Just a short time ago Edward Snowden orchestrated what could be the most consequential and largest security leak in United States history. Snowden approached The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald with intelligence information that indicated that the United States government, through the use of phone tapping and digital data mining by the NSA, was engaged in a massive intrusion of privacy. For his part Snowden insists he isn't a “hero” as some of the American public has labeled him but rather he’s an American who is a concerned citizen. What was revealed nearly a week ago certainly has massive implications for the United States’ intelligence, anti-terrorism, and national security operations. Effectively the American debate has turned from one of political partisanship to one of “how much is too much” when it comes to intelligence gathering. What follows in the coming weeks and months will determine the effectiveness of Snowden’s actions. In the meantime the American people would do well to take the information they have been ‘gifted’ and look beyond the surface...Snowden may not be as innocent as he seems.
Consider first who Edward Snowden is: a 29-year-old former technical assistant for the CIA and former employee of the defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. He has been working at the National Security Agency for the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell. His history before these more recent occupations is less than ideal. He dropped out of high school and failed to graduate. After some time he went to a community college where he also dropped out but not before earning his GED. He enlisted and tried to become a member of the Armed Forces but was later discharged. In a more recent interview with The Guardian he remarked that the intentions with which he enlisted, the ideals, were not represented as he thought they would be by his fellow soldiers. Instead he found himself at odds. From there he became a security guard for the NSA at their headquarters and was shortly thereafter picked up by the CIA and placed abroad as an undercover operative. Through his career he has sat on the knowledge that the very government he defended and at times represented, was involved in a massive, potentially illegal, operation to gather citizens’ personal and private data for anti-terror purposes. What is known is that he had this information throughout the Bush administration and prior to Nov. 2008 was nearly at his breaking point to go public. That was until Barack Obama was elected. He felt that things would or could change under his administration. That the abuses of governmental power by the Bush/Cheney White House would cease and the public would not be the wiser. He was “disappointed” by the outcome four years later.
The revelations that Snowden brought forth have done something few Americans believed still possible: unite the parties. Yes from Senator Lindsey Graham to John McCain and back to Dianne Feinstein the same tune is being sung. This was done in the interest of national security and there’s nothing illegal or illicit going on. It is a necessary operation. Edward Snowden is a criminal and perhaps guilty of treason. However what are the pundits saying? Two unlikely allies are also singing the same tune though not the same as Congress: Edward Snowden is a hero. Yes. Glenn Beck (former host of The Glenn Beck Show on Fox News and CEO of GBTV) and Michael Moore (director of Bowling For Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11 and Capitalism A Love Story) are on the same team. They believe what Snowden has done has helped, not hurt the country’s interests. Where does the truth lie though? Is Edward Snowden who he says he is? Hero or Villain?
Consider first who Edward Snowden is: a 29-year-old former technical assistant for the CIA and former employee of the defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. He has been working at the National Security Agency for the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell. His history before these more recent occupations is less than ideal. He dropped out of high school and failed to graduate. After some time he went to a community college where he also dropped out but not before earning his GED. He enlisted and tried to become a member of the Armed Forces but was later discharged. In a more recent interview with The Guardian he remarked that the intentions with which he enlisted, the ideals, were not represented as he thought they would be by his fellow soldiers. Instead he found himself at odds. From there he became a security guard for the NSA at their headquarters and was shortly thereafter picked up by the CIA and placed abroad as an undercover operative. Through his career he has sat on the knowledge that the very government he defended and at times represented, was involved in a massive, potentially illegal, operation to gather citizens’ personal and private data for anti-terror purposes. What is known is that he had this information throughout the Bush administration and prior to Nov. 2008 was nearly at his breaking point to go public. That was until Barack Obama was elected. He felt that things would or could change under his administration. That the abuses of governmental power by the Bush/Cheney White House would cease and the public would not be the wiser. He was “disappointed” by the outcome four years later.
The revelations that Snowden brought forth have done something few Americans believed still possible: unite the parties. Yes from Senator Lindsey Graham to John McCain and back to Dianne Feinstein the same tune is being sung. This was done in the interest of national security and there’s nothing illegal or illicit going on. It is a necessary operation. Edward Snowden is a criminal and perhaps guilty of treason. However what are the pundits saying? Two unlikely allies are also singing the same tune though not the same as Congress: Edward Snowden is a hero. Yes. Glenn Beck (former host of The Glenn Beck Show on Fox News and CEO of GBTV) and Michael Moore (director of Bowling For Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11 and Capitalism A Love Story) are on the same team. They believe what Snowden has done has helped, not hurt the country’s interests. Where does the truth lie though? Is Edward Snowden who he says he is? Hero or Villain?
The allusion keeps being made to the benefits and/or damage of Mr. Snowden’s revelations. What are they? We now know that the NSA has been secretly spying on the United States citizens’ phone records and digital data (emails, text messages, etc) for years. Under powers granted to the intelligence community after 9/11 with the Patriot Act an unprecedented amount of information was now easily and legally accessible by the government. What were before only whispers and rumors are now confirmed and exposed. We also know that though the government claims these are effective tools of anti-terror they have significant failures. The more recent example of such is the Boston Marathon Bombing. The bombers, the Tsarnaev brothers, were able to carry out their plans despite having used email, phone calls and text messaging to communicate and relay key information. But does one major lapse necessitate or justify throwing out the whole operation? What would be the difference to the case of the Underwear Bomber? The Times Square Bomber? As the saying goes, hindsight is 20/20.
