NYTimes on Snowden Jan. 1
Seven months ago, the world began to learn the vast scope of the National Security Agency’s reach into the lives of hundreds of millions of people in the United States and around the globe, as it collects information about their phone calls, their email messages, their friends and contacts, how they spend their days and where they spend their nights. The public learned in great detail how the agency has exceeded its mandate and abused its authority, prompting outrage at kitchen tables and at the desks of Congress, which may finally begin to limit these practices.
The revelations have already prompted two federal judges to accuse the N.S.A. of violating the Constitution (although a third, unfortunately, found the dragnet surveillance to be legal). A panel appointed by President Obama issued a powerful indictment of the agency’s invasions of privacy and called for a major overhaul of its operations.
All of this is entirely because of information provided to journalists by Edward Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor who stole a trove of highly classified documents after he became disillusioned with the agency’s voraciousness. Mr. Snowden is now living in Russia, on the run from American charges of espionage and theft, and he faces the prospect of spending the rest of his life looking over his shoulder.
Considering the enormous value of the information he has revealed, and the abuses he has exposed, Mr. Snowden deserves better than a life of permanent exile, fear and flight. He may have committed a crime to do so, but he has done his country a great service. It is time for the United States to offer Mr. Snowden a plea bargain or some form of clemency that would allow him to return home, face at least substantially reduced punishment in light of his role as a whistle-blower, and have the hope of a life advocating for greater privacy and far stronger oversight of the runaway intelligence community.
Mr. Snowden is currently charged in a criminal complaint with two violations of the Espionage Act involving unauthorized communication of classified information, and a charge of theft of government property. Those three charges carry prison sentences of 10 years each, and when the case is presented to a grand jury for indictment, the government is virtually certain to add more charges, probably adding up to a life sentence that Mr. Snowden is understandably trying to avoid.
The president said in August that Mr. Snowden should come home to face those charges in court and suggested that if Mr. Snowden had wanted to avoid criminal charges he could have simply told his superiors about the abuses, acting, in other words, as a whistle-blower.
“If the concern was that somehow this was the only way to get this information out to the public, I signed an executive order well before Mr. Snowden leaked this information that provided whistle-blower protection to the intelligence community for the first time,” Mr. Obama said at a news conference. “So there were other avenues available for somebody whose conscience was stirred and thought that they needed to question government actions.”
In fact, that executive order did not apply to contractors, only to intelligence employees, rendering its protections useless to Mr. Snowden. More important, Mr. Snowden told The Washington Post earlier this month that he did report his misgivings to two superiors at the agency, showing them the volume of data collected by the N.S.A., and that they took no action. (The N.S.A. says there is no evidence of this.) That’s almost certainly because the agency and its leaders don’t consider these collection programs to be an abuse and would never have acted on Mr. Snowden’s concerns.
In retrospect, Mr. Snowden was clearly justified in believing that the only way to blow the whistle on this kind of intelligence-gathering was to expose it to the public and let the resulting furor do the work his superiors would not. Beyond the mass collection of phone and Internet data, consider just a few of the violations he revealed or the legal actions he provoked:
■ The N.S.A. broke federal privacy laws, or exceeded its authority, thousands of times per year, according to the agency’s own internal auditor.
■ The agency broke into the communications links of major data centers around the world, allowing it to spy on hundreds of millions of user accounts and infuriating the Internet companies that own the centers. Many of those companies are now scrambling to install systems that the N.S.A. cannot yet penetrate.
■ The N.S.A. systematically undermined the basic encryption systems of the Internet, making it impossible to know if sensitive banking or medical data is truly private, damaging businesses that depended on this trust.
■ His leaks revealed that James Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, lied to Congress when testifying in March that the N.S.A. was not collecting data on millions of Americans. (There has been no discussion of punishment for that lie.)
■ The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court rebuked the N.S.A. for repeatedly providing misleading information about its surveillance practices, according to a ruling made public because of the Snowden documents. One of the practices violated the Constitution, according to the chief judge of the court.
■ A federal district judge ruled earlier this month that the phone-records-collection program probably violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. He called the program “almost Orwellian” and said there was no evidence that it stopped any imminent act of terror.
The shrill brigade of his critics say Mr. Snowden has done profound damage to intelligence operations of the United States, but none has presented the slightest proof that his disclosures really hurt the nation’s security. Many of the mass-collection programs Mr. Snowden exposed would work just as well if they were reduced in scope and brought under strict outside oversight, as the presidential panel recommended.
When someone reveals that government officials have routinely and deliberately broken the law, that person should not face life in prison at the hands of the same government. That’s why Rick Ledgett, who leads the N.S.A.’s task force on the Snowden leaks, recently told CBS News that he would consider amnesty if Mr. Snowden would stop any additional leaks. And it’s why President Obama should tell his aides to begin finding a way to end Mr. Snowden’s vilification and give him an incentive to return home.
