Oliver Stone’s latest film, “Snowden,” bills itself as a dramatized version of the life of Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower who revealed the global extent of U.S. surveillance capabilities.
Stone’s rendering of Snowden’s life combines facts with Hollywood invention, covering Snowden being discharged from the military after an injury in basic training, meeting his girlfriend, and training in the CIA with fictitious mentors (including Nicolas Cage’s character, most likely a composite of whistleblowers like Thomas Drake and Bill Binney). Snowden then goes undercover, only to see an op turn ugly; becomes a contractor for the CIA and NSA; and finally chooses to leave the intelligence community and disclose its vast surveillance apparatus, some of which he helped develop.
The movie hits key points in Snowden’s story, including his growing interest in constitutional law and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, some of the U.S. surveillance programs he eventually unmasked, and parts of his furtive meetings in Hong Kong with Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras (co-founders of The Intercept), as well as The Guardian’s Ewen MacAskill.
There are doses of artistic license — for example, a Rubik’s Cube hiding the drive where he stored the documents, and Snowden’s CIA mentor spying on his girlfriend through her webcam. In hazier focus are the global questions his revelations raised, including the legal and moral implications of the U.S. government collecting data on foreigners and Americans with relative impunity, and the very real stories born of Snowden’s massive disclosures.
So here’s a retrospective of sorts for moviegoers and others interested in the journalism Edward Snowden made possible through his decision to become a whistleblower: In all, over 150 articles from 23 news organizations worldwide have incorporated documents provided by Snowden, and The Intercept and other outlets continue to mine the archive for stories of social and political significance.
In the hope that Stone’s movie will spark more widespread interest in the NSA programs Snowden helped bring to light, The Intercept has compiled its stories based on the archive of documents, which can be explored through the chart below.
Since the first revelations from Snowden were published in Glenn Greenwald’s June 6, 2013, Guardian article, “NSA Collecting Phone Records of Millions of Verizon Customers Daily,” nearly 1,200 documents from Snowden’s disclosures have been released to the public. These include fragments of the “black budget,” a secret document presented to Congress by intelligence agencies, images hacked from drone feeds, and PowerPoint presentations that painstakingly detail the technology behind the NSA’s surveillance efforts.
The Intercept and other outlets have reported extensively on some of the major technical programs mentioned during the film — PRISM and Upstream, both authorized under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. PRISM vacuums up hundreds of millions of internet communications every day from the people it “targets,” and those they communicate with — as well as some irrelevant communications it picks up “incidentally” because of the way the technology works. It’s unclear how many of those communications belong to Americans. Upstream gathers communications while they’re traveling through the cables of the internet — voice, text, and more. In the movie, Snowden gets a glimpse at these programs while going undercover for the CIA.
When Snowden shares a map with a few of his colleagues displaying data on surveillance conducted within different countries, the film is likely nodding toward a program called Boundless Informant — another one of the first Snowden stories reported by Greenwald and MacAskill. The NSA denied at the time that it could determine with absolute certainty “the identity or location” of all the communications it collected — but the program gave it a general sense of the volume of information it got from each country, appearing like a sort of heat map. The U.S. was not, like the movie suggests, the country where the NSA collected the most information; there were many more intercepts from Iran, at least during the time period reported on by The Guardian.
The Intercept debuted its Snowden coverage with a February 10, 2014, article by Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald titled “The NSA’s Secret Role in the U.S. Assassination Program.” Since then, we have published at least 50 other pieces based on documents from the Snowden archive.
In July 2015, The Intercept delved into one of the NSA’s central programs, also mentioned in the film, called XKeyscore. The program runs like a search engine that helps NSA detect, analyze, and extract information from the massive amounts of communications and online information it collects every day through various filters. Otherwise, the sheer volume of information would be overwhelming.
The agency’s use of cellphone and computer hacking for surveillance has been a recurring theme in The Intercept’s reporting on the Snowden documents. In May 2015, Jeremy Scahill and Josh Begley uncovered the CIA and NSA’s joint mission to crack the security of popular consumer products, including Apple’s notoriously secure iPhone. In the movie, Snowden covers his laptop’s webcam, which he knows the NSA is capable of exploiting through a program called QUANTUM. In reality, the NSA has developed malware implants potentially capable of infecting millions of targeted computers covertly, and automated some of the processes involved in the attacks, as Ryan Gallagher and Glenn Greenwald reported in March 2014.
Many news stories from the Snowden archive involve foreign surveillance and the NSA’s partnerships with intelligence agencies from other countries, a subject the Snowden film barely touches — for example, never mentioning the NSA’s close relationship to the British spy agency Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ); its partnership with countries like Saudi Arabia; or foreign officials’ lack of understanding about their own spies’ connections to the NSA. The film’s only nod to foreign intelligence occurs when Snowden passes off a special microchip to MacAskill, suggesting it might help him learn more about British spying.
The NSA is obviously more than its technical programs and tools. Stone conjures up Snowden’s friends and colleagues at the spy agencies, including T-shirt-wearing hackers, super genius engineers, and domineering bosses. The Intercept’s Peter Maass has written about the human side of the agency, including its resident advice columnist, who went by “Zelda” and answered questions about things like kitchen etiquette and gossip, as well as a columnist with literary ambitions who called himself “the SIGINT Philosopher.”
Ultimately, the movie reflects Stone’s image of the life of an NSA contract employee. For a real window into the agency, there may be no better resource than the NSA’s own documents. In May 2016, The Intercept began the first concerted effort to make large portions of the Snowden archive available to the public with the release of a set of SIDtoday newsletters, the internal news organ of the Signals Intelligence Directorate at the NSA. The batch releases are ongoing and will likely constitute one of the largest single collections of NSA files.
Snowden is a traitor.
Um, sock-puppet/troll, obviously. Lol.
The NSA reforms instituted since 2013 would not have happened without Snowden. So he has done some good, especially in triggering the debate.
While the 215 program was deemed legal at the time Snowden exposed it, it was—at best—of marginal value and legally questionable, was ruled illegal by another federal court and has now been ended by Congress.
At the same time, Snowden did leak many NSA operations and tools aimed at legitimate foreign targets. While obviously it was the media that decided to publish these stories, I don’t see why Snowden felt it was necessary to even disclose them in the first place. Why did he trust journalists with legitimate state secrets? It seems unlikely that these operations have ended. Snowden’s oath was to the Constitution, not foreign countries.
So, in some ways Snowden has been vindicated. So why not let him return to the US and get a public trial?
Excellent piece. Thank you!
/Steve
If Congress really thought Clapper was guilty of perjury, why did they let him get away with it? the Constitution makes a provision for “Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Of course, it does not specify how, or for what particular offenses.
The most straightforward way for Congress to remove Clapper for his alleged “perjury” would be via impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate. Or it could eliminate the office of DNI.
While obviously Congress cannot outright fire an executive branch official, there is precedent, sort of (Staurt v. Laird)
So, Congress never bothered to go after Clapper for his alleged perjury. Why? Because of these obstacles, and, more importantly, because they already knew about PRISM. After all, they passed the Protect America Act in 2007.
Congress is scared to death of the NSA and CIA, with good reason. Skeletons in the closet, to put it mildly.
Right. I guess that’s why Congress insisted on compiling and releasing the SSCI report on the CIA”s enhanced interrogation program.
And even though Congress can grill the agencies in closed hearings where nobody has a chance to play politics for the cameras. And even though Congress has the authority to approve the intelligence community’s budgets and cut off funds for programs they don’t like.
I am guessing you have never worked for an intelligence agency.
Funny how you never actually disproved what I said.
The congressional establishment seemed to have been widely in favor of PRISM when the program first leaked.
Just listen to Harry Reid tell it: “We’ve had many, many meetings that have been both classified and unclassified that members have been invited to.” And the public? “Everyone should just calm down and understand that this isn’t anything that is brand new.”
(http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nsas-verizon-records-collection-calm-down-reid-says/)
Even Nancy Pelosi called for Snowden’s prosecution, despite her previous supposed opposition to the Patriot Act. Even Al Franken was OK with it. And besides, just look at the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendment Act, a law that Congress renewed.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/22/nancy-pelosi-booed_n_3484062.html)
And, of course, just look at Peter King. Looks like Congress can agree on something in the Obama years. Apparently senators who complain about being left in the dark have only themselves to blame, and concerned American citizens should just sit down and shut up. At least according to Reid.
Yep, looks like Congress was OK with NSA surveillance:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/court-says-its-again-legal-for-nsa-to-spy-on-you-because-congress-says-its-ok/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/21/politics/nsa-bulk-surveillance-bill-congress/
http://timothy-kline.com/its-again-legal-for-nsa-to-spy-on-you-because-congress-says-its-ok/
Of course, there is this interesting exception:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/11/cia-spying-congress_n_4945584.html
https://theintercept.com/2015/12/30/spying-on-congress-and-israel-nsa-cheerleaders-discover-value-of-privacy-only-when-their-own-is-violated/
Ron Wyden is against NSA mass surveillance? I guess that’s why he endorsed Hillary Clinton, lol.
Garbage Day!
Interesting that you bring that up. I remember that Greenwald brought up Smith vs. Maryland in 2006 during the Bush-era NSA scandal. I don’t recall him mentioning it in connection to the Snowden saga.
Another interesting quote from one of Greenwald’s first pieces on the scandal:
“While the [FISA] order itself does not include either the contents of messages or the personal information of the subscriber of any particular cell number, its collection would allow the NSA to build easily a comprehensive picture of who any individual contacted, how and when, and possibly from where, retrospectively.” There was no mention of NSA’s minimization procedures. Likewise, when Greenwald began to cover the NSA’s collection of content (rather than just metadata) he again skipped over the minimization procedures in place.
Here’s basically what the NSA did: They developed a way to organize telephone metadata in such a way that it could be searched just like the Federal Fingerprint database. Moreover, with the telephone database, if there’s a “hit,” the Government must obtain a warrant before seeking further information. I don’t recall Greenwald mentioning that last bit in his reporting.
Nor did NSA, as Greenwald charged, have direct access to the servers of Internet companies. According to the Oversight Board, however, NSA had to give these provides written requests with specific information; the query was then run by the provider. Minimization procedures were still in effect.
Also, the chief target of these programs were data from foreign targets that was just passing THROUGH the US. Because of this reality, many of the NSA operations themselves took place IN the US, even though much of the data was foreign. And have the Snowden leaks damaged US intelligence operations against foreign targets. It’s very possible. Just look at Jacob Applebaum’s YouTube seminars. And, likewise, terrorist targets can now take advantage of their knowledge of NSA’s minimization procedures. Nor is the damage limited to national-security programs.
(http://www.businessinsider.com/edward-snowden-us-tech-firms-2014-7)
Another quote from the oversight board:
“The FISC reviews both the targeting procedures and the minimization procedures, the core set of documents that implement Section 702’s statutory requirements and limitations. With respect to the targeting procedures, the FISC must determine that they ‘are reasonably designed’ to ‘ensure’ that targeting is ‘limited to targeting persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.’ The FISC also must determine that the targeting procedures are reasonably designed to prevent the intentional acquisition of wholly domestic communications. In addition, the FISC must also review the proposed minimization procedures under the same standard of review that is required in traditional FISA electronic surveillance and physical search applications. The FISC must find that such minimization procedures are ‘specific procedures’ that are ‘reasonably designed’ to control the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of non-publicly available U.S. person information. Each time the FISC reviews a Section 702 certification, the FISC must also determine whether the proposed Section 702 acquisition as provided for, and restricted by, the targeting and minimization procedures complies with the Fourth Amendment…Another rule mandates that the government report to the FISA court incidents of noncompliance with targeting or minimization procedures previously approved by the court. In a still-classified 2009 opinion, the FISC held that the judicial requirements regarding the targeting and minimization procedures required that the FISC be fully informed of every incident of noncompliance with those procedures.”
Another quote from the board’s report: “[T]wice a year, the Attorney General is required to submit to the House and Senate intelligence committees ‘a summary of significant legal interpretations’ of FISA involving matters before the FISA court or its companion appellate court … ‘including interpretations presented in applications or pleadings’ filed with those courts. This summary must be accompanied by ‘copies of all decisions,orders, or opinions’ of the two courts ‘that include significant construction or interpretation’ of the provisions of FISA. For the preceding six-month period, the Attorney General’s report also must set forth the aggregate number of persons targeted for orders issued under FISA, including a breakdown of those targeted for access to records under Section 215.”
Also, is the FISA court really a “rubber stamp”? According to former FISC judge Burce Selya, the approval rate for FISA applications is around 73%. Not 100%
(http://watson.brown.edu/events/2014/bruce-m-selya-view-inside-fisa-courts) It is interesting to note how Snowden and Greenwald discuss the role of FISC. They pointed to various instances where the court reprimanded NSA for mistakes and where NSA confessed to making these; and at the same time, they accused the court being a rubber stamp. These accusations make John Bates’ memo rather interesting: Bates wrote an 86-page memo after NSA unintentionally collected data not permitted under FISA and demanded changes; the program in question was then scrapped. Is that Greenwald’s idea of a rubber stamp? And that’s a rather low insult to the people who have actually been appointed to the court.
(https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fisc0912.pdf)
(https://theintercept.com/2014/07/09/under-surveillance/)
Likewise in December 2013, of course, a district court upheld the constitutionality of the NSA program. The opinion had this to say: “That classified document, which was made available prior to the vote for reauthorization and has now been declassified in part, informed the reader that ‘[section 215] orders generally require production of the business records … relating to substantially all of the telephone calls handled by the [telecommunications] companies, including both calls made between the United States and a foreign country and calls made entirely within the United States.” Looks like Congress did know about the program. Snowden claims to be unaware of this fact, which would explain his charge that Clapper “deceived” Congress.
Another question is the extent to which Snowden attempted to bring up his concerns with superiors, and whether or not they were ignored. The only document released by the US government is one in which Snowden asks whether executive orders or statutes take privilege. So, Snowden was able to steal thousands of classified NSA files, but he was unable to steal copies of files that proved his alleged whistleblower efforts. That’s curious.Don’t you have to follow whistleblower procedures in order to become a whistleblower? And is there any evidence for the Snowden’s claim that contractors had no whistleblower protections? Also, being a whistleblower obviously requires you to show a clear violation of the law. Snowden has not done this. Most of
the programs he exposed dealt with legitimate foreign intelligence targets, while the rest were just certain tools and capabilities that NSA had.
