Venezuela Grants Snowden Asylum

by Stephen Lendman

Pres. Maduro before portrait of late Pres Chavez.

On July 6, Russia Today headlined ” ‘Free from imperial persecution:’ Venezuela offers Snowden asylum.” Days earlier, President Nicolas Maduro said asylum would be “seriously” considered if sought. Snowden deserves a “humanitarian medal,” he added.

“If this young man is punished, nobody in the world will ever dare to tell the truth,” he stressed.

He’s a man of his word. It’s official. Maduro granted Snowden asylum. He did so on Venezuela’s Day of Independence. On April 10, 1810, the First Republic of Venezuela was established. Venezuela’s War of Independence began. On July 5, 1811, Venezuela declared independence. Spanish colonial rule ended.

[pullquote] “I announce to the friendly governments of the world that we have decided to offer this statute of international humanitarian law to protect the young Snowden from the persecution that has been unleashed from the most powerful empire in the world.” [/pullquote]

Venezuela was its first American colony to break free. Doing so reflected Bolivar’s vision. He liberated half of South America. He advocated using national wealth responsibly, equitably and fairly. He fought against what he called the imperial curse “to plague Latin America with misery in the name of liberty.”

Chavez was his modern-day incarnation. Maduro carries his torch. Doing so responsibly matters most. Hopefully he’s up to the challenge. Chavez called him Venezuela’s most capable administrator and politician. His leadership experience prepared him well. His credentials are impeccable. He’s ideologically left of center. He’s a former union leader, legislator, National Assembly speaker, foreign minister, and vice president. On April 19, 2013, he succeed Chavez as president.

Venezuela’s independence was short-lived. It lasted until July 25, 1812. Chavez restored Bolivarianism. It’s institutionalized. It benefits all Venezuelans. It does so equitably and fairly. Americans are cheated. They’re deprived. They’re denied. They’re persecuted. State terror is policy. Police state justice targets challengers.

Neoliberal harshness punishes millions. Americans get force-fed austerity, growing poverty, high unemployment, and unaddressed homelessness and hunger. They get government of, by and for wealth, power and privilege alone. They’re targeted for supporting right over wrong.

Venezuelans enjoy government of, by and for everyone. National wealth is equitably shared. On July 5, Maduro acted responsibly, saying:

“As head of state and of government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, I have decided to offer humanitarian asylum to the young American Edward Snowden.”

“To be independent, we must feel it. We must exercise our independence and sovereignty. Our discourses are meaningless if they aren’t exercised with force at the national level.”

“I announce to the friendly governments of the world that we have decided to offer this statute of international humanitarian law to protect the young Snowden from the persecution that has been unleashed from the most powerful empire in the world.”

“Let’s ask ourselves: who violated international law? A young man who decided, in an act of rebellion, to tell the truth of the espionage of the United States against the world? Or the government of the United States, the power of the imperialist elites, who spied on it?”

“Who is the guilty one,” he added. “A young man who denounces war plans, or the US government which launches bombs and arms the terrorist Syrian opposition against the people and legitimate president, Bashar al-Assad?”

Venezuela isn’t alone. Bolivia suggested asylum would be granted. On Friday, Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega said he’ll “gladly receive Snowden.”

“We are open, respectful of the right to asylum, and it is clear that if circumstances permit it, we would receive Snowden with pleasure and give him asylum here in Nicaragua,” he said.

On July 4, USASUR countries adopted the Cochabamba Declaration.

Presidents of Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Suriname, Uruguay, and Venezuela, as well as delegations from Brazil, Chile and Peru reacted to France, Italy, Portugal and Spain denying Evo Morales airspace and landing rights.

Their Declaration states:

“Given the situation that the President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Evo Morales, was subjected to by the governments of France, Portugal, Italy and Spain, we denounce before the international community and various international organizations:

The flagrant violation of international treaties governing peaceful coexistence, solidarity and cooperation between our states, that took place is an unusual act, unfriendly and hostile, configuring an unlawful act that affects freedom of movement and displacement of a head of state and his delegation.

The abuse and neocolonial practices that still exist on our planet in the XXI century.

The lack of transparency about the motivations of policy decisions that prevented air traffic for the Bolivian presidential vessel and its president.

The injury suffered by President Evo Morales, which offends not only the Bolivian people but all our nations.

The illegal spying practices that threaten the rights of citizens and friendly coexistence among nations.”

“In view of these denunciations, we are convinced that the process of building the Patria Grande (Integrated Latin America) to which we are committed must be consolidated with full respect for the sovereignty and independence of our peoples, without interference from global hegemonic powers, conquering the old practices of imposing first and second class.(status on) countries.”

“The male and female heads of state and governments of countries of the Union of South American Nations, gathered in Cochabamba on July 4, 2013:

(1) We declare that the unacceptable restriction on the freedom of President Evo Morales, making virtually him a hostage, is a rights violation of not only the Bolivian people but of all countries and peoples of Latin America and sets a dangerous precedent for existing international law.

(2) We reject the actions that clearly violate norms and principles of international law, the inviolability of the heads of state.

(3) We call on the governments of France, Portugal, Italy and Spain to explain the reasons for the decision to prevent the presidential plane from the Plurinational State of Bolivia from overflying through its airspace.

(4) Similarly, we urge the governments of France, Portugal, Italy and Spain present the corresponding public apologies for the serious incidents that occurred.

(5) We support the complaint filed by the Plurinational State of Bolivia to the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights for the serious violation of human rights and specific endangerment of the life of President Evo Morales; we also support the right of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to take all actions it deems necessary to the courts and relevant agencies.

(6) We agreed to form a monitoring committee, entrusting the task to our foreign ministries to perform the actions necessary to shed light on the facts.”

“Finally, in the spirit of the principles set forth in the treaty establishing UNASUR, we urge all the heads of state of the union to stand by (accompany) this declaration.

Similarly, we call on the United Nations and regional organizations that have not done so yet, to make a pronouncement on this unjustifiable and arbitrary event.

Cochabamba, July 4, 2013”

On Friday, Maduro accused CIA officials of “order(ing) to the air traffic authorities, which gave the alert that Snowden was going in (Morales’) plane.”

He said Washington sent an extradition request. It came while Evo Morales was still in Moscow. Venezuela rejected it. Maduro was blunt and unequivocal saying:

Washington has “no moral authority to request the extradition of a young man who exposed the illegality under which the Pentagon, the CIA and the power of the US work. I reject any request they are making for extradition.”

He justifiably wants Luis Posada Carriles extradited. He conspired with Orlando Bosch. They’re responsible for downing Cubana flight 455. In 1976, all 78 passengers aboard died.

Bosch died in April 2011. Carriles remains free in Miami. He’s a former CIA operative. He admitted responsibility for numerous terrorist attacks. Washington protects him. It rejects Venezuela’s request for justice.

Bolivia got America’s extradition request. Its Foreign Ministry called it “strange, illegal and unfounded.” At the same time, Morales threatened to expel US diplomats and close Washington’s embassy, saying:

“We don’t need the pretext of cooperation and diplomatic relations so that they can come and spy on us.”

Washington unjustifiably claims Snowden “unlawfully released classified information and documents to international media outlets.”

“The United States seeks Snowden’s provisional arrest should Snowden seek to travel to or transit through Venezuela. Snowden is a flight risk because of the substantial charges he is facing and his current and active attempts to remain a fugitive.”

It explained charges against him. They include:

“Theft of Government Property

Unauthorized Communication of National Defense

Information (and)

Willful Communication of Classified Intelligence Information to

an Unauthorized Person.”

Each charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment and $250,000 fine.

Snowden’s called “a fugitive who is currently in Russia. It urged Venezuela to arrest and hold him in custody. It wants items he has seized. Maduro rejected Washington’s charges. He did so responsibly. He exposed lawless NSA spying. He told the truth, Maduro said. He deserves his just reward. He’s free at last. Or is he? Traveling safely to Venezuela won’t be easy. His flight route’s important.

Attempting to overfly EU countries risks trouble. Flying east perhaps avoids it. A potentially safe route might be Moscow to Hong Kong, Beijing or Shanghai, then Caracas. He needs proper travel documents. Without identity papers, they’ll him cross international borders legally. Russia must approve. So must an airline carrier. Private non-commercial travel’s simpler. At issue is who’ll cover costs either way. Traveling from Moscow to Caracas isn’t cheap.

Commercial flights are expensive. Cost exceeds $1,000. Who’ll pay if Snowden can’t? Wherever he goes, he’s unsafe. Washington’s long arm threatens him. Obama wants him silenced, imprisoned or dead. Snowden knows and said so. He’ll live every free day ahead like his last. Hopefully he’ll avoid US injustice. He deserves his just reward.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached atlendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

http://www.dailycensored.com/venezuela-grants-snowden-amnesty/

Supreme Court Guts Voting Rights Act

by Stephen Lendman

Clarence Thomas: A shameless neocon in black robes, worse than his white colleagues.

