Rep. Mike Rogers Keeps Insisting Snowden Is A Russian Spy, Even As NSA/FBI Officials Say No Such Evidence

from the do-you-trust-mike-rogers? dept

Rep. Mike Rogers sure loves the NSA and really, really hates Ed Snowden. It's at the point where Rogers appears to not care at all about the truth, repeating multiple blatant falsehoods in TV interviews when it comes to Snowden. This past weekend, he went on TV to repeat an old favorite, claiming (without any proof, but just blind speculation) that he thinks that Snowden was a Russian spy all along. On Meet the Press, David Gregory asked Rogers about Snowden's comments in his interview with Bart Gellman, in which Snowden pointed to Rogers' (and Senator Dianne Feinstein's) failure to uphold their role as overseers of the NSA as for why he had to leak the documents he gave to reporters. Rogers disagrees and hints that Snowden "had some help."

Well, first of all, I mean, I couldn't disagree more. That's like having the janitor at a bank who figured out how to steal some money deciding matters of high finance. This was a thief, who we believe had some help, who stole information the vast majority had nothing to do with privacy. Our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines have been incredibly harmed by the data that he has taken with him and we believe now is in the hands of nation states.

Note the insult: comparing Snowden to "the janitor." This is nothing more than Rogers being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole. People who worked with Snowden have pointed out repeatedly that he was incredibly smart, with one NSA colleague describing him as "a genius among geniuses."

DAVID GREGORY:
Who helped him?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE ROGERS:
Well, there were certain questions that we have to get answered. Where some of this aid, first of all, if it was a privacy concern he had, he didn't look for information on the privacy side for Americans. He was stealing information that had to do with how we operate overseas to collect information to keep Americans safe. That begs the question. And some of the things he did were beyond his technical capabilities. Raises more questions. How he arranged travel before he left. How he was ready to go, he had a go bag, if you will.

That's actually not what anyone was saying. As we pointed out, late last year, the NSA's director of technology, Lonny Anderson, has admitted that basically anyone who had top secret security clearance could have seen all of the documents Snowden saw and that because of Snowden's job as a sys admin in charge of moving certain documents around, what Snowden did was part of his normal job. Others in the NSA have said the same thing. So it appears that Rogers is, once again, simply making stuff up.

As for the travel issues, it doesn't seem that confusing at all. He flew to Hong Kong, which he'd evidently planned for a while. He didn't need "a go bag" to be all ready to go. And, then, once the news reports first came out, of course he knew he had to be ready to travel.

DAVID GREGORY:
But how high level, do you think?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE ROGERS:
Well, let me just say this. I believe there's a reason he ended up in the hands, the loving arms, of an FSB agent in Moscow. I don't think that's a coincidence, number one. Number two, and let me just talk about this. I think it's important.

DAVID GREGORY:
You think the Russians helped Ed Snowden?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE ROGERS:
I believe there's questions to be answered there. I don't think it was a gee-whiz luck event that he ended up in Moscow under the handling of the FSB.

DAVID GREGORY:
That's a significant development if it's true.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE ROGERS:
Well, I said we have questions we have to answer. But as somebody who used to do investigations, some of the things we're finding we would call clues that certainly would indicate to me that he had some help and he stole things that had nothing to do with privacy.

Yes, there's a reason he ended up in Russia... because on his attempt to go to Latin America, the US pulled his passport, leaving him stranded in a Moscow airport for a few weeks. Maybe, just maybe, if the US hadn't reacted in such a kneejerk manner, he could have actually made it to his destination.

Meanwhile, both the NSA's guy in charge of reviewing the Snowden situation, Rick Ledgett, as well as the FBI team investigating Snowden have both said that there is absolutely no indication that Snowden was working with anyone else. The NSA specifically has said:

The NSA's internal review has determined about 98 percent of the scope of the material that Snowden had accessed, and officials have found no evidence that he had help either within the NSA or from adversary spy agencies.

