Congress Eagerly Leaked Classified Information To Try To Discredit Snowden For Leaking Classified Information

from the snake-eats-itself dept

It's been two years since the very first news report in the Guardian based on documents provided by Ed Snowden. The NY Times (and other newspapers around the globe in varying languages) has published an op-ed by Snowden himself that gives a nice summary of how much has happened in the past two years, with real pushback finally starting to appear. As Snowden says:

The balance of power is beginning to shift. We are witnessing the emergence of a post-terror generation, one that rejects a worldview defined by a singular tragedy. For the first time since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, we see the outline of a politics that turns away from reaction and fear in favor of resilience and reason. With each court victory, with every change in the law, we demonstrate facts are more convincing than fear. As a society, we rediscover that the value of a right is not in what it hides, but in what it protects.

And yet, on the same day, Jason Leopold has also published details of how Congress regularly leaked classified information in an effort to demonize Snowden and to make it look like his actions caused harm -- something they still cannot show.

As you may recall, late in 2013, a talking point emerged that Snowden had made off with 1.7 million documents -- many of which included military secrets. The number had changed a bunch. The first claim was 60,000 documents. Then 200,000. When 60 Minutes did an NSA puff piece in December of that year it had ballooned to 1.5 million documents. A few days later, politicians seemed to settle on 1.7 million documents -- even as Glenn Greenwald (who actually had the documents) pointed out that it wasn't even close to true.

As we, and many others, pointed out around then, the 1.7 million claim appeared to come based on faulty assumptions, with the big one being that he copied every document from every network he ever scanned. A few months later, after all the fuss died down, James Clapper finally admitted that the 1.7 million number was hogwash -- but, by then, most of the press had moved on.

As Leopold's reporting has turned up, however, Congressional Snowden-haters were really, really eager to use this claim of 1.7 million documents to "shift the story" on Snowden. They had received that number as a talking point in a DIA briefing and wanted to make use of it:

"Members from both sides (Reps. Richard Nugent, Austin Scott, Henry "Hank" Johnson, Jr. and Susan Davis) repeatedly pressed the [DIA] briefers for information from the [Snowden damage] report to be made releasable to the public," states a February 6, 2014 DIA summary prepared for then-DIA director Lieutenant General Michael Flynn and deputy director David Shedd about a briefing on the Snowden leaks for members of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.

"[Redacted] explained the restrictions were to [redacted] but the members appeared unmoved by this argument. Overall, HASC [House Armed Services Committee] members were both appreciative of the report and expressed repeatedly that this information needed to be shared with the American public."

Of course, that didn't stop Congress critters from leaking the data anyway:

On December 18, the Washington Post's Walter Pincus published a column, citing anonymous sources, that contained details from the Snowden damage assessment. Three days earlier, 60 Minutes had broadcast a report that was widely condemned as overly sympathetic to the NSA. Foreign Policy and Bloomberg published news stories on January 9, 2014, three days after the damage assessment report was turned over to six congressional oversight committees. Both of those reports quoted a statement from Republican congressional leaders who cited the DIA's classified damage assessment report and asserted that Snowden's leaks endangered the lives of US military personnel.

Most of those came before the DIA released the number as an unclassified "talking point."

And the documents also reveal that Congress seemed pretty focused on figuring out ways to "change the narrative" on Snowden, rather than actually assessing what Snowden took -- and, apparently felt they could decide on their own which information in the briefing was classified and what was unclassified, so long as it served their own narrative:

During one classified briefing the damage assessment task force officials held for members of the House Intelligence Committee on Intelligence, lawmakers asked why Snowden, "who claims publicly to be seeking to reform NSA… acquired so many DoD files unrelated to NSA activities."

"[Redacted] explained that [Snowden] appeared to have acquired all files he could reach" was the answer. House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers and Congressman Adam Schiff "raised the issue that most documents were DoD related — which [redacted] confirmed — and both the congressmen stated they believed this simple fact was both unclassified… and was important for changing the narrative" about Snowden, states an undated summary of the House Intelligence Committee briefing the DIA prepared for Flynn and Shedd.

