Slashdot Mirror


Jimmy Carter: Snowden Disclosures Are 'Good For Americans To Know'

McGruber writes: "Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter defended the disclosures by fugitive NSA contractor Edward Snowden on Monday, saying revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies were collecting meta-data of Americans' phone calls and e-mails have been 'probably constructive in the long run.' 'I think it's wrong,' President Carter said of the NSA program. 'I think it's an intrusion on one of the basic human rights of Americans, is to have some degree of privacy if we don't want other people to read what we communicate.'" It's important to note that Carter doesn't believe Snowden should necessarily get a pass for his actions. Carter said, "I think it's inevitable that he should be prosecuted and I think he would be prosecuted, [if he comes back to the U.S.] But I don't think he ought to be executed as a traitor or any kind of extreme punishment like that." Nevertheless, Carter thinks NSA surveillance has gotten out of control. "We've gone a long way down the road of violating Americans' basic civil rights, as far as privacy is concerned." He added, "For the last two or three years, when I want to write a highly personal letter to a foreign leader, or even some American leaders, I hand-write it and mail it, because I feel that my telephone calls and my email are being monitored, and there are some things I just don’t want anybody to know except me and my wife."

20 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. What does he have to hide? by wiredlogic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What does President Carter have to hide? Must be some sort of terrorist if he wants to communicate privately. We should get a government security detail to monitor this dissident ASAP.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    1. Re:What does he have to hide? by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny

      What does President Carter have to hide? Must be some sort of terrorist if he wants to communicate privately. We should get a government security detail to monitor this dissident ASAP.

      He's a liberal, of course he thinks people should have civil rights. Why, he's practically a socialist!

      What we need now, more than ever, is fanatical nationalism!

      wait wut?

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  2. Re:to-belgium-with-900-strong-entourage-45-vehicle by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ah yes, Obama, our weak totalitarian king community organizer who is controlled by nazi tree-hugging muslim pastors.

    Did I get everything that's wrong with Obama? Or am I missing the fear du jour?

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  3. Basic human rights of *Americans* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm glad that Mr. Carter is so concerned about the basic human rights of Americans. I would, however, urge him to explain to me how the basic human rights of Americans differ from the basic human rights of other humans...

    Seriously, all of the recent news about the NSA basically read "oh, we will take better care of US citizens", but the fact that they explicitly mention the "basic human rights of Americans" or "US citizens" probably implies "we'll continue as before spying on our friends over in Europe and elsewhere"...

    1. Re:Basic human rights of *Americans* by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would, however, urge him to explain to me how the basic human rights of Americans differ from the basic human rights of other humans...

      Well, in the context of the NSA it goes like this: In the USA there is a framework in place that permits The Man to spy on an Americans (subpoenas, warrants), so if The Man wants to spy he needs to work within that legal framework.

      There's no such framework in place for The Man to spy on alleged baddies in foreign nations - So in that sense, the rights of Americans are different from the rights of foreigners.

  4. My 0.02 by DaMattster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm glad to hear Carter's stance on NSA and spying but I'm deeply disappointed that he stopped short of exoneration for Snowden. In my mind, Snowden is a patriot. No country should sacrifice liberty for security. When this happens, the terrorists win. Yes, they win and win big.

    1. Re:My 0.02 by RabidReindeer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Jimmy Carter's fault has always been that he wants fairness and "the right thing" not merely what's popular or "should be" right. Reagan's popularity was in large part because he didn't care that much about fairness, he wanted what "should be" right for him, his cronies, and his country, and everyone else was expected to get out of the way and take care of themselves.

      I'm with Carter's view, though. Snowden should face trial, because that's the appropriate response for distributing confidential information without permission. A fair and impartial trial would most likely acknowledge that he broke laws and agreements, but exonerate him because he had no obviously better alternative. It's also a good place to put the whole thing under close public inspection. And public inspection is one of the cornerstones of democracy, just as keeping everything hidden is a hallmark of the police state.

