Let Snowden Come Home

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/its-time-to-let-edward-snowden-come-home

by donohoe • 11 years ago

785 275 11 years ago

fourply3• 11 years ago

It is infuriating to see SO many articles, even from publications that can usually be trusted, referring to this legislation as "commendable" or "significant reform". It is far from it, and we can't expect the couch-dwellers to pay attention while the dying gasps of the 4th estate trumpet this kind of non-change.

herbig• 11 years ago

The quote you're referring to is "The new legislation, while it is commendable as far as it goes, contains some obvious shortcomings."

rosser3• 11 years ago

But the full quote would mitigate the raging hate-on the grandparent is sporting.

Yes, the USA Freedom Act is limited. Yes, it doesn't change all the things we'd all like to see changed. "The perfect is the enemy of the good." It's at least movement in the right direction. Let's try celebrating that, instead of (or at least along with) bitching that it's not movement far enough.

Someone1234• 11 years ago

And let's assume for a second that they did introduce actual reform. All that would happen is that they would go back to pre-9/11 spying on Americans. Let me explain how that worked...

So pre-9/11 the NSA wasn't allowed to spy on Americans (in most cases), so instead they paid the UK's GCHQ to spy on Americans for them and then relayed the intelligence to the NSA for analysis. This was and still is a perfectly legal loophole. There are no limits on cooperation with other intelligence agencies. When 9/11 happened the NSA got effectively a blank cheque and asked to increase intelligence gathering significantly, so instead of continuing the GCHQ misdirection they simply expanded spying within the US and then legalised it (via executive order at the time, law later).

So the NSA was spying on Americans in the 1990s, they just had to do more legal maneuvering to do it. It just got significantly worse in the 2000s and they dropped even pretending that they weren't. Even if a stronger law outlawed spying on Americans, you'd just see them go back to the GCHQ way.

PS - A lot of Americans seem to want the NSA spying on "foreigners" without realising that that effectively opens the door to the NSA spying on Americans. That way a call between a US citizen and anyone from abroad can be listened in on.

PPS - Don't even get me started on the NSA's spying on behalf of US corporations, that's a whole other can of worms.

higherpurpose• 11 years ago

That's why such reforms need to be accompanied by appropriate reductions in NSA's budget. If the NSA required $5 billion a year to sustain the bulk collection of phone metadata of most Americans, then its budget should be cut by $5 billion, if it's now supposedly "ended".

If the budget remains the same or even increases the following year, then clearly something is not right there and the NSA will just use that money to "keep" the program in some other place and through some other methods.

Unfortunately, since the "Defund the NSA" bill that almost passed the House after the first Snowden revelations, I haven't seen any discussion about doing that. The civil liberties organizations should've pushed for a similar law within 3 months afterwards and ensure it passes then.

fixermark3• 11 years ago

Cooperation between GCHQ and the NSA certainly didn't end post-9/11.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/11/04...

joesmo• 11 years ago

So just because we can't have zero spying, we should accept incredible levels of intrusion rather thank working to put more roadblocks in NSA's way?

That's not a rational argument.

munin3• 11 years ago

This was and still is a perfectly legal loophole

no it isn't, EO12333 disallows the intelligence community from asking someone else to do something that they cannot do

ipsin• 11 years ago

The USA Today headline was "NSA Data Collection Ended". I don't even know what to do with something so far from the truth.

themartorana3• 11 years ago

In the end, they probably couldn't have asked for a better outcome. Collection continues, warrants are still unnecessary if you go about it the right way.

yodsanklai3• 11 years ago

I've just heard similar reports on French radio. For some reasons, they forgot to mention that nothing has changed concerning the surveillance of non-US citizens.

This leads to a question: in the movie Citizenfour, Snowden explains that the NSA uses british surveillance system when they need information that they can't legally obtain in the US. I'm wondering, under this new "freedom act", can the NSA legally query the british system to access information about US citizen?

rfrey• 11 years ago

"As Snowden intended, the primary impact of the leaks was on political debate inside the United States."

I think the primary impact has been the complete erosion of whatever goodwill the United States had among the citizenry (n.b. not the governments) of her allies.

That obviously doesn't matter in the short term; but so many things don't matter in the short term.

nickbauman3• 11 years ago

I think the militarization of our local police forces and the tacit support of interdiction, confiscation and especially their extra-judicial killing of unarmed people has done more, but it's not an argument I want to win against your assertion at all.

coldtea3• 11 years ago

I think the primary impact has been the complete erosion of whatever goodwill the United States had among the citizenry (n.b. not the governments) of her allies.

The DESERVED complete erosion.

I fixed it for you.

rhino3695• 11 years ago

Complete erosion is a huge overstatement. In fact, we are still probably better off than we were in the dark years after the Iraq invasion.

mr337• 11 years ago

Unfortunately I think it is justified.

Don't forget James Clapper lying to congress about not spying on US citizens. I also got a video of it, https://youtu.be/9LKzAsIMUx8

Last I heard he was selling a book, not from jail.

loopdoend• 11 years ago

if only Canadian leadership were likewise disgusted.

ra1n85• 11 years ago

Don't just bring him home, honor him.