As for the FBI:

According to senior government officials, F.B.I. agents from the bureau’s Washington field office, who are leading the investigation, believe that Mr. Snowden methodically downloaded the files over several months while working as a government contractor at the Hawaii facility. They also believe that he worked alone, the officials said.

Yet, magically, Rep. Mike Rogers somehow knows that he was just a Russian spy all along? Yeah, right. Considering Rogers' history as willing to flat out lie to defend the NSA and smear Ed Snowden, it's difficult to take him seriously. If David Gregory were paying attention, he would have pointed all of that out, but Gregory seems more intent on just continuing to keep up his cozy relationship with the NSA's strongest defenders.

Filed Under: david gregory, ed snowden, mike rogers, nsa, russia, surveillance

Iran's FARS: Snowden Documents Finally Detail That The US Government Is Run By Aliens

from the truth-is-out-there dept

Edward Snowden's leaks have offered much in the way of revelation. Each story seems to broaden our understanding of exactly how widespread the government surveillance efforts have gone. They have caused many Americans to rethink their stance on their own government. They've painted several public employees, including those holding the highest offices in the nation, as inhuman power-mongers. And, according to Iran's semi-official FARS news agency, there may be a reason for that.

FARS is reporting that the latest revelation from the Snowden documents is that the American government is actually run by a race of aliens known as "Tall Whites," who have engineered everything in recent history, most notably the rise of Hitler, because all alien intergalactic roads lead back to Hitler.

Pictured: a Tall White

And, no, I'm not making any of this up or exaggerating any of this. That distinction belongs to the website whatdoesthismean.com, best known as being generally insane and specifically crackpot-conspiracy-theory-ish. Prior to FARS deciding that this was, like, totally legit, that website was the only source for this revelation that has FARS stating:

A stunning Federal Security Services (FSB) report on the nearly two million highly classified top-secret documents obtained from the United States Department of Defense (DOD) run National Security Agency-Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) by the American ex-patriot Edward Snowden states that this information is providing “incontrovertible proof” that an “alien/extraterrestrial intelligence agenda” is driving US domestic and international policy, and has been doing so since at least 1945.

They further state that the only reason you haven't heard of these "Tall Whites" running the American government is because they have instituted a global network designed to shut down any information sources about them. Apparently, the FARS news agency and WhatDoesThisMean are somehow out of the reach of these alien masterminds.

Thanks for the laugh, FARS. In the future, if you could just go ahead and return to falling for "news stories" from The Onion, that'd be great.

Filed Under: aliens, ed snowden, fake stories, iran

The Fact That The US Intelligence Community So Readily Admits To Fantasies Of Killing Ed Snowden Shows Why They Can't Be Trusted

from the scary-shit dept

We've mentioned things in the past like former NSA and CIA director Michael Hayden "jokingly" talking about how he'd like to put Ed Snowden on a "kill list" while simultaneously suggesting that the NSA should be a part of determining who to target. While some would dismiss this as a tasteless "joke" it seems like he's not the only one in the intelligence community with such thoughts. We just recently noted that reporter Steven Levy, who spent over two hours interviewing NSA officials, had said that they appear to have a real and passionate hatred towards Snowden.

Now, Benny Johnson, over at Buzzfeed, has been able to get a bunch of intelligence community and military officials to comment anonymously, but on the record, about how much they want to kill Snowden, often including full descriptions of how they'd do it -- and the fact that they don't see any reason to support things like basic due process. The quotes are chilling.

“In a world where I would not be restricted from killing an American, I personally would go and kill him myself,” a current NSA analyst told BuzzFeed. “A lot of people share this sentiment.”

“I would love to put a bullet in his head,” one Pentagon official, a former special forces officer, said bluntly. “I do not take pleasure in taking another human beings life, having to do it in uniform, but he is single handedly the greatest traitor in American history.”

[....] “His name is cursed every day over here,” a defense contractor told BuzzFeed, speaking from an overseas Intelligence collections base. “Most everyone I talk to says he needs to be tried and hung, forget the trial and just hang him.”

