If, As Eric Holder Now Admits, Snowden Did 'A Public Service,' Why Does He Still Want Him In Jail?
from the because-he's-either-misinformed-or-lying dept
As you may have heard, over the weekend, former Attorney General Eric Holder appeared on a podcast with his former administration colleague, David Axelrod, for a podcast. The ~1 hour discussion is pretty wide-ranging, but right towards the end Axelrod brings up questions about surveillance and how the adminstration handled the NSA, leading Holder to make an offhand comment that is now making headlines, noting that he believed Ed Snowden had done "a public service" in revealing various NSA files to journalists. Of course, he immediately then focuses on why Snowden should go to jail. The statement is interesting because it's been like pulling teeth to get anyone associated with the administration in any way to acknowledge that maybe what Snowden did was a good thing. That said, almost everything else that Holder says is either wrong, misleading or questionable regarding Snowden and surveillance. Here's a quick transcript of the relevant parts (it doesn't appear that CNN, which produces the show, or Axelrod, have released a full transcript, so I apologize for any typos), followed by some thoughts:Axelrod: How difficult were these issues that involved civil liberties on the one hand, and security on the other? And how do you weigh those things?Now almost everything Holder states here is misleading and/or inaccurate -- perhaps everything other than the claim that what Snowden did was a public service. First off, the claim that a judge could take into account the public debate that was created is a bit of sneaky wording. Holder knows that there is no public interest or whistleblowing defense allowed under Espionage Act claims. Snowden could not claim that what he did was in the public interest as part of his trial at all. And note that Holder chose his words carefully here, only saying that a judge could take that info into account for sentencing purposes, following a trial in which those defenses were not allowed. But that only applies to sentencing and not guilt.
Holder: I thought the President really put it best when he said, "simply because we have the ability to do something, doesn't necessarily mean that we should." We had the capacity to do a whole range of things under these listening programs. But after a while, I remember sending memos to the President asking him if we really need to do this, given the way in which we are focusing on people's lives, and given the return that we were getting, which was not, in any way, substantial.
We can certainly argue about the way in which Snowden did what he did, but I think he actually performed a public service by raising the debate that we engaged in, and by the changes that we made. Now I would say that doing what he did -- the way he did it -- was inappropriate and illegal. Maybe he could have gone to Congress and done these things...
Axelrod: He would argue that he tried various ways and couldn't. But what should be done with him now?
Holder: I think he's got to make a decision. He's broken the law, in my view. He needs to get lawyers, come on back and decide what he wants to do: go to trial, try to cut a deal. I think there's got to be a consequence for what he's done. But I think that in deciding what an appropriate sentence should be, I think a judge could take into account the usefulness of having had that national debate.
Axelrod: But you think he will still serve time?
Holder: I think he should. I mean, I think he harmed American interests. I know, I can't go into...
Axelrod: He would say he didn't...
Holder: No that's not true. That's simply not true. I know there are ways in which certain of our agents were put at risk. Relationships with other countries were harmed. Our ability to keep the American people safe was compromised. There were all kinds of "redos" that had to be put in place as a result of what he had done. And while those things were being done, we were blind in really critical areas. So what he did was not without consequence.
Second, as for the harm done, remember that just a few seconds earlier Holder was admitting that these programs did very little of value? To then spin it around and claim that some sort of "darkness" was created because of this seems pretty silly. And, yes, it probably did harm some relationships, but is that really Snowden's fault... or the fault of what the leaks revealed about what the US government was doing in the first place?
Third, it's ridiculous to think that going to Congress with these concerns would do anything. After all, at the time of Snowden, we already had Senator Ron Wyden screaming about these issues with his colleagues, and no one paid attention. Does Holder really think that if Snowden had raised the issues with Congress, anyone would have paid attention? Besides, we just had a former senior Defense Department official publicly admit that the "proper channels" were a joke for someone like Snowden, highlighting how the government regularly sic'd the Holder-run DOJ on anyone who blew the whistle, and that Holder and his team were all too willing to go after whistleblowers.
