Republican politicians and wonks have been telling us the the leaker(s), of the Version and PRISM scandals had to be someone high in the NSA, possibly with close links to Obama himself, as they attempt to conflate these issues with their non-issue sandals of Benghazi and the IRS. That the leaker was an IT tech, now working for a government contractor, no less, raises far greater concerns than what he actually leaked.
The man who some U.S. officials say caused enormous national security damage by leaking details of top-secret surveillance programs hid Monday in plain sight, waiting out his fate in a Hong Kong hotel room as Justice Department officials began what is likely to become a criminal investigation.
Edward Snowden, 29, acknowledged in an interview published Sunday by the Guardian newspaper that he was the source of leaks detailing U.S. surveillance programs that collect records on domestic telephone calls and overseas Internet activity in the global hunt for terrorists and criminals.
The former CIA employee who most recently worked for the computer consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton — working with the National Security Agency — said he did it to end what he sees as an excessively intrusive surveillance system, the Guardian reported.
"The government has granted itself power it is not entitled to. There is no public oversight. The result is people like myself have the latitude to go further than they are allowed to," he told the paper… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <CNN>
Karen Finney and her panel explored Snowden’s acts and intent.
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
It’s certainly a tangled web, isn’t it. There can be no doubt that Snowden broke the law. He probably has no defense as a whistleblower, because he did not reveal anything that is illegal. Nevertheless, he has done a valuable public service by bringing to public attention activities that should be illegal. He apparently took care not to reveal anything that would endanger intelligence operatives or foreign sources. Therefore, I think we can take his assertions about his intent at face value. He has pointed out the need for a public debate about how to protect our security and provide us safety, without sacrificing our core values that make our security worth defending.
What concerns me more than what Snowden revealed is this. A low level IT technician for a government contractor has access to the level of information that Snowden could have revealed, but didn’t. Snowden may have been motivated by conscience to reveal the things he did, but how many other low level functionaries with that level of access might be motivated by greed to reveal such secrets that truly threaten our national security to enemies? I can hardly justify sacrificing privacy for a program that leaves our safety and security so vulnerable.
After writing this, I saw that Rachel Maddow has the same take on it that I do.
23 Responses to “If Snowden, Then Who Else?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Deja vu. This is from January, 2009.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqigfE0nBs0
Spying on Americans this way just gives the corporate driven government more control over us. Try as I may, I can never believe that spying on all the one to two minute cell phone conversations of Americans is the most efficient way of monitoring terrorism.
Geez I do miss Keith! There is one difference here. What Bush did is illegal. Present spying is legal, but it should not be.
Legal or not, it is an outrage to spy on all Americans and claim that it is done to prevent terrorism.
I miss Keith, too!
I agree.
Snowden may not be a villain, but he's certainly no hero either.
I think Eugene Robinson gets it about right.
I read the column, and I agree with it. I am still grateful that Snowden had the nerve to go for it. I don't blame him for leaving the country. He would certainly be in prison if he hadn't.
Nameless, see my comment at the end please.
I can imagine the cold case file data will run out of room, meanwhile China hacks away without consequense…
Always, Richard.
I opt for keeping our country safe. If they want to listen to my phone calls and read what I write on the internet, so be it. I have nothing to hide.
I think Snowden is no hero. If he is, then why is he hiding? He is not where he stated. If he was there would not be an international hunt on for him.
Patty, see my comment at the end please.
The old "if you have nothing to hide" canard is showing itself (as with Patty above). That's a nonsense non-argument. Do you really think you have NOTHING to hide? Think again. What if the powers in control of this information decided that you're a suspect character because you read radical leftist websites (sorry, Tom). Guess what, Patty? You're now a suspicious character and every communication you make is examined. For that matter, every communication you have ever had since the Patriot Act can be examined for anything that might wind you up in a cell in Guantanamo. "But I didn't do anything!" you can scream. But you read that website, so you're a potential national security threat.
Snowden is absolutely a hero. If Germany or Russia had such heroes in the early 20th C., Hitler and Stalin may never have come to power.
You are going to need quit a few verifiable documentations that the CONTENT of "communications" has been gathered such that one "might wind you up in a cell in Guantanamo."
While you're at listing cites to verify, throw in a couple documenting that anything was done to put it on equal footing with "Hitler and Stalin".
