The support by Bernie Sanders for the prosecution of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, which he voiced during Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate, is a damning exposure of the pro-imperialist politics of this self-described “socialist” politician.

Sanders attempted to distinguish himself from his fellow candidates only by calling for a “lenient” sentence for Snowden. “He did break the law, and I think there should be a penalty to that,” Sanders declared. “But I think what he did in educating us should be taken into consideration.”

In fact, the Vermont senator’s arguments were essentially similar to those of the other four candidates on the Las Vegas stage, all of whom sought, in one way or another, to distance themselves from the widely hated NSA programs while at the same time reaffirming their support for the military-intelligence apparatus.

Sanders’ call for leniency in the case of Snowden rings false, since once in the clutches of the American criminal “justice” system, he would face the full vengeance of the state machine. And there are clear warnings. Chelsea Manning was tortured while in military custody, and is currently serving over three decades of jail time for leaking diplomatic documents to the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. The editor of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, has been forced to seek asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in London in order to avoid being extradited to the United States on espionage charges.

In the case of Snowden, given calls for his murder by officials within the state apparatus, there is no guarantee that once in custody he would even live to see a courtroom.

The argument that Snowden’s courageous stand is a crime deserving of punishment reveals far more about Sanders than his rhetorical denunciations of government spying. While calling for a lesser sentence for Snowden’s “crimes,” he has not called for the arrest and prosecution of the government officials responsible for actual crimes against the people of the United States and the world, through the dragnet surveillance program. These include above all Obama himself, whom Sanders is seeking to succeed as president. Nor did he offer any criticism on this score Tuesday of Hillary Clinton, who as Obama’s secretary of state for four years was directly involved in these and countless other crimes.

Sanders, like the entire political establishment, views the precedent set by Snowden, as well as the outpouring of mass support for him among the population, as extremely dangerous. This support reveals the depth of popular hostility to the Pentagon, CIA and NSA after a generation of unending war and repression. Such fears have only been further fueled by the revelations that have followed Snowden, including a large-scale leak this week of documents related to Obama’s drone war program.

At a Vermont town hall meeting in February 2014, Sanders said, “Look, you don’t want to have a situation where everybody who works for the government suddenly wakes up and says, ‘you know, I think I’ve gotta reveal this information despite any oath or agreement that I made.’ You’re gonna have chaos.” He continued, “He broke the law. I think that clearly…there should be an effort to enter into a plea agreement.”

Conscious of the danger presented by these social tensions to the American political establishment, expressed in near-record-low voter turnout and a deep disaffection with the entire political establishment, Sanders has intervened in the 2016 elections to corral the leftward shift in mass sentiments back into the safe channels of the Democratic Party. His oft-repeated call for a “political revolution,” although it is obviously directed to workers and youth looking for an alternative to the corporate-controlled political system, has been defined down by Sanders to a call for improved voter turnout in order to elect more Democrats to public office.

Nevertheless, he is appealing to broad layers of the population, particularly the youth, who consider Snowden to be a hero. This is what accounts for his more ambivalent rhetoric on government spying, calling for various “reforms” while making a less strident denunciation of Snowden than his fellow candidates.

In reality however, Sanders completely supports American imperialism’s twin policies of war abroad and repression at home. Indeed, on NBC’s “Meet the Press” last Sunday, Sanders issued bellicose threats against Russia, called for a major escalation of the war in Syria using Saudi ground troops (a stance he reiterated at Tuesday’s debate), and declared his support for the drone warfare of the Obama administration. When asked whether “counterterrorism” under a Sanders presidency would include “drone strikes and special forces,” Sanders replied, “Well, all of that and more.”

Much of Sanders’ appeal derives from his longstanding claim to be a “socialist.” But his support for the prosecution of Snowden, which ultimately reflects his support for American imperialism, is incompatible with the basic principles of socialism. For well over a century, genuine socialists have fought to develop an opposition to imperialism within the working class internationally, counseling workers that the “main enemy is at home.”

Socialists have sought to base this opposition on the scientific understanding that imperialist war abroad is inextricably bound up with the bourgeoisie’s class war at home, and that imperialism, as Lenin said, was reaction “all down the line.” Thus, the erection of the scaffolding of a police state in the United States, exposed most graphically by the courageous revelations made by Edward Snowden, is the necessary consequence of the drive by American capitalism for world domination.

It is impossible to oppose inequality within the United States, as Sanders claims to do, while supporting American aggression abroad. Indeed, it is highly significant in this regard that under the banner of the “War on Terror” the ruling elite have erected a surveillance infrastructure directed in the first instance against the American population.

Workers should take Sanders’ call for the prosecution of Edward Snowden as a warning. Sanders is opposed not only to the right of workers to know about the crimes committed by “their” government. Above all, he is determined to prevent a political break by the working class with the two-party system.

By Tom Hall for wsws.org

This story featured on CBS4 in Denver.

DENVER – CBS4 has learned that an internal investigation is underway into the interim head of the Denver Sheriff Department, Elias Diggins, and the captain in charge of the Denver Sheriff’s Internal Affairs Bureau after an internal affairs investigator blew the whistle, saying he was ordered to destroy a videotape that showed an inmate being humiliated and degraded.

“This is the definition of corruption,” said Brent Miller, who believes the sheriffs department fired him earlier this month for refusing to destroy the tape. Miller worked for the Adams County Sheriff’s Office for nearly 26 years before retiring. He then agreed to go to work for the Denver Sheriff Department as a civilian internal affairs investigator, brought on to help clear up a backlog of internal affairs cases.

“It was a huge challenge. I loved it and looked forward to going to work every day,” said Miller.

