Democracy Now! Daily Digest ~ A Daily Independent Global News Hour with Amy Goodman & Juan González ~ Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Democracy Now! Daily Digest ~ A Daily Independent Global News Hour with Amy Goodman & Juan González ~ Tuesday, February 18, 2014
democracynow.org
Stories:
Julian Assange on Being Placed on NSA "Manhunting" List & Secret Targeting of WikiLeaks Supporters
Top-secret documents leaked by Edward Snowden have revealed new details about how the United States and Britain targeted the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks after it published leaked documents about the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. According to a new article by The Intercept, Britain’s top spy agency, the Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ, secretly monitored visitors to a WikiLeaks website by collecting their IP addresses in real time, as well as the search terms used to reach the site. One document from 2010 shows that the National Security Agency added WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange to a "manhunting" target list, together with suspected members of al-Qaeda. We speak to Assange live from the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he has sought political asylum since 2012. Also joining us is his lawyer Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Top-secret documents leaked by Edward Snowden have revealed new details about how the United States and Britain targeted the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks after it published leaked documents about the Afghan War. According to a new article co-written by Glenn Greenwald published this morning by The Intercept, Britain’s top spy agency, the Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ, secretly monitored visitors to a WikiLeaks site by collecting their IP addresses in real time as well as the search terms used to reach the site. One document from 2010 shows that the National Security Agency added WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange to a, quote, "manhunting" target list, together with suspected members of al-Qaeda.
AMY GOODMAN: Another document reveals the NSA considered designating WikiLeaks as a "malicious foreign actor." According to The Intercept, "Such a designation would have allowed the group to be targeted with extensive electronic surveillance—without the need to exclude U.S. persons from the surveillance searches." In addition, the leaked documents reveal the United States urged its foreign allies to file criminal charges against Assange over the group’s publication of the Afghanistan War Logs.
Joining us now from London is Wikileaks founder and editor Julian Assange, talking to us by the phone from the Ecuadorean embassy where he has political asylum since August 2012. Here in New York, we’re joined by Michael Ratner, the attorney for Julian Assange, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
When you read this, Julian — welcome back to Democracy Now! — what were your thoughts on being put on this "manhunting"—their words—"manhunting" list together with al-Qaeda?
JULIAN ASSANGE: Good morning, Amy.
Well, my first thought was, well, finally, we have some proof that we can present to the public for what we have long suspected for a variety of reasons. And it is strange to see your name in that context with people who are suspected of serious criminal acts of terrorism. Clearly, that is a massive overstep.
We’ve heard a lot in the propaganda pushed on this issue by Clapper and others in the U.S. national security complex that, of course, this pervasive surveillance is justified by the need to stop U.S.—stop terrorist attacks being conducted on the United States and its allies. But we’ve seen example after example come out over the last few months showing the National Security Agency and its partners, GCHQ, engaged in economic espionage.
And here we have an example where the type of espionage being engaged in is spying on a publisher—WikiLeaks, the publishing organization, and a publisher—me, personally. And the other material that came out in relation to GCHQ was from 2012, and that shows that GCHQ was spying on our service and our readers, so not just the publisher as an organization, not just the publisher as a person, but also the readers of a publisher. And that’s clearly, I believe, not something that the United States population agrees with, let alone other people.
AMY GOODMAN: Were you surprised by anything that came out in these latest documents?
JULIAN ASSANGE: I was surprised about how someone is added to the foreign malicious actor list. So, the National Security Agency went through a process to try and—at quite a high level, at the office of the legal director, to designate us as a foreign—foreign malicious actor, which means that our U.S. personnel can be spied on, or our U.S. supporters or associates. The, quote, "human network" that supports WikiLeaks in the United States can be targeted without going through any of the checks that the National Security Agency might normally engage in.
And if you read the detail of that writing, you can see that it’s quite a lackadaisical, cavalier approach to going into that very serious step of deciding to spy on a publisher and all its U.S. personnel. And we must assume that news agencies like Reuters or the Deutsche Presse Agency that have foreign correspondents in the United States, who are American citizens or American citizens working overseas, could be similarly affected.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Julian Assange, the Intercept article quotes from the document you’re referencing. It was from July 2011 and showed how two NSA officers considered designating WikiLeaks a, quote, "malicious foreign actor." I want to read from the exchange between the NSA agency’s general counsel and an arm of its Threat Operations Center. Quote, "Can we treat a foreign server who stores, or potentially disseminates leaked or stolen US data on it’s [sic] server as a 'malicious foreign actor' for the purpose of targeting with no defeats? Examples: WikiLeaks, thepiratebay.org, etc." The response was, quote, "Let us get back to you." Julian Assange, your response, and what the documents reveal about the process that the NSA or GCHQ go through to designate someone a malicious foreign actor?
JULIAN ASSANGE: What they mean here by "no defeats," it’s sort of no protections for any form of interception of content of U.S. citizens communicating with that organization or through that foreign server. And the particular document that this came out in was actually not a document that was formally looking at this issue in relation to us; rather, it was a extraction from that consideration that happened sometime in the past and then was put into one of their, if you like, sort of frequently asked questions internally in the National Security Agency. So we’re quite lucky to have found this reference.
We were used as an example of how could you in fact target these servers, even when they were used by people in the United States. And the answer is, yes, that can be done. And we don’t know what the answer was in our particular case, but given that the general example is yes, then we must assume that it was. And I think, really, now General Alexander needs to come clean and say, in fact, was that permitted in the case of WikiLeaks, and did the National Security Agency proceed in spying on our U.S. personnel or our lawyers, for example, like Michael Ratner, who’s based in New York.