Ticker tape parades, a federal holiday, buy 1 get 1 free at Carl's Jr. - celebrate what this man did.

thoman23• 11 years ago

lol...the Carl's Jr. BOGO offer would probably go a long ways toward teaching the average American who he even is.

austinhutch• 11 years ago

If he were to come back to the USA and then subsequently be detained, I would join the hopefully overwhelming protests in favor of his release. I am hoping if such a time comes, that there will be a historic level of demonstration advocating for his freedom.

mhurron• 11 years ago

I would expect you would be severely disappointed.

hueving3• 11 years ago

I would join the hopefully overwhelming protests in favor of his release.

All 12 of us would be fired up! More seriously, did you see the bit on John Oliver about Snowden? The majority of the US population have no idea who Snowden is. Be careful not to get caught up in our tech news bubble.

themeek23• 11 years ago

Yeah I keep getting surprised that people I meet have no idea who Snowden is, haven't heard of mass surveillance or propaganda operations, aren't aware of the huge national security push being made by the United States across essentially every region of the globe, and aren't following national security legislation including the recent Freedom Act and 215 sunset.

comrh• 11 years ago

Kind of the hardest bubble to notice you're in though right? Especially in the age of social media.

electic• 11 years ago

It is easy to also forget, however sad, that the people that do know of Snowden, and are familiar with what he did, think he is a traitor and should stand trial for his "crimes".

[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-think-edward-snowden-s...

mortehu3• 11 years ago

I think the being known to a majority of the US population is a way too high bar. In a 2010 poll[1], only 59% knew the name of the vice president, as mentioned in a Greenwald article[2] about this issue.

1. http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-s...

2. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/06/john-oliver-in...

lectrick• 11 years ago

That episode was pretty amazing.

djloche• 11 years ago

It is really the issue of large numbers. ~320M people. You could have 2 million person march through DC and demand an immunity EO for Snowden and it wouldn't represent even 1% of the population.

lamuerteflaca• 11 years ago

The cynic in me tells me that instead people will be calling for his head.

stephengillie• 11 years ago

Most idiots do what they're told, and with IQ rates proportional to population, the USA has the 3rd most idiots of any country in the world.

fourply3• 11 years ago

Well, nobody seemed to care about the potential renewal of section 215, so...

Burn it all and start over, I say :)

tosser-0042• 11 years ago

Many, many more people view him as a traitor for exposing legal foreign intelligence programs. He obviously did it for what he thought were valid reasons, but that does make it right.

aerique• 11 years ago

Actually, it is right what he did. Given how much dirt has been exposed do you really think there was another way to do this? What Snowden did is a prime example of civil disobedience: sometimes a country needs to be called out on what it's doing is wrong, no matter what the laws say.

That said, whistleblowers are in for a rough time and usually get acknowledged for what they did when they're either too old or dead.

Maxford_Maxford• 11 years ago

Is a law legal if there's no public knowledge of its legality?

themeek23• 11 years ago

Can you provide a citation for that? Every study I know on how American people writ large feel about Snowden show conclusively across the country and across party lines that the American people felt that what NSA did was wrong are thankful to Snowden for revealing it.

mVChr2• 11 years ago

More likely a few years after his return, when public attention has waned, he would die due to an unfortunate accident of some sort, perhaps a hit and run or the like.

While this may sound like conspirilogic, I can site many similar instances of deaths of journalists and other instigators under mysterious circumstances in this country if necessary.

mapmap• 11 years ago

Michael Hastings:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist)#...

dragonwriter9• 11 years ago

More likely a few years after his return, when public attention has waned, he would die due to an unfortunate accident of some sort, perhaps a hit and run or the like.

Why wouldn't that be just as likely to happen to him while in exile once public attention has waned?

rtpg• 11 years ago

considering that there are 30000 vehicle fatalities in the US a year, you have a 1 in 10k chance every year of dying in a car accident.

People dying in car accidents are a thing that happen with a much higher probability than winning the lottery, so maybe this is nature imitating art more than anything else.

herah• 11 years ago

That's what so many said about Manning and look where he is now. Though I'm with you that if this happens, it would be great.

MBlume• 11 years ago

She.

3327• 11 years ago

I would not. I am American and despite the fact that what I think he did was right, the manner he did it was wrong.

Domestic Spying is NOT OK.

International Spying IS OK.

He released dozens of files regarding international spying. Setting US efforts back dozens of years, endangering lives of US assets.

Sorry to say but that is treason.

Treason has a price.

x5n12• 11 years ago

Yes you just need an agreement with one of the five eyes and international spying becomes domestic spying.

gamerdonkey• 11 years ago

Sadly, things are not often so cut and dry.

What are you feelings about spying that is ostensibly international but nonetheless collects a potentially large, though unknowable, amount of intimate domestic communication? I ask because that is exactly the kind of thing that happens with the "Foreign Intelligence" programs Snowden leaked.

