Michael B. Mukasey…
…does not think Snowden’s any kind of hero, and believes the brouhaha over the NSA program is overblown. I don’t find his arguments all that compelling, although I’m not part of the unequivocal “Snowden’s a hero” bandwagon, either.
I see Mukasey as naive about the strength of the government’s motivation and willingness to misuse the NSA data, as well as about its ability to use the information wisely and well even when its goal is stopping terrorists. For example, what kept authorities from finding Tamerlan Tsarnaev (who wasn’t even a citizen) to be seriously suspicious and worthy of deportation long before he committed the Marathon bombings? Is the government inappropriately focusing on the wrong (and objectionably intrusive) information, while at the same time ignoring simpler tools that would be more effective in actually fighting terrorism?
[ADDENDUM: Also, why Snowden’s not a whistleblower.]
[ADDEDUM II: From Scott Johnson at Powerline:
Read the Guardian profile and the Post articles and you will see that Snowden professes no loyalty to the United States. He conceives of himself as a citizen of the world, or of the realm of Digitalia. He does not sound like anyone to be trusted with an assessment on our behalf the costs and benefits of the course of action he has undertaken.]
Yes Mr. Mukasey, but what about the fact that the NSA has (and keeps) the metadata on all of the phone calls of all Americans? And what makes the NSA less of a political tool than, say, the IRS or FEC? Or (seemingly) the entire executive branch of the US Government?
And how much of that data has already been shared with the folks over at OFA?
I found the large majority of the comments to Mukasey’s piece quite telling. The “Trust Us” argument just doesn’t wash anymore. This realization has been slowly building for a good while-e.g., Codevilla’s Ruling Class v. Country Class- but all of a sudden, on Obama’s watch, and deservedly so, the dam is breaking. Repub or Dem, it doesn’t matter. Mukasey is not ‘naive’; he is Ruling Class, and, as such, he is no longer credible (aka trustworthy).
How we recover is quite unclear to me.
Don Carlos:
“How we recover is quite unclear to me.”
I share that lack of clarity.
Neo, don’t you have a JD? If so, you know how this works.
Compelling state interest – check.
Constitutional – check.
Legal (under current law) – check.
Determining the right balance of security and liberty is a policy choice.
When security and liberty are equal but conflicting interests, then declaring both interests as the priority doesn’t work practically. This isn’t a buffet.
We have to draw a line, then accept the risks on the other side of the line. We can either accept sacrifice (potentially) of lives and peace of mind or (potentially) liberties and a different peace of mind.
What’s the priority? Well, one can have life without liberty, but one cannot have liberty without life.
Daniel Moynihan, the OG of neoconservatism, remarked that any civil reform in the US requires at least a 30 year commitment. US-led reform overseas requires a greater commitment.
President Bush was willing to spend whatever blood, treasure, time as was needed to reform the society and culture over there so, in the long run, we could preserve our society and culture here at home. It’s not the first time we’ve made that choice.
From day one, we knew the commitment that would be needed. But, this time, We the People decided we are no longer willing to spend the blood, treasure, and time needed to build reform over there. That’s the choice we made.
So we must accept the trade-off that instead of change over there, we’ll have to change our society and culture at home, instead.
We can’t have it all. President Bush chose one way, but we chose the other way. We picked our trade-off. Deal with it.
I’m not convinced what they were doing did much to improve our security. Or even that that was really the intent.
To a large degree our security is sacrificed for politically correct ideas, for example our airport security system where little old white Christian women are viewed as much of a risk as young Muslim males. A system where major Hasan’s shooting was worksite violence, and his prior radical rants ignored.
I also tend to think the Obama civil service views conservative Americans as the real enemy.
I will register my complaint that I view Eric’s remarks a facile oversimplification of history and of “We the People”.
I am not defending GWB either. He set certain balls in motion.
Don Carlos,
Not all colonists supported revolting against the King, but We the People made our choice then, too.
A “hero” wouldn’t be hiding in Hong Kong. He would be here, facing the music and letting the truth come out at his trial.
Don: “To a large degree our security is sacrificed for politically correct ideas”
I agree that political correctness, specifically the bar on profiling as you described its various manifestations, is a factor in the non-particular breadth of the collection. I also agree that political correctness is more than a policy. It’s functionally a cognitive ‘check’ that is hindering law enforcement agents from seeing things they should be clear.
* that should be clear.
“Trust us”, you say, Mr. Mukasey? I’ll have to pull one out of the Gipper’s play book: trust, but verify.
For some reason, I think the Obama administration’s definition of “terrorist” is rather different than mine.
There is no trust when the highest of the high repeatedly demonstrates there is the rule of law for Main Street, as dictated by the ruling class, but no rules for those on Pennsylvania Avenue.
The result of all these revelations has opened my eyes to the way the left thinks. They are against profiling because they can see that in the right circumstances they would be the one’s who were profiled. Case in point – the IRS profiling of conservative groups and individuals. They just can’t stop themselves when they have the levers of power and they believe conservatives are the same. (Nixon is their example.)
