17 ms·

Don’t just pardon Edward Snowden; give the man a medal

505 points by mariusavram 10y ago

zeveb 10y ago
An opposing view: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/09/what_snowden_gets_wrong_about_its_hero.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/... And the unanimous, bipartisan report of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: http://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=692 http://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?Docum...
- tvon 10y ago
  I honestly do not know who to believe, but a counter to the report: https://tcf.org/content/commentary/house-intelligence-committees-terrible-horrible-bad-snowden-report/ https://tcf.org/content/commentary/house-intelligence-commit...
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I hadn't read this and generally admire Gellman. Thanks for the link. We can analyze the claims Gellman makes here, though, and further our understanding of the controversy. I believe these are all of them: * The House report claims Snowden lied saying he left military training due to broken legs, and instead washed out due to "shin splints". Gellman objects, saying he has a documented diagnosis for Snowden saying he was discharged with "bilaterial tibial stress fractures". But tibial stress fractures are a form --- a common form --- of shin splint. * The House report claims Snowden never completed his high school equivalency. Gellman has the score Snowden got on his equivalency back in 2004. The House report's claim is inexplicable. * The House report claims Snowden was a very low level employee. Gellman objects based on his titles and the fact that he was sent to Europe under diplomatic cover. It's difficult to evaluate this dispute. His claims about Snowden's titles are very unconvincing --- it's also extremely unlikely that Snowden had the role Gellman claims he had w/r/t/ Dell's cybersecurity group (Dell employs a huge number of infosec people). You'd also want to know whether it was routine for people employed at CIA to be deployed under diplomatic cover, because Gellman uses that as evidence of his seniority. * The House report claims Snowden doctored his performance evaluations. Gellman rebuts that Snowden was demonstrating a vulnerability in the web app that displayed it. I'm inclined to believe both sides of this story could believe their side in good faith, but you might disagree. * The House report claims Snowden stole the answers to an employment questionnaire. (This claim was also made by officials on 60 Minutes) Gellman rebuts that the test in question was very basic, and by this point in Snowden's career he'd had so much experience --- and an MCSE certificate --- that he wouldn't need to. Gellman doesn't know whether this happened, or what test they're talking about. The 60 Minutes claim is that the test involved getting into NSA's TAO group, which makes me think the MCSE certificate not so relevant. But ultimately: we don't know, and neither does Gellman. * The House report makes mention of Snowden's flight to Russia. Gellman rebuts that it was in fact a thwarted flight to Ecuador. I think Gellman is probably wrong about this: the claim that Snowden was diligently trying to reach Ecuador depends on him being stuck in Sheremetyevo due to passport invalidation, but it's been pointed out repeatedly that he could have obtained an exit visa without a valid passport. There's also the wrinkles that Snowden spent time (days) in the Russian consulate in Hong Kong, and that he was advised by others to seek asylum in Russia. Both sides again might have valid reasons to push their arguments, but Gellman's rebuttal isn't dispositive. * The House report notes that Snowden didn't avail himself of whistleblower protections in the US. Gellman claims he could not have. Both sides can be right. There is very little evidence that Snowden attempted to escalate his findings through channels (there are a lot of public claims that he did, but the actual evidence apparently comes down to a single email that makes no mention of an urgent complaint). Further, we have Snowden's own claim that he took the Booz Allen job specifically to get access to these documents and send them overseas --- internal whistleblower channels would impede that objective. Moreover: this is a slippery argument: Gellman can always define some action (for instance: bulk delivery of internal documents to The Guardian) for which whistleblower protections would not apply. * The House report claims that Snowden stole 1.5MM documents. Gellman says we don't have evidence as to the specific number. I mean, sure. Whatever. * Members of the House Intelligence Committee have claimed that Snowden did more damage to US interests than anyone in history. Gellman, rightly, points out that this is total bullshit. It's worth remembering that Gellman is focusing primarily on a single section of the executive summary of the House report --- the one claiming that Snowden is a fabulist. Like I said: I'm an admirer of Gellman's. It's clear to me that Gellman is several steps removed from the lingo and trade knowledge of information security, so I think he can sometimes find himself convinced by things that would leave an expert wary. But I also think Gellman, more than some other writers, is at pains to make reported, fact-based, good-faith arguments. I didn't find this piece totally convincing, but there are clearly claims that the House IC has made that don't withstand any scrutiny, so the fact check is definitely valuable. Thanks again for finding it!
    - kenko 10y ago
      "but it's been pointed out repeatedly that he could have obtained an exit visa without a valid passport" But only by grace of some entity with the power to grant him such a visa, right? He couldn't just ask for one and get it (someone in Slate I think said something like, look, Russia could have given him a visa and Cuba could have let him in—yeah, but those are things Russia and Cuba have to decide to do, not things Snowden can do off his own bat).
      - tptacek 10y ago
        Yes, this is true, but if that's what's happening, the Russians are holding him hostage. You can simplify this whole point to: Unless the Russians aren't benign --- in which case it's a very bad thing that Snowden is in Russia --- if Snowden wanted to be in Ecuador, he'd be in Ecuador.
