US Officials Leak Info About ISIS Raid More Sensitive Than Anything Snowden Ever Leaked
from the but-no-one-says-anything dept
Over the weekend, the US government announced that special forces soldiers entered Syria to conduct a raid that killed an alleged leader of ISIS, Abu Sayyaf. In the process, anonymous US officials leaked classified information to the New York Times that's much more sensitive than anything Edward Snowden ever revealed, and it serves as a prime example of the government's hypocrisy when it comes to disclosures of secret information.
Here's how the New York Times described how the US conducted this "successful" raid:
The raid came after weeks of surveillance of Abu Sayyaf, using information gleaned from a small but growing network of informants the C.I.A. and the Pentagon have painstakingly developed in Syria, as well as satellite imagery, drone reconnaissance and electronic eavesdropping, American officials said. The White House rejected initial reports from the region that attributed the raid to the forces of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.
Read that carefully and pretend it was Snowden who leaked this information, instead of nameless Pentagon spokesmen. US officials would be screaming from the rooftops that he leaked extremely timely and sensitive intelligence (it was literally only hours old), that he will cause specific terrorists to change their communications behavior, and most importantly, he put the lives of informants at risk. (Note: none of Snowden's leaks did any of these things.)
Yet despite the fact that the ISIS raid was discussed on all of the Sunday shows this week, no one brought up anything about this leak. Contrast that with Snowden's revelations, where government officials will use any situation to say the most outlandish things possible in an attempt to smear his whistleblowing—regardless of their basis in reality. Take former CIA deputy director and torture advocate Mike Morrell, for example, who is currently on a book promotion tour and has been preposterously suggesting that Snowden's leaks somehow led to the rise of ISIS.
For the sake of hypothetical argument, let's take Morrell's claims at face value. Let's put aside the fact that, despite their "sky is falling" rhetoric, the US government has consistently refused to release specific information showing that terrorists have "changed their behavior" due to the Snowden leaks, and that terrorists were sophisticated users of encryption for more than a decade before anyone heard Snowden's name. Let's also ignore that the US government has been caught blatantly exaggerating how leaks have "damaged" national security in the past, and that officials have already admitted their nightmare scenarios in this case have not actually come to pass.
Here is what Morrell told NPR when asked about Edward Snowden and the damage he thinks he caused to national security:
So I can't get into specifics, but I'll tell you that there was a program that he disclosed that was vital to the United States' ability to see what terrorists are doing. And they all changed their communication habits because of that disclosure - al-Qaida in Pakistan, al-Qaida in Yemen and al-Qaida in Iraq, which morphed into ISIS. So there is no doubt in my mind that that change in behavior on the part of al-Qaida in Iraq and ISIS contributed to ISIS's rise.
And here's what he said on 60 Minutes the same week:
"What Edward Snowden did has put Americans at greater risk because terrorists learn from leaks and they will be more careful, and we will not get the intelligence we would have gotten otherwise."
Every single thing Morrell said applies to what US officials leaked this weekend, if not more so. But since the leak about the ISIS raid was meant to glorify the Obama administration, instead of embarrassing it or exposing wrongdoing, everyone in the US government will pretend like it never happened.
Either leaks exposing the "sources and methods" of surveillance are damaging to national security or they are not. Administration officials can't have it both ways.
Republished from the Freedom of the Press Foundation
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: abu sayyaf, cia, ed snowden, government, isis, leaks, mike morrell, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How can I tell, without asking people who certainly will ignore my question?
Seriously, how can we tell? Big Cheeses have called on Edward Snowden to surrender and face a fair trial. Are these leakers being encouraged to surrender and face a fair trial? I mean, what's fair is fair, right? No man above the law, sacred principle of justice and the American Way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Furthermore, the existance of authorised leaks would point to a pandoras box of defining when a leak is acceptable to authorise and when it isn't.
- Accepting leaks unconditionally with no independent oversight would lead to pure propaganda down the line.
- Setting up actual ethical rules for leaks would require an independent transparent oversight to garner any kind of legitimacy. I cannot see such a thing existing.
- Making an unbiased system would require a system that takes good and bad from the employees into consideration and objectively release good as well as bad. An employee has to feel that his/her job isn't on the line when they speak out internally.
The amounts and kinds of unauthorized leaks we have seen, would suggest a biased and/or illegitimate authorization system for leaks if such exists. Thus strategic leaks would be as problematic, if not more so, as unauthorized leaks. At least unauthorized leaks are problem-oriented and thus presenting options for improvement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are no such things as good and bad leaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There are no such things as good and bad leaks
Bad leaks make the public aware that the government is becoming a police state and building the apparatus to do so.
Good leaks merely compromise capabilities and endanger the lives of operatives while not revealing that the government is becoming a police state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You see, if an unofficial leak comes from an administration official, then it's officially OK.
If an official leak comes from an non-administration official, then it's officially NOT OK.
If an official leak comes from an administration official, then it's officially OK. Unless the leaker is non-official, then it's unofficially, NOT OK.
signed, Major Major
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Administration officials can't have it both ways
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's simple
Nowadays deceit is a default property on information coming from governments. Snodwen's infodump most remarkable property:
Quality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are different kinds of Leaks
1. A person who swore to maintain the secrecy of classified information reveals it to the public.
2. A person who swore to maintain the secrecy of classified information reveals it to the public.
In leak number 1, the fact the the government is creating an apparatus to become a police state is kept as a secret. In leak number 2., the the public becomes aware that the government is becoming a police state.
Leak number 1 can go overlooked. Leak number 2 cannot be overlooked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and yet we have CSI Cyber and weekly reports of some kind of "illegal" online activity since october 2014.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple really
If the leak makes the government look bad, then it's threatening the very foundations of the country and to be considered high treason at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A newly exposed clandestine government department
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think this part of the statement deserves closer examination given the fondness of the administration for taking credit for other party's actions in order to justify their overreaching surveillance activities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looks more to me like the US government led to the rise of ISIS, al-Qaida, and Sadam, not any whistleblowers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]