The interview with Maxine Waters that carl in atlanta linked to on a previous thread should have been a tip off. Here it is: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/06/09/Breitbart-Flashback-Maxine-Waters-Reveals-Obams-Secret-Data-Base-Filled-With-Voters-Private-Info
That database probably came from the Google, MS, Yahoo, Facebook, etc. servers. Driving the information highway is like riding in a convertible with a helicopter videotaping you as you go along. Yes, we are exposed even without the intrusivity of the NSA’s activities.
The NSA database is potentially much larger and more complete. All they have to do is write programs for computers to search the database and they can find most anything. Once a target has been identified they can get anything that you do that’s on electronic media. (Will the Post Office get a bit of bump out of this?) To someone who trusts the government that would not mean much. The “I don’t care, I’ve done nothing wrong” reaction. However, when being a conservative or a liberal is considered the “wrong thing” by the party in power, it becomes a threatening thing.
There used to be an adage that politics ended at the water’s edge. In other words, in matters of national security, both parties worked in concert to defeat the enemy. That all changed during Vietnam. It continues to this day. The way forward is for all parties to go back to that stance. Is that possible? I don’t know, I just know that’s where we need to go.
As to what happens to Snowden. I hope he turns himself in and his case can serve as a catalyst to get both parties to thinking about how to use the powerful electronic tools we have developed for our defense only, and wall off their use as an instrument of political coercion.
Eric Says:
June 10th, 2013 at 5:09 pm
The conventional wisdom is that 1/3 of the colonists supported independence, 1/3 were Loyalists, and 1/3 just wanted to keep their heads down and stay out of it as much as possible. Only about 3% actually took up arms.
So I’m not sure what you mean by “We the People” in this context.
parker Says:
June 10th, 2013 at 6:42 pm
Wall Street, too. See Jon Corzine, among others.
I don’t think it’s that helpful to ask whether Snowden is a hero or a traitor, per se. We don’t necessarily know or understand his motivations. He could just be a stooge of the Chinese government. The relevant question, IMO, is are we glad this information was leaked or do we regret that it came out?
Perrsonally, I’m glad it came out. We can talk about how “we the people” decided to give up “x” freedom for more security, but the fact is there wasn’t exactly full public disclosure of and debate over the extent of the database-building. And even if “we the people” decided to do this (which I dispute), then “we the people” can change “our the people’s” mind, can’t we?
The FBI and other branches of government were spying on Nixon. Whether he wanted to defend himself against such or dipped too incompetently into the same waters, doesn’t matter. The Left used that to get rid of a person that was getting in their way for Vietnam’s victory. As, in the Left’s victory.
The media back then were tools, just as they are now.
The Leftist alliance has used politics as war for much longer than Obama or his father, has been alive.
The collection of a wide variety of information on at a minimum of ONE HUNDRED MILLION people is BY DEFINITION a violation of the 4th amendment and TOTALITARIAN.
Anyone who thinks that this or some future administration won’t use this massive treasure trove of information on political enemies is a moron.
Snowden is a hero. Without him all the establishment politicians and apparatchiks would NEVER have revealed the staggering nature of this program to the public.
I could care less what establishment types say to justify this. We have a totalitarian state aborning here people, that’s the ONLY important fact.
Snowden feels more like one of those true believers in the Left (Obama) who were given way too much access to the “truth of things”.
Sort of like a Communist that was too stupid to use enough double think and say “If only Stalin knew”.
Too stupid, so he listened to his heart.
Treason is not called treason, when it prospers. So if Snow is a traitor, then what is Obama and the Left? Fellow patriots and allied countrymen? Eh…..
The point is, there comes a time when being a patriot means being a traitor. And there comes a time when being a traitor, requires pretending to be a patriot.
I find it amusing that liberals are now using the old “If you’ve done nothing wrong, then what are you worried about?” argument.
I’ve been hearing conservatives use it for years, for example with regard to the War on Drugs.
I’d bet my life savings that there were people in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union who said the exact same thing.
The crux of the matter is who gets to define what’s “wrong” and how do they define it? In Nazi Germany it was “wrong” to be a Jew.
I’m now certain that anyone who utters that idiotic phrase is a statist, of whatever stripe.
Ymarsakar Says:
June 10th, 2013 at 7:08 pm
Great point. The Founding Fathers were certainly traitors as far as the Crown was concerned.
I’m less and less inclined to consider Snowden a hero but that doesn’t mean he didn’t do the right thing. Even if it turns out that he did so for the basest of motives. He is a whistleblower however.
ACE, at the link neo provides, states; “Whistleblowing occurs when someone with inside knowledge of criminal wrongdoing brings it to the authorities — but it doesn’t seem like a crime occurred here.”
