Rep. Mike Rogers Now Claims Ed Snowden Should Be Charged With Murder, Because Someone Might Die

from the of-whom? dept

Things have been kind of quiet on the "ridiculous statements from Rep. Mike Rogers" front lately, but as he's entering his final months in Congress before retiring to the warm embrace of national talk radio, he's apparently decided to ramp back up with the ridiculous rhetoric. His latest salvo is to argue that the US should be charging Ed Snowden with murder:

Republican Mike Rogers, the chairman of the House of Representatives intelligence committee, told an meeting in the House of Commons in London on Tuesday evening that Snowden was a "traitor" who was now living in the "loving arms" of Russian spies.

"The [US] government has pressed charges on Mr Snowden," he said. "We are treating him, as I would argue, the traitor that he is." Rogers added: "And by the way, and this is important, I would charge him for murder."

Uh, murder of whom, exactly? As far as I can tell, his argument is that because of Snowden's actions, soldiers are less safe and might get killed, and thus, murder.

"He took information that allows force protection, not only for British soldiers, but for US soldiers, and made it more difficult for us to track those activities. Meaning it is more likely that one of those soldiers is going to get their legs blown off or killed because of his actions," he said. "Anybody that provides information to the enemy is a traitor, period, pure and simple."

Except, no. Almost none of that is even close to accurate. Snowden didn't "provide information to the enemy" -- he blew the whistle on illegal programs by revealing it to the public via well-respected reporters who, you know, won the Pulitzer Prize for their reporting. Unless Rogers views the American public as "the enemy" his argument makes no sense. Furthermore, what information has Snowden provided that means a soldier is somehow more likely to get his legs blown off or killed? So far, all of the revelations have been about surveillance programs that have raised serious legal and constitutional questions, but have done little to actually "help" terrorists. That's because most terrorists were well aware of the surveillance capabilities of the NSA/GCHQ before. The new stuff is how the NSA uses that on everyone else.

Meanwhile, if doing things that might lead to more soldiers getting hurt or killed makes you guilty of murder, shouldn't Rogers be talking about getting himself and other members of Congress charged with murder? After all, remember it was Congress that failed to equip soldiers with proper body armor.

Rogers also repeats his "Snowden was working for the Russians all along" argument that he's particularly fond of. He does this despite the fact that basically everyone, including officials from both the NSA and the FBI, has said they've found no evidence to support such an argument.

Rogers also repeats the claim that Snowden handed over lots of other material that is dangerous:

Rogers said that "over 95%" of the information Snowden handed over had "nothing to do" with the NSA spying on American or European citizens private communications but was "about tactical things, military plans and operations".

However, again, this is based on the old DOD report that listed everything that Snowden ever "touched." Snowden, Greenwald and others who have seen the documents have noted -- multiple times -- that the number of documents he actually handed over was much lower than what that report claimed (in the tens of thousands of documents, rather than 1.7 million as the report claimed). Furthermore, the fact that no reports have come out "about tactical things, military plans and operations" certainly seems to support that fact, no matter what Rogers wants to claim.

Now that he's moving to a medium where nutty conspiracy theorists thrive, I imagine Rogers may get even nuttier. But, at the very least, he won't be in charge of "oversight" (stop laughing) of the NSA any more.

Filed Under: ed snowden, fud, mike rogers, murder, nsa, surveillance, traitor

Marc Andreessen Thinks Snowden, Administration Are To Blame For Backlash Against US Tech Industry

from the but-not-the-NSA,-for-some-reason dept

Marc Andreessen, venture capitalist, has weighed in on the Snowden leaks, putting forth what even he terms to be an "unpopular" view. On CNBC's Squawk Box, he lead with this statement:

Obviously, he's a traitor. Like, if you look up in the encyclopedia, traitor, there's a picture of Edward Snowden. He's a textbook traitor. I'm in the distinct minority out here. I think most people in Silicon Valley would pick the other designation.

Being a traitor and committing treason falls under a very distinct definition. In Andreessen's dictionary (the one with Snowden's picture), this definition runs as follows:

Because he stole national security secrets and gave them to everybody on the planet.

Whereas the Constitution clearly defines treason as this:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Giving documents to "everybody on the planet" is not specifically "aiding or comforting" enemies of the United States. While it may have given some of them guidance on how to avoid surveillance, there's been no evidence presented that the leaks have done any specific harm to the US. There's been a lot of handwringing about the implications of the leaks, but the most specific claims released to date by the US government deal with Defense Dept. docs supposedly in Snowden's possession which, even if they exist (the NSA still doesn't know what Snowden took), haven't been released to anybody.

