is another user-friendly community. It works to protect your privacy and, like Twitter, will only divulge information it has on you if required by a court of law. Also, it only keeps IP address information for 90 days.

Elsewhere, you might opt for Internet Relay Chat or ICQ (now owned by a Russian company) to converse with friends.

For blogging, you might want to stay away from Google-owned Blogger, and Yahoo-bound Tumblr. Instead, you could write longer notes on WordPress (a self-hosted blog might be a touch more private) or LiveJournal.

 

Email

Gmail, Yahoo Mail, Apple’s email offerings, and Hotmail/Outlook are all run by PRISM companies. Alternatives include a self-hosted email option (here’s one way to do that if you run a website) and Webmail services likeZoho Mail, Fastmail.fm (not free), Hushmail, Lavabit, and Thunderbird. You might also want to use Zoho’s calendar tool if you prefer not to have pen and paper to plan your week.

Search

Obviously, Google, Yahoo, and Bing are out of the question for your new Internet lifestyle. There are alternative search engines that might help take you where you want to go. Blekko and DuckDuckGo are good options. For non-American services, you could use Russia’s Yandex,  or consult this useful Wikipedia list of options.

Maps

So long, Google Maps and Yahoo Maps! Privacy advocates might just be switching back to printing out 10 pages of Mapquest directions. Nokia has a mapping tool called HERE, OpenStreetMap might take your fancy, and ArcGis is a less detailed option. Apple Maps are terrible anyway.

Voice/video chat

Skype, a Microsoft entity, is on the PRISM list. You might wish to avoid Google Hangouts and Apple’s Facetime as well now. There are a few options here, such as Tinychat, ooVoo, and meetings.io, all of which are free.

Video sharing

YouTube is out, sadly, in our Google-free guide. If you’re looking to share a video on the Internet, you might look to Dailymotion (France blocked Yahoo from buying a majority stake in it), Vimeo, or Liveleak. Vine, of course, is an option too if you want to share short clips.

Photo sharing

A few months back, Instagram added new terms of service that facilitates data sharing with parent company Facebook. Yahoo owns Flickr. You know the drill.

To share your photos via a non PRISM-affiliated company, you could share photos directly on Twitter, use Reddit’s tool of choice Imgur, head for DeviantArt, or go for the old staple of PhotoBucket.

Document collaboration

If you’re working with friends or colleagues on a collaborative document, you might be using Google Drive (formerly Google Docs). There are a few other options out there, not counting Microsoft’s Office 365. Zoho has a docs suite, as does Thinkfree.

File sharing

The PRISM document leaked to the Guardian and Washington Post indicated file storage and sharing service Dropbox is due to join the program soon. 

Thankfully, there are plenty of other ways to share large files without having to explode your email storage limit or mail a USB stick. Box has a few gigabytes of free storage, and Kim Dotcom’s Mega—which Dotcom bills as “the privacy company”—has 50GB of space for free (though there have been some security concerns). Wikipedia, again, has a large list

You always have the option of sending legal files to which you own the copyright through BitTorrent as well.

Operating system/smartphones

Microsoft and Apple are reputedly part of PRISM, meaning that the Windows and OS X operating systems on your computer might just be transmitting data back to the government. You might want to read up on which flavor of Linux, the most popular open source OS, fits your needs.

Likewise, iPhones, Android phones, and Windows Phones run on operating systems provided by Apple, Google, and Microsoft. You might be inclined to switch to BlackBerry, a Canadian company, or use a phone without any Internet features. Except, y’know, the government is collecting data about your phone calls, too.

If you really are truly worried about the government keeping tabs on your activities, there’s really only one option: go nuclear, disconnect everything, and go live on a secluded island for the rest of your days.

More The Daily Dot

• Buying likes and rigging votes: Facebook’s seedy underworld”
  

  Cody Permenter June 6, 2013

• Freddie Mercury was even more amazing than you realized

  Jay Hathaway June 5, 2013

• The scourge of Steubenville speaks out about his FBI raid”
  

  Lorraine Murphy June 6, 2013

More Kris Holt.