Also, the following pretty much sums up the Snowden saga: the 215 metadata program used to have little oversight, but, at the time of Snowden’s leaks, was subject to more rigorous oversight by FISC, has numerous safeguards such as minimization, and—wait, for it—still requires a warrant to identify any American linked to a foreign number or e-mail address. Also according to Snowden’s own docs, the 215 metadata database was queried only 300 times in 2012; from 2009 to 2012, only 2,900 suspicious numbers were identified. And that the AG and Congress reviewed the program every six months—a Congress that was aware of the program and voted to reauthorize it multiple times.
Regarding the potential for abuse of the program: there’s a reason internal and external oversight mechanisms exist. If somebody would want to use the 215 program to illegally spy on an innocent American, why risk it? You’d have to go through to use this giant, cumbersome system subjct to internal audits, strict rules, and congressional oversight. I’m sure people will bring up the LOVEINT scandal. But the thing about that scandal is that it was actually DISCOVERED, and the people involved were DISCIPLINED. Isn’t that how you want American intelligence programs to work? To intentionally abuse a program like PRISM and get away with it, you would somehow have to figure out a way to befuddle FISC, the IG, the AG, Congress, the Civil Liberties Protection Officer, keystroke audits, the NSA’s “buddy system,” the whistleblower channels, and the media. But, according to Greenwald and his loyal fan base, doing so is theoretically the easiest thing ever. The NSA tends to report the tiniest accidental violations, just look at the IG report of the Bush-era STELLAR WIND program.
Another aspect of the 215 program: any search occurs only after the NSA has the verified telephone number of a terrorist or other foreign hostile with which to search the database. If your telephone number has called or received calls from a terrorist or foreign hostile telephone number, then the Government can discover your name and other information, but only after first obtaining a warrant. In effect, if the NSA has your metadata, the only thing they can really do with it is create the equivalent of a Wanted poster that only includes your phone company, anonymous phone number/email-address, and the continent where you live. That’s pretty much all the NSA has on its US “targets.” According to the President’s Civil Liberties Board, only about .0001 of the US numbers in the database were even looked at.
Another interesting comparison is the US Postal Service. It’s basically the same thing, and might be even more intrusive. The US mail system has access to your “metadata,” and they lock your mail up in secret rooms. Just look at “United States vs. Choate.” Of course, Jason Bourne would be much less interesting if he was a mailman. Hell, even the census and the DMV collect your “metadata,” as does the FBI fingerprint database, depending on your profession.
Also, the number of documents is stolen by Snowden is estimated from 50,000 to 1.7 million. Snowden claims he has read all of them. Are we supposed to believe that? And none of these files mentioned the internal and external oversight, the minimization procedures, or the Smith vs. Maryland precedent? Why has Snowden refused to disclose which files and how many files he stole? Greenwald’s first article dealt with the FISA court ruling regarding Verizon. So apparently Snowden had access to classified FISA rulings that built on the Smith vs. Maryland precedence. So, basically, Snowden decided to steal and disclose classified American intelligence operations (most of them aimed at foreign targets) because he thought he was smarter than the Supreme Court.
Foreign Targets
Bullshit. They target US citizens. Especially more now than ever due to Snowden release.
Do you really think all those companies in Silicon Valley and their employees are not under surveillance?
Think again. I’m a US citizen and my wife and I are under 24×7 surveillance via our smartphones.
Again, the vast majority of the Snowden leaks were related to foreign targets. A simple reading of the leaked documents bears that out.
And if the NSA or FBI or the police is surveilling you or your wife via your smartphone, it’s only because they have a warrant to do so. And how do you know they’re specifically targeting you, anyway?
Back to the news of the movie’s release:
Greenwald loves using the terms “Security State” and “Surveillance State” to describe America, even as he became the evidence against his own hyperbolic descriptions. Only in America can a journalist call the country a “Security State” while lying about it, then sign a movie deal. Lol.
As the Snowden film comes to theaters, it might be important to review the report of the President’s Oversight Board.
The NSA collects the metadata of most, if not all, of the calls made within the United States. There are rules in place which limit the number of NSA employees who can see these numbers to thirty, and they cannot try to identify any numbers belonging to an American citizen without first obtaining a warrant. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board estimated that a total of .0001 of these metadata sets have ever been seen by human eyes.
The NSA obtains this metadata for every call made in the United States by obtaining a court order directing the telephone companies to hand over the information. The reason for that is simple: It would be impossible to know for certain if a foreign terrorist was calling into the United States unless all of the telephone numbers were part of the search pile. The access to the actual database is restricted to some thirty analysts. They can only try to find matches if they have a telephone number that they reasonably believe is associated with a terrorist or other legitimate foreign target.
https://www.pclob.gov/library/215-Report_on_the_Telephone_Records_Program.pdf
I wonder if the movie covers any of these facts. Also, have the SNowden fanboys ever heard of Smith vs. Maryland, or the FISA court?
Maybe you should see the movie before speculating.
Just curious did any of Greenwald’s initial reporting on the metadata program ever mention Smith vs. Maryland? And doesn’t the US postal service technically collect Americans’ metadata?
Clapper already the answer to his question about NSA collection. He is on the intelligence committee. Other members of that very same committee were read in on PRISM, such as Dianne Feinstein, who is one of Snowden’s fiercest critics.
So, Feinstein is on the committee and kknew about PRISM. It defies rational belief to suggest that Wyden was somehow in the dark.
*Wyden, of course
Another interesting part of the Wyden-Clapper thing.
Congress was briefed on PRISM in 2009, 2010, and 2011, and a majority voted to reauthorize. That means Clapper could not have deceived the committee with his testimony. All of the members of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees were briefed.
One could also look at the report of the report of Obama’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board: “Specifically, twice a year, the Attorney General is required to submit to the House and Senate intelligence and judiciary committees ‘a summary of significant legal interpretations’ of the FISA involving matters before the FISA court or its companion appellate court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, ‘including interpretations presented in applications or pleadings’ filed with those courts. This summary must be accompanied by ‘copies of all decisions, orders, or opinions’ of the two courts ‘that include significant construction or interpretation’ of the provisions of FISA. For the preceding six-month period, the Attorney General’s report also must set forth the aggregate number of persons targeted for orders issued under FISA, including a breakdown of those targeted for access to records under [the NSA’s telephone metadata collection program] Section 215.”
https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/pclob-215.pdf
And besides, consider the position Wyden put Clapper in. Wyden asked his question in such a way as to demand a “yes” or “no” answer. If Clapper had responded with a “yes,” he would have violated his sworn duty as Director of National Intelligence. By divulging national secrets, he could be prosecuted and convicted of felony disclosure. If he said that he could only respond during a closed-door session, then the next day’s headlines would have been about the NSA spying on millions of Americans. As DNI, Clapper was sworn to keep that secret, and he knew that a disclosure could give terrorists operating in America an advantage they would otherwise not have. He chose his duty as DNI over his duty as a witness before Congress, especially since every Senator in the room already knew about the program. The only reason he had to make that choice was because Wyden forced him to.
Also see Clapper’s letter:
“[A]s Congress required, the Executive Branch fully and repeatedly briefed the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of both Houses about the program and timely provided copies of the relevant classified documents to the Committees. Moreover, the Executive Branch undertook special efforts to ensure that all Members of Congress had access to information regarding this classified program prior to the USA PATRIOT Act’s reauthorization in 2011, including making a detailed classified white paper available to all Members. Specifically, in December 2009, the Department of Justice and the Intelligence Community provided a classified briefing paper to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees that could be made available to all Members of Congress regarding the telephony metadata program. Both Intelligence Committees made this document available to all Members prior to the February 2010 reauthorization of Section 215. That briefing paper was then updated and provided to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees again in February 2011 for all Members in connection with the reauthorization that occurred later that year.”
I think it’s pretty clear that Congress was in the know regarding programs like PRISM. As far as Wyden is concerned, he was on the Intelligence Committee at the time, which proves that he knew the answer to his question.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/08/12/congress-cant-pretend-it-didnt-know-about-nsa-surveillance
Agreed. If Wyden really did think Clapper was guilty of perjury, how come he never pursued it? Why is Clapper still DNI?
That question in the March 2013 hearing was just a political stunt by Wyden.
Stop getting arrested and expecting law abiding hard working citizens to pick up the bill for all the trouble makers. What do they expect & They are in jail, not on a vacation. They need to earn their keep. This is bs.
Okay Mom you are right, it is.
Totally fake Hollywood movie. Why? They had to Hollywood it ? Snowden is supportive, he must be hoping public interest will get him a pardon from persecution.
Did you see the movie? If so, were you expecting a documentary?
Actually, the first movie to come out about Snowden was a documentary, CitizenFour, by The Intercept’s own Laura Poitras and it premiered in October of 2014.
It earned an Oscar for Best Documentary Feature at the 2015 Academy Awards.
And it can be viewed in its entirety, online, at no cost.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9RI78fRWC4
I am aware of Laura’s documentary. I was responding specifically to Wc’s comment about Stone’s movie.
I thought the movie was quite neutral, but if you were following the story when it happened, there was no suspense. I would recommend it only for the uninformed audience.
Thank you for your Awesome reporting. You guys are one of the few true Journalist around. Thank you from Florida!!!
I am not interested in hedonism style stories, only in people and their experiences with personal failures in judgement and foolish, stupid mistakes in life –and often the potential successes resulting from it. The rest is all fake.
I truly wonder, Edward Snowden seems to be a intelligent person, it’s claimed on the Wikipedia entry. How to explain Snowden wanted to join the US army in 2004 to fight in the Iraq war, believing it was patriotic to do and about freeing oppressed people? Because in summer 2003 Iraq already turned to full scale sectarian/civil war.
By 2006 George W. Bush acknowledged the existence of secret prisons operated by the CIA after initial reports from various sources in 2005 on black sites, renditions and torture. Nonetheless Snowden accepted a job at the CIA in 2006.
Between 2006 and 2102 in the uncut version it was a public secret their was massive governmental interception of personal data going on. Why would you join such a organization in the first place if you cared for other peoples privacy? I guess there is answers to all kind of questions but I don’t expect them to find in a Hollywood movie.
Speaking of a major actor in the Snowden-NSA story, James Clapper (who lied to Congress about NSA domestic surveillance, with zero penalty) will be having a media event with the Washington Post’s David Ignatius on Tues September 20, 2016.
The sponsors are Raytheon (who relies heavily on Saudi purchases for profitability) and the Center For A New American Security, aka the Hillary Democratic version of the Project For A New American Century.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/pr/wp/2016/09/16/director-of-national-intelligence-james-clapper-to-discuss-national-security-at-the-washington-post/
Hopefully questions about what he said to Congress about domestic mass surveillance as well as the NSA role in economic espionage and regime change games abroad will be raised.
Clapper lied to Wyden? No, he didn’t. That mess is entirely one of Wyden’s making.
Wyden sat on the Intelligence Committee at the time. That means he already KNEW about PRISM beforehand. Both Wyden and Clapper were under oath at the time. In posing the question, Wyden knew that Clapper had only two options. 1) Lie about the collection or 2) decline to reply except in closed session—which would have exposed the fact that NSA collected American data anyway. Interestingly, Senator Feinstein opened the hearing by reminding members not to ask questions with classified answers. Obviously Wyden did not take this seriously. So Wyden didn’t learn anything, the public didn’t learn anything and Clapper’s credibility was trashed for no good reason. If the committees really want to rein in programs like PRISM all they have to do is restrict funding—not engage in self-serving publicity stunts at the expense of people like Clapper. If Wyden really wanted to rein in PRISM, he could have legislated (like he was supposed to). Instead he forced Clapper to take all of the risks. Clapper did not mislead Congress, because Congress already KNEW about the program. Even Glenn Greenwald acknowledges that Wyden knew the answer beforehand. Congress was aware of the program and reauthorized it several times. Every member of Congress at that hearing already knew about the program.
Under the law, it does look like Clapper is guilty of perjury. But you have to actually look at what the law says. The relevant section of the law specifically requires that the false testimony be “concerning a material matter.” The test used by Federal courts for “materiality” is whether the false assertion “has a natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing the decision-making body to which it [is] addressed.” (8 U.S.C. § 1451) All the members on that panel of the Senate Intelligence Committee knew what the NSA metadata program did, so Clapper’s testimony had no chance of influencing the decision-making body as they had already been briefed on the program multiple times.
Nice job of contradicting yourself in the space of only a very few sentences.
I meant that what Clapper ended up doing did not meet the legal definition of perjury. Can you disprove the rest of the stuff in my post?
Ha, that has to win some kind of award for the most circuitous evasive argument of the year. Maybe, like Reagan, he just can’t remember the contents of his classified briefings?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150508/18041530944/latest-explanation-james-clapper-lying-about-essential-nsa-spy-program-he-forgot-about-it.shtml
Let me run the names of the programs, databases and tools by you again: TRAFFICTHIEF, PINWALE, MIRANDA, and XKEYSCORE. They collect everything moving over the domestic fiber optic cable; they screen it for metadata selectors (TRAFFICTHIEF) and keywords embedded in unencrypted texts, emails, phone calls, etc. (PINWALE) and the ‘selected content’ goes into long-term storage in the MIRANDA database, where it can be searched by the NSA’s Google-type system, XKEYSCORE – assuming I understand this correctly; feel free to correct me if this is not the case.
Key point: You claim that everyone on the Senate Intelligence Committee knew about the metadata collection program, (which is I believe, TRAFFICTHIEF), and what it did – but you don’t source that claim. (PRISM, in contrast, was the program that collected directly from Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Paltalk, Youtube, Skype, AOL and Apple.) I tried to find a record of such specific briefing and couldn’t. (How PRISM works in conjunction with TRAFFICTHIEF, I’m not sure.)