Really? Last I checked, unconstitutional actions by the government, such as massive violations of the 4th amendment… constitute a crime. Thus, Snowden had inside knowledge of criminal wrongdoing. Given that the authorities are the criminal wrongdoers, common sense protests at insisting that to meet the definition of a whistleblower, he had to complain to the very criminal wrongdoers who he wished to expose.
Nor is his whistleblower status conditional upon loyalty to the United States. That he conceives of himself as a citizen of the world is irrelevant to the larger question (should the public have been made aware of these programs?), which ultimately is the only one that matters.
Geoffrey Britain,
You may think it’s a crime and/or unconstitutional, but (a) “unconstitutional” is not the same as “criminal”; (b) so far the program was actually quite legal and has not been declared unconstitutional; and (c) as I said, the Intelligence Committee of Congress knew about it and signed off on it. At least officially, it required a warrant for the government to access the content; otherwise it was just stored. You may or may not believe the government abided by that, but it’s unknown whether they did and I don’t think even Snowden is alleging he knows they did not, nor has he offered evidence that they did not.
See this.
It’s much too soon for me to say whether Snowden is a hero or a traitor. I tentatively support what he did, but I reserve the right to revise my opinion as more information comes out.
For instance, others have mentioned the odd timing that this happened at the same time Obama was meeting with the Chinese leader. Then Snowden fled to Hong Kong. It’s certainly possible that he was a Chinese agent. I guess we’ll find out eventually.
But the much bigger problem is how the Federal government is rapidly losing its legitimacy, since it willfully and routinely disregards the Constitution. When the government becomes illegitimate, then We the People are no longer under any obligation to obey its unconstitutional laws.
Geoffrey Britain:
Did you see the original profile the Guardian did on Snowden? It has a very odd tone that makes him out to be a noble near-saint who’s ready to be martyred (and of course remember that the paper is very leftist; don’t know how that figures in, but I don’t think it can be ignored).
Does this ring true for you?:
The part that in particular rang a warning bell for me was when Snowden said the people training them “seemed pumped up about killing Arabs.” That doesn’t jibe with what I’ve heard about Special Forces training, but it very much jibes with leftist boilerplate about it.
And how about this?:
That’s Glenn Greenwald at the Guardian, a leftist British newspaper that hardly ever met an Islamic terrorist it didn’t like. Greenwald himself is a somewhat more complex case; he has long been a critic of the Patriot Act and Bush, but he has attacked Democrats as well for supporting what he considers the excesses of the act. Thus, it makes sense for Snowden to go to him. But to trust him to use discretion about “what should be public and what should remain concealed”? Would Greenwald not be inclined to err WAY on the side of revealing rather than concealing if there’s any judgment call to be made?
Geoffrey Britain:
Also, I just found this, which at least gives the appearance of possibly contradicting Snowden’s story about his Army service:
These may be minor discrepancies without meaning, of course. Or perhaps not.
By the way, Snowden’s motivations and/or politics, and whether the NSA data-collection was a good or bad thing, are two separate issues to me.
THERE’S A SIMPLE REASON WHY THE GOVERNMENT COLLECTS DATA ON EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN:
AMERICA IS CURRENTLY TOO DANG POLITICALLY CORRECT TO PROFILE AND TARGET THE REAL ENEMY, THE ISLAMISTS.
WE’D HAVE A LOT MORE FOCUSED AND EFFECTIVE COUNTER-ATTACK ON THE ENEMY IF INSTEAD OF HAVING THE NSA LISTEN TO EVERY DANG PHONE CALL AND READ EVERY DANG EMAIL AND ANALYZE EVERY DANG GOOGLE WORD-SEARCH, THEY WENT AFTER ISLAMISTS.
BY PROFILING AND TARGETING THEM AND THEIR MOSQUES.
THE NSA DATA-MINING ALL THE CRAP THEY’RE DATA-MINING IS LIKE THE TSA FEELING-UP AND PATTING DOWN EVERY DANG PERSON WHO BOARDS A PLANE.
Data-mining everything from everyone wastes resources and time.
Neo,
I’m not and have not argued in favor of Snowden’s personal veracity. For all I know he’s a snake in the grass.
And I entirely agree with your view, “Snowden’s motivations and/or politics, and whether the NSA data-collection was a good or bad thing, are two separate issues to me.”
To answer the other concerns you expressed;
Of course what I think is not determinative as to the legal determination of whether a crime or an unconstitutional act has occurred. That stipulated, just because its personal opinion does not make it untrue. That opinion is formulated by reason, the available facts and past experience, I cannot but follow them until and unless new facts emerge that lead reason upon a different avenue.
For the purposes of governmental malfeasance, “unconstitutional” is the same as “criminal”, thus “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
No, the programs have not been declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS, as to its legality, that hinges upon its constitutionality.
If the government were to shut down this blog, strictly due to the political views expressed here and freely admitted it, would you then say that it was a constitutional and legal action because the courts had not yet weighed in? I think not because the truth would be self-evident.