[...] Section 702 of FISA Amendments Act of 2008, is labeled "Procedures For Targeting Certain Persons Outside The United States Other Than United States Persons." Going on name alone, that sounds like the opposite of a license for the NSA to collect private messages between Americans.
Not necessarily.
[...]
Through those spying programs, it is possible that American-to-American email could hit an overseas server and be pulled into NSA databases even though those emails are not the target of NSA searches. The law does not prohibit this kind of "incidental" collection of Americans’ communications, as long as it was part of an otherwise valid collection of non-Americans’ information, said Stephen Vladeck, American University national security law professor.
Government reports, leaks and a scathing 2011 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinion offer more proof that the NSA cannot separate out communications between Americans from the emails involving a foreigner. "NSA’s knowing acquisition of tens of thousands of wholly domestic communications through its Upstream collection is a cause of concern for the court," wrote FISC Judge John D. Bates in the declassified opinion.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/09/...

themeek23• 11 years ago

Journalists, however, released these documents. Snowden brought a trove of documents because there was no single document that acted as a smoking gun.

If you are upset with the leak of international material you must be upset with Greenwald.

x5n12• 11 years ago

yes because that actually works in the US. /s

fsdfewjfiekf• 11 years ago

As long as "home" means "prison next to Robert Hanssen and everyone else who sold secrets to the Russians", then sure.

aqme28• 11 years ago

Do you have any evidence that he sold info to the Russians?

istvan__• 11 years ago

Many of the CIA and other government agency employees sold secrets to the Russian. How about that? Or if it is for business reasons, it is ok, if it is pointing out the nature of the surveillance state we are living it is not ok.

aikah• 11 years ago

He didn't sold anything to Russia, the leaks are public throwaway shill. That's called whistle blowing and he exposed the wickedness and the corruption of your "adored" government. But Ignorance is bliss for some.

tomohawk• 11 years ago

I'm sure a nice guy like Putin is only putting up Snowden in Russia out of the kindness of his heart.

foxhedgehog5• 11 years ago

Was he also whistleblowing when he mysteriously appeared on Russian television asking softball questions to Putin?

task_queue2• 11 years ago

Let's not kid ourselves, he will get the Manning treatment for the trouble he's caused.

eli9• 11 years ago

Manning was a solider and subject to (harsh) military law. Snowden is a civilian and charged in a regular federal court in Virginia.

bitwarrior• 11 years ago

Only a presidential pardon will really suffice to come home without threat of arrest. It may very well happen posthumously, but that of course wouldn't be too useful to him by then.

MrZongle22• 11 years ago

A presidential pardon for Snowden won't come from the current occupant of the White House, and by the looks of the candidates so far he'll likely be waiting at least until 2020.

gojomo• 11 years ago

"…won't come from the current occupant of the White House…"

Are you sure? In their final days in office, lame-duck Presidents can (and do) use their pardon powers in ways that would be politically-unthinkable at any other time.

A total pardon would be very hard – a potentially dangerous precedent, even, for discipline in the security agencies.

But perhaps a pardon could be creatively crafted for all acts except some token offense with a smallish (2-4 year) maximum incarceration.

Without an unambiguous and expansive public pardon, if I were Snowden, I'd be somewhat suspicious of other offers from the DoJ. They might find a way to nullify the offer, or find something else outside the agreement to prosecute.

mason240• 11 years ago

Rand Paul might pardon him.

eli9• 11 years ago

Perhaps a minority opinion, but I believe the NSA vastly overstepped and that they need to be reined in (much further than what the USA Freedom Act contains)... but also that Snowden probably should face charges.

Snowden is charged with "willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person," which -- I think sensibly -- is illegal even if the unauthorized person is a reporter and even if you had good intentions.

I'm not a lawyer, but if he wants to argue that he's innocent or that the law is unconstitutional, it seems like the courtroom is the right place to make that argument.

nickbauman3• 11 years ago

I would agree with you as long as we also indict members of the US state security apparatus in VA and DC and around the world who authorized these programs as well. I'm not holding my breath.

eli9• 11 years ago

At the least, I think Clapper should be investigated for perjury over lying to Congress.

But the fact that other criminal acts are going unpunished doesn't really have any bearing on Snowden's case. The crime Snowden is charged with is the same regardless of who else is charged.

bbatsell• 11 years ago

I'm not a lawyer, but if he wants to argue that he's innocent or that the law is unconstitutional, it seems like the courtroom is the right place to make that argument.

You should know that he would be legally barred from doing so under an Espionage Act prosecution.

https://freedom.press/blog/2013/12/if-snowden-returned-us-tr...

https://freedom.press/blog/2014/01/sen-schumer-wrong-snowden...

eli9• 11 years ago

Well, I believe that's based on a hypothetical of how a judge might rule if Snowden attempts that defense.

But more importantly, I don't think that's wrong. "I had a good reason" isn't a defense against the charges since intent is not a factor in this crime. I don't think you're generally allowed to argue for jury nullification, which is what this would amount to. (If the government could prove he intended to cause harm I imagine there would be even more charges against him.) And it makes sense: we can't have a situation where any random defense employee can bring down a national security program that they themselves think is wrong or illegal.

I assume if there was a sentencing hearing, he'd be allowed to make a case for leniency based on why he did it.

themartorana3• 11 years ago

This is the stuff of nightmares. My nightmares, anyway. A fair and speedy trial in which you are not allowed to argue against the charges you face.

It flies in the face of everything American and everything decent. There's a reason jury nullification is a thing - it's a check against the unbridled power and resources of the prosecution, and any laws that may be unjust by existing.