America’s High Court lacks legitimacy. It’s supremely pro-business, anti-populist, anti-labor, and anti-rule of law fairness. It mocks democratic principles. It does so shamelessly. On June 25, it eviscerated Voting Rights Act enforcement. It usurped congressional authority. It did so unconscionably. In Shelby County v. Holder, it ruled 5 – 4. More on this below.

A previous article said America’s Supremes are notoriously hard right. Equal justice under law is more illusion than reality. Rule of law principles and egalitarian fairness don’t matter. Power politics corrupts the High Court. It lacks legitimacy.

[pullquote] America’s duopoly and judicial rulings mock legitimate governance. High-minded rhetoric is duplicitous. It belies supporting wealth, power and privilege. Democracy in America is pure fantasy. Farcical elections reflect it. Big money controls them. Winner-take-all subverts proportional representation. [/pullquote]

Five justices are Federalist Society (FS) members. They include Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas. They’re ideological extremists.

FS began 30 years ago at Harvard, Yale and University of Chicago law schools. They’re neocon bastions. Initially it was a student organization. It challenges orthodox liberalism. It corrupts itself in the process.

It menaces freedom. It advocates rolling back civil liberties. It wants New Deal social policies ended. It supports imperial wars, corporatism, and police state harshness. It wants reproductive choice, government regulations, labor rights, and environmental protections ended. It spurns justice in defense of privilege. It defiles constitutional protections doing so.

US voting rights were constitutionally flawed by design. America’s founders enfranchised adult white male property owners only. Laborers were excluded. So were women. Slaves were considered property, not people. Native Americans, some free Black men, apprentices, felons, and persons considered incompetent were denied. In 1810, the last religious prerequisite was eliminated. In 1850, property ownership and tax requirements no longer applied. In 1855, Connecticut adopted the first qualifying voting literacy test. Other states followed.

In 1870, the 15th Amendment enfranchised freed slaves and adult males of all races. In 1889, Florida adopted a poll tax. Ten other southern states followed. In 1913, the 17th Amendment allowed voters to elect senators for the first time. State legislatures did earlier. In Guinn v. United (1915), the Supreme Court ruled grandfather clause exemptions to literacy tests unconstitutional. They violate 15th Amendment rights.

In 1920, the 19th Amendment enfranchised women for the first time. America’s founders denied them. They considered them homemakers and child-bearers alone. They denied them fundamental rights in the process.

In 1924, Native Americans were enfranchised for the first time. The Indian Citizenship Act made them citizens. Doing so included federal election voting rights. In Smith v. Allwright (1944), the Supreme Court ruled all white primaries unconstitutional. The 1957 Civil Rights Act was the first voting rights bill since Reconstruction. Southern opposition made it largely ineffective. In Gormillion v. Lightfoot (1960), the Supreme Court ruled a gerrymandered Alabama district unconstitutional. It disenfranchised Blacks.

In 1961, the 23rd Amendment let District of Columbia voters participate in presidential elections. It stopped short of granting statehood and congressional representation. In 1964, the 24th Amendment banned poll taxes in federal elections. In 1965, the Voting Rights Act became law. It followed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It prohibits racial, ethnic, religious and gender discrimination. It does so in schools, workplaces and other institutions. The Supreme Court ruled it constitutional.

On August 6, 1965, Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law. Section 5 requires states with prior discriminatory enfranchisement histories to obtain federal “pre-clearance” before enacting voting laws or regulations.

At issue is precluding discriminatory practices. Since 1982, pre-clearance provisions were invoked hundreds of times. In 2009, Chief Justice John Roberts lied.

“(T)hings have changed in the South,” he claimed. Jim Crow’s very much alive. It flourishes. It’s true across America. It’s reflected in how people of color are mistreated. It extends way beyond voting. Shelby County, AL challenged the Voting Rights Act. It did so irresponsibly. It alleged the enacted 2006 Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization was unconstitutional.

Congress passed it overwhelmingly. Senators voted 92 – 0. House members concurred 390 – 33. So did George Bush. He signed it into law. America’s 15th Amendment demands it. It’s the law of the land. Section 1 states:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2 states:

“The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

High Courts can’t change it. Constitutional amendments alone permit it. Doing so requires two-thirds congressional approval. Two-thirds of the states may do it by constitutional convention.

In November 2012, Supreme Court justices accepted Shelby County’s legal challenge. On February 27, 2013, they heard arguments. On June 25, they ruled. At issue is the constitutionality of Section 5 pre-clearance requirements.

Justices called Section 4(b) unconstitutional. It no longer may be used to enforce pre-clearances. Doing so guts fundamental voting rights. They’re disturbingly weak already.

US elections are farcical. They lack legitimacy. Money power runs things. Duopoly power rules. Voters have no say. High Court justices further disenfranchised them.

Doing so reflects America’s deplorable state. Jim Crow lives. The law of the land is lawlessness. It rages out-of-control. Constitutional rights don’t matter. They lie in history’s dustbin.

Rogues run America. Government of, by, and for them alone exists. No one else matters. Striking down Voting Rights Act enforcement is unconscionable. It reflects watershed anti-democratic harshness.

Without teeth, voting rights no longer matter. Pretense is gone. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s no profile in courage. Her dissent concealed her support for privilege, saying:

Congress “with overwhelming support in both houses” agreed the pre-clearance should “continue in force unabated.”

Retaining it “facilitate(s) completion of the impressive gains thus far made.” Continuance guards “against backsliding.” Congress alone should decide. It’s “well within (its) province to (do so) and should elicit this court’s unstinting approbation.”

She addressed racially motivated voting barriers, adding:

“Early attempts to cope with this vile infection resembled battling the Hydra. Whenever one form of voting discrimination was identified and prohibited, others sprang up in its place.”

“When confronting the most constitutionally invidious form of discrimination, and the most fundamental right in our democratic system, Congress’s power to act is at its height.”

America’s duopoly and judicial rulings mock legitimate governance. High-minded rhetoric is duplicitous. It belies supporting wealth, power and privilege. Democracy in America is pure fantasy. Farcical elections reflect it. Big money controls them. Winner-take-all subverts proportional representation. So do deplorable voting rights. States largely go their own way. Automatically enfranchising all citizens at birth is verboten.

Uniform national election law doesn’t exist. Local prohibitions are discriminatory. Ex-felons, current inmates, wrongfully imprisoned ones, others guilty of minor transgressions are denied. Many citizens are intimidated not to vote. Other voters are lawlessly stricken from rolls. It’s done with technological ease. Voting is made hard, not easy.

America’s process is deeply flawed. It’s too broken to fix. It has no legitimacy whatever. Things are bad enough already. High Court justices made it worse. Doing so reflects political Washington consensus. It bears repeating. Wealth, power and privilege alone matter. It’s the American way.

A Final Comment

An unprincipled Wall Street Journal editorial headlined “Voting Rights Progress,” saying:

“(O)n Tuesday, the Supreme Court marked a milestone worth celebrating when it ruled that a section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act has outlived its usefulness.”

Civil rights advocates know otherwise. Hard won earlier gains were lost. Right-wing politics triumphed. Bipartisan ruthlessness assured it. Profiles in courage don’t exist. Rogue state governance is policy.

Not according to Journal editors. They claim racial fairness when none exists. “Far from a civil rights defeat,” they said, “Tuesday’s ruling is a triumph of racial progress and corrective politics.”

What else would Murdoch editors say.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached atlendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

For A European Antifascist Movement

Yorgos Mitralias

1. That is why we could henceforth evoke a trend toward the “Greecization” of, at least, the European south, insofar as countries such as Spain, Italy or even France, one after the other, find themselves confronted with a political scene that has been deeply and drastically changed, just like what has been going on in Greece for the last two to three years. To various extents, but in a clearer and clearer fashion, the pillar of their political system, say their traditionally prevailing two-party system, has entered a profound crisis (France, Spain) or more, is collapsing (Greece, Italy) in favour of often unheard of until those days political forces, belonging to both ends of the political scene. In no time, their two main (left and right) neoliberal parties, which had been keeping the power in turns – altogether, they used to gather 70 per cent, 80 per cent or even more of the votes, have now started to decline or even decompose. They are no longer granted more than 50 per cent, 40 per cent or even 30 per cent of the citizens’ preferences.