But Andreessen's most spectacular statement is also his most self-serving. He decries the damage done to US tech companies by the leaks, but rather than hold the NSA responsible, he shoots the messenger -- and wings the President.

[A]merican technology companies get a huge amount of revenue from outside the US. In fact, some of these companies get up to 70% of revenue outside the US and there's a big open question right now, how successful our companies will be when they go to sell products overseas. And there are a lot of foreign countries that are very envious of Silicon Valley and America's domination of tech and wish they could implement protection policies and will use this whole affair as a reason to do that…

The administration is just letting -- they're letting the American tech industry out to dry. I haven't met anybody who feels like the White House has a plan, It's just happening.

Andreessen's responses don't find anything necessarily wrong with the NSA's actions. The problem, as he sees it, lies with the "traitor" who exposed the NSA's subversion of tech company hardware and software. The administration is also partly to blame for not having done enough to shelter the tech world from the fallout of the NSA leaks. Andreessen also (via Twitter) blames both Americans for misunderstanding the NSA's programs and the media for misrepresenting the 702 program, implying that tech companies were working with the NSA to collect American communications.

But as far as he can see it, the agency itself is nearly blameless. He's "not surprised" the agency was spying. After all, it has thousands of employees and billions in funding (actual budget numbers exposed by another leak). What else were we Americans to believe it was doing with all that manpower and money?

Well, I'm fairly sure we weren't expecting to find it was grabbing bulk metadata on Americans' phone calls or sweeping up tons of "incidental" communications via its many surveillance programs. We weren't expecting it to have partnered with other nations to help them surveil their own citizens. And we certainly weren't expecting it to hand off unminimized data to other nations' intelligence agencies.

This is a very close-minded and self-centered view of the situation. That tech companies were damaged is unfortunate, but the blame lies with the agency that aims to "collect it all," rather than the person who exposed the egregious excesses done in the name of "security." And if the administration is to blame for anything, it's for not reining the NSA in over the years, rather than for not sheltering the industry from fallout.

Filed Under: ed snowden, marc andreessen, nsa, surveillance, traitor

This Clip Of Former NSA Boss Michael Hayden Calling Snowden A Traitor Is Brought To You By Microsoft

from the making-the-worst-of-your-advertising-dollars dept

Former NSA head Michael Hayden hasn't been shy about offering his opinion on the Snowden leaks. Not being in a position where his opinion might damage the government's reputation has certainly encouraged him to speak his mind. This has led to some truly bizarre assertions from the former spy-in-chief, including his belief that Snowden is headed down the path to alcoholism, his supporters are mainly internet shut-ins and that state secrecy is just like personal privacy and worthy of the same protections.

Over the weekend, Hayden appeared on Face the Nation, where he defended the NSA's activities and further derided Ed Snowden. [Full transcript here with a bundled autoplay video for no conceivable reason.] Hayden has apparently "upgraded" his views on Snowden (although, I'm more inclined to believe they've never changed) based on recent developments.

HAYDEN: Well, I used to say he was a defector, you know, and there's a history of defection -- actually, there's a history of defection to Moscow, and that he seems to be part of that stream. I'm now, kind of, drifting in the direction of perhaps more harsh language.
GARRETT: Such as?
HAYDEN: Such as "traitor."

Hayden's "drift" is based on a misconception that spread throughout most of the media in recent weeks.

HAYDEN: Well, in the past two weeks, in open letters to the German and the Brazilian government, he has offered to reveal more American secrets to those governments in return for something -- and in return was for asylum. I think there's an English word that describes selling American secrets to another government, and I do think it's treason.

Except that's not what Snowden actually said. That's just how it was portrayed, but Snowden never made a conditional offer. He was simply looking for permanent asylum and offering nothing in exchange -- just presenting the details of his current situation. The press took this and presented it as Snowden offering to help spy on the US or divulge secret documents in exchange for asylum. Hayden bought it. No doubt the NSA believes it as well. But Hayden cites this specifically as why he believes Snowden is a traitor -- and it's for something Snowden not only hasn't done, but for something he never even offered to do.

Making this ridiculous assertion even more ridiculous is the odd synergy of CBS and its sponsorship deals. The official CBS News Twitter account offered up a clip of Hayden calling Snowden a traitor as a "Face the Nation Moment" -- sponsored by none other than Microsoft.