So too with programs that collect the data of everyone who calls you and to whom you call. To everyone we email and every post and comment we make on the internet. Understand there is the metadata on phone calls made and the ‘PRISM’ program, which scans far more categories of data.
That the Intelligence Committee of Congress knew about it and signed off on it indicates the majority’s consensus, not necessarily its constitutionality. It may in fact indicate culpability as both Senator Feinstein and Rep. Rogers have offered statements directly contradicted by the NSA’S PRISM program’s powerpoint presentation slides published by the Guardian.
See: NSA slides explain the PRISM data-collection program
Look at the third slide entitled “Prism Collection Details”. That list on the right includes content… NOT merely metadata. They’re claiming that they store but don’t review it, unless they get probable cause. Right.
Yes, officially, it does require a warrant for the government to listen in to our phone calls and it is unknown whether they did or not but there’s plenty of evidence that when it suits them, this administration repeatedly acts unconstitutionally. So what rationale would lead us to presuppose that they’ve avoided the tremendous temptation that this information constitutes? The PRISM program alone puts the lie to their minimization of what is being collected.
“If once you forfeit the confidence of your fellow-citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem.” A. Lincoln
rickl,
That’s pretty much it. We the People decided to divorce ourselves from the King without a majority consensus. We the People decided to discontinue the Bush strategy, which meant we accepted a different trade-off. As you point out, We the People can represent fewer actual people than the consensus the term implies. What is common in our history is that We the People determined our course as a nation, even if many people didn’t agree with it.
Which points out that the determination of We the People is a contest that can be won by surprisingly few people.
We face a limited set of choices and each choice involves a trade-off. Dogmatic libertarians aren’t any better than cult-following Democrats at weighing the alternatives. Accepting Paul’s prescription opens the door to his other propositions on foreign affairs and national security. Morever, their insistence that the practice is unConstitutional just confuses the discussion.
That the practice is Constitutional, legal, and represents a legitimate state interest doesn’t end the discussion. The issue on the table is calibration. If it’s overbroad, then set parameters.
You know, now I wonder whether retaining the critical public trust to exercise Patriot Act powers is the reason that Bush refrained from the partisan contest even while Democrats were viciously attacking his presidential legitimacy while undermining our nation’s affairs for their own partisan benefit.
Harold: “The collection of a wide variety of information on at a minimum of ONE HUNDRED MILLION people is BY DEFINITION a violation of the 4th amendment … ”
No, it’s not.
Geoffrey Britain:
You may think its unconstitutionality is self-evident, but it is not.
I don’t have time to look it up right now, but I recall that previous court decisions hinge on the difference between the collection/storage of data versus the accessing of it. As long as warrants are required for the latter, it’s been ruled constitutional to access the former without them.
In other words, courts have made a distinction between getting content versus “mere” records of things like phone logs, which the cell phone companies have access to. Getting the content (such as through a wiretap) requires warrants.
“However, Snowden’s military records say he left the service just a few months after signing up and did not complete any training.”
That tells me a lot. It’s a reliable assumption that anyone who washes out during Basic Training – and it sounds like he didn’t make it out of IET or OSUT, if he was Infantry – will have a distorted and likely bitter view of the Army.
Basic Training is a surreal experience to begin with. The indefinite limbo of casual(ty)/holdover status if you’re waiting for separation sucks extra hard. “Several months” without finishing “any” training and the injury implies Snowden was separated from his training company and placed in casual/holdover status for a significant portion of his truncated Army experience. You don’t train on casual/holdover status. You just live in Basic Training conditions and do crappy details on postuntil the Army releases you from your contract if you’re separating rather than catching on with another cycle.
Poor guy, but I guess he got his revenge.
neo,
“You may think its unconstitutionality is self-evident, but it is not.”
I freely admit that my belief as to its unconstitutionality being self-evident is an opinion. I wonder if you admit to the reverse?
“courts have made a distinction between getting content versus “mere” records of things like phone logs, which the cell phone companies have access to. Getting the content (such as through a wiretap) requires warrants.”
Officially, yes. The issue is trust however but I’m afraid I’m fresh out of that condiment. Assurances have proven to be but empty platitudes, proof is now the coin of the realm.
In addition, the condition of a required warrant only applies to the phone call metadata, from which the content is absent. Getting that content is legally impossible without court approval.
As far as I know, that circumstance does not apply to the content that the PRISM program provides. The PRISM program seizes ALL the data. Absent whistleblower revelations, there’s no way to know whether the content captured by the PRISM program is being reviewed or not.
Given the absence of legal oversight the temptation to peruse the content would be impossible to resist by an administration so wedded to situational ethics.
“That doesn’t jibe with what I’ve heard about Special Forces training, but it very much jibes with leftist boilerplate about it.”
