All you Snowden fans…
…are you still liking him after this news? Or do you think that’s all just hype?
I have said from the start that Snowden is a dangerous guy who should have actually gone the whistleblower route if he wanted to be an actual whistleblower, rather than teaming up with the Guardian and Glenn Greenwald and then ending up in Russia.
Essentially, the head of MI5 says that he can’t do his job without erasing the right to privacy — without complete and unfettered access to snoop on everyone’s movements, everyone’s social networks, and everyone’s daily activities.
You’ll note that his allegations about inability to do his job are completely unsupported by any verifiable information He says that we should simply trust him and his political superiors to behave even though they have powers that any prior secret police force could only dream about.
I realize that the UK has no Bill of Rights, but I marvel that he hasn’t been fired.
Moshe Yudkowsky:
He’s certainly not saying that in the linked article. Nor do they actually have “complete and unfettered access to snoop on everyone’s movements, everyone’s social networks, and everyone’s daily activities.” I’ve written about this before; not going to go into it at length now, but it’s in the links to my pieces about Snowden.
You or I may think they have access to more than they need and more than we want. But that’s a different point. And it’s all a separate issue from whether Snowden was right in what he did and how he went about it, and what he revealed to terrorists about our information-gathering techniques re them.
It looks like MI went to the Guardian and tried to get them to stop publishing or perhaps selectively publish. Glenn, though, doesn’t seem like an ally of anti Islamic counter insurgency in Britain. Similar to Democrats at home.
So the public article looks like an attempt to generate public pressure on the newspapers (which the Pentagon papers in the US already determined that the US couldn’t do much about it either). Pressure which I don’t believe the Guardian will bend under.
Snowden’s leaks are about the same as the Pentagon Papers. Although he didn’t leak it because he was against wars, per say.
When you get a Top Secret clearance, you sign an agreement stating that you will not disclose any Top Secret information. (I know, because I had a Top Secret clearance). You also agree that you understand that it’s a crime to reveal them. The guy committed a crime, plain and simple.
Ymarsakar:
Not even remotely like the Pentagon Papers—except that it was disclosure of classified information by an insider, and it was published in the press.
I’ve written about the Pentagon Papers extensively (see this for the list, but this one and this one are probably the most relevant to the issue we’re discussing now).
The Pentagon Papers did not reveal any security information in real time. Just for starters, the Papers dealt with our involvement in Vietnam from 1945-1967, and they were released in 1971. That’s a huge difference right there. The information released was not primarily (or at all) about information-gathering techniques against terrorists or others who would attack us, it was about our decisions re policy in Vietnam. The main thrust was that Ellsberg contended we were lied to in order to go to war, and about the conduct of the war. That’s a very, very different thing than what Snowden released.
The only reason we know about NSA abuse is because of Snowden. The NSA deserved to be exposed because what they’re doing is a threat to democracy in this country…and some of it was also most likely illegal.
Yes, what Snowden did was illegal. The establishment has made it so that ANY exposure of their activities is illegal. That’s the establishment protecting itself, rather than doing what’s legal or right.
It is regrettable that Snowden has probably ended up helping our enemies, but he was forced down that path.
I’ve read accounts from other whistleblowers who took the legal route; they were stymied in their efforts, then prosecuted. What Snowden did was the only realistic route if you actually want the info to come out, instead of preening as a self-righteous martyr.
This notion that as a whistleblower you can go the “legal” route and be effective is UTTER CRAP.
Look at all this administration has done to reporters and sources if you doubt that. Look at what it’s done to law-abiding citizens!
Obama has gamed the system. The most effective actions now are outside the system. Civil disobedience.
Matt_SE:
Again, I don’t have time to rewrite posts I’ve already written (or even find the right one at the moment), but we knew about the NSA program before the Snowden dump–not every detail, but that it existed.
