Why Edward Snowden Is a Hero

[Catherina]

June 10, 2013
Why Edward Snowden Is a Hero
Posted by John Cassidy

...

So, what did the leaks tell us? First, they confirmed that the U.S. government, without obtaining any court warrants, routinely collects the phone logs of tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of Americans, who have no links to terrorism whatsoever. If the publicity prompts Congress to prevent phone companies such as Verizon and A.T. & T. from acting as information-gathering subsidiaries of the spying agencies, it won’t hamper legitimate domestic-surveillance operations—the N.S.A. can always go to court to obtain a wiretap or search warrant—and it will be a very good thing for the country.

The second revelation in the leaks was that the N.S.A., in targeting foreign suspects, has the capacity to access vast amounts of user data from U.S.-based Internet companies such as Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Skype. Exactly how this is done remains a bit murky. But it’s clear that, in the process of monitoring the communications of overseas militants and officials and the people who communicate with them, the N.S.A. sweeps up a great deal of online data about Americans, and keeps it locked away—seemingly forever.

...

Another Snowden leak, which Greenwald and the Guardian published over the weekend, was a set of documents concerning another secret N.S.A. tracking program with an Orwellian name: “Boundless Informant.” Apparently designed to keep Snowden’s former bosses abreast of what sorts of data it was collecting around the world, the program unveiled the vast reach of the N.S.A.’s activities. In March, 2013, alone, the Guardian reported, the N.S.A. collected ninety-seven billion pieces of information from computer networks worldwide, and three billion of those pieces came from U.S.-based networks.

...

Thanks to Snowden, and what he told the Guardian and the Washington Post, we now have cause to doubt the truth of this testimony. In Snowden’s words: “The N.S.A. has built an infrastructure that allows it to intercept almost everything. With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested without targeting. If I wanted to see your emails or your wife’s phone, all I have to do is use intercepts. I can get your emails, passwords, phone records, credit cards.”

...

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/06/why-edward-snowden-is-a-hero.html?mbid=social_mobile_tweet

[jehop61]

1. Does the writer

not cinsider the quarterly FISA Court legal authorization?

[kelliekat44]

4. Evidently. Or just doesn't mind lying. nt

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

12. The issue is sucking up all digital and phone communications

that clearly violates the 4th amendment.

[bluestate10]

43. You should educate yourself. The data is phone numbers. There is no fucking communication.

In order to listen in, the government has to go before a judge, prove justification and get permission to wiretap.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

44. not according to the recent revelations

[JaneyVee]

2. Hasn't most of this been debunked?

Collecting metadata is legal according to court rulings & they don't have direct access to internet companies.

[OilemFirchen]

6. Nothing is ever debunked.

There's an intertubes relay that's timed to resend bad data to "journalists" every hour.

[backscatter712]

11. Legal, but unethical.

The Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves.

[JaneyVee]

14. Maybe. They took threats to national security pretty seriously.

[backscatter712]

17. The cult of national security demands absolute obedience.

But we're talking about a group of people who are technically guilty of treason against the British Empire.

[MineralMan]

3. There was, like, this court order.

That's like a warrant. We saw it. It was classified Top Secret. There was a court order, for pete's sake. I guess this writer wasn't aware of that. I wonder what else the writer is not aware of...

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

13. Sucking up all digital & phone comm violates the 4th admendment

That is the issue, court order or not.

This needs to go to the SCOTUS.

[JaneyVee]

18. Actually, SCOTUS ruled it legal, although it may be unethical.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

20. Not True - In fact every-time this issue is brought before the courts it gets thrown out

[JaneyVee]

21. Here's the case legal scholars point to:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=442&invol=735

Although I believe we're at a point where our laws haven't caught up with our technology. I believe many of these laws need a clearer updating.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

22. lol - from 1979, about 1 persons phone, please do not waste peoples time with this

[JaneyVee]

23. You can LOL all you want. But you're looking at the legal scholar definition of why metadata

collection is not considered covered by the 4th Amendment. I'm not the one who wrote it.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

24. this is about more than just meta data, this is about harvesting and storing ALL comm

[MineralMan]

25. SCOTUS will decide.

That is true. And if they decide that there is no violation, what will you think?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

27. Well let's hope so, so far they have vigorously avoided the question but Sonwden also revealed names

of those being spied upon, which is what has been used before to throw the case out (since it is a secret program, no one know if they have been spied upon, therefore no one has standing)

Of course if they said it was not a violation of the 4th amendment, I would argue that that ruling couple with the bush/gore ruling would have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that we live in a totalitarian state controlled by the elite, and not the people.

what will you think?

