In First American TV Interview, Snowden Talks Accountability and Patriotism 389
mspohr (589790) points out NBC News's interview with Edward Snowden, the first time Snowden has talked with an American television reporter. It's a wide-ranging conversation, in which Snowden emphasizes his ongoing belief that he did the right thing to release the many documents that he did, even at the cost of his ability to travel. Snowden told NBC's Brian Williams "he had tried to go through channels before leaking documents to journalists, repeatedly raising objections inside the NSA, in writing, to its widespread use of surveillance. But he said he was told, "more or less, in bureaucratic language, 'You should stop asking questions.'" Two U.S. officials confirmed Wednesday that Snowden sent at least one email to the NSA's office of general counsel raising policy and legal questions." Perhaps paving the way to eventual repatriation, Snowden also indicated that he would be willing to accept a "short period" behind bars. But, he said, the U.S. should "reform the Espionage Act to distinguish between people who sell secrets to foreign governments for their own gain and people who return information to public hands for the purpose of serving the public interest," and to include contractors as well as government employees.
How does one determine the difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How does one determine the difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly the reason for public hearings with juries of our peers. The constitution already contains the means whereby we may come to these determinations.
Re:How does one determine the difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Repatriation, yeah right. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a fair amount of confidence that if he were freed, we'd read an article about his sad, untimely death within a couple of years. You know, those strange suicides where they shot themselves 3 times in the head. Maybe a tragic car crash. The powers that be have good resources and plenty of plausible deniability.
Re:How does one determine the difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
Between serving the public's interest, and serving one's own interest at the expense of the public? This is intended as a serious question--I like Snowden's idea, but how would we determine the difference between someone who's alerting us to government malfeasance, versus someone who's ideologically bent on disrupting government regardless of whether there's malfeasance or malevolent intent involved?
Wrong question. If the bar is set so high that people like Snowden have to prove their intentions unambigously, beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to prove their credibility, then they are lost before they begin, because the system assures that's never possible. But that's not why it's the wrong question. It's wrong because information about the workings of a government should never be secret except in the most exceptional of circumstances. Revealing information that should never be secret in the first place should not pose the risk of "disrupting government" regardless of the intent involved. If "disrupting government" merely means "learning what we are doing so you can debate the issue and vote to stop us", then the problem is more fundamental than you think.
Re:But he did do it for his own gain (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But he did do it for his own gain (Score:5, Insightful)
Otherwise he would have done it anonymously.
You play games. If he had done it anonymously you would say "what has he got to hide? He must be a foreign agent!"
First, he's a Patriot (Score:5, Insightful)
First, I'd like to say that he's a Patriot.
There were a lot of things he could have told you that he hasn't.
Second, if the US government would just follow the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, and stop spying on American citizens in America without individual court orders for individual American citizens, and instead focus on the actual sources of terrorism that we all know are the source: Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan, this would all go away.
That said, I look forward to him being granted Amnesty by a free and independent 100 percent green energy Scotland soon.
Actual Facts (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Snowden revealed information about USA spying
3) Snowden claimed it was in violation of US Constitution.
4) As a result of Snowden's revelations, US collection has gone down. But there has been no terrorist event since then, so no one possibly have died because of his actions.
5) US claims that because collection is down, Snowden damaged US security. Snowden claims that because no one died, he did not.
6)Previously people objected within the US spying agencies about their actions - Snowden was not the first. No one in the agencies ever did anything about the complaints.
If you believe the US did wrong, then Snowden is a patriot. If you believe the US did no wrong, then Snowden is a traitor.
Opinions: from here on out. But honestly, this is a question not of action, but of political belief.
Most importantly, the people in the espionage agency SHOULD be more paranoid than the general population. Otherwise they are in the wrong job. That also means they need to deal with the fact that the general population will NOT want and should NOT allow them to do everything they deem necessary for a safe country. I can make the world safe for children by locking all the children up in a cage till they turn 18. But we don't do that because life is worth the risk. Similarly, we should NOT be giving any spy agencies all the power they think they need. And when we catch them going overboard, they need to be reigned back in.