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/opinion/edward-snowden-whistle-blower.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0
Replies to: NYTimes on Snowden Jan. 1
Here's a pretty decent counterargument.
Not that I necessarily agree with all of it. Snowden's leaks certainly went beyond whistle-blowing...like leaking that we were intercepting Iranian emails and the details of how we are targeting and killing known terrorists in Pakistan. I'd like to see him pardoned on most of his "crimes" (i.e., specifically the leaks of the domestic surveillance program), but other of his leaks are damaging to US security, and he seems to be leaking these just to spite the US, and possibly win favor with the rest of the world. You can't pardon him for leaking national security info that had nothing to do with domestic spying.
One thing I don't blame Snowden for is fleeing to China and Russia. If he went anywhere else in the world, he would have been immediately handed over to the US and possibly sent to Guantanamo or at a minimum given the Bradley Manning treatment. Unfortunately, going to Russia specifically obviously required that he provide them some information (otherwise Putin would have sent him packing).
Link:
This article has not much cred -
When you write these lines you automatically lose all credibility. From the Article you posted : "Whistleblowers have large egos by nature, and there is no crime or shame in that. But one gasps at the megalomania and delusion in Snowden’s statements, and one can’t help but wonder if he is a dupe, a tool, or simply astonishingly naïve."
I'm not sure those points are true. They seem a little manufactured to benefit a point of view - but then, they would be facts from someone who is offering an opinion (a fair opinion he must think) that is stated above.
Agree that part of the article is unfortunate
but...what is your opinion of some of the other leaks mentioned (i.e., the ones that had nothing to do with domestic spying)?
If by Manning -
all he revealed was the lies by the Pentagon and war department for Iraq and Afghanistan, then maybe it's time we the people take a longer harder look at those who are not telling the truth to us.
If you think Iraq was an invasion by the US military - you'd have to say Manning should be a free man today. If not, you likely want to see Manning is treasonous who should be behind bars.
I think that Iraq was a US invasion. I also think Sonny Bush and Dick Cheney should be behind bars for the invasion (along with much of their staff including C. Powell).
If you believe Manning is treasonous and should be behind bars then you have to believe Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby (along with a few others) are treasonous for releasing the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
The whole thing is deeply concerning.
I don't like the way Snowden went about it, but I am glad it's brought some attention to the issue. Although the press is doing their best to ignore it.
It's very concerning that a low level contractor has access to this data and is able to get out of the country with it. It's bad that the NSA is spying on us and collecting data. It's almost worse that they can't keep this data secure.
How should he have gone about it?
Some of his actions rub me the wrong way as well, but for the most part, I don't know of any other way ha could have leaked the domestic spying info other than to flee the country first.
He was also smart enough to know that the only way Russia and China would give him asylum is if there was something in it for them.
Given the recent treatment of Bradley Manning, I don't blame Snowden for fleeing and giving info to the Russians.
Not sure, but I am quite certain it could have been done better.
Utilizing the internet while in hiding in the US or Canada could go a long way without people thinking you're committing treason. Of course that's not without risk. Assuming his motives are pure, I admire the guy. Not many would do the same.
Snowden is a HERO. Will the next whistle-blower please stand up?
(no message)
IMO, Snowden doesn't deserve amnesty. He sold out his own country to China and the Russians.........
The press makes it sound like the NSA is listening to our phone conversations when in fact they only want to know is "are you calling a known terrorist or terrorist organization." With billions of calls, tweets, e-mail messages, etc. per day, no one or group could ever listen in on conversations. From what I've read, the NSA only keeps telephone numbers (mega data) and not recordings of individual phone conversations. If the head of the NSA knowingly lied to Congress, he should resign or be fired. I'm not sure that has been proven and I don't believe in trying some one in the press. If the NSA had been active before 9/11, we might have averted the disasters and deaths. The Russians and Chinese have all the info Snowden stole from the NSA and CIA. We've lost our tactical advantage in spying on the Russians, Chinese and terrorists. Is privacy more important than nation security? I don't think so. Besides, every country spies on every other country, even friendly countries. Americans have become paranoid and we are slowly forgetting what happened on 9/11.
How is it you have this information about Snowden giving China and Russia NSA secrets?
Or is this just the black helicopters overhead in your neighborhood? Had the NSA been active? You mean before 1917? The term is called "Metadata" as in data about data.
You need to stop listening to Hannity and Limbaugh. And if you're not getting your information from them you need to see someone with a couch.
I don't mean to be mean but your post is entirely hyperbolic filled with paranoia.
I agree he could have sold secrets but really, what could he say more than he's already said? And if he carried this information with him he'd likely be dead a long time ago.
