Turn on some music!
One refrain in the wake of the National Security Agency leaks is that Edward Snowden should have reported his concerns up the chain of command rather than leaking documents to the press. But the internal reporting system is seriously broken in the military. All too often when a soldier reports misconduct or illegal activity, it is swept under the rug.Many sites are maintaining a detailed tally of the House's upcoming Syria vote:
As of Friday afternoon, there were 223 members in the “no” or “leaning no” category, more than the 217 that would be needed to sink the resolutionApparently Obama is learning about the NSA's activities from leaks along with the rest of us. Via Techdirt again:
Regarding Syria, it's never a good sign when your own military has misgivings:
One of the best responses to our co-published #NSA scoop: http://t.co/HnEsfdCPTM via @HappyBlogFriend pic.twitter.com/oQ15uusWUw
— ProPublica (@ProPublica) September 6, 2013
There are those who, in good faith, believe that we should leave the balance between civil liberty and security entirely to our elected leaders, and to those they place in positions of executive responsibility. Again, we do not agree. The American system, as we understand it, is premised on the idea -- championed by such men as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison -- that government run amok poses the greatest potential threat to the people’s liberty, and that an informed citizenry is the necessary check on this threat. The sort of work ProPublica does -- watchdog journalism -- is a key element in helping the public play this role.
What message will we send if a president can attack a foreign nation in plain sight and pay no price? What’s the purpose of the international system that we’ve built if a prohibition on military aggression that has been agreed to by the governments of 98% of the world’s people...is not enforced?Would anyone object if Russia issued that statement in response to our actions? What if they backed it up by sinking our ships? No, they wouldn't have the law on their side, but neither would we. Their intent to uphold the law would appear just as noble as ours, which is to say, not very noble at all. In fact, it would seem downright hypocritical. How can anyone claim that the act of breaking the law actually upholds it?
We cannot raise our children in a world where we will not follow through on the things we say, the accords we sign, the values that define us.
...we will insist that an aggressive attack on another country...must be confronted.