Some questions immediately arose out of the aired interview between Greenwald and Snowden. When asked about his plans post-revelations Snowden insists that he’s not afraid of the consequences of his actions and fully intends and welcome a fight with the U.S. Government over the matter. Yet he fled the country presumably before the story was written by The Guardian. This would stand in stark contrast to what he said. He also lists his reasons for fleeing to Hong Kong of all places: “They have a spirited commitment to free speech.” Really? Hong Kong. A region under Chinese control, the same China that spends immeasurable amount of time seeking out dissenters and those who would speak ill of the regime. Something doesn't click. Why China? He mentions his intent or likelihood of going to Iceland. Why not go there first? Why go to China. Clearly, as he admits, he’s on edge because the CIA has locations nearby his hotel room in China and knows he can be ‘captured’ in short time. Why delay his escape? Something isn't right.
Surely what the NSA has done for the last twelve years, across two administrations and countless Congressional votes of approval, deserves scrutiny and trimming of the fat where necessary. Still, we mustn't forget what valuable information and protection has been gained by the goings-on within the intelligence community. As I listen to the debate about the disclosure of two government programs designed to track suspected phone and email contacts of terrorists, I do wonder if some of those who unequivocally defend this disclosure are behaving as if 9/11 never happened — that the only thing we have to fear is government intrusion in our lives, not the intrusion of those who gather in secret cells in Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan and plot how to topple our tallest buildings or bring down U.S. airliners with bombs planted inside underwear, tennis shoes or computer printers. Certainly the potential will always be there for the government to abuse its granted powers. How easily could the government abuse privacy from a program that granted it sweeping power to prevent another 9/11. But what evidence is there thus far that such abuse has occurred? Should we not all worry more about something that has already happened than that of what may happen. Most of the complaints we here today are not the extent the operations under the NSA have been taken thus far, but what they may become. I worry about something that’s already happened once — that was staggeringly costly — and that terrorists aspire to repeat. My reasoning for this is that I fear if in a week, a month, years or even decades another 9/11 occurs our open society that I cherish so much, and that is a great wonder of the world to aspire to, may be gone. If there were another 9/11 it is conceivable that an overwhelming majority of Americans would tell their members of Congress to do whatever is necessary, privacy be damned, to prevent this. David Simon, the creator of HBO’s “The Wire” wrote a very well written essay on this issue.
“You would think that the government was listening in to the secrets of 200 million Americans from the reaction and the hyperbole being tossed about,” wrote Simon. “And you would think that rather than a legal court order, which is an inevitable consequence of legislation that we drafted and passed, something illegal had been discovered to the government’s shame. Nope. ... The only thing new here, from a legal standpoint, is the scale on which the F.B.I. and N.S.A. are apparently attempting to cull anti-terrorism leads from that data. ... I know it’s big and scary that the government wants a database of all phone calls. And it’s scary that they're paying attention to the Internet. And it’s scary that your cell phones have GPS installed. ... The question is not should the resulting data exist. It does. ... The question is more fundamental: Is government accessing the data for the legitimate public safety needs of the society, or are they accessing it in ways that abuse individual liberties and violate personal privacy — and in a manner that is unsupervised. And to that, The Guardian and those who are wailing jeremiads about this pretend-discovery of U.S. big data collection are noticeably silent. We don't know of any actual abuse.”
As a reminder these are musings. Make sense of them what you will but I would finish off with a reference to what Sen. Angus King (I-MA) said recently:
“You would think that the government was listening in to the secrets of 200 million Americans from the reaction and the hyperbole being tossed about,” wrote Simon. “And you would think that rather than a legal court order, which is an inevitable consequence of legislation that we drafted and passed, something illegal had been discovered to the government’s shame. Nope. ... The only thing new here, from a legal standpoint, is the scale on which the F.B.I. and N.S.A. are apparently attempting to cull anti-terrorism leads from that data. ... I know it’s big and scary that the government wants a database of all phone calls. And it’s scary that they're paying attention to the Internet. And it’s scary that your cell phones have GPS installed. ... The question is not should the resulting data exist. It does. ... The question is more fundamental: Is government accessing the data for the legitimate public safety needs of the society, or are they accessing it in ways that abuse individual liberties and violate personal privacy — and in a manner that is unsupervised. And to that, The Guardian and those who are wailing jeremiads about this pretend-discovery of U.S. big data collection are noticeably silent. We don't know of any actual abuse.”
As a reminder these are musings. Make sense of them what you will but I would finish off with a reference to what Sen. Angus King (I-MA) said recently:
What if the headline, instead of ‘Obama searches records,’ had been, ‘Obama cancelled program which could have prevented nuclear attack on Miami?’
We would have the articles of impeachment already drawn up.