No, American's aren't forgetting 9/11 in the slightest.
Don't you think Snowden had to pay a price to China and Russia for asylum in their countries? Both..
countries spy on the U.S. all the time, especially China. Putin would like to have some inside secret info to use against the U.S. I held a top secret security clearance from DOE and DoD for over 20 years while working at the Oak Ridge. I don't take security lightly and don't look kindly on anyone that betrays the trust of the U.S. Snowden only worked for the CIA subcontractor for one month. He left with four laptop computers and a briefcase full of CDs. I could be wrong Jim but I think he took that job in Hawaii just to get the secret info and skip the country. He had no intentions of staying in the U.S. and being a whistle blower. I didn't like the Patriot Act when Congress passed it and I hope Obama will put some curbs and checks on the NSA's activities. I don't have problems with the Meda Data collection but do have some serious concerns about possible misuse of the data. We call my wife's relatives in Germany all the time and I have no problem with the NSA keeping record of our calls. They would be bored stiff if they ever listened in.
I think it's a lot less Robert Ludlum than you guys make it out to be.
If he was doing as you said, and he thought it out as far as Hawaii I'm sure he would have been smart enough to figure out where his end game would be instead of forking over all his info to a reporter. Like making huge money and having a place to live.
Facts really bother you, don't they? You have your mind made up there's no...
This little sub-thread should be epic.
You'll help me out with the facts, I'm sure of it.
(no message)
I have mixed feelings on this, but one thing I am sure of....
..is that Snowden gave everything he had to the Russians when he was sweating it out in that airport in Moscow for all of those weeks. I cannot imagine a scenario where Putin was willing to give him asylum for anything less than everything he knows, and his future security in Russia would most certainly be compromised if they ever found out he withheld information. Thus, the idea that Snowden might be welcomed back "if he stops leaking any further information" is not even possible. It is the Russians and Vladimir Putin who is slow-releasing this information at this point. HIS intelligence agencies are doing the same thing and they want to catch up to the Americans.
I agree
(no message)
I'd feel more sympathy for him if he hadn't fled the country.
I really don't know what the correct course of action should be.
I don't disagree that the debate he started was useful. However, I am not sure that we should seek to empower every community-college-dropout who somehow got a job as an intelligence contractor to make such calls on his own.
If he didn't flee, he would have been given the Bradley Manning treatment
Given our treatment to other whistleblowers, fleeing the country was the only way he wouldn't have spent his life in prison. Federal prosecutors would have sought treason (punishable by death), and then probably accepted a plea of life in prison.
I'd have more pity for him if he stayed in the country as well, but if I were in his shoes, I probably would have gotten the hell out as well.
!
(no message)
Ah, if he was a Graduate of an agreed to University it'd be okay with you.
But only on the grounds he had a Degree from college.
It couldn't be he was the right guy at the right time in a situation? No, he has to have certain credentials for him to know the difference between wrong and right.
This is the kind of mentality that puts morons like Boehner, Bachmann, Palin, Sonny Bush (not to mention almost all of the R party) into office.
Now hold on Jim. Obama went to Harvard & private schools his whole life too.......
Throwing stones in this direction hits both sides equally. In fact, one person on your list....Palin, would hardly qualify as having a blue-blooded university pedigree.
Another who didn't get it.
Attacking the messenger for his education, in this case Snowden, is totally a non-issue; for Iggle's to bring it up as a deciding factor in his ability to tell the truth is not only off base but stupid.
He's a whistle blower who informed American citizens the NSA was collecting and storing personal communications metadata. It's one thing to be hunting for language that will put you onto those who might do the country harm, a complete other to vacuum up information saved for future use.
That's one of the real issues at hand here along with the methods in which to recover information by a rubber-stamp secret court where only one side is represented.
Palin had a degree in something - I think it was communications oriented. If you are going to pick on someones credibility through higher education, look no further than those who received diplomas and are dumb as a falling kite - sonny Bush, Boehner, Vitter, Bachmann, Cruz, Paul, and the list goes on and on.
But you go on and bring in Obama's education all you want.
Oh, I got it. I just noticed that your list was a bit...shall we say...one sided. Regarding the
...other stuff in your post: I have been careful not to criticize your point of view here because I realize that you might be right about Snowden. I am always a supporter of the little guy against the big govt machine - and I think there is some real validity to the point that there was no real place for him to go with this information. The PTB's would undoubtedly have crushed him like a bug if they thought they might be revealed.
I also think that Snowden's revelations have been very useful for the public as a whole.
I am just not sure whether or not he is a traitor or a hero, and I suspect he may be a bit of both. I think that there is little doubt at this point, however, that he being used by Putin. I also don't think he has any true autonomy anymore. I do not envy his future.
