This is odd. In talking about Ed Snowden, President Obama referred to him as a "hacker." After being asked about what kinds of efforts the administration was making to capture Snowden, the President (thankfully) claimed that they weren't going to go too crazy over it, but chose an odd descriptor for Snowden:
"I'm not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker," he told reporters during a news conference in Senegal.
Leaving aside the fact that Snowden recently turned 30, calling him a "hacker" seems like a calculated move to try to reframe these leaks as something nefarious where someone "broke in" to get classified info, rather than a whistleblower on the inside, who saw what was going on, the widespread abuses, the lying to the American public and Congress, and decided to do something about it. This attempt at reframing whistleblowing is all too consistent with the administration's practice of declaring war on whistleblowers.
As lots of folks keep trying to delve into the mind of Ed Snowden without really knowing him at all, Andrew Katz at Time has an article about the security clearance process that people go through to get into a job like that, discussing some of the "blind spots" in the process that might have let an Ed Snowden through. Apparently, the EFF sticker on his laptop should have been a warning sign:
In a photograph posted online after Snowden revealed himself, his laptop displays a sticker touting the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a longstanding advocate for online rights and staunch opponent of government surveillance. That would have been enough of a warning sign to make it into his file, Smith says, but investigators wouldn't have come across it because clearance interviews aren't performed at their homes: "You're not around that person's personal belongings to make any other additional observations about that person's characters."
It seems a bit extreme to suggest that merely supporting a group like EFF automatically makes you suspect for jobs in the intelligence world. After all, isn't EFF defending basic Constitutional freedoms that Americans hold dear, and which our government is supposed to be protecting? But, even more to the point, if having EFF paraphernalia makes you a potential security risk in the NSA, what does that say about NSA Director, General Keith Alexander who attended last year's Defcon in an EFF t-shirt:
Clearly, the NSA is doomed. Its boss is a huge security risk who never should have been given clearance!
More seriously though, it's getting fairly ridiculous when supporting basic Constitutional rights suddenly makes you a security risk. We're entering witch hunt territory, which is what happens when people get overly paranoid.
"They think he copied so much stuff — that almost everything that place does, he has," said one former government official, referring to the NSA, where Snowden worked as a contractor for Booz Allen Hamilton while in the NSA's Hawaii facility. "Everyone's nervous about what the next thing will be, what will be exposed."
Of course, as Glenn Greenwald has noted in the past, and is quoted in the same article as saying, so far, Snowden has been quite careful about what he's released:
"I know that he has in his possession thousands of documents, which, if published, would impose crippling damage on the United States' surveillance capabilities and systems around the world," Greenwald told CNN. "He has never done any of that."
Of course, any system that relies on security through obscurity is only as good as it can maintain that obscurity. Perhaps, next time, the NSA will recognize that the best security actually comes via transparency.
A petition set up on the White House's "We the People" petition site asking the Obama administration to pardon Edward Snowden has already passed 100,000 signatures, and shows no signs of slowing down, with a few weeks still left to go. That means that, in theory, the White House is supposed to issue a response to the petition. Of course, that response could be "hell, no" but it seems more likely that it will be something about letting the DOJ investigation, indictment and charges go through their due course. Still, it is worth noting -- especially in comparison to other petitions -- just how quickly this one got to 100,000 signatures. There are an awful lot of Americans who think that Snowden did something brave and important in revealing how the NSA was spying on us all. Having politicians continue to refer to him as a "traitor" seems like a really short sighted position. A fairly large number of people clearly feel quite the opposite is true.
I'm not sure at which point Fox News' "Fox & Friends" decided Donald Trump held a valid opinion on anything beyond bankruptcy proceedings and divorce settlements, but the hosts went ahead and let the man talk (about current affairs, no less).
"You know, spies in the old days used to be executed," Trump said. "This guy is becoming a hero in some circles. Now, I will say, with the passage of time, even people that were sort of liking him and were trying to go on his side are maybe dropping out… We have to get him back and we have to get him back fast. It could take months or it could take years, and that would be pathetic."
At this point, we're still dealing with the rhetorical. Trump thinks swift justice is the best justice and allowing Snowden to roam the earth somewhat freely is "pathetic." The severely wounded pride of the Republic can't bear the weight of another leak. Trump goes back against his first statement with his followup.
"This guy's a bad guy and, you know, there's still a thing called execution," he went on. "You really have to take a strong… You have thousands of people with access to material like this. We're not going to have a country any longer."
It no longer sounds like Trump wants Snowden taken into custody. It sounds more like he'd prefer someone to put out a hit on him. Again, Trump's concern for this glorious nation of ours drives his soulful plea to kill an American citizen who's only been charged with embarrassing his betters espionage and "theft" of government property.
Of course, Trump doesn't have the power to see this action carried out. But, then again, neither does the government. Snowden isn't a "spy" and hasn't been charged with treason, one of the few federal crimes that includes execution as a punishment option. So, this is just Trump fantasizing about putting Snowden down because he doesn't like what he's done.