Collapse of Social-Democracy

2. Even though the classical right has suffered too, the consequences of the alienation of citizens mainly impacted the social-democracy. Social democratic parties are collapsing everywhere in Europe (Greece, Spain, Italy and France) and – a sign of the times – they’re no longer capable of taking profit of the natural wearing out of the right when it’s in power. They strongly decline even when they are in the opposition!

In fact, we are witnessing an unprecedented crisis of social democracy which bears all the characteristics of a… terminal one! The consequence is historic and cataclysmic: having lost one of its two legs, the two-party system, which used to ensure political stability and the smooth running of a system based on the changeover of political power between the neoliberal parties, hangs in suspense and has stopped functioning. Under these circumstances, the regime crisis is not far away.

3. We have to acknowledge that the European Left is not in a state such as to embody the hopes of angry citizens who are deserting the parties that once used to prevail. Apart from Greece (Syriza), nowhere in Europe has the left got neither the credibility, nor the organized strength and social foothold, nor, above all, the capacity to inspire the masses that have been turning away from the main bourgeois parties while radicalizing their rejection of the established order.

The consequence of Europe’s Left powerlessness in facing the generalized crisis of the bourgeois domination system cannot be summed up to the prediction that the left will not take advantage of this cataclysmic crisis of capitalism. Alas! There is much worse to it. What is already looming on the horizon is that this historic crisis, along with the left’s current powerlessness, could all too well lead to whole sections of a confused and disorientated society turning, in the end, to the far right or even neo-fascist and neo-Nazi forces in an attempt to express their anti-system revolt!

4. Is this a mere working hypothesis? No, this is exactly what is happening in a continuously growing number of European countries. Now, it has nothing to do anymore with the “Greek exception” that has seen the hatching and stunning development of the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn. Now it is about a real far right tidal wave, or at least of the reactionary Euro skepticism (Germany, UK), even in North European countries so far relatively spared by the debt crisis and austerity policies!

Even more important than the quasi generalization of the phenomenon is the fact that the far right is now operating a historic breakthrough in such a great country as France, which has always marked our continent’s history. And even in countries where the far right remains marginalized (Italy, Spain, Belgium…), social crisis and political fragility are such that the situation might as well evolve in favour of the emergence of a far right force in no time, all the more taking into account the risk of contagion.

Unprecedented Political and Social Crisis

5. In fact, all the ingredients of an unprecedented since World War II political and social crisis are now put together in Europe so that we are getting closer and closer to the interwar period and its “devils,” even though the world has gone through tremendous changes since the 1930s.

However, similarities with the interwar period are not limited to the “objective” situation. Unfortunately, we see the “subjective factor,” the non social-democratic left, displaying the very same incapacity than the left in those days to understand what is going on in the deepest layers of society, and to react accordingly. The conclusion has to be categorical: it is not the rise of the far right – however impetuous it may be – that causes fear. What is frightening and determines today’s and tomorrow’s tasks is rather the incapacity or impossibility for the left not only to resolve the crisis to its own profit, but also to stand in the way of this rising reaction and far right!

6. Supposing that the diagnosis is right, what should we do, provided that, of course, we rule out any passive and fatalistic attitude and choose to fight before it’s too late? The answer seems obvious: we need to gather as quickly as possible all the available forces throughout Europe, Eastern, Western, Northern and Southern, in order to start a long term fight against the rising far right, including neo-fascism and neo-Nazism.

7. In order to make sense and above all to be able to bring tangible results, this European anti-fascist gathering must be altogether unitary and radical, massive and democratic. Any sectarian approach, dividing rather than uniting, reveals a deep misunderstanding or understating of the gravity of the situation, which requires the constitution of a unitary front gathering all those, without any exclusions, who are willing to fight the brown plague. The lessons of the interwar period, those of Italy of the 1920s and those of Germany of the 1920s and the 30s are here to remind us that the shortest way to suicide for the workers’ and socialist movement goes through its own sectarianisms and splits in front of the rising racist, fascist and Nazi far right.

United and Radical Anti-Fascism

8. In order to be able to inspire the anti-fascists and meet the people’s expectations in these times of prolonged social war, this anti-fascist gathering has to be unitary as well as radical. Here we have not only to ascertain that the fights against the people’s starvers and the far right are organically linked, since the far right supports – in ultimate analysis – the system and its economic foundations. Here we have to take into account the revolt, however confused and partial, of the victims of austerity policies against the system which generates them and the politicians who implement them. For it is the moderation of a certain left, perceived – understandably – as a kind of “softness” and a refusal to put into acts the left’s fine words that makes the impoverished and desperate masses turn to fascists and other right extremists nearly everywhere in Europe.

9. This unitary and radical European anti-fascist gathering must imperatively be democratic as well, based on the citizens’ self organization. Why? Because only mobilized citizens can fight and beat the far right and because the indispensable condition for their mobilization is that they themselves determine their fights, their goals and their forms of action. In other words, they have to take over their fate.

10. But there is more than this. If we want to fight with some chance of success against the far right, we have to do so everywhere, constantly and above all globally, on every ground, without ignoring any battlefield. Because it is not only about confronting the storm troops, the militia and other racist and neo-fascist gangs in the streets, but also facing the tremendous ravages caused in the minds and behaviors by the neoconservative counter revolution, the comeback of the worst racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, anti-feminist and chauvinist reaction. And all this because the current rise of a mass far right does not fall out of the sky: it was prepared via the methodic poisoning of our societies by the selfish and anti-human “values” of the neoliberal, patriarchal and, finally, misanthropic and barbarous counter revolution.

11. In other words, nobody can claim to be anti-fascist as long as they are not in war against the pillars and the raison d’être of the far right, that is racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, chauvinism, sexism, as well as the worship of blind violence, machismo and intolerance. A political or other organization cannot practice a consistent form of anti-fascism so long as it remains homophobic, jingoist, sexist, or even keeps making its militants goose-step parade.

So, who else than the directly concerned people – the citizens themselves – can give these everyday battles where they work, live, study, express themselves, build up relationships, love each other? The conclusion seems to be obvious: in order to be effective, anti-fascism must not be the apparatuses’ business. It has to be the business of self-organized citizens wherever they exercise their activities as social beings. An anti-fascism that would not attack all the aspects of the ongoing reactionary counter revolution and would restrict itself to fighting only its epiphenomena would be already doomed to powerlessness.

12. However, be careful: given the extreme emergency of an already critical situation, the true dilemma is no more “to act or not to act” against the growing far right threat, but to decide and act quickly, as quickly as possible, for too much time has already been wasted in Greece – as well as in Hungary and elsewhere. Therefore, it’s time to stop warning us saying that we must not let the brown serpent get out of its egg. Unfortunately, this warning is no more useful because the serpent not only has already left its egg long ago but it has become a monster parading in the streets and sowing terror at least in many European countries!

Consequently, let’s decide and act quickly! Being the result of an at least atypical initiative, the European Antifascist Manifesto has the great merit of existing and forcing us to face our responsibilities. Time is no longer for the indecisiveness of the ones neither for the fatalism and the passivity of the others. It is not as well for the sectarianism of those who do not want to understand that only united we could be credible enough to inspire the anti-fascist will of the large citizens’ masses. Now, it is time for anti-fascist unity and action, it is time for building the European anti-fascist movement. Today! Tomorrow could be too late… •

European Antifascist Manifesto:

Spain campaign: www.antifascismeuropa.org
Greece campaign: www.antifascismeuropa-ellada.gr
France campaign: www.manifesteantifascisteeuropeen.fr
Slovenia campaign: www.odbor.si/antifa

Yorgos Mitralias is a founding member of the Greek Committee Against the Debt, which is affiliated to the international network of CADTM (www.cadtm.org), where this article first appeared.

On Sunday June 23rd NBC’s Meet the Press’s David Gregory interviewed Glenn Greenwald, an exchange followed by the usual “balancing” act of presenting critics and accusers of Ed Snowden (and Greenwald himself). The latter, as is also usual, easily outnumbered Greenwald’s sole voice of truth and reason, but that’s par for the course on corporate media “news programs.”

The panel of establishment politicos and high national security officials included Mike Rogers (R), who chairs a Congressional security committee and Dick Durbin (D-IL), Tom Coburn (R-OK), and Loretta Sanchez (D-CA/Homeland Security Committee), billed by some as a serious critic of the NSA program. As the footage shows, this proved to be grossly misplaced trust and a delusion. As befits a card-carrying Democrat, she promptly caved in, reaffirming her “patriotism” by pronouncing Ed Snowden a criminal.