Seriously, it's crazy to me when shit is ruled inadmissible when the information clearly has everything to do with the case. And if I put myself in the shoes of a juror, if I pass a verdict and later find out part of the truth was withheld, I'm very much going to feel that I was used - a pawn in a broken system, and not at all a participant in justice.

alkonaut2• 11 years ago

Since the legislation is missing whistleblower protection (a fundamental flaw) there is no way Snowden can make any arguments in a U.S. court, at least not until the legislation is fixed. Unconstitutional or not, the law is just broken. It's painfuly obvious, and I can't fathom why fixing it isn't a higher priority (for example, wouldn't politicians who want votes promise to work for such reform now, after the Snowden debacle?)

mortehu3• 11 years ago

Are whistleblowers allowed to blow their whistle to anyone? US has several whistleblower protection laws[1], but it seems to me that if you want protection from the law, you should report to the correct instances first, and then escalate from there. From Wikipedia:

If the information that is being reported is classified, then the recipient must have a need-to-know and the recipient must hold a security clearance.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_th...

deciplex2• 11 years ago

Snowden probably should face charges

I agree.

Let's put him on trial right after the trials for Keith Alexander and James Clapper wrap up. And while we're prosecuting him for it, we can draw up charges against half the Senate for violating the Logan Act.

He should face charges (and be acquitted or given a very light sentence due to mitigating circumstances). But, he should not be a victim of selective enforcement of the law.

binxbolling• 11 years ago

Most major social or democratic change depends on illegal activity. And the powers that be almost always appeal to the almighty Rule of Law. Later generations then look back with scorn at the dutiful law abiding folk who dramatically impeded progress. To me, looking to charge & punish Snowden is simply inviting scorn from our children and grandchildren who will see with more clarity what we today cannot. Personally, I'm grateful that so many people throughout history—even people I don't generally like—have broken the law so that we all might benefit.

dllthomas14• 11 years ago

I think that Snowden quite clearly broke the law, but that he was probably operating in good conscience, and deserves to be pardoned.

serve_yay• 11 years ago

If I were him I wouldn't do it, even if some people said it would be OK. I mean he can't seriously trust the US government ever again, it would just be ridiculous.

dmfdmf3• 11 years ago

I agree. They would lie to get him home and if the government reneged on an agreement most Americans wouldn't really care so he would be doomed. I think political asylum in a Western European country would be his best option now. Hopefully Germany steps up and does this as I thought they were seriously considering doing so when his Russian visa was expiring but were pressure by the US not to help him.

krylon2• 11 years ago

The German government will not offer Snowden asylum, the US government would be too angry at them. Also, with several US military bases in Germany (well, at least one, I don't know the exact number), I am not sure I would come to Germany if I was Mr. Snowden, even if the German government begged him to seek asylum there.

tosser-0042• 11 years ago

Snowmen did two things:

1. Exposed the tools and techniques of domestic surveillance. 2. Exposed the tools and techniques of foreign surveillance.

The idea of not prosecuting Snowden seems to focus on the commendable exposure of the full extent of the domestic program.

I just don't see how one can ignore his exposure of the perfectly legal foreign intelligence gathering.

marssaxman• 11 years ago

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right.

fixermark3• 11 years ago

I don't think many people dispute whether espionage in general is a practical moral good (or at least neutrality)... In the sense that we live in a world where foreign governments keep secrets that can be dangerous to the survival of other governments.

I mean, in an ideal world we wouldn't have spies... But we also wouldn't have police or military.

rhino3695• 11 years ago

And people with security clearance shouldn't get to individually determine what is right by their own moral code.

adam74• 11 years ago

Michael Morell, a top C.I.A. official, called it “the most serious compromise of classified information in the history of the U.S. intelligence community”

Well, I'm sure if they had respected our right to privacy, Snowden would have respected theirs.

fixermark3• 11 years ago

Oh man. That'd be great.

Never, never, never going to happen. Not in this generation, anyway. Maybe in 20, 30 years.

tosseraccount2• 11 years ago

Did he release secret US Army and Navy documents?

Was he hired to secure them, but then stole them?

Isn't this treason?

Let him come back. If there is enough evidence against him, then he can stand trial.

If he is innocent; then the government won't be able to prove a case against him.

coldtea3• 11 years ago

Isn't this treason?

Is "treason" against people and organizations who failed the country and abused the constitution still treason?

Let's not forget that the revolution for independence was also treason to the British crown...

tosseraccount2• 11 years ago

He should be allowed to testify and defend himself.

The prosecution can present their evidence.

ceejayoz2• 11 years ago

Isn't this treason?

Treason requires actions directly aiding a wartime enemy. There's a reason the US has prosecuted (let alone convicted) less than 40 people for it, and there's a reason they passed the Espionage Act, which is what Snowden was charged under.

dllthomas14• 11 years ago

The constitution says of treason:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

This is the part you addressed. Perhaps this could be construed as "giving our enemies aid". The actual legislation adds more details. But the constitution continues:

"No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

Which, actually, may not be an evidentiary standard that could be met here, assuming Greenwald and Poitras don't testify.

smileysteve• 11 years ago

Let him come back. If there is enough evidence against him, then he can stand trial. If he is innocent; then the government won't be able to prove a case against him.

Nobody (not even him) questions whether he violated the laws as they were written, but the concept of whistleblowing suggests that these laws were knowingly violated to present unlawful laws and actions.

dataker• 11 years ago

If Snowden came back to the U.S and got released, he wouldn't be the whistleblowing platform he currently is.

sneak2• 11 years ago

Fuck "seeking some sort of deal with his lawyers".