[MineralMan]

30. I will let you know what I think

when there is more factual information to think about. Right now there is not much.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

31. You can't answer a straight forward question? Good to know.

Though that hasn't stopped you from chiming in all over this board on this matter, interesting...

[randome]

5. He didn't confirm anything. He alleged something then disappeared.

And why hasn't Greenwald published his NEXT explosive document?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[OilemFirchen]

7. Apparently...

He was stuffed into a duffle bag at Dulles a few days ago, just when Steve Clemons momentarily turned his head.

[HipChick]

9. I think I saw him on the Dulles C train with Elvis.

[frazzled]

8. And why he's not (Josh Marshall)

After a long disquisition on Manning, Marshall summarizes the divide between those who see him as a hero and those who see him as definitely unheroic, and then moves on to Snowden:

Here is I think the essential difference and where it comes back to what I referred to before - a basic difference in one’s idea about the state and the larger political community. If you see the state as essentially malevolent or a bad actor then really anything you can do to put a stick in its spokes is a good thing. Same if you think the conduct of US foreign policy is fundamentally a bad thing. Then opening up its books for the world to see is a good thing simply because it exposes it or damages it. It forces change on any number of levels.

From that perspective, there’s no really no balancing to be done. All disclosure is good. Either from the perspective of transparency in principle or upending something you believe must be radically changed.

On the other hand, if you basically identify with the country and the state, then indiscriminate leaks like this are purely destructive. They’re attacks on something you fundamentally believe in, identify with, think is working on your behalf.

Now, in practice, there are a million shades of grey. You can support your government but see its various shortcomings and even evil things it does. And as I said at the outset, this is where leaks play a critical, though ambiguous role, as a safety valve. But it comes down to this essential thing: is the aim and/or effect of the leak to correct an abuse or simply to blow the whole thing up?

In Manning’s case, it’s always seemed pretty clear to me that the latter was the case.

(...)

The Snowden case is less clear to me. At least to date, the revelations seem more surgical. And the public definitely has an interest in knowing just how we’re using surveillance technology and how we’re balancing risks versus privacy. The best critique of my whole position that I can think of is that I think debating the way we balance privacy and security is a good thing and I’m saying I’m against what is arguably the best way to trigger one of those debates.

But it’s more than that. Snowden is doing more than triggering a debate. I think it’s clear he’s trying to upend, damage - choose your verb - the US intelligence apparatus and policieis he opposes. The fact that what he’s doing is against the law speaks for itself. I don’t think anyone doubts that narrow point. But he’s not just opening the thing up for debate. He’s taking it upon himself to make certain things no longer possible, or much harder to do. To me that’s a betrayal. I think it’s easy to exaggerate how much damage these disclosures cause. But I don’t buy that there are no consequences. And it goes to the point I was making in an earlier post. Who gets to decide? The totality of the officeholders who’ve been elected democratically - for better or worse - to make these decisions? Or Edward Snowden, some young guy I’ve never heard of before who espouses a political philosophy I don’t agree with and is now seeking refuge abroad for breaking the law?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/06/like_the_oj_simpson_trial.php?ref=fpblg

Much much more at link.

[randome]

28. That is an excellent piece.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[frazzled]

33. Yeah, it reflected my feelings pretty well

And I don't always agree with Marshall, nor do I always feel he's the best writer. This piece was a gem, however. It's precisely what I was trying to express to my sister this morning when we were discussing the issue: it's all about your view of government. If you think government is an inherently bad thing, you'll think Snowden is a hero. If you believe that government (meaning not just the legislators but the thousands of career workers), while it makes errors and sometimes oversteps its bounds, is generally trying to help, you'll have less sanguine feelings about this leak.

It's also, as Marshall suggests, about whether you are a total-transparency, all-information-should-be-shared type (I'm not) or someone who believes that some intellectual property needs to be protected and some government workings need to be kept secret. This goes all the way back to Napster for me. Never understood why it would be okay to essentially "steal" music.