You really think the intelligence committees didn’t know about it? That’s absurd. The ranking members went on record when the Snowden stories first went public defending the programs. But according to you, they were just making stuff up?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXWn7cXigA8
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/?id=285dc9e7-195a-4467-b0fe-caa857fc4e0d&download=1
Why would NSA implement a program like PRISM on the President’s orders without informing the oversight committees? That would be illegal, and would offer exactly ZERO advantages to NSA. The stupidest thing an American intelligence agency can do is start up an operation and have Congress find out about on the media.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-09/news/sns-rt-us-usa-security-lawmakersbre9580ab-20130609_1_guardian-national-security-agency-surveillance
http://wiat.com/2013/06/09/u-s-leaders-react-to-leak-detailing-nsa-surveillance-program/
Another fact: NSA cannot target a US person without a specific warrant, even if the American is overseas. “Incidental” US communications are destroyed unless it is relevant to foreign intelligence or a crime.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-documents-reveal-parameters-of-nsas-secret-surveillance-programs/2013/06/20/54248600-d9f7-11e2-a9f2-42ee3912ae0e_story.html
And I already went over why Clapper felt he had to evade Wyden’s questions, and the actual legal definition of perjury, which Clapper’s statement did not meet. If he was really guilty of perjury, how come Wyden never seriously went after him for it? Clapper remains DNI to this day, and Wyden doesn’t seem to give a shit. Also, you write that you cannot locate records of the briefings. That’s because they’re classified (again, see the above video)
And they collect EVERYTHING? That seems like a rather arbitrary claim. What do we actually know about XKEYSCORE? We have a document from Snowden about it that is dated 2008. We have no evidence from the Snowden docs of any abuse of that specific program. Likewise, regarding the data they do collect: NSA requests it through FBI, which then requests it from the tech companies. They do not arbitrarily collect “everything,” nor is every single NSA analyst cleared to use the program. And the only “US persons” they target are those in contact with foreign numbers/addresses that are also NSA targets.
http://mashable.com/2014/04/22/nsa-prism-report/#VaCYH_ssemqP
A fun quote from one of Snowden’s slides: “While the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 requires an individualized warrant for the targeting of US persons, NSA analysts are permitted to intercept the communications of such individuals without a warrant if they are in contact with one of the NSA’s foreign targets.”
(http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jul/31/nsa-xkeyscore-program-full-presentation)
See also the DNI’s white paper on PRISM
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Facts%20on%20the%20Collection%20of%20Intelligence%20Pursuant%20to%20Section%20702.pdf
(TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128GCM_SHA_,128 BIT KEYS, TLS 1.2) =
ZERO PROTECTION AGAINST NSA QUANTUM COMPUTER.
Total Information Awareness. Collect it all. Keep it all. Decrypt it all.
“Both Wyden and Clapper were under oath at the time.”
Neither Wyden nor Clapper was under oath. No one was sworn-in at the hearing.
“Under the law, it does look like Clapper is guilty of perjury. But you have to actually look at what the law says.”
You actually have to do an investigation and then a trial. The statute that makes lying before congress a crime – even if not under oath – is 18U.S.C. §1001
According to a 2007 Quinnipiac University law review article, the requirements for prosection under 1001 require the government to prove that the defendant: (1) knowingly and willfully made or concealed a (2) materially (3) false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation within (4) the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the federal government.
Everyone in Washington D.C. is guilty of : (1) knowingly and willfully made or concealed a (2) materially (3) false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation within (4) the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the federal government.
To prosecute you would have to find an honest man first but they are all otherwise detained.
Clapper made a false statement. It is Wyden who allowed that statement to go uncorrected. Did he really “lie to Congress,” though? Lying, of course, implies an intent to deceive. As I have pointed out, the intelligence committees already knew about PRISM. That means they could not have been misled by Clapper’s testimony.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/opinion/testimony-of-the-national-intelligence-director.html)
(http://www.cbsnews.com/news/james-clapper-says-he-misspoke-didnt-lie-about-nsa-surveillance/)
Interestingly, Feinstein opened the hearing with “I’ll ask that members refrain from asking questions here that have classified answers.” Obviously Wyden didn’t take this seriously. If he really wanted to curb PRISM, he could have just legislated.
Again, Wyden was not trying to get information. He was trying to expose a secret in an open session. Hell, he knew the answer, so he could have just called a press conference. But he didn’t have the stones to do that and instead forced Clapper to take all of the risks.
Also, you have to look at how perjury is dealt with in front of a legislative body: “[C]ourts generally favor the encapsulation from United States v. Dunnigan to describe the elements of perjury in other contexts under Section 1621: ‘A witness testifying under oath or affirmation violates this section if she gives false testimony concerning a material matter with the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory.'”
(http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-808.pdf)
Again, the section specifically requires that the false testimony be “concerning a material matter.”
Every single Congresswoman, Congressman and Senator in Washington, D.C. knew about the NSA metadata program well before the Snowden leaks became news, and a majority of them voted to reauthorize the program. Some of them on multiple occasions. This was not a one-time phenomenon, as “the Executive Branch fully and repeatedly briefed” Congress on the NSA metadata program in 2009, 2010 and again in 2011.
One should also look at Clapper’s letter to Wyden (a latter Wyden had the chance to rebut). A careful Senator would have rebutted that claim if it were untrue. He did respond to other claims in the Clapper letter. Reading both letters is best.
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/?id=285dc9e7-195a-4467-b0fe-caa857fc4e0d&download=1
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-and-udall-important-surveillance-questions-unanswered
From reading the letter, you will find that Wyden found the program constitutional, and that the executive branch made numerous efforts to brief Congress on the program.
And, again, just look at how perjury before a legislative body is handled in the Federal system:
“[C]ourts generally favor the encapsulation from United States v. Dunnigan to describe the elements of perjury in other contexts under Section 1621: ‘A witness testifying under oath or affirmation violates this section if she gives false testimony concerning a material matter with the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory.'”
Again, the section specifically requires that the false testimony be “concerning a material matter, and “the test used by federal courts for “materiality” under § 1621 is whether the false assertion “has a natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing the decision-making body to which it [is] addressed.” The committee already knew about PRISM.
And if the perjury statute really does apply, how come he’s still DNI? Because the “powers that be” all knew Wyden’s question was just a political stunt.
self-serving publicity stunts at the expense of people like Clapper.
Some people would call that oversight and would allege that it is not only Congress’ and the Senate’s duty but actually, in these secretive times, a mandate that must be performed on behalf of the public, whose – ahem – servant Clapper is supposed to be.
And yes, Clapper wittingly lied about whether or not his agency collected information, without specific warrants, on vast numbers of innocent people.
Maybe Clapper and, apparently, you don’t believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If so, then the proper way to remedy that would be to approach Congress to change it, not create weasel excuses regarding the fine print in laws that would have difficulty withstanding constitutional scrutiny in courts of law if such lawsuits were even permitted.
The relevant debate here is whether what Clapper did met the definition of perjury. As I have just explained, it did not. Likewise there are certain ways intelligence oversight is conducted; open hearings and closed hearings. Obviously, participants are not supposed to discuss classified material in open hearings.
Likewise, I was specifically addressing the Clapper-perjury thing, not the wider debate over the legality of programs like PRISM themselves. But, OK, let’s look at what the Fourth Amendment says.
The Fourth Amendment covers two separate things: searches and seizures generally, and when the government may issue a warrant. “Probable cause,” is only required for the issuance of warrants. It is not, technically, the requirement of a search and seizure.
The problem with the government getting a warrant for every search is that such a warrant would allow the government to escape liability. The founders arguably did not want warrants to be issued absent clear evidence. Warrantless searches have always been permitted, as long as they are “reasonable.”
Actually, you don’t get to choose what “the relevant debate here” is, but beyond that, your, “as I have just explained, it did not” has come under scrutiny via a comment and quote from DocHollywood that you are avoiding as if it were never posted. So I’ll help you out by posting it again:
“You actually have to do an investigation and then a trial. The statute that makes lying before congress a crime – even if not under oath – is 18U.S.C. §1001
“According to a 2007 Quinnipiac University law review article, the requirements for prosection under 1001 require the government to prove that the defendant: (1) knowingly and willfully made or concealed a (2) materially (3) false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation within (4) the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the federal government.”
I didn’t avoid it, actually. You’re the one ignoring the points I already made. The committee already knew about PRISM, which makes the perjury accusation moot.
And, hell the whole debate we were discussing was whether or not Clapper’s statement equaled perjury. You know, in case you missed that part.
Really?
“Clapper lied to Wyden? No, he didn’t.
…
“In posing the question, Wyden knew that Clapper had only two options. 1) Lie about the collection…”(Which is, of course, the option Clapper chose).
I quoted you. Twice. You didn’t use the word perjury. You used the word “lie” or defended him as having not lied. You didn’t address your beloved vague perjury “debate.”
And the perjury, as <DocHollywood informed you and everyone, isn’t mute. Once again, you don’t get to declare what is and what isn’t mute, as if you are really in the know about what the notoriously ill informed committee already knew. They’re no more informed than the general congress is, which is grossly ill informed — partly due to their lack of interest, and partly due to spending so damned much of their time dialing for dollars.
John Dean goes into detail about Clapper, perjury and lying to Congress The article should be read in full, but I’ll excerpt just the following paragraphs.
Dialing for dollars? Lol. I already explained and clarified my position. You have not rebutted it.
So Congress didn’t know about PRISM before the Snowden leaks? Prove it.
You honestly think that congress took or takes the time needed to understand PRISM, or, for that matter, so many other issues which are supposedly their responsibility to legislate and or oversee? Hell, they still don’t know about it. Just read or listen to the bull shit they say when pretending to know or when calling for the execution or prosecution of Snowden. Also,many congress people admitted to being astounded to learn about how little they knew before the documents were revealed. If you’re putting your faith in Congress to oversee the NSA, FBI, CIA and etc, you’re a damn fool.
The Intelligence communities willful ignorance — emptywheel
And here’s to your “lol” at dialing for dollars:
Congress spends more time dialing for dollars than on legislative work
Are you referring to Congress as a whole, or the intelligence oversight committees?
That’s not what I or anyone has claimed.
I posted a link to an emptywheel post about congress’ lack of knowledge and general idiocy and also “intelligence community” willful ignorance in reply to your latest junk comment. I also posted a reply in the same comment a link to something about congress “dialing for dollars,” which is why congress doesn’t know shit about what they need to know in order to do their actual job. But because The Intercept has problems posting multiple link comments, that comment has yet to post. It might later or maybe not. I don’t know. But you’re a damned boor, and have been since the beginning of your line of ill informed and straw grabbing comments. Maybe someone else will choose to bother with you, even though you’ve continued to ignore what others have already informed you of. I doubt it.
Because name-calling and lack of evidence is always the sign of an argument’s winner.
Not only have I and many others provided voluminous evidence but, as I told you, I posted two links, each containing articles which provide paragraphs more of evidence. But you pretend not to have noticed that information, same as all of the other information you’ve been provided with. Which is why, as I also told you, you’re boorish to the extreme. There is nothing I or, I suspect, anyone else, can do with someone who is impervious to the evidence provided, so providing even more would be like tossing a spritzer of water on an inferno fire. I’d make a second attempt at posting those links but, see previous sentence. Why bother?
Actually I did, you just didn’t like my answers.
The problem with the perjury accusation is that, legally speaking, perjury is hard to prove since the offense itself is so technical. And, again, the committee already knew about PRISM.
According to federal law, a witness commits perjury of he knowingly makes a fals material statement under oath. But, in order to secure a perjury CONVICTION, you would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the witness knew his statement was false. Thus, it would depend on what Wyden meant when he used the term “collect.”
Again, this whole mess could have been avoided if Wyden would have asked the question in closed session. But, then again, Wyden already knew the answer to his question; apparently he just wanted to put Clapper in situation that would make it seem like he was committing a felony. How brave and noble.
Clapper gave a bad answer to a bad question.
And, again, see the Clapper’s letter to Wyden (which Wyden did not rebut) and Wyden’s reply:
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/?id=285dc9e7-195a-4467-b0fe-caa857fc4e0d&download=1
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-and-udall-important-surveillance-questions-unanswered
Also, see Greenwald’s book “No Place to Hide,” which confirms that Wyden already knew the answer.
The ironic bit is that the people who proclaim themselves to be “patriots” most loudly, are the ones making excuses for not following our forefather’s dictates regarding domestic spying and foreign adventurism.
Saying that Clapper didn’t lie is like saying that Camp King, Germany was a summer camp for underprivileged children. Thanks for making me laugh!
I was addressing the perjury question; I assume you didn’t bother to read the entirety of my post.
You assumed wrong. What is your background and how are you privy to information that no one else on here has? I didn’t mention perjury. Assuming Wyden, et al, already knew the answer, did he not lie to the American public who watched his testimony?
It’s called simple research. You could easily have obtained the information yourself. And I was addressing the question of whether Clapper’s “lie” amounted to perjury.
Are you seriously suggesting that Congress knows of all the NSA and CIA operations? It has been many years since I was involved in spook work, but I learned early on that they only disclose what they want disclosed to outside authority. No way in hell does Congress have the whole pizza, but rather just selected slices.
That’s why the intelligence oversight committees exist; I was referring to these committees, not the entirety of Congress.
Likewise, have you ever noticed how politicians that raise the most hysterics about programs like PRISM tend to be those that are not on the committees and are thus not read in on the program? Just look at Rand Paul.
I mean, that’s certainly believable. Just look at what happened when the SSCI investigated the CIA’s RDI program. One problem in that case was that the Bush White House restricted the CIA’s ability to brief members of Congress; the same was true of STELLAR WIND.
The problem is that the President has stronger authority over the intelligence community than Congress, which basically just approves their budgets. And besides, since most of the committees’ work is secret and not in front of the cameras, the members do not have much of a chance to play politics. That might explain why congressional oversight seems so weak sometimes. Likewise, the committees and staff are relatively small.
But the committees are hardly impotent, since the intelligence community’s evasions and deceptions regarding their congressional overseers are self-defeating. Maybe Congress can fix this by adding more members/staff
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2013/08/10/bee87394-004d-11e3-9a3e-916de805f65d_story.html)
Also, given the complexities of the surveillance issue and Congress’s deference to the executive when it comes to national security also comes into play.
So, how did the NSA secure funding for programs like PRISM? Those programs don’t run by themselves. The intelligence communities require funding for all of their operations; these intelligence budgets are all reviewed and approved by the oversight committees.
So, Congress appropriated funds for PRISM but didn’t care to find out where the money went? Or found out about a program they didn’t like but still did not cut off funding for?
Huh. That’s odd. I wonder how they ever managed to pull that off.
Hopefully Clapper gives us his opinion about how the next president should use Section 1021 to round up all the terrorists (commenters) spewing their propaganda and psych-ops on the internet which are hindering our PNAC targeting .
Lol.
Snowden should come home and face trial.
Obviously there’s a Fourth Amendment question in terms of the legality of programs like PRISM. The vast majority of Snowden’s other leaks, however, had nothing to do with American privacy and everything to do with legitimate American foreign-intelligence operations.
If it was Snowden’s intent to spark a debate about the classic liberty vs. security conundrum, then he as obviously succeeded. In the wake of his leaks, NSA has put under more scrutiny, the Freedom Act has been passed, and the FISA court is slightly less secretive.