AMY GOODMAN: Julian, we have Michael here, but I did want to ask—you’ve been in the embassy, haven’t had natural daylight, sunlight, for 608 days. How are you? And does the information that has come out of this change in any way what your thoughts are about your future?
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I just find it helpful that—in preparing the asylum application, of course, we looked into many details like this that were quite technical, a big puzzle of many pieces, which some organization, like a foreign office or the Ecuadorean Department of Foreign Affairs, has the time to assess, but of course it’s harder for the public to understand, that documents like this show very readily sort of the scale of the U.S. response to our publications and why it’s, unfortunately, necessary for me to apply and receive asylum and for some of our other personnel, like Sarah Harrison, who’s a British citizen, to be in legally advised exile in Germany.
AMY GOODMAN: And will the information about whether there is a sealed indictment, which this seems to indicate there isn’t—do you have any further information about that, an indictment against you in the United States?
AMY GOODMAN: The district attorney of Virginia gave the last information on that issue and formally stated publicly that the investigation continues.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Julian Assange, we want to thank you for being with us, founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks. Will this change anything you do inside the embassy, when you see how—further information about your being monitored and people even going to the website—what is it—GCHQ, the equivalent of the NSA in Britain, collecting the IP addresses in real time of people who even access the WikiLeaks site?
JULIAN ASSANGE: The WikiLeaks security model has always been predicated under the basis that we are dealing with very powerful organizations that do not obey the rule of law, whether those are powerful criminal organizations, whether those are corrupt governments in Africa, or whether they’re spy agencies allied with the West or Russia or China. And so, it doesn’t—we’ve always been prepared to defend against that sort of scrutiny. The U.K. government has publicly admitted that they’ve spent six million pounds in the last year surveilling the embassy through police forces alone. We see from these documents that we must assume that GCHQ is also monitoring the situation. That’s part of—I suppose, part of the sad state of the rule of law in the West, where these organizations behave that way. I think the days are clearly numbered that they can get away with it without being exposed. But I’ll leave you to Michael Ratner now.
AMY GOODMAN: Thanks so much, Julian. Julian Assange, founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks. When we come back, we are joined by Michael Ratner, legal adviser to Julian Assange. We’ll also be joined from London, not in exile in the Ecuadorean embassy, but in a studio in London, by Jesselyn Radack, the legal adviser to Edward Snowden who was stopped at Heathrow Airport on Sunday, asked, "Who is Edward Snowden? Where is Bradley Manning?" and other such questions. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Top-secret documents leaked by Edward Snowden have revealed new details about how the United States and Britain targeted the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks after it published leaked documents about the Afghan War. According to a new article written by Glenn Greenwald and Ryan Gallagher published this morning by The Intercept, Britain’s top spy agency, the Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ, secretly monitored visitors to a WikiLeaks site by collecting their IP addresses in real time as well as the search terms used to reach the site.
AMY GOODMAN: One of the documents leaked by Edward Snowden details a "manhunting timeline" that shows how the U.S. tried to pressure other nations to prosecute Julian Assange. One read, quote, "The United States on 10 August urged other nations with forces in Afghanistan, including Australia, United Kingdom, and Germany, to consider filing criminal charges against Julian Assange."
Joining us now is Michael Ratner. He is the president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is the legal adviser to Julian Assange.
So, talk about this last point, Michael, first what you’re most surprised by in this piece that just came out at The Intercept, and particularly the U.S. pushing other countries to prosecute Julian.
MICHAEL RATNER: Well, what I was really shocked by was the extent the U.S. and U.K. have gone through to try and get and destroy WikiLeaks and Julian Assange and their network of supporters. I mean, it’s astounding. And it’s been going on for years. And it also, as Julian pointed out, tells us why he is in the Ecuadorean embassy and why Ecuador has given him asylum. He has every reason to heavily fear what would happen to him in this country, in the United States, if he were to be ever taken here. So I think, for me, that’s a very, very critical point, justifies every reason why Ecuador gave him asylum.
And the document you’re addressing, Amy, what they call the manhunt timeline, which is extraordinary because it groups him among, you know, a whole bunch of people who the U.S. considers terrorists, it also, interestingly, groups them—groups them among Palestinians, which is pretty interesting in itself. But to have Julian on that list as a manhunt timeline, and it says prosecute him wherever you can get him, is pretty extraordinary. It doesn’t say you necessarily need a good reason to prosecute him; it just says, basically, prosecute him. And what it’s reminiscent, to me, is of the program that took place in this country in the '60s and the ’70s, COINTELPRO, counterintelligence procedures, when the FBI said, "We have to basically destroy the black civil rights movement, the New Left and others, and prosecute them, get them however you can, get rid of them." And so, the manhunt timeline, even its name is chilling. But that's what it is. It’s an effort to try and get WikiLeaks and their personnel, wherever they are in the world.
And, of course, we’ve seen some of that. You’ve had people on this show. When people cross borders who are associates with WikiLeaks, they get stopped. They get surveilled all the time. We’ve seen—we’ve seen efforts to take—to basically destroy WikiLeaks by stealing their laptops on a trip that went from Sweden to Germany. We’ve seen efforts across the board, in country after country. Germany, they surveil conferences when WikiLeaks people speak there, everywhere. So, actually, this program is not just an abstraction. This program has been implemented. And the manhunt timeline, I think, is incredibly significant, considering that the manhunt is an effort to locate, find and destroy—in some cases, kill—kill people.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Michael Ratner, what do you think the appropriate response should be to something like that? Is there any legal action that Assange’s legal team can take in response to this?
