Having said very little about it so far, I have to admit that I find it hard to root for Edward Snowden or feel any real affinity for him because of his apparent lack of planning. I'm a planner, a recipe-follower, and a control freak in remission. Watching someone run around the globe like a beheaded chicken is off-putting to me in the same way that a sink full of dirty dishes would put off someone with OCD. His most recent statement underscores that he decided to leak all of this stuff (which is good!) without any sort of plan for what to do next.
Which makes sense, right? Because why would you need any sort of escape plan after pissing off the entire U.S. government, military, and surveillance apparatus.
He appears to have put some forethought into his data collection, taking a large paycut to work for a private contractor in a position that would let him get more of the dirt he wanted. Yet other than "Fly to Hong Kong without securing any sort of asylum or coming up with a final destination" I think that's as far ahead as he planned. WTF, man.
Here are the three options confronting him as he prepared to leak the information, in (as I see it) descending order of preference.
1. Walk into an FBI office and turn himself in. Wait, wait. Hear me out. It's highly unlikely that they can successfully charge him with treason or espionage, as he doesn't work for any foreign power. Surrendering might also give him an important Patrick Henry-esque "Do your worst to me, King George" moral high ground that would have earned him both public and Congressional support.
buy cipro online https://www.mabvi.org/wp-content/themes/mabvi/images/new/cipro.html no prescription
When the furor dies down, he's probably be out of prison in a couple of years at most. It would be a bold move and not for the risk averse, but…I'd rather take my chances here than to go hat-in-hand to the world's most repressive governments asking for help.
2. Hide. HIDE. Either hide in the U.S. – don't tell me someone like Snowden couldn't figure out how to communicate with the outside world without giving away his location – or make contact with the Assange/WikiLeaks types and secure some type of foreign hideout. Maybe he could have even been smart enough to leave the country and/or secure himself in a safe hiding place before leaking the information.
3. Drop a huge bombshell, rile up the U.S. government, and then fly around the world willy-nilly sitting on airport tarmacs and asking various governments to take him. Yeah, it sounds pretty stupid when it's put that way.
By the way, if you missed the "private contractor" aspect of the story mentioned earlier, do check out some of what has been written about Booz Allen since the story broke. The intelligence establishment has always been keen on farming out the dirty work, but recently it has been taken to a new level much as Private Military Contractors have become indispensable to the military.
Oh, and he's going to end up in Cuba. Russia derives no benefit from keeping him and we'll coerce/bribe Ecuador into refusing to take him.
In the long run he may find a way into Iceland but right now, I don't see who else is going to take him.
J. Dryden says:
The problem with Snowden is that he is worth none of the passion that is being spoken for or against him. Neither traitor nor hero–for both suggest the relevance of making a difference to the world as a result of his actions, which he has not done. For what has been the result of his disclosures? Nothing. Zip. Nada. Rien. The Obama administration essentially walked into Congress with the Federal Statutes under its arm, slapped them on the table and said "There, you witch-hunters. Show us where we did something we're not allowed to do. Thanks to you spineless assholes and your whole 'torture and spying-on-citizens-is-totally-OK' approvals last decade, we are in the free and clear. Now go fuck yourselves; we have some incredibly private and personal information to gather, and you can't do anything to stop us, because you gave us carte blanche."
Snowden revealed nothing that anyone with half-a-brain didn't already know: that the Executive Branch of the government, enabled by the Bush Era panic after 9/11, would abuse the living shit out of the 'emergency powers' extended to it by the fucking cowards in Congress. How is anyone surprised by this? How is anyone shocked? Do any of us–do the rah-rah morons at FOX NEWS and the blathersphere, who so frothingly hyped the need for these measures, have a leg to stand on? We do not–even those of us who opposed it, opposed it because we knew exactly what would happen, and–guess what?–it did. Gasp! Gulp! Heavens to betsy!
Actually, it's been amusing to watch the Right Wingers declare that Obama has finally done something they agree with! (Which, admittedly, is positive proof that it's incredibly shitty. But again, legally authorized. How hilarious that the people who wanted to make Obama a one-termer are the ones who wrote his get-out-of-jail-free card.)