All of which means that Snowden should be given the benefit of the doubt
Re:But he did do it for his own gain (Score:5, Insightful)
Establishing the source establishes the credibility of the documents, and is necessary to prove that the information was obtained from someone with the necessary clearance and access. Going public is putting yourself at mortal risk, if not from the government whose secrets you are exposing, then from the random "patriots" who believe in that government. When working with information of this sort, keeping yourself anonymous is of benefit to your life expectancy, and thus is generally the preferred route. Suggesting that going public means he's doing it for his own gain is to ignore the fact that the drawbacks of identifying oneself as the source FAR outweigh the gains to be had.
Re:But he did do it for his own gain (Score:4, Insightful)
and became a tool for international politics
and doesn't have a country he belongs to
Ed basically sarificed himself so that we become more than mere data clusters.
I hope some of you are reading this; the biggest responsibility in this terrible breach of human rights is on the ones who sold their expertise and soul to Uncle Sam for a bigger lawn. Your grandkids will grow up with the Big Brother.
Re:How does one determine the difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
Total surveillance (Score:5, Insightful)
Setting up the infrastructure for a total surveillance state is simply beyond the pale. What Snowden has done is what any true American should have done. The machine that government is setting up must be stopped dead in its tracks while there is still time, or there will be no stopping it. And there will be no United States of America after that, only a spot on the map infringing a trademark. Snowden is a true patriot.
If King George had had the NSA, you'd all be speaking proper English.
Re:Actual Facts (Score:5, Insightful)
You forgot the one where he knowingly and intentionally violated the law. His acts were, by definition, espionage.
If such a law exists, then it is unjust. Revealing the government's unconstitutional or immoral activities should not be a crime.
Or is there anybody here naive enough to believe that other nations don't do this?
Is anybody here illogical enough to believe that that makes any of it okay?
And I live in the US, so I know my country does this.
Re:If he is such a believer of constitution... (Score:2, Insightful)
Because when the government has proven it has subverted the constitution, that clearly means they will suddenly decide to play by the rules when called out on it, right? Or...you could stop being a dope and realize that the government is out of control and above the law. Rather than act in the best interest of the people it is supposed to govern, it has instead been acting in its own interest and pushing through with a powergrab even harder now that it doesn't even need to hide it.
Stop listening to their lies and stop believing they are going to protect you.
Re:First, he's a Patriot (Score:4, Insightful)
You make it sound like the rest of the world has no rights, which by the way seems to be the most prevalent American point of view.
Re:Repatriation, yeah right. (Score:5, Insightful)
They haven't killed Daniel Ellsberg.
Which reminds me of a recent debate [democracynow.org] he had on Democracy Now with former NSA counsel on the topic of Snowden. Ellsberg brings up the important point that previously, several NSA veterans had brought up complaints through channels and in return, the government, without any real reason to suspect they broke rules or laws other than the fact they believed intelligence methods were becoming unethical, raided their homes and, in the case of Thomas Drake, threatened prosecution for documents they found in his home (after fishing for evidence, not that they already suspected he had them) which they claimed were classified, but were actually marked unclassified, which they then re-classified and tried to prosecute ex post facto. Fortunately, a judge not only threw the case out, but actually apologized to Drake, but only after the ordeal ruined his savings, reputation and career. This intelligence professional, committed to older NSA principles of not violating rights of Americans, now does consumer tech support at an Apple Store. It is in this context (which Ellsberg notes is necessary to acknowledge when discussing whistleblowing) that Snowden went beyond channels to inform the public.
Frontline also recently did a two-part series on eavesdropping involving NSA, Drake, Snowden and even a complicit tech industry.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/#part-one---the-program
Re:Actual Facts (Score:5, Insightful)
You forgot the one where he knowingly and intentionally violated the law.