Now, it’s true that Snowden was great at publicity, and his dramatic revelations got more (and much more sensational) coverage than it had gotten before. But at what cost? And what difference does it make? The program still exists, as far as I know. And it is legal: email and cellphone records are not protected communications, because they go through 3rd parties which have access to them.
“—not every detail
Ah, but that’s where the devil lies. The existence of this, that or the other program on paper doesn’t matter. It’s how those programs are being used. After all, many of these problematic programs existed under Bush but it took Obama to abuse them.
“but we knew about the NSA program before the Snowden dump…”
I don’t recall PRISM before that. From the reactions of news pundits at the time, I don’t think they knew of it either.
@Neo
BTW, I assume you argue in good faith. You don’t need to look up your previous posts as proof. If you tell me you posted on whatever topic, I’ll take your word for it.
I guess it’s your legal training showing itself, huh?:)
Matt_SE:
Well, you shouldn’t trust me, either :-).
But here’s one of the previous NSA whistleblowers I meant.
And there was this lawsuit.
Maybe you missed the admission by the NSA chief that successes have been overstated:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/16666-nsa-chief-agency-s-successes-are-being-overstated
What makes you think the head of MI5 is any more honest than our self-serving self-important fearmongering ‘leaders’ here? I say to hell with them.
Steve:
As I wrote in my post “or do you think that’s all just hype?” Apparently, you think it’s all just hype.
What do I think? I don’t know; no doubt there’s some hype. But from the start I have detested and distrusted Snowden. Take a look at my previous posts on the subject to find out why.
I have no reason to doubt that release of the exact form our surveillance methods take would help the terrorists, whether or not I believe the results have been exaggerated or not. Why do you have trouble believing it would help the terrorists? It’s just common sense.
This administration is good at setting up damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situations.
L’affaire Snowden: If you expose NSA wrongdoing, you’ll be helping the terrorists.
CR/Debt showdown: If you don’t give the administration what they want, you’ll be hurting citizens.
Syria debacle: If you don’t give Obama authorization to strike, you’ll be hurting the credibility of the US and all future presidents.
etc.
Obama is a SERIAL hostage-taker.
“Our” side has lost its trust. They are spying on us.
At this point, why should I believe a “spy chief”, our side or the others?
Everyone should keep in mind that the NSA and GCHQ are fused at the spine. Literally.
When the US Government wants to go after someone via snooping the request is NORMALLY sent to GCHQ. It does the dirty deed on Americans. Then GCHQ forwards on their data to NSA — as co-operation.
Subsequently, upon Congressional queries, our NSA boys flatly proclaim that the NSA DIDN’T do the dirty deed — under oath.
—-
Famously, Thatcher’s wire sweeps against various British politicians were routed via Canada. She’d merely asked the Canadians to do the dirty deeds — and then co-operate on back with the results.
America, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Netherlands are all core members of Echelon.
The ‘Falcon’ (Christopher Boyce) manned a station on the Echelon network. This is how he was able to watch American interferences with Australian and New Zealand politicians. It led to his treasons.
It was the Echelon network that won WWII. It was behind the destruction of the enemy navies. It also was the primary asset frustrating the Soviet Union.
So it’s no surprise to find out that the Echelon nations went right back to their primary defense asset during the Global War on Terror.
So, Snowden’s treasons have struck at the absolute heart of the West’s defenses. It’s reasonable to assume that he will go down in infamy after the ‘action’ really heats up.
It’s notable in Somalia that the SEALS were frustrated… mostly because the place is a digital desert. We didn’t even pick up on the concentration of civilians. (No 0bama phones for them!)
And it should be noted that the mission was aborted because it would’ve entailed laying it on too heavy: the opposition has long determined that they can protect themselves by hiding behind children. Hence, they have a slave army of teenage boys that they deploy in front of themselves — as bullet stoppers.
This can be well seen in the flick Black Hawk Down. It’s going to be a persistent tactic until the Pentagon goes Roman on the fanatics.
What else would you expect the guy to say? How are we to know if he’s telling the truth? Why should we trust him?