We all understand that technically Snowden broke the law, and that any Congress critter that should profess sympathy for Snowden would be torn apart by the rest of the hyenas, BUT… the law, Sanchez should have said, reflects only the official game rules of the class forces in power. And that although the law may be “moral” at times, in many cases isn’t. Thus an impeccable state of law may be wholly immoral and criminal. That was the case with Nazi Germany, a state which prided itself upon the logical perfection of its laws but which implemented unadulterated evil on a monstrous scale, with the support of the majority of its population. Something similar may be said for the American South (and the entire US, for that matter) during the ante bellum, as slavery was accepted and endorsed throughout the nation, and many states prosecuted those who offered aid and comfort to runaway slaves (“stolen property”).

Incidentally, at one point the chastised Gregory (Greenwald has a mordant tongue), seeking to disturb Greenwald’s aplomb, threw him a curve that came pretty close to baiting: WHY SHOULDN’T YOU BE CHARGED FOR AIDING EDWARD SNOWDON?

The transcript follows on P2.—Patrice Greanville

MEET THE PRESS (NBC)

June 23: Durbin, Coburn, Rogers, Sanchez, Gibbs, Murphy, Reed, Fiorina and Todd

MR. DAVID GREGORY: This Sunday, we are covering the breaking news this morning. NSA leaker Edward Snowden on the run now as the government files formal charges against him.

Plus, our own congressional summit on the hottest issues of the president’s second term.

The immigration fight is coming to a head with high stakes and big leadership tests for both the president and the GOP. The stock market stumbles. How much volatility is ahead in the economy? And what should Washington do?

And, the debate over spying. Is the country still behind the NSA surveillance programs or does the president need to make a public case to keep it going? With us, four key Capitol Hill voices. Assistant Democratic leader in the Senate Dick Durbin of Illinois; the top Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, key conservative voice on immigration, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma; Democratic Congresswoman from California, Loretta Sanchez; and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Republican Congressman Mike Rogers of Michigan.

Then, our political roundtable on Obama’s rough patch. Critical reviews of his trip to the G8 and his efforts on Syria, falling approval ratings. Is his second term slipping away?

ANNOUNCER: From NBC News in Washington, the world’s longest running television program, this is MEET THE PRESS with David Gregory.

GREGORY: Good Sunday morning. A busy one. We’ve got breaking news here that we are following this morning. NSA leaker Edward Snowden is on the move. He has left Hong Kong. He boarded a commercial flight to Moscow a few hours ago, final destination unknown, but he is expected to land in Moscow in just a few minutes. The Hong Kong government issued a defiant statement claiming the U.S. extradition request did not fully comply with Hong Kong law. And WikiLeaks posted a statement just moments ago saying Snowden is, quote, “Bound for a Democratic nation via a safe route for the purposes of asylum and is being escorted by diplomats and legal advisers from WikiLeaks.” That organization, as you know, responsible for other high-profile leaks of classified information. All of this as the U.S. has charged Snowden with espionage and the theft of government property and has made clear that they intend for him to face justice here in the United States. Many questions remain. We want to talk to the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers, who is with us exclusively this morning, in just a moment. But first, I want to bring in the man who actually broke the NSA surveillance story for The Guardian newspaper columnist Glenn Greenwald. He has got additional information this morning. Glenn is in Brazil this morning. And I should point out there is a very big delay between us on the satellite, so I want to be mindful of that. And Glenn, so as I begin this morning, tell us where Snowden is? Where he is ultimately headed?

MR. GLENN GREENWALD (Columnist, The Guardian): Well, I think the– the where he is question is one that you just answered which is he is on a commercial flight to Moscow. Where he is ultimately headed is unknown. In every conversation that I have had with him over the last three weeks, he has stressed that the key contacts for every decision that he is making is as McClatchy reported this morning the Obama administration has been engaged in an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, people who bring transparency to what they are doing, and he believes that it’s vital that he stay out of the clutches of the U.S. government because of the record of the Obama administration on people who– who disclose wrongdoing that the political officials are doing in the dark and he apparently is headed to a Democratic country that will grant him asylum from this persecution.

GREGORY: So, he does not intend to return to the United States. He intends to fight extradition. What else does he intend to do? You have been in contact with him. Is there additional information he is prepared to leak to bolster his and your claim that he is actually a whistleblower and not a criminal responsible for espionage?

MR. GREENWALD: Sure. I think the– the key definition of a whistleblower is somebody who brings to light what political officials do in the dark that is either deceitful or illegal. And in this case, there is a New York Times article just this morning that describes that one of the revelations that he– he– he enabled that we reported is that the director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, went before the U.S. Congress and lied outright when asked whether or not the NSA is collecting any form of data on millions of Americans. His response– Director Clapper’s response was, “No, sir.” As The New York Times said today, even Clapper has had to say that that statement was absolutely false. And the very first conversation I ever had with Mister Snowden, he showed me the folder in which he had placed the documents and labeled it, “NSA Lying to Congress,” that proved as we reported that the NSA is bulk collecting the phone records of millions of Americans indiscriminately, exactly what Clapper denied to the Congress was being done. As for illegality, The New York Times also said today that the bulk spying program exceeds the Patriot Act and there’s a FISA court opinion that says that the U.S. government, that the NSA engaged in unconstitutional and illegal spying on American citizens. That court opinion is secret, but he showed me documents discussing internally in the NSA what that court ruling is, and that should absolutely be public.

GREGORY: With regard to that specific FISA opinion, isn’t the case, based on people that I’ve talked to, that the FISA opinion based on the government’s request is that they said, well, you can get this but you can’t get that. That would actually go beyond the scope of what you’re allowed to do, which means that the request was changed or denied, which is the whole point the government makes, which is that there is actual judicial review here and not abuse. Isn’t this the kind of review and opinion that you would want to keep these programs in line?

MR. GREENWALD: I don’t know what government officials are– are whispering to you, David, but I know that the documents that I have in my possession and that I have read from the NSA tell a much different story which is that there was an 80-page opinion from the FISA court that said that what the NSA is doing in spying on American citizens is a violation of both the Fourth Amendment and the bounds of the statute. And it specifically said that they are collecting bulk transmissions, multiple conversations from millions of Americans, not just people that are believed to be involved in terrorist organizations or working for a foreign agent, and that this is illegal. And the NSA then planned to try and accommodate that ruling. But I think the real issue, as journalists and as citizens is, why should we have to guess, how can we have a democracy in which a secret court rules that what the government is doing in spying on us is a violation of the constitution and the law and yet we sit here and don’t know what that ruling is because it’s all been concealed and all been secret. I think we need to have transparency and disclosure, and that’s why Mister Snowden stepped forward so that we could have that.

GREGORY: There are reports that he’s ultimately headed to Venezuela. Is that your understanding?

MR. GREENWALD: I don’t– I’m not going to talk about where he’s headed or what his plans are. I think it’s up in the air. I’m not actually sure where he’s headed and he’s my source for these stories. I’m not going to talk about where I think he’s going.

GREGORY: Well, that would meet the criteria for what he’s outlining– what you’ve outlined this morning in terms of where he’d like to be.

MR. GREENWALD: Right. Well, Venezuela has a democratically elected government, though it has lots of problems in its political system. And I think the real question is why should an American citizen who joined the U.S. military, worked for the CIA, worked for the NSA– why does he feel that he has to flee the United States simply because he stepped forward in a very careful way, goes to newspapers, reveals wrongdoing and lying on the part of U.S. government officials, why does he feel that he has to flee. And McClatchy article this morning answers that question. It says the Obama administration has been unprecedentedly aggressive and vindictive in how it punishes and treats whistleblowers as enemies of the state. And I think that’s really the question we need to be asking is why are whistleblowers being treated in this fashion?

GREGORY: You’re– you– you are a polemicist here, you have a point of view, you are a columnist, you’re also a lawyer. You do not dispute that Edward Snowden has broken the law, do you?

MR. GREENWALD: No. I think he’s very clear about the fact that he did it because his conscience compelled him to do so, just like Daniel Ellsberg did 50 years ago when he released the Pentagon papers and also admits that he broke the law. I think the question, though, is how can he be charged with espionage? He didn’t work for a foreign government. He could have sold this information for millions of dollars and enriched himself. He didn’t do any of that either. He stepped forward and– as we want people to do in a democracy, as a government official, learned of wrongdoing and exposed it so we could have a democratic debate about the spying system, do we really want to put people like that in prison for life when all they’re doing is telling us as citizens what our political officials are doing in the dark.

GREGORY: Final question before– for you, but I’d like you to hang around. I just want to get Pete Williams in here as well. To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden, even in his current movements, why shouldn’t you, Mister Greenwald, be charged with a crime?

