Remembering Edward Snowden

Sorry, but no. We could not be more unalike.

 

Your statement would be meaningful if you were to show which of Trump's predecessors continuously attacked a whistleblower personally, accusing them of "treason" and demanding that their name be revealed publicly, so his "mob" could show them and their family "who the boss is"

But you won't show any of that, right? Because you just wanted to defend your "idol" throwing in lame whataboutisms, but no real facts.

Fact is that no president likes whistleblowers. But none other than Trump would be able to unleash upon them and their family a violent cultish mob of blind followers eager to show how they deal with "heretics" who dare displease their "prophet"

 

So it is your view is that the, "government's," word can be trusted, without question(?).
The problem, here, is that we know, thanks to Mr. Snowden, that the government, under Obama, was lying about its data collection on U.S. citizens. I'm suggesting in this type of situation, guaranteeing a fair trial would require the DOJ to have a citizen review board to keep them honest, as some cities have for their police force. This really would not be difficult to create, as there are many people with security clearances--scientists, for example, as well as technical workers, as Snowden himself was-- who are not members of the government. They, perhaps in collaboration with the Justice Department Inspector General, could review material that leakers claim is improperly classified.

While I grant you, this is obviously, sometimes, a judgement call, there are other times when material quite clearly warrants classified status, just as there are known to have been instances when people in government have classified materials for non-security reasons (e.g., for political reasons, mostly, but also just to restrict information which, limited to their hands, gives them increased power).

 

If you've followed the Snowden story like I have, and have read the Guardian's (and other's) releases of the classified information he stole, can you tell me that everything that has been released is about data collection on US citizens and none of it was about foreign intelligence operations?

 

I have not, honestly, seen all the info he released. My argument in this thread has principally been about what constitutes a fair trial. If you are saying that there was legitimately classified info that had nothing to do with government's over-reach of surveillance on its citizens, which was of dubious legality, then you are serving the same function as the review panel I suggested.

It only makes me wonder, though, if this info is so readily accessible, why its general description could not be part of the trial. I'm not saying it would necessarily help him (not being familiar with the contents) but, as with all crimes, there is a range in both severity of the offense & the punishment, in instances of, "treason."

 

If your issue is whether or not he could have a fair trial (as opposed to is he a disgusting traitor or national hero), why is this a question that seems to only apply to Snowden? We have a lot of trials and I don't hear this issue raised for every one of them. Why do you think Snowden, of all defendants, is in danger of not getting a fair trial?

 

Approximately 95% of the released information was highly classified and had nothing to do with "government's over-reach of surveillance on its citizens." That information has not been publicly available, but was almost certainly captured by both the Chinese and the Russians.

 

If it is not publicly available, how are you aware of it, in a verifiable way?

 

If you watched even the beginning of the video in the OP, then you would realize it's a main focus of this thread. Snowden, there, is asked by an interviewer if he wishes ever to return to the U.S., to which he replies that he would gladly return home & face charges, were it not for the way the government would deprive his defense of introducing into evidence any of the documents, upon which his defense would be built.

As to why this question, "only seems to apply to Snowden," I guess the operative word, there, is seems. That is, this is obviously the case which has garnered the most attention, largely because of the way the data released had personal implications for us all, but also, in part, because it has gone on so long (with Snowden raising this issue) without his being locked away, to be forgotten.

 

As I believe I previously posted, before my second retirement I participated in the damage review.

 

So there is classified information, information that was never released by Snowden, that would prove him innocent? That simply sounds ridiculous.

He sure has been able to fool a lot of people into thinking he's some sort of truth telling whistleblower rather than a traitor who is currently living in Russia.

 

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but I have a feeling you misunderstood something I said. Since you never shared with me what you learned from your closely following the story in the Guardian, I took a cursory look myself but didn't see much detail, & the articles all looked to be from 2013. Here is an example:

"Having watched the Obama administration prosecute whistleblowers at a historically unprecedented rate, he fully expects the US government to attempt to use all its weight to punish him. 'I am not afraid,' he said calmly, 'because this is the choice I've made.'