MICHAEL RATNER: Julian Assange, in his statement to the article, said that he felt that the U.S. ought to appoint a special prosecutor, not just to investigate what’s happening to WikiLeaks and a publisher and journalist, but across the board what’s happening to publishers and journalists in this entire country right now and around the world, where the U.S. is trying to basically say publishing is a crime. And that’s what they’re saying. That’s what the Obama administration is saying. And Julian is strongly suggesting, and I support, the idea of a special prosecutor to look into this.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Is that aspect of it unprecedented, though? I mean, you drew comparisons between COINTELPRO and manhunt timeline, but the fact that publishing, people who work in journalism, are being monitored in this way by intelligence agencies here, has that occurred before?
MICHAEL RATNER: On this level, I don’t think it’s occurred, on this extreme level. You had the manhunt program. You also had what they call—what do they call it? The ANTICRISIS GIRL program. And that’s the dragnet—I don’t know how it got that name.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain, ANTICRISIS GIRL program.
MICHAEL RATNER: What does—what is that about? I mean, I don’t know. Except what it is, is whenever I search for WikiLeaks on my computer, or when I go visit the WikiLeaks site, in real time, the GCHQ, the British intelligence agency, can take in my IP address, take in what I’m searching for in real time. Now, they gave an—they did a number of slides showing how they could do this. We don’t know how extensively they’ve implemented that program, but that means that every one of us who have ever gone to a WikiLeaks site to look for a document could technically be surveilled and our IP address taken in.
AMY GOODMAN: And also the hacktivist group Anonymous and Pirate Bay. Explain.
MICHAEL RATNER: Well, Anonymous, they actually did designate as what they call a malicious foreign actor. And a malicious foreign actor, which is what they were deciding whether to designate WikiLeaks as or not—and we don’t know what the final decision was, whether WikiLeaks was designated as a malicious foreign actor, but Anonymous apparently was. And what it means is any restrictions on government surveillance of anything—my conversations, my email—are completely lifted, whether you’re an American or whatever. Any of my communications to anywhere in the world to that website, to Anonymous, going on chat rooms with Anonymous, going on tweets with Anonymous, those can be taken in and surveilled. It’s an incredibly broad power. We don’t know, as I said, if it was used against WikiLeaks. It was certainly discussed, and they asked to use it against WikiLeaks. We will know, I hope, soon, if and when a lawsuit is ever filed around these issues.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And what do the documents reveal about what the U.S. officials said they were doing and what in fact they were doing? Because not only was their surveillance of U.S. citizens problematic, but also of foreign citizens.
MICHAEL RATNER: Well, I’m sorry, I’m not following the question exactly, Nermeen.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: I mean, in other words, Michael Ratner, the U.S. officials have claimed that they only surveil foreign—foreign citizens who are, in some sense, either potentially guilty of or likely to be involved in terrorist activities. But if you’re monitoring every visitor to a website, whether it’s WikiLeaks or Pirate Bay or—I mean, that’s obviously not the case.
MICHAEL RATNER: You know, this is just obfuscation and lies by our officials, which has been consistent. Obviously, if there’s a WikiLeaks website overseas, what they’re really saying is everybody who visits that website, American or otherwise, we can surveil. So it’s complete—it’s complete B.S. This is just untrue. We are all being surveilled.
AMY GOODMAN: Michael, we want you to stay with us as we bring in another guest from London. Nermeen?
~~~~~~~
Attorney for Edward Snowden Interrogated at U.K. Airport, Placed on "Inhibited Persons List"
Four journalists who revealed the National Security Agency’s vast web of spying have been awarded the 2013 George Polk Awards in Journalism. Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, Ewen MacAskill of The Guardian and Barton Gellman of The Washington Post were among the winners announced on Sunday. Even as the journalists who broke the stories based on Edward Snowden’s leaks were awarded one of journalism’s highest honors, a lawyer who represents Snowden was recently detained while going through customs at London’s Heathrow Airport. Jesselyn Radack joins us today to tell her story. Radack says she was subjected to "very hostile questioning" about Snowden and her trips to Russia. Radack also learned she might be on an "inhibited persons list," a designation reportedly used by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to require further vetting of certain passengers. Radack is just one of a growing number of people who are being stopped, harassed and interrogated for their work around Snowden, WikiLeaks and National Security Agency documents. Radack is the director of National Security & Human Rights at the Government Accountability Project, the nation’s leading whistleblower support organization.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Four journalists who revealed the National Security Agency’s vast web of spying have been awarded the 2013 George Polk Awards in Journalism. Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, Ewen MacAskill of The Guardian and Barton Gellman of The Washington Post were among the winners announced on Sunday. Even as the journalists who broke the stories based on Snowden’s leaks were awarded one of journalism’s highest honors, a lawyer who represents Snowden was detained while going through customs at London’s Heathrow Airport. Jesselyn Radack told Firedoglake she was subjected to, quote, "very hostile questioning" about Snowden and her trips to Russia. Radack also learned she might be on an inhibited persons list, a designation reportedly used by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to require further vetting of certain passengers. After the Polk Awards were announced, Glenn Greenwald tweeted, quote, "In the UK government, this is known as the George Polk Award for Excellence in Terrorism."
Jesselyn Radack is just one of a growing number of people who are being stopped, harassed and interrogated for their work around Edward Snowden, WikiLeaks and National Security Agency documents. In this clip, we hear from journalist Laura Poitras, computer security researcher Jacob Appelbaum, and then journalist Glenn Greenwald’s partner David Miranda, who have all been stopped and interrogated in airports.
LAURA POITRAS: I’ve actually lost count of how many times I’ve been detained at the border, but it’s, I think, around 40 times. And on this particular trip, lately they’ve been actually sending someone from the Department of Homeland Security to question me in the departing city, so I was questioned in London about what I was doing. I told them I was a journalist and that, you know, my work is protected, and I wasn’t going to discuss it.