However, this is a classic civil disobedience case: Snowden should be prepared to accept the legal consequences of his decision, no matter how many people agree or disagree with it. Likewise, Snowden did not limit his disclosures to PRISM; he also decided to leak classified information on operations against legitimate foreign intelligence targets. He should not be given a pass on this issue just because PRISM is the only leak the public cares about.
Besides, all three branches of government have now decided to make reforms regarding the collection of American metadata, which, does, in essence give Snowden a form of vindication. Why not let Snowden come home and make his case?
Write in Edward Snowden for President, United States.
Snowden should come home and stand trial. Snowden broke the law and should be held accountable, while at the same time exposing controversial system of surveillance. The best way to reconcile these positions is a trial.
The government would try to prove that Snowden broke the law by leaking classified government documents. Snowden would want to mount a defense to explain his motives and the benefits that resulted from his actions.
Likewise, among Snowden’s leaks – in fact, the vast majority of them – were legitimate foreign intelligence operations. I have no idea why Snowden thought these operations amounted to civil liberties violations, and his reckless leaking of these operations demand accountability.
A government contractor who discloses details of U.S. spying on another country is not most Americans’ idea of a whistleblower.
Soooo where’s the articles about the government corruption that Guccifer 2.0
revealed???
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-13/how-much-it-costs-get-ambassadorship-guccifer-20-leaks-dnc-pay-play-donor-list
Well, that kind of deal for ambassadorships is pretty standard among Republicans and Democrats.
Compare and contrast with the scale of the Karl Rove corruption; Obama has not quite achieved that level yet – although Hillary just might! Google [Karl Rove K-Street] for a list of Bush era pay-to-play corruption that is off the charts.
Here’s something that you might enjoy, though, and is relevant to this story: Sidney Blumenthal’s 2006 Guardian op-ed where he castigates Bush and the Republicans for their crackdown on whistleblowers and NSA leakers:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/apr/26/whitehousesnowjob
Sidney Blumenthal is one of Hillary Clinton’s confidants and a Clinton Foundation employee; Obama and Clinton want Snowden to be given the Chelsea Manning treatment . . . but that’s partisan politics for you; witch-hunts are only good if your party is behind them.
I know your boss Pierre Omidyar, along with USAID , helped fund the 2014 Maidan coup in the Ukraine two months before an election … but hey does the Intercept have any Snowden revelations regarding the Ukraine? If so please add them to your matrix.
Isn’t that a Peter Thiel/Pando talking point without much corroboration? As far as who was behind the Ukraine coup, see this transcript of a leaked call between Victoria Nuland (wife of neocon Robert Kagan) and Geoffrey Pyatt, US Ambassador to Ukraine:
http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/she-lies-victoria-nulands-ukraine-gate-deceptions/
Thus, the Ukraine coup looks primarily like a US State Department project, which probably included quite a bit of covert CIA and NSA work to support it. . . too bad that John Kerry didn’t use a private email server like Hillary Clinton did, then we might have a lot more information on how this all went down.
Here is the link below, to the campaign and public petition launched earlier this week by The Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union launched a joint campaign and public petition to urge President Obama to pardon Snowden and allow him to return to the United States without the fear of persecution.
Read the campaign, sign or not: https://pardonsnowden.org/take-action-1
Would the USA congressional intelligence committees now be snarling their hatred at the provider of the “Panetta Review” if the CIA had been successful in having him indicted under the Espionage Act?
FREE THE WHISTLE BLOWERS!
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/16/us-media-ignores-cia-cover-up-on-torture/
Maybe the committee members are overburdened and just sign their names to anything, even documents that are terrible, horrible and very bad.
http://intelligence.house.gov/about/history-and-jurisdiction.htm
Excellent movie: “Snowden” ! Allowed to Snowed and myself, FAIR Supreme Court Justice trail, with LIVE broadcasting by MEDIA!
Prior to the Snowden revelations, I had always viewed the NSA as just another government bureaucracy, filled with people spending the day watching the clock so they could be the first to sprint to the parking lot at quitting time.
However, the sheer number of NSA programs listed in this article has caused me to revise my opinion somewhat. They seem to pick people with a penchant for naming programs, and it seems clear they must have some sort of incentive system for people in the agency to create new programs. So my respect for the NSA as an organization has increased.
Whether all these programs accomplish anything useful is another question. It is clear the FBI has no use for the NSA. They know the only way to catch a terrorist is to create your own. When they needed to break into an iPhone, they didn’t bother contacting the NSA, but outsourced the work to a private company. The NSA undoubtedly does provide support to the military. However, they refuse to talk about it, so it’s impossible to know exactly how much assistance they provide. But wars don’t run as smoothly as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, without a major contribution from signal intelligence. In the end, however, it is all speculation. If the 60,000 employees of the NSA were sitting in jail, would the US be any better off? Probably, but it’s a judgment call.
So, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, and say they make a positive contribution to society. Yes, they violate the Constitution every day, but then so does every other government department and agency.
Thanks to Mr. Snowden for bringing their fine work to everyone’s attention.
Benito: …”wars don’t run as smoothly as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya without a major contribution from signal intelligence”
What are you smoking? Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are military, economic and reputational disasters for the USA.
Most of the time Benito stays in character, and he is here. Think: Satire.
It really depends on your perspective, drew.
1) Military: In terms of the deaths of American soldiers, Iraq and Afghanistan were very bad; but in terms of military spending and defense contractor profits, they were very good. In Libya, the military didn’t even have to sacrifice any American lives, just a lot of Libyan ones, and it gave NATO and AFRICOM a chance to strut their stuff and feel important. The generals like this kind of thing, don’t they? Ego-puffery at its best.
2) Economic: Again, these have been huge cash cows for the defense contractors and ‘reconstruction’ programs and oil interests. From weapons sales to surveillance contracts to billion dollar contracts with dozens of subcontractors, that began in Washington and, after passing through many offices, ended up with some guy in Iraq digging a hole in the ground with a shovel at $100,000 per scoop, this was a huge economic boost for some interests. And of course, Exxon and other oil majors got a piece of Iraqi oil at the end of the day. See for example:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Reconstruction_of_Iraq_contractors
3) Reputationaly: It all depends on what kind of reputation you want to have:
Sure, many mistakes were made – the PNAC plan was to have Iraq as the “American aircraft carrier in the Middle East”, a full of military bases from which attacks on Syria and Iran could be launched. That agenda was a big flop – but, as Benito notes, the NSA has done its best to serve that agenda and deserves a round of applause – A for effort.
I know, you’re thinking all this is doesn’t match the rhetoric of “humanitarian democratic values” spewed forth by the likes of Ashton Carter and Barak Obama (for example, at the recent 9/11 anniversary speeches), but who in their right mind believes those two-faced hypocritical con artists actually believe in that drivel? That’s just what they feed to the American public to put a nice smiley face on their agenda of bloody global conquest and savage domination of all the world.
I mean, these are the kind of people who torture small animals for fun – neoliberals and neoconservatives both, and their foreign dictator allies.
Not that there was much doubt but here’s what Libya is about.
I found this in a Sidney Blumenthal email to Hillary Clinton about the rationale for overthrowing Gaddafi:
wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/10126
That email also shows that Blumenthal and Hillary were really pushing to install their favored puppet, Mahmoud Jibril, in power, despite reluctance from many Obama Administration National Security Council members. Blumenthal had his own business interests that he was promoting here. Those are detailed here (along with the email you reference)
https://news.vice.com/article/libyan-oil-gold-and-qaddafi-the-strange-email-sidney-blumenthal-sent-hillary-clinton-in-2011
Crude motives for personal profit may thus have been at the heart of it; and as noted before, Gaddafi had failed to make any multimillion-dollar donations to the Clinton Foundation, which might have bought him a reprieve.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey Joins Call for Edward Snowden Pardon
But get the bolded bit:
I don’t even know what to say about that.
Michael Hayden? That’s a typo, or a joke, certainly.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/14/edward-snowden-pardon-bernie-sanders-daniel-ellsberg
Thanks, Variety simply has to be wrong. I tweeted that out with a RT of my original. I really should have googled to see if anyone else was reporting that before tweeting Variety.
I saw “Snowden” this afternoon here in L.A. and Michael Hayden’s comment about Snowden is in the film.
Apparently at one time Snowden was photographed with Hayden (according to the movie).
I thought the film was excellent, BTW.
I hope it does well at the box office and with the Academy Awards. Best picture, best director nominations as well as one for Joseph Gordon-Levitt.
The photo used in the movie is a legitimate photo which really did happen
Ha ha, damn funny. In the Guardian the other day Hayden was quoted as saying:
The Guardian
So I think he’ll be surprised to find himself on that list! They must have him confused with the CIA guy.
Former CIA Officer: President Obama Should Pardon Edward Snowden
-Mona-
Why not post a link here in The Intercept comments section to the Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties JOINT CAMPAIGN and PUBLIC PETITION to urge President Obama TO PARDON EDWARD SNOWDEN and allow him to return to the United States without fear of persecution. Join in or not, let the Petition take flight among it’s readers and subscribers.
I see you posted a link to the petition above — good idea. I suppose I tend to think most readers already had access to it on Twitter and what not, but there’s no reason not to also post it here.
“I don’t even know what to say about that.”
Two words; fake pardon.
Sure, come on home Ed, we won’t mess with you …
They would grab him in an instant because, what are you going to do about it?
Really, if they ignored a presidential pardon, what could anyone do?
It has to be the case that Variety got that wrong about Hayden.
Yeah, I think you are right.
“They would grab him in an instant because, what are you going to do about it?
Really, if they ignored a presidential pardon, what could anyone do?”
I so agree with this. Generally, pardons are for after the conviction. The Nixon pardon by Ford is a precedence but who had motive to challenge it? Unlike, I dare say, in the case of Mr Snowden. I wouldn’t trust it which is not the same as not accepting it but I don’t know how Snowden would factor the risks as they are exceedingly personal. I only know that I wish him the very best and we all owe him a debt of gratitude, not because we have fixed the problems but because we now know a lot more about their nature and their extent.
The usa governance is deliberately obfuscating the difference between “executive order” that has no precedence in and of itself with that of “Statues” which are and shall (precede) take precedence, because -constitutional- STATUTES, to the uttermost, occur before, or lead the way, moses.
The usa governance unilaterally and deliberately perpetrated, and still perpetrates, the largest abolishment of Privacy domestically and abroad for the sake of the one world government while under the excuse of usa-patriotism and even democracy. At this rate is unequivocal that the annulment of personal privacy domestically and abroad remains in/at hopelessness while the corrupt establishment expects Snowden to return in order to obliterate his brain with toxic pharmaceuticals or high electromagnetic radiation because the corrupt establishment and their puppets do not cease to oblitarate anyone who exposes their secret tyranny that drives on plain falsehoods, propaganda and disinformation, not just against privacy, but democracy and the constitutional republic’s rule of law that while cloaked/dressed in democracy clothing are subverting it.
Since when the abolishment of privacy became a matter of national security? It is like saying that the natural ocean water (the way God created ti) is poisonous to the fish and the marine life organism living there need the waste of man made poison produced by monsanto and any man made contamination in order to save all living animals and organisms in the oceans.
Unless, the tyrants dressed/cloaked in democracy clothing and perpetrating surveillance/spying by abolishing privacy (bombing Doctors without borders, going to war based on propaganda and misinformation against nations) while call it defense and intelligence programs is inconsistent, which by definition are plainly exemplifying nothing more and worst than all the kosher bolchevist/ stalinist/trostkies/hitlerist regimes combined contrary and inconsistent to the tradition of the spirit of true democracy that the corrupt puppets in high public office and usa governance and chants/professes/declares publicly/ AVOWED to embrace.
Anyone who wishes to do harm in the name of democracy while bombing doctors without border (a nobel peace prize winner) at kunduz, has perpetrated wost than harm to national security, that is, plain tyranny and to their chanting “national security” and of no concern to the lapdogs of the domestic and international media as well as to the usa governance for such to be consider a threat to national security. Bombing doctors without borders and chanting “”harm remains unknown” is worst than tyranny. The corrupt establishment would have been in a better position to continue their tyranny, should the snowden’s revelations (and other whistleblowers) had not expose the whims of executive orders exceeding the constitutional statues of the rule of law, so that the secret puppets of the corrupt establishment would continue their spying/blanket surveillance unmitigated and paid for by non-kosher nations, where the corrupt establishment and their puppets are adversaries of the spirit of democracy and while cloaked in democracy clothing are a threat to the world at large increasing their tyranny by manipulations, obfuscation, propaganda, disinformation and plain falsehoods together with with their hypocrisy.
The corrupt establishment and their high public office puppets who subscribe to(cloaked/dressed in) democracy and the constitutional statues of the rule of law, are usually overpraised, because they wish to convince their own populations that they have not (wasted)perpetrated nor cease to falter any tyranny domestically and abroad while under the color(spirit) of democracy nor cede to perpetrate, against the constitutional statues of the rule of law, subversion.
-Alejandro Grace Ararat.
If elected president, Jill Stein would pardon Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning and John Kiriakou – and ask each of them to join her administration. Young Turks Video (approx. 6 mins)
Ed Snowden is a hero.
#esiah
Yesterday, multiple Pulitzer-winner Barton Gellman, formerly of The Washington Post — and one of Snowden’s chosen journalists, in addition to Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras — tweeted his disgust about the House Report:
Although Barton Gellman’s take-down of the HPSCI report left me wondering if the House Intelligence Committee’s members had even read the thing before signing it … Gellman repeats the tired mantra that Snowden has caused some damage.
After so thoroughly debunking the HPSCI report … I can only assume Gellman means Snowden’s revelations have, somehow, cause the House Intelligence Committee members to lose their minds, as a whole. Which can’t be good for ‘national security’ in these troubling times. *kinda like the ‘constitutional crisis’ created by the SSIC investigation of CIA torture
Also among the operations Snowden helped expose:
NSA monitoring of IP addresses belonging to the Chinese military, of Russian officials during certain trade negotiations, NSA spying on the government of Brazil, Swedish efforts to assist US espionage against Russia, NSA efforts in Pakistan, British surveillance of the G20, NSA operations in Latin America, France, Norway, Somalia, al-Qaeda’s efforts to counter US drones, tapping the German chancellor’s phone, and spying on the Mexican government.
Those sure sound like Fourth Amendment violations and privacy-related issues to me.