A plea bargain would require him admitting wrongdoing.

He raised internal concerns over the illegal activities he saw and was told to be quiet. Snowden himself has said he feared what happened to John Kiriakou (the whistleblower who exposed CIA's illegal torture program) happening to him had he made an even bigger issue out of it.

The people who should be supporting rigorous checks on government authority and overstep simply aren't; the system is out of control and punishes those who speak up about illegal activity. He did what any reasonable person would have done in his situation when confronted with a massive criminal conspiracy.

A plea deal would allow the government to taint his actions, which were nothing short of heroic.

loteck• 11 years ago

I also am an admirer of Snowden's actions in this case, and what those actions have helped to accomplish.

But when choosing how to respond on the issue of leaking classified information, I think the government has to look at more than just this case. Would every subsequent leak, inspired by this one, also be heroic? Unlikely.

rhino3695• 11 years ago

A plea bargain would require him admitting wrongdoing.

Even if you think he did good overall, he did so some wrong.

Much of what he leaked is unambiguously legal and exactly the sort of thing that the NSA is supposed to be doing.

Clearly legal:PPD-20, spying on China, Tempura/Upstream, Embassy spying, spying on Germany, spying on al Jeezera, various spying methods, etc. etc. etc.

Murky: internet meta data program that ended in 2011, prism, collection of US data on overseas cables

Illegal: telecom metadata, various personal abuses by employees

Snowden wasn't elected to make US policy and he doesn't get to dictate what US policy should be. The bulk of his secrets were directed at policies he disagreed with, not law breaking.

timr• 11 years ago

Thank you for posting this. I haven't been able to concisely describe my feelings about Snowden before, but you've captured them well.

The discussion here is so one-sided, myopic and hyperbolic that I think the reasonable people don't even bother anymore.

wtbob• 11 years ago

Illegal: telecom metadata, various personal abuses by employees

Note that warrantless metadata collection is not illegal, per Smith v. Maryland.

darklajid3• 11 years ago

So he did something wrong (exposing 'legal' things) and did the world a favor.

The US has a brandished reputation. Snowden made it worse and could actually prove his cases.

As a German, Snowden is awesome. I wouldn't give a rat's ass about whether you consider it legal to spy on this country. You (the state) suck. We learned this once more, got proof, understand that the US of A is not friendly and cannot be considered socially compatible - the values don't line up.

Yeah - I don't think he should return to the States. I think we should fire a politician or two over here and pay him a pension for life. And _really_ limit our cooperation with that aggressive/invasive country.

flycaliguy• 11 years ago

Do you think we have seen any serious fallout from these legal leaks? Perhaps Snowden assumed that American operations would be able to recover fully when ethical. I imagine with technological advancements and the back and forth nature of espionage that many of these leaks were not huge blows. In many cases these are plays from a war that the adversary was well aware of already.

PPD-20 is interesting. Do you think we have the right to be aware of the scope of the "cyber war"? Bruce Schneier's conclusion on PPD-20:

"Yes, our military needs to invest in cyberwar capabilities, but we also need international rules of cyberwar, more transparency from our own government on what we are and are not doing, international cooperation between governments and viable cyberweapons treaties."[1]

Seems reasonable to me to assume Snowden's releasing of PPD-20 was to promote this effort. It's a tricky situation but perhaps his knowledge of America's advantage in that war meant that this was a safe release. I trust his judgement. He clearly has had to weigh the options between acting within a legal system and trying to improve it through illegal political action.

Is there evidence of serious fallout from a Snowden release yet? I'm honestly asking, my knowledge can be hit and miss as I primarily try to stay on top of Canada's involvement.

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/18/opinion/schneier-cyberwar-poli...

davepage• 11 years ago

"Illegal" and "wrong" are not in any way related. All spy agencies conduct activities which are clearly illegal under the laws of their target countries. But are these activities always "wrong?" Conversely, spy agencies may conduct activities which are legal under their own laws, but are morally wrong -- harassment of MLK, for example.

And "unambiguously legal" is overselling the point: PPD-20 includes offensive capabilities amounting to acts of war -- which would presumably be illegal absent congressional approval. China surveillance includes illegal surveillance of US nationals and well as mass surveillance, which is arguably inappropriate policy. Tempora is a program conducted by the UK -- arguably illegal as signatory to EU treaty. Spying on Germany is likely to support economic espionage, which would be illegal under WTO treaty, etc. Al Jezeera is a journalist organization, which provides a useful Arab propaganda counterpoint to US propaganda, and is not itself a sponsor or advocate of terrorism. The various spying methods exposed are executive overviews and lack sufficient technical detail for implementation, and are thus appropriate for public policy discussion.

The US state security apparatus is also not elected -- yet it clearly does control policy through overclassification and outright misrepresentation of its activities to congressional oversight.

Were Mr. Snowden's actions illegal? Yes, clearly, but that is a question of no meaningful value in this context, as most NSA activity is illegal somewhere, and some NSA and FBI activity is clearly illegal within the US.

Were these actions wrong? That remains to be seen.