There’s a certain level of trust that intelligence agencies must maintain with the citizens they work for. I expect them to be careful, discreet, competent, and respectful. Snowden, or someone like him, is the inevitable result of violating that trust. If you don’t want your agencies’ repeated and routine abuses of Constitutional rights to become public then don’t commit repeated and routine abuses.
Or do it anyway, if you feel the situation demands it. But accept the fact that one day you’ll have to pay for your actions even if you turn out to be right.
He blew it when he ran to China.
you snowden fans need to wake up. he went to hide behind PUTIN’S skirt. PUTIN!!! Get it?
There is no way that Snowden could have known whether anything he released might have harmed our country or given vital information to our enemies. This whole thing was an ego trip for him. I hope he likes his future home in Siberia.
It’s a simple question of weighing the cost against the benefits. Personally, I don’t care if the NSA knows the name of everybody who called Afghanistan in the last 10 years. If it saves the life of one American — no, if it keeps one American from getting a scratch on his nose — that’s fine with me.
neo, some questions for you. If the NSA is so important to security, why do they lie about their successes? If the NSA has many safeguards in place to prevent abuse, how did Snowden learn about all these different programs and the spying on Americans? What makes you think that other countries do not already have spies that are accessing the same information? I am not buying the bull that they are selling. I wonder why you are.
Oh for goodness sakes! How can anyone possibly defend an incompetent, politicized NSA, FBI and CIA that couldn’t be bothered – even after having been warned twice by the Russians – to investigate and take down the Tsarnaevs and prevent the Boston Massacre?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, “if it keeps one American from getting a scratch on his nose.” What planet are you living on? The NSA – with all it’s malfeasance – can’t even point to two plots that it has stopped. This is bureaucracy being built for fascist purposes. In other words, these organizations are being turbo-charged and hyped up on steroids and you can be certain that it isn’t being done to protect you, the American citizen.
Neo, please reconsider. You’ve done spectacular coverage of Jews who tried to leave Europe before WWII. What do you think they were so afraid of? Well, one thing would be the build up of fascist security operations by the government.
And just how different is what’s being built today? Now we have news out of Maryland that healthcare exchange info will be available to law enforcement? Come on – WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! These are NOT your parents’ civil servants and I respectfully ask you to consider whether or not you’re living in the past.
Here, here Irene.
I’m with Steve and Irene.
Part of the backlash against Snowden is reflexive “us vs. them” mentality. You’re believing the cover stories of the NSA, for God’s sake! Those people have proven that they don’t deserve our trust.
As far as Snowden going to Russia, it’s easy to believe he did it out of necessity. What’s the alternative? That he come back to America and “take it like a man?”
Notions of honor, duty and patriotism will be turned back upon you by this administration, and everything you hold dear will be used as a weapon to neutralize your opposition.
Matt_SE and Irene, et al:
All of this was discussed at great length in previous threads. I’m not going to go through my point of view again in this thread, but I refer you to previous ones—in particular this, this, and this. Here’s the full list of what I’ve written. Read it if you’re curious what I think.
Steve:
Your reading comprehension is faulty.
I didn’t indicate I “bought the bull they’re selling.” I came to the conclusion on my own, before they said it, and that’s what I’ve indicated.
Nor have I defended the NSA program in this thread. I think what Snowden did was wrong, and I wrote a ton of previous threads explaining why, to which I refer you.
I think it’s interesting that certain people who don’t like what the NSA did think that justifies what Snowden did. To me, they can both be wrong.
expat:
Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Saigon
1975. 4 years from the time the Pentagon papers were released. Not connected in anyway?
“Operation Linebacker II was a US Seventh Air Force and US Navy Task Force 77 aerial bombing campaign, conducted against targets in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) during the final period of US involvement in the Vietnam War. The operation was conducted from 18—29 December 1972,”
So, the North Vietnamese derived no strategic or tactical information from the knowledge of how internal US administrations dealt with war policy, even as they were negotiating for peace?