      Unforfunately, at the moment, the best we seem to be able to offer Snowden is a fair and impartial conviction.

    2. Re:My 0.02 by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's unfortunate that our legal system has chosen to interpret "impartial" as "unqualified". One of the greatest flaws in our legal system is that we want it to be "fair" by removing any hope of it being more than a crap shoot. I could be a lawyer with no legal training simply by manipulating the jury using basic negotiation tactics.

      First thing: do you know the defendant or anyone else involved? Yes? Get out.

      Second thing: do you know anything about this particular case? Yes? Get out.

      Third thing: Do you know anything about anything involved in this case--for example, anything about the NSA spying programs, constitutional law related, other media coverage for similar cases i.e. Julian Assange, etc. Yes? Get out.

      What we have left is people who know nothing about these activities, how it affects them, or what Snowden revealed. They haven't put any thought into government spying programs, and will likely see "Government protecting citizens" versus "insane conspiracy theorist throwing dangerous national secrets everywhere". Without a huge amount of analysis, backgrounds in criminology and philosophy, and a strong understanding of wide-spread social theory, they can't make a good judgment. They either immediately go, "Oh he broke the law and spilled a lot of our secret important government anti-terrorist protection activities all over, putting us in danger," or they'll go, "Government! I told you them commie son-bitches! They tryin' mind control us!"

      It's like pulling a bunch of people into a lecture hall where they have a debate over quantum mechanics for a few hours a day, and then several days or weeks later they ask you how you think the protouniverse could have emerged from the quantum foam (where the fuck did the energy come from!?) and if black holes and dark matter are mutually exclusive or can co-exist in nine-dimensional space. And you're not allowed to study quantum theory before or during this whole affair.

  5. If you want to prosecute Snowden, fine, by fredrated · · Score: 5, Informative

    but first we need to prosecute the criminals he revealed. Unless that happens, nothing will change.

  6. Re:to-belgium-with-900-strong-entourage-45-vehicle by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ah yes, Obama, our weak totalitarian king community organizer who is controlled by nazi tree-hugging muslim pastors.

    Did I get everything that's wrong with Obama? Or am I missing the fear du jour?

    I think you forgot to play the race card.

    And he forgot to call Obama a "socialist". Also some kind of shot at "Obamacare" is always called for in such matters.

  7. Re:Oh, how cute by kheldan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh for fuck's sake don't be such a jerk about this. Carter may not be anywhere near the best President we've had in this country, but he was President, and as such his making statements like these publicly actually does mean something, and I for one am glad he's come out and said what he had to say. Furthermore I suspect there are other notable people who'd like to follow suit but didn't want to be the first one to do so. 'Bout damned time, I say.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  8. all too common view on Snowden by Tumbleweed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Politicians are quick to say the NSA has gone too far, but none of them have the balls to say Snowden should be pardoned. Grow some balls. He apparently tried several times to bring his concerns to his superiors, only to be shut down. If he didn't do what he did, we would not know what we know, or even be having this discussion. There's no need to make him a martyr. He did what was right.

  9. Re:Oh, how cute by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Right, Whatever you think of Carter one of the common defenses jerks like Obama hide behind and lots of other people is, "the realities of the office."

    And typically is pretty hard to counter argument because very few of us have any where near the information privilege the President does, and probably none can really understand the responsibility. However someone who has been President can; so that it cuts that argument off at the knees.

    Carter condemning the surveillance, and calling the Snowden disclosures good for Americans, helps expose the "national security" lie.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  10. Re:I hate that by N0Man74 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hate it when Jimmy Carter and I agree on anything.

    I hate it when Jimmy Carter and I agree with you on anything.

    But seriously, the Carter hate is not entirely fair. Some bad things happened while he was in office, but he had some notable accomplishments too.

    I think that it's fair to say that he was a much better human being than he was a politician. However, I think we would be better off with a few more Carters around.