In short, I do not deplore or admire Snowden, for he has accomplished nothing while no doubt fancying himself the next Daniel Ellsberg, and he has done so in a spectacularly stupid fashion, as Ed has revealed. Greater transparency in government is a good thing. Greater scrutiny on the abuse of power is also a good thing. But no one is losing his job over this. No one's going to jail. Snowden is a tree falling in a forest when no one is around, and the answer to that riddle is, as ever, "Who cares?"
Snowden is like one of those sad, bored men who dress up in tights and claim to be 'real life superheroes'–I appreciate the motive, but you're an idiot. Perhaps he can serve as an object lesson to other would-be whistleblowers down the line. As it is, I kinda like Obama's response to the question of whether he'd use military assets to retrieve him: A solid "no," with an undercurrent of "Why would I? Inspector Clouseau can be counted upon to fuck himself up into prison all by himself."
FMguru says:
I haven't been following the story too closely (the NSA monitors all domestic and international phone calls when it sifts them for patterns of terrorist planning? well, duh, what did you think they spent all their time doing? and color me shocked that a secretive intelligence agency flat out lies to the taxpayers and citizens who fund it and putatively control it), but I'm amused that Snowden appears to be the first Real Life Headline Garnering manifestation of that common scourge of internet chat boards, the Tough Guy Techno-Libertarian. That a guy who's been steeped in Heinlein, Rand, the Free Software movement, and GOOGLE RON PAUL 2008, and thinks his ability to patch an Apache install on the fly makes him one of society's intellectual elite, would both 1) suffer from "brave heroic freedom fighter smashing the corrupt state with the power of INFORMATION" delusions and 2) be absolutely terrible at thinking things through and planning more than one step ahead comes as absolutely no surprise to anyone who has every spent more than ten minutes reading an internet political forum. He really did think he'd be the hero and re-enact the ending of V FOR VENDETTA in real life, complete with everyone cheering his name while wearing Guy Fawkes masks. I'm only surprised it's taken this long to happen.
middle seaman says:
What could Snowden do? Very little. The NSA, CIA, FBI and XYZ people hate to be surprised, they hate when anyone finds out that they aren't into art or cooking. Snowden, the young man, couldn't know that he committed the worse crime possible. He upset the apple cart. It isn't spying, it's telling on the alphabet gang.
Xynzee says:
"The intelligence establishment has always been keen on farming out the dirty work, but recently it has been taken to a new level much as Private Military Contractors have become indispensable to the military."
The US really has come full circle. Didn't the Union use Pinkerton's for their intel work during the War?
Talisker says:
This would be a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad idea, unless Snowden *wanted* to be a martyr. As I understand it he is being charged under the Espionage Act 1917, which allows him very little ability to defend himself.
The charges are things like "unauthorised communication of national defence information" so they don't have to prove he was directly working for a foreign power. They were brought in Virginia, no doubt to put him in front of a jury of defence contractors: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23012317
If convicted, he could face a sentence of 30 years or more. Where he served it would be at the discretion of the Justice Department; that almost certainly means maximum security, somewhere remote from his friends and family, and probably in solitary confinement. Just look at what they've done to Bradley Manning. As a civilian Snowden would have a few more rights than Manning, but I think the same principle applies.
He'd basically be gambling that a smart lawyer could somehow construct a successful defence, and justice and apple pie would prevail. I wouldn't take those odds. I suppose in 10 or 20 years the political climate might change, and he could be released and hailed as a hero, but I wouldn't bet on that either.
Interesting idea. But it's not like he has the skills to live off the land in Alaska. Sooner or later he would have to get a job. Then, all it takes is one suspicious neighbour for the cops to grab him and verify his fingerprints, and he faces punishment as above.
Sounds so easy when you put it like that. Can you be fully confident this guy who says he works for Wikileaks is not in fact with the CIA? Or just willing to betray you to the CIA for enough money? Unless you have very good contacts in a foreign government, this is a gamble too.