The papers were released because of distrust in Lyndon Johnson, but during Nixon’s admin because they wanted to get Nixon to do things. Which he was adamantly against doing, for a number of reasons.
I can’t really say the Pentagon Papers had nothing to do with the loss in Vietnam or the decision of Democrats to pull funding from the Republic of Vietnam.
In so far has Snowden was convinced by a Democrat that these powers are bad and corrupting, they will still be true if ever a competent administration, like Nixon, took over a war intentionally sold out to the enemy.
In that sense, there’s a great relationship between those two leaks, not least of all from the personal admiration of the leakers for each other.
Ymarsakar:
The Pentagon Papers affected the war mainly in turning the American public even more against it, not in any information it gave to the enemy.
Please also see my piece on Ellsberg and Snowden, here.
I also believe—although I cannot prove, and have no information to back me up—that Ellsberg’s group assisted Snowden in his endeavor.
My position is that Snowden, and various others in the lineage of leakages, have their own personal motivation to do so. Rarely, if ever, is it the same motivation as the Demoncrats.
But the motivation is bereft of much life experience or strategic wisdom, so Democrats still make use of the leaks, if it can be made use of.
Thus I don’t believe that Snowden did it to hurt America, like others do. I also don’t believe there are zero negative consequences from leaks. Of course there will be negative, and positive, consequences for somebody.
The Pentagon Papers affected the war mainly in turning the American public even more against it, not in any information it gave to the enemy.
You don’t know how the information was used by North Vietnamese and Soviet strategists.
The same situation is true with Snowden’s data cache. There’s no way of knowing the truth, until you have a specific situation where you know how the enemy used the information to gain an advantage and kill X, Y, and Z.
If the absence of enemy intel operations using the Pentagon papers for war advantage, both in Vietnam and in the US, is proof that the Pentagon papers had only a domestic effect, then the same situation applies to Snowden. Because there is an absence of operational and solid proof of what exactly is in the cache, what was released, and who got it when. A lot of claims of terrorists being helped, yes, but those can’t be verified by the nature of intelligence classification.
The solid proof, or result, in Vietnam was that the war and peace, were both lost. One after the other.
That indirect result isn’t even available now, because we have yet to see the full effects of Snowden’s actions one way or another.
Ymarsakar:
I believe I wrote in some post or other (don’t know which one; there have been so many about Snowden) that he was both dangerously naive and hubristic at the same time. So I agree with you: I don’t know why he did it, but I don’t necessarily think he wanted to hurt the US or the war against terrorists, although I think he did both. He thought he was so smart he could figure it all out, including the consequences of his actions.
Ymarsakar:
I think it goes without saying that I don’t know the effect it had, and that I’m expressing my opinion.
But I am basing that opinion on what was in the Papers, which was qualitatively different than what was in Snowden’s leaks. Snowden’s leaks were about how intelligence is gathered. The Papers were about how the US made decisions in the war, and were outdated by several years (and one administration removed). By the time they were released we were in what I call the Second Act of the Vietnam War, drawing down our forces there and much reducing our footprint. During those years the South Vietnamese were increasingly handling the war, and we were more and more just advising and funding.
By the way, the date you have at the beginning of the post about Operation Linebacker was wrong (not 1975).
We never lost the war in the military sense; I am convinced that the South Vietnamese could have been successful had we not withdrawn funds (see my posts on Sorley’s book on the subject). I believe the evidence is strong that we lost because we lost the will to win.
If we had an administration that scrupulously followed the Constitution, would I want there to be more Snowdens? No.
I admit freely that he has caused harm to the US and its interests, in some sense. My opinion is that it was a by-product of his actions, and not the primary motivation.
And while I’m not a fan of “by any means necessary,” I believe that the system is so rigged at this point that only extra-legal measures will be effective (though I can’t know that for sure).
Personally, I blame Obama. He was the one that set this whole situation up; stretching the Constitution to the breaking point, demonizing opponents and generally throwing gasoline on the fire.