Well, true, but you are trying something rather sneaky here. I could use one of the favorite counterarguments of people you likely agree with, namely that we already knew that, at least in broad terms. So let’s not omit what we did not know, such as spying on the entire population of Germany for example, or that overall ambition to “collect all the signals, all the time,” which really means eliminating privacy as far as electronic communications are concerned, and that for the entire human race. And while the 4th Amendment may only apply to roughly 320 million Americans, there are about 7 billion other subhumans who also have a right to privacy according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and many of them have additional protection in their own countries (on paper) that is similar to that presumably guaranteed to Americans by their 4th. Now all of these, including the US 4th, are being violated (in spirit if not legally acknowledged) by mass surveillance, which is thus arguably a monstrous crime against all humanity. Compared to that, the fact that you and your friends object to announcing publicly that the NSA tapped Angela Merkel’s phone is pretty much irrelevant, wouldn’t you say? As in, why should these 7 billion give a shit about that? I’d say they are much more likely to be grateful to Edward Snowden for informing them that they live in a shitty world.
Damn, Tovaritch, what a reply! Would I love someone throwing your reply in the face of Hayden or Brennan or Alexander next time they publicly try a little speech similar to Nick’s. I hate empire’s Big Brother and most of the men that created it – no less than the men claiming they invaded, tortured and terrorize other nationalities, mostly Muslim, in my name as an American. They sacrifice all humanity on their alters of power and have made being from the U.S. – nazi-ish.
“Sneaky.” What Snowden did speaks for itself. But go ahead and ignore it if you want.
The US does not require a warrant to spy on a foreign target overseas. And it would be naive to assume that the US is the only country that spies on foreign targets. Do you think the Chinese give shit about respecting Americans’ right to privacy?
The thing with “international laws” is that they’re more or less nothing but “international suggestions.” Since there’s no international government, if a country signs an international agreement is basically operating on the honor system.
Snowden made clear from the outset that he was concerned not only with the privacy rights of Americans — the Fourth Amendment applies only in situation where our courts have jurisdiction. He cares about the privacy rights of the citizens of the world.
Moreover, fighting terrorism does not require economic espionage, and the public should debate whether we want to do that or not. We should also debate under what conditions we want to be violating the privacy rights of friendly heads of state.
Edward Snowden was and is horrified at the building of a Global Surveillance Apparatus, in secret, without the world’s peoples having an opportunity to decide if that’s where they want humanity to go. He did a great and courageous thing in alerting the world and letting us all make this decision.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150629/16134031494/nsa-despite-claiming-it-doesnt-engage-economic-espionage-engaged-economic-espionage.shtml
NSA claims pre-Snowden:
Seems like they were lying through their teeth about that, as well as about the domestic mass surveillance. Is that the kind of behavior we want to rely on? Don’t we believe in economic competition and how the free market produces the best outcomes? Just like we believe in humanitarian values and democracy, despite supporting vile dictatorships that torture and murder peaceful political dissidents, like Saudi Arabia.
Well worth exposing to public scrutiny, isn’t it? And of course groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda already knew all their communications were being monitored, didn’t they?
Oh, so you guys think collecting foreign intelligence is inherently unethical. Thanks for clarifying that.
Likewise, I don’t buy the argument that these leaks don’t matter because we “already knew that.” The proper word is “suspected.” I’m sure al-Qaeda already suspected that NSA was snooping on their phone and Internet activity. I suppose in your eyes that excuses leaking the specifics of these operations?
The Fourth Amendment is not an international treaty. Nor is the US the only country that spies on foreign nations.
Likewise, the VAST MAJORITY of the documents Snowden leaked were related to these kinds of foreign intelligence operations.
Regarding Section 702: Snowden’s leaks allowed terrorists to finally wise up to the fact that your foreign communications are likely to pass through the US, what phone and Internet companies were cooperating with NSA,
Likewise, when intelligence officials asserted that the Snowden leaks had led to changes in terrorists’ security procedures, Snowden’s supporters immediately charged that there was no evidence to support this. This turned out not to be the case.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2916475/Al-Qaeda-YouTube-video-shows-jihadists-using-Snowden-leaks-evade-Western-surveillance.html
But, of course, these facts are irrelevant to all of Snowden’s supporters. Also, do you guys remember how Greenwald and Snowden’s initial story about PRISM turned out to be bullshit?
http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/nsa-story-falling-apart-under-scrutiny-key-facts-turning-out-to-be-inaccurate/
http://www.skatingonstilts.com/skating-on-stilts/2013/06/stewart-baker-nsa-minimization-interception.html
Also, the Snowden fanboys like to scoff that Western intelligence services have not provided enough evidence of any damage. But what evidence, exactly, would they accept?Revealing the specifics of how some ‘bad actors’ have used the leaks to their advantage would run the risk of revealing this to other bad actors who haven’t yet taken advantage of the same information. And spooks would be unlikely to be believed anyway: any evidence they produced would be shouted down to cries of ‘WMD’ – and people would rightly point out that intelligence agencies are professional deceivers, so are hardly beyond fabricating evidence.
Likewise, they also claim that none of the leaks harmed national security. Also wrong.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/media-sometimes-try-fail-keep-nsas-secrets
Also interesting: According to Greenwald: “Whether I would have disclosed the specific IP addresses in China and Hong Kong the NSA is hacking, I don’t think I would have, What motivated that leak though was a need to ingratiate himself to the people of Hong Kong and China.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/greenwald-snowden-s-files-are-out-there-if-anything-happens-to-him.html
Another interesting part of the Snowden saga: He applied for asylum in Brazil in exchange for revealing NSA espionage on that country, and informed the Chinese that the US was spying on their computers
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/17/world/americas/snowden-nsa-brazil-letter/
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1259508/edward-snowden-us-government-has-been-hacking-hong-kong-and-china?page=all
So the simple fact is that Snowden illegally stole this classified information and much of what he took, and subsequently leaked, has nothing to do with our Constitution or the rights of Americans.
But, feel free to ignore all of these facts, as I assume you will.
What did you expect them to do? Comment publicly about a foreign intelligence operation?
And sure, ISIS and al-Qaeda probably suspected that NSA was tapping their systems. But, in your eyes, that excuses Snowden leaking the specifics of these operations: a leak that would benefit NO ONE other than these foreign targets.
Sure, sounds like a civil liberties issue to me.
I’d like to ask the readers here who support Snowden for some advice – I don’t care whether you’re left or right wing, I just want some help. I’ve been off-centre for a while, and here’s why…
My boyfriend is now my ex-boyfriend, after a conversation a couple of days ago that went like this:
Me: “Snowden revealed that pretty much everyone’s online and telephone activities are being recorded and/or monitored, which is an invasion of privacy and actually unconstitutional.”
Boyfriend: “Look, the world is a scary place full of evil people who want to kill you, and the government has to have all that it needs to stop terrorist attacks. Privacy is a joke in the internet age, and the Constitution is not sacred – when you’re older you’ll see that life isn’t all unicorns and rainbows, and that extreme measures have to be taken with extremists.”
Me: “But privacy is where we develop personal strength and experiment with ideas freely. And the Constitution is supposed to be not only the law but an aspirational text that acknowledges that while virtue is often difficult it is nevertheless philosophically imperative.”
Boyfriend: “You’re immature, naïve, feminine and emotional – you should be more like a Clinton-type woman, have a more masculine view that accepts “realpolitik” and the notion that invasive surveillance, interventionism and corporatism are inevitable and small prices to pay for a state that protects its business interests and homeland. Some secrets should be kept from the people, even if they show the US behaving badly – for the behavior is always whatever the establishment has to do to keep the status quo.”
Me: “But the status quo is environmental ruination, institutionalized racism, crony-capitalist warmongering and increasing inequality. Thanks for insulting my femininity and my intelligence, by the way! So the US just has to be corrupt because every country is trying to do what we do, and we have to be the biggest bastards on the block to be number one? Is that your ‘grown-up’ argument?”
Boyfriend: “Basically that’s what I’m saying. I’m not insulting you, just pointing out that your idealism doesn’t work in the real world, and if you knew what was going on, you’d be happy to let the establishment which you childishly hate look after everything in its own way – we vote for people we entrust with these secrets and powers, which is why you must forget Jill Stein and vote Clinton to stop Trump.”
Me: “I’m not voting for Clinton. She’s as bad as Trump, maybe worse. An entrenched and utterly corrupt establishmentarian who will further degrade America and the environment, and possibly usher in a massive war. Trump’s problem is he’s unpredictable, Clinton’s is that she isn’t. Jill Stein is what I want in a leader.”
Boyfriend: “Your whole problem, and Snowden’s, and Greenwald’s – and all those commenters on the Intercept who you think are so smart – is that you’re living in a fantasy. You should grow up and see that yes, the government does all sorts of unethical things, but they are the right things and you shouldn’t concern yourself with them.”
Me: “I hope you’re cool with splitting up, ’cause I can’t date you anymore. It was pretty much doomed when you announced support for Hillary, anyway.”
(I’ve seen a lot of similar opinions to his around – I was wondering if any of you know how I should have responded, and how I could answer such condescension in the future.)
Based on your account, you did pretty darn good considering the insults you endured. If I called my wife any combination of “immature, naïve, feminine, emotional, childish, ‘so smart'” or told her what to think, at best I’d be sleeping in the basement for weeks. You shared your views and responded in a respectful manner. You walk out of that debacle firmly on high ground.
My only constructive criticism is your last comment about “It was pretty much doomed when you announced support for [Any candidate, regardless of affiliation], anyway.”
It doesn’t matter which politician you would have mentioned. For me personally, I cannot fathom politics dictating my relationships. Perhaps you said it in anger and didn’t mean it. If your (former?) boyfriend had just shown an ounce of respect and not called you names, could the two of you could have accepted each others opinions and moved on? Do you otherwise get along well and share interests? If so and if you like him and the guy apologizes profusely, maybe you salvage the relationship.
If not and if you meant what you said, you may consider reflecting upon the impact of politics in your life. For me, I enjoy politics as a hobby but it doesn’t extend into the general household or work because my wife and several co-workers simply aren’t as interested. TI and other sites are therefore my outlet. I don’t want my political views to be a reflection of the company I keep, especially with regard to friends. Growing up, politics didn’t direct who I hung out with, so why would I let it now. It doesn’t deserve such an out-sized role in my life. But it requires a mutual effort and respect, which you didn’t receive.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I agree that the relationship probably shouldn’t have faltered on just that issue (voting choice), which is why I didn’t end it at the very time he told me he was supporting Clinton. I figured it wouldn’t come up that much, as he only sporadically talks politics anyway. But it’s been building – he’s been resenting my interest in socialism and the Green movement openly for a while, teasing me publicly about being his ‘little anti-establishment rebel,’ and he obviously doesn’t respect me to keep doing that. My politics has become increasingly sort of enmeshed with my life-philosophy, and I’ve made a lot of friends in the Green Party so I don’t have an easy a time separating politics from the rest of my life as I used to. It saddens me that the rejection of my beliefs that he exhibited is probably what awaits me from other people I know (my parents, for example) and that my function in their life is just to look pretty and smile and not rock any boats or think myself worthy of profound activism. Having this place to vent has helped me, but that’s another thing my ex mocked me for. I know you subscribe to the realpolitik approach to some degree, and I’d like to say thanks for not antagonizing me about that and just being kind today. Appreciated.
he’s been resenting my interest in socialism and the Green movement openly for a while, teasing me publicly about being his ‘little anti-establishment rebel,’ and he obviously doesn’t respect me to keep doing that.
I agree with Nate for the most part. The bit above, the disrespect and belittling is the breaking point for me. You are obviously – like, I think, many young people in your generation – going through some serious political growing pains. I’m not yet old enough that I’ve lost the memories of my own such growth.
Where I disagree with him is in this bit:
For me, I enjoy politics as a hobby but it doesn’t extend into the general household or work because my wife and several co-workers simply aren’t as interested. TI and other sites are therefore my outlet. I don’t want my political views to be a reflection of the company I keep, especially with regard to friends. Growing up, politics didn’t direct who I hung out with, so why would I let it now. It doesn’t deserve such an out-sized role in my life.
Obviously, we all have relationships that we’re not willing to abandon wolesale due to politics. For me, that would be with my father, a die-hard republican who, with tears in his eyes, begged me to believe that Obama was truly a secret Muslim. He’s old, not likely to change his views and loves me despite my own so a mutual truce was called and a non-political zone established. BUT we DO change as we grow and learn more about the world and politics has a daily influence on our lives that makes ignoring it as adults not only more difficult but also more dangerous as the longterm consequences become manifest.
I think you made the right decision because only you can decide what is important in your life and how you want to live it. But respect, for our persons and our beliefs, is the least we must expect from those we allow into our most personal spaces. He obviously didn’t care enough, or doesn’t understand that. So Nate’s last thought,
But it requires a mutual effort and respect, which you didn’t receive.
is really the thing that most resonates with me as well. I wish you, and everyone else in your generation, the best and am proud to share so much politically with you. Keep beig involved and active and you will find someone who can respect and love you for what and who you are. You will be much happier if you can comfortably be yourself with the person who most closely shares your life because it really is quite miserable walking around trying to self-censor about anything you consider important, let alone life-changing.
Thank you. As always, you are profound and insightful.
Hi Maisie, you don’t need someone who won’t respect your opinion. Relationships are always a two-way street. I see only belittlement from your boyfriend towards you and your principles in what you’ve communicated and a little rigidity in your comments back to him.
I’ve been married for 17 years and there is always good times and bad times and disagreements, etc. My wife and I don’t always see eye-to-eye on things, and we have disagreements. But in the end, they aren’t deal-killers.
Whether or not a person supports candidate X or Y shouldn’t kill the deal. And it’s perfectly okay to say, “You support X, that fine. That choice isn’t the way I feel” and you shouldn’t be mocked or criticized for saying so. (Of course, around here THAT’s exactly what happens.)
Being supportive is KEY for relationships. (Both persons)
The world isn’t black and white as so many think. It’s grey. Figure out what you will or will not compromise in a relationship. And those things may change over time, but understanding your own beliefs and your own boundaries on what you will or will not accept in others will smooth over the rough patches when you come across them.
Personally, I feel it’s brave for you to ask for this advice in this forum. ;)
Thanks! He’s trying to see me again already, but when I think of him I get steamed. Perhaps it isn’t really fair of me to demand more respect from him if I actually think he’s a pompous twit, which I do presently.
I’d like to see you learn from having put yourself into, or found yourself in, a relationship with someone who is invested in not respecting you. If the conversation you described was pretty much as you’ve described — topped off with the condescending “his little anti-establishment rebel” — that guy is in need of a lot of therapy, and continuing in a relationship with him would be a terrible waste of your time. But you’re likely repeat that sort of relationship as a pattern if you don’t “demand respect” from yourself, for yourself. You can’t really demand respect from others. If you feel you deserve and have earned respect, then expect it from those whom you interact with. If it’s not there, that’s on them, not you.