And that brings us to the next question, in which Axelrod highlights that criticism of the Holder DOJ, that it prosecuted more whistleblowers/leakers than every other administration... combined. Holder's answer -- I kid you not -- is basically, "but just think of all the people we didn't prosecute." Axelrod points out that not only has the DOJ gone after leakers, but reporters as well, and Holder tries to "correct" him again in a misleading way:
Holder: No, we didn't charge any reporters with any criminal offenses. But we brought charges against people who had broken oaths to keep things secret.Of course, they harassed and threatened journalists, including James Risen, who they threatened to jail if he wouldn't reveal his sources. Or how about reporter James Rosen, who the DOJ falsely claimed was a "co-conspirator" in a case where Rosen was leaked information about North Korea from the State Department. Okay, maybe they didn't directly charge reporters with crimes, but the DOJ sure came mighty close to that line in a manner that was pure intimidation.
People say 'more than any other administration in history,' I think we brought a total of five or six -- we inherited one or two -- so I think you have to keep the raw number in mind and understand also that we brought five or six, whatever the number, and turned away probably close to a hundred, that were brought to us by the intelligence community, where they asked the Justice Department to investigate and to prosecute. We made the decision not to.
Also, the whole thing about going after people who "broke their oath" -- that's complete bullshit. The only oath that people took was the same one that Holder himself took, which was to protect and defend the Constitution. People may have violated a contractual non-disclosure agreement not to reveal this information, and you can argue that there should be punishment for breach of contract, but that sounds a lot less dramatic and horrifying than "breaking an oath."
But, really, the bigger question in all of this, even after you cut through the ridiculous FUD from Holder, is that if he truly believes Snowden did do a "public service" and it can be shown -- as it has been -- that there really weren't any other reasonable ways to create that public debate and changes to the system, then shouldn't we be concerned that this should still lead to criminal charges and the possibility of being locked up forever? Because it seems inherently and rather obviously fucked up to suggest that the only legitimate way to raise an important public debate about surveillance powers is to break the law. If that's the case, then it seems fairly obvious that the law needs to change.
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: david axelrod, doj, eric holder, espionage act, public service, whistleblowing
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Truth therein Lies
The judge can tell, even though he is not allowed to notice, so chili lovers who like beans should look for a giant beanstalk. Look up...no more up...a little higher!
The Government lies to everyone and calls that intelligence, but gets upset when the truth of that comes out, and calls that treason. That is more than just a double standard, maybe it is just another lying lie.
Getting power is easy, maintaining power is harder, controlling power is the most difficult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perfect reasoning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perfect reasoning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whack-a-mole
Then they'll just find/create/manipulate/overextend/ignore a different law. Impunity isn't picky when it comes to post-facto justification or umbrella prosecution, any law that can be stretched to fit will suffice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
heh. i recall way back there it was said that lyndon johnson would lie when the truth fit better. as time goes by i realize that statement fits better when applied to the entire government and every member of it. not just an occasional element.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dumping versus whistle blowing
Snowden could have accomplished the same thing without (a) exposing almost every covert agent and sympathizer in every country, and (b) without harming the relationship between the US and other countries.
The scope and magnitude of the documents exposed by Snowden go well beyond whistle blowing any particular area, and served more as an overall indictment of there systems. That general nature makes him more the data dumper, and less a whistle blower.
(Oh and Mike, please tell your minions that my exit IP changed, they apparently got a new connection... having all my comments go into moderation for a few days at a time is borderline censorship).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dumping versus whistle blowing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dumping versus whistle blowing
I, too, am still waiting for the alternative method, the proper channels that wouldn't have resulted in a cover-up. At this point proper channels has become synonymous with error trapping for those with a conscience.
Data Dumping is nothing but whistleblowing when it is tossing said data to the public. The notion that the people of a nation are incapable of correctly processing that data is a notion of elitism, belies the implication that no-one is capable of correctly processing the data (and probably shouldn't be looking at it) and also undermines the notion of government for the people by the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dumping versus whistle blowing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dumping versus whistle blowing
Oh, I forgot you live in a rosy world where official channels work and unicorns poop candy. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: dumping versus whistle blowing
There has to be something other than the all or nothing method. The collateral damage from a full on dump may be just too great, and the amount of important information perhaps lost in the sea of data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: dumping versus whistle blowing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We've already gone through this. If you insist on spamming the site and being a trollish asshole the site's algorithms will treat you as such. Deal with it. Or you can log out and troll anyway from your 50 VPNed IP addresses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dumping versus whistle blowing
So now we can add transphobia to your list of distinguishing personality traits?