Special Forces training doesn’t produce this kind of idea. Special Forces “recruits”…. however, do have affinities for that kind of thing (killing terrorists). If only because of the demographic, youth (stupidity), and gung ho attitude (arrogance) required to even attempt to join.
Many people did join to kill the enemy (being Arabs). Others join for more idealistic or more personal reasons.
These attitudes are only transformed into wisdom through experience. The people in BUDs or Delta Army programs… they are no wiser or more “freedom fighters” than anyone else in the US military body. Their personalities have yet to be even formed.
And those like, say, Michael Yon, have their personalities “deformed” in some ways before, during, or after their Special Forces career.
“Would Greenwald not be inclined to err WAY on the side of revealing rather than concealing if there’s any judgment call to be made?”
That faith in members of the Left is no more different than any other Leftist or Democrat’s faith. Snow said he believed in Obama. That entails belief in the Left, since that’s where most of the believers came from. If recent events have turned his belief against Obama, that does not mean his belief in the Left is destroyed or replaced.
“Snowden was apparently an enlistee of an Army program that ensures the recruit of at least a shot at joining the famed Green Berets, whose motto is De Oppresso Liber, or Free the Oppressed. However, Snowden’s military records say he left the service just a few months after signing up and did not complete any training. He told The Guardian he broke both his legs in a training accident and was discharged.”
This sounds like Marine sniper training, where at any time you may opt to discontinue training but it won’t be put on your permanent record that you “failed” anything. Permanent record sheets like “failure” tend to be pretty bad for chances at promotion. Either you are praised as the next Napoleon military genius, or you are considered average or even below average. “Failing training” would be an interesting remark though, if they even have such a thing. I’m not conversant with how the Army does their SF or Delta training programs, however, but it should be very similar. Also, there’s a lot of… records scrubbing for people that join or want to join the SF teams. Their “official record” isn’t actually entirely accurate. For example, many casualties in operations or even training, are listed as “casualty of training”. Whatever that means. Training accidents caused those deaths. In reality, the operators died in a fire fight.
There are a lot of real training or operational accidents, of course. But I’m not sure where the “accurate records” would be. Probably in the NSA.
“It’s a reliable assumption that anyone who washes out during Basic Training Eand it sounds like he didn’t make it out of IET or OSUT, if he was Infantry Ewill have a distorted and likely bitter view of the Army.”
That kind of paper psychological analysis isn’t commonly used by interogators or profile builders. It might be a note put beside a person, but it remains untested in actuality.
In the end, Snow is presented as someone who is willing to answer all private questions. Thus all you need do is get somebody to ask him these questions. Now that may be a problem if the only people he trusts are Leftists at the Guardian…
In some ways, I think Neo is correct that a person deciding these things has gone “rogue” or “traitor. Whether that is the right or wrong decision… that’s a personal decision, really. What the government does or doesn’t do, can’t affect your conscience.
If you are evil, you do evil things and consider it right. If you are good, you try to do good things that you consider right and correct the evil things you do.
Snowden has gone rogue, without a doubt. He has stopped looking for “leaders”, perhaps because of his youthful idealism over Obama (useful trick that). He stopped believing that “elections” mattered. He started thinking (like most any Special Forces candidate) that he needs to get the job done himself.
Ymarsakar:
If Snowden had said “killing terrorists” it wouldn’t have raised anywhere near the red flag for me that the phrase “killing Arabs” did. It’s the latter that seems odd to me, since the army has become very PC and would not ordinarily frame it that way (in fact, would look askance at that). Plus, the distinction between Arab civilians (good, to be helped) and Arab terrorists (to be thwarted and/or killed) would be made quite clear.
Geoffrey Britain:
What reverse should I admit to? I’ve not expressed my personal opinion on whether it’s constitutional or not; I don’t have one, because I’d need to know many more details of the program and the legal precedents and their basis than I know at the moment. I am merely citing what I recall of the legal precedents, not my opinion as to whether they were good decisions or bad ones, or how they apply to the NSA data accumulation.
Ymarsakar: It’s a medical. It happens. I saw enough of it in my Basic Training, including my battle buddy. It sounds like he didn’t make it out of Basic Training, let alone an advanced school or even the Infantry course.
Maybe untested in a scientific study, but consistent with my observations of guys who washed out of Basic Training during/after my soldiering days.
“Plus, the distinction between Arab civilians (good, to be helped) and Arab terrorists (to be thwarted and/or killed) would be made quite clear.”
But the people I know would as easily have said “killing Arabs” as “killing terrorists”. They aren’t exactly distinguished amongst the common population. I won’t go too far to say people are ignorant but… if they haven’t spent time learning about stuff, they wouldn’t know.
The Army wouldn’t have been talking to Snow about this. Snow would have been talking to his fellow recruits. They are in fact forced to do so at times to build unit comraderie and teamwork.
They talk about “why they joined the US military”. And things like this get out, since unit building builds trust. They might not have said it anywhere else, but in the presence of Snow, a fellow recruit or military member/friend, they might have spoken in those terms.