[....] “I think if we had the chance, we would end it very quickly,” he said. “Just casually walking on the streets of Moscow, coming back from buying his groceries. Going back to his flat and he is casually poked by a passerby. He thinks nothing of it at the time starts to feel a little woozy and thinks it’s a parasite from the local water. He goes home very innocently and next thing you know he dies in the shower.”

While it may be understandable that those still on the inside of the intelligence community and the military have this emotional reaction to Ed Snowden, it actually helps to demonstrate exactly why the NSA cannot be trusted. NSA officials like to talk about all of the training everyone in the intelligence community has, and how it's "in their DNA" to protect the Constitution and the American way. The NSA official in charge of dealing with the Snowden leak even told Levy that if there was any abuse of the NSA's data, there would be "lines at the Inspector General's office here, and at Congress as well--longer than a Disneyland line." And yet... here are lots of those very same insiders who clearly are overcome with an emotional, rather than logical, response to the situation. They appear to have no problem tossing aside ideals like freedom, due process -- or even the 4th Amendment which Snowden was trying to restore support for. And instead of all that: they just want blood. They want to kill. They don't want a trial.

Do people like that sound like the kinds of people you can "trust" to not abuse their power? Do they sound like people you can "trust" to not spy on people they don't like? They've already admitted that they're willing to kill someone they don't like just because they don't like him.

The article is chilling not just because of what these employees of the American public are openly discussing doing to someone who sought to inform the American public -- but because it shows the lengths they will go to to trample the American ideal and the Constitution, which they took an oath to uphold. They are directly admitting that all of that, all logic, all reason goes right out the window when someone pisses them off.

And that's the very reason why the NSA needs to be reined in. The people working there seem to be bloodthirsty and emotional, prone to lashing out and dismissing the very basis of the Constitution. After hearing those statements, I don't see how anyone in the NSA can possibly claim that the American public can "trust" them not to abuse the system. They appear bloodthirsty and eager to abuse the system.

Filed Under: death threats, ed snowden, emotions, intelligence community, killing, nsa, surveillance

Growing Number Of People Agree That Ed Snowden Is A Whistleblower

from the moving-in-the-right-direction dept

A new poll from Quinnipiac University suggests that, despite widespread efforts by politicians to attack and demonize Ed Snowden, a growing percentage of the American population views him as a whistleblower. It's now up to 57% from what had been 55% in the last poll. The same poll also showed that a majority of people now think that the US government's anti-terrorism policies have "gone too far." It cracked 51%, up from 45% right after the first Snowden revelation, and way up from the 25% who felt that way back in 2010. The poll also suggests that fewer and fewer people support the Section 215 bulk metadata collection program, even when it's framed with this question, which I would imagine most people are biased towards agreeing with:

"Do you support or oppose the federal government program in which all phone calls are scanned to see if any calls are going to a phone number linked to terrorism?"

After the Snowden leaks, 51% of people supported that description of the program, while 45% opposed. Now it's down to 48% support and up to 47% opposed. Similarly, the percentage of people who claim this program "is necessary to keep Americans safe" has dropped from 54% down to 48%. Perhaps it helps that multiple studies have now shown that the program has not helped.

It's certainly slow going, but it certainly appears that the trend in public opinion is moving against these programs and increasingly in support of Snowden.

Filed Under: ed snowden, whistleblower

Former Bush Speechwriter: Ed Snowden Is A 'Shameless Espionage Pornographer'

from the ignoring-the-facts-to-hang-a-moniker dept

Marc Thiessen, contributor to the American Enterprise Institute's blog and, perhaps more relevantly, former speechwriter for George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, has issues with the New York Times' latest NSA leak. As he sees it, there's no "public interest" angle to justify revealing the NSA's ability to compromise computers not connected to the internet.