JACOB APPELBAUM: I was targeted by the U.S. government and essentially, until the last four times that I’ve flown, I was detained basically every time. Sometimes men would meet me at the jetway, similarly, with guns.
DAVID MIRANDA: [translated] I stayed in a room with three different agents that were entering and exiting. They spoke to me, asking me questions about my whole life. They took my computer, my video game, cellphone, everything.
AMY GOODMAN: That was journalist Glenn Greenwald’s partner David Miranda; before him, computer security researcher Jacob Appelbaum and journalist Laura Poitras. You can go to our website to see our interview with Jacob Appelbaum and Laura Poitras at democracynow.org. But all of them have been interrogated at airports, as has most recently Jesselyn Radack, the attorney representing Edward Snowden, joining us from London. She is a former ethics adviser to the U.S. Department of Justice under George W. Bush, currently director of National Security & Human Rights at the Government Accountability Project, the nation’s leading whistleblower organization.
Jesselyn, welcome back to Democracy Now! Describe what happened at Heathrow on Sunday.
JESSELYN RADACK: I was trying to enter through customs, which at Heathrow is called the Border Force, and I was directed to a very specific station rather than the regular line. And after the first question, which is, "Why are you here?" which is a normal question, things just got more bizarre as we went along. I said that I was here to see friends. They wanted me to be more specific. I said, "In the Sam Adams Association," the group that awarded Edward Snowden the award last year—I didn’t add that part. And then they asked for the names of the people in the group. And so I gave names of people who are publicly known to be members. And then they asked where we were meeting, and I said at the Ecuadorean embassy. And they asked, "With Julian Assange?" And I said, "Yes." But then, at that point, I was asked why I had been to Russia twice in the past three months. And I said, "Because I have a client there." And they asked, "Who?" And I said, "Edward Snowden." And then, this was the most bizarre thing: They said, "Who is Edward Snowden?" And I just said matter-of-factly, "He is a whistleblower and an asylee." They next asked, "Who is Bradley Manning?" And I said, "A whistleblower. And then they asked, "Where is Bradley Manning?" And I said, "In jail." And he said, "So, he’s a criminal." And I said that he’s a political prisoner. And then they said, "But you represent Snowden." And I said, "Yes, I’m a human rights attorney, and I’m one of his legal advisers."
But I found that entire line of questioning very jarring and very unnerving. I didn’t know what kind of answer I was supposed to give. I mean, obviously, it’s like asking, "Who is President Obama?" They’re asking about some of the most famous people on the planet. Obviously, I have an attorney-client relationship to protect. I’m not going to get into meetings that I’ve had with clients. And only some of my clients are public, Edward Snowden being one of them, so that’s why I could answer that question. But I walked away from the interview just shaking. During the interview, I was fine. I maintained my composure. But I walked away just shaking and just upset. I just cried. It was very intimidating and very, very, again, unnerving to be asked that line of questions as an attorney. And I don’t think journalists or attorneys should be harassed or intimidated at the border, and it’s very disturbing to me that this has occurred in the U.S. and the U.K., and I’ve heard that this happened to someone recently in Germany, though I don’t know the details of that. But certainly, as an attorney, having gone to 14 different countries in the past year, I have never endured a line of questioning like that. You get the usual, "Hi. Why are you here? Who are you seeing? Where are you staying?" But not, "Who do you—who is Edward Snowden? Where is Edward Snowden? Where is Bradley Manning? Do you represent Bradley Manning?" which I wouldn’t even be allowed to answer, obviously, because that would be attorney-client privileged information. I, in fact, do not represent him, but it would have put me in a really difficult situation of actually making a false statement if I did represent him and had to answer a question like that.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Jesselyn, could you talk about the significance of the inhibited persons list? How did you first learn about it, and are you in fact on it?
JESSELYN RADACK: As hard—as a graduate or an alumnus of the no-fly list, you’re never officially told, "You are on this list." It’s implied, and you hear it. This apparently is some list maintained in Great Britain, but originating from the Department of Homeland Security. And I wish I could tell you more about it, but that’s just what I was able to learn from speaking with other people who have had difficulty getting out of the U.K. My difficulty was getting in. I’m hoping I don’t have any difficulty getting out. But an inhibited persons list, to me, is another kind of watch list, just like how ridiculous it was that I spent a number of years on the no-fly list, when I obviously posed no direct threat. To Snowden, I’m an attorney doing my job, and being a human rights lawyer does not pose any kind of immigration violation or safety threat to entering the United Kingdom, so I’m not sure why I was subjected to that interrogation other than to try to intimidate me from doing my job.
~~~~~~~
Spying on Lawyers: Snowden Documents Show NSA Ally Targeted U.S. Law Firm
A new report based on leaks by Edward Snowden reveals the National Security Agency played a role in the monitoring of a U.S. law firm that represented the Indonesian government during trade disputes with the United States. According to The New York Times, the NSA’s Australian counterpart told the agency it was spying on trade talks between the United States and Indonesia, including potentially privileged communications between Indonesian officials and the U.S. law firm, Mayer Brown. The document notes the Australian agency "has been able to continue to cover the talks, providing highly useful intelligence for interested U.S. customers." The report by James Risen and Laura Poitras bolsters claims by Snowden and others that the NSA and its allies conduct spying for economic gain. We speak to Jesselyn Radack, legal adviser to Snowden. She is director of National Security & Human Rights at the Government Accountability Project. We are also joined by Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: A new report based on leaks by Edward Snowden reveals the NSA played a role in the monitoring of a U.S. law firm that represented the Indonesian government during trade disputes with the United States According to The New York Times, the NSA’s Australian counterpart told the NSA it was spying on trade talks between the United States and Indonesia, including potentially privileged communications between Indonesian officials and the U.S. law firm Mayer Brown. The document notes the Australian agency has been able to continue to cover the talks, providing highly useful intelligence for interested U.S. customers. The report, front page New York Times by James Risen and Laura Poitras, bolsters claims by Snowden and others that the NSA and its allies conduct spying for economic gain. I wanted to bring Michael Ratner back into the conversation, along with Jesselyn Radack. You’re both attorneys. So this is spying on a U.S. law firm. Talk about the NSA and lawyers, which goes to everyone’s legal rights.