Most Americans wouldn’t have joined army SF or Army Reserves, for a chance to “help Arabs”. They usually don’t know of any Arabs. And if they did, they wouldn’t have joined a military that was fighting and killing Arabs or Muslims. Snow is a bit strange in this aspect.
Also reading on a previous topic, I don’t know whether Snow knew about the extradition treaty or not. But even if he did know, his actions may not have been all that different. Even a flawed exit plan must still be followed, to an extent, with modifications. Better than no plan or random behavior panicking. Bureaucratic delays with extradition would certainly exist.
“I saw enough of it in my Basic Training, including my battle buddy.”
I’ve seen the reverse though. Although I know what you speak of. Since one person I know got a knee injury doing OIF and was discharged for it. He still wishes he was back with his buddies that he trained with. But there are also people (usually the eccentrics originally drawn to the glory of Special Forces independent thought) who grew even more independent after they washed out, for whatever reasons. Coincidentally, the one I know went into intel work as well, for the military branch he was medically discharged for during training.
Neo,
The idea is generally expressed as good guys and bad guys.
‘Kill Arabs’ may be a personal goal of a new recruit, but it doesn’t match the US military mission and he’d be taught to be more discriminatory.
When Snowden went though, the military mission would have turned to post-war stability and security ops, though killing terrorists is a part of that. A blanket ‘kill Arabs’ is not part of that. It wouldn’t make sense. US soldiers fought alongside Arab coalition partners in the Gulf War. US soldiers had been stationed in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia since the Gulf War. In post-war Iraq and Afghanistan, US soldiers were working with Iraqis and Afghanis.
As for the Green Berets, counterinsurgency has been described as SF doctrine applied to the regular Army. A blanket ‘kill Arabs’ mentality makes the least sense for Green Berets because their main mission is to work hand-in-hand with local nationals, often trusting them with their lives, while separated from Big Army support.
Ymarsakar,
I agree that not everyone who fails in Basic Training becomes bitter (eg, my battle buddy didn’t – but that’s a whole ‘nother story), however they do re-enter civilian life with a distorted view of the Army.
It can’t be helped. The Army is not like civilian life and Basic Training is surreal. You can listen to the stories and study the Army from outside, and even mimic the mannerisms and lingo, but you can’t know what it is to be a soldier until you’ve been a soldier. Even the JROTC kids – they show up in Basic swaggering like they know, but they don’t know. It doesn’t fully click in for most soldiers until they make their E4, which is about 2 years in. Someone who washes out of Basic Training doesn’t know, except he thinks he does from his short exposure. He only knows a surreal pre-soldier version of it, though.
Ymarsakar:
The people I know in the army—particular in elite units such as special forces (and I do know a couple, although not well)—would never say that.
And the training is not to make people gung ho about killing Arabs. It is to make them efficient and emotionless about killing the enemy, who are not defined as Arabs per se.
Snowden’s whole “narrative” just seems off to me.
“The people I know in the army–particular in elite units such as special forces (and I do know a couple, although not well)–would never say that.”
If we are to go with Eric’s line of reasoning or summary analysis of Snow’s aborted Army career, Snow wasn’t even in Delta force training because he hadn’t passed basic.
So whether anyone would say that in the Army or Delta, whether they would say that “outside their best friends” or not, varies. This is a short rendition, absent context of what Snow reported (absent any context given by him that is), but isn’t as implausible as it has been viewed.
Even in an eccentric branch of the military such as SF, personalities will differ by a large margin. Those who matured or were seasoned while in the service, cannot be compared to those still in training or still in boot camp training.
Case example still, is Michael Yon, Jimbo, and various ‘other’ people. Who aren’t necessarily believers in any single thing, but their personalities would rank as “confident” or “arrogant” or “independent” or “eccentric”.
“Even the JROTC kids Ethey show up in Basic swaggering like they know, but they don’t know. He only knows a surreal pre-soldier version of it, though.”
For the most part, the generation that enlisted during that time (circa 2005), grew up with 9/11 as the cultural template. Killing terrorists=protecting America. And the terrorists just happened to live in Arabia. Combine that with arrogance, swaggering confidence, a civilian vision of what soldiers do on missions, would support the contention that it would be all too plausible for Snow to have heard such comments in private little get togethers with his training buddies.
To go back to a previous issue, Snow’s primary problem seems to be with Obama at the national command level. Not with the Army. The Army’s not in charge of PRISM, NSA, or intel as far as I know.
The one thing that might connect Snow to anti-Army feelings would be Manning, his stated admiration for Manning, and Glenn. Those 3 together would be able to share an antipathy for the hierarchy or organization of the army itself. I wonder if that might be why he first was drawn to the Left/Democrat ideology. But it wouldn’t lead directly to why Snow would take the risks he would against Obama. I wouldn’t say it is a primary motivation. And more data would be needed to explain why it would even be a secondary motivator.
