SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Hillary Clinton Sides with NSA over Snowden Disclosures
Likely presidential candidate criticizes whistleblower for not going through proper channels and defends US global surveillance practices
Jun 13, 2014
Likely 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has taken a firm stance against the actions of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, denying his revelations have brought any positive impacts and slamming him for accepting asylum in Russia.
Speaking with NPR's Terry Gross on Thursday, Clinton claimed Snowden could have "expressed his concerns" in other ways "by reaching out to some of the senators or other members of Congress or journalists in order to convey his questions about the implementation of the laws surrounding the collection of information concerning Americans' calls and emails."
Her comments sparked criticism from progressives, journalists and civil liberties advocates.
"[Clinton] is just piling on with others who criticized Snowden, not recognizing that if it were not for him and his courageous disclosures, we wouldn't even know our government is routinely violating our 4th amendment rights," Matt Rothschild, senior editor of The Progressive magazine, told Common Dreams.
The former U.S. Secretary of State defended U.S. mass surveillance, stating, "collecting information about what's going around the world is essential to our security." She added, "The pieces about the metadata collection, the other impacts on Americans, is a small sliver of what was stolen. Most of what was stolen concerned the surveillance that the United States undertakes, totally legally, against other nations."
Clinton condemned Snowden for leaving "first to China, then to Russia--taking with him a huge amount of information about how we track the Chinese military's investments and testing of military equipment, how we monitor the communications between al-Qaida operatives."
While the high-profile Democrat condemned the wiretapping of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's mobile phone, and claimed that she favors a discussion of spying through the appropriate channels, she refused to acknowledge positive development from Snowden's revelations.
According to Rothschild, "To say that he should have gone to elected officials or other members of the media is to say he should have just gone through the safest channels for the establishment. As it is, he went to legitimate journalists who are doing what journalists are supposed to do, which is to tell the American people what our government is up to."
And Kevin Gosztola, writing for on FireDogLake on Friday, challenges Clinton's assertions about the choices available to Snowden:
Clinton does not even begin to fathom the possibility of retaliation for talking to members of Congress. She does not recognize that he would have received no "independent due process hearing or day in court" and it would have been very easy for the NSA to push him out of his job or fire him and ensure he never worked another position in government in which a security clearance was required.
Twitter commentators also jumped into the debate.
Rothschild adds, "This isn't surprising from Hillary Clinton, who is more hawkish on foreign policy and national security than President Obama. People should not be deluded about who she is and what kind of president she would really be."
_____________________
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare is the editor of Workday Magazine and a contributing editor for In These Times. She is a former Staff Writer at Common Dreams. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch.
Likely 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has taken a firm stance against the actions of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, denying his revelations have brought any positive impacts and slamming him for accepting asylum in Russia.
Speaking with NPR's Terry Gross on Thursday, Clinton claimed Snowden could have "expressed his concerns" in other ways "by reaching out to some of the senators or other members of Congress or journalists in order to convey his questions about the implementation of the laws surrounding the collection of information concerning Americans' calls and emails."
Her comments sparked criticism from progressives, journalists and civil liberties advocates.
"[Clinton] is just piling on with others who criticized Snowden, not recognizing that if it were not for him and his courageous disclosures, we wouldn't even know our government is routinely violating our 4th amendment rights," Matt Rothschild, senior editor of The Progressive magazine, told Common Dreams.
The former U.S. Secretary of State defended U.S. mass surveillance, stating, "collecting information about what's going around the world is essential to our security." She added, "The pieces about the metadata collection, the other impacts on Americans, is a small sliver of what was stolen. Most of what was stolen concerned the surveillance that the United States undertakes, totally legally, against other nations."
Clinton condemned Snowden for leaving "first to China, then to Russia--taking with him a huge amount of information about how we track the Chinese military's investments and testing of military equipment, how we monitor the communications between al-Qaida operatives."
While the high-profile Democrat condemned the wiretapping of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's mobile phone, and claimed that she favors a discussion of spying through the appropriate channels, she refused to acknowledge positive development from Snowden's revelations.
According to Rothschild, "To say that he should have gone to elected officials or other members of the media is to say he should have just gone through the safest channels for the establishment. As it is, he went to legitimate journalists who are doing what journalists are supposed to do, which is to tell the American people what our government is up to."
And Kevin Gosztola, writing for on FireDogLake on Friday, challenges Clinton's assertions about the choices available to Snowden:
Clinton does not even begin to fathom the possibility of retaliation for talking to members of Congress. She does not recognize that he would have received no "independent due process hearing or day in court" and it would have been very easy for the NSA to push him out of his job or fire him and ensure he never worked another position in government in which a security clearance was required.
Twitter commentators also jumped into the debate.
Rothschild adds, "This isn't surprising from Hillary Clinton, who is more hawkish on foreign policy and national security than President Obama. People should not be deluded about who she is and what kind of president she would really be."
_____________________
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare is the editor of Workday Magazine and a contributing editor for In These Times. She is a former Staff Writer at Common Dreams. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch.
Likely 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has taken a firm stance against the actions of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, denying his revelations have brought any positive impacts and slamming him for accepting asylum in Russia.
Speaking with NPR's Terry Gross on Thursday, Clinton claimed Snowden could have "expressed his concerns" in other ways "by reaching out to some of the senators or other members of Congress or journalists in order to convey his questions about the implementation of the laws surrounding the collection of information concerning Americans' calls and emails."
Her comments sparked criticism from progressives, journalists and civil liberties advocates.
"[Clinton] is just piling on with others who criticized Snowden, not recognizing that if it were not for him and his courageous disclosures, we wouldn't even know our government is routinely violating our 4th amendment rights," Matt Rothschild, senior editor of The Progressive magazine, told Common Dreams.
The former U.S. Secretary of State defended U.S. mass surveillance, stating, "collecting information about what's going around the world is essential to our security." She added, "The pieces about the metadata collection, the other impacts on Americans, is a small sliver of what was stolen. Most of what was stolen concerned the surveillance that the United States undertakes, totally legally, against other nations."
Clinton condemned Snowden for leaving "first to China, then to Russia--taking with him a huge amount of information about how we track the Chinese military's investments and testing of military equipment, how we monitor the communications between al-Qaida operatives."
While the high-profile Democrat condemned the wiretapping of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's mobile phone, and claimed that she favors a discussion of spying through the appropriate channels, she refused to acknowledge positive development from Snowden's revelations.
According to Rothschild, "To say that he should have gone to elected officials or other members of the media is to say he should have just gone through the safest channels for the establishment. As it is, he went to legitimate journalists who are doing what journalists are supposed to do, which is to tell the American people what our government is up to."
And Kevin Gosztola, writing for on FireDogLake on Friday, challenges Clinton's assertions about the choices available to Snowden:
Clinton does not even begin to fathom the possibility of retaliation for talking to members of Congress. She does not recognize that he would have received no "independent due process hearing or day in court" and it would have been very easy for the NSA to push him out of his job or fire him and ensure he never worked another position in government in which a security clearance was required.
Twitter commentators also jumped into the debate.
Rothschild adds, "This isn't surprising from Hillary Clinton, who is more hawkish on foreign policy and national security than President Obama. People should not be deluded about who she is and what kind of president she would really be."
_____________________
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.