MICHAEL RATNER: I mean, I think there’s two big points here. One, you brought out, which is that this is economic spying. And Edward Snowden has said that what will be revealed as we go through these documents are more and more economic spying, and that, essentially, this whole claim that this is about stopping terrorism is just bogus, really. I mean, that’s really what’s going on. And so I think that’s a crucial point here. This was to get an advantage in various trade talks over shrimps, etc.
AMY GOODMAN: So it’s just—for the CIA, for the NSA, it’s a new role after the Cold War. It’s to be a spying arm for U.S. corporations?
MICHAEL RATNER: That’s what it appears to be, that they actually—not only for themselves in trade negotiations, but also may well feed this material to private corporations, U.S. corporations in particular. So I think that’s one thing.
The second thing, we’ve all been concerned for a very long time about spying on attorneys and our clients. And we do know that, for example, if I talk to my client, Julian Assange, that because he at least—we don’t have any—there’s no public indictment of him. We don’t know if he’s actually been indicted; we suspect he is. But according to NSA spying rules, they can actually take in attorney-client conversations with our clients overseas, as long as those clients haven’t been indicted. That’s just wide open. That’s ridiculous. I mean, as an attorney, I have a right of legal confidentiality with my clients, indicted or not. So we know they’re already—already doing that.
In this case, of course, they were taking in a law firm suspected to be this law firm, Mayer Brown, which, interestingly enough, actually helped us with the Guantánamo cases, and they’re taking in what they’re negotiating or what advice they’re giving to the Indonesian government. So it does seem to me at this point that certainly the lawyers’ conversations with Julian Assange and all of our clients—Jesselyn’s, as well, with her clients—are probably—are more likely that—almost for sure just swept in there, no minimization, just every—all of our legal advice to our clients are taken in by the NSA. It’s outrageous. I mean, the question I would have: What happened to Julian Assange’s right to counsel? What happened to it? It’s basically been destroyed by the NSA.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Michael Ratner, why would they conduct this kind of surveillance now of lawyer-client correspondence? Only because they can?
MICHAEL RATNER: Well, I think they want to know everything about what—for example, in the case of Julian Assange or other whistleblowers out there, other publishers, what they’re planning to do, what legal moves they might make. Like, for example, on these recent stories that have come out today, the Glenn Greenwald stories, are we planning to bring a lawsuit? What are we planning to do? If they can get—what’s going to be our—what’s going to be our legal take on it? If they can get advance notice of that, they can begin to counter it in their own publicity and how they deal with it legally, etc. You know, there’s a reason why you have the attorney-client privilege, and that’s so your client can share with you confidentially both what their situation is, as well as what your legal tactics are. Essentially, the government now, it’s wide open what the legal tactics are.
AMY GOODMAN: The Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said in an interview published on Monday that the intelligence community should have told the American public about secret phone data collection when that program first began years ago. He told The Daily Beast, quote, "I probably shouldn’t say this, but I will. Had we been transparent about this from the outset right after 9/11—which is the genesis of the 215 program—and said both to the American people and to their elected representatives, we need to cover this gap, we need to make sure this never happens to us again, so here is what we are going to set up, here is how it’s going to work, and why we have to do it, and here are the safeguards… We wouldn’t have had the problem we had." Let me get your response to that, Michael Ratner, and then I’d like to hear from Jesselyn Radack and ask you, Jesselyn, as an attorney representing Edward Snowden, if you have any confidential way to communicate with him.
MICHAEL RATNER: I don’t see how he could say there wouldn’t have been a dramatic negative response to broad-scale government spying on all our phone calls. I mean, what happened is, it came out, it came out without the government saying it, and there was a huge response. I mean, it changed the perceptions in this country about the one that the NSA is doing. I don’t think it would have made any difference had they put that forward in a different way. In fact, the one case where they finally admitted it, with the warrantless wiretapping, there was a huge outcry about that. So I think this is—this is fictitious. They shouldn’t be doing it. They shouldn’t be surveilling Americans’ phone calls. They should get probable cause. And that’s the only way, in my view, that you can actually do surveillance.
AMY GOODMAN: Jesselyn Radack?
JESSELYN RADACK: I found what Clapper said completely disingenuous. We know that he perjured himself before Congress, under oath, on camera, with no consequence. And this again strikes me as one of the least untruthful of his statements, so I take that with a grain of salt. He thinks it should be known, because they got caught, and that is the only reason he continues to makes these opportunistic statements.
In terms of monitoring, I assume I am being monitored. I am encrypted to the hilt. I’m not going to say what encryption techniques I use, but it’s a really unfortunate way to do business as a lawyer to have to pretty much arrange meetings in person with your client and to have to be so encrypted and get into a very encrypted environment anytime you want to communicate. And in terms of spying on attorney-client relationships, you have to remember, NSA is collecting bulk metadata. They don’t have some carve-out for attorneys and clients. They don’t have a carve-out for doctor-patient communications. They don’t have a carve-out for communications between accountants and their clients. They have access to any of that information, should they choose not only to collect it, but to go ahead and look at it. And there have been other instances, not only economic, but spying on political enemies like the Muslim charity al-Haramain. And that case was not allowed to proceed because of, I believe, state secrets privilege in that particular one, where the government accidentally sent them the transcripts of recorded attorney-client conversations.
