Espionage or Journalism? After the Snowden NSA Leaks (2020)(theatlantic.com) |
Espionage or Journalism? After the Snowden NSA Leaks (2020)(theatlantic.com) |
For example, Daniel Ellsberg, leaking Pentagon Papers - basically everyone now agrees that was legitimate whistleblowing as it proved leading government figures were lying through their teeth to the American public about the reality on the ground in Vietnam. In contrast, Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were CIA and FBI employees who sold all kinds of secrets to the Soviet Union for several decades - pretty sure we can safely call that espionage.
So Edward Snowden... proved the likes of James Clapper were lying through their teeth to Congress about mass warrantless collection of the private communications of American citizens. Hmmm... is it whistleblowing or espionage? Gosh what a tough question.
> This claim that Clapper lied before Congress has an interesting mix of supporters—some people on the far left who view Clapper as some part of a nefarious intelligence state out to spy on all of us, and then Trump supporters who look for any way to discredit someone who’s been a critic of Trump.
> Jim Clapper has served the US with honor and distinction. The role of DNI has been much like that of the Spinal Tap drummer—no-one who has been in that role has been around much and seems to just disappear in a poof. Clapper is the exception. People who follow the IC will tell you that Clapper was outstanding.
> As for the claim that he “lied,” this requires a little explanation. In a closed session, he had briefed the Congressional committee about US monitoring of telecommunications. He was then asked in an open hearing if the US did this. This was a classified program. Anyone who says that he should have said “I’m not authorized to talk about that” is being naive—that would automatically say “we do indeed have a classified program in this area.” So Clapper did what anyone when asked a question about the existence of a specific classified program would do—gave an answer that didn’t hint that we did indeed have such a program. After the public testimony, he then contacted the committee and said what the correct answer was—and that it was classified.
> I have been asked questions before (including by co-workers in the IC) about programs they weren’t cleared for and when you’re not supposed to give hints that the program exists, you can’t say “I’m not authorized to comment on that” or “sorry but that’s classified” because those are answers, you’re saying “yes, we do have such a program.” So in those cases you maintain the security of the program and only reveal it in a setting and audience that is cleared for discussion.
> And that’s why he was never censured or reprimanded by Congress for “lying.”
I am surprised that Ellsberg was let off. I think Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were punished because they betrayed their oaths and the material was more important or pertinent.
Now they have things sewed up better. Pliant judges, extortion, secret charges, secret "evidence", secret "testimony".
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/5-people-who-lied-...
This is not to make light or, or poo-poo his concerns or the counter-measures he takes, but rather to note that he should be watching his back after a career like that. Like Ben Franklin once said, "Never charge someone more money than it costs to kill you."
This is so clever, while being completely impractical when dealing with governing entities. Depending on where you live, pricing a service for your local police could become a very difficult exercise.
Context: “ In 1967, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) identified Hampton as a radical threat. It tried to subvert his activities in Chicago, sowing disinformation among black progressive groups and placing a counterintelligence operative in the local Panthers organization. In December 1969, Hampton was drugged, shot and killed in his bed during a predawn raid at his Chicago apartment by a tactical unit of the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, who received aid from the Chicago Police Department and the FBI leading up to the attack.”
last tweet feb 27th
https://mobile.twitter.com/Snowden/status/149804957713120870...
He really blew his credibility pushing the “Russia isn’t going to attack” propaganda line (ostensibly, as his own independent analysis of the situation), and his last tweet (3 days after the attack, his prior being 3 days before) was:
“I’m not suspended from the ceiling above a barrel of acid by a rope that burns a little faster every time I tweet, you concern-trolling ghouls. I’ve just lost any confidence I had that sharing my thinking on this particular topic continues to be useful, because I called it wrong.”
Years later Richard Ledgett, who oversaw the NSA’s media-leaks task force and went on to become the agency’s deputy director, told me matter-of-factly to assume that my defenses had been breached. “My take is, whatever you guys had was pretty immediately in the hands of any foreign intelligence service that wanted it,” he said, “whether it was Russians, Chinese, French, the Israelis, the Brits. Between you, Poitras, and Greenwald, pretty sure you guys can’t stand up to a full-fledged nation-state attempt to exploit your IT. To include not just remote stuff, but hands-on, sneak-into-your-house-at-night kind of stuff. That’s my guess.” Because I’d been one of Snowden’s principal interlocutors, Ledgett told me he was sure there was “a nice dossier” on me in both Russia and China.