Don’t Bicker, Organize

by Ron Jacobs / May 26th, 2013

Recently, Counterpunch editor Jeffrey St. Clair posed the question “Is there a Left in America today?” His article was not the first in recent times to pose the question but it did receive a fair amount of attention given the prominence of Counterpunch in the US Left. To sum the piece up in a sentence, it stated that yes, there is a Left, but it is in a fairly deep slumber. Whether one agrees with St. Clair’s essay or not, the facts are as follows. St. Clair is not the first of today’s leftists to pose this question, nor is it a question easily dismissed by some stock answer regarding cynicism, ignorance of the facts on the ground, or some other dismissive remark (one I heard accused the writer of ultra-leftism.)

The question is fair and needs to be asked. The magazine St. Clair edits is known for its provocative style. That’s why it’s called Counterpunch. It’s supposed to make its friends feel uncomfortable on occasion and its enemies unsure on their feet in the ring of politics. Ideally, it causes the latter to fall down for the count every once in a while and the former to challenge the zone they feel comfortable in. Even more to the point for those who are its friends, it should provoke debate that will move the revolution we all know we need that much closer.

I don’t want to sound like an old-timer here–in part because I don’t feel like one mentally or emotionally (physically is sometimes another matter)–but mostly because what I aim to write is not passé or irrelevant to the current situation. The Left has been here before. The historical circumstances were different, but the static situation was eerily similar. Although I could be referring to the 1950s in the United States, when anti-communism was the national faith and leftists were considered on a par with Satan and his dominions by the mainstream media and most of its readers, the period I want to talk about is the 1970s and 1980s.

The New Left was in retreat. A combination of victories and half-victories, massive repression, a retooling of the Democratic Party, and the demise of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) had created a situation where a multitude of organizations existed on the US Left. All too many of them considered their line to be the correct one. None were very willing to compromise, preferring instead to fine tune their particular interpretation of Marx, Lenin and the rest to such a point that instead of gaining adherents, they slowly but surely lost them. By the end of the 1970s, some of these groups were working on the left end of the Democratic Party, hoping to expand the small opening created by George McGovern’s 1972 campaign into creating a genuine left parliamentary opposition in the US. Other groups were fighting amongst themselves, listening to provocateurs in their midsts, or just dissolving into thin air, as it were. Meanwhile, the US right wing was consolidating its forces behind millions and millions of corporate dollars. The result was the election of Ronald Reagan to the White House and the portrayal of Jimmy Carter, the creator of the Carter doctrine (which further bound the Empire’s military to the authoritarian regimes under whose lands the energy industry’s oil profits lay), as a leftist and wimp.

Nothing has been the same since. The Left waged successful campaigns against US support for apartheid, but hardly bothered to oppose the US invasion of Grenada. It was also fairly successful in opposing US support for the Contras in Nicaragua and the bloody regime killing thousands in El Salvador and elsewhere in Central America. Unfortunately, their activities did not foresee the creation of an extralegal funding process for the Contras or the emptiness of the legislation against the human rights violations of the El Salvadorian government. Also, despite one of the broadest campaigns against nuclear weapons in history, the Pentagon and its corporate cohorts placed their missiles throughout Europe. By 1989, the response of the Left to the Bush administration’s invasion of Panama was barely a whimper. Then came Bill Clinton–the popular pretender to the progressives’ throne. In a litany fairly well known, Clinton pushed the neoliberal wet dream known as NAFTA through Congress. Then he “reformed” public assistance to the poor. Then he pushed through the Omnibus Crime and Terrorism Bill, making federal crimes out of a multitude of political activities and increasing the number of federal crimes that were punishable by death. Oh yeah, he reneged on LGBT equality and injected racial coding into his campaign as if he were a modern day Republican.
Meanwhile, he and Tony Blair maintained a deadly sanctions regime on Iraq while bombing it at will. Besides all this, Clinton lobbed cruise missiles much like Barack Obama launches armed drones. On top of all this, he helped create the situation that provoked the crash of 2008. No, he wasn’t solely responsible, but the illusion of money where there wasn’t any greatly expanded during his rule. And the Left was rather silent.