Ex-NSA chief Hayden on whether Edward Snowden is a “traitor” in this @FacetheNation moment sponsored by @Windows: http://t.co/MzfytHHPyC

— CBS News (@CBSNews) December 30, 2013

I'm sure this is the last (mostly inadvertent) tie-in the software giant hoped to see rolling out to CBS News' 2.8 million followers. Microsoft has tried hard to distance itself from the image of "willing surveillance participant" in the past several weeks. It has issued statements about valuing customer privacy even as news has surfaced about it handing over pre-encryption access to the agency for several of its most popular products, as well as newer acquisitions like Skype.

But the way CBS pitches it, the message comes across as Microsoft supporting Hayden's claims that Snowden is a traitor. Unfortunate to be sure, but not entirely unbelievable.

Filed Under: ed snowden, michael hayden, nsa, sponsorship, surveillance, traitor
Companies: cbs, microsoft

Governments Have A Long History Of Calling Journalists 'Traitors' When They Publish Embarassing Materials

from the a-little-history-lesson dept

It's been somewhat incredible to watch government officials try to claim that reporters covering the NSA revelations from Ed Snowden's leaked documents are somehow "traitors." Last week, in the UK, the head of MI5, Andrew Parker, made a fool of himself going around telling other newspapers that The Guardian had somehow helped terrorists. However, as Amy Davidson at the New Yorker reminds us, when the government suddenly starts calling journalists "traitors," it pays to be skeptical, because it's most likely that the government is just very embarrassed about some news that makes them look bad.

Davidson relays the story of "the Spiegel Affair" from 1962, in which German officials went completely insane in attacking Der Spiegel for supposedly "putting lives at risk" by revealing 41 "highly classified state secrets." Officials also claimed that the publisher and the reporter were fleeing the country and needed to be stopped and arrested. The publication's offices had to be raided. Of course, it all later turned out to be almost entirely bogus. The report was certainly embarrassing to German officials -- highlighting how ill-prepared the country was in the case of an attack, because a simulation had resulted in fifteen million West Germans dead. Many of the official claims were outright lies (like the publisher skipping town to Cuba, which never happened). While that doesn't mean that reporters can't sometimes reveal too much, it's a good reminder that when the government flips its lid in situations like this, it pays to take the claims with a very large grain of salt.

The key paragraph from Davidson makes the point clear:

The professional secret-keepers are phenomenally bad at distinguishing between the threat of terror and their terror at being threatened—or worse, as with Strauss, at being humiliated. They need the press not just to shake them up but also to keep them from being destabilized by their own weaknesses and vanities.

We've discussed at length the overclassification problem in the government, and this is all a symptom of that. The government likes to overclassify things that may embarrass government officials -- and thus they tend to overreact when those things eventually come out. This is, in part, because of the embarrassing information, but also because of the attempt to cover up the embarrassment, which only makes the whole thing worse.

Either way, this historical example is good to remember as we continue to see government officials make fanciful claims without any evidence to support them about how much the Chelsea Manning or Ed Snowden leaks have "harmed" our safety.

Filed Under: germany, governments, journalism, leaks, traitor, uk, whistleblowers

Someone Using A US Senate IP Address Edits Wiki Entry To Change Ed Snowden From 'Dissident' To 'Traitor'

from the it's-Wikipedia,-not-an-opinion-page dept

Last Friday, the Wikipedia entry for Ed Snowden received a small, but charged, edit.

[Click through to embiggen.]

The anonymous editor changed the word "dissident" to "traitor." The edit appeared shortly after Russia announced it would grant Snowden asylum. This would be run-of-the-mill vandalism except for one fact: the IP address linked to the edit traced back to the U.S. Senate.

NetRange: 156.33.0.0 - 156.33.255.255
CIDR: 156.33.0.0/16
OriginAS: AS3495
NetName: USSAA
NetHandle: NET-156-33-0-0-1
Parent: NET-156-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
RegDate: 1991-12-03
Updated: 2007-04-05
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-156-33-0-0-1

OrgName: United States Senate
OrgId: USSAA
Address: 2 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.E. 6TH FLOOR
City: WASHINGTON DC
StateProv: DC
PostalCode: 20510
Country: US
RegDate: 1991-12-03
Updated: 2011-09-24
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/USSAA

Government employees editorializing entries isn't uncommon. In fact, there's an entire Wikipedia entry devoted to the subject. But editorializing by editors using government IP addresses rarely goes unnoticed. Now, whoever did this may feel Snowden is a traitor but the verdict is still out (quite literally) on that. He's been charged with espionage but until there's actual court proceedings, he's nothing more than a "dissident" (although that term has its problems as well), albeit one the government would like to have back in the US as soon as possible.

Why bother pointing out such a petty edit? Well, if it wasn't for the IP address, no one would care. But it's a bit obnoxious when someone in the Senate offices somehow feels the government doesn't have enough power and takes it upon themselves to "set the record straight" by taking a swing at Snowden via Wikipedia.