        ScottBurson 10y ago
        > if Snowden wanted to be in Ecuador, he'd be in Ecuador I think this is very naïve. The US wanted him very badly, and we can throw our weight around pretty well. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
        tptacek 10y ago
        Could you better explain what you're trying to say here? How is it that the US can prevent Snowden from boarding a plane in Moscow?
        tedunangst 10y ago
        They use the HAARP installation to control the weather and cause a catastrophic lightning strike on his plane. That's why he can't go outside.
        10y ago
- dgnnmdhn 10y ago
  Oh wow, bipartisan? You mean both authoritarian business parties approved it? Surely this level of cooperation is unprecedented!
- frandroid 10y ago
  When it comes to matters of American National Security, there is very little daylight between Democratic and Republican positions, so calling a report bipartisan is not something that indicates that its contents were carefully debated, but rather that debate on these issues is nearly absent. GIGO.
- probably_wrong 10y ago
  I think the first article falls for the easiest of traps: it's a movie, not a documentary. Every single movie "based on real events" is pretty much made up. Pointing to the differences between the movie and real life is (IMHO) a pointless exercise. More so when it's used then to justify a political position. Put another way: as good as JFK is, I wouldn't put anyone in jail because of it.
  - nsxwolf 10y ago
    Mitch Hedberg: I like when they say a movie is inspired by a true story. That's kind of silly. "Hey, Mitch, did you hear that story about that lady who drove her car into the lake with her kids and they all drowned?" "Yeah, I did, and you know what - that inspires me to write a movie about a gorilla!"
  - ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
    "Fact checking" a movie to derive its "artistic worth" is indeed pointless. That said though if a movie paints a certain picture while bending or omitting some facts which contradict the said picture then I don't see anything wrong with pointing out the discrepancies. Claiming moral high ground comes with scrutiny. If for example he had indeed stolen the test questions to pass the test that paints a slightly different picture of the character he and his supporters are trying to sell.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  Aside from the fact that the report makes no mention of the crimes Snowden exposed (as if the American public were too dumb to notice, or care) -- would you care to comment on any of the apparently quite egregiously misleading assertions it makes? Questioning his lower leg fractures or his GED, in particular, smacks of birtherism. https://tcf.org/content/commentary/house-intelligence-committees-terrible-horrible-bad-snowden-report/ https://tcf.org/content/commentary/house-intelligence-commit...
  - zeveb 10y ago
    > Questioning his lower leg fractures or his GED, in particular, smacks of birtherism. You mean these statements? 'He claimed to have left Army basic training because of broken legs when in fact he washed out because of shin splints. He claimed to have obtained a high school degree equivalent when in fact he never did.' They go to Snowden's credibility (or complete lack thereof). Presumably the full report (an unclassified version of which has not yet been released) goes into details. Regarding his stress fractures, he made it sound as though he was left a temporary cripple; shin splints aren't that big a deal and plenty of people heal up and complete basic training after having them. Right now, one of Snowden's allies claims Snowden got a GED; the House Committee claims he did not get a high school degree equivalent. I'll trust the House Committee until the report is released. For now, I see someone who claimed to have mono, who claimed to have epilepsy, who claimed to have washed out of basic training due to broken legs (leaving 'on crutches,' which may be technically true but misleading), who claimed to have all sorts of evidence of illegal actions, not one of whose claims of illegal actions has been borne out, yet who also claims to have released evidence of legal activity to adversary state. His trustworthiness rating looks incredibly low.
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      Presumably the full report (an unclassified version of which has not yet been released) goes into details. There's no reason to believe they'd be hiding the "goods" on these accusations in the classified report. The only reason they aren't providing any more detail is because... they don't have any. Regarding his stress fractures, he made it sound as though he was left a temporary cripple; Where? Quotes, please. BTW if you've ever had any kind of a bone fracture -- in that part of the body, it does make you a "temporary cripple". Presumably the Army agreed, which is why they discharged him. Shin splints aren't that big a deal and plenty of people heal up and complete basic training after having them. But he wasn't diagnosed for shin splints (or anything equivalent to it); his actual diagnoses was for something different (and categorically more serious). "Shin splints" are just an invention of the Intelligence Committee. Right now, one of Snowden's allies claims Snowden got a GED; the House Committee claims he did not get a high school degree equivalent. I'll trust the House Committee until the report is released. The article refers to documents on file with the Maryland State Department of Education, which is the authority I'll trust on this matter. But if you want to believe what the IC report nakedly asserts on the matter (despite not providing a shred of evidence), go ahead -- whatever works for you.