"He predicts the government will launch an investigation and 'say I have broken the Espionage Act and helped our enemies, but that can be used against anyone who points out how massive and invasive the system has become'."
<end snip>

Here's a link to an Amnesty Int'l article, pleading for a pardon for Snowden.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-pardon


So I ended up at wikipedia, where I found out that Snowden took a ton of documents, most of which have not been released. The Chinese & the Russians did decrypt over a million files in Snowden's cache, which forced MI6 to remove some agents from the field; it's not clear whether these documents were stolen from Snowden, or if he supplied the files in order to stay at liberty in Hong Kong & Moscow. Though Snowden reviews the files before releasing them to the press,
there was one instance in which the New York Times also dropped the ball on something Snowden sent them, which disclosed intelligence activity against al-Quaeda. There have been a lot of other charges, but as they have been rather scatter-shot, I don't know how much one could rely on them. For example, see the last paragraph, in which the NSA director, Admiral Rogers, said in June 2014 that the overall effect of Snowden's disclosures wasn't all that terrible; but in February 2015, said that it had a, "material impact," on the NSA. It makes me think that, even aside from any personal biases these various commenters might have, & how difficult it might be to assess, there are politics at play; i.e., the official word has gone out that everyone is supposed to say it was a bad breach. Again, this is why having a non-partisan, citizen review board of people with appropriate security clearance, would add an important layer of verification of government claims.

Some excerpts from wikipedia:

On September 2, 2020, a U.S. FEDERAL COURT RULED that the U.S. intelligence's MASS SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM, exposed by Edward Snowden, was ILLEGAL, and POSSIBLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.[23]


POTENTIAL impact on U.S. national security
In March 2014, Army General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Armed Services Committee, "The vast majority of the documents that Snowden ... exfiltrated from our highest levels of security ... had nothing to do with exposing government oversight of domestic activities. The vast majority of those were related to our military capabilities, operations, tactics, techniques and procedures."[114] When asked in a May 2014 interview to quantify the number of documents Snowden stole, retired NSA director Keith Alexander said there was no accurate way of counting what he took...[115] The September 15, 2016 HPSCI report[106] estimated the number of downloaded documents at 1.5 million.

In a 2013 Associated Press interview, Glenn Greenwald stated [116]

"In order to take documents with him that proved that what he was saying was true he had to take ones that included very sensitive, detailed blueprints of how the NSA does what they do."

Thus the Snowden documents allegedly contained sensitive NSA blueprints detailing how the NSA operates, and which would allow someone who read them to evade or even duplicate NSA surveillance. Further, a July 20, 2015 New York Times article[117] reported that the terror group Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) had studied revelations from Snowden, about how the United States gathered information on militants, the main result is that the group's top leaders used couriers or encrypted channels to avoid being tracked or monitoring of their communications by Western analysts.

According to Snowden, he did not indiscriminately turn over documents to journalists, stating that "I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest. There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over"[20] and that "I have to screen everything before releasing it to journalists ... If I have time to go through this information, I would like to make it available to journalists in each country."[75] Despite these measures, the improper redaction of a document by the New York Times resulted in the exposure of intelligence activity against al-Qaeda.[118]

In June 2014, the NSA's recently installed director, U.S. Navy Admiral Michael S. Rogers, said that while some terrorist groups had altered their communications to avoid surveillance techniques revealed by Snowden, the DAMAGE DONE WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT enough to conclude that "the sky is falling."[119] Nevertheless, in February 2015, Rogers said that Snowden's disclosures had a material impact on the NSA's detection and evaluation of terrorist activities worldwide...[120]<END SNIP>


Two final notes. First, you may have noticed that one of our fellow posters, Jack Hays, says he was part of the, "damage review." While I accept that Snowden is not without culpability, yet as I don't know anything about Jack Hays (including even who he was working for), I can't simply accept his personal assessment as my own.

And second, I never said-- nor has Snowden-- that he should be pardoned. He has said that he is willing to accept punishment for what he did, though he believes it was completely just. But the degree of damage done becomes a very important consideration in his violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, for the punishment can range up to 30 years imprisonment.

 

Well your Wikipedia dump hasn't really helped me determine if you have specific objections to my comments, or if you are just sharing what you learned from Wikipedia. So my response will be guesses as to what you mean.

"He predicts the government will launch an investigation and 'say I have broken the Espionage Act and helped our enemies, but that can be used against anyone who points out how massive and invasive the system has become'."

Is the government going around and charging people who point out how massive and invasive the "system" has become? Uh no. Now stealing classified information is different story.

"So I ended up at wikipedia, where I found out that Snowden took a ton of documents, most of which have not been released. The Chinese & the Russians did decrypt over a million files in Snowden's cache, which forced MI6 to remove some agents from the field; it's not clear whether these documents were stolen from Snowden, or if he supplied the files in order to stay at liberty in Hong Kong & Moscow. Though Snowden reviews the files before releasing them to the press..."

So you acknowledge Snowden may have traded classified information to America's enemies in exchange for sanctuary? But you still think that's the behavior of a whistleblower?

"On September 2, 2020, a U.S. FEDERAL COURT RULED that the U.S. intelligence's MASS SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM, exposed by Edward Snowden, was ILLEGAL, and POSSIBLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.[23]"

Only the information on that program was exposed by the New York Times in 2006. It's weird how everyone forgets that actually happened and that Snowden was the first person to mention it.

