Edward Snowden, Michael Meili, And The United States' Hypocrisy On Whistleblowers

from the oh,-hello-there,-hypocrisy dept

As the Edward Snowden asylum drama marches on, examples of odd behavior by the American government are beginning to weigh down the scales of justice. Most recently, the United States seems to be overly concerned with all that free speech Russia is allowing Snowden, which would be like Switzerland criticizing another country for eating way too much chocolate. Or you may have noticed the not-so-subtle difference in treatment for established DC insiders leaking information versus your ordinary, everyday NSA sub-contractor. Finally, most apropro, the US appears to be willing to strain international relations and possibly violate diplomatic privileges for national leaders in their quest to keep Snowden from reaching anything resembling asylum, despite asylum having been offered by several South American countries.

These actions might be dastardly all on their own, but when you measure them against how the United States has behaved when the shoes were on the other foot, you're left with a dose of hypocrisy that would kill most lab rats. Take, for instance, the case of Michael Christopher Meili, security guard in Switzerland (chocolate!) for UBS, their mega-bank. He revealed some of UBS' shady dealings when it came to the banking documents of Jewish clients during the holocaust.

As a result, not only did Meili lose his job, but he was also under investigation by Swiss authorities for violating Swiss law. Moreover, according to Meili's testimony in a U.S. Senate hearing (available here), after Swiss police took possession of the documents, they told Meili that the Swiss government was treating the documents as "classified," despite the fact that they were UBS documents, and that they "would never be seen by people 'outside Switzerland.'"

Finally, while Meili believed he was exposing an act of destruction that was, or should have been, illegal, the Swiss police told him that they had concluded that UBS had done nothing wrong.

Sound familiar? Person of conscience working for a private organization that has ties to the government exposes wrong-doing, government sweeps in and initiates investigation while also unilaterally declaring classification of said wrong-doing, and then money-shots the affair by declaring all activities legal. Now, perhaps you're wondering why Meili was testifying about this at the US Senate. Well, because he went there to receive asylum, of course.

Unfortunately for Meili, the United States government determined that under no applicable law could Meili qualify for asylum. Fortunately for Meili, the Unites States government then decided to just make up a law specifically for Meili and pass it, ostensibly under the "Because Fuck You" statute in international law. And if you think I'm exaggerating, witness Private Law 105-1:

For the relief of Michel Christopher Meili, Giuseppina Meili, Mirjam Naomi Meili, and Davide Meili.

Yeah, they didn't even attempt to hide what they were doing. Just signed a law that might as well have been called "Private Law 105-1-haha-we-got-this-guy-LOL." Clinton signed the law straight away. Senators lined up to say how heroic Meili was. This in stark contrast to Obama's claim that Snowden must be returned to the US because we have to uphold "the rule of law." More striking still is Senator Charles Grassley, who claimed that because Snowden obviously broke the law, he must come home to be prosecuted at all costs. Want to guess what Grassley's take on Meili was?

The situation we have here with Mr. Meili, albeit everything that he has brought to our attention has worldwide implications, but a person like him acted out of bravery, or maybe the bravery comes after he has acted because he has had to withstand the mental torture of what has gone on since then. But it reminds me of a lot of things that happen in our own Government, and I realize his is a private sector situation, but I like to think that we keep our Federal Government honest when we have people in our Government who, when something is wrong, will be willing to come forward and say what is wrong.

We speak of these people in our Government as whistleblowers. Maybe, originally, that was to denigrate them, but as far as I am concerned the word "whistleblower" is a description of somebody who wants to seek the truth, who wants to make sure that all of the facts and circumstances are known so that a wrong can be corrected.

Now, compare that to the very same Senator Grassley and his comments on Snowden:

"I suppose it gets down to — did he break a law? — I think it's pretty obvious he did," Grassley says. "People in the Justice Department will make that determination and whatever that determination is, I'll have to abide by it, but if he did break a law, it's quite common sense that he be prosecuted."

Grassley also suggested that Snowden, who "sought truth" and "wants to make sure that all of the facts and circumstances are known so that a wrong can be corrected" was clearly "aiding the enemy." I think it'd be really nice if 1997 Senator Grassley could come back and have a long discussion with 2013 Senator Grassley, preferably one involving a pointy stick and much foul language. And perhaps include the rest of the government as well.

Filed Under: charles grassley, ed snowden, hypocrisy, leaks, michael meili, nsa surveillance, whistleblowers

Sen. Charles Grassley: An Unregulated Video Game Market Is A Dangerous Thing

from the first-amendment-even-MORE-threatening,-apparently dept

It looks as if politicians just aren't going to let video games continue to operate without regulatory oversight. We've already seen Rep. Jim Matheson's bill, which would basically turn a voluntary system (the ESRB) into a mandatory one with fines handed out for violations. It's a cynically redundant piece of legislation which would score Matheson a cheap political win, if it only had a chance in hell of passing. (The bill is even more redundant than that -- Matheson had this same bright idea twice before, in 2006 and 2008.)