So, what does this have to do with today? To begin, the Left is rather silent. There are a few campaigns organized around the suffering environment, some of them even bringing thousands of people to the streets. The Occupy movement raised the question of corporate greed and responsibility, but when certain elements within the movement directly challenged not just “bad” corporations but the system of capitalism itself, the Democratic White House aligned with the forces of law and order and cracked down hard. This was after the White House’s current occupant rode to his position on a wave of disgust with the wars and cronyism of Wall Street, the Pentagon and Congress. After decades of painting corporate liberals as tantamount to socialists and communists, the right wing dominates the political arena in the United States. The loyal opposition is spot on when it comes to instances of individual racism like the murder of Trayvon Martin in 2011, but ignores the ultimately more damaging institutional racism that has never been far removed from the US mainstream. That same opposition chastises a lone protester who challenges the president on his drone assassination program and the prison camp known as Gitmo, but says little or nothing when those programs murder and imprison innocents. This is the hegemony of capital at work. There is nothing it can not purchase, silence or kill. Elections and highways, politicians and militaries, there is a price on it all.
And it is us who pays that price. It is also us who must end this dynamic.
It is time to organize. We don’t have time to bicker. Debate over tactics and approaches, yes. Bickering and name-calling, no. Leave the latter to those whom we wish to defeat.

Ron Jacobs is the author of The Way The Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground and Tripping Through the American Night, and the novels Short Order Frame Up and The Co-Conspirator's Tale. His third novel All the Sinners Saints is a companion to the previous two and is due out in April 2013. Read other articles by Ron.

This article was posted on Sunday, May 26th, 2013 at 2:35pm and is filed under Activism, History, Obama, Solidarity.

Meet the Woman Who Stood Up to Obama and Made World News: A Conversation with Peace Activist Medea Benjamin

Civil Liberties  

AlterNet / By Evelyn Nieves, Medea Benjamin

Meet the Woman Who Stood Up to Obama and Made World News: A Conversation with Peace Activist Medea Benjamin

CodePink's Benjamin explains her crusade against drones, Gitmo and America's imperial wars.

 

 

May 27, 2013  |  

“I’m willing to cut the young lady who interrupted me some slack, because it’s worth being passionate about. Is this who we are? Is that something our founders foresaw?”—President Obama on Medea Benjamin

By now, the world knows Medea Benjamin as either the woman who challenged—or heckled—President Obama last Thursday during his speech on drones and Guantanamo Bay.

“People think you’re rude and crazy,” a CNN reporter told Benjamin, the co-founder of two global peace organizations, CodePink and Global Exchange. But Benjamin, already well-known among peace activists and political progressives (she was a major force during Ralph Nader’s 2000 presidential campaign) has also inspired legions of new fans astonished that someone had the nerve—or the passion—to stand up to one of the most powerful men on earth.

Now Benjamin has been trying to turn her moment in the mainstream media spotlight to the issues that brought her to the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington, D.C. on Thursday in the first place. We talked to her about what happened and the issues that fuel her activism and her next steps.




Evelyn Nieves: Were you surprised that President Obama actually addressed you on Thursday rather than simply give the nod to the Secret Service to nab you as soon as you spoke out? Do you think it signals a president who is willing to listen? How does his response compare with other presidents and leaders whom you've publicly challenged in the same way?

Medea Benjamin: Many politicians try to ignore or belittle the folks who interrupt them. I think President Obama is just a really good politician who recognizes that it is better to address the person than have them dragged out. I was grateful that he said that my voice was worth listening to, though it was quite surreal because as the president and I were “dialoguing,” I was surrounded by army, FBI and Secret Service threatening to arrest me and drag me out.

But every time they touched me I said that the president was talking to me, and if they made a scene by pulling me out, they would really regret it. That bought me some valuable time.

Nieves: You spoke up when President Obama mentioned Guantanamo, which has yet to infiltrate the American consciousness despite the growing crisis there. What are you hoping your exchange with the president will do to foster outrage and pressure to finally close Gitmo and release innocent detainees? 

Benjamin: These detainees are in desperate straits. It’s both a humanitarian and a political crisis. Despite the force-feeding, some of these men could start to die, and this could unleash another huge wave of anti-American riots around the Muslim world. So something must be done right away. 