"In March 2014, Army General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Armed Services Committee, "The vast majority of the documents that Snowden ... exfiltrated from our highest levels of security ... had nothing to do with exposing government oversight of domestic activities. The vast majority of those were related to our military capabilities, operations, tactics, techniques and procedures."[114] When asked in a May 2014 interview to quantify the number of documents Snowden stole, retired NSA director Keith Alexander said there was no accurate way of counting what he took...[115] The September 15, 2016 HPSCI report[106] estimated the number of downloaded documents at 1.5 million."

I'm not sure if I need to go any further than that.

""The vast majority of the documents that Snowden ... exfiltrated from our highest levels of security ... had nothing to do with exposing government oversight of domestic activities..."

That makes him a traitor and I guess, a defector, not any sort of truthteller or whistleblower.

 

I could go through every one of your points, to try to clarify my view, but every time I do, it just seems to create more confusion. The two bottom-lines are these:

A) Despite there having been some inconsistency among the comments of knowledgeable people, as highly-ranked as the NSA Director, and creditable evaluations about our lack of the full facts, you have already convicted Snowden in your mind--
"So you acknowledge Snowden MAY have traded classified information to America's enemies in exchange for sanctuary?...That makes him a TRAITOR and I guess, a defector..."

When we are talking about differences of decades, spent in prison, guesses of what someone may have done are no good enough, for me.
I believe Snowden's intentions were honorable. You offer no link as to your assertion that this story had already been exposed by the NY Times, but I think it is patently false that it was not Snowden who provided the smoking gun. To re-emphasize just two of the quotes from the wiki article: 1) "On September 2, 2020, a U.S. FEDERAL COURT RULED that the U.S. intelligence's MASS SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM, EXPOSED BY EDWARD SNOWDEN, was ILLEGAL, and POSSIBLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL."
2) And, you responded, "Is the government going around and charging people who point out how massive and invasive the 'system' has become?" to the wiki quote: He predicts the government will launch an investigation and 'say I have broken the Espionage Act and helped our enemies, but that can be used against anyone who points out how massive and invasive the system has become'.<close quote>
All I can credit you for, there, is pointing out the inexactness of Snowden's quote; of course the govt. isn't charging people for stating generalizations-- Snowden (and no one else, to that point) provided proof.

Snowden needed, according to one quoted reporter with knowledge of, & as much familiarity, as anyone, with the case, to take additional information in order to prove what he was saying was true. But he also wanted to protect himself. I believe he likely took this blueprint of the NSA's playbook, in addition, to be aware of his own vulnerabilities. He definitely overdid it.

B) He definitely committed crimes. That is not in dispute. That he also exposed illegal conduct by the government is also something that most people, including the court, cited above, will not deny. I don't know how I can make my view any clearer: the discussion, including from Snowden, concerns not amnesty but the appropriateness of the punishment (and please, Mike, let's not become insulting by pretending that he thinks he can choose his own sentence). ALL I AM, & HAVE BEEN, ADVOCATING FOR IS A FAIR TRIAL! **

Who knew that would be so controversial?



** BARRING ALL of the defense's evidence-- based solely on the WORD of the prosecution, the government, which is known to have LIED ON THIS SUBJECT-- is not a FAIR judicial process.

Respectfully,
DEF

 

One correction on my account, it was 2005, not 2006. The NYT article is here.

Well if we agree he committed crimes, than I guess we agree. Sorry I don't know what you were objecting to.

 

I think if Edward Snowden would have spoke out during Trump rather than Obama much more would have been demanded of the government to stop this intrusion.

 

He is no hero. First he went to China, then he went to Russia, where freedom of speech is not guaranteed in that country at all, especially if you go against the government. to me, he could have used the whistleblower act, but instead acted like a prima dona thinking he is smarter than everyone else. And now, he is teaching Russians how to hack into government websites.

 

Sure and the constitution agrees with me.

 

Why?
What did trump do about any of this?

 

The man is absolutely a hero. It is the people in government that want to put him on trial that actually deserve to go to jail.

 

You are replying to the wrong person (and quite late, as well). Since you somehow failed to pick up on it, I am in complete agreement with the idea that Snowden would deserve a fair trial. That was actually my argument, against Golem, that it would not be right to try Snowden, unless he could be given a fair trial. Golem seemed to be all right with the idea of his being tried, even if a fair trial was not possible. That is why I had emphasized the word "deserves," in my question to him:

DEFinning said: ↑
Do you think he deserves one?

 

No he would not.