Now, at the current Judiciary Committee hearings on "gun violence," Sen. Charles Grassley has suggested that current rating system just simply isn't good enough.

"There are too many video games that celebrate the mass killing of innocent people — games that despite attempts at industry self-regulation find their way into the hands of children," Grassley said at a Judiciary Committee hearing called to examine the causes of gun violence in the wake of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., last month.

Really? Everyone's current scapegoat, Celebrate Mass Killing: Modern Warfare [Current Iteration] and its spinoff, Celebrate Mass Killing: Black Ops, tend to celebrate the killing of people trying to kill you. And only if by "celebrate" you mean, "advance the storyline," and if by "advance the storyline," you mean "reach arbitrary hotspot that prevents enemy re-spawning and allows your more capable squadmates to turn a doorknob or something in order to continue celebrating mass killings."

But more seriously, despite the attempts of the government to regulate tobacco and alcohol sales, these items still find their ways into the hands (and mouths) of underage persons. And despite the government's best efforts to keep porn out of the eyes and hands of youngsters, many, many teens have seen a thing or two and attempted even more. No system is perfect but I'm willing to put the stats of the purely voluntary ESRB (and the retailers involved) up against the stats of any government regulated, sin-tax-paying item.

As for actual dangerous items currently regulated by federal and state governments, here's where they line up. Cigarette sales to minors are at 8.5%, falling from 40% in 1997 (2011 statistics). If there's a national percentage on alcohol sales, it's very well hidden. Here's some information from various locales on underage sales compliance rates. Blount County, TN - 9.7%, Escambia County, FL - 5.8%, Fort Wayne, IN - 4.3% (liquor stores)/8.8% (bars and restaurants), Washington, D.C. - 9.5%, Salem, NH - 2.9%, Boulder, CO - 13%. So, overall, roughly in line with cigarette sales, if not possibly lower.

Both percentages are admirably low, but compare those percentages to what the ESRB has achieved without the threat of arrest or loss of a retail license.

According to stats released by the FTC (h/t to commenter DCX2 for tracking this down), underage teenage shoppers were only able to obtain M-rated video games 13% of the time, as compared to 38% for R-rated DVDs, 33% for R-rated movie tickets and 64% for music with a Parental Advisory sticker.

Grassley seems to feel that putting the government in charge of enforcement would keep fewer M-rated games from "finding their way into the hands of children." Perhaps he should first take a look at how effective existing regulation is at keeping cigarettes and alcohol out of minors' hands. According to the CDC, 39% of high school students had consumed alcohol in the last 30 days. Not only that, but underage consumption (people aged 12-20) represents 11% of the total amount of alcohol consumed yearly in the US. As for cigarettes, the number is only 19.5% of high school students.

So, even a well-regulated market fails to prevent these items from being used/consumed by minors. Regulating the video game market will result in much of the same. Deciding it's now a crime to sell a minor an M-rated video game won't prevent a family member or friend from purchasing the latest "celebration of mass killing" for someone under the age of 18. Most people are going to feel that handing off Call of Duty to a 15-year-old weighs easier on their conscience than handing them a six-pack of beer, a pack of smokes or a gun.

But here's the key issue: the government can safely regulate tobacco and alcohol sales without fear of trampling on the First Amendment. Not so with games, although Grassley seems willing to put on his boots and start trampling.

Grassley pointed to evidence that a mass killer in Norway had played the popular "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare" game and had referred to the game as part of his "training simulation."

"Where is the artistic value in shooting innocent civilians?" Grassley asked.

Oh, I see. We'll know what art is when Grassley points it out. Once again, Call of Duty is labeled an "innocent civilian shooter," somehow missing the point of the game completely. Sure, one could argue that Grand Theft Auto is an "innocent civilian shooter," but just because you can do it, doesn't make it the overall point of the game. You don't advance the story by shooting innocent people. It's always an option, but it's never required. (Personal note: I'm fairly sure I've run over way more civilians than I've actually shot, but I rarely get the urge to drive up and down the sidewalk at 60 mph when I'm behind the wheel...)

Once you have a politician asking for regulation and questioning artistic value in the same breath, you've got a problem on your hands. The Supreme Court has already determined that government regulation of video game content is a violation of the First Amendment, but recent events have seemingly made it "OK" to push this dubious agenda again. The president has authorized a study into violent media (including video games), but it looks as if these legislators don't have any interest in collection actual evidence before making their move.

Filed Under: charles grassley, first amendment, free speech, regulation, video games, violence