2 ms·

Check out this Intelligence Squared debate between Daniel Ellsberg (pentagon papers) vs. a former CIA director - it provides a deeper insight into the perspecti

Check out this Intelligence Squared debate between Daniel Ellsberg (pentagon papers) vs. a former CIA director - it provides a deeper insight into the perspective behind this letter, and the vacuous arguments made by the anti-Snowden cohort: http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/snowden-was-justified http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/snowden-was-jus... The letter reminds me of how the DEA is consistently hyperbolic regarding the public health dangers of marijuana. To concede that weed is essentially harmless and medically useful would invalidate much of the drug war the DEA has waged for the past 40 years. Similarly - to acknowledge Snowden in any positive light would invalidate the spying regime instituted by the U.S. government. And force the to acknowledge that their powerful spy tools require equally powerful oversight. The lesson the NSA, the House committee, and others should take from Snowden is not that he's a villain. Rather, that one way or the other substantial oversight is going to occur, even if it requires the largest leak in history. Create truly transparent and accountable systems and there will be no more Snowdens. Throw the book at him, become more insular and secretive, and the problem will only get worse.

tptacek 10y ago
Why would the House Intelligence committee be opposed to oversight of the NSA? That's their job.
- AngrySkillzz 10y ago
  Because admitting that Snowden was a whistleblower or a patriot would imply that they had not been doing their jobs as overseers. It would also potentially limit the power of the intelligence apparatus, which would in turn limit the power of these congressmen as some of their clout comes from being on a committee overseeing a constellation of powerful agencies. Their incentives are completely misaligned.
- leepowers 10y ago
  That depends on the members of the committee. Are they dedicated to substantive oversight, or a rubber-stamp process? This controversy ultimately boils down to a lack of oversight and accountability. The current spying regime maintains oversight by pliant secret courts and congressional committees is enough. The scale of the spying powers has not been met by equally powerful oversight.

tptacek 10y ago

Why would the House Intelligence committee be opposed to oversight of the NSA? That's their job.

AngrySkillzz 10y ago
Because admitting that Snowden was a whistleblower or a patriot would imply that they had not been doing their jobs as overseers. It would also potentially limit the power of the intelligence apparatus, which would in turn limit the power of these congressmen as some of their clout comes from being on a committee overseeing a constellation of powerful agencies. Their incentives are completely misaligned.
leepowers 10y ago
That depends on the members of the committee. Are they dedicated to substantive oversight, or a rubber-stamp process? This controversy ultimately boils down to a lack of oversight and accountability. The current spying regime maintains oversight by pliant secret courts and congressional committees is enough. The scale of the spying powers has not been met by equally powerful oversight.