The Times reports, “There is no evidence that the N.S.A. has implanted its software or used its radio frequency technology inside the United States.” And an NSA spokeswoman, Vanee Vines, says, “N.S.A.’s activities are focused and specifically deployed against — and only against — valid foreign intelligence targets in response to intelligence requirements.”

So what is the redeeming social value of the story? What “abuse” is being revealed? What threat to American civil liberties has been exposed here? Why is this something the public needs to know?

The answers are: None. None. None. And it isn’t.

As he sees it, revealing this allows terrorists to alter their hardware habits to further avoid surveillance. The American public, however, is supposedly completely unaffected, at least according to the New York Times' conclusions and an NSA spokeswoman's statement. Whether or not one agrees with Thiessen's claim that there's nothing here that warrants exposure to the general public, where he goes next is just completely wrong.

As one former senior intelligence official told me recently, stories like this are nothing more than “espionage porn.” They serve no greater social purpose than to titillate.

And the man behind so many of these revelations, Edward Snowden, is nothing more than the Larry Flynt of the intelligence world – a shameless espionage pornographer.

Except for one big difference: pornography is legal. Sharing America’s espionage secrets is a crime.

"Espionage porn" is a nifty catchphrase and some leaks have been less "revealing" than others. But to label Snowden an "espionage pornographer" makes two assumptions -- one of them questionable and the other laughable. To call Snowden's leaks "espionage" rather than whistleblowing is to buy into the NSA's and the administration's stance. There's plenty of gray area between those two terms and sometimes what the government pursues as "illegal" is nothing more than inconvenient. (See also: the panic proceeding Manning's leaks and the multiple deaths and diplomatic fallout that failed to occur.)

Pinning this particular release on Snowden and painting him as a "pornographer" is willful ignorance in search of a tantalizing pull quote. Snowden isn't guiding the release of these leaks. The entities he turned the documents over to are. If anyone's a "espionage pornographer," it's the New York Times -- the outlet that decided to publish these documents. If Thiessen wants to argue this release serves no greater interest than "titillating" the public, fine. But don't pin it on the guy who isn't making editorial decisions.

But this is just more of Thiessen's ongoing antipathy towards the former NSA analyst. He responded to the NSA's supposed consideration of granting Snowden amnesty for the return of the documents (as if that were possible) with this:

Amnesty? Have they lost their minds? Snowden is a traitor to his country, who is responsible for the most damaging theft and release of classified information in American history. His actions have exposed not only the NSA terrorist surveillance programs, but our intelligence collection efforts against foreign governments, including Russia and China. He has aided our enemies, shared intelligence with potential adversaries, and has damaged our ability to defend against future terrorist attacks. Maybe we offer him life in prison instead of a firing squad, but amnesty? That would be insanity.

Almost everything Thiessen says here is debatable, at best. "Aided our enemies" is just a talking point used to justify espionage charges. Little evidence exists that our enemies are in a better position to harm us than they were pre-leaks.

"Sharing" documents with "potential adversaries" sounds worse than it is. Any public release of these documents would "share" with "potential adversaries." That's the nature of publication. Anyone (excluding certain government employees) can read it. And that's a whole lot of speculation to pack into one short sentence. How can anyone logically worry about "potential" adversaries, especially when the US seems to have plenty of existent adversaries.

And the last part -- "damaged our ability to defend against future terrorist attacks" -- is just ridiculous. Even the NSA itself is having trouble coming up with examples of how its programs have averted attacks. The longer this goes on, the weaker these arguments become.

Thiessen doesn't care for Snowden or his leaks. That's fine. He disagrees with others about what is or isn't "public interest." Again, that's a matter of opinion. (Although, given his general stance on Snowden, I'm of the opinion that no document that has been released meets his standard for "public interest," at least not if weighed against all the speculative "damage" it does to national security.) But when he blames Snowden for a New York Times' editorial decision, he's just taking a cheap swing at the target he likes least.