MR. GREENWALD: I think it’s pretty extraordinary that anybody who would call themselves a journalist would publicly muse about whether or not other journalists should be charged with felonies. The assumption in your question, David, is completely without evidence, the idea that I’ve aided and abetted him in anyway. The scandal that arose in Washington before our stories began was about the fact that the Obama administration is trying to criminalize investigative journalism by going through the– the e-mails and phone records of AP reporters, accusing a Fox News journalist of the theory that you just embraced, being a co-conspirator with felony– in felonies for working with sources. If you want to embrace that theory, it means that every investigative journalist in the United States who works with their sources, who receives classified information is a criminal, and it’s precisely those theories and precisely that climate that has become so menacing in the United States. That’s why the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer said investigative reporting has come to a standstill, her word, as a result of the theories that you just referenced.

GREGORY: Well, the question of who’s a journalist may be up to a debate with regard to what you’re doing and of course anybody who’s watching this understands I was asking a question. That question has been raised by lawmakers, as well. I’m not embracing anything. But, obviously, I take your point. Mister Greenwald, just stay put if you would for just a moment. I want to bring in Pete Williams. I appreciate you dealing with the delay as well. Pete, can you just bring up to speed on where the Justice Department is on this? What is that they are prepared to do now that Snowden has done? What he’s done?

MR. PETE WILLIAMS (NBC News Justice Correspondent): Well, the request for extradition will follow wherever he ends up. What I’m told is, first of all, we know that the charges were filed actually under seal a week ago in the Eastern District of Virginia right across the river from Washington, and the Chinese– the Hong Kong government was informed of that, and the U.S. sought the next step, which is an arrest warrant. And then after he was arrested, the extradition process would start. Administration officials say that the Hong Kong officials came back to the U.S. just this past Friday night with additional questions that the U.S. was in the process of responding when the Hong Kong authorities notified the U.S. that they decided to let him go. Now, in their statement, the Hong Kong government says that the charges the U.S. filed, quote, “Did not fully comply with the legal requirements under Hong Kong law.” I think it’s fair to say that there’s– the U.S. is upset about this because it’s the administration’s claim that the filing of the charges was a back-and-forth with the Hong Kong authorities. They wanted to make sure that they would conform to the treaty, the extradition treaty the U.S. has, and that they’d received assurances that it would, so this is a– this is quite a surprise, I think it’s fair to say, the administration. But David, I think from now on this is a diplomatic issue not a legal one, because it’s quite obvious he intends to seek asylum and that’s where this process goes next.

GREGORY: What are the lengths to which the administration may be prepared to go? I’m not asking you to– to speculate, but what are going to be some of the menu of choices that they’re going to have to be discussing?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the only ones I know are the diplomatic and illegal ones. Whether there– whether there are more exotic ones, to sort of grab him and bring him back, I wouldn’t know and of course they wouldn’t say. That would obviously be very controversial although I’m sure there are many members of Congress who would agree and others who would think that it was the wrong thing to do. But as far as I know, this is strictly a legal and diplomatic one obviously– I mean, I suppose if– if that was going to the course, the U.S. had the chance to do that when he was in the– in Hong Kong and chose not to.

GREGORY: All right, Pete, thank you so much. One last question for Glenn Greenwald. Glenn, I just would like you if you would to respond to your critics who as you know have made a case against you, against Snowden saying, look, this is not a case of a courageous whistleblower who worked through the system even available to whistle-blowers to report if– if something that you may think is abuse. These– this is a partisan who is single-handedly deciding to expose programs that there is both support for and in doing so illegally that this is more of an agenda and that there’s frankly a lot of concern that one person would take it upon himself to– to undermine a program that a lot of people believe is actually helpful to national security.

MR. GREENWALD: Right. This is what the U.S. government, what you just– what you just– that the claim that you just referenced has been saying for decades. They said the same thing about Daniel Ellsberg. They said the same thing about whoever leaked the Bush NSA eavesdropping program to The New York Times in 2005 or who told The Washington Post’s Dana Priest about CIA black sites. This is how the government always tries to protect themselves from transparency is by accusing those who bring it of endangering national security. There’s been nothing that has been revealed that has been remotely endangering of national security. The only thing people who have learned anything are the American people, who have learned the spying apparatus is directed at them. But let me just quickly say it isn’t Edward Snowden who’s making the decisions about what has published. He didn’t simply upload these documents to the internet or pass them to adversary governments, which is what he could have done, had he been inclined or had his motive been to harm the United States. He came to two newspapers The Guardian and The Washington Post and said I want you to be extremely careful about what it is that you publish and what it is that you don’t publish. Only publish what Americans should know, but don’t harm national security. And we have withheld a majority of things that he gave us pursuant not only to his instruction, but to our duty as journalists. That’s what whistleblowers and journalists do every single day, David. That’s how Americans have learned about wrongdoing on the part of the U.S. government, through this process.

GREGORY: All right, Glenn Greenwald, I really appreciate you coming on this morning and for your views. Thank you very much.

Joining me now, Democratic Senator from Illinois, the Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin; Republican Senator from Oklahoma, Tom Coburn; Republican Congressman from Michigan, the Chair of the Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers; and the Democratic Congresswoman from California, Loretta Sanchez. Welcome to all of you. I want to go through some of the hot topics on Capitol Hill right now and move through some of these things. But I’ve got to start here with this breaking news. And let me go with you, Chairman Rogers, reaction to what you’ve heard in to the developments this morning.

REP. MIKE ROGERS (R-MI/Chair, House Intelligence Committee): Well, it’s concerning. Obviously, what appears to be as of today that he is flying– will– will catch another flight from Moscow, many believe to Cuba. We know that there is air traffic from Moscow to Cuba, then on to Venezuela. And when you look at it, every one of those nations is hostile to the United States. I mean if he could go to North Korea and Iran, he could round out his government oppression tour by Snowden. So you think about what he says he wants and what his actions are, it defies logic. He has taken information that does not belong to him, belongs to the people of the United States. He has jeopardized our national security. I disagree with the– The Reporter. Clearly, the bad guys have already changed their way. Remember, these were counterterrorism programs essentially, and we have seen that bad guys overseas, terrorists who are committing and plotting attacks on the United States and our allies, have changed the way they operate. We’ve already seen that. To say that that is not harmful to the national security of the United States or our safety is just dead wrong.

GREGORY: And Greenwald mentioned the FISA opinion, some eighty pages long. He doesn’t have the opinion but he’s– he’s got documents supporting it essentially saying that the government overreached, went beyond its authority, and– and in fact, he says, we can establish illegality as opposed to what I suggested to him, which was– it was a judicial review and then a change was made. What do you say?

REP. ROGERS: This is obviously why the program works. There is judicial review and there is judicial pushback, and rightly so. This is the problem with having a thousand-piece puzzle, taking three or four pieces and deciding that you’re now an expert on what that picture looks like. You’re going to get it wrong. They’re getting it wrong and it’s dangerous. So what happened was the court looked at it and said because of a technical difficulty, you’re collecting more information than you’re allowed to collect. You have to fix it. They came back, they stopped collection, they went back, they reviewed it, they figured out how to correct that. That’s exactly the kind of thing you want to do. And by the way, it was reported to Congress as well. We reviewed it. We agreed that they had over collected, and we also agreed the– the mitigation, the way that they tech– used technology to make sure they weren’t collecting certain bits of information was adhered to. That’s the way you want a classified system to work when you’re not trying to tell the bad guys how we do things.

GREGORY: Before I bring everybody else in, what lengths should this administration go to track Snowden down? The diplomatic route as Pete Williams reported on could be very difficult if he ends up in Venezuela. You’re chairman of the– the House Intelligence Committee. What should this administration do?

REP. ROGERS: They should use every legal avenue we have to bring him back to the United States. And, listen, if he believes that he’s doing something good–and by the way, he went outside all of the whistleblower avenues that were available to anyone in this government, including people who have classified information. We get two or three visits from whistleblowers every single week in the committee, and we– we investigate every one thoroughly. He didn’t choose that route. If he really believes he did something good, he should get on a plane, come back, and face the consequences of his actions.

GREGORY: Is he gone? Do you think he’s gone? Not to return?

REP. ROGERS: I– I don’t– I’m not sure I would say gone forever. I do think that we’ll continue with extradition activities wherever he ends up and we could– should continue to find ways to return him to the United States and get the United States’ public’s information back.

GREGORY: Let me bring in Senator Durbin, and we– this is obviously being reported widely on Twitter this morning, Senator, as you can understand, WikiLeaks tweeting that he has just landed in Moscow. Edward Snowden has just las– landed in Moscow. So, he’s gone from Hong Kong and on his way potentially to Venezuela, perhaps somewhere else. Specifically react to Glenn Greenwald who says this administration is criminalizing investigative journalism, criminalizing the release of information that could really contribute to a healthy debate about this kind of surveillance, and that Snowden is not guilty of espionage.