- gravypod 10y ago
  I'd like to ask something. Is it leaking information if the information is commonly known? It is said in this article that Snowden leaked information that is appropriately done by the NSA as part of their charter. The direct quote: Whatever one’s views of U.S. foreign policy in those parts of the world, these activities are legitimate aspects of the NSA’s charter If this is the case, as in these activities are specified in the NSA's charter, then there can be no harm with talking about them publicly right?
callcall 10y ago
We need to do everything we can to support Snowden. Do not let the cynics win. We defeated SOPA in 2012 by making millions of phone calls to Congress, and we protected Net Neutrality in 2014 with millions of public comments to the FCC. Do not let the cynics win. Call your reps: TryVoices.com Petition the president: pardonsnowden.org/
Sneakos 10y ago
One thing this article doesn't take into account is that the movie the author undoubtedly watched before writing this was full of inaccuracies, and had the purpose of establishing Snowden as a martyr or sorts. This is evident because rather than just prove their point, the author makes several attempts to make sure the reader knows that if you hold an opposing view, you are intellectually lazy and unable to cope with reality. Not arguing either way, but if you are going to take a strong stance, don't make an article about how the opposing stance is only held by the weak minded.
- omginternets 10y ago
  >don't make an article about how the opposing stance is only held by the weak minded. What if you really think that's the case? Screw it, I'll say it. I think anyone who condemns Snowden is intellectually lazy or has vested interests in NSA surveillance. I have yet to see a single cogent rebuttal of Snowden's moral case.
  - watwatwatwat 10y ago
    I condemn Snowden. Prove that I'm intellectually lazy.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwawaymaroon 10y ago
      ...this is an intellectually lazy approach?
    - jacalata 10y ago
      Well, you didn't bother to give any reasoning....
      - hood_syntax 10y ago
        Obviously it's just low-hanging fruit /s
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
peterkelly 10y ago
Another important question is whether or not the NSA should be pardoned for their illegal activity: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-nsa-idUSKBN0NS1IN20150507 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-nsa-idUSKBN0N... Or whether James Clapper deserves a pardon for committing perjury during a testimony to Congress: http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com Edit: /s
- d33 10y ago
  Excuse me, why would they?
  - tfinniga 10y ago
    I haven't heard any arguments that they should receive a pardon, or any news of them being prosecuted. In the absence of that I'm just assuming that nothing will happen.
  - Kinnard 10y ago
    He's being sarcastic.
    - irishcoffee 10y ago
      I sure hope so. I'm trying to wrap my head around his logic and its not clicking.
      - peterkelly 10y ago
        Just to confirm, yes I was being sarcastic :)
- mozumder 10y ago
  What illegal activities did the NSA perform here? In case you didn't notice, the Snowden leaks revealed filters that removed US citizens' communications, showing that they were complying with US laws that prevent the US military (of which the NSA is part of) from spying on US citizens. Why would the NSA have these compliance filters as part of a classified program if they were allegedly performing illegal activities?
astazangasta 10y ago
If he comes home we need to have a parade for him.
grabcocque 10y ago
Thanks to Snowden, the US intelligence services are now able to do more bulk surveillance, and they do so on a sounder legal footing and with full political backing but minimal oversight. None of this would have been possible without Snowden. So, thanks, I guess.
- NoGravitas 10y ago
  Could you expand on your reasoning here?
  - freehunter 10y ago
    I can on his behalf, because I understand where he's coming from (though I don't agree with the conclusion). I've actually heard this argument a number of times before. Obviously I'm not speaking for him, just my interpretation of where he's coming from. Snowden revealed the things the NSA was doing that he believed to be illegal. The government agreed that what the NSA was doing was illegal, but no one really knew about it before Snowden revealed it. However in the aftermath, the government decided that while the NSA was doing something illegal, they were doing it because they believed it was necessary, and the government agreed. So they changed the laws to make legal what the NSA had previously been doing illegally. The net result is, everything Snowden warned us about is now legal and nothing has changed. An unfortunate, unintended consequence, but I would strongly hesitate to blame it on Snowden. If he hadn't said anything, it would have continued, hidden away. If he did say something, it would be codified into law. Net result is, it was going to happen anyway. But at least everyone knows about it now, and I consider that to be a positive.
    - okwhatthe2 10y ago
      > nothing has changed. A key part of any propaganda war is convincing people to abandon the cause. Now that Snowden has stood up, we have no option, as citizens who care about reformation, but to ultimately support him.
    - rhino369 10y ago
      I think a more accurate description of it is: NSA was acting under the assumption that it was acting legally. The main criticism thrown at metadata collection was that it was a 4th amendment violation. However, a straight forward look at US Supreme Court caselaw shows that it isn't a 4th Amendment violation. The NSA's interpretation was correct. What they overlooked was that the patriot act section 215, which they relied on for power to ask for metadata records, only allowed to them data related to an investigation. But they were preemptively getting all meta data totally unrelated to any investigation. So they created a new law to allow the NSA to collect targeted metadata. Which some privacy proponents believe is just as bad, but it's definitely more limited than what the NSA was doing before. It was never reasonable to believe that the NSA couldn't ever get your meta data. Police can get it for regular investigations too. They just can't get everyone's for no reason. IMO Snowden ended the bulk collection.
RogtamBar 10y ago
He already has a medal, very likely. He revealed what everyone interested was already suspecting. The reason Russia shelters him is that he was working for them. It's a reward, and one they have to give out, otherwise no on smart would cooperate with them. If he wasn't a former Russian agent, it'd be better for them letting America make an example of him, because what would make US look worse than jailing for life someone who