As for "not having a country any longer," does this mean Trump is happy with the status quo? The country we have currently is the country we want? Snowden's leaks exposed the government for what it is: a complicit entity that carries water for security agencies and g-men. This is a country whose citizens' rights are being sacrificed on the cross of safety. We hardly have a "country" as it is -- at least not one that would be easily recognized by the founding fathers. And this is what would be saved by the death of Edward Snowden? This is what would be preserved by spilling blood in order to stem the flow previously suppressed information?
If so, who wants it? I know I don't. But if Trump feels this sort of thing is necessary to "protect" the nation, then it's certainly the country he deserves.
Some have argued that Meet the Press' David Gregory was just playing "devil's advocate" in asking reporter Glenn Greenwald if he should be arrested for "aiding and abetting" Ed Snowden for doing journalism. I'm not sure I agree with that, but now the NY Times' Andrew Ross Sorkin, normally a business reporter, has gone even further in saying flat out that given Snowden left Hong Kong, he'd "arrest Snowden and now I'd almost arrest Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who seems to be out there, he wants to help him get to Ecuador or whatever."
Of course, there is no evidence that Greenwald is helping Snowden get anywhere. In the meantime, a journalist suggesting another journalist be arrested because his relationship with a source is too close is incredible, and ridiculous. This is doubly true for Sorkin, a journalist who has been, at times, accused of cozying up to Wall Street bankers to tell "their side" of the story of the economic troubles of the past few years.
After a bunch of people called Sorkin out for this he tried to argue that he was not calling for Greenwald to be arrested despite his clear statements in which he appeared to call for exactly that. Sorkin then claimed that he was just "raising other questions." In response, Greenwald shot back: "Did you conspire with all of your extremely close WSJ-executive sources to commit fraud? Did you know about it? #JustAsking." And, really, that's the perfect retort. Anyone confusing a reporter reporting on some information with "conspiring" with the source is making a fool of himself.
Later, Greenwald opined on why he thinks various "establishment" journalists seem to be suggesting that he should be arrested for doing the journalism they failed to do:
Some of what is driving this hostility from some media figures is personal bitterness. Some of it is resentment over my having been able to break these big stories not despite, but because of, my deliberate breaching of the conventions that rule their world.
But most of it is what I have long criticized them for most: they are far more servants to political power than adversarial watchdogs over it, and what provokes their rage most is not corruption on the part of those in power (they don't care about that) but rather those who expose that corruption, especially when the ones bringing transparency are outside of, even hostile to, their incestuous media circles.
They're just courtiers doing what courtiers have always done: defending the royal court and attacking anyone who challenges or dissents from it. That's how they maintain their status and access within it. That's what courtiers to power, by definition, do.
It's a harsh assessment -- perhaps too harsh -- but it does offer a pretty good explanation for the way reporters are taking seriously (and, in some cases, appearing to advocate) for this ridiculous notion that by reporting on Snowden's leaks, Greenwald is somehow a co-conspirator.
Update: This morning Sorkin issued an apology to Greenwald, saying that he believes in freedom of the press and thinks this is an important story, and he didn't mean to imply that Greenwald should be arrested. Rather, he claims, it was a poorly executed attempt to raise some basic questions about the role of the media in all of this.
Well, this is interesting. Last week, of course, it was revealed that the DOJ has charged Ed Snowden for various crimes, including "theft of government property." In fact, Rep. Mike Rogers, the head of the House Intelligence Committee, seems to think this is the key charge, and argues (ridiculously) that the documents "belong to the people of the US" and that Snowden somehow "stole" them by giving the documents to those very same "people of the US."
Section 641 of Title 18 prohibits theft or receipt of stolen government information as well as theft of the documents, computer discs, etc., that contain the information. United States v. Fowler, 932 F.2d 306, 309-10 (4th Cir. 1991); United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d 69, 70-71 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 871 (1979); United States v. DiGilio 538 F.2d 972, 977-78 (3rd Cir. 1976), cert. denied sub nom. Lupo v. United States, 429 U.S. 1038 (1977). But see United States v. Tobias, 836 F.2d 449, 451 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 991 (1988). Nevertheless, for the reasons set forth below, the Criminal Division believes that it is inappropriate to bring a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 641 when: (1) the subject of the theft is intangible property, i.e., government information owned by, or under the care, custody, or control of the United States; (2) the defendant obtained or used the property primarily for the purpose of disseminating it to the public; and (3) the property was not obtained as a result of wiretapping, (18 U.S.C. § 2511) interception of correspondence (18 U.S.C. §§ 1702, 1708), criminal entry, or criminal or civil trespass.
There are two reasons for the policy. First, it protects "whistle-blowers." Thus, under this policy, a government employee who, for the primary purpose of public exposure of the material, reveals a government document to which he or she gained access lawfully or by non-trespassory means would not be subject to criminal prosecution for the theft. Second, the policy is designed to protect members of the press from the threat of being prosecuted for theft or receipt of stolen property when, motivated primarily by the interest in public dissemination thereof, they publish information owned by or under the custody of the government after they obtained such information by other than trespassory means.