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL/Assistant Majority Leader): Well, listen, every president of both political parties, first responsibility is to keep America safe, period, but to do it within the confines of the constitution. And that’s exactly the debate we’re engaged in now. I’ve been a critic of this bulk collection for years. I’ve offered amendments in the judiciary committee and on the floor. I believe that it should be restricted. I don’t think it currently is– is serving our nation because it goes way too far. If there’s a suspect in the city of Washington with some linkage to a terrorist, will we collect the phone records of everyone who makes a phone call in area code 202 for five years? If there’s a reasonable and specific suspicion, we should go after those who are thought to be complicit in any act that could jeopardize America. Having said that, though, this administration has an awesome responsibility to keep us safe and when it comes to classified information has to take care that we don’t jeopardize the lives of Americans, our troops, our allies and friends around the world by releasing these sorts of things in a public fashion.

GREGORY: Senator Tom Coburn, you’re following events this morning. How important is it at this juncture to get Edward Snowden back to the United States so that he can face justice? Because what’s clear is that he is not only seeking to avoid that but that he plans to stay in hiding and continue to leak information to bolster his own case for being a whistleblower and not a criminal and to continue to try to press the debate here on this issue.

SEN. TOM COBURN (R-OK): Well, I don’t know that– that we’re going to have a lot to influence that, David. I think the more important thing is what is– is NSA, how well is it looked at? It’s– it’s the most over sighted program in the federal government. I’m known as a pretty good critic of most of the programs of the federal government. I believe that this is a well run within the constitutional framework of its guidelines and that we, in fact, if you– if we could talk about everything, which we can’t, which is one of the problems with this, Americans would be pretty well satisfied. The other thing that I think is, is that if you look at the institutions that are trusted in this country– and we have a real waning of confidence in the institution of government. When you look at the– the scale, Congress is on the bottom and the U.S. Army is on the top. And our military has done a great job running this program within the confines of the program as it was set out in Congress. And also, just to counter what Senator Durbin said, we don’t listen to anybody’s phone calls. We don’t– we don’t go and monitor the phone calls until we have a connection with a terrorist. And that’s– that’s the key point with which you can even go to access this. So it’s a whole different story than what has been blown out of proportion of what actually happens.

GREGORY: All right. Congressman Sanchez, you’ve been critical of these programs. You heard Glenn Greenwald this morning saying that there– that it’s not as targeted as you may think, that the government is, in effect, sucking up information from e-mails and from phone calls that goes way, way beyond the Patriot Act. There have been Republicans who have said this, James Sensenbrenner, that goes beyond the Patriot Act. How concerned are you?

REP. LORETTA SANCHEZ (D-CA/Homeland Security Committee): Well, as you know, I have not voted in favor of any Patriot Act or any of the FISA Amendments or anything else that goes with it particularly because I have been concerned in this area. You know, I mean the Supreme Court has been pretty straightforward about the Fourth Amendment. They’ve let it err on the sense of national security. It’s the Congress actually who can rein it in, but it’s the Congress who’s actually allowed it to be much broader and have collection happen. And my biggest point is that not everybody in the Congress is given access to what is really happening. And so when our American public says, hey, we don’t know about this and why are you doing this, I mean, maybe we can’t tell everybody in our nation, but you would think that 435 members of the House and a 100 senators should have access and ability to understand what the NSA is doing, what all the other agencies, intelligence agencies are doing. And actually have a good debate and maybe it has to be behind closed doors, but certainly with all deference to– to our chairman here, he may have information, I doubt he has everything and knows everything, but certainly I am limited even when I ask.

GREGORY: What about– what about Snowden? Do you think, as Glenn Greenwald does, that it’s preposterous to charge him with espionage? Is that your view?

REP. SANCHEZ: Clearly under the laws that the Congress has set and that the Supreme Court under its prior rulings he has broken the law. I mean, that’s where we are.

GREGORY: You’d like to see him brought to justice here in the United States?

REP. SANCHEZ: I am very worried about what else he has and what else he may put out there. I am worried about our national security.

GREGORY: Chairman, let me bring you in on this. Senator Schumer saying this morning that there are some indication that Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, had advanced knowledge of Snowden’s flight and his travel plans. What are the ramifications of that if it’s true?

REP. ROGERS: You know I– it wouldn’t surprise me. I don’t have information to that effect, but it wouldn’t surprise me. Putin has been playing a thorn in the world’s side in Syria. We think that they may not be playing honest with their adherence to the nuclear treaty. They’re very aggressive around the world trying to regain their influence. They’ve modernized their nuclear fleet. Listen, Russia is a country that wants to get back on the world stage and I don’t think they really care if they do it in a way that’s in the best interest of good citizenship around the world. This shouldn’t surprise us. They have a very aggressive intelligence operation in the United States. I’m sure they would love to have a little bit of coffee and a few conversations with Mister Snowden. That’s why this is so serious and why we need to be so aggressive about making sure that people understand the difference between somebody who betrays their country and gives secrets away that will protect American lives at the expense for whatever he hopes to gain in the company of the Russians, in the– in company of the Chinese Intelligence Services, in the company of what you can only imagine is Cuban and Venezuelan Intelligence Services, as well.

GREGORY: Senator Durbin, Howard Dean, a progressive, who ran for president, of course at a time when there were progressives meeting out west this weekend in the Netroots conference. He said something on Thursday that I want to show and get your reaction too. This is about what the president ought to do. He said, “I think the American people are willing to give us some privacy– give up some privacy in exchange for safety, but I think the president has to essentially ask our permission… This reason this country works is because we are governed with the consent of the governed… I think the American people support the president, but he’s got to go on television and explain what the program is, why he thinks we need it, and what it has accomplished.” Do you think the president needs to do more now to keep Americans onboard with what we’re doing?

SEN. DURBIN: Well, the president’s already started that. He had the first meeting with the Civil Liberties Oversight Board which has that specific responsibility within the federal government. There should be more activity, more statements by the president, and engage the public. To go back to Senator Coburn’s point, I never said that they had access to the conversations, only to the phone records. But it’s still a significant piece of information about each of us. David, we live in a world where people are tweeting every random thought that comes into their head and going to Facebook every night and disclosing things about their personal lives. We are sacrificing giving up voluntarily our privacy, the public sector and private sector gathering information which could limit our privacy. And it’s time for a national conversation, where should we draw these lines?

GREGORY: I want to switch gears. I’ve just got a couple of minutes left. Again, I appreciate you all bearing with me the fact that this breaking news has come up. But Senator Coburn, let me get your views on immigration right now at a critical time, as we’re heading toward a vote, as the Senate is moving on this, the House will take it up, what do you think in the end we’re going to end up with, if anything, on immigration reform?

SEN. COBURN: Well, my hope would be that we have a cogent border security plan, that we solve the– the difficulty of those living in the shadows, that they can come out, and that we don’t ask the American people to trust us but we actually put out a cogent plan that actually solves the problem–border with walls but also with doors, much like Reagan had espoused, and a way to where we continue this grand experiment where we have a mix of everybody coming here to better their families, better our country, and secure and enhance both their freedom and ours.

GREGORY: Congresswoman, is whatever’s being debated on terms of border security in the Senate, is it enough to affect what’s going to happen in the house? If you look at the experience of the farm bill here, are you going to be able to overcome conservative opposition to the idea of reform in a pathway to citizenship to get meaningful reform?

REP. SANCHEZ: Well, that’s really Speaker Boehner’s job to get his votes out of his conference. But I believe if you’re going to look at 30 billion dollars more into border security, I mean, that’s– that’s not been put aside, this whole issue of border security, because we’ll have the money to do that. The whole issue that’s it’s an economic drain, we just found out this week, hey, it’s about 900 billion dollars in the positive. So I believe from three standpoints, we need to get this done and now is the time. We need to get it done from a homeland security perspective, we need to get it done because it’s better for our economy, and we need to get it done because it’s about traditional American family values, keeping our families together. These are families that are deacons in our church, PTA moms, little league coaches. They are part of our American fabric, already.

GREGORY: All right. We’re going to leave it there. Again, I appreciate it. Other topics that I wanted to cover including the economy and more on immigration, but we’ve run out of time and, especially, with this Snowden news. Chairman, Congresswoman, thank you. Senators, thank you both. Look forward to having you back on soon to talk about some of these other issues. We’re going to come back here with our political roundtable. It’s been a rough ride for the president of late to have these controversies surrounding the IRS and, obviously, the NSA surveillance stories just to name a few. And we’re only five months past the inauguration. Is this second term now starting to slip away? We’re going to talk about the politics with our roundtable, Former Press Secretary for the President, Robert Gibbs; Republican Strategist, Mike Murphy; the Democratic Mayor of Atlanta, Kasim Reed; Former Chair and CEO of HP, Carly Fiorina; and NBC’s chief White House correspondent and political director Chuck Todd here, as well. We’re coming back right after this.