(H/T to a handful of unnamed readers who sent this in.)

Filed Under: dissident, ed snowden, senate, traitor, wikipedia edits

Congress Flips Out About 'Snowden The Traitor' As They Try To Pass Legislation To Stop The Program He Revealed

from the cognitive-dissonance dept

Congress is quite incredible at times. Compare and contrast the following two articles. First, we've got the news that Congress is pushing very, very hard to roll back and limit the various NSA surveillance programs -- programs that we only really know the full details about because of the leaks from Ed Snowden to the press. Then, we've got a bunch of Senators calling Snowden a traitor and arguing that Russia has "stabbed us in the back" by taking Snowden in. It's as if they don't even realize what they're saying and how fundamentally ridiculous they look:

“Russia has stabbed us in the back, and each day that Mr. Snowden is allowed to roam free is another twist of the knife,” said Senator Chuck Schumer....

[....] “I think this is a troubling pattern,” Ayotte said, pointing to Putin’s support for Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, his crackdown on adoptions and a string of other decisions in which he’s “basically just trampling on what we’ve expressed to him that we want to see happen … we’re not just talking about Snowden here.”

[....] “I think Snowden is a traitor, and Putin did a wrong thing."... Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told BuzzFeed.

[....] “Russia’s action today is a disgrace and a deliberate effort to embarrass the United States,” McCain said in a statement.

So... he's a traitor, and Russia has "stabbed us in the back" by allowing him to stay in that country... and... oh yeah... we need to fix this whole spying thing that Congress really sorta kinda knew about all along, but didn't much care about until Snowden let the public in on it. Incredible.

Filed Under: chuck schumer, congress, ed snowden, harry reid, john mccain, kelly ayotte, legislation, nsa, nsa surveillance, traitor

Snowden's Secrets 'Belong To The People Of The US' & He's A Traitor For Giving Them What They Own?

from the no-place-for-logic dept

Over the past few years, we've found that Rep. Mike Rogers, the head of the House Intelligence Committee, has an incredible knack for spewing pure bullshit in defense of whatever he's supporting, rarely even bothering to make sure his statements are internally consistent. Still, his statements on Meet the Press this weekend take that nonsense to a new high. Rogers goes off on Snowden -- who he has already declared "is a traitor" -- arguing in favor of the "theft of government property" charges against Snowden by making the following statement:

"He has taken information that does not belong to him -- it belongs to the people of the United States."

Right. This information that "belongs to the people of the United States," which has been totally hidden from us, was actually finally given to the people of the United States -- to whom Rogers admits it belongs -- by Snowden. And, for that, he's a traitor? How, exactly, does that work? By Rogers' own argument, the information, before Snowden leaked it, was improperly withheld, thanks to people like Rep. Mike Rogers, from the people who own it. Thus, by Rogers' own logic, isn't it actually Mike Rogers who is the traitor in that he withheld crucial information that "belongs to the people of the United States"?

Of course, Rogers didn't stop there. No, no. He continued with his internally inconsistent, and blatantly ridiculous argument by saying that (1) terrorists now know what we're up to and are changing what they do, and (2) so little information has been revealed that everyone thinks they know what's happening, but don't. That makes no sense. If (1) is true, it suggests that the actual details of the program have been revealed and thus wrongdoers now know our methods. But, immediately, he changes course and says that no one really knows what's going on -- in which case he shouldn't be concerned about terrorists changing what they do, because it shouldn't stop the successful programs that no one knows about.

We have seen that bad guys overseas -- terrorists who are committing and plotting attacks on the United States and our allies -- have changed the way they operate. We've already seen that. To say that's not harmful to the national security of the United States, or our safety, is just dead wrong...

[....] This is the problem with having a thousand-piece puzzle, taking three or four pieces, and deciding that you're now an expert on what that picture looks like. You're gonna get it wrong. They're getting it wrong and it's dangerous.

So, let me get this straight. The revealed information means that reporters only see a few pieces of the puzzle so they're getting the story "dead wrong." But... the terrorists, who are reading these stories, are somehow, magically, getting the full picture (the one the reporters are getting dead wrong) and miraculously changing how they act to now avoid NSA surveillance dragnets? How's that work? Answer: it doesn't. Rogers is spewing bullshit.

We don't ask for much from our elected officials, but is it really too much to ask that they make statements that are internally consistent within the brief block of time they open their mouths to yap about some subject on which they're supposedly "in charge"?

Filed Under: david gregory, ed snowden, espionage, mike rogers, theft of government property, traitor