"... a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma".
Of course, Winston Churchill coined the above phrase in a truly epic speech entitled,
"The Russian Enigma" first broadcast to the British people by the BBC Network on 1st October 1939.
But I believe the historic phrase aptly describes today -- nearly 74-years later -- the insidiously-intrusive leviathan known on this side of the pond as the NSA, which, ironically, is a single entity of government that wields more power and influence than the entire nation state of Stalin's Russia ever did in it's history.
The agency first raised its tentacled Medusa-like head in the '70s during the Nixon era.
In the mid-1970s, the US Senate formed the Select Intelligence Committee to investigate reports of the widespread domestic surveillance abuses that had emerged in the wake of the Nixon scandals. The Committee was chaired by 4-term Idaho Democratic Sen. Frank Church who was, among other things, a former military intelligence officer and one of the Senate's earliest opponents of the Vietnam War, as well as a former Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Along with the dubious, constitutional implications of domestic surveillance, the fact that Senator Church and his congressional colleagues knew nothing about the program (operated by the government agency affectionately referred to as,
"No Such Agency,") effectively provided all the impetus needed to prompt a full senate investigation -- at least it did after Congress found out that the agency was also violating its legal purview of not operating domestically.
Apparently, that legislated foreign limitation went the way of posse comitatus.
Glenn Greenwald wrote for the Guardian:
Upon completing his investigation, Church was so shocked to learn what he had discovered - the massive and awesome spying capabilities constructed by the US government with no transparency or accountability - that he issued the following warning, as reported by the New York Times (archived articles behind pay wall), using language strikingly stark for such a mainstream US politician when speaking about his own government:
"'That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide.'
"He added that if a dictator ever took over, the NSA 'could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back.'"
Unless of course, we luck out and get a benevolent dictator-type POTUS.
I don't think anyone of reasonable mind could say that what Senator Church warned us about at the time isn't what is happening right now. The NSA's general unaccountability and lack of congressional interest to reverse it, lends credence to that assertion.
Greenwald made a few additional assertions of his own.
(1) Numerous NSA defenders - mostly Democrats - amazingly continue to insist that there is no evidence of wrongdoing by the NSA. How do they get themselves to ignore things like this and this?
(2) The New Yorker's John Cassidy has one of the best essays yet on the NSA revelations, the imperatives of journalism, and Edward Snowden
(3) The vital context for all of this - the reporting we've done and the way we've done it, Snowden's actions, the need for greater transparency - is set forth perfectly in this must-read article by McClatchy about the Obama administration's unprecedented (and increasingly creepy) war on whistleblowers and leakers. Along those same lines, see this great column by the New York Times' David Carr, in which he writes: "that there is a war on the press is less hyperbole than simple math."
The tentacled, Medusa-like head of the leviathan has once again risen up in this country. But this time the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence isn't chaired by a liberal giant killer but rather a wealthy corporate Democrat whose venture capitalist husband owes much of of his success to the military industrial complex.
Richard C. Blum and Dianne Feinstein: The Power Couple of California
Blum is finance capital personified, and Feinstein precisely illustrates the corrupt, war-mongering, pro-corporate politicians who inhabit the upper reaches of the U.S. ruling class. To fully comprehend their rise to power, vast wealth and socio-political stance, one needs to understand the key developmental trends in the U.S. and world political economy during Blum-Feinstein’s rise during the last few decades. Also necessary is a comprehension of how Blum-Feinstein have both adapted to and helped quicken these developmental trends.
(snip)
In the case of Blum-Feinstein, we can see what being in the top 1% means. They currently own a private jet, a Gulfstream G650, worth $55 million in 2008. Blum-Feinstein also own an entire 161 room San Francisco hotel (The Carlton) and at least six other homes. At a low estimate, including their hotel, their personal real estate holdings, together with their private jet, are likely worth well over $100 million today.
Blum’s empire begins with his ownership of Blum Capital Partners, a firm he founded in 1975. In its 2005 edition, one standard industry source, Pratt’s Guide to Private Equity Sources, lists Blum Capital Partners as a firm “investing own capital” and having $1.589 billion under management. Two other, more recent sources, list the assets of Blum Capital at the higher levels of $2.8 billion and $4.5 billion. Blum’s firm’s clients reportedly include some of America’s wealthiest people and largest corporations, like oil heir Gordon Getty and Bank of American. Blum Capital Partners also has a joint venture with a much larger firm, The Texas Pacific Group (TPG) and Blum Capital Newbridge Capital to conduct this joint venture. Blum has been a Co-Chairman of both Newbridge and TPG.
We need another giant killer.
Link To the Guardian's latest NSA Files.