[leftstreet]

10. Meh. Not a hero, not a villian n/t

[NightWatcher]

15. A hero would've taken the info to a friendly Congressman's office

Then said congresscritter would be able to address the issue in committee, etc.

I know of people who have taken sensitive info straight to a congressman and they addressed it without exposing secrets or problems to the public.

[Octafish]

16. Snowden exposed the warmongers who spy on America for what they are.

That's why they're so busy calling him a traitor.

[WillyT]

19. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

<snip>

For most Americans, the main concern will be domestic spying, and the chronic lack of oversight that Snowden’s leaks have highlighted. In the years since 9/11, the spying agencies have been given great leeway to expand their activities, with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, which deals with legal requests from the agencies, and the congressional intelligence committees, which nominally oversees all of their activities, all too often acting as rubber stamps rather than proper watchdogs.

Partly, that was due to lack of gumption and an eagerness to look tough on issues of counterterrorism. But it also reflected a lack of information. Just a couple of months ago, at a Senate hearing, Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden, one of the few legislators to sound any misgivings over the activities of the intelligence agencies, asked Clapper, “Does the N.S.A. collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” To which Clapper replied: “No, sir.” (He added, “Not wittingly.”) At another hearing, General Keith Alexander, the director of the N.S.A., denied fourteen times that the agency had the technical capability to intercept e-mails and other online communications in the United States.

Thanks to Snowden, and what he told the Guardian and the Washington Post, we now have cause to doubt the truth of this testimony. In Snowden’s words: “The N.S.A. has built an infrastructure that allows it to intercept almost everything. With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested without targeting. If I wanted to see your emails or your wife’s phone, all I have to do is use intercepts. I can get your emails, passwords, phone records, credit cards.”

Were Clapper and Alexander deliberately lying? If so, perhaps Snowden should be extradited to the United States and dragged into court—but only as part of a proceeding in which the two spymasters face charges of misleading Congress. I suppose you could make the argument that he is a naïve young man who didn’t fully understand the dangerous nature of the world in which we live. You could question his motives, and call him a publicity seeker, or an idiot. (Fleeing to Hong Kong wasn’t very smart.) But he doesn’t sound like an airhead; he sounds like that most awkward and infuriating of creatures—a man of conscience. “I don’t want to live in a society that does these sort of things,” he told Greenwald. “I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live under.”

<snip>

Same...

[KoKo]

26. Definitely...but the Celebrity DU'er Crowd thinks he's been Discredited

and is DEAD. I think some of them hope that Guardian will Drop Him from their Websited the way the corruption is reading from the Vitriol seen by DU Posters going against him.

[ProSense]

29. Edward Snowden

"Why Edward Snowden Is a Hero"

...broke the law, and his actions are not going to be looked on favorably.

<...>

Snowden is the 29-year-old intelligence analyst and computer geek who leaked some of the National Security Agency’s most precious secrets to journalists from The Post and the Guardian. He is now on the lam, having checked out of the Hong Kong hotel where he holed up for several weeks as he orchestrated a worldwide media splash that shows no sign of ending.

Snowden betrayed his employer, the consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, and his promise not to divulge classified information. He paints what he did as an act of civil disobedience, but he has decided to seek political asylum abroad rather than surrender to authorities and accept the consequences. In published interviews, he comes across as grandiose to the point of self-parody, a legend in his own mind.

He is an imperfect messenger, to say the least. But his message should not be ignored.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-snowdens-nsa-leaks-show-we-need-a-debate/2013/06/10/002911b6-d203-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_story.html

No one with any objectivity is going to defend this guy, and a pardon is highly unlikely.

'Pardon Edward Snowden' Petition Seeks White House Response
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022988977

AP Editor: Do Not Describe Edward Snowden As A 'Whistleblower'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022989251

"Most significant" leak in history, and likely one of the dumbest.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022987178

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

34. Is Edward Snowden A Traitor? - If He Is, So Was Daniel Ellsberg. - Slate

from WillyT http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022995801

Is Edward Snowden a Traitor?
If he is, so was Daniel Ellsberg.
By Emily Bazelon | Slate
Posted Tuesday, June 11, 2013, at 4:46 PM


Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, speaks during a rally in support of Pfc. Bradley Manning on June 1, 2013, in Fort Meade, Md.
Photo by Lexey Swall/Getty Images

<snip>

The condemnations are raining down upon Edward Snowden, master leaker of National Security Agency surveillance programs. They come from the expected sources: House Speaker John Boehner calls him a “traitor.” But they also come from people you might expect to be more sympathetic toward him. Legal experts Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago and Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker both believe he betrayed his country and should go to prison. So does New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Toobin writes that Snow “wasn’t blowing the whistle on anything illegal; he was exposing something that failed to meet his own standards of propriety.” Stone says, “There is no reason on earth why an individual government employee should have the authority, on his own say so, to override the judgment of the elected representatives of the American people and to decide for the nation that classified information should be disclosed to friends and enemies alike.”