Thanks. I haven’t dated that much, so it’s all a bit new to me. It felt demeaning, and even more so because he evidently felt exasperated by how childish I seem to him; everything was said with long-suffering sighs! I can be opinionated, though, so I probably annoyed him. The more I think about it, the more positive I feel about bringing it into the open, as I do deserve better and he should probably find a more normal woman who likes the status quo as much as he does.
I don’t have any advice, but I do want to wish you well.
I think I grew up backwards: rather than outgrowing the kinds of attitudes the boyfriend mocks, I was less likely to hold them as a young person and ever more likely to hold them now. More than one way to get older and wiser, I hope!
Thanks, Vic. All the best to you, too.
Ditto. My pre-political personality didn’t change, but the glib acceptance of realpolitik abstractions altered as I learned and faced what the consequences were for actual human beings.
That, and I knew I could not have happened — by sheer and astronomical coincidence — to have been in the one place and time that was superior in all respects to every other, past and present. So facile nationalism and patriotism always struck me as, well, facile.
Words of advice my dear:
Move on. You are living your life in real time. This is not “a dress rehearsal”.
The grains of sand are flowing through that hourglass!
Onward and upward!
You said exactly the right things.
Paramahansa Yogananda said, “Always try to surround yourself with those from whom you can learn and grow higher as a human being.”
You made the right choice and now carry on with your ultimate goal of full self-realization! This guy was just a “rock in the stream” on your life journey. Just go around humans like him and keep on swimming!!
Thanks. I read Yogananda’s autobiography a few years ago and loved it.
Maisie, I could date someone who was voting for Hillary if he acknowledged the vileness she is and was only doing it because he was certain Trump would be worse. But a man holding the opinions your ex does about Snowden, this site and then claiming you are ” immature, naïve, feminine and emotional ” — that’s all a deal-breaker.
He doesn’t respect you. And he’s immoral in his substantive politics. You seem, like me, to be a very political person. People like us cannot peacefully be with a partner who advocates what we know is deeply immoral. And no one should abide such a level of disrespect.
Very much appreciated.
The only thing I’d say is on this:
As a counterexample, let’s consider Thomas Drake who exposed the incredibly wasteful and highly corrupt SAIC contract for the Trailblazer program. Even if you believe the unconstitutional domestic mass surveillance ‘keeps us safe’, how can anyone possibly justify pouring over $1 billion into a private contractor’s pockets and getting nothing in return for it? That’s just gross corruption.
Now if people are going to argue that this is just part of how the government works and it’s just something we have to accept – well, people like that are no different from those who went along with Stalin or Hitler on the notion that “Big Brother knows best” and look what a disaster that created for the Russian and German people.
What is probably really going on with people like that is plain old cowardice, fear of being singled out as a critic of powerful interests, fear of getting “on the list”, and rather than admit they’re scared to saything because of consequences to their personal interests, job prospects, etc. they make up these ridiculous justifications for keeping quiet and going with the flow.
What’s really sad about this is we live in a country where the repercussions for ordinary citizens pointing out the government’s corruption, incompetence and illegal actions are so much less than in places like Saudi Arabia or China or Ethiopia; people who do so in those countries face severe repercussions – torture, lifetime imprisonment, etc. – just for opening their mouths, yet many do so anyway.
However, that having been said, it’s people who’ve signed security clearances and are privy to state secrets that are treated like Chinese dissidents when they speak out; that’s because what the leaders of the government fear above all else are the defection of what Stalin called “the middle cadres”; those who do all the heavy lifting (i.e. Stalin didn’t conduct his purges by himself); that means the Snowdens and Stirlings and Mannings and Drakes and Binneys are going to be intensely targeted; the attempted prosecution of journalist James Risen by Obama, in that context, is very alarming, since that means the government is also trying to silence journalists, which is a hallmark of your more repressive authoritarian regimes.
You really have to nip this kind of government behavior in the bud, or it just progresses to its natural endpoint, as seen in the world’s most repressive authoritarian governments, such as Saudi Arabia and North Korea. And if you are a member of a democracy, it’s your responsibility to take such steps to preserve democratic freedoms from authoritarian encroachment.
As all the airports warn us these days, “If you see something, say something.”
Great points, thanks. I learn a lot from your posts, and I’m sure I’m not alone in that.
Sounds like you handed it quite well.
I think the weakest part of arguments like his are that the government MUST violate rights etc. to prevent terrorism. But the risk of terrorism is wildly over blown, and doing radical things to prevent domestic deaths from terrorism isn’t logical. It’s based on irrational fear. Six times as many people as on 9/11 die from drunk driving every year. If the point was about keeping people from harm, surely every car would have a breathalyzer lock; cameras in them that were monitored all the time. We’d have checkpoints every block. There’d be thousands of undercover stings at bars. But we have none of that even though drunk driving is far, far more dangerous than terrorism.
So why should we have to put up with liberties violations and other extreme measures? It’s not really based on preventing deaths.
Thanks for the reply. Yeah, he’s convinced, like so many others, that the threat is everywhere, and is oblivious to how this is used as a cloak for corruption. And even when it’s plainly obvious (and proven) that merely profiling, Full Spectrum Dominance or corporate motives are behind specific warfare or surveillance actions, he still gladly gives the government the benefit of the doubt; it’s really quite weird.
You say he said: “I’m not insulting you, just pointing out that your idealism doesn’t work in the real world, and if you knew what was going on, you’d be happy to let the establishment which you childishly hate look after everything in its own way – we vote for people we entrust with these secrets and powers, which is why you must forget Jill Stein and vote Clinton to stop Trump.”
Yes, he’s insulting you. Your ex-boyfriend is an ignorant prig. He is also a docile follower of the most dangerous kind who will blindly accept authority of office as an evidence of virtue. That makes him also a dangerous fool.
The most basic premise of the founders of this government was that nobody granted even the most temporary power over others can be “trusted”. Ever. The word “trust” appears on our coins. It does not appear in the Constitution. Nor in the Declaration. There is a reason for that.
The founders went to very great lengths (and widely debated how) to fashion a government which could assure elected officials and other employees would absolutely NEVER be permitted to operate on pure trust but only on condition of oversight of their actions by checks and balances. Trust was conditional on verification.
This design was expressly intended to limit and expose “all sorts of unethical things” which those in government might do (and some surely will do) when naively “trusted” to do the right thing — rather than being closely monitored to be damn sure they do the right thing, with actual penalties imposed for failure.
That was the clear intention, but those mechanisms have now been rendered docile and harmless to the very people in power they were designed to hold accountable. Cuz…”security”.
This historical period since the Founding has been called the “American Experiment”. Well, here’s the news: the experiment failed. The great ship of state has become a floating pleasure palace of whores and boot-licks.
The apparatchiks have managed to make their actions invisible not only to the general public but even to elected officials charged with monitoring and auditing their activities. Indeed, the cost of some of these “black” activities isn’t even revealed in the budget. And when hiding doesn’t work, they simply lie. With impunity.
All the safeguards of checks and balances have been gradually overcome by the relentlessly grinding weight of institutional hubris and sheer audacity. And Congress has steadily yielded to that force. Even when it catches miscreant officials red handed in flagrant violation of the law, little or nothing happens.
Once any complaint is dropped into the great meat-grinder of official channels it is rapidly turned into mush and goes down the sewer.
Congress has two principle, ongoing duties: to debate and propose bills for legislation, and to oversee performance by officials tasked to administer laws already passed. Stone-walling by these “public servants” has become the norm.
Here’s a recent (unusual) case where a committee chair didn’t caved in the face of blatant, bureaucratic rope-a-dope: https://youtu.be/BulC2aVG0zo
The money words are: “You don’t get to decide what I get to see. I get to see it all.”
That’s the way it’s supposed to work. Congress has full oversight power, with no constitutional limit on the scope or depth of its investigative authority. The chairman then served the FBI dweeb with a subpoena demanding delivery of all FBI work product, unredacted. That demand will go into the meat-grinder and likely just disappear. Congress has pretty much become toothless.
What your boyfriend is defending is a government sated with power (but with unlimited lust for more) which is now entirely unhinged from its constitutional moorings and plainly loyal only to its own institutional kith and kin. In sum, a feral government.
As to your ex-boyfriend, give yourself a huge and well deserved “attagirl” for dropping this looser with prejudice. He’ll never think for himself and will exert enormous energy to assure no one else around him does either.
You deserve better.
Truly appreciated observations; “All the safeguards of checks and balances have been gradually overcome by the relentlessly grinding weight of institutional hubris and sheer audacity” sums up so much, so well.
I do support Snowden, but it sounds like he has some regressive attitudes and I can certainly see your side of the argument. I won’t give you any advice, to save you the trouble of ignoring it, but if you do split up with him, it appears to be entirely his own fault.
Huge thanks, Benito! My friends and I are still crazy for your satirical posts. It was really nice of you to step out of character to say this.
Now that we have seen the latest stage of the Snowden documents being commodified for the profit of those who have claimed exclusive right to them by dint of possession alone, how can we believe that the theft, and subsequent controlled release, of these documents was driven by anything other then desire for fame and/or personal profit? How much was paid to Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, Bart Gelman, and Edward Snowden for the rights to their story? How else were these four able to profit from the commodification of their story? Were they used as on-set advisors for example? What value should the rest of us place on the profit driven actions of these “journalists”, or on their oft repeated claim that profit was not a motivating factor in the theft and highly selective release of these stolen classified documents?
Why not tell the US government to just follow the 4th Amendment?
Then Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, Bart Gelman, and Edward Snowden will not be paid for their story.
There would be no story if the US government wasn’t spying on us.
You can read Mr. Snowden story online without fame and/or personal profit for any of them.
Let me help you to read for free;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden
Source?
I posted the following in reply to your ignorant question, complete with link. It didn’t post. Leaving out the link this time. I’ve successfully posted the link to the article before. You can find it yourself.
“When Wizner and I finally got on the phone, he was in damage-control mode. He told me that Snowden wasn’t profiting from Stone’s film in any way. “One hard-and-fast rule Ed always had was, I’m not selling my life rights,” Wizner said.”
Wow Kitt, your lack of peremptory invective leaves me stunned! Maybe there is hope for you yet. Okay then let’s engage in some civil discourse. So lets move on to your intentionallymyopic response to my post. I actually asked, “How much was paid to Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, Bart Gelman, and Edward Snowden for the rights to their story?” I also asked, “How else were these four able to profit from the commodification of their story?” But hey, let’s address your intentionally narrow perspective nevertheless – for courtesy sake.
There are many ways that Snowden has already personally profited from the theft and commodification of US classified documents. Firstly he has acquired the fame that he sought. Secondly, he has advanced a political agenda in service to his own sensibilities at the purported expense of his country. Thirdly, he has consistently captured the spotlight in the attempt to shape and control a narrative that could ultimately culminate in his pardon – complete with a calculated refrain that is fast becoming a progressive meme in the wake of the release of “Snowden” the movie. More importantly, one can not predict how Snowden would use his fame is the wake of a pardon, but whatever he chooses to do it will be done with an eye to keeping the spotlight on himself. Such is the nature of those who seek fame.
I answered your question about Snowden — or actually, Snowden did. I don’t know about Greenwald and the rest. You can fucking take it or leave it. You should know by now that I don’t give a shit about engaging with you beyond answering succinctly whatever ignorant question(s) you blathered on about, and then saving myself any more wasted time beyond that.
Nice use of the word “fucking.” It has a certain vulgar quality that has come to characterize your base disposition and aesthetic sensibilities on these threads. May this why you have assumed the haughty task of attempting tear others down.
Succinctness is nice though. Here, let me help you with a quick rewrite of your last retort”
“Fuck you Karl. I don’t know. The truth doesn’t concern me.”
Pardon?!
Ha!
There is ZERO chance that President Barack Obama will pardon Edward Snowden! Especially after Obama’s Defense Intelligence Committee (?) proclaimed today that Snowden is NOT even a “whistleblower “!
And the only presidential candidate who has said she would pardon Snowden (and probably Chelsea Manning and Jeffrey Sterling and others) is the Green Party’s presidential candidate, Jill Stein.
I can’t wait to vote for Jill Stein here in California!!!!
I agree with you assessment.But that does not negate my argument that the narrative surrounding Snowsen’s actions that has culminated in an Oliver Stone movie is intended to create a sympathetic response commensurate with wide acceptance of a pardon.
No one has done that. You are an utter troll but I will not pollute this thread by extensively engaging you. Readers should know you are a wingnut asshat who gets most things wrong. But to constantly engage you turns threads into the Karl Circus.
Now insult me, claim you’ve won and on like that. I’m done with you in this thread, my purpose being only to let readers know you are full of shit and, if allowed, you turn threads into a mire of crap.
That all said, if any other reader — whom I deem to be asking in good faith — requests that anything specific claim of yours be addressed, I will address it. But not to you.
What ever you need to tell yourself in attempt to save face is fine by me, especially if you choose tp ignore me. But this does not mean that I will stop challenging your chronic lies and those of your numerous sock puppets – if, and, when the mood suits me. Now carry on as if this latest posture is something other than an open acknowledgement that you surrender.
You are a moron with no command of the facts, as I definitively demonstrate below.
Aha, gotcha! (ROFL) Two out of three?
Karl,
you’re a singularly obtuse person. But I’ll give you a minute if you explain something to me first.
What evidence do you have that Snowden sought fame? What evidence do you have that fame was important enough to him, that he’d give up a 200k per year job to be imprisoned for life (nobody could have foreseen he’d be living in Russia. That only happened because the US revoked his passport). Prove to me that you didn’t make that shit up in your head, and then maybe you deserve to be part of a conversation. Otherwise, you’re just a waste of time.
Nice try Mona, but I am not biting. You will have to approach me directly if you want a reply to that question.
” but I am not biting.”
Not ankles, anyway.
I think the key bit here is not the anatomy targeted but rather the lack of teeth. So, not biting, but he’ll continue to gum the hell out of whatever he can get. ;-}
Everyone posting here seems to be arguing /discussing “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”. Apparently everyone has drunk the Koolaid and believes the official story (as is being reiterated by Stone). Does everyone here REALLY believe that IF the deep state hadn’t wanted these leaks to occur they would not have summarily terminated Snowden “with prejudice”.