For all we know, Snowden had some kind of assurances he would be safe in Hong Kong, obtained directly or through a third party like Wikileaks. Maybe those assurances proved less solid than he had hoped, or something else whent wrong, which is why he is currently in panic mode (having applied for asylum in 21 different countries according to the BBC).
I'm not saying that Snowden had a good plan; it's clear that he didn't, but there may be *no* good plans for someone in his position.
Arslan says:
He could have just gone to Ecuador to leak the info.
Elle says:
I feel incredibly naive, but it actually hadn't occurred to me that Google, Facebook, Yahoo et al were dumping their data in FreedomDropboxes to be raked through by the US security services on what is surely the very definition of a fishing expedition. I knew the rough outlines of the ludicrously open-handed agreements that European states had made with the US about 'sharing' information, but assumed that a smidgen of probable cause was required before getting carte blanche to rifle through someone's electronic underwear drawer?
A dunce of a question this, but doesn't the Fourth Amendment provide US citizens with any protection from shit like this? Certainly, any European state actors who have received information from PRISM (or other similar projects) will be on the hook with regard to Art. 8 of the ECHR. Even without the diplomatic chill occasioned by the news that the US had bugged the EU's UN presence in NY, individual embassies, and the EU cryptofax that sends diplomatic cables to ministers, the Snowden leaks will have an impact in Europe in the form of a round of hearings into unlawful member state collusion with deeply shady US practices.
I feel most alarmed by the cool way that most Americans seem to have received this news. Surely the idea of police fuckery is not so far removed that you all feel entirely content with the idea of the state gathering information on your affair, abortion, gambling debts, finances, political activism, opinions on the mayor of your city, amount of time you spend looking up holiday information when you should be at work, and porn?
c u n d gulag says:
Daniel Ellsberg leaked "The Pentagon Papers," back when something like that was real news, admitted he did it, and took the Patrick Henry approach, previously mentioned.
Snowden could NOT have gotten the Bradley Manning treatment!
Because, unlike Manning, he wasn't an active member of the military. Members of the military, when they volunteer (or drafted, back in the day), give up all sorts of rights.
He would have looked like a hero by challenging the US government, after exposing what it was doing (though, if any of this was news to anyone, they're living a pretty cloistered/sheltered life).
Instead of looking like a hero, he looks like… for lack of a better word – a fool.
And one who's difficult to root for, since he ran off to our nations "enemies."
He's have been better off, imo, taking his medicine here, like Ellsberg.
And I don't think the medicine would have been too bad, because the last thing our government, and President Obama, wants, is to create a martyr.
Now, by running off to Hong Kong, and Russia, he looks like a traitor, instead of a patriot – not that I consider one of either of these choices.
But he would have looked more like a patriot had he stayed.
Ok, them's my $0.02's worth.
Elle says:
He seems pretty organisationally inept. Interesting to see that Ecuador has now rolled up the welcome mat, and basically admitted that the night porter at the Embassy in London facilitated his trip to HK. Lovely to see that Julian Assange is now trying to insert himself into this narrative.
Talisker says:
@cund gulag:
True. But as I pointed out, the US government has a very good chance of putting him away for 30 years through the civilian justice system. Solitary in Leavenworth may not be as bad as Manning's situation but it's no picnic either.
Ellsberg got lucky; the case against him was thrown out because of break-ins and illegal wiretapping. Some combination of government ineptitude, a really smart lawyer, or a sympathetic jury *might* save Snowden if he goes to trial, but the odds are against.
Yes, it would have been heroic to face decades in prison on a point of principle. It would display courage on a par with Aung San Suu Kyi or Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Very few people have that kind of courage, and Snowden clearly wasn't one of them. His desperate search for a safe haven among some very dubious governments does make him look like a fool. But spending the rest of your life as a fugitive in exile isn't a soft option, so he deserves some respect for that.
The case of Manning suggests they are quite comfortable with creating martyrs. Their priority appears to be scaring the living s**t out of anyone else who might consider leaking secrets.
Xynzee says:
@Elle: one of the great legacies of Shrub in addition to the crippling debt he's saddled the country with for generations to come was using the BoR for toilet paper. But only after cutting out the parts he liked. 1st part of the 2nd, the 10th (so the South can rise agin') and the reinterpreted version of the 14th allowing for corporations to remain people.