(Announcements)

GREGORY: The president’s approval rating takes a dip, and Speaker John Boehner suffers a surprising defeat this week. Coming up, the leadership challenges for both men as Washington prepares to take on one of the biggest issues yet, immigration reform.

Plus, are we closer to being able to use one of these on flights during takeoff and landings? We’ll talk about it with our roundtable after this brief commercial break.

ANNOUNCER: Now, it’s your turn to bring something to the table. Viewer’s today’s question. Weigh in now at Facebook.com/meetthepress.

(Announcements)

GREGORY: We are back with all this breaking news about Edward Snowden with our roundtable. Joining me, the Former White House Press Secretary, now NBC News political contributor Robert Gibbs; Republican Strategist, Mike Murphy; the Democratic Mayor of Atlanta, Kasim Reed; Former Chair and CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Carly Fiorina; and our NBC News political director and chief White House correspondent, Chuck Todd. Welcome to all of you. Chuck, this is something of an embarrassment and certainly a concern for this administration that thought it had an extradition– an agreement worked out.

MR. CHUCK TODD (Political Director, NBC News/Chief White House Correspondent, NBC News): It is and when you’re hearing Pete’s reporting about what happened in this diplomatic back and forth with Hong Kong, this is clearly a– the– the U.S. government is kind of have to figure out, is there going to be retribution against Hong Kong, what is that that’s going to– what is the fallout over that? And let’s not pretend the minute now that he’s in Moscow and the– and the way he’s going to go, he is not coming back anytime soon. And the ability to get that done, I mean, I saw firsthand this relationship between the United States and Russia specifically between President Obama and President Putin, it’s– it’s– it’s cheap to say it’s cold war-like…

GREGORY: Mm-Hm.

MR. TODD: …but it’s cold. It is a relationship that is chilly. So the idea that somehow Moscow is going to be cooperative with United States and the U.S. government wants– wants an (Unintelligible). It’s not going to happen. And in– in many ways, Putin always looks for little ways that he can stick a thumb in the U.S. government’s eyes and– and Obama’s eyes and this is a little way to do it.

GREGORY: Robert Gibbs, you have been in the middle of these kind of delicate situations before when you were inside the White House. Not a lot of great options right now as…

MR. ROBERT GIBBS (White House Press Secretary, 2009-2011/Former Senior Adviser, Obama 2012 Re-election Campaign/NBC News Political Contributor): No.

GREGORY: …you have somebody who is perhaps going to a place that it would be difficult to get him from and who is working with journalists like Glenn Greenwald and others to put out information that will continue to shed light on these programs and push the debate.

MR. GIBBS: Yeah. There is no question these are– are a lot of bad options. And as Chuck said, I don’t think landing in Havana or Caracas is going to increase our likelihood that Mister Snowden will be flying on a government plane back to the United States anytime soon. I think to build off of what Senator Durbin said, I think, you know, it is incumbent upon this administration and this White House to have a more robust conversation about these programs. I don’t know that this is a huge debate that it’s taking place outside of the beltway, but it is obviously one this morning that’s raging inside the beltway and a greater discussion as much as you can about transparency and about what these programs are and what they aren’t. I will say you have– you listen to a lot of the coverage and you would think we had literally millions and millions of FBI agents listening to every single call that every single American is making. That’s simply not true.

GREGORY: Mm-Hm.

MR. GIBBS: And I think having that discussion actively with the American people is an important thing to do.

GREGORY: You know, part of the tactics of this and part of the debate is frankly around journalism. And Glenn Greenwald referenced it when I asked him a question about whether he should or will face charges, which has been raised. And, you know, I want to acknowledge there is a– a debate on Twitter that goes on online about this even as we are speaking and here’s what Greenwald has tweeted after this appearance this morning, “Who needs the government to try to criminalize journalism when you have David Gregory to do it?” And I want to directly take that on because this is the problem with somebody who claims that he is a journalist, would object to a journalist raising questions which is not actually embracing any particular point of view. And that’s part of the tactics of the debate here when, in fact, lawmakers have questioned him. There is a question about his role in this, The Guardian’s role in all of this. It is actually part of the debate rather than going after the questioner, he could take on the issues and he had an opportunity to do that here on– on MEET THE PRESS. What is journalism, Mike Murphy, and what is appropriate is actually part of this debate?

MR. MIKE MURPHY (Republican Strategist): Absolutely. And the great irony to me in all this is so-called whistleblower can only go to almost rogue nations to hide, because then with this rule of law, he’d get extradited. He’s a felony. He’s a fugitive. It’s a bad sign for Hong Kong that has built an image of having its own independence from the PRC with its own system of law. That’s up in smoke today and that’s going to have repercussions in our relationship, I think, with the Chinese. So we’ll see what happens. He may wind up on the run in Caracas, but it’s clear he’s a felony and a fugitive and he will not have a good life now.

GREGORY: Kasim Reed, mayor of Atlanta, you’re outside the beltway dealing with issues like the economy and– and government regulation and implementation of Obamacare.

MR. KASIM REED (Mayor of Atlanta, GA): Yes.

GREGORY: But you’ve got and you heard it from Glenn Greenwald this morning, you’re hearing it from Edward Snowden, they want to keep a debate alive to get people focused on what they believe is not just controversial but actual abuse.

MR. REED: Well, here’s where we are. What we know is we have a president that wants to have a path for law-abiding citizens to be removed from this process. Listen, all of these members of Congress, put a bill on the floor. All of the chatter and debate that we’ve been listening to can be addressed by putting a bill on the floor, but the reason that people won’t put a bill on the floor is because with that bill would come responsibility. And the fact of the matter is both presidents, Bush and Obama, have done a pretty significant job, strong job of keeping this country safe. If you’re the House– House member or senator that puts a bill on the floor to address these issues, you know what, you’re going to own it.

GREGORY: Right.

MR. REED: And if you think of how the country felt on the day of the Boston bombings, that horrific incident, amplify that times 25 or 50, which are the number of terrorist incidents that we have been able to interrupt because of these kind of programs. So they need to be reined in, but these folks there making all these commentaries from– from the cheap seats, should put a bill on the floor.

GREGORY: Carly Fiorina, you know, I think the point is important because what Congress has failed to do is actually have the guts to have a debate. If you want to debate these things, then don’t pass the Patriot Act in perpetuity, don’t give the president authority to wage a military campaign without coming back and saying, hey, maybe we ought to review this. But Mike Hayden, who ran the NSA, was on this program last week, and he made the point that there has– these programs cannot operate in the dark. They have to be politically sustainable. And here’s what he said last week that I thought was quite interesting. We’ll show it to you.

(Videotape; 16 June 2013)

GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN (Ret. Former NSA Director/Former CIA Director): I think it’s living in this kind of a democracy we’re going to have to be a little bit less effective in order to be a little bit more transparent to get to do anything to defend the American people.

(End videotape)

GREGORY: Your thoughts.

MS. CARLY FIORINA (Former Chair & CEO, Hewlett-Packard/Founder & Chair, Good360): Well, Mike Hayden was a great NSA leader and he’s a great friend, and I agree with both him and the Mayor. I think there is a moment of opportunity here. When we get past the specific of Edward Snowden, there is a moment of bipartisan opportunity to step back and say, how is it that we should be holding these vast complicated agencies accountable? I actually think the IRS and the NSA scandal have something in common. Whatever you think, you don’t need to think the president politically motivated the IRS and you don’t need to be against the NSA program to raise the profound question of when you have such vast bureaucracies. How do we hold them accountable? How does Congress meet its oversight responsibility? How do the American people come to trust government again knowing that big bureaucracies actually are held in check somehow and we have a way of determining that the people who work in them are not abusing power but are competent and ethical? That’s an important debate to have.

GREGORY: Chuck– Chuck, your comment on this, also this– the Glenn Greenwald issue and the journalism debate that’s underway this morning.