If it’s not a motivation at all, then it doesn’t matter whether Snow feels antipathy towards the military or not. If Snow’s bitterness is supposed to be part of his internal motivation and psychology, then this has to be traced out more.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/bs-md-snowden-profile-20130610,0,156315.story
Reading some of the supposed backstory about Snowden’s early life.
“In May 2004, Snowden enlisted in the Army, hoping to join the Special Forces. He took advantage of an option that allowed recruits to try out directly for the elite force without prior service. He reported to Fort Benning, Ga., but was discharged four months later, the Army said Monday.
Recruits designated for Special Forces normally go through eight to 10 weeks of basic training, followed by an advanced infantry training course, then Special Forces assessment and selection. Snowden told The Guardian that he left the Army after he broke both legs in a training accident.
An Army spokesman, Lt. Col. S. Justin Platt, confirmed Snowden’s service but said no records indicate he completed even basic training. Platt said he could not comment on Snowden’s claim that he broke his legs in training because it involved medical records.
In 2005, Snowden worked as a “security specialist” at the University of Maryland’s Center for Advanced Study of Language in 2005, a school spokesman confirmed. The center, founded in 2003 as a Department of Defense-affiliated research center, is “dedicated to addressing the language needs of the intelligence community,” according to a university website.”
Whether the people Snowden talked to in training were SF candidates or Army reserve/active candidates, i would have to say that both would be plausible in speaking in the terms Snowden claimed.
This is confirmation of the concrete details given by Snowden, assuming Justin Platt is on the level. The difference in years and dates may be attributed to memory looseness over time.
Because Snowden would have attempted to enlist in 2003-2004 (there are training cycles, he might have been told there was no room and to wait next year), yet he was 18 in 1999, that meant he was almost 6 years the senior of his fellows. People fresh out of high school, gung ho on the Army vision (recruitment message). But Snowden’s process of development wasn’t intellectual – > Army. He spent 6 years doing things like surfing the net and reading blogs, probably. Reading about Iraq, probably, and debates about WMDs even. Just a surmise of what he spent his time on. It would make sense that he, with some extra information at his disposal, might have felt like he wanted to help Iraqis (the terror war was going full steam in 2004), but didn’t like or understand the comments he heard in basic or infantry school.
The basic timeline synchs together, although little hard confirmation of which is what. The personalities of the people he would have been talking to provides some basis to support Snowden’s quotes. At least on the plausibility level.
If Eric is right, Snowden would have primarily encountered high school graduates. If Eric is wrong, then Snowden was in infantry training and in SF assessment training. But he didn’t say where those comments came from that he heard. So it could still have been back at basic. Even if you don’t believe that a SF candidate can think or say such things, there are other options for why Snowden’s claims are plausible rather than implausible or Leftist/Chinese influenced.
Snowden would then have been on healing and recovery for awhile. One year? Two years? That would easily cover the period of 2005-2007. Just in time for the Obama election campaign. Snowden’s ties to Greenwald are harder to pin down. Perhaps he read Greenwald’s articles on Manning?
“And the training is not to make people gung ho about killing Arabs”
Ah, they’re like that BEFORE training. Before. It’s not that training makes them think like that. They “already” thought like that, sometimes.
Neo, you seem to still think Snow’s comments are directed at the Army as an institution? Why is that? That’s like the conclusion proving itself. It’s far more likely he was talking about his fellow recruits. Who do not control training or army or SF training procedures or elements. Snow claimed he was disillusioned by such talk. But he would be, given his life context up above. The only thing the instructors talk to for new recruits… probably doesn’t involve anything to do with Arabs or terrorists. Unless of course it was a reply to Snowden’s only views.
Ymarsakar,
Are you artflgdr with another handle?
Ymarsakar:
No, I don’t think he was against the army as an institution, particularly. My point was that his reports about what his fellow army trainees said fits the leftist story about bloodthirsty, bigoted army recruits better than it fits reality.
And if he wasn’t in training at all (according to the army), who were these recruits he was talking to? Was this conversation he reports on one that only occurred the day he entered the army, or what? The story doesn’t hang together somehow. And if he says he broke his legs in a training accident, and the army says he never was trained, somebody’s lying.
So I’m questioning his veracity in reporting on the events of his life.
“And if he wasn’t in training at all (according to the army), who were these recruits he was talking to?”
The Army said he was accepted, although not necessarily what happened when he was discharged.
“My point was that his reports about what his fellow army trainees said fits the leftist story about bloodthirsty, bigoted army recruits better than it fits reality.”
It doesn’t fit anything. That’s an external filter applied to it. There’s no context for it either. So the context can’t be said that it fits the Leftist story because there’s no context for it to fit it. Just external filters people apply to interpret it that way. It wouldn’t need this interpretation if the context and additional info could be acquired.
“And if he says he broke his legs in a training accident, and the army says he never was trained, somebody’s lying.”