So, the fact that this has occurred and has occurred a number of times and is now being documented, really it’s incumbent upon attorneys to use encryption. I have a disclaimer that my organization, the Government Accountability Project, you know, came up with, a disclaimer on every email that this communication may be monitored and collected without consent, in secret, by the NSA. I mean, I think everybody should have that kind of statement after their email, because I think it would raise public awareness about how insidious and widespread this problem is.
AMY GOODMAN: Jesselyn Radack, we have—
JESSELYN RADACK: But if you’re an attorney in—
AMY GOODMAN: We have to wrap up, but I did want to ask—
JESSELYN RADACK: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: If you hadn’t answered those questions at the airport, do you think you would have been barred from entry or arrested, like David Miranda was, detained?
JESSELYN RADACK: I certainly feared that, yes. And I feared that if I gave the wrong answers or was flip with them in any kind of way, that, yeah, if I gave them any kind of grief whatsoever, yes, that was actually my fear.
AMY GOODMAN: Today is a big anniversary, Michael Ratner. What is it?
MICHAEL RATNER: Well, today is the fourth anniversary, the actual day today, of the release by WikiLeaks of Reykjavik 13, which was the first Cablegate document released, which is the one that was showing there was pressure on Iceland to try and concede to IMF, etc., demands when they were going through their difficult economic period. It’s the first one of the Cablegate documents. So it’s that anniversary. And just to give us some lightness, it’s my daughter Ana’s birthday today. So that’s a way to get that in, but...
AMY GOODMAN: Happy birthday, Ana. Well, thank you, Michael Ratner, for being with us, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is the legal adviser to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. And thank you, Jesselyn Radack, for joining us, former ethics adviser to the Department of Justice under George W. Bush, currently director of National Security & Human Rights at the Government Accountability Project. This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we’re going to Houston to speak with The New York Times reporter Steven Greenhouse about a big labor defeat in Tennessee, the UAW defeat in a Volkswagen plant. Stay with us.
~~~~~~~
Republican-Funded, Anti-Labor Campaign Succeeds in Tennessee as Volkswagen Workers Reject UAW Union
Employees at a Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, have rejected membership in the United Auto Workers union. In a blow to organized labor, Volkswagen workers voted against the measure by a vote of 712 to 626, derailing attempts to make it the first unionized foreign-owned car factory in the United States. But the union faced intense opposition from Republican lawmakers, including threats suggesting the plant might miss out on future subsidies or on a new SUV line if the union succeeded. Outside groups also played a role. To find out more about the implications of the vote, we speak to Steven Greenhouse, the labor and workplace reporter for The New York Times, who has been following the events leading up to the vote at the Volkswagen plant. His most recent article is "Labor Regroups in South After VW Vote."
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: We turn now to Chattanooga, Tennessee, where employees at a Volkswagen plant have rejected membership in the United Auto Workers union, or UAW. In a blow to organized labor, Volkswagen workers decided against the measure by a vote of 712 to 626, derailing attempts to make it the first unionized foreign-owned car factory in the United States. But the union faced intense opposition from Republican lawmakers, including threats suggesting the plant might miss out on future subsidies or on a new SUV line if the union succeeded. Outside groups also played a role. The D.C.-based Americans for Tax Reform funded more than a dozen local billboards urging an anti-union vote. By law, the UAW cannot begin another organizing effort at the Volkswagen plant for another year.
AMY GOODMAN: To find out more about the implications of the vote, we go to Houston to speak with Steven Greenhouse, labor and workplace reporter for The New York Times, who’s been following the events leading up to the vote at the Volkswagen plant. His most recent piece in The New York Times is headlined "Labor Regroups in South After VW Vote." He’s also the author of The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker.
Steven, welcome back to Democracy Now! Talk about what happened. I mean, a majority of the workers had to sign on to have this vote. The vote took place. Both sides thought they’d win, but the UAW lost.
STEVEN GREENHOUSE: Yeah, the UAW was totally stunned that it lost. It really thought it would win. Last September, it collected cards from a majority of workers showing that, you know, they generally supported a union. There was a campaign where the union thought it was going pretty well.
Then, in the last week, Republican politicians in Tennessee really weighed in very heavily against the union. Governor Bill Haslam said that, you know, if the union wins, auto suppliers are not going to come to Chattanooga; they’re going to be scared to locate near a unionized Volkswagen. Some Republican lawmakers in the state Legislature said that if the union comes in, they’re not going to approve incentives to help bring, to help woo Volkswagen to bring a second production line to make SUVs at the plant. And then Bob Corker, Republican senator from Tennessee, former mayor of Chattanooga, said that he had heard from people at Volkswagen that if the union loses, then Volkswagen will bring in this second auto line.
And workers I spoke to at Volkswagen said that these threats, pressures from Republicans really persuaded some, perhaps many, workers to vote against the union. Remember, you know, the South is an anti-union part of the country. Unions have had a very hard time getting traction there. But I think some of these statements and pressures from Republican lawmakers might have really helped tip the balance. The union lost by 86 votes. All it would have taken would have been 44 workers to change their mind. You know, one worker I spoke to yesterday said, you know, "When you hear the former mayor of Chattanooga, when you hear various state lawmakers representing Chattanooga say, 'Look folks, for the good of our—for the good of our city, for the good of our region, you know, for future jobs, for expansion, for jobs for your neighbors, perhaps for your sons and daughters, you should vote against the union,' I think a lot of workers took that, those hints, and ended up voting against the union."
AMY GOODMAN: The president of the United Auto Workers expressed disappointment with the results of the election and was very critical of what he called outside interference in the vote. This video is of UAW President Bob King. He posted it online.