Filed Under: ed snowden, espionage, espionage pornographer, marc thiessen, whistleblower

NSA Officials Hate Ed Snowden With A Passion

from the yes,-emotional-response-is-what-we-need dept

Last week we wrote about Steven Levy's big article concerning the impact on the tech industry of the NSA's activities. This week, he's written a short piece about the two hours he got to spend at Fort Meade in the NSA's headquarters meeting with some of the NSA's top officials there. He explains how they didn't seem to want to cooperate at first, but then became much more accommodating later on. He notes that the NSA doesn't seem to recognize that "protecting" Americans and "breaking everyone's crypto" might be two goals that are at odds with one another. But, the main point he makes: NSA officials really, really, really seem to hate Ed Snowden's guts:

They really hate Snowden. The NSA is clearly, madly, deeply furious at the man whose actions triggered the biggest crisis in its history. Even while contending they welcome the debate that now engages the nation, they say that they hate the way it was triggered. The NSA has an admittedly insular culture — the officials described it as almost like a family.... NSA officials are infuriated that all this havoc was caused by some random contractor. They suggest that had Snowden been familiar with the culture and the ethos of the agency, understood the level of training undergone by its employees, seen the level of regulations and oversight, he would have been less likely to abscond with all those documents. (Snowden’s interviews indicate otherwise.) Still, they are stunned that someone “inside the fence” would do what Snowden did. Even if Snowden is eventually pardoned, he’d do well to steer clear of Fort Meade.

There's something kind of funny about the fact that they look down on him as being "some random contractor" and if only he'd really been a part of the "NSA family" that he'd "understand." That seems quite unlikely, but also suggests one of the many reasons why what the NSA is doing is so problematic. Any mission that involves people having to feel a "part of the group" to make sure that the surveillance isn't abused is a system that will be abused.

Even more troubling, is that the NSA still seems to be reacting emotionally to the whole thing. That's part of the reason they still seem unable to comprehend how much damage they've done -- not Snowden.

Filed Under: ed snowden, emotion, keith alexander, nsa, rick ledgett, steven levy, surveillance

House Intel Committee Releases Fact-Free Fearmongering About Impact Of Snowden Revelations

from the the-smearing-of-ed-snowden,-brought-to-you-by-mike-rogers dept

House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Mike Rogers and his Democractic counterpart Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger published a press release today touting a classified Defense Department report alleging that Edward Snowden’s leaks—and by proxy, stories published by news organizations—threaten national security and "are likely to have lethal consequences for our troops in the field."

Before going any further, let’s remember what the Washington Post reported last month about Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper:

Clapper has said repeatedly in public that the leaks did great damage, but in private he has taken a more nuanced stance. A review of early damage assessments in previous espionage cases, he said in one closed-door briefing this fall, found that dire forecasts of harm were seldom borne out.

Now go back and read the press release closely. No specific examples are given, and you will notice virtually every sentence includes the word "could"—meaning real damage hasn’t actually occurred, they are just saying it potentially could happen. And of course, the actual report is secret, so the two Congressmen are able to say whatever they wish about it, and it can’t be independently verified. (Rep. Mike Rogers also has a long history of not telling the truth.)

We’ve seen this same scene over and over again in the past decade, and the results are always the same: the government serially exaggerates damage to national security in an attempt to make sure newsworthy stories are not published or to villify whistleblowers.

When WikiLeaks started publishing State Department cables in 2010, the administration was claiming in the media that WikiLeaks would have "blood on its hands." But then it turned out, as Reuters reported, in private the government believed only "that a mass leak of diplomatic cables caused only limited damage" and that "the administration felt compelled to say publicly that the revelations had seriously damaged American interests in order to bolster legal efforts to shut down the WikiLeaks website and bring charges against the leakers."

The Bush White House said the same thing—"you will have blood on your hands"—to New York Times editors before they published their original NSA warrantless wiretapping stories in 2005 and 2006. Bush's Attorney General later threatened to prosecute the New York Times under the Espionage Act. Similar statements were made about Dana Priest’s investigation of CIA secret prisons for the Washington Post. The damage of course never materialized, and the both Priest and the New York Times reporters went on to win the Pulitzer Prize.