The US government knowingly and intentionally violated the law when it began to demand records of ALL calls made within the us and then began to LIE about it before congress where Alexander et al redefined the word "collect" and hoped nobody would parse his words carefully enough to notice.
The patriot act DOES NOT even authorize this. Collecting information on EVERYONE cannot possibly be relevant to a specific authorized investigation.
Don't shoot him. Life imprisonment should suffice. Or is there anybody here naive enough to believe that other nations don't do this?
The only thing that matters is the US government broke US law without any repercussion. Surely this is indefensible and any "but mommy johnny did it too" defense is worthless.
The same way the previous administrations "intelligence community" knowingly lied about the veracity of their Iraq WMD cover story prior to invasion of Iraq leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths with no repercussions.
I want to see US government officials go to jail.. hell in the case of Iraq no reason executions should not be on the table. Once that happens lets talk about Snowden's transgressions...
Legitimacy matters. If the state does not follow the law and is not held accountable it is foolish to expect the governed to show respect for law. I personally don't even care that what Snowden did is illegal... Wish I did but I don't.
Re:If he is such a believer of constitution... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're begging the question. His whole point was that the government which would like to prosecute him does not follow the Constitution. Case in point, prisoners in Gitmo, or the CIA's torture victims.
Re:How does one determine the difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is EXACTLY why you owe it to your true peers to submit to jury duty. If you were falsely accused, or accused of something not well understood, wouldn't you wish that people just like you didn't duck it?
Good luck to the man... (Score:5, Insightful)
The politicos want his head on a pike... God help help him because I don't see anyone of consequence standing up for the man.
Re:Actual Facts (Score:5, Insightful)
But Snowden unquestionably broke laws by revealing NSA operations that are clearly legal.
Only if his revelation was unjustified.
If someone breaks into your house and is about to shoot your child, but you shoot them first, and they die, you have committed murder (or at least manslaughter). But the law includes a general provision that lets you off the hook: justification. If you committed your crime in order to prevent a greater crime, the law does not hold you accountable.
The principle of justification is a general one, which can and does override absolutely any other statute.
The NSA was clearly perpetrating a greater crime upon the American people than Snowden did by revealing their crime.
Re:Actual Facts (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't know that he lied. The people who produced the document are the ones he exposed. It is not in their interests to show that Snowden was telling the truth, and so if there were other emails with more detailed concerns about NSA policy, they are unlikely to see the light of day.
Why do you folks keep accusing him of lying when a single email has come out? Surely you realize the government does not stand to benefit by affirming the truth of what Snowden has said, and in fact has already accused him of lying. How can you be so silly to think they would actually release the emails Snowden says he sent, even if they have them?
Re:How does one determine the difference... (Score:2, Insightful)
That would suggest that random government employees can exercise their personal moral judgment over what their country's allows to do. So, PRISM is illegal, disclosing it, assuming ti works like Snowden says it does, it's legitimate whistleblowing. However, tapping foreign leader's phones is completely legal and every country on Earth does it -- disclosing this serves no purpose, Snowden has disclosed it because he believes he's qualified to morally arbitrate which US programs should be secret and which shouldn't.
That's kinda the issue -- a crankish libertarian former Ars Technica poster/current Russian agent is effectively nominated himself as US national security declassifer in chief, regardless of what our elected representatives or anyone else who's legally been given that job has to say about it. It's illegal to spy on Americans but it's also illegal to leak stuff -- and leaking stuff that isn't illegal and doesn't really affect Americans serves no purpose but to hamstring US intelligence gathering and embarrass the US government. Which is why he works for Vladimir Putin now.
Re:How does one determine the difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a very clear standard for this; if you follow the law or appear to do so in all outward respects and there is no grounds for investigation against you then you have the right to privacy/secrecy. If you break the law in one way then you are subject to investigation in all ways.
In today's environment, that is no protection at all, because there is always some law that can be applied that you are breaking. In fact, speculation is that the average American commits three felonies a day [threefeloniesaday.com].