Even if they were wrong, is there a net moral benefit which could excuse the costs? That is a complicated question. Do the fruits of NSA, CIA and FBI espionage achieve their stated goals? Is US foreign policy successful? Does the US reliably achieve its military objectives?

So, rather than yet again repeating the mistakes made over the last 100 years -- with some exceptions, an otherwise disgraceful litany of paranoia and short-sighted pragmatism -- perhaps it is a good time to reexamine politically whether foreign policy as practiced by the US is appropriate and efficacious. The responsibility for this interminable chain of dismal failures must be accepted by the US government and US electorate as a whole. The status quo -- mindless subservience to nationalism, patriotism, and religion along with a generous dose of political amnesia -- is completely unjustified at this point.

This discussion cannot ever fully occur when the mechanisms informing that foreign policy are forever hidden from political debate by a veil of overclassification motivated by criminal activity.

Mr. Snowden has caused that debate to begin -- his stated intent. One could therefore reasonably conclude his actions are moral and justified as well as illegal under US law. US law is therefore the problem, not Mr. Snowden.

copsarebastards• 11 years ago

Clearly legal:PPD-20, spying on China, Tempura/Upstream, Embassy spying, spying on Germany, spying on al Jeezera, various spying methods, etc. etc. etc.

Tempora is exactly one of the programs that isn't "clearly legal", and is one of the things that most needed to be exposed.

As for spying on our allies and on foreign embassies: are you really so nationalistic that you aren't aware that this isn't legal? Or do you only care about US laws?

As for spying on the press, this is also very important to have exposed and stopped. Freedom of the press is fundamental to government by informed consent, and a press that is constantly under surveillance is not free.

sneak2• 11 years ago

Also all legal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree

dragonwriter9• 11 years ago

Fuck "seeking some sort of deal with his lawyers".

Why?

A plea bargain would require him admitting wrongdoing.

A deal with his lawyers is not necessarily a plea bargain.

For instance, he could be granted transactional (sometimes called "total") immunity in exchange for testimony regarding matters related to the information released, either to support executive investigations into any potential illegalities or to support congressional investigations. While either is, perhaps, unlikely, they would constitute a "deal with his lawyers" that would not be a plea bargain or involve a admission of legal guilt; they'd also not be a pardon.

geophile• 11 years ago

As a practical matter, he can't come home. Not even the president can promise his immunity from prosecution -- one day there will be another president. The DOJ could drop all charges. And then impose new ones once he returns. And that is to say nothing of the possibility of his being killed, with blame cast on some nut job, and with all sorts of manufactured dirt on him released afterward.

Put yourself in Snowden's shoes. What could anyone in the government say to you that would convince you it was safe to return to the USA?

dabernathy89• 11 years ago

I can't say this for sure, but I don't think a presidential pardon can be reversed by a subsequent president.

snowwrestler• 11 years ago

Presidential pardons stick because of double jeopardy. If Snowden is pardoned for the crimes for which he has been indicted, he cannot be indicted for them again.

If Obama pardoned Snowden on his last day in office (as I hope he does), Snowden could come home.

If murder is the concern, Snowden will not be safe anywhere. Do you think that the CIA doesn't have people in Moscow?

dllthomas14• 11 years ago

I don't think double jeopardy enters into it. You can't prosecute someone for something they've been pardoned of, even if they were never indicted before (and pardons without indictment have happened plenty of times).

dragonwriter9• 11 years ago

Not even the president can promise his immunity from prosecution -- one day there will be another president.

The President has the Constitutional power to issue pardons, it does not grant the President (whether the same President or any subsequent one, or anyone else for that matter) power to retract them.

The DOJ could drop all charges. And then impose new ones once he returns.

Not to the extent that the new ones are covered within the scope of a Presidential pardon.

And that is to say nothing of the possibility of his being killed, with blame cast on some nut job, and with all sorts of manufactured dirt on him released afterward.

To the extent that could happen (at the hands of the government or otherwise) if he returned, it could happen if he didn't. Its not exactly like no one is ever killed -- including by the US Government -- outside of the United States.

NeutronBoy• 11 years ago

To the extent that could happen (at the hands of the government or otherwise) if he returned, it could happen if he didn't. Its not exactly like no one is ever killed -- including by the US Government -- outside of the United States.

If it happens outside the United States, there's plausible deniability. If it happens in the US, there'll be far more scrutiny.

TeMPOraL3• 11 years ago

It's easier to retaliate when the target lives just next to you than in another country. But (unless Snowden starts messing with the government again) more likely than intentional government-sponsored execution (er, "accident") is that some nutjob (er, "patriot") will take matters into their own hands. And that is vastly more likely when you're in the country and not abroad.

guard-of-terra• 11 years ago

Верни им небо, тоску по дому утоли, Посеребри путь звездной пылью Верни им небо, хозяин света и любви И в знак прощения дай вновь крылья им...

dmfdmf3• 11 years ago

Give them the sky, homesick quench, silver path of stardust Give them the sky, the master of light and love and as a sign of forgiveness give them wings again

foobarqux• 11 years ago

If Snowden isn't punished then it will effectively encourage others to harm powerful interests. So there is incentive to punish Snowden from those who decide whether he will be.

dllthomas14• 11 years ago

I agree. But hopefully we can provide a bigger incentive not to.

peter303• 11 years ago

Probably not until the Millennials are in political power. Too many of the older generation think he was naughty.

dragonwriter9• 11 years ago

The polls I've seen that break out by age groups, IIRC, show both Millenials and Gen X believing Snowden served, rather than harmed, the public.

markdown• 11 years ago

has been languishing in Vladimir Putin’s Russia for almost two years.