So the Patriot Act apparently revoked the rest of the BoR. That's why the Repuglican'ts are happy with Obama for once. He's doing what they want him to be doing. So would (has) the Patriot Act stand judicial scrutiny?
Sarah says:
I'll go you one further. If it was President McCain or President Romney in office when this Snowden thing was going down, Faux News and the Breitbart crowd would be shitting themselves over how un-American Snowden is, and the same would go for his supporters and anyone complaining about how creepy it is for the government to be tracking ordinary citizens.
c u n d gulag says:
Talisker,
I certainly see your point(s).
But I still think Snowden would have received a lot of popular support.
Whereas Manning, being a member of the military, and not some contractor-for-hire, clearly broke his oath.
Snowden never swore to one, to break -that I know of.
But, now that I think about it, there must have been some privacy language in the contract he signed, so this might be a moot point.
Either way, maybe the public wouldn't have made any distinction between the two.
Clearly, though, Snowden does NOT have any hero-martyr in him.
Right now, he should follow the advise of the GREAT Charles Pierce, and just STFU – because every time he opens his yap, he does himself more and more harm.
therandom says:
Really? Really? Everyone was completely sure that the U.S. government was making warrantless use of an insane amount online information before this story came out? None of you would have brushed it away with a "lol conspiracy theory"?
I know I would have. I had a rough idea that the government had access to a ton of our online information, but did not imagine that literally everything from Facebook/Google/phone calls was being piped in wholesale. I thought we were trending that direction, but had no clue we were already there.
Chet Manly says:
Ed, I'm no lawyer, but I am a clearance holder and whether he actually worked for a foreign government isn't at all relevant. The dumb ass went to China and leaked information about NSA spying on the Chinese. That's an open and shut, slam dunk espionage conviction if he's ever in US custody. It doesn't make any difference if the Chinese never recruited him, paid him, or even asked for the information.
If he'd stopped with the PRISM leaks he'd have a credible argument that he's a whistleblower and had to run because he can't trust the US justice system, but the dope couldn't leave it at that. I mean, I doubt even Greenwald would argue that the NSA shouldn't spy on the Chinese and nobody thinks the NSA isn't legally allowed to spy on non-US people outside the US.
Number Three says:
On the Manning point: I don't think it's safe to assume that Snowden doesn't face the very real possibility of "extreme interrogation" or whatever the euphemism is for torture these days. Just because he's a U.S. civilian?
Snowden should've stayed in the U.S.–either turned himself in or hidden. If he's captured in the U.S., it would be the F.B.I. taking him into custody. Abroad, he's going to be turned over/captured by the C.I.A., operator of those fine establishments euphemistically called "black sites". In that event, I wouldn't expect his status as a U.S. civilian to count for much.
I will be happy to be proven wrong.
Talisker says:
Snowden certainly would have had to sign plenty of documents before being given high-level clearance. He was breaking his word no less than Manning did.
Well, he had enough to leak the documents and make himself a target in the first place.
Snowden may or may not have thought this through, but exile is not an easy option. He will live in fear that his host government will change its mind, or the USA will accept the diplomatic fallout from sending the CIA to capture him, or some private individual will kidnap him and give him to the USA for a cash reward. Possibly he will never be able to hold down a normal job, instead depending on the charity of others to survive. If a close relative in the USA is sick or dying, he will be unable to visit them.
However I agree that right now, he isn't showing much courage or dignity.
Stefan says:
1. Guess what its not just about the US here. Even if Americans 'know' that their government is spying on them does not mean their European 'ALLIES' know it.
2. Just because Snowden may not have had the courage to stay and be a American Hero (TM) as in the books does not devalue his deeds. I bet the great majority of people would have stayed with that 200k/y job instead of risking it all. And i am not sure that most people would do a good job planning in such a situation either. Hindsight and stuff …
3. Dubious governments?? That is pretty ironic coming from Americans.
@Talisker I fully agree with your posts.