It comes off to me as fear mongering and an attempt to dissuade any future involvement with such sensitive materials. An understandable approach from someone with the specified role. However, it just sounds so defeatist given how much of the article up to that point had detailed the layers of effort that had gone into avoiding exactly that.
It also means that the NSA is capable of that as well: they've got it before you even realise what it is that you've got.
Any of James Clapper's words must be filtered through his laser-focused tunnel vision; black and white, good and bad, scorched earth for middle ground. ie. discard it, but be aware that's how those people view the world, and therefore that's what you'll be up against if you step into the ring. Zealots. Cattle to be protected by the Dogs from the Wolves, and into those three categories fit all.
I don't like it much, and find it difficult to relate to, but they couldn't do the important stuff that they do if they didn't have that attitude. But that's exactly why "congress", or whoever the appropriate leash-holders are, need to yoink on the leash every now and then, rather than letting it out for two straight decades.
As much as I think it was important to get out what they published, he is right on that detail: Greenwald and Poitras, at least, were and remain wholly unqualified to keep anything under wraps. They surely did their best, as well as they understood what they were even trying to do.
My Summer of Snowden - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23221517 - May 2020 (18 comments)
That is the title of the article when I click the link. (Caps and all came through in copy-paste). Where is this "Espionage or Journalism" coming from? Are there different titles shown to different viewers?
That happen tough only if the government is from an establish Democracy, if the democracy is just formal, not substantial, if citizens accept that instead of impose their sovereignty, that it does not happen.
For non-Americans who don't know, accusing someone who wants something you don't of being a puppet for the Kremlin has been a popular activity for the past century?
Support the fourth amendment to the US constitution? Puppet for the Kremlin.
Don't want to get into a nuclear arms race? Puppet for the Kremlin.
Support the civil rights movement? Puppet for the Kremlin.
Don't want to pick up France's colonial subjugations in Indochina? Puppet for the Kremlin.
And so on. The social security act of 1935 was called a Russian plot. Those who wanted to wind down involvement in WWI a few months into US involvement were called Bolshevik supporters.
[1] https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1494006204896620548
[2] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1508831524854059008
Are they having zoom chats with Putin, and he's telling them what to tweet/say, and then they are doing exactly as he directs? Or is there a different arrangement?
I'm assuming that being critical of the US military & security complex is your evidence of being a puppet for Putin? Since Putin also is critical of the US military & security complex, therefore criticizing the US = puppeting for Putin?
If I have this wrong, please do correct me.
would that be enough to convince you?
His charges were dropped because the prosecution's gross misconduct and illegal evidence collection had become national news. Without Watergate, Ellsberg would have spent years in prison.
> .. that the CIA does when those enemies are American citizens.
To repeat my question one last time of how you determine the 'Putin puppetness' of someone:
> I'm assuming that being critical of the US military & security complex is your evidence of being a puppet for Putin? Since Putin also is critical of the US military & security complex, therefore criticizing the US = puppeting for Putin?
If I have this wrong, please do correct me.
>Mueller cross-examined me: Were the NSA documents not lawfully classified? Were they not stolen? Did I not publish them anyway?
It is kind of weird that you suggest that (not, on its own, an implausible guess) and link to the tweet where he rather angrily denies exactly that characterization as support.
And I think Snowden has proven the constitution can survive the disclosure that the government had an illegal, poorly overseen dragnet. Clapper is ultimately responsible for what is considered classified. Feels like circular logic to say he was forced to lie to the public and non-committee representatives about things he had authority to disclose.
* * *
While we are talking about cowardly though, why has Edward Snowden, president of the Freedom of the Press Foundation (!), neither said anything publicly nor resigned after 2 months of Russian crackdown on journalists and dissidents (in Russia they are now arresting people holding up invisible signs based on the imagined anti-government messages on them, and arresting journalists for no reason at all), explicit orders to the Russian military to murder journalists in Ukraine, etc.?
I was generally a fan of Snowden (with some reservations) before the past 2 months, considering him a flawed but courageous man of principle, but wow is he letting us all down this time.