Is this like Obama's USA? What is the purpose of calling it Putin's Russia?

vonklaus• 11 years ago

While it is a stupid distinction, and one I wouldn;t personally use, it is objectively true Putin exerts a bit more control over Russia than Obama commands in the USA.

foxhedgehog5• 11 years ago

This is an understatement. Imagine if Obama had worked for the CIA his whole life, had come to power in a nondemocratic fashion mysteriously after Bill Clinton was forced to step down, had nationalized Chevron and put the CIA in charge, imprisoned the Koch brothers, invaded Mexico twice, held a series of sham elections, stayed in power for decades, and was rumored to be one of the richest people on the planet.

"The Man Without a Face" by Masha Gessen is a great read on Putin's rise to power.

http://smile.amazon.com/The-Man-Without-Face-Unlikely/dp/159...

CalRobert2• 11 years ago

Why should he want to come to the US? It has little if anything to offer him. Better to make a home in Germany or Iceland which are all more likely to respect individual privacy than the US, and are lovely places in their own right.

dllthomas14• 11 years ago

It would be nice if he could see his family again, and moving one person is much cheaper than moving many.

CalRobert2• 11 years ago

Fair point. Home is a complex idea.

tzs2• 11 years ago

There was an interesting comment on Reddit pointing out some things often overlooked in these discussions [1]. People seem to forget that he leaked information on both illegal and legal foreign spying (which is what the NSA is supposed to be doing).

The former is arguably whistleblowing, but the latter is not. Even Greenwald and Binney admit this.

See the reddit comment for details and links to sources. Particularly interesting are Snowden's admitted reasons for working at the NSA in the first place, before he knew of the domestic spying.

[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/38cej4/elected_o...

yodsanklai3• 11 years ago

The former is arguably whistleblowing, but the latter is not.

It's not because something is technically legal that it's moral. For instance, killing civilians with drones, torturing people, or recording the whole world's communications may be legal according to some twisted laws, but it doesn't make it right. At least voters should have a clear view of such issues, and it's not coming from the US government.

hueving3• 11 years ago

Voters pretty much do have a clear view that the nsa's job is to spy on foreign countries.

onewaystreet• 11 years ago

And what if voters say OK to these issues (which they basically have)?

tallerholler• 11 years ago

For instance, killing civilians with drones, torturing people, or recording the whole world's communications may be legal according to some twisted laws, but it doesn't make it right.

Without context then sure it seems not right. In the real world, terrorism is real. Although I don't agree with anything you mentioned as a whole, if it is a consequence of the world I live in, I'm ok with that. So are plenty of others.

grey-area• 11 years ago

There's a distinction between legally wrong and morally wrong, Snowden makes that distinction I think, whereas you seem to think that the NSA's actions being defined as legal makes them ok. It doesn't.

spacehome• 11 years ago

There's a distinction between legally wrong and morally wrong.

A distinction? Hell, there's practically no overlap.

josu3• 11 years ago

legal foreign spying

I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't sound right.

dragonwriter9• 11 years ago

US law does not prohibit US intelligence services from spying on foreign countries.

Quite the opposite.

So, from a US perspective, NSA foreign intelligence gathering (specifically SIGINT gathering, its whole mandate) is, generally speaking, legal.

irishcoffee2• 11 years ago

Why do you feel that way?

leohutson3• 11 years ago

I think that expecting the information a whistle-blower leaks to correspond 100% to illegal activity is a ridiculous standard to hold them to. Certainly police are not held to that standard when gathering evidence.

Let the possibility of other information being leaked act as a further risk entailed in breaking the law.

vezzy-fnord• 11 years ago

This is a reasonable point, but not in of itself conclusive of anything. The Espionage Act of 1917 has a history of being applied quite liberally and is not without contest, notably in the case of Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, who did very much leak information on misconduct pertaining to foreign as opposed to domestic policy, but was acquitted because of parallel construction and other criminal acts done in response to his leaks. He is now generally held in a positive light.

As such, simply looking at this in a legalistic vacuum isn't helpful at all.

DominikR2• 11 years ago

He probably broke the law. (I'm no legal expert)

But when I take a look at the general conduct of the US government both internal and external, and the insane chaos it is creating around the globe, it doesn't feel morally wrong to sabotage the US government in every conceivable way.

The US government tortures and executes people without trial. (even its own citizens in some cases) The president signs a kill list every week. And then there's various terrorist organizations that are seemingly run out of Washington. This is beyond anything I could have imagined 20 years ago. Not even in my wildest dreams. (or nightmares)

guelo• 11 years ago

It's wrong to break into foreign computers and spy on people. If China did it to you would not think, "oh china, you rascally superpower". You would be scared shitless and would contact the FBI. It's state sponsored terrorism.

It's also, technically, an act of war.