Elle says:
Being at risk of the death penalty / torture is the thing that will stop his extradition by European countries, including Russia and Iceland. (And the same thing that would stop Sweden extraditing Assange to the US for any crime that placed him at risk of the death penalty, rendering his arguments about his own situation completely nonsensical.) Arguably, the worse things look for Snowden on the domestic front, the better they look with regards to his asylum bid in any European country.
Talisker says:
@Stefan: Who said I was American?
Anyway, let's keep a sense of perspective here. The USA's human rights record is pretty bad these days, but Russia and China are a lot worse.
Graham says:
I can't believe this post, and the comments: one of your fellow citizens reveals to you all on a platter that your Government is breaking the Constitution and working actively against you, that it is making a mockery of the idea that your Government works FOR its citizens, and that your Government has precisely the respect for its citizens' privacy as China has for its, and your response is to criticise his…housekeeping? His orderliness?
This post follows the red herring dutifully followed by Fox and CNN and every other Conservative MSM outlet, which is the story of Snowden himself and his predicament.
That is not the story.
The story is that Americans now have enough information to demand political change in their country, that Executive Government has now gone completely feral and are themselves the terrorists.
Snowden thought Americans might care a fraction about all of that. Apparently not.
MS says:
It's pretty clear that Snowden will be heavily tortured if he's ever in U.S. custody, and the people telling him to turn himself in now will be the ones cheering on the torturers then.
It's an entirely different country now than when Ellsberg acted. In his time, the U.S. didn't torture, the press was at the absolute height of its adversarial role, and judges were civilized, including the U.S. Supreme Court, which was as liberal as it has ever been (and still couldn't firmly decide in favor of allowing the NYT to publish). In our time, the U.S. tortures anyone who embarrasses it, the press are lapdogs, and most judges are right-wing corporatists who fully support the police state.
Ellsberg was never facing torture. He might have faced a lengthy prison sentence, were it not for the fact that came out at trial that Nixon's bagmen involved in the Watergate affair had also burglarized Ellsberg's psychiatrist. Once that Watergate connection was made, Ellsberg's trial essentially became a farce. That's what saved him: the incompetence of his enemies.
Today, the orders would simply be given to wiretap all email and phone communications relating to him, and it would never be disclosed to the defense in his trial.
Jingo Unchained says:
Snowden's whistleblowing may have been more effective had the media actually covered what was newsworthy instead of playing Where in the World is Carmen Fucking San Diego.
Collectively, we're too concerned about feeding and sheltering our families to worry about something that has not had a tangible impact on our lives (as far as we can see). When we aren't worried about basic survival, we are too busy with Facebook, The Bachelorette and the Unholy Offspring of Kim & Kanye to give two shits about minor matters such as freedom and liberty.
c u n d gulag says:
Graham,
We do care – or, at least I do. And I know a lot of others, do too.
It's just that the snooping genie's are long out of that privacy bottle.
It started when Lincoln first made the case that he could read telegrams, and not just the mail – if not even before that.
And I hate to say this, but what can we do?
Bush let THIS particular genie out – unsupervised.
Theoretically, at least, under Obama, there's at least some over-sight – yeah, I know, by a rubber-stamp court.
So, should we vote for a Libertarian?
Well, scratch a Libertarian, and you'll find a person who calls him/her-self that, because of privacy, or pot, or war, or some other issue.
But as we've seen with the supposed Libertarian politicians already in office, they're really just Republicans-Lite – who are anti-abortion, and pro-gun. And don't support much of any Liberal's agenda.
Should we seek out some 3rd Party candidate, who'll run on a platform of Liberal issues, including privacy?
Then say hello to the next Republican President, and his/her Congress!
And lest anyone think Obama's bad, does anyone think President Rubio/Cruz/Bush/DeMint/Ryan/Walker/Paul, will be better on this issue? On ANY issue?
OK, maybe Paul. MAYBE! But I doubt it.
So, for over 150 years, the American government has used the latest technology to spy on those using the latest technology.
And NOW, we're supposed to draw the line!
Ok, I'm in!
But help me out.
Where, exactly, do we start? And how?
I'm all ears.
Graham says:
C U N D Gulag,
Where would you start?