The president is saying that Congress is to blame, and yes, Congress has placed ridiculous roadblocks to closing Guantanamo. But Congress also put in place a waiver system that the president could use immediately to release the 86 prisoners who have been cleared for release. He did announce a lifting of the self-imposed ban on repatriating prisoners to Yemen, and that is positive. But he needs to go beyond nice words and bureaucratic measures: He needs to immediately start authorizing some releases, so that the prisoners will see progress and stop the hunger strike. Then we can tackle the larger issue of giving fair trials to the remaining prisoners. 

In the meantime, my colleagues and I at CodePink will be doing more to keep up the pressure, working with the Guantanamo lawyers and groups like Witness Against Torture, Amnesty, The World Can’t Wait and National Religious Campaign Against Torture. We’re planning more protests and civil disobedience at the White House, a vigil at the gates of the Guantanamo prison itself, a delegation to Yemen to meet with family members and government officials. We’ve got many plans. 

Nieves: You've written a book on drones, another subject that has not permeated the public consciousness to the extent that it might given its profound repercussions. In brief, what do you want the public to know about drones? What do you want the president to do about drones?

Benjamin: The president said he uses drones when capture is not possible, but that’s just not true. The drones have been an alternative to capture. I think we should stop using these killer drones. They have led to the death of so many innocent people. They have become a recruiting tool for extremists and only guarantee what the president said he is against: a state of perpetual war. We should address terrorism through better policing, better defense mechanisms here at home and more robust and creative diplomacy.

Nieves: What's your next step? Do you really think you'll get into speeches now that the whole world will be looking for the woman in pink?

Benjamin: Probably, but I won’t be in pink. And if not me, it will be one of my colleagues. Until the policies change, we’ll still be like fleas, biting at the heels of the powerful. Or perhaps more like gadflies.

Nieves: How do you do what you do? People are in awe of your boundless energy and willingness to put yourself out there. How many times have you been arrested, for instance? How long do you think you can do this (i.e. public protest)?

Benjamin: It’s so funny that the president called me a "young lady," since I turned 60 this year. But thankfully, I still have lots of energy and a passion for justice. I really don’t like getting arrested, and yes, I’ve been arrested many, many times. Unfortunately, it seems to come with the territory. But I think of the great company I’m in with my heroes throughout the ages. I love the Annie Feeney song called "Have You Been To Jail For Justice?" She says:

“Was it Cesar Chavez? Maybe it was Dorothy Day.

 Some will say Dr. King or Gandhi set them on their way.


No matter who your mentors are it's pretty plain to see.

That, if you've been to jail for justice, you're in good company.”


And I love to sing in jail—great acoustics.  

Nieves: Not everyone can be a public citizen to your extent. What are your recommendations for the faint of heart? What do you suggest a newbie activist do in the cause of, say, Gitmo closure? Or any cause for peace? 

Benjamin:Start out within your comfort zone and then keep pushing yourself to the next step. Sign petitions. Call the White House (202-456-1414) and your congressperson/senators. Make donations to peace groups you admire. Those are great individual acts. But you’ll be more powerful as part of a group. Join a local peace group and or start your won.

Re: Gitmo, go to the thrift store to buy an orange T-shirt, make a CLOSE GITMO sign, download some of our flyers and stand in front of a federal building. Invite the press to come talk to you. From there it can snowball, if you keep pushing, reaching out to new allies, using the collective wisdom and ideas.

And while we’re dealing with deadly serious issues, make sure to inject some joy and creativity into your actions—for that’s what keeps people engaged.

Nieves: You're now loved and hated more than ever. In China, you'd be under house arrest or followed everywhere you go. What do you intend to do differently now that, decades later, you're a household voice/face/name?

Benjamin:We activists have our 15 minutes of fame every now and then, and then we go right back to the more tedious work of organizing. I’m still on a book tour for my book Drone Warfare, and I really enjoy speaking to community groups and students. I’ll be leaving for Yemen soon, and then probably to the gates of Guantanamo. We’re organizing an international conference on drones in London in November. We’re constantly meeting with those in Congress—and asking for meetings with folks at the White House.

Someone started a petition asking President Obama to invite me to the White House for a beer. But I’d prefer a few mojitos with real Cuban rum—and a toast to changing another failed policy: the 50-year-old embargo on Cuba.

Evelyn Nieves is a freelance writer living in San Francisco. She has been a reporter for both the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of Global Exchange and CodePink: Women for Peace.