That someone would push back (in his own, irresponsible way) is hardly surprising.
@Neo
I read your previous articles. The most weighty issue for me was whether Snowden exposed anything new.
This is important, because if he exposed nothing new he can’t be a whistleblower.
If PRISM was previously known of, then either I’m less informed than I thought or this program was known only to a cabal of insiders that wasn’t making much headway in publicizing its dangers.
I’m partial to the latter explanation…if it was known of at all.
I think Snowden exposed it, then garnered world-wide publicity. That the publicity was generated because of the “sex appeal” of the story is irrelevant. For the truth to be heard these days, it has to be yelled far and wide, and repeated often (at least as often as the lies).
But I will offer this: if anyone can provide evidence of prior knowledge of PRISM in some mainstream outlet, I will acknowledge that Snowden’s a poser.
Matt_SE:
I provided links to previous knowledge. Maybe you missed it? I’ll provide them again:
Here’s one about a previous NSA whistleblower.
And there was this lawsuit. The lawsuit was not in some hidden, clandestine court—it was right out in the open, and it was written about (for example, here’s an article about it, written before the Snowden revelations).
Here’s Binney the whistleblower on TV in 2012, before Snowden.
There were other NSA whistleblowers as well, but perhaps that’s enough to convince you the basic information was out there. It’s just that Snowden was more flamboyant and dramatic and got more press, and he revealed more details and more secrets that were likely to compromise security, and they were published in the newspaper by Greenwald.
Lurch: “you snowden fans need to wake up. he went to hide behind PUTIN’S skirt. PUTIN!!! Get it?”
Putin is the only one right now who can damage Obama. That makes Putin the enemy of the enemy and therefore he’s good for us.
Obama and Putin are the same breed of narcissistic despotic animal. Let them fight it out. If Snowden strengthens Putin’s hand for a time, good. The world will be better off for it in the long run. Obama is the single greatest threat to world peace and harmony there has been since America was founded. Putin is almost zero threat relative to Obama.
neo, my reading comprehension is just fine.
I don’t think you take care trying not to damage yourself if you’re a full out spy.
Or do you? Does he really fit the mold of other spies, traitors?
You don’t have to agree with anything he’s done, but he might not be intending to just sell out America which is the ultimate act for a traitor.
If you had his data, I’m sure you could do damage a lot faster than the contortions with the justice system he was openly debating in Hong Kong.
That last is my argument right there, I could do a hell of job better being a traitor. I’d release more information, steal more, and sell more. And act much more scoundrelly?
@Neo
“…the basic information was out there. It’s just that Snowden was more flamboyant and dramatic and got more press, and he revealed more details and more secrets that were likely to compromise security, and they were published in the newspaper by Greenwald.”
While not exactly a “cabal” per my previous post, it wasn’t exactly the front page of the NYT either. So maybe Snowden “twerked” this onto the front pages by being obnoxious…so what?
The story needed more coverage and it got it. As it was, the coverage it was getting was like being buried on page A14 below the fold.
Snowden’s a poser. (he did the right thing for the wrong reasons)
In his absence though, I just don’t see how this story would’ve broken into the daylight.
Snowden is a traitor and a coward who is hiding in Russia, of all places. The mistake is that some people may think he did something beneficial against the Obama regime. He did not hurt Obama. He hurt us. It was all a game to him. In his mind he was the star of his own sick spy thriller.
A nerdy guy pretending to be Janes Bond.
“We do not yet know his full purpose.” Galadriel
“…before this is over, the [posturing] of [Snowden] may rule the fate of many.” Gandalf
Ha.
But seriously, I wondered if conservatives staying home in 2012 wasn’t the wrong thing. Maybe it’s sour grapes, but I now believe Obama needed to be re-elected in order to seal the doom of liberalism.
If Snowden’s case was the one that got the young, hip, tech-savvy Obama voters to question their assumptions then it’s a good thing.
Only time will tell.