BOB KING: We’re also outraged at the outside interference in this election. It’s never happened in this country before that a U.S. senator, a governor, a leader of the House, a leader of the Legislature here threatened the company with no incentives, threatened workers with the loss of product. We think that that’s outrageous.
AMY GOODMAN: So that’s UAW President Bob King. Steven Greenhouse, he referred to the senator. That was Senator Bob Corker, played a very active role here. You had the Grover Norquist billboards all over town showing images of Detroit, saying, "This is what could happen to us in Chattanooga."
STEVEN GREENHOUSE: Yeah. So, you know I’ve been writing about labor for a long time, and I’ve never seen such aggressive outside intervention in any union campaign. And I think that—you know, I think the union was, in ways, slow and not aggressive in responding. I think it was really caught off balance.
You know, I think—you know, in ways, the UAW was damned if it did, damned if it didn’t. So you had the governor and the senator and local lawmakers saying, "If the UAW comes in, that’s going to make our region less competitive, it’s going to hurt our business climate, it will help make it harder for us to attract jobs." And Bob King very much indicated, "We are a new UAW. We are going to be more cooperative," and he signed this neutrality agreement with Volkswagen where he actually pledged to help keep Volkswagen’s wages competitive vis-à-vis some of the other automakers. So, he’s like bending over backwards to say, "We’re not the old confrontational UAW of old." So, on one hand, many workers kind of were uncomfortable with the UAW because they thought it would be too confrontational and hurt business image, hurt Chattanooga’s efforts to bring jobs. On the other hand, you know, some workers voted against the union because they thought it was being too accommodating and like bending over backwards and saying, "Well, we will restrain wages to help assure that the factory would be competitive."
And I think the UAW really has an uphill climb many times in battles because, you know, as these Grover Norquist billboards said, they tried to tar the UAW with the—with all the problems of Detroit. And we know, you know, the UAW played a role, but the automakers made a humongous number of mistakes, you know, and that was certainly a big reason, too, for the decline of Detroit and the automakers in Detroit. And Bob King kept saying, "Well, you look at Detroit now and how it’s rebounded, you look at the GM factory in Spring Hill, Tennessee, which has reopened since the recession and has added 1,800 workers, and I think is going to add another 1,800 workers." And Bob King very much tries to make the case that "we’re a different union, we’re helping Detroit, we’re helping American automakers rebound, and we could help Volkswagen do very well also."
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Steven Greenhouse, you said you’ve covered labor for a very long time, but you’ve never seen this—the extent of this kind of external interference in such an election. Can you explain what accounts for this in this case and also what you think the UAW could have done differently, if anything, to sway the vote?
STEVEN GREENHOUSE: Sure. I think, for Governor Haslam, for Senator Corker, for the Republicans, it’s kind of a win-win-win. You know, they please their base by being tough towards the unions. You know, that clearly makes the tea party happy. It makes conservative donors happy. Second, I think they do have a concern that if the union comes in, it’s going to hurt the business climate, and they figure, you know, "We might as well try to keep the union out." And third, I think they very much see the UAW—if the UAW were to win, it would be, you know, this powerful liberal force getting its nose under the tent and helping Democrats in Tennessee, and they want to do as much as they can to help keep the Democrats from having any resurgence in Tennessee. So it’s like a win-win-win for the Republicans in really going after the unions.
I think the UAW might have been more effective in several ways. And when you’re trying to organize in the South, you have to—you know, and you want to win, just strategically, you’ve got to do every single thing, you know, work every angle to try to maximize your chances. This one very impressive anti-union worker, Mike Burton, ran this very elaborate and impressive website, and I think that a lot of people paid a lot of attention to, and I don’t think the UAW website began to compare.
You know, Mike Elk, a reporter for In these Times, had a good story saying that the UAW should have reached out more to community groups. You know, the UAW, I think, was very confident it could win. It had a majority of cards, so I think it felt it did not really need to spend the time and energy to develop big ties with community groups to help put—you know, get the ball over the goal line. And I think, in the final days when it faced all this pressure and criticism from the governor, from the senator, from local lawmakers, you know, I think it would have helped them to have cemented further ties.
And third, I think the union was a—
AMY GOODMAN: We have 10 seconds.
STEVEN GREENHOUSE: The anti-union forces were much more aggressive in using the media and getting onto TV, and I think the union was a little slow in that regard.
AMY GOODMAN: Steven Greenhouse, we want to thank you for being with us, labor and workplace reporter for The New York Times, speaking to us from Houston. We’ll link to your piece at democracynow.org.
~~~~~~~
Headlines:
Documents Reveal Extensive NSA Targeting of WikiLeaks
A new report based on top-secret documents from Edward Snowden has revealed how the United States and Britain targeted the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks after it published documents on the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. According to a report co-authored by Glenn Greenwald and published by The Intercept, Britain’s top spy agency secretly monitored visitors to a WikiLeaks site by collecting their IP addresses in real time. Meanwhile, the National Security Agency added WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange to a "manhunting" target list alongside al-Qaeda suspects. The leaked documents also show the United States urged its allies to file criminal charges against Assange over the Afghan War Logs. We’ll be joined by Julian Assange and his attorney, Michael Ratner, after headlines.
~~~~~~~
Iraq Rocked by Deadly Explosions
In Iraq, a series of deadly car bombings has rocked Baghdad and areas south of it today, one day after another wave of explosions killed at least 24 people. Monday’s blasts in the Iraqi capital included attacks targeting Shiite mosques and the explosion of a bomb-laden minibus.