Snowden acknowledges that what he did was a crime – and as per SOP, his employer maintains that he was repeatedly warned that revealing unauthorized classified information is a crime. Agencies invilved are legally authorized programs. Like many of us, we vehemently dislike the encroachment they appear to have done on what I perceive to be my civil liberties. But he wasn't blowing the whistle on any illegal activity – just things that did not meet HIS personal criteria.
Our government – ANY government – can't function when its employees start acting as rogue agents, with only their own set of guidelines as a compass.
And to all those Congress critters who complain about the attack on our civil liberties, I agree that it'd sure be nice if there were some legislative body that could actually, if not repeal, at least modify the Patriot Act, etc.
Oh, wait … there is! So Congress critter – quit your bitching, and get to work!
Snowden wasn't a government employee, so you can put that argument in the trashcan.
Secret spying has always been a hallmark of despotic governments, so Hitler and Stalin qualify as examples of what might occur.
The data collected by PRISM is saved forever, or until they run out of server space. Things you might have said or written in a post years ago is still out there. If something brings a person to the notice of the PRISM program, then ALL of what they've collected on you can be brought up and examined closely. The seemingly innocent communications which were not a red flag when they occurred suddenly become highly suspicious.
My cite is secret information that I'm not going to share with you. However, if you look up Mad and Dow, you might find a clue.
I think we're agree that the Patriot Act should be changed. But did you even realize until now just how much it must be changed?
Do you think all the features of the Patriot Act would pass a smell test of Constitutionality? I think the whole thing should be tossed out because it is (wait for it) ILLEGAL.
Do you believe every law passed by Congress is automatically legal? Many don't buy that notion. Many "broke the law" to gain rights which were being denied to them by those laws. Rosa Parks broke the law. Martin Luther King broke the law. Did you know how many people have spent time in prison because they decided to do what's right, rather than what was technically legal?
Marva, I totally agree with you. Yes he broke the law, but he revealed that lower echelon IT's have access to sensitive information and revealed that our government is spying on all of us. I know that the book 1984 has been cited numerous times, but this shows how advanced it actually was. Something I might say in a facetious manner could be used against me later, if some bureaucrat decides it is insidious. Let us not forget the McCarthy era, when people were ruined because someone said they were a Communist.
I agree 100%! This country was not built on lies and mistrust. Which is what we have in our White House right now! They have been doing nothing but lying and coniving the American people! I would rather have NIXON!!
How can they prosecute him for doing something illegal when what they are doing is illegal!! Switzerland would like some explanations on why we were spying on their banks!! And Switzerland banks are a threat to OUR national security HOW??? I love seeing Obama in the hot seat! He can't deny that he didn't know about this because he has already made statements about it!! Maybe this hot seat will get hot enough to burn his a** right out of that chair!!
Let me amend my comment WRT government's employee to "government – or Contractor – employee". (You can take it out of the trashcan now and put it back in play.)
I'm not sure to whom the rest of your post of nice sentiments is directed,,but it most certainly is NOT responsive to what I wrote.
And as a sidebar, when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. broke the law, he DID go to prison. He did NOT run off to some foreign country to seek asylum.
Bottom line: Snowden is neither a Hero nor a Traitor. But by his own admission, he is a Criminal – and should face the music like Dr. King did.
Marva, see my comment at the end please.
Right? Wrong?
Snowden, as I understand things, has not leaked specific details that puts specific people at risk. However, he has exposed the underpinnings of the NSA/CIA — how they work, how they collect information. And it possibly exposes the decision makers. As I read your presentation TC, I couldn't shake this article that I found on Alternet
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/executive-branch-threatens-us-national-security?paging=off
In this very long piece, the author, Fred Branfman, a colleague of Noam Chomsky, takes a look at the Executive branch of government, and who is really in charge. Of course we all think the the president is in charge, but is he?
"The logic behind Panetta's "give them what they want" mentality is obvious. A President might conceivably survive another 9/11 or losing in Afghanistan – but not if military sources continually leaked information to the media and Congress blaming it on his or her failure to support the military. And, for the same reason, a President is often "trapped" by the NSA, CIA or any other major Executive agency."
Earlier today, I was reading and thinking how like the old Soviet Union or China we have become when it comes to surveillance etc. We think of ourselves as free, yet witout our knowledge, we are subject to surveillance, and no warrant. This isn't just the US, but it is happening all over.