What, the NSA is supposed to tell you when they’ve stopped some terrorists? I don’t thin’ so, Lucy.
The NSA has been in existence for 60 years, and suddenly it’s a secret fascist plot to control our precious essences? The Espionage Act (18 USC Sec. 792- 799) has been substantially unchanged since 1950 and now it’s a notion of honor, duty and patriotism which will be turned back upon you by this administration?
Nor is Snowden’s intent particularly relevant — did he “knowingly and willfully communicate . . . to an unauthorized person any classified information . . .(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government?” (18 USC Sec. 798.) Yup. Up to 10 years in the slam, a fine, and forfeiture of assets, Snowie. Too bad.
He went to Russia out of necessity? Do you not remember that the chap who coined the term “Civil Disobedience” insisted that if you committed CD, you must be prepared and willing to go to jail for it?
The NSA has been in existence for 60 years, and suddenly it’s a secret fascist plot to control our precious essences?
To highlight why so many people seem to be thinking along those lines, the park service were your friendly friends at parks.
Until Obama ordered them to put the rod down on the peasants, and many of them obeyed, though not all.
So under Bush, the NSA wasn’t given directives to harm political enemies and so didn’t go out of their way to do so. Under Obama and future Leftist Presidents, there’s no guarantee about that. Character drives policy, at least for executives.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/10/09/godaddy-pulls-lavabits-security-creds-because-the-government-got-ahold-of-its-encryption-keys/?utm_campaign=techtwittersf&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
Stories like that are also why the “paranoia” isn’t really as paranoid as it should be.
The NSA has been in existence for 60 years, and suddenly it’s a secret fascist plot to control our precious essences?
And how long has the IRS been around for?
If Obama was able to co-opt the IRS for his own political ends, might he not have been able to do the same with the NSA?
And if so, would that not have been a masterful stroke? Using the national snooping organization to dig dirt on your political opponents under the guise of “national security”—-and then getting the neo-cons to defend the neutralization of those political opponents because, well, our national security is sacrosanct!!
Masterful indeed. (And sinister.)
File under: Bringing the Constitution into the 21st century!!
The FBI under admins prior to Nixon, were also engaged in similar collection of information on domestic political opponents in the US and funneling them to Democrats for the most part.
It’s why I don’t harbor any special enmity against Nixon, since he was being spied on as well. Whether the FBI was ordered to do so or whether internal elements of the FBI just did what they did for Democrats thinking it was Nixon’s wish, or if they setup Nixon in a double blind deception is interesting to think on but just history now.
The NSA, IRS, Obamaca is not history though, not yet at least.
The COINintelpro operations by the FBI and Henry Hissinger did major damage to Leftist and black power type organizations. TO use the same federal agencies and federal powers against America, must feel very satisfying to these Leftist terrorists.
I’m a bit doubtful.
One does not broadcast to one’s enemy that they can attack at will, with relative impunity.
It might be a some sort of bait. Or they’re really incompetent, in which case I doubt Snowden’s leakage makes that much of a difference.
The guys who have said all these agencies are different animals now under Obama are correct.
The IRS and NSA are almost too complex to ponder.
But Obama did us a great favor when he allowed us to see what a Park Service Guard will do when a tyrant rules him – he becomes a servant of the tyrant.
The Park Service? Jack-booted thugs from now on is all they are. Miserable creeps who merit nothing but disdain and contempt.
We are about a few inches away from all out fascist rule. NO government agency, NO “public servant” (the term now being a cruel joke all by itself), can be trusted. They are all rotten. The whole thing needs to be reformed, inside out, top to bottom, upside to downside.
Never again will I give even a half ounce of respect to a government employee anywhere for anything,
They have shown their true colors. They have cast their own lots.
Some people would always get mad at me for criticizing the State Department or some other government agency, since some of their crony family members were in and they took the criticism personally.
Yeah well, that’ll be the last thing people have to worry about. It won’t be words they will need fear, but bombs and bullets coming their way soon enough. One way or another.