  11. Re:good for USA, but he still should be prosecuted by jez9999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree, this is a serious cop-out on Carter's part. Either you think the info shouldn't have been released and Snowden should be prosecuted, or you think it's good that it was and therefore he shouldn't be. It's inconsistent and pathetic to take the benefit of the data leak and yet support the punishment of the person(s) who gave you that benefit anyway.

  12. Re:Oh, how cute by dcw3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Carter was (is) a nice guy, probably one of the nicest, that just happened to be not good at politics, economics, or rescuing hostages.

    FTFY

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  13. Re:Oh, how cute by blue9steel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To be fair to Carter, most of the problems with the hostage rescue were actually military service interoperability problems. JSOC was founded AFTER the disaster because the military realized their own processes were not up to par. That said, his politics and economics were not so great. He's been an awesome ex-president though!

  14. Carter knows by bussdriver · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Carter knows how the system works (or more like how it doesn't work) he isn't going to go too far out on a limb when he doesn't know the details of the situation. Plus despite his age and lower activity he knows he can't afford to cause himself too much trouble - he has said for decades that he had to avoid stepping on toes because of the repercussions.

    In addition, his philosophy is you change things within a system; which means dealing with the broken process and trying to fix it along the way. He does not have an insurgent mindset where one goes around the system on the assumption that it is useless and unrepairable. So it is a rather big deal that he backs Snowden's circumvention as much as he does. His thinking would be along the lines of a whistle blower protection process so one wouldn't need to circumvent the system. You simply don't succeed in the Military and then become US President without at least a little authoritarian bias.

    Carter was the last actual president on the USA. Afterwards they were all vetted so they will not mess with the establishment. It just goes to show, the president doesn't have much power; just like a puppet dictator, the only power is that which is sanctioned by those who are actually in control.

  15. Re:good for USA, but he still should be prosecuted by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Snowden has said that he tried option 2 and was told to keep quiet. Add in that others who tried Option 2 a bit louder found themselves not only fired but with trumped up charges brought against them. This left Snowden's only real options as 1 (Keep quiet) and 3 (release the information). He chose 3 and, rightfully so, decided that doing this meant he'd need to go on the run.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  16. Re:Oh, how cute by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

    Jimmy Carter lowered the Federal deficit (look it up!), and through his Fed chair appointee Paul Volcker squelched an incipient hyperinflation crisis by choking off the money supply. This was necessary because Nixon's appointee, Arthur F. Burns, had put the economy on a disastrous inflationary path. Volcker began relentlessly raising interest rates month after quarter to no avail, until finally the prime rate hit 20.00% (!!!). For comparison the current prime rate is 3.25%.

    The result of fiscal austerity with a reduced money supply is high unemployment and stagnant growth, and since the medicine doesn't act instantly Carter got stagnation and near hyperinflation together. That was the right thing to do economically but very bad politics. But by July of the 1980 election year inflation had begun to decline, but this was too late to affect the elections.

    Economic growth rebounded strongly in the first quarter of 1981. This was after Reagan took office, but months before any of his economic and budgeting policies took effect. Essentially, the "Reagan Boom" started under Carter's economic policies. Some will say it was Reagan's personality that infused the economy with confidence, and there may be a little truth in that; but I think that inflation dropping to single digits for the first time had something to do with the renewed confidence.

    Reagan's economic policy amounted to this; massive increases deficit spending on a scale unseen since WW2. Federal outlays in 1981 were 678 billion; in 1989 it had balloned to 1,144 billion, an astonishing 69% increase in spending. Federal deficits rose from 2.75% of GDP under Carter's last budget to an average of 4.2% of GDP under Reagan. Which was not necessarily a bad thing, although I think it was a little excessive. But imagine raising deficits to 5.2% of GDP (as Reagan once did) if inflation were 15% or even 20%. There would have been no Keynsian "Reagan Boom" without the Carter era austerity. But Reagan gets 100% of the political credit for ending stagflation, even though he deserves no credit whatsoever in ending the inflationary part.

    The right thing to do economically is a matter of context. Sometimes it's better to spend, other times it's better to tighten your belt. But tightening your belt is never politically popular, and it doesn't produce instant results.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.