Most Western Democracies have basically a two-party system, but most of them also have a significant third Party that is sort of soft-Left/Green/libertarian.
These Parties have a considerable ameliorating effect on the authoritarianism of major Parties. In my country, for example, a very well-developed plan to store all our internet information for two years has just been shelved because of the opposition that would be thrown at it by our Greens party.
However, when a third Party in America emerges it is always a Right-Wing outfit like Ron Paul's ( I know he is libertarian, but Right Wing). America desperately needs to form a National Party along these lines.
What else can you do? Well you could have a an Arab Spring, such as is occurring in Egypt as we speak – however advocating that would probably get me flagged on an NSA/Five Eyes snoop list, so I won't.
Americans really should try Democracy – you'd like it.
c u n d gulag says:
Graham,
I should have known that you weren't from around these here parts. ;-)
There have been few 3rd Parties in history, that made any impact in national elections.
The Republicans, as the Whig Party was dying.
Teddy Roosevelt's "Bull Moose Party."
The Dixiecrats.
John Anderson's party in 1980.
Ross Perot's, in 1992 and 1996.
And Ralph Nader's group, in 2000.
And none of those came close to winning, all they did, was throw the election, one way or the other, to one of the parties. To Clinton, in those two national elections, and W, in 2000 – with the help of the SCOTUS.
I would say that I do agree with you, in principle, but right now, any more Liberal 3rd Party would throw the next election to the sociopaths that now comprise the Republican Party.
I do hope for a Conservative 3rd party, to peel off the more sociopathic of the sociopaths, and throw elections to the Democrats.
The problem in America, is this:
The Democrats can govern, but they suck at politics.
The Republicans are great at politics, but can't govern, or won't – except to tear any and every thing down, that smacks of anything later than 1930.
To argue that we work on a more Liberal 3rd party now, would be suicide.
And with the eliminationist rhetoric coming from our Conservatives, I DO MEAN SUICIDE!
I wish it weren't thus…
Kevin says:
I think stating that Snowden didn't have a plan is more than a little unfair. While it is questionable due to his actions whether he wanted his fame or not, the pacing of his actions has certainly kept the story running much, much longer that it would have if we didn't get to watch the chase. It's unfortunate that the focus is on the chase and not the content of the leaks, but at least the discussion that matters is _still_ on the tip of people's tongues. I'm not willing to rule out whether that may have been part of his plan.
planb247 says:
"I'd rather take my chances here than to go hat-in-hand to the world's most repressive governments asking for help."
I hate to tell you, but the USA IS one of the world's most repressive governments nowadays. We're like the Nazis and Russia all tied up in one pretty little Google package.
J R says:
I am astonished that anyone was surprised to discover that the Gov't was and is documenting all communications traffic.
Years (1998-99) ago there was some amount of discussion of a program called echelon, which was NSA and other similar agencies, recording all communications traffic. Sound familiar? It should!
So anyone surprised about THIS listening program is either young (like Mr. Snowden) or not well read on security issues. I mean that was only 14 years ago. I guess Eric was only 13 or 14 at the time, but it was big news for a couple of days, and there is a Wikipedia article about it.
Mark P says:
I have a really hard time believing much of anything that Snowden says about himself. A lot of his story just smells. He intentionally went to work for BA with the purpose of stealing classified information? How could he possibly have known that he would end up in a position to do that? He was a senior consultant to the CIA (I believe it was) prior to that position? And he's 29 now? Resume inflation, anybody? All the information he got may be legitimate, but his personal story is too fishy to take at face value.
And, as noted above, getting clearances and then getting authorization to access specific classified information requires signing a form acknowledging that revealing it is a crime that carries significant penalties. He didn't swear an oath, but he signed a legal document that is as binding.
Elle says:
Or has read the report produced by the ad hoc committee of the European Parliament formed to scrutinise Echelon, in which there was a very clear legal opinion that getting other states to mine your citizens' communications was a clear breach of their Art. 8 ECHR right to privacy.