This is a tried and true tactic used by the US government made famous by Richard Nixon. Back in 1971, the Nixon administration told the US Supreme Court that if the New York Times continued to publish the Pentagon Papers it would result in "grave and immediate damage to the United States." The man who made those arguments, Solicitor General Erwin Griswold, later wrote in the Washington Post, "I have never seen any trace of a threat to the national security from the publication." He called on the public to be skeptical of "national security" claims made using secrecy.

New York Times Executive Editor Jill Abramson probably said it best when she flatly stated last year, "No story about details of government secrets has come near to demonstrably hurting the national security in decades and decades."

Virtually any time newspapers print something the government doesn’t like, they will claim it hurts national security without providing any details or proof. This is standard operating procedure for them, and news organizations should not be scared to push back on such claims, without direct evidence to the contrary.

Republished from the Freedom of the Press Foundation

Filed Under: defense department, dod, dutch ruppersberger, ed snowden, fearmongering, house intelligence committee, mike rogers

Sen. Schumer Is Completely Wrong; Snowden Would Be Barred From Arguing His Case At Trial

from the you'd-think-congress-would-know-the-law dept

It seems every week a new member of Congress goes on a Sunday talk show and incorrectly states that if Edward Snowden came back to the United States to stand trial, he would be able to tell his side of the story to a jury and argue he is a whistleblower. This is factually not true, and it's time for members of the media to start pushing back at those who suggest it is.

This week it was Senator Chuck Schumer on ABC's "This Week." Here's what Schumer said, according to the New York Times:

Mr. Schumer said...[Snowden] should return to stand trial and face the consequences of his actions. Such a trial, the senator said, could be enlightening for the country.

...

He said it was unclear how much the broad metadata gleaned by the National Security Agency had helped the fight against terrorists; how much damage Mr. Snowden had, in fact, done to intelligence efforts; and precisely how the data were used.

“All of this could come out in a trial; it would be beneficial for the country to have the discussion,” Mr. Schumer said. “So, running away, being helped by Russia and China, is not in the tradition of a true civil disobedience practitioner.”

In reality, none of that information would be heard by a jury, if prior Espionage Act cases against leakers are any guide. Judges have ruled evidence of showing intent to inform the public, benefits of the leaks, and lack of damage to national security is inadmissible. We made this point just two weeks ago, but it seems worth repeating since it seems as though members of Congress opining on Snowden's legal options do not know how the law works. Here are how four of the most recent Espionage Act leak cases have turned out:

• John Kiriakou, the former CIA officer who was the first to go on-the-record with the media about waterboarding, pled guilty in his Espionage Act case last year partially because a judge ruled he couldn’t tell the jury about his lack of intent to harm the United States.

• In the ongoing leak trial of former State Department official Stephen Kim, the judge recently ruled that the prosecution “need not show that the information he allegedly leaked could damage U.S. national security or benefit a foreign power, even potentially.” (emphasis added)
• In the Espionage Act case against NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake (which later fell apart), the government filed two separate motions to make sure the words "whistleblowing" or "overclassification" would never be uttered at trial.

• In Chelsea Manning's trial this past summer, Manning's defense wanted to argue she intended to inform the public, that the military was afflicted with a deep and unnecessary addiction to overclassification, and that the government’s own internal assessments showed she caused no real damage to U.S. interests. All this information was ruled inadmissible until sentencing. Manning was sentenced to thirty-five years in jail—longer than most actual spies under the Espionage Act.

At this point, it's time for the media to start pushing back on government officials suggesting Snowden should tell his story to a jury, when caselaw says he would be barred from doing so. The New York Times is aware of this fact, as they mentioned it in another article published Sunday about the chances of Snowden receiving clemency. But in their story about Schumer's comments, they let his false statement go uncorrected.