Re:Actual Facts (Score:1, Insightful)
to think they would actually release the emails
Reading comprehension issues....
We expect the NSA to lie. We don't need to rely on the NSA to release anything.
We look to Snowden for that; he's the master whistle blower. Where is the paper trail? Where are the names of the people to whom he claims he raised objections? Where has he provided anything other than claims that he did this? It is not plausible to imagine that Snowden kept nothing — not one scintilla of evidence that could possibly be scrutizined — that he was working "through channels" within the NSA. That dog don't hunt.
One email != "repeated"
One general question about EO's != "objections"
He claims this happened "in writing." Where are the copies, digital or otherwise? To whom was this stuff written? Names please.
It didn't happen. He didn't do what he claims. Right or wrong that's the reality and only fanbois will say otherwise.
Re:How does one determine the difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod this up. The Jury is (by design) the closest the average citizen gets to the system of laws and government that controls them. This belief that jury duty is to be avoided is one of many reasons why this country is in the fucking toilet. Whole treatises have been written on The Jury Trial being the keystone of a fair and just society, but nobody seems to care or understand why.
I continue in my belief that Civics should be taught every year from 8th grade through 12th grade.
Re:Actual Facts (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is Edward Snowden qualified to decide what's "okay"?
Re:How does one determine the difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you have public hearings on an entity that is spying on members of Congress and the judiciary? That is not accountable to Congress, and is so above the law that they have their own court to make up laws depending on their needs?
Our surveillance regime exists outside of government.
Re:How does one determine the difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that society doesn't want to avoid jury duty because of jury duty. It's because it messes up your life.
You get paid $40/day for Jury Duty, and many employers don't pay for Jury Duty at all. For a typical middle-class American, you lose your $100-$200/day job for a $40/day ($5/hour) jury duty. You can't live on that much of a cut in pay.
If you got paid the same as your job for the brief time you're on jury duty, I bet Americans would relish the opportunity for a 'break' or 'vacation' from their day to day job. But that's not how it is today.
I had a co-worker who had jury duty EVERY Thursday for 2 straight years. His bosses still expected him to put in 40 hours at work. He had to work 10 hour days for 2 years straight. Not fun at all.
Re:If he is such a believer of constitution... (Score:2, Insightful)
Well he broke a lot of laws, and he revealed a lot of government activity that wasn't horrendous, along with the horrendous stuff. Just about everything him and Greenwald disclose now are things that are completely legal for the US to do.
That blames the victim -- the government doesn't have to change, the people should just "love it or leave it." I think you're basically coming at it from his perspective though, he clearly despises nation-states and institutions of any kind, and thinks everyone should be as "principled" as him and free agent themselves to "free" countries like Russia (the herpaderp from him on this issue is particularly extraordinary ).
Re:How does one determine the difference... (Score:3, Insightful)
If the bar is set so high that people like Snowden have to prove their intentions unambigously, beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to prove their credibility, then they are lost before they begin, because the system assures that's never possible.
But that's not the US justice system - the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense.
The U.S.A. does not, and never has had, a justice system. It has a legal system. The distinction is important, and explains most of the questions being raised here.
Re: How does one determine the difference... (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with your stance on taxes. I take the itemized deductions I'm entitled to for my house and my small business (tax incentives for contributing to the economy), but I would be fine without them. The spreading of tax burden down the economic ladder is class warfare and has been going on for a long time...
Re:Don't bet on it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt that he's played out his hand since he seems to know very well how to play the game. Even if he did though, the US Government has made a lot of US Soldiers and Veterans very very angry withe the newest leaks on the VA. Sure, there are a few scumbags in 3 letter agencies that would kill Snowden to turn a quick buck, but a whole lot of people with military training should be watching his back if he comes back to the US.
Very interesting times we are living in, because currently the US is a powder keg waiting for a spark. Everyone knows that the system is corrupt to the core, but few are sure what to do with the situation and many hope for a peaceful solution.