TeMPOraL3• 11 years ago

No, it's just bog-standard espionage, something that everyone knows everybody does and everyone tries to prevent others from doing it on them (AKA. counterintelligence). If you go and start breaking things, then it can be considered an act of war.

linkregister3• 11 years ago

I'm in doubt about any real negative diplomatic or economic repercussions that prolific Chinese computer espionage has yielded for China. The strongest American responses to Chinese espionage have been from the Google and Github corporations. The U.S. government issues tepid responses [1] [2] [3] to incidents that would be considered some of the most impressive and extreme acts of espionage. (The U.S. government issued indictments for the operators behind [2], but this is essentially a no-op since they need to be on U.S. soil to be arrested.)

The fact is that the major powers of the world conduct espionage and that disclosures are not handled as acts of war. Discovered spies are typically placed in a persona non grata diplomatic status and granted safe passage back to their home countries. See U.S. spy Ryan Fogle. [4]

I don't mean to pick on China; I addressed it because it was the example you gave. Every major power has had at least one widespread computer espionage campaign discovered by Kaspersky, Symantec, Mandiant/FireEye, etc.

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29817644 (White House computer intrusion by China)

[2] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-21502088 (U.S. Defense contractors' networks intrusion by China)

[3] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-21271849 (New York Times network intrusion by China)

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_declared_persona...

tzs2• 11 years ago

If China did it to you would not think, "oh china, you rascally superpower"

What do you mean if China did it? They do do it. So does Russia. So does North Korea. So does the US.

There is essentially the cyber equivalent of the Cold War going on right now, and attempting to get into each other's systems, especially infrastructure systems like power plant control systems, is the equivalent of flying fighters provocatively close to someone else's border.

ThomPete2• 11 years ago

The US themselves operate morally with the term collateral damage. This is just that.

darklajid3• 11 years ago

And that seems to be based on

a) you agree that attacking foreign nations (in this case: electronically?) is fine, because .. they're not us

b) 'traitor' is really a concept that we should still consider. I mean.. What? You might visit this site and learn about cool things to order from China, order them online and yay! New toy. But the US government can try to infiltrate that country to 'be safe'??

(Note that the same thing is just as crazy from an enlightened point of view, if we're talking about the route back, China -> US. Or .. really, any bullshit like that)

themeek23• 11 years ago

The media focused almost exclusively on the domestic case and the PRISM program, leaving both the legal and the illegal surveillance programs focused externally to "new media", bloggers and forum commentators. So it's not really hard to understand that most people overlook the full nature of the Snowden documents.

Callmenorm• 11 years ago

Can we start a white house petition? Is that a thing that make a difference?

ytdht• 11 years ago

Like this one that one never answered: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snow... ?

Codephene• 11 years ago

That one may be obsolete by now... Here is another: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/give-presidential-...

chejazi• 11 years ago

On the flip side, by not bringing charges against the NSA, there is a clear double standard:

"...the agency had breached its own privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times a year since 2008."

"Mr. Snowden committed very serious crimes... that he should face."

krylon2• 11 years ago

If I was Edward Snowden, I don't think I would return to the USA, even if the president offered me a complete pardon and a medal on top.

I don't think I could trust the US intelligence apparatus to not get me into some kind of "accident" or come up with some fake charges to put me into prison. Not to mention the risk of some "patriot" taking justice into his/her own hands.

Which is very sad, but unless the political landscape in the USA - and internationally - undergoes some major changes, coming back to the USA would be a stupid move for Mr. Snowden, unless he is ready to go to Jail for a long time. And given the example of Bradley/Chelsea Manning, that does not sound very inviting.

soraminazuki• 11 years ago

Every time I see reports about US surveillance, I'm amazed how so many people seem to think that the US government can spy on anyone they like as long as they're not Americans. Are non-Americans denied their basic human rights or what?

themartorana3• 11 years ago

I'm pretty sure privacy is not considered a basic human right. For that matter, neither is freedom from water boarding, so YMMV.

vacri4• 11 years ago

Waterboarding definitely is, according to the American Convention on Human Rights, to which the US is a signatory: http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_...

It's article 5.2, sandwiched in-between 'you have the right not to be murdered' and 'you have the right not to be enslaved'.

Article 11 is fairly wishy-washy, but it states that privacy is also considered a human right.

vacri4• 11 years ago

I find it disturbing as well. There's a particular strain of political thought in the US where bad things that happen to people don't count if they're not US citizens, for some reason.

aagha• 11 years ago

Though others have mentioned it, the fundamental issue is that the 1917 Espionage Act [0] basically provides Snowden no options. Despite the fact that he uncovered ILLEGAL government actions, he's subject to being tried as a spy, not a whistle-blower, which I think he clearly is.

0 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

cpt1138• 11 years ago

After Ross William Ulbricht was given two life sentences for running Silk Road, someone posted the Federal Guidelines for Life Sentences.

link: http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pub....

One thing that struck me is that after reading this, it seemed like a mathematical tally that was entirely reasonable that he be given a life sentence given the point system.

Given that the first instances in the guidelines where life sentences are handed out are treason and espionage (drug trafficking is second), isn't there a significant concern that if Snowden came back, already admitting what he did, he'd just rot in prison with a pre-tallied up score?

Friedduck• 11 years ago

It took me a long time to come around to the perspective that we should him as a hero and patriot rather than a traitor, but that's where I've ended up.

We don't view the reporters who uncovered Watergate this way--why him?

Let Snowden Come Home

Related Stories