"Rather, the extracted the maximum number of documents with the hope that someone would find something bad in them."
Snowden did not "hope" someone would find something bad, he knew damn well they would find lots of it.
"Snowden could have accomplished the same thing without (a) exposing almost every covert agent and sympathizer in every country, and (b) without harming the relationship between the US and other countries."
(a) Citation please, and (b) it's was the US government's actions that hurt their reputation, not Snowden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dumping versus whistle blowing
Since when do asshats like you get to define what's whistleblowing? Keep dreaming.
having all my comments go into moderation for a few days at a time is borderline censorship
Actually, it's just that the people listening to you think that you're an asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's provide an analogy that government officials can understand...
Congressman John Doe cheats on his wife, effectively ruining his marriage, even if his wife hasn't found out yet. The friend of Mrs. Doe, Jackie, finds out 2 years later, and informs Mrs. Doe. According to Holder, Jackie is now responsible for ruining their marriage and should go to jail for adultery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Pretty much, that's why Snowden should be arrested. Thanks for exemplifying our point."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Harm american interests is a crime?
That harming of interests is besides the point. Snowden didn't harm american interests, he was just the messenger. What Holder is saying is that it's ok to kill the messenger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I wasn't violating their privacy until they spotted me outside their bedroom window your honor."
The 'Peeping Tom' defense as I thought of it at the time, the idea that so long as you don't know someone installed a camera in your bedroom/is reading your emails/listening to your phone calls your privacy hasn't been violated because you don't know about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "I wasn't violating their privacy until they spotted me outside their bedroom window your honor."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Non Sequitor
In Eric Holder's experience, most public servants belong in jail. Snowden committed a public service, ergo he is a public servant and belongs in jail.
QED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because the government doesn't care to serve the public interest and so why should they care about doing a 'public service'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Committing murder
Snowden uncovered the United States surveillance state and how it was being used for plenty of purposes beyond the pursuit of terrorists.
And we want to prosecute him far more than countless murdering lawmen who walked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical Law Enforcement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, because of the SPYING, not because of the disclosure. If you don't want your "relationships to be harmed", then don't do stupid things to others in secret, or otherwise. Simple, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Harmed American Interests"
That's how I read it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Define 'American'
'American interests' in the sense that the interests of the american public were harmed? No, far from it in fact their interests were served most admirably by Snowden's actions.
'American interests' in the sense that the interests of the american government were harmed? Quite possibly, having someone provide evidence for just how many cookie jars you're raiding isn't likely to make you many friends, but that's their fault for raiding those jars, not Snowden's fault for exposing them doing so.
'American interests' in the sense that the interests of the american government agencies were harmed? Very much so, they went above and beyond making sure that their actions were as hidden and obfuscated as possible, from everyone they could, having a sudden burst of light illuminated what they were doing means now they have to justify what they were doing, and the public has a chance to object to their actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Define 'American'
We've pretty much established by behavior that corporate citizens of the United States are the only citizens that matter.
Which would go far in explaining why the benefit of Snowden's revelations (or Manning's or Kiriakou's, or...) have not been generally recognized by officials of the United States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First agreement ever
It's like saving a drowning lady, and then shooting someone in the face. You're a hero that needs to go to jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First agreement ever
It was one action which both exposed US tradecraft to both the US people and the enemies of the US, simultaneously.
The thing is these actions are illegal anyway, if anyone else but a US government agent is doing it. (If I started a spying corporation that tracked civilian movements and activities and then sold that material to any country that wanted it, I'd be regarded as a criminal.)
Exposure and embarrassment is one of the risks of espionage, and is never the fault of the messenger, but the spies. And they were lying to their own administrators about what they were doing and why.