The Army never said that in any of the reports you quoted or I read.
The Army said there was no record he finished his training. IF he was medically discharged before the end, that would fit the claim. Any number of people are discharged or withdrawn from basic or infantry if they feel they can’t cut it. Voluntarily even. At least that was the case back then.
“Read the Guardian profile and the Post articles and you will see that Snowden professes no loyalty to the United States.”
Look at the video. Don’t try to pick up too much stuff from Greenwald’s interpretation. Or else you get things like what you just said.
Ymarsakar:
What who just said?
Did you see that that entire sentence was a quote from Scott Johnson at Powerline?
Also, Snowden’s quote about the soldiers wanting to kill Arabs certainly does fit the leftist narrative. That doesn’t mean that Snowden is himself a leftist, or that he’s making the quote up, although either or both could be the case. But as I said, the story fits the leftist narrative about soldiers in Iraq (and I’m quite familiar with that narrative).
The army spokesman in several articles I read said that Snowden was accepted but never completed any training. To me that sounded like he barely started, and then stopped; almost no training was completed. Basic training is only 8-10 weeks long, and yet he stayed in the service nearly 5 months (see this for the dates). I suppose it’s possible he broke both legs the first weeks of training, stayed in the service for several months to recuperate, and then was discharged (although if he had recuperated, why was he discharged?).
How do you not complete training if you are in the Army’s care for more than 4 months?
There’s no reason to believe or judge that the Army is lying or that Snowden was lying. There’s a plausible explanation for what both sides said.
“Did you see that that entire sentence was a quote from Scott Johnson at Powerline?”
No, it was getting late. So my comments would be thus directed at him. Although I inferred that you agreed with the veracity of his analysis, although you didn’t explicitly state that.
Ymarsakar:
I offered one possible explanation for the discrepancy (about the army, the training, and time spent) here, but it still doesn’t quite add up, IMHO. If you read today’s post, I question some of the other things Snowden has said, as well, and I explain why I think the issue of his veracity is important.
As for the Scott Johnson quote, I don’t know why you’d think my quoting someone in this post means I agree with the quote entirely. It just means I think it’s interesting, unless I explicitly say I’m in agreement. After all, I begin the post by quoting Mukasey and then saying I don’t find Mukasey’s arguments convincing. So I’m just offering interesting ideas and opinions from other people here.
As far as whether I agree with Johnson or not, I happen to basically agree (although not on the grounds of Snowden’s loyalty to this country or lack thereof). I agree, though, that neither Snowden (nor Greenwald, for that matter) has the expertise about geopolitical security issues to be able to really assess all the security repercussions of what he has done. I actually don’t think anyone has enough knowledge and expertise to know that for sure—there’s always the law of unintended consequences—but there are certainly people who would be able to assess it a lot better than Snowden, who has expressed a rather large amount of geopolitical naivete (some of which I point out in today’s post about his veracity).
Ymarsakar: “How do you not complete training if you are in the Army’s care for more than 4 months?”
It’s the casual(ty)/holdover status I mentioned. It’s common enough in Basic Training.
Basic Training is a tightly scheduled, high pace, carefully orchestrated program. Moreover, on top of the individual training, soldiers are training to be a team. All soldiers in Basic are tired and sore with bumps and bruises. And when one of us gets the flu, we all get the flu.
But if you have an injury that’s bad enough to disallow you from keeping up, then you’re removed from your training company and placed in a separate non-training company. It’s not only about the injured soldier – if he can’t keep up, he affects the training for everyone else.
The Army doesn’t just send you home when you’re separated from your training company. Remember, the contract isn’t just for the length of Basic Training. It’s for the whole term of enlistment. You’re being paid in Basic Training. The day I left home for my Basic Training, I was committed to the Army for the next 4 years.
While on casual status, a soldier recovers from his injury with the goal of joining a later training cycle. I believe for the soldier being released from his contract, the Army is still obligated to treat the injury and can’t release him until he’s healed.
But even for the physically fit washout being released, the Army takes its time out-processing him. Normally, he’ll be used for unskilled labor on post while the Army processes his paperwork before letting him go. The process often takes weeks or even – yes – months.
Basic Training is a shock to the system that just keeps going. It’s normal to want to quit. I suspect that the Army purposely delays sending the washouts home in order to dissuade soldiers who are on the fence from believing quitting is an easy way out. Being stuck in indefinite casual status limbo, enduring the Basic Training environment while doing unskilled labor, just waiting for the Army to let you go, sucks hard. It’s easier just to graduate.
It looks like Snowden got hurt fairly early and then spent several months in casual status limbo healing up and doing whatever work details his injury allowed.
Also, part of what makes Basic Training surreal is the stereotypes and misconceptions we enter the Army with and mix together.
Neo: (although if he had recuperated, why was he discharged?)
He may have a chronic physical condition that was revealed with his injury. Or, he may have been deemed mentally or psychologically unfit to be a soldier.