It's also time for Congress to start debating the merits of using the Espionage Act on the sources of journalists. If Sen. Schumer thinks that Snowden should be able to tell all of the above information to a jury, we look forward to his amicus brief in a potential Snowden trial arguing that a whistleblower defense should be admissible. In the mean time, he and other members of Congress concerned about whistleblowers getting a fair trial should push for reform or repeal of the Espionage Act.

Republished from Freedom of the Press Foundation

Filed Under: chuck schumer, ed snowden, espionage act, whistleblowing

Michael Hayden Calls Clemency For Snowden 'Outrageous,' Says It Sends 'Wrong Message' To Potential Whistleblowers

from the he-and-Peter-King-should-recuse-themselves-from-the-'debate' dept

We've already seen one reaction to the New York Times' call for clemency for whistleblower Ed Snowden. That one came courtesy of the terminally-perturbed Rep. Peter King, a man who cares so much for this country that he believes Snowden should be imprisoned for "appeasing terrorists." Calling Snowden a traitor only gains you so much political traction these days, but King's in no hurry to give up his antagonistic calls for Snowden's head, even when his assertions of "terrorist appeasement" clash with his own background as a terrorist appeaser.

Another talking head who can't seem to find a single good word to say about Snowden's leaks is former NSA boss Michael Hayden. His unwavering defense of the NSA would perhaps be admirable if it didn't suggest that his position at the Chertoff Group is dependent on an absurdly healthy surveillance state and a never ending "War on Terror."

[If you're not already familiar with the Chertoff Group, this blurb from its "About" page will give you an indication of how Hayden's defense of all things NSA is intertwined with his "private sector" income:

As Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff worked closely with America’s most experienced intelligence experts and security professionals. Now a select group of them have joined him to form The Chertoff Group.

The Chertoff Group provides business and government leaders with the same kind of high-level, strategic thinking and diligent execution that have kept the American homeland and its people safe since 9/11.

Michael Hayden is just one of the former government officials employed by the Chertoff Group. Many other members are just as connected to government security and intelligence agencies. VP and co-founder Chad Sweet served as Chief of Staff in the DHS. Principal Jayson Ahern? 33 years in the US Customs and Border Protection, a division of the DHS. Richard Falkenrath? Adjunct Senior Fellow for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security at the Council on Foreign Relations. Jay Cohen? Chief of Naval Research. Michael Weatherford? Served as the Deputy Under Secretary for Cybersecurity with the DHS. Larry Castro? NSA Security Service Representative to the DHS.

The list goes on and on.]

So, this is why Hayden's statements on Snowden and the leaked documents resemble those of someone still employed by the NSA. That's because, for all intents and purposes, he pretty much is. His current employer's future prosperity cannot be disentangled from the NSA and other, equally-overreaching branches of the government.

Back to the point at hand. The New York Times strongly suggested Ed Snowden be given clemency for exposing the NSA's abuses and overreach. In an interview Thursday, Hayden had this to say in response.

[M]ichael Hayden, who served as NSA director and CIA director under the last administration, called the suggestion of clemency for Snowden “outrageous.” He predicted any efforts to grant Snowden clemency would be met with significant resistance from U.S. intelligence officials. He pointed to the campaign on behalf of Jonathan Pollard, an Israeli spy who stole secrets for the Jewish state in the early 1980s when he worked as an analyst for the U.S. Navy. “There is a lot of push to give clemency for Jonathan Pollard, who did far less damage than Snowden and the U.S. intelligence community has been adamant against clemency for Pollard,” Hayden said. He added that giving clemency to Snowden would send the message to future leakers: “If you are going to do this, make sure you steal enough secrets to bargain for clemency.”