And, thus, it appears many in Congress had no problem potentially leaking classified information to attack Snowden as a "traitor" for leaking classified information, even though the claims about what he leaked were not, in fact, true.

Filed Under: classified information, congress, damage assessment, dia, ed snowden, leaks

Here's 140 Fully-Redacted Pages Explaining How Much Snowden's Leaks Have Harmed The Nation's Security

from the FOIA:-Freedom-Of-Ink-Act dept

If the US intelligence committee is concerned about the status of "hearts and minds" in its ongoing NSA v. Snowden battle, it won't be winning anyone over with its latest response to a FOIA request.

Various representatives of the intelligence community have asserted (sometimes repeatedly) that Snowden's leaks have caused irreparable harm to intelligence-gathering efforts and placed the nation in "grave danger." But when given the chance to show the public how much damage has been done, it declares everything on the subject too sensitive to release. EVERYTHING.

Here's the Defense Intelligence Agency's appraisal of the current situation, as released to Vice News' Jason Leopold.

On the subject of compromised information:

How about intelligence sharing and cooperation?


At least we know that -- as of January 2014 -- there were four (4) "talking points."


Every single assessment, dating back to September 2013, is fully redacted. How does that help communicate the DIA's concerns about Snowden's leaks to the general public? How does that persuade anyone about the alleged severity of the situation?

From what's not on display here, it's safe to say the general public's perception of the American intelligence apparatus doesn't matter. Those who do matter are those already on the NSA's side, and then only those with the power to guide legislation towards favorable ends. It's safe to say that there are people in Washington DC who have seen at least a portion of these reports, but that small group contains no members of the general public.

A fully-redacted report may seem logical in the eyes of the intelligence community, which despite multiple leakers, still pretends its secrets will always be secret. Page after page of redaction shows it's really not interested in the transparency it keeps promising will make everything better. It doesn't want to give the public any more information than it already has and this mess of whiteout and black ink clearly and loudly states that it believes the public has no stake in the ongoing debate over mass surveillance.

It's a wordless insult, delivered under the pretense of "national security."

Filed Under: damage, damage assessment, defense intelligence agency, dia, doj, ed snowden, foia, nsa, surveillance

Claims About Snowden's 'Harms' Based On Two Assumptions Unlikely To Be True

from the fud dept

There have been multiple attempts lately by the likes of James Clapper and Mike Rogers to insist that the Snowden leaks have created massive "damage" to the US and have put people at risk. Over at the Daily Beast, Eli Lake looks into those accusations and notes that they're based on two assumptions, neither of which are likely to be true:

But the DIA assessment is based on two important assumptions. First, it assumes that Snowden’s master file includes data from every network he ever scanned. Second, it assumes that this file is already in or will end up in the hands of America’s adversaries. If these assumptions turn out to be true, then the alarm raised in the last week will be warranted. The key word here is “if.”

On the first assumption, that he took every piece of data he ever touched, that's almost certainly not true. Snowden himself has detailed a few times how he carefully went through the documents to make sure that what he was sharing was limited and not too broad. In fact, in his very first interview he stated:

"I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest," he said. "There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is."

And on the second question, Snowden's also made it fairly clear that he no longer has the documents and even US officials appear to be of the opinion that he never gave them to any foreign government. While there is the possibility that foreign agents have been able to get them from various reporters who have portions of the collection, there's still the first issue about what documents are actually included in all of this.

Either way, just the fact that officials are going around insisting that there's been tremendous harm based on two rather questionable assumptions shows just how far they're willing to go to fear monger about the whole situation when there's still been no actual evidence of any harm anywhere as a result of these leaks.

Filed Under: assumptions, dia, ed snowden, exaggerations, harm, nsa