~~~~~~~
Thailand: 3 Killed as Police Seek to Oust Protesters
Police in Thailand have launched an effort to oust demonstrators from protest sites in the capital Bangkok. At least three people have died in the resulting clashes. The government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has been embroiled in a political crisis since November with opponents calling for her to resign and be replaced by an unelected council.
~~~~~~~
Ukraine: Protesters Clash with Police as Lawmakers Seek Curbs on President’s Power
In Ukraine, tens of thousands of anti-government protesters have attempted to march on the parliament, sparking clashes with police. Opposition lawmakers, meanwhile, are pushing for changes to the constitution that would curb the power of President Viktor Yanukovych following months of protests over his decision to strengthen economic ties with Russia instead of Europe. Protesters recently ended a nearly three-month occupation of city hall in the capital Kiev as part of an amnesty deal with the government, but they have continued calls for Yanukovych to resign.
~~~~~~~
Venezuela: Maduro Expels 3 U.S. Officials amid Opposition Protests
In Venezuela, President Nicolás Maduro has accused his opponents of mounting a coup amid violent anti-government protests that left at least three people dead last week. Claiming the United States has sided with the opposition, Maduro ordered the expulsion of three U.S. consular officials.
President Nicolás Maduro: "I have ordered the foreign minister of the republic to declare persona non grata and expel the three consulate functionaries of the embassy of the United States of America in Venezuela, that they go plot in Washington, that they leave Venezuela alone."
Maduro accused the U.S. officials of meeting with students in a bid to stir up unrest. The White House has denied any involvement in the protests. Opposition hardliner Leopoldo López has vowed to turn himself in after holding a final rally today. The government issued an arrest warrant for López last week, accusing him of inciting violence. Maduro has also called on his supporters to rally today.
~~~~~~~
U.N. Panel Finds Wide-Ranging Abuses in North Korea
A United Nations panel has issued a wide-ranging report accusing North Korea of "crimes that shock the conscience of humanity." Following a year-long investigation, U.N. investigators warned North Korean leader Kim Jong-un he could face responsibility in the International Criminal Court. The human rights abuses detailed by the panel include "extermination," enslavement, sexual violence, religious persecution, torture and the kidnapping of foreign citizens. Panel chair Michael Kirby described the findings.
Michael Kirby: "What is unique has been the capacity of North Korea to sail under the radar, to avoid international scrutiny, to avoid examination of its record over such a long time, effectively 60 years of very great wrongs against its population, wrongs against the Christian population, wrongs against minorities, wrongs against women. These, in their magnitude, in their gravity and in their number, are truly exceptional."
~~~~~~~
South Korea: Court Sentences Opposition Leader to 12 Years
In South Korea, a court sentenced an opposition leader to 12 years in prison Monday, accusing him of plotting against the government in favor of North Korea. Lee Seok-ki has rejected the charges against him, saying his trial was part of a government bid to muzzle progressives.
~~~~~~~
Iran Nuclear Talks Reopen in Vienna
Talks aimed at solidifying a deal over Iran’s disputed nuclear program are opening today in Vienna, Austria. Iran, the United States and five other world powers reached a temporary deal in November requiring Iran to curb uranium enrichment in return for easing crippling economic sanctions. The renewed talks are aimed at establishing a more long-term deal. On Monday, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, accused the United States of hostility toward Iran.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: "The nuclear issue is an excuse for their hostility. Even if the nuclear issue is resolved to the satisfaction of the Americans one day, which is extremely unlikely, another issue will follow again. Just observe now that the U.S. government speakers are raising human rights issues, missile issues, weapons issues and so on. I am surprised the Americans are not ashamed to even talk about human rights."
~~~~~~~
2 Pussy Riot Members Detained in Sochi, Russia
Two members of the Russian protest group Pussy Riot, who recently returned from a trip to the United States, have been detained in Sochi, Russia, where the Olympics are underway. Nadya Tolokonnikova and Maria Alyokhina spent nearly two years in prison for protesting Russian leader Vladimir Putin inside an Orthodox cathedral. They had planned to stage a protest against Putin in Sochi.
~~~~~~~
Transgender Activist Stages Pro-LGBT Actions at Sochi Olympics
A transgender activist and former member of Italy’s parliament has staged back-to-back actions in support of LGBT rights at the Olympics in Sochi. On Sunday, Vladimir Luxuria was detained after displaying a banner reading "Gay is OK" in the Olympic Park. The next day, she attempted to enter the Olympic hockey arena wearing an elaborate, rainbow headdress and carrying a gay pride flag, and was promptly escorted away. She said she was protesting Russia’s so-called gay propaganda law.
Vladimir Luxuria: "If I stop wearing the colors of the rainbow just because somebody took away a flag from me, that means that these people win. And I don’t want to be guided in my life by fear. I want to be guided in my life by courage, the courage that I always had in my life."
~~~~~~~
Arkansas Man Arrested for Opening Fire on Car, Killing 15-Year-Old Girl
An Arkansas man is behind bars for allegedly opening fire on a car full of teenagers over the weekend, killing a 15-year-old girl. Police in Little Rock say Willie Noble shot at the teenagers after they dumped eggs and leaves on his son’s car as part of a prank. Fifteen-year-old Adrian Broadway was shot in the head and died. Noble has been charged with first-degree murder.
~~~~~~~
Report: Oil-Boom City of Williston, North Dakota Has Highest Rent in the U.S.
The oil-rich city of Williston, North Dakota, now has the highest average rent in the United States, surpassing both San Francisco and New York City. Williston is at the center of a boom in domestic oil production fueled by fracking in the Bakken Shale. The population has surged in recent years, with many oil workers unable to find housing. According to the website Apartment Guide, a one-bedroom apartment in Williston now costs nearly $2,400 a month –- almost $900 more than the average in New York City.
~~~~~~~