And yet, the "theft of government property" seems to be central to the government's charges against Snowden, suggesting that, yet again, the administration is really grasping at straws in trying to charge Snowden with anything it can dig up for daring to blow the whistle on the surveillance program.
As Tim Cushing recently noted, reports are that Edward Snowden is on the move. With supposed help from the Wikileaks organization, Snowden was supposed to have flown from Hong Kong to Russia, where he would later make flight to Cuba to eventually end up in Ecuador. However, dozens of journalists are said to have boarded that same flight to Cuba, only to find that Snowden's seat was empty. Per The Guardian:
My colleague Miriam Elder didn’t manage to get on that plane to Cuba – but she’s very glad, since it seems Edward Snowden never got on it either. I just spoke to her. She said Aeroflot officials had told her “with a little smirk” that they had been expecting Snowden too.
But Miriam pointed out that Snowden had never actually been sighted in Moscow, and there was actually no real evidence that he had ever been in Russia at all. Meanwhile a planeload of journalists are now off to spend the day in Cuba …
So, we're left to believe either that something of a shell game is going on, with Snowden doing a feint on one flight ostensibly to board another, or else the game is already over and someone, somewhere has Snowden in custody. And this is something we all really need to focus on because... well...
Actually, we don't need to focus on it. It's a story and there's nothing wrong with reporting on Snowden's whereabouts, but this is all beginning to smell far too much like a Wikileaks style thumb-fest, where all the attention is placed on the person rather than the story. That can't be allowed to happen. It'd be far too easy for the American government and the press to be able to shine a spotlight on Snowden as opposed to what he revealed. While the headlines are filled with breathless reporting on the real life game of Where's Snowden going on, less attention is paid to his leaks and what those revelations mean for the American system of government. That's how we lose any focus on John Kerry's incredible statement:
I suppose there is no small irony here. I mean, I wonder if Mr Snowden chose China and Russian assistance in his flight from justice because they're such powerful bastions of internet freedom, and I wonder if while he was in either of those countries he raised the question of internet freedom, since that seems to be what he champions.
The irony that exists, of course, is that the United States government has been caught hacking and surveilling those same countries. For Kerry to then turn and accuse them of risking a free internet, which wasn't even the crux of what Snowden revealed, is hubris so strong it might just power motor vehicles. What Snowden was actually exposing, of course, was the American government's policy of subversive collection of communications data globally. Sure, you can point to the Chinese and Russian governments and say they don't have a free and open internet, though I'd caution levying that charge against Hong Kong. Of course you can say that they have similar spying programs in place, too. But this isn't about China and Russia, it's about America and what Snowden revealed.
The lesson here is that Snowden can't turn into another Assange. The cult of personality is the worst kind of celebrity worship, since it distracts so completely our attention from the actual issues in this case. Focus on what is being revealed, not who is revealing it, I'm begging you.
Andy Borowitz, who writes popular satirical pieces, has a great one entitled, "U.S. Seemingly Unaware of Irony in Accusing Snowden of Spying," in response to the news from late last week that Edward Snowden has officially been charged under the espionage act. Like all great satire, it works because the underlying point is so true. Edward Snowden isn't a spy. He exposedmassive spying by the US government. And yet he's the one charged with espionage?
At a press conference to discuss the accusations, an N.S.A. spokesman surprised observers by announcing the spying charges against Mr. Snowden with a totally straight face.
“These charges send a clear message,” the spokesman said. “In the United States, you can’t spy on people.”
It does seem quite ridiculous that the response to exposing massive spying to the public is to be accused of breaking a law designed to catch spies. But that's what you get when the government is so hell bent on spying on everyone and not letting anyone know about it.
One of the key refrains that has come out from those who are unhappy about the revelation of details around the NSA's surveillance efforts is that Edward Snowden's leaks are somehow harmful to America. During hearings about all of this, NSA boss Keith Alexander claimed that "Americans will die" because of these sorts of leaks. But... between those same hearings and other revelations from the administration and Congress, we're actually learning much more about the various programs directly from the government, as information is now being "declassified." And, apparently, President Obama is asking the NSA and the Justice Department to look into declassifying even more. So while the initial shove to declassify information may have come via Snowden, the stuff that we're really learning about is coming through revelations following Snowden's leaks -- revelations that never would have happened without his leaks.
So that raises a fairly basic question: if Snowden is somehow a traitor and putting lives at risk... why isn't the other information we're actually learning about the programs equally as problematic? The real answer seems to be that the information Snowden leaked does not harm us at all, but has simply revealed that the government has kept classified information from the American public that never should have been classified at all. The fact that only now are they looking to declassify it (and then doing so) shows pretty clearly that the information was improperly classified in the first place.