PS. that's a very unwarranted swipe. Might as well request Obama to turn in his Nobel Peace Prize speaking of incongruencies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Aw...
>the strike was carried out by Joint Special Operations Command, under the direction of the CIA.
The CIA assassinating an American Citizen.
Oh they’ve done much worse to US citizens, and got away with it.
Nobody will be prosecuted for that.
Of course if an agency like this wanted me dead I’m sure evading one attempt would only prolong my life shortly.
Snowden’s claim to fame is “biting the hand” in service of humanity. Is he still a man of principle or has living in an actual police state turned him into a compliant pet? You tell me.
> very unwarranted swipe. Might as well request Obama
The name “Snowden” is in the title of this discussion topic. But requesting Obama return his Nobel Prize seems reasonable enough to me; feel free to do that here or wherever else.
What I don’t understand is why Clapper has to settle with merely “not being charged with perjury” while Brett Kavanaugh not only wasn’t charged with perjury, and continued in government service (in a position he got through his perjury) when his lies were established, but got promoted to the Supreme Court (note, I’m referring to his blatant lies about his involvement with the Bush-era torture program during his Court of Appeals confirmation hearing, not any perjury he may have committed during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings.)
He started his career clerking for conservative judges including Judge Kozinski and Justice Kennedy. Then in the late 90s he worked for Ken Starr doing trumped up anti-Clinton “investigations”, and authored the Starr Report. In 2000 he was part of George W. Bush’s legal team that worked with the GOP-majority Supreme Court to prevent Florida from counting all of the votes from the 2000 election, blatantly unconstitutionally (and against all precedent) stomping on the Florida Supreme Court. For his services he was hired by Alberto Gonzalez at the Bush DOJ. Then later during the Bush administration he was at the Federalist Society, in charge of choosing which judicial activists the GOP should promote to federal courts (he also perjured himself answering Senate questions about his work there, FWIW).
Prior comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28098290
I've never gotten the impression that Americans have very much love for the intelligence community. The military, yes, the intelligence community, no.
Congress has slapped the intelligence committee before (in the aftermath of the Church Committee[1]).
It's just that post-9/11 the powers of America's intelligence agencies were tremendously increased and they were given a much longer leash.
Now that 9/11 is more than 20 years in the past they might get slapped again, but it'll probably take a bigger scandal than Snowden's revelations to do it.. and such a scandal has to happen in peace time if it's to have any effect.
The COINTELPRO revelations were promoted as ending the program, but there is no public evidence anything changed. The stories about attempts at spying via ESP were themselves successful disinformation campaigns conducted against the American public. Most people who have heard of them believe them, wholesale.
If you get caught in one of these scandals, you just have to wait out the news cycles in the shadows where you typically are anyway. Or you "take one for the team" like Clapper did - no doubt with a lot of legal advice from civil servant lawyers. It doesn't really matter whether or not the public tells intelligence officers/operatives "Thank you for your service!" You can also see the retroactive immunity congress granted these organizations and impassioned defenses they offered.
There is no stomach (or understanding) to demand better of the IC in any way reminiscent of the Church or Pike committee times.
I can't really fathom the magnitude of wrongdoing that would now be needed to change how these organizations think and work, or have key staff actually slapped with enduring punishments.
Remaining there implies to the world that the Foundation does not believe its stated founding principles and is little more than a front organization for the Russian state, and undermines any past work he has done to promote press freedom.
Who do you imagine you are fooling? I doubt you are even being paid for such clumsy stooging.
You have no problem with the president of the “Freedom of the Press Foundation” giving Putin a free pass for (a) mass murder of civilians and (b) systematic attack on freedom of the press in Russia and around the world? What do you imagine the Freedom of the Press Foundation is supposed to stand for?
Who am I supposed to be a stooge for? The people of Ukraine and their supporters? The (former) independent Russian press? A secret cabal of CIA-funded Ukrainian gay Jewish Nazis using their secret biolabs to turn us all into lizard people?
I’m all for holding the USA (and Britain, Germany, Saudia Arabia, Israel, China, Turkey, India, ...) accountable for censorship, crimes against journalists, illegal surveillance, etc., but the ongoing atrocities in Ukraine and linked press crackdown are without any doubt the most acute threat to freedom of the press (and more generally to Enlightenment values / classical liberalism / democracy) in the world in April 2022. Those who don’t even acknowledge that Russian actions are illegal and morally unjustifiable are completely undermining whatever principles they purported to hold.