Gavin says:
I think people are being a little hasty in accusing Edward Snowden of poor planning here. I mean, he's not in custody, is he? Nor does it appear he's at any immediate risk of detention so long as he's stuck in the Moscow airport. Indeed, the more I think about it, the more China and Russia seem like logical staging grounds in his quest for amnesty. Sure, there are countries like Ecuador that have some history of harboring foreign political dissidents, but to my knowledge none of them are US citizens, and even if they are, the US government is far less concerned with affecting their capture than it is Snowden's. Bolivia, Iceland, and several other small nations without extradition treaties with the United States have engaged in flighty rhetoric about free speech rights and their willingness to harbor a whistleblower like Edward Snowden. Then again, so did Rafael Correa in Ecuador, right up until he got a call from Joe Biden threatening economic and political retaliation of presumably epic (for Ecuador) proportions . The US simply can't do that with China or Russia. Our relationships with both countries are complex and intertwined, especially with respect to trade, and their costs and benefits flow in both directions. In short, there's a limit to what kind of punitive action the US can take to compel either nation to extradite Snowden. Plus there's tons of political upside to not doing so: Snowden's ongoing freedom and media contact while he was in Hong Kong made a hypocritical farce out of US condemnations of Chinese cyberwarfare, and every minute he spends wandering around the airport in Moscow further bolsters Putin's image as a strongman unbeholden to international pressure. So Snowden's in good shape for the time being. Moreover, he's forced the Obama administration to lay its cards on the table. Any country that offers him asylum now will be doing so credibly, with a full understanding of that offer's repercussions.
As for all this grumbling about how the guy is a coward, or at least somehow less courageous than those who came before him, I call bullshit. The reality here is that Snowden's ability to defend himself in the court of public opinion effectively disappears the moment he's arrested by US authorities. While the people on here claiming that he'll be subjected to torture, or that the conditions of his detention will be as harsh as those suffered by Bradley Manning are way off-base, there's little doubt in my mind that once the government has him in custody, it will immediately restrict his interaction with the outside world as much as possible by citing ongong national security concerns. More than likely he'll only be allowed to meet with his attorneys, and they will be put under the strictest of gag orders when it comes to discussing his case publicly. There's simply nothing in our recent history to suggest that he'd be afforded the opportunity to make his case in the light of day the way Daniel Ellsberg was allowed to after leaking the Pentagon Papers. And let's face it: for whistleblowers, that's where the trial that really counts actually takes place. All of them have, in the absolute sense, committed a crime by exposing classified information. Their only hope is that the public ultimately decides the information in question is of such import that their crime should be forgiven. This is why I'm not personally willing to interpret Snowden's going on the lam as a de facto refusal to let his actions be judged. I think he might simply want to be judged fairly.
cromartie says:
Really? Really? Everyone was completely sure that the U.S. government was making warrantless use of an insane amount online information before this story came out? None of you would have brushed it away with a "lol conspiracy theory"?
Yes. We were made aware that data traffic was being sent to a room in San Francisco six years ago.
We were also made aware, thanks to people like me, that supporting the Patriot Act was akin to taking the fourth amendment and wiping your ass with it.
Depressingly few Americans care about either.
Bernard says:
lol. such is an Empire. lol.
Snowden shows the Emperor has no clothes and everyone bashes Snowden, not the Emperor, for what can we do about the Emperor. Right? that is what i hear.
the greatest thing i have read is the reaction from the East German Stasi guy who said about the spying,with envy, no less, "this is Heaven on Earth." which kind of says it all.
and no i had never heard about Google, Yahoo, Verison having a backdoor into the NSA. or that Google had this operating 6 years ago. it certainly wasn't in the news in America. i read a lot and just saw that "expose" on Rachel Maddow a few weeks ago.
and to top off the fact that Britain is doing their part in spying in coordination with the NSA. what are friends for, after all?
this guy Snowden tells us a great extent about what our Government is doing secretly, most of us who didn't know the exact extent of the Spying, there are those ignorant souls who abhor the Gestapo, and we are told by the rest of us, "Get over it." hmm. what a country! Indeed.
just watch Snowden disappear like all "bad" people do, reminds me of Pinochet and Argentina.
i guess it's true when they say, "Don't Cry for me Argentina." we need to cry for ourselves, at least those of us who didn't vote for or condone the Theft of the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. Fascinating to see the diversion from the "spying" to the "bad, evil Traitor". Amazing to watch the spin.
at least we have Lee Greenwood's "Proud to be an American,where at least I know i'm free." to sing on the 4th! Freedom. Gosh what a Country!
stuffandstuff says:
Yes. We were made aware that data traffic was being sent to a room in San Francisco six years ago.