If he were a traitor he would have disclosed the secrets to another country
and likely for money.
He did neither instead came out to the nation and said what he could no longer keep a secret after Clapper lied to the House (not once but twice) about spying on American's.
What do you mean by "true autonomy"?
Now hold on Jim. Obama went to Harvard & private schools his whole life too.......
Throwing stones in this direction hits both sides equally. In fact, one person on your list....Palin, would hardly qualify as having a blue-blooded university pedigree.
Yes. In other words, I wouldn't support you doing it.
As usual, you did an excellent job of missing the point. I guess you also supported the fine work of ex-PFC Bradley Manning.
Yeah, we can't take you at your word then...
"...I am not sure that we should seek to empower every community-college-dropout who somehow got a job as an intelligence contractor to make such calls on his own."
We now know, those without degrees from an "Iggle" accredited University aren't fit to make decisions on their own.
What a load of crap you push out from your computer.
You are such an incredible tard.
It's absolutely breathtaking.
You could have left the conversation at
saying he created the conversation, but no, you had to attack his credibility via education - long after the cat has been out of the bag, wrong doing admitted to by the NSA themselves where the Senate and Congress both have taken the NSA to task on their surveillances of US citizens - you're still out there denouncing the messenger because you don't think a person who hadn't completed a college degree hasn't the capacity for telling the truth.
Well done genius.
And you still don't get the point.
The point is not his educational non-achievement. His level of dumb-assedness is more an indictment of the NSA vetting process than of himself.
The point is that we do not hire people to work in these agencies to make their own decisions about what to keep secret and what to expose.
I think that he served a useful purpose. I might even go so far as to say that I am glad this got out. However, just because HE was "right" in this case doesn't mean that every disgruntled peon in the intelligence bureaucracy is going to be right in the future.
I fear that giving him a pardon will encourage every harebrained idiot to release stuff that they think shouldn't be secret...you know, just 'cause it's right, in their view. "Hey, you didn't prosecute Snowden, why are you prosecuting me for giving the Russians our launch codes? There shouldn't be secrets, man."
Capiche?
Really? You just wrote that and you believe that?
It's "lei capisce"
non capite
Io non capisco - You make no sense whatsoever.
Iggle's point about deterrence of future leaks seems valid regardless of anyone's opinion of Snowden
There really does have to be a tight set of expectations in this regard. People can't just spill the beans every time that the think it is morally justified. Look at how disparate the views of what is right and appropriate vary n this board alone.
It's pretty clear that one thing that the US will be doing in the future is limiting the number of civil contractors who have access to sensitive information.
One of the big reasons that I am not willing to side completely with Snowden is that he took an oath - and he broke it. He knew there would be sensitive info when he took the oath.
He's not talking about deterrence
He's talking about believing someone who doesn't have a higher education background.
He's tailoring his view with each post because he got caught being an elitist.
Having and education doesn't give you a better sense of right and wrong, it just gets you higher up the ladder. Truth and honesty are usually in conflict with the higher degree anyway. Take a look at the entire US banking world our politicians - Boehner, Vitter, Paul, Cruz and so on.
Moral compass isn't dictated by diploma's. That's stuff is for Oz.
---------------------------------------
Took what oath and to who? The Constitution? The American People? Who?
And of course he knew it was sensitive information - You guys think he just knee jerked his conscience.
Now if you had said; he got that information out in a hurry after the Clapper hearings then I'd say you were right and I'd ask what had he originally intended with the information and how long had he been planning the information grab before he did it? Was it that easy to get ahold of? If so, the NSA should be thanking him.
Read the post , dumbass.
Did you drop out of community college, too?
You mean this one or the one where you misspelled capisce?
"I really don't know what the correct course of action should be.
I don't disagree that the debate he started was useful. However, I am not sure that we should seek to empower every community-college-dropout who somehow got a job as an intelligence contractor to make such calls on his own."
Either/or. Well, maybe both, in your case. And try to sound out the words.
That fosters better understanding.
And then tell us whether you want to pardon ex-PFC Bradley Manning as well.
Delete
(no message)
Delete
(no message)
Putin would give him temporary asylum just as a dig to the US and Obama
I don't know what more he could share about the NSA and the surveillance of Americans that he didn't already make public. The NSA says he has much more and could it could do big damage to the nations security if he speaks out more, but that's just spin for us to dislike and not trust Snowden. This is the NSA we're talking about not Aunt Mabel telling gossip.
Putin has no more information than has been leaked to media and he's not slow-releasing anything.
If there is more info, Snowden has hidden it somewhere (not in Russia) and he isn't going to tell anyone where it is, Russian or American.
The guy is a whistle blower and should be thanked by American's for doing so and not pilloried for it.