MR. TODD: Well, first of all, we’ve changed culturally. There is a culture of transparency. We live with it now, social media. There is this expectation particularly with a certain generation that we should know more. And the government has been slow. Government institutions have been slow to respond to that. So I think that they have to– when the– when the– when the country changes culturally, government should respond to the cultural change in that– in the country and when it comes to transparency and when it comes to what the government’s doing, how much information we as a– as a governed people expect to have, we expect to have more information, not less. We expect this so I think that’s a case where the president in particular, but Congress has also failed to sort of respond to the country culturally. This issue of– of journalism and whistleblowers, you know, I’m hesitant, you know, on one hand, I do– I do think that the– the Justice Department was overbearing on what they did with a– with a number of these folks, what they did at the Associated Press, what they did to Snowden. And I’ve– I’ve had people who are uncomfortable having phone conversations now with different sources, even on the– the smallest of levels. So in that respect I understand the– the skittishness on the other hand. On the other hand, you know, Glenn Greenwald, you know, how much was he involved in the plot? It’s one thing as a source, but what– what was his role– did he have a role beyond simply being a receiver of this information? And is he going to have to answer those questions? You know, there is– there is– there is a point of law. He’s a lawyer, I mean, he attacked the premise of your question. He didn’t answer it.

MR. MURPHY: Yeah, and the one thing I was saying that– two big points to this. One, it’s never been easier in human history to be a whistleblower than now…

GREGORY: Right.

MR. MURPHY: …like departments of whistleblowing. So the– I know, there’s not a legitimate path to hear these grievances, but I think the other point people have to understand…

MR. TODD: I disagree that– that the path within government stinks. It is not a protected path.

MR. MURPHY: Well, I– we disagree on that.

MR. TODD: I don’t think it’s great.

MR. MURPHY: The digital world has changed everything. The internet is an incredibly effective tool for terrorists and outlaws. So it’s not surprising that the security side of the state is trying to compete with that. So people have to understand the miracle of being able to send your cat photo around the world in a nanosecond and having all your information online, changes everything. And government is struggling with how to not let that be a free channel for bad people to use as a tool and on the other hand not be, you know, ubiquitous in– in shattering privacy. It’s a very complicated debate because of the digital revolution.

GREGORY: Robert, one of the things that– that Chuck and his team wrote on First Read this morning is about the– the notion of being leaderless in Washington. And one of the struggles for the leader of the government, the president, is finding his voice on this. I mean, he has spoken, but rather cryptically about the– the utility of these programs and his view about it. Is that a problem?

MR. GIBBS: Well, one, it is hard to talk about these programs without being in some ways cryptic because…

GREGORY: Sure.

MR. GIBBS: …as you– as you heard Michael Hayden talk about, as the more transparency that we give– and we do need to give a necessary amount in order to sustain these programs politically and in public opinion, but you have to be careful as to not just talk about what Mike talked about, which is give terrorists basically the playbook for how we’re monitoring their communications. But, you know, I– I think it is– it is important to have this debate. We do have to have something that in the end comes out of this that is– that is politically sustainable. And, you know, you saw it beginning this week with the current head of the NSA talking about the plots that have been disrupted. I do think, again, an honest conversation about what is and what isn’t being collected so that, like I said, I don’t turn on the TV and I hear people talk about they literally– there must be the millions and millions of FBI agents that are listening to every single phone call in this country. Not only is that…

MR. TODD: Congress have done that.

MS. FIORINA: Well, I…

MR. TODD: And you’re responsible…

MR. GIBBS: But not only is that not…

MR. MURPHY: But a lot of them (Unintelligible) agents.

MR. GIBBS: Right. But not only is that not happening, it’s incapable of happening.

MS. FIORINA: I do think one of the reasons it’s important to step back and kind of begin to talk about some of these profound questions, distrust is created when people can’t square the circle. So on the one hand, you hear people say, oh, we’ve disrupted 50 terrorist plots, and on the other hand Boston happens, we were warned about this person twice, and yet somehow that occurred. And we know that terrorists get on the internet all the time and get a how-to book to do all kinds of things. So I think people are having trouble reconciling what appears to be a lot of oversight with something like Boston. And in the end, as we all know, it’s human nature. If you don’t know something, you assume the worst. The American people have woken up to the fact that they don’t know a whole lot about…

GREGORY: Right.

MS. FIORINA: …what government is involved in.

GREGORY: Let– let me do this– let me do this. Let me…

MR. REED: …bought to justice in five days.

MS. FIORINA: But they also killed and wounded many.

MR. REED: No– absolutely, but over a ten-year period, I would take the– take the hand that the United States has had and the diligence that law enforcement has displayed since 9/11 and it is essential to Americans that when– when something terrible like that happens, those individuals be brought to justice.

MS. FIORINA: I agree.

MR. REED: All of these– all of these– all of these measures were necessary as it relates to Boston.

MS. FIORINA: I agree with you.

GREGORY: Let me get a quick– well, let me do this. I got to get a break in here. I want to come back with our roundtable, talk about the immigration fight.

Also another big story this weekend, Paula Deen–her apology, what it means for her future after using racist language. We’re back with our roundtable right after this.

(Announcements)

GREGORY: We have a live picture from Moscow. A media spectacle there now as the flight that believes– believed to have Edward Snowden on it is being greeted by, you know, people waiting for the flight but also journalists as this will be an evolving story about Snowden’s arrival in Moscow, where he eventually goes and one that will be getting a lot of attention as we move forward. Chuck Todd, yes the other question that’s going to be getting a lot of attention as we move forward is, what’s happening on Capitol Hill this week over immigration and whether, in fact, reform is really at hand and what we end up with in the end?

MR. TODD: I have been one of these people that says oh don’t pay attention to all the chatter that immigration could get killed in the House, it may not get through the House. Then once the Senate gets 70-plus votes it will move its way. And then watching the debacle on the foreign bill, watching Speaker Boehner bring a bill– the entire leadership bring a bill to the floor that they thought they had the votes for and they couldn’t do it, I do– you know, and it goes through this point you were bringing up with Robert, which is this– I saw the president overseas essentially neutered, inability to do really much on Syria, not– there isn’t this sense of urgency, how do you get Russia to move off of its support of Assad and sort of this stalemate that’s going there, inability to use the platform of as leader of the free world there, watching the speaker of the House, totally not being able to lead the House. Well, it makes you wonder how does immigration get the through? The Senate is working. Senate’s a lonely, tiny little body here that seems to be working with some sort of diligence here. They’re going to get something through. I still think it will get 70 to 75 votes. I’m no longer believing that it can get through the House.

GREGORY: Well, that’s– I mean, you know, Lindsey Graham on this program last week, Mike, was saying it’s a death spiral for the GOP if they don’t get reform done. But there are a lot of people in the House who might be willing to take him on on that.

MR. MURPHY: Yeah. No, look, I’ve been a fanatic for this issue for a long time. I’m a huge supporter of immigration reform and now the bill has been kind of loaded up with this border surge, which is a political maneuver, an expensive one, to try to get it through the conservative wing in the House and its dicey. I’m hoping it passes because I’m tired of watching democratic inaugurations in Washington, but it could very well fail.

MR. GIBBS: Leaving aside the irony that to get conservatives to support immigration reform, we should double the size of a government bureaucracy in the Border Patrol. But I do think one of the things that Mike and many Republicans that are supportive of this are going to have to face is the reality of if this dies in the House with this huge amount of border security in it, they’re going to have really tough conversations with Latinos and Hispanics about what this party stands for, do they really want people to come out of the shadows.

GREGORY: Hold on. Let– I just want to get Mayor– Mayor Reed in on something with Paula Deen. Again, an abrupt switch– switching of gears, but a big story this weekend–Paula Deen, of course, the– the Food Channel has been (Unintelligible) apologizing for using the N-word in the past, really a– a– a debacle here from your– from your home state, what do you make of it?

MR. REED: Well, one, I want to remind folks that if the president hadn’t been re-elected, we wouldn’t be having a debate about immigration. We’d be on to something else. So I don’t think he’s been neutered. But regarding Paula Deen, I just think it’s very unfortunate. What she’s basically said is she used language from her childhood and growing up in the past, but we all have to change. So I think folks are going to be hearing what she has to say over the next few weeks. I think she has apologized once– she’s going to continue to do that. But it is very unfortunate and totally unacceptable language.

GREGORY: All right. We’ll take another break here. Come back in just a moment.

(Announcements)

GREGORY: That is all for today. I want to thank everybody very much. You can watch this week’s PRESS Pass conversation with economist and author Jeffrey Sachs on his new book To Move the World about John F. Kennedy’s push for peace with the Soviet Union during the last year of his presidency. That is on our blog MeetThePressNBC.com. We will be back next week. If it’s Sunday, it’s MEET THE PRESS.

Venezuela Grants Snowden Asylum

Supreme Court Guts Voting Rights Act

For A European Antifascist Movement

Collapse of Social-Democracy

Unprecedented Political and Social Crisis

United and Radical Anti-Fascism

A New Beginning Without Washington’s Sanctimonious Mask

MBC’s Meet the Press’ David Gregory spars with Glenn Greenwald