The suggestion isn't that "outrageous." Snowden's leaks have prompted some normally-complacent politicians to reexamine the NSA. Several pieces of legislation have been introduced in response and the support for these crosses party lines. These excesses, which trace back even before the 9/11 attacks (but increased exponentially shortly thereafter) are finally in "danger" of being reined in. The NSA, and Michael Hayden, have always defended the agency's actions by pointing at the "rigorous oversight" of the House and Senate. The agency's defenders resent the fact that its previously (deliberately) underinformed "oversight" is now privy to the ugly reality of the NSA's programs and is attempting to (finally) curb its power.

Hayden points to Pollard's situation as being comparable when it really isn't. Pollard sold secrets to another country. Snowden gave his documents to the public. Most people can distinguish a spy from a whistleblower. Hayden, apparently, is not one of them. He follows this up by claiming granting Snowden clemency would just encourage whistleblowers to grab massive amounts of documents as bargaining chips. That claim is similarly weak.

First and foremost, this administration has sent a clear message to whistleblowers over the last five years: keep your head down and shut up. The Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other administrations combined. Anyone hoping to blow the whistle under this administration might as well grab all the documents they can because they're going to end up being prosecuted anyway, no matter what "safeguards" are built into the system. The system sets up whistleblowers to fail. Taking the "proper" path just gets you rerouted, stonewalled and finally, flushed from the system.

Hayden believes we can't show Snowden any sort of mercy without encouraging others to follow in his footsteps. He may think this hardline is a necessity to ensure the nation's security, but what it really says is that those defending this agency (and others operating in the same sphere) know there's a whole lot of deep, dark secrets they'd rather not share with the American public. This is a problem with the NSA, not a problem with Snowden or the agency's many detractors. If the agency (through mouthpieces like Gen. Keith "I can't think of another way to do this" Alexander) can't find a way to protect the nation without carving huge holes out of the public's civil liberties, it's only for a lack of trying. It's never had to find another way because it was given free rein to accomplish its goals by uninformed oversight, broad executive orders and a compliant court system.

Granting Snowden clemency would be a step in the direction of contrition -- a small admission of the government's betrayal of its constituents. If the legislators working to rein in the agency truly want to change the system, they need to persuade the executive branch to drop its plans to shoot the messenger. The problems are of the NSA's own making. Punishing the man who finally said, "this is enough" will just allow the "business as usual brigade" to increase the speed at which the surveillance state status quo is restored.

Filed Under: clemency, ed snowden, michael hayden, nsa, surveillance, whistleblowers
Companies: chertoff group

Are Other NSA Employees Leaking Documents Under The Cover Of Snowden?

from the could-be-useful...-could-be-disinfo dept

While we were just suggesting that there are ways that NSA employees who believe the organization has gone too far can make a difference without also leaking documents, some are beginning to suspect that Snowden's activities may be creating at least some copycats -- and the interesting tidbit is that they may be less likely to get caught, because everyone assumes any new leaks are from Snowden. Matt Blaze recently noted that the most recent bombshell concerning the NSA's catalog of exploits, didn't actually name a source. And Glenn Greenwald has hinted strongly that the information is not from Snowden.

That doesn't mean that the information isn't from Snowden. It could very well be from him and just no one's said so. Greenwald's statements may actually be an attempt to solicit further leaks by making it clear that other leakers may be able to hide under the cover of Snowden. Blaze also points out that this possibility certainly runs the very real risk of someone providing false information to credulous reporters. That could come from those just pulling a prank or, more sinisterly, from an intelligence community looking to flood the press with disinformation to dilute and attempt to discredit the Snowden leaks. The intelligence community has certainly been involved in such campaigns in the past.

That said, this is a real opportunity for others who would like to blow the whistle from within the intelligence community to potentially do so under the cover of Snowden, allowing them to leak without everyone searching for the new leaker, believing the information is actually coming from Snowden. Still, if that's happening, I hope that the reporters receiving those documents heed Blaze's advice to be exceptionally careful to authenticate the documents, to find additional sources and also to disclose any uncertainty about the authenticity of the documents.

Filed Under: ed snowden, journalism, leaks, nsa, sources, surveillance