"…Presidents come and go. The Executive Branch endures, often setting the terms under which any President must operate. We understand this when looking at institutions like the Chinese or Soviet Politburos. But we fail to apply this obvious truth when looking at our own Executive Branch."
And one thing to note is the author doesn't just refer to Mr Obama, but all presidents since WWII. This isn't a Republican or Democratic issue, but a national military issue, a power issue. And to be clear, this is not a slam against soldiers and sailors who are people just like us. This is about the power base.
"The U.S. Executive Branch agencies … have an overall budget of well over $1 trillion, employ 3-4 million people, and spend more money on the military than the next 10 nations combined. Its enormous power has allowed it to operate unilaterally since the end of WWII, with little meaningful oversight or even the knowledge of Congress and the American people.
The Executive has had one overriding purpose since it emerged from the ashes of World War II: to keep foreign governments deemed "pro-U.S." in power, and to weaken or overthrow those considered "anti-U.S." The first key feature of a "pro-U.S." government is that it permits U.S. corporations and Wall Street investors access to its natural resources and cheap labor. As former Federal Reserve Board Chair Alan Greenspan stated, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." The second is that it allows the U.S. military and spy agencies to operate freely in its territory, including building military bases and conducting clandestine operations."
The old phrase "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." certainly rings true.
Very well said, Lynn.
I come down in the middle, between Nameless and Patty on the one hand, and Marva and Debra on the other.
What Obama and/or his appointees are doing is not illegal. Therefore Snowden is not a whistle blower. He has performed a valuable service by exposing what he did, but a key element of civil disobedience, as defined hy Henry David Thoreau, is the willingness to accept the consequences of one's actions as part of the protest.
On the other hand, it is not OK either. It should be illegal, because it violates our Fourth Amendment guarantees. I would have no problem with government collecting all this data, if I could be assured that the data will not be musused. Sadly, history teaches us that secret data on innocent citizens is always misused eventually, and that is why it is necessary to restore a guarantee that requires individual suspicon first. That means no secret laws.
The parties most to blame for this are Congress.for passing the law and SCOTUS for upholding it.
General Observations
Whether you think Snowden is a Hero or a Villain, I think for the sake of a civil discourse we would do well to stick to facts, rather than just making assertions.
While I may disagree with what has been done, there has not been one scintilla of evidence to document that what the government did was illegal. If anyone has proof to rebut that, please provide it – but spare me all the platitudes, because I’ll probably be in agreement with most of them.
For those who want to claim that what NSA and PRISM have violated our Fourth Amendment rights – I wish it were so, but no cigar. SCOTUS in Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) ruled otherwise. While I happen to oppose the Smith v. Maryland ruling, it’s still the law of the land.
There is no expectation of privacy provided by the Constitution with respect to phone records (not content – records). Since you do not own your phone records, you have no Fourth Amendment right with regard to them to being violated. You cede that expectation the second that you transmit the calling information to the phone company in order to complete the call. Perhaps Verizon could possibly assert a Fourth Amendment privacy complaint here, but not you or me.
The one bright spot is that there is now a bipartisan bill (spearheaded by those amazing Duo of Oregon Democratic Senators along with Sen. Lee [R-UT]) that would declassify significant legal opinions reached by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. I hope it, too, becomes the law of the land.
And to put it in perspective, we can safely stipulate that Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. have – and USE – more of our personal data than our government. And they gathered it all without even having to ask for a warrant!
That's what I think I've done, but he has now answered that question for us by making harmful revelations dorectly to China aboutUSr methods of wiretapping China. That qualifies as sedition.
I think our argiment here is largely semantic. Anymore Suppeme Court decisions and the Constitution are oftem polar opposites, but I was thinking more of PRISM than collecting metadata. You are corect that this is the law of the land, but so is Citizens United. Both need to be repealed.
I glad I saw your comment in time to replance the clip in today's Short Takes. 🙂
This is true, but at least it's voluntary to some extent. I cancelled my Facebook account years ago. If I'm researching a sensative area, I use DuckDuckGo, not Google. Amazon and other merchants usually have two levels of opt-out. You may send me material, but don't share my info with "partners" and neither you nor partners. The GPS in my cell phone is off. There we are things one can do to limit our online visibility. When it comes to sharing data wih everyone, political charities are far worse. Letting it all hang out all the time is just stupid.