Jury duty sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
I continue in my belief that Civics should be taught every year from 8th grade through 12th grade.
I'd take this a step further and require that juries be picked only from 12th graders and retirees. That way, no one can complain about missing work. You may think it's a bad idea to use teens and the elderly, but I think they may actually do a better job than a bunch of people who don't want to be there in the first place.
Snowden is a hero. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is Snowden a criminal? Yes. Is he a hero to those of us who wish to continue to live in the land of the freer than average? Yes.
Here's what our government has been doing since 9/11/2001 gave the anti-freedom brigade carte blanche:
1. As Mr. Snowden rubs our face in it: massive and sweeping unwarranted surveillance and collection of data and meta data of our phone and internet communications,
2. Secret courts.
3. Extra-judicial assassinations of both foreign nationals and in rare cases, US citizens. 4. Drone strikes on people in many countries outside of our declared war zones (Iraq and Afghanistan).
5. Declaring war on a country that has not invaded us or attacked us or any of our allies (Iraq).
6. Detaining criminals without due process, no sentence, no release date.
7. Torture on a massive scale. Abu Ghraib is just where we got caught on film. We've funded the torture of thousands of individuals. We as taxpayers are complicit and accruing a pretty massive karmic debt.
8. CIA black sites where our government can and does operate outside any bounds of law or moral constraint.
Since 9/11, we have been sliding into a nasty democracy of evil and unconstrained government behavior. We need to start rolling this stuff back. Strike down the patriot act and adopt a pre-9/11 stance towards freedom, due process, privacy and the constitution. It'd be a bargain to suffer a dozen 9/11 attacks, compared to what we're becoming because of our craven fear.
Live free or die.
Snowden is basically correct (Score:2, Insightful)
For every US government (usually but not exclusive to right-wing) official who cries out "Traitor", the truth gets hidden that the US government really did break the US constitution (perhaps not just this one, there are stories that there were telegraph offices that went through army posts that had pony express to the White House). But more recently there was a very troubling story published by the New Yorker (and it may still be online) about Thomas Drake (inventor of a haystack-to-needle data search tool), who worked for the NSA and in the process of designing thin thread incorporated checks and balances for it to remain constitutional. First the NSA went with another project (Trailblazer) that failed, then they turned around, stabbed him in the back, removed the checks and balances and when he tried to keep things on the up and up (respecting the constitution and his oath), he was thrown under the bus by the NSA, his home was bugged, his family threatened, he was threatened with 1000 years in prison, and basically accused of being unAmerican. Short answer: being on the inside and trying to do the right thing will get you poo-pooed. If you try hard, you will be given the smackdown. The people in power aren't interested in the constitution. They aren't interested in doing the right thing. They don't even care about the 'enemy'. They care about the power that they have, and they like it unchecked, unbridled, and if throwing boy scouts like Snowden, Drake, Manning or Asange under the bus get them more power, they will throw.
Re:Don't bet on it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone knows that the system is corrupt to the core, but few are sure what to do with the situation and many hope for a peaceful solution.
One of the most important things to consider is that historically very few violent or armed revolutions and coup d'etat have resulted in a better government than the one they were overthrowing. Things that have generally brought improvement are slow drifts in line with public mood over time.
The problem with violent change, especially when instigated by people who have history of serving in a professional army is that they often have huge difficulties when it comes to coping with disagreement. People not doing what they are told in a military context often has huge repercussions (and so it often needs to) but the general public not doing what they are told is often their democratic right in a free society.
People with an army background seem to be very good at becoming dictators. The sort of flexible, politician types that have no backbone are exactly the sort of people you need when it comes to dealing with a free populace. Part of being free, is being able to believe things like "socialism is better than capitalism" even though the vast majority of the population and the government strongly disagrees.
The best sort of change the US could undergo would be driven by a mass movement of a highly educated, non-violent population who realised they were being oppressed and refused to stand for it simply by not playing along with a bullshit system designed to keep them down. Of course, that is not likely to happen any time soon.