Snowden is controlled opposition, a limited hang out artist who was probably a beneficiary of the war between competing intelligence agencies.
Sounds like too many James Bond movies in your diet.
Uh, what?
hahahahahahahahh
Mahatma raises his frequent lament:
You did not take the enormous risks to procure and distribute these documents. Edward Snowden did, and so did the journalists he trusted: Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Bart Gellman. Edward Snowdern very specifically did not want all documents released to the public; he specifically wanted the journalists to exercise their judgment as to what was in the public interest. He specifically did not want “collective participation,” which would mean, in practice, a document dump — to which he was utterly opposed.
Operational security required that, at least at the outset, the documents be made available to only a few people trained in security measures. This was the only means to ensure many documents — or parts of documents — which ought not be disclosed were not.
When you have risked everything to do what Snowden did, I’ll listen to your disdain for the extent of his sacrifice and his decisions as to what and how the documents should be released.
I guess I’ll be battling this for a long time. I have never contemplated or suggested a “document dump” nor do I oppose a very careful examination of the documents prior to release.
Giving the archive over to public trust of some kind with a panel chosen with input from broad spectrum of society, a body responsible to the community and not to the corporate tycoons of the press. Public participation in the process not to the vetting of each document.
These are public documents and public property but they are now being handled as if they are private property. That is what is wrong, elites making decisions within a corporate framework was an insult to the very concept of community and society and perpetuates the individual above the community the private above the collective and perpetuates Neoliberal ideology.
Was this Snowden’s intent – I doubt it. As I say, the seeds of failure sown from the beginning, a circumstance common to human behavior. Snowden is human and subject to all the faults as everyone else – he is also as you say done an incredibly brave and powerful act for which he deserves great credit, unfortunately both things can exist in the same person.
Was this Snowden’s intent – I doubt it.
Snowden, as you know, is an erudite and active participant in current dialogue on the subject of his actions and the collaborations that stemmed from them. Can you please point to anything at all he has stated/posted that indicates support for the assertion I quote above?
This is speculation on Snowden’s intent or speculation on NOT his intent. It is not an assertion of anything.
I am aware of Snowden’s participation in these discussions and that is as it should be.
The point I keep making is that the process is being conducted by elites (who could be more elite than Snowden?) who are dictating what is released and when without ANY PARTICIPATION BY THE VERY COMMUNITIES EFFECTED. I do not support the idea that it is impossible to have community/collective ownership of the archive and a handling of the archive which allows far grater influence on the process than now exists.
without ANY PARTICIPATION BY THE VERY COMMUNITIES EFFECTED.
A small, yet significant, nit to pick with this: Journalists have a great deal at risk when they interact with whistleblowers. There have been a multitude of stories about government efforts to intercept journalist communications with sources since the very first whistleblower busted government chops to a reporter. So, while I recognize journalists as privileged – in similar manner to the privilege extended by their specific mention in the First Amendment – I take issue with your apparent opacity toward them as members of THE VERY COMMUNITIES EFFECTED.
The fact that many of them have been co-opted does not by any means that they all have been. In fact, I warrant that you could yourself name journalists who you hold in respect.
“The point I keep [trying and failing to make] is …”
That’s better.
“ANY PARTICIPATION BY THE VERY COMMUNITIES EFFECTED[sic].”
” I do not support the idea that it is impossible to have community/collective ownership of the archive and a handling of the archive which allows far grater influence on the process than now exists.”
Wow.
I doubt Snowden regarded his aim would be most successfully achieved by some kind of open-source project with all manner of poorly informed people in a position to “influence” the process of deciding what to publish and what not.
You have offered no evidence such a theoretical “collective” would make better decisions apart from your assertion that it would be more aesthetically pleasing to you.
It frankly doesn’t matter that some such arrangement, if carefully structured, might be “not impossible”. But it’s just too damn hard.
Bright as he may be, Snowden just never hit on your excellent scheme to make a difficult and dangerous task even more risky to execute and therefore more likely to fail. The difference is that he had serious skin in the game whereas you have none.
And exactly where did you come up with the strange idea that ownership of these documents lies with some fantasy “community” or “collective”?
The documents legally and exclusively “belong” to the USG. End of story.
They were purloined by Snowden and delivered by him into the hands of an experienced journalist with reputable standing because he and other established journalists enjoy a certain immunity to (responsibly) publish whatever falls into their laps by hook or by crook, thereby mitigating risk of being frog-marched directly off to jail. Living outside the Five Eyes nations also offers some advantages; you may recall the Guardian endured a number of almost absurdly clumsy actions by the British government to destroy the nest long after the bird had flown.
Since Greenwald has also been a practicing lawyer, he has demonstrated practical experience to legally weigh what material has sufficient merit to publish in the public interest and what material might be more risky to persons and institutions than a public interest value justifies.
The process cannot be any more “public” than it has been for all the reasons stated
They are being “handled” by multiple journalists, just as Snowden intended. Pedinska explained to you already that First Look has made them available to many more journalists.
That’s as “public” as is proper if harmful information (to, e.g., innocent, private individuals targeted by NSA programs) is not to be released.
You and I are probably not going to agree about what “public” means and I accept that while I disagree with you in some respects I respect your view as legitimate.
You do refer, if obliquely, to some other interesting issues.
Why are the only people allowed to see the documents journalists? Is no one else qualified – have enough “integrity” or the proper professional code to see the documents? (We note the largely and deeply corrupt corporate press of which The Intercept is a part.)
Who does the redacting and when? Are the raw documents shared with these privileged journalists or are they redacted first?
Why are the only people allowed to see the documents journalists? Is no one else qualified – have enough “integrity” or the proper professional code to see the documents?
Have you spent any time here?
https://theintercept.com/documents/
The truly unnerving element in the entire Snowden leak is that this is just the “tip of the proverbial iceberg” related to ALL the ugly secrets we STILL do not know!
“When you have risked everything to do what Snowden did, I’ll listen to your disdain…”
Will you really? I’m thinking maybe that’s not true. You only listen to those who agree with you!
Also your position isn’t exactly perfect. The method he used to get the information out… that method did not prevent improper disclosure. GG or the other two could have easily done that against Snowden’s will.
I seriously doubt you are an expert on operational security. Why pretend to be one?
GG or the other two could have easily done that against Snowden’s will.
But they didn’t. Which shows that Snowden’s evaluation of their integrity as journalists was correct.
1. I heard it claimed that many news outlet had been given unlimited access to the the entire cache of documents, is this not true?
2. If many news agencies have already been given unlimited access to the entire trove of Snowden documents, then is it not true that they have been allowed to exercise their own discretion? Discretion that might be less stringent then Glenn Greenwald’s? Or, are they bound by a legally binding diclosure agrement?
3. Bart Gellman has publicly stated that “he [Greenwald] has not tried in any way to tell me what to write, what not to write, or when” after having been given access to the Snoweden documents by Greenwald. Thus, one can only conclude that Gellman was only provided access to the documents by Greenwald, not Snowden. Why should Gellman be given unlimited access to the Snowden documents in exception to anyone else?
4. If Snowden, Greenwald, Poitras, and Gellman are possession of state secrets which are deemed as a legitimate threat to National Security, are they not also legitimate targets of hostile foreign powers who have a strong interest in acquiring those secrets? Why should the US not be concerned that these “journalists” could be made the target of foreign intelligence services? Or even stateless hostile entities like IS or ISIS? Or, why should the US not be concerned that Snowden is being hosted by a nation (Russia) who has a long history of violently coercing classified information from agents of competing nations?
5. Why is it OK for Snowden, Poitras, Gelman, and Greenwald to have unlimited access to the trove of documents stolen by Snowden, and not OK for the rest of us to have complete access? What guarantee is there that their own abiding animus for the United States hasn’t already compromised US national security via the secret release of highly sensitive documents to hostile powers?
You, Karl, are an imbecile who makes so many errors it is a waste of time to engage you. I will pick only one of your manifest and obvious errors in that screed to demonstrate your stupidity and the general worthlessness of your commentary:
That is completely false. Bart Gellman cites Edward Snowden as the source of the documents, and says they had been in contact since May of 2013, with Snowden using the codename “Verax.” Nowhere does Bart Gellman report that Glenn Greenwald gave him the documents.
Indeed, Greenwald had an early dispute with Gellman over publication issues, and stated he (Greenwald) knew only the agreement he (Greenwald) had with Snowden, and not what Gellman had agreed to with Snowden.
Now, please shut up.
If this statement is true, then how could Glenn Greenwald difinitively claim that Edward Snowden gave documents to journalists for the express purpose of having them properly vetted and analyzed before publication?
Secondly. If Glenn Greenwald, Gelman, and Poitras already had already received a complete set of the Snowden’s stolen classified documents, then why was it necessary for David Miranda to travel to Europe to allegedly act as a courier for the documents in Aug of 2013?
If Glenn Greenwald, Gelman, and Poitras already had already received a complete set of the Snowden’s stolen classified documents, then why was it necessary for David Miranda to travel to Europe to allegedly act as a courier for the documents in Aug of 2013?
Having complete sets of documents in independent locations doesn’t necessarily lend an assist when collaborating on stories. Other communication, of some sort, is necessary. No one that I am aware of – other than Miranda, Greenwald and Poitras – knows exactly what David was carrying when stopped in Heathrow. But my guess would be that it was a subset that dealt with and was important to specific work they were engaged in and that him carrying those documents from one journalist to the other was, in light of what everyone now knows about these programs, the best choice solution for protecting their work from the governments whose secrets they were revealing and which were desperate to the point of warping laws to prevent them from achieving that goal. Not really all that hard to figure out if one was paying attention at the time.
Pedinksa, recently Glenn wrote that some NSA doc files he needed had become corrupted and could not be retrieved. Laura’s copies were fine, but she was extremely averse to trying to sending them online in any manner. So, they considered using a courier and David insisted he’d do it. And he did.
But, as you know, Bart Gellman independently had a source in Snowden (what documents Snowden gave Gellman is unknown, but Gellman will have a book out next year in which this might become more clear). As Politico wrote on 6/10/13:
Gellman had said when he wouldn’t promise to publish all the PRISM slides Snowden wanted him to publish, that Snowden then went to Greenwald. That got Glenn all pissed, and there was a kerfuffle over it for a day or two. Glenn told Politico vis-a-vis the PRISM slides: “I have no idea whether [Snowden] had any conditions for [Washington Post], but he had none for us: we didn’t post all the slides.”
In any event, Karl is, yet again, full of shit — entirely wrong on the facts. And as you show, his “reasoning” to impugn my facts that corrected him, is dumb.
All of this sounds feasible in absence of the published claim that Snowden had already made numerous “digital copies” of the documents by the time that Greenwald met with him in Hong Kong. It was claimed that these “digital” could be accessed online with an encryption key by numerous third parties. Such precautions were meant as a safeguard against his potential arrest.
As Mona attempted to provide you with a specious explanation for your query, I responded to her. However, in providing that answer, Mona failed to address the other question which clearly revealed her for the serial liar that she is. This is why Mona harbors so much animus for me, because she knows that I examine the integrity of her claims in the light of reason until I ferret out their logical inconsistencies. Again, if Glenn Greenwald had no understanding of the agreement that Snowden made with other Journalists, how then can he claim that Edward Snowden gave documents to journalists for the express purpose of having them properly vetted and analyzed before publication?
If any reader whom I deem to be asking in good faith feels anything Karl spews merits a rebuttal, ask. Otherwise I ignore his tripe.
Yet, I am confident that those who really value truth will readily see that you are not able to explain away the logical inconsistencies in your current narrative. Mealy mouthed avoidance is always a tell…
Anyone that wants the real scoop on what’s going on should look for the videos of: “Thomas Drake at the National Press Club” a few years ago and “Michael German on how the FBI really works” in 2014 at http://www.vice.com.
Time to offshore congress.
(great article!)
I want to be corrected if I’m wrong about this assessment I know it is against the tide, I hope to get reasonable responses.
The net result of events surrounding the Snowden archive is that the archive is now the private property of individuals, all in the tradition of Neoliberal privitization. It has not been “liberated” from status quo power only shifted location. The archive – no matter the “responsible journalism” argument, the archive is in private hands and is now managed within a Neoliberal corporation with funds from the Neoliberal power structure.
On the basis of “responsible journalism” the perpetrators of crimes are protected and the society which has been deeply wronged is dictated to about what it is allowed by elite unaccountable “journalists” to know.
The fact is that the archive was public property (held in secret) when Snowden handed it over to others, then it became their private property (at least they have treated the archive as under their sole control), these people have refused access to anyone else, and further have refused to engage the wider society regarding the policies of release. The entire process of public release is authoritarian and based entirely on the rights of private ownership and may or may not be in the best interests of society. We can’t know that because the public now, just as before, has no access and no power over this vital information or how to handle it.
I submit that it is anything but “responsible journalism” to keep this archive in private hands and leaving decisions about it entirely to an insulated tiny number of people. An elite group of people claiming uber-integrity, ubr-journalism, who cast scathing criticism on the “corporate media” when they themselves are a corporate media outlet and powers above ordinary human beings of society to decide for all of us what we should and should not know. It is wrong for NSA elites to dictate to us and it is wrong for elite “journalists” (claiming rights given only to journalists and to be “responsible” with “integtrity” above reproach) to dictate to us what is in the best interest of society.
Everyone involved here is human and subject to errors and misjudgments doing one grand gesture does not make you infallible from then on. A celebrity atmosphere and gushing uncritical adulation is a serious threat to what the archive – properly handled with input from society can achieve.
Edward Snowden is just as vulnerable to unintended consequences, the ghost in the machine, the unconscious mind and the human frailty of sowing the seeds of failure even as the brave and bold act is performed.
His archive has now been subsumed into Neoliberal corporate structural management. He is both honored and destroyed by this movie, he can now be trivialized in the celebrity centrist media made the object of jokes belittled as a money grubbing celebrity and neutralized by the status quo power structure. In other words, he walked out of the established order and then marched right back in.
And, it was amazingly swift and easy for the dominate paradigm of Neoliberal corporate elitism to subsume Snowden in its maw. The book deal, the flashy new website, the movie the fame who could resist? The society so wronged and attacked – please don’t bother to ask them – just TELL them, that is the duty of elites.
they have treated the archive as under their sole control
The Intercept Is Broadening Access to the Snowden Archive. Here’s Why
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/16/the-intercept-is-broadening-access-to-the-snowden-archive-heres-why/
My questions to you:
1. Should journalists honor agreements with sources regarding handling of material provided to them?
1b. If journalists do not honor agreements to sources, why should sources risk themselves to provide information of public interest?