We were also made aware, thanks to people like me, that supporting the Patriot Act was akin to taking the fourth amendment and wiping your ass with it.
Depressingly few Americans care about either.
While some people may have been "aware" of what was happening, most, including a good deal of relatively intelligent and well-informed people I know, were not. Snowden gave many of those people (myself included), the wake-up call we should have had 6-10 years ago, but didn't.
Marketing matters.
Bill says:
This is the stupidest post that Ed has ever made.
Let's recap: a 30-something political science graduate and stand-up comedian who struggles to teach in his field and constantly bemoans the current state of higher education is criticizing Edward Snowden for his apparent lack of planning and/or inability to be Jason Bourne.
Robert says:
Getting into tight spots without an exit strategy is an American tradition.
Rich S. says:
Yeah, turning yourself in to the FBI worked out real great for the Nazi Sabotuers in WWII. Especially for the one who got executed.
Bill says:
The more I think about this post, the more I realize that Ed's basically being the Butthurt Dweller of poli-sci national security wonkery. He's the "2/10 would not bang" neckbeard critiquing some errant hairs on Olivia Wilde's arm and pronouncing his superiority over such flaws.
http://imgur.com/tX6vmRg
"Snowden's escape plan wasn't as awesome as mine would've been. 2/10 do not support."
Arslan says:
Bill, don't be so hard on Ed. I think that he's feeling the same thing a lot of us get from time to time every time a big story breaks in these days of social networks and twitter. Suddenly your news feed and sites are jam packed with stories about Snowden, Asssange, etc., and many of the claims are outright false. One good example is Iceland. The way Facebookers tell it, you'd think Iceland is a direct democracy that let everyone write the constitution collectively and has achieved full communism. It didn't help that people like Naomi Klein were spreading all kinds of idiotic myths about the country.
Chris Dornan was another great example. The internet made him out to be some kind of crusading hero when we was quite literally insane.
So now we have Snowden and lots of idiots pontificating all over the place about Ecuador and of course Russia. I wish he never came here because Russia already has enough problems with ignorant Americans who are all too happy to voice their uninformed opinion about what goes on in this country.
Recently I read an article from an AP reporter who tried to get into the transit hotel to see Snowden. As is typical for reporting on Russia, it's full of allusions to the Cold War and 1984, as though this reporter has no idea that other countries have immigration controls, particularly at airports. You have to have a visa to be in the fucking country. It works the same way for Russians coming to the US, and even when they do have valid visas they constantly get grilled by passport control and border police when they cross over.
Now we have failed spy Anna Chapman, dying for attention(I guess the SVR pension isn't so great) proposing marriage to the guy. Ordinarily this story would stay within the Russian press, but of course since it's a slow news day EVERYONE has to jump on the bandwagon and report this pointless story.
So yeah, even I'm a little pissed off at Snowden for coming here when he should have leaked the shit while he was in the country he actually wanted to seek asylum in. That and I had already assumed for years that the government had methods of accessing my communications.
qmmayer says:
Based on what I've seen, the NSA program has been covered in the press before Snowden: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/1/
Even in USA Today of all places: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa-qna_x.htm?csp=34
But Snowden definitely elevated the debate. Obviously, many more people are paying attention now, and I think he had laudable reasons for acting.
That said, the revelations about China (to the HK press) and the disclosures about EU activities seem entirely designed curry favor with foreign governments in order to pave the way to amnesty. I wish I could admire him more, but I'm afraid he's undermined the value of his initial NSA material — everyone is now focused on the latest information and the gamesmanship of where he goes next. And in my opinion he's gone well beyond his original claim that he wanted to alert Americans to government overreaching.
Karl Hall says:
Worst G&T post I've ever read. Completely ignorant.