There several ways around it from going to neutral to turning off the engine or even crashing is generally survivable, but they depend on the car and roads. Aka I don’t know what would work in a Model T.
It is a fact that this specific reporter did die in a car wreck exactly as described.
I am not saying the guy did or didn’t die in an actual accident. I am saying the implication that this was an assassination is tinfoil level of crazy because it’s a very avoidable accident and anyone doing even a minimum level of investigation or having ever taken a drivers Ed course should know.
Here’s some of the variety I was talking about: "Smart throttle" solutions
Some new vehicles come with "smart throttle" technology, which reduces the possibility of unintended accelerations caused by mechanical failures. These computer-based systems recognize when both the brake and accelerator are being depressed. They also tell the engine to give precedence to braking and to ignore the accelerator.
https://www.statefarm.com/simple-insights/auto-and-vehicles/...
The also give the normal advice: “Stay calm and try not to panic. Push the brake firmly with both feet and hold it down. Don't pump the brake pedal or release it because you will lose all your vacuum power assist, causing your brakes to become stiff and very hard. Shift the car into neutral. If the car has a manual transmission, remember to depress the clutch to shift gears. Steadily hold the brake and look for an escape route, like a hard shoulder on the highway. Avoid quick lane changes, which could cause you to swerve and lose control of the vehicle. If possible, steer in a straight line. Do not turn off the engine unless shifting into neutral is unsuccessful. Turning off the engine will turn off the power-assist brake functions, making it harder to maneuver the car. When you have come to a controlled stop out of the way of traffic, turn the engine off (if you have not already done so). If you use a key, keep it in the ignition when you turn off the engine so the steering wheel doesn't lock. If your vehicle has a start on/off button, hold the button down for at least three seconds to disable the vehicle. Do not tap repeatedly. Call for assistance. Do not drive the vehicle until it has been professionally serviced.”
Oh, that wasn't what you meant?
Snowden has no ability to offer or withhold passes to anybody. Which you already knew.
He has the ability to resign as president of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. He should exercise it.
Obviously the reporter this was done to tried everything. Obviously it did not work. He is in fact dead. Police did in fact refuse to investigate.
Nope, that’s a huge mistake on your part people panic in an emergency. So you’re making crap up if you think someone must have tried everything let alone tried the right things.
I am not saying he took the key out of the ignition, but if he did he wouldn’t be able to steer. That’s exactly the kind of mistake you can make in a high stress situation and die.
PS: If your old enough to drive please consider taking a defensive driving class, peoples lives are literally on the line.
My friends in Ukraine are not so fortunate; they are profoundly unsafe and uncomfortable and they and many of their friends and family are now dead, refugees, or Russian prisoners, and their neighbors’ houses were turned to rubble.
Neither are the Russian journalists recently murdered or thrown in prison for nothing. Neither are the at least 14 journalists killed so far in Ukraine, some directly targeted by the Russian military.
If I were president of the Freedom of the Press foundation, I would either say something about it or resign. Someone who is under such grave threat (or so embarrassed/ashamed) that he cannot speak at all is in no position to remain president of the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
Presidents of environmental justice NGOs should speak out when governments (including those where they live) allow toxic sludge to flow into rivers.
Presidents of journalistic freedom NGOs should speak out when journalists are being killed, imprisoned, and censored.
Presidents of consumer rights NGOs should speak out when popular products kill consumers.
Presidents of veterans NGOs should speak out when veterans are denied healthcare.
Presidents of children’s rights NGOs should speak out when children are systematically abused.
Etc.
Fortunately, presidents of NGOs don’t fear for their life in the USA, because the USA is substantially governed by laws, and American residents enjoy freedom of speech and association. NGO presidents who criticize the US leadership don’t get defenestrated or disappeared to a gulag.
If someone is president of the Freedom of the Press Foundation and is not in a position to advocate for freedom of the press because they are so afraid for their life they must live in total silence (note though: Snowden did make one post specifically disavowing this scenario), then they are completely useless in that role, and their silence calls into question their past activities and motivations. At that point they should resign and pass the job to someone who can actually do it.
And, I know you would do no different, in his shoes. But you are not, and never will be.