2. Should there be no consideration of impact of indiscriminate and/or wholesale information release on innocent parties revealed within information provided in bulk to journalists?
Your framing dismissed the above concerns – “no matter the “responsible journalism” argument,” – but reasonable responses do not necessarily have to agree with that framing.
1. Should journalists honor agreements with sources regarding handling of material provided to them?
Of course journalists should honor agreements with sources. What am trying to get at is that agreement in this case was flawed because the result was to hand over the archive to private hands with no commitment or even contemplation of the society which is being harmed having any participation in the decisions that were made. I do not argue that the methods used were bad, I say they were arrived at by Snowden and an elite group of people without any consideration of community or any collective participation. The documents were and should have remained public property and treated as such. Which does not in any way mean wholesale release or anything like that.
1b. If journalists do not honor agreements to sources, why should sources risk themselves to provide information of public interest?
Covered above.
2. Should there be no consideration of impact of indiscriminate and/or wholesale information release on innocent parties revealed within information provided in bulk to journalists?
As I said I have not advocated wholesale release of the archive without the considerations you mention. I am however quite frustrated that the situation then becomes protecting criminals, perpetrates of great harm to society. While on the other hand making society suffer from not having proper information – it is a fault of institutional journalism which we know very well is deeply corrupt. Never ever name a government operative even when doing so would not necessarily put that operative in danger. Again, a decision which should be arrived at through a wide ranging discussion with the broader community and not by a small group of elites.
Your framing dismissed the above concerns – “no matter the “responsible journalism” argument,” – but reasonable responses do not necessarily have to agree with that framing.
I’m not looking for agreement I’m looking for answers and solutions and better understanding. This project and the archive are vitally import and handling them in a manor which honors the community and society deeply effected is paramount – and as far as I know was never considered as an option. Snowden set the terms and his road to hell is paved with the same good intentions as everyone else. The seeds of failure sown from the beginning it fails because it rejects and dishonors the very community it seeks to serve and instead dictates to them decides for them without any offer of consultation.
Thank you for your reasonable response I hope a longer discussion will continue.
As I said I have not advocated wholesale release of the archive without the considerations you mention. […] a decision which should be arrived at through a wide ranging discussion with the broader community and not by a small group of elites.
Please tell me how you envision Snowden constituting a broader community group to assess, digest and present the information he obtained.
How would he have identified this group under the constrictions inherent to the situation he found himself in?
Who would have constructed this group? And how would they have obtained widespread exposure for his information equivalent to, or greater than, that which has already occurred?
I am not insensitive to charges that the perpetrators of great harms have been left unpunished, but in our society it is not up to journalists to impose the standards of law on those who break them, it’s up to the courts and government, the very people who have been perpetrating in this case.
I am also not insensitive to the fact that a large majority of the mainstream media supports the establishment status quo, which is why it puzzles me that people like yourself come here laying grievances at the feet of people in the field who are demonstrably challenging the status quo, even if they have not yet been able to achieve miracles of revolution.
Change in society first requires that people be educated to the harms being perpetrated against them. It then requires those people to rise up and effect change. If change has not happened as fast as you or I would like, then I think it behooves us to go out and work toward that change using the information that has been given to us.
Sorry, I can’t stay with this – life intervenes (he sighs with relief). I have enjoyed our engagement and hope we get another chance to parry. I suspect we agree more than not.
OK one quick thing. The process in place is an institutionalized process of journalism carried out to the extreme in this case as it should be. It is not the sole invention of the journalists but a well known process perhaps strengthened in this case.
We know that the institution of journalism is ripe with corruption, is it not a good idea to question the methods of such a compromised profession?
The basic model here is a corporate protect your intellectual property top down process keep tight control who uses it. There must be a corporate procedure for vetting and agreeing to give documents to another journalist which mimics a corporate “licensing” process. He who controls the property controls all. That eliminates any community engagement in the process before anything is even done.
We know that the institution of journalism is ripe with corruption, is it not a good idea to question the methods of such a compromised profession?
Of course it’s good to question the methods of compromised professionals which, I would posit, exist in every single profession that has ever been known in the history of mankind. After all, it is the human element that renders it corrupt, not the profession itself.
I don’t extend trust lightly to anyone or anything that has been integrally part of any establishment, rather I judge based on the experiences rendered by my own perceptions. I have read Greenwald since 2005 and cannot think of a single instance wherein he has compromised his own standards. On the contrary, he has left institutions that sought to stifle him (Guardian), has done battle against corruption and hypocrisy wherever he’s found it (and subsequently been considered a pawn for every political candidate under the sun, depending on the lay of a given detractor’s sympathies) and has, when warranted, issued corrections when facts have proven him wrong. He has performed better than almost any other individual reporter or media organization I have read. If or when he stops doing that, I will change my opinion.
He is not without fault but he comes as close to principled writing as I’ve seen so he gets a bit of benefit of the doubt from time to time and that is especially true wrt Snowden and these documents, at least until someone can prove I should feel otherwise.
Yes, you keep pounding this drum, but you say nothing at all about the mass surveillance program, you just attack the source who helped expose the program – which, incidentally, those of us who had been paying attention to the U.S. government’s behavior already knew about in broad outline – Snowden, however, delivered a set of documents to reporters that gave incontrovertible proof of its existence. How did we know about it? As I note here in 2013 (prior to the first time I was banned from posting Guardian comments):
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/17/tech-companies-call-aggressive-nsa-reforms-white-house#comments
So, you add nothing to the discussion, don’t discuss the domestic mass surveillance or international economic espionage programs, but attack the source. You do realize that looks rather suspicious in terms of your actual intent, don’t you?
Yours is an end-justifies-the-means argument that could be interpreted and advanced in service to any ideological bias. In advancing the argument that there is a need to exercise personal discretion in what should, or should not, be published from the trove of stolen Snowden documents, Greenwald et al are simultaneously acknowledging that the US has a legitimate national interest in keeping its intelligence methods and operations secret. This perception is further reinforced by the fact that various US intelligence agencies are being allowed to see and object to that which is about to be published. Thus the argument boils down to who has the right (need?) to know that which the Snowden documents have the potential to reveal. If Snowden et al reserve the right of sovereign US citizens to see that which is contained in the trove of stolen classified documents, then that same right should be afforded to all US Citizens without reservation.
“I submit that it is anything but “responsible journalism” to keep this archive in private hands and leaving decisions about it entirely to an insulated tiny number of people.”
Isn’t that what Government, and more pertinently, its private contractors were doing? Seemed that was okay with many people they were/are even angry that they have been given access to it and want to demonize and imprison (and worse) the person who gave them access.
Yes, you highlight my point. First the government elites hid the public property from the public, then Snowden liberated it, now it is being held secret by another group of elites without any possibility of public input as to how the material is handled.
It is the lack of community support or input I decry. As I mentioned in another post, a public trust, with a panel representing the broad global community might work. There are alternatives to the Neoliberal private property model.
I love you.
And I love any government employee who leaks illegal or unethical conduct. Ha!
You can safely leak emails and printed text, but also audio, and even video. Record audio in conference rooms, on your Iphone in your shirt pocket, or set something up in your car. Then safely submit to Wikileaks, or share via encrypted email.
As encryption increases, the people who have power over the 99% will surely fail. It’s just a matter of time. Make your mark on history!
Love,
Laura
Compare and contrast: Fair Game (2010) about Valerie Plame, and this Oliver Stone piece on Snowden. The major difference? Bush/Obama Administration officials like Michael Hayden and Keith Alexander are not portrayed in Stone’s movie; but in Fair Game, Scooter Libby, Ari Fleisher and Karl Rove are all played by main cast members. This brings the focus back onto the criminals in the government who pressed the CIA to come up with bogus “intelligence” about Iraqi WMDs.
The other issue is in this, from above:
One other thing: I don’t see TRAFFICTHIEF on the above list of reports, but this seems to be one of the most important programs at the heart of the international and domestic mas surveillance program. It’s in a slide called “DNI Discovery Options”, with PINWALE, MARINA and XKEYSCORE below it.
If we go back to 2005, note that Mark Klein revealed that AT&T had installed a room in their San Francisco office with NARUS splitters that diverted everything flowing through their trunk fiber optic cable to the NSA:
“AT&T Whistle-blower’s evidence”
http://archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/05/70908
However, this is too much information to store for very long; TRAFFICTHIEF, “Metadata from a subset of tasked strong-selectors” seems to be the first step in how that huge mass of information was automatically filtered using a set of keywords. metadata (location, call duration, etc.) as well as any email, text, etc. (collected by PINWALE) would be flagged and sent to long-term storage at the NSA data centers, (the MARINA database), which is searchable via XKEYSCORE, something like a Google for the NSA database of personal emails, texts, video, cell calls, and metadata – which is collected from the overall feed by TRAFFICTHIEF and PINWALE.
The point is, this is not targeted surveillance based on reasonable suspicion and a warrant issued by a judge; this is surveillance on everyone in the United States and around the world who sends anything over those fiber optic trunk cables; it is done without a warrant in violation of the U.S. Constitution; its overseers lied to Congress about it under oath, and yet nobody has gone to jail or been charged with a crime for this.
That’s the real story here.
Has Oliver Stone explained why he decided not to directly portray Bush/Obama Administration officials in the movie?
Not that I know of. One of the sources was the Luke Harding book, The Snowden Files; I have a rather negative opinion of Luke Harding, but he does go into some detail about the role people like Michael Hayden and Keith Alexander and Chris Inglis (Alexander’s deputy) played in the program; so Oliver Stone, whose script was based in part on Luke Harding’s book, had the material at hand.
P.S. If you want to read about the NSA, James Bamford is the go-to source, far and away.
https://www.wired.com/2014/08/edward-snowden/
This is interesting, in particular:
Thanks. I read the Snowden Files by Harding (I thought it was pretty decent considering he was one of the first authors out the gates with a Snowden book) and you have good taste. I read James Bamford’s Puzzle Palace and Body of Secrets. I finished the latter book a couple years back and it was incredibly dense and at times a bore to read. But some parts were great including his narrative on the USS Liberty incident and the CIA’s first use of a Fulton surface-to-air recovery system (basically the hook attached to plane that was dramatized in the Dark Knight).
I remember hearing this. Also, if you want an interesting read, look into how Bamford got such access to NSA in the first place. I apologize for not having a link but I’m on the phone with limited time.
Seems like such a small number of records considering how many articles have stemmed from them.
If one is to believe Congress’s new claim that Snowden took 1.5 million documents (NSA said it was 1.7 million for the past couple years, a number that Glenn called a pure fabrication), then 0.08 percent of the documents have been published.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/us/politics/leaked-documents-offshore-accounts-putin.html?smid=tw-share
The words, “US now thinks“, “‘Probably Downloaded'”, “NSA estimates” and “Officials assume” do not constitute proof of any sort.
Pedinska: the person who originally told me the number of records were an irrelevant distraction. Have you had a change of heart?
Jokes aside, thanks for the link. However, it doesn’t resolve the mystery of the number of documents taken (for one thing, who provided the NYT the clarification!?)
If I remember correctly, the range of documents taken after considering all claims is a ridiculously wide 100,000 to 1.7 million. I don’t think we’ll know the answer unless Snowden is pardoned and divulges it or returns to the U.S. and provide the amount in court.
I still find it odd that Snowden and his lawyers won’t just provide the figure. It just doesn’t seem like a substantial bargaining chip…
Pedinska: the person who originally told me the number of records were an irrelevant distraction. Have you had a change of heart?
No. Pointing out how the government and it’s supporters obscure the truth actually is a point in favor of the position that the number is an irrelevant distraction, not a refutation.
I still find it odd that Snowden and his lawyers won’t just provide the figure. It just doesn’t seem like a substantial bargaining chip…
Maybe not, but we don’t have as clear a view of all the relevant factors as they do. Fer sure. :-s
Obscure what truth?
Obscure what truth?
Please. Now you are just playing word games in an effort to draw me into something you can claim supports your need for an absolute number to play math games with.
Instead ask yourself why the government in particular the very committees employed to provide – ahem – oversight if the IC, feel the need to conflate the known number of documents that Snowden worked with over his career with the alleged number given to journalists?
You don’t seriously think that Snowden is smart enough to know all this NSA-related information and to have pulled off such an amazing feat, yet is inexplicably incapable of counting the files!?
Perhaps he felt, rightfully, that the information contained within was far more significant than any mere base number of pages? I’d agree.
My focus on the number of documents has never been that the release of records has been too slow. It’s always focused on my skepticism of Snowden’s past claims that he vetted each and every document.
Really? Then what, exactly, does that have to do with the above statement,
then 0.08 percent of the documents have been published.
The rate of publication has nothing to do with Snowden’s ability to vet. Nothing whatsoever. You are shifting a rickety set of goalposts here.
“I still find it odd that Snowden and his lawyers won’t just provide the figure. It just doesn’t seem like a substantial bargaining chip”
You realize that Snowden didn’t count the files in every folder but you find that fact odd …
check.
Glad you can laugh about things. We laugh at you too, with your Enquiring mind …
For Windows Users:
Step 1: Select folder with files
Step 2: Right Click on Folder with files
Step 3: Click on Properties
Step 4: Bask in the glory of Windows displaying the number of files!
You don’t seriously think that Snowden is smart enough to know all this NSA-related information and to have pulled off such an amazing feat, yet is inexplicably incapable of counting the files!? If that’s the case, what is his basis for saying that the government’s figures are incorrect!?
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/776530708705710081
If we instead use the low-ball figure of 100,000 documents, the percentage is 1.2 percent.
Would you care to take a guess at how long it might take to vet an individual document, correlate it with other documentary evidence available, responsibly assess how much of the information is in the public interest, run it past your lawyers to try to ensure you aren’t incarcerated as a result of it being printed then write a coherent long-form article about it?
Pedinska, you are arguing a strawman
My focus on the number of documents has never been that the release of records has been too slow. It’s always focused on my skepticism of Snowden’s past claims that he vetted each and every document.
For example: https://theintercept.com/2014/03/23/facts-nsa-stories-reported/?comments=1#comment-15755
Ironically, your response largely strengthens my actual argument, so thanks!
Not to mention assembling the necessary expertise to understand and interpret them, then do your damnedest to prioritize and/or create a coherent narrative between and around all of those documents.
Snowden uses the coffee shop on 5th and Main.
When can we expect your review? You could write a few words about the nice shop and the other 90% of your piece could repeat what has been stated here a million times already!
Peter Maas is the resident movie critic.