It's all on them, and that the NSA hasn't been dismantled raises questions as to the allegiances of the US representatives, as they are not in line with the good of the US people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: First agreement ever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: First agreement ever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Espionage is still criminal. Exposure of it is still whistleblowing.
Let us turn this around then: Say that a whistleblower exposed Chinese listening posts in United States agencies. Would you be blaming China for those posts? Or would you be blaming the Whistleblower for ruining Chinese / US relations?
Sounds like the latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: First agreement ever
In addition as I noted below something like 'A USG agency is spying on a foreign head of state' was not likely news to anyone but the public, as you can be sure that both the USG and other governments are doing their best to get intel like that on a regular basis and everyone involved knows about it. At best the information regarding it gave other governments an opportunity to act outraged and shocked to score some easy political points against the USG, I really doubt any of them changed much other than some minor tightening of security in response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First agreement ever
The only groups that were surprised by what was leaked was the public and some politicians(others probably knew but simply didn't care), and both of those are required to be properly informed if they're to have a hand in what the government is doing, something which simply isn't possible when they're being lied to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Backpedal boogie in 3, 2, 1...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Eric Holder Now Admits, Snowden Did 'A Public Service'"
[AdmAkbarVoice]It's a trap![/AdmAkbarVoice]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The actual charges a grand jury brought against him are under seal, but they're widely assumed to be treason. In U.S. treason cases, the defendant does not the full range of basic protections offered by the court system to people accused of lesser crimes.
1. From the moment he sets foot in the country, he would likely be in solitary confinement, a form of punishment which impairs his cognitive abilities and interferes with the process of legal counsel.
2. He essentially cannot speak in his own defense (to say why he did whatever he admits to doing), nor can he bring up the illegality of any of the government programs at issue (despite the Supreme Court having declared one of them illegal already), and thus there could be no evidence or witness testimony presented to support such claims.
The notion that he would be getting a fair trial under these circumstances is ludicrous. The government can make its case against him unimpeded, and he can't say anything other than "I did it" or "I didn't do it". That's not justice. We ridicule and rebuke the nations where those kinds of unethical show trials are routine. Yet we turn a blind eye to it in our own country, in cases where we're just "really, really mad at" somebody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks again for the heads up.
Much appreciated. We're forever in your debt.
Sincerely,
The People
PS Enjoyed your recent piece on Vice. Good to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EDWARD SNOWDEN IS A HERO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
News Flash........
Because Eric Holder is a pliably supine lickspittle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My guess,
There has been a nationwide petition for Snowdens pardon for some time. So there isn't a problem justifying the move. Of course the CIA may grassy knoll his ass if he does.
And even if Snowden IS pardoned, he'd be stupid to come home for at least several more years. Executive order or not, some of the organizations in play here have LONG memories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My guess,
Oh wait... nobody sane... never mind, carry on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrongdoing by the administration of a dictatorship...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What does not kill the Elite, makes it stronger.
Now that's the slip that I'd say was most important.
Tells us all, that, as the chess pieces exposed by Snowden were being examined and discussed by a tiny number of slightly angry people - the internet - brand new identical secret operations, using newer equipment and better trained personnel were being secretly slid into place to insure that nothing was lost in the daily discourse of humanity.
Translated: Everything Snowden exposed to the world's population about the secret machinations of America's Elite, was being "redo"ne at tax payer's expense as fast as operations were being exposed - and "redo"ne to be even better at staying unseen.
The Beta Teams went into operation using plan B and a shit-load of fresh technical and intelligence upgrades, while the Alpha Teams-In-Place burned their kits and slipped quietly back into the shadows to start their journey to disparate safe havens. Contingency. S.O.P.
Generally, he's saying that everything Snowden showed us, is now operating even better, doing exactly the same thing better, in a different and better place.
New day. Same shit.
For me, he says the "authorities" did not "change", ANY of their clandestine operations, except to make a few things harder for the public to find next time, and upgrade a few things that needed fixing anyway, because they did exactly that and did it right away, long before any "dialogue" could be started. As each expose occurred, contingency plans had but one purpose - to continue current operations at all costs.
Basically Shock Testing a new system.
Or, to put it in the simplest of street jargon...
He said "Fuck you all."
Again.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]