Miller said he was assigned to investigate several complaints filed by jail inmate Christopher Colbruno. Earlier this month, he was assigned yet another case involving Colbruno. Sheriff’s deputies were transporting Colbruno to Denver Health Medical Center for medical attention, but at some point Colbruno defecated on himself and his jail clothing. Before entering the hospital, deputies removed Colbruno’s clothing and walked him through hospital hallways wearing only handcuffs, but no clothing.

Personnel at Denver Health Medical Center felt the inmate had been subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment by being forced to walk nude through the hospital hallways so they filed a complaint with the Denver Sheriff Department. The complaint was assigned to Miller. On May 11, Miller and a second investigator traveled to Denver Health Medical Center to obtain a copy of hospital videotape showing Colbruno in the hospital.

When he returned to his office with the tape, Miller said he was approached by Captain Paul Ortega, who leads the Sheriff Department’s internal affairs bureau.

“He asked me if I had uploaded this video yet and I told him I had not and told me,’good, don’t do that because they’re making that go away, it’s not going to be a case anymore.'”

CBS4 asked Miller a second time to recount what he was told by Capt. Ortega, “He told me don’t upload it they’re making it go away. Who is they? He said the sheriff then told me to get rid of the video. Do not upload it get rid of the video and I immediately told him that’s not ethical to get rid of evidence in a case.”

Miller said Captain Ortega agreed with him but said, “That’s the way it is.”

Miller said he refused to destroy the tape and instead gave it to another investigator for safekeeping.

The next day, May 12, Miller was told to report to Ortega’s office.

“I was told I was being terminated by the Denver Sheriff Department because I was too opinionated and they wanted to go in a different direction,” said Miller.

The termination order obtained by CBS4 was signed by Sheriff Elias Diggins, who Ortega said had told him to have the tape destroyed.

Contacted by CBS4, Diggins declined to discuss the CBS4 report, “I cannot talk about any internal investigation.”
Captain Ortega did not respond to multiple inquiries from CBS4.

“I believe I was fired because I stood up to what I perceived to be unethical behavior and corruption by the Denver Sheriff’s Department and the Manager of Safety’s Office,” said Miller. “I expressed those opinions that what they were doing was unethical, improper and corrupt and I didn’t want to be a part of it. I cannot be part of losing evidence or getting rid of evidence or letting those collusions of corruption go on within the city. I don’t want to be a part of that.”

After CBS4 began making inquiries, Stephanie O’Malley, Denver Executive Director of Safety released this statement: “I have directed the Internal Affairs Bureau of the Denver Police Department to investigate allegations of misconduct by command officers in the Denver Sheriff Department,” wrote O’Malley. “This investigation was initiated immediately after I learned of the allegations and their nature.”

She declined to address specifics of the CBS4 Investigation but wrote that, “I am able to verify that Senior Investigator Miller did not pass his employment probation with the City of Denver due to performance issues unrelated to the allegations referenced above.”

Miller disputes that assessment saying he was always told his work was solid and there were no issues.
Miller has now hired an attorney who plans to file a federal lawsuit against the Denver Sheriff Department saying Miller was fired as retaliation for exercising his first amendment rights.

“We do believe there is evidence to corroborate what happened here,” said attorney Donald Sisson. “We think there is ample evidence that will prove Brent Miller’s case.”

Sisson said in his view, it’s no coincidence that Miller refused to destroy a videotape then was told the next day that he was being fired.

“I want the people to really know what’s going on,” Miller told CBS4. “I just want things to be honest and fair and that’s the way Denver needs to do business.”

The provocative revelations from Miller come a week after an independent consultant released an extensive report recommending sweeping changes at the Denver Sheriff Department.

This story originally reported by Brian Maass for CBS4 Denver.

The likes of Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks have set the standard for blowing the lid on huge stories based on tips from anonymous sources. Whistle-blowers such as Edward Snowden have brought to public attention stories which would otherwise have been kept hidden from the public, and it has been with the help of newspapers such as the Guardian that this information has been disseminated around the world.

Other newspapers are keen to ride on the coattails of those blazing a trail in the world of investigative journalism, and the latest to join the party is The Sun. Today, Murdoch-owned News Corp’s newspaper and website launches SecureDrop — a way for whistle-blowers to anonymously leave tip-offs that can be further investigated.

The cloud service provides a means of getting in touch with journalists at The Sun without giving up anonymity — something which is particularly important when making revelations about companies and governments. The site provides a basic guide to getting started with the SecureDrop service, starting off with pointing would-be users in the direction of the Tor Browser Bundle. Once downloaded and installed, take a quick visit to nodd5fyasyj4jqgp.onion.

Anyone with information or documents that need to be submitted is invited to do just that. Although the service is anonymous, users are assigned a 7 to 10 word codename — and the advice is to memorize rather than write it down. Files of up to 500MB can be uploaded to the cloud, and The Sun suggests that users might like to use GPG to add an extra layer of protection. With the codename, it is possible to log back into the same account and check for replies from a journalist.

SecureDrop is being launched at the same time as The Sun’s Whistleblowers’ Charter, which aims to “uncover the secret stories being kept under wraps by the authorities that YOU have a right to know”.

WikiLeaks recognized the launch, suggesting that other sites under the News Corp banner might soon follow suit:

Talking about anonymous tips, The Sun assures potential users that “our reporter only reads them on a ring-fenced laptop not linked to the Internet”. There’s also the assertion that “information shared through SecureDrop will go through the same rigorous journalistic process as other tip-offs to ensure it is correct before publication,” but it remains to be seen if the service manages to gain the same level of trust as WikiLeaks or the network of sources journalists use.

While it is possible that SecureDrop has been launched with the best of intentions, it could also be seen as a retaliation against legal action taken against The Sun and its journalists after law enforcement agencies tapped reporters’ phone without permission.