Brooks: “He betrayed the Constitution. The founders did not create the United States so that some solitary 29-year-old could make unilateral decisions about what should be exposed.” (Brooks also dings Snowden for being a lone wolf, which is hilariously at odds with his adulation of other solo radicals.)

A foundation of their argument is that Snowden is not a genuine whistle-blower. And it’s true that if you divulge classified information to expose the government and you don’t reveal a clear legal violation, you’re not, under current law, a whistle-blower. The federal Whistleblower Protection Act, passed in 1989, was written to shield government employees who reveal fraud and other wrongdoing. But it is riddled with exceptions. If you work for the NSA or the CIA, you’re out of luck—no protection for you. Snowden misses on both counts: He seems to have exposed no actual crimes, and he worked for the NSA. They may make movies about private-sector whistle-blowers such Erin Brockovich (fought toxic dumping) and Jeffrey Wigand (exposed tobacco company lies). But they prosecute government whistle-blowers such as Thomas Drake, who exposed waste and bureaucratic mess at the NSA, and of course Bradley Manning, on trial for the enormous WikiLeaks data dump.

The Obama administration is moving to charge Snowden with disclosing classified information, probably under the Espionage Act—the anti-sedition law from 1917 that has recently become the government’s favorite weapon. The government can count on this much: Once Snowden is charged with crimes that will surely carry a long prison sentence, it will be harder to see him as a hero. That has certainly been true for Manning.

I understand that some government secrets must stay secret...

<snip>

More: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/edward_snowden_and_daniel_ellsberg_is_the_nsa_leaker_a_traitor.html

[Thinkingabout]

32. He is not a hero, I was aware the data was being collected. He is a thief for stealing information

and delivering it to someone who did not have security clearance. He was employed with a code of ethics and he has broken the code and there will be consequences for him. The FISA court has been looking and granting the warrants to obtain the phone call records. If further wiretapping was required another warrant was needed to wiretap. We must be aware if we uses services like communications, email, and internet services it can be subject to recording the information thru FISA courts or even in lower courts related to criminal acts. As far as credit card uses, again most are completed through communications and can be recorded. There are cameras being installed in many cities, businesses and homes. There are many cell phone with video capable of recording your activities if you are in public.

[WillyT]

35. Kick !!!

[b.durruti]

36. He's a hero, despite the quislings' best efforts to delegitamize him. -nt-

[Major Hogwash]

37. You're too late, he's already been found to be a liar, a traitor, and a fugitive on the run.

Now you can continue.

[Autumn]

38. Whatever he is, he started a conversation that needs to be had.

This crap has gone on too damn long and the media and our elected officials have refused to have that conversation with the American people.

[Catherina]

39. I think it takes a hero to stand up against a trillion dollar machine that protects capital, kills

to give up his life, his girlfriend, his family, his country, everything and then get dragged through the mud by a bunch of petty, vindictive, crime-covering assholes.

I am truly amazed at his courage. And Greenwald's too. YMMV on that of course

[Autumn]

40. You are so right on that. I read that he has more to release

and I hope it keeps coming out.

[Catherina]

42. Me too. Greenwald already said he can't release it all

but I wish someone would. Like you, I'm anticipating and hoping it keeps coming. He certainly plans to

[bluestate10]

41. A person makes vague allusions to abuses, without giving one example of abuse.

Then, he drops out of sight, with possible residence in Russia as an option. Snowden is not a hero, he is a traitor of the cheapest kind until he presents facts that he isn't.

[RB TexLa]

45. He's not, he's a traitor.

[ucrdem]

46. A hero to the CATO Institute, sure.

Last edited Wed Jun 12, 2013, 12:20 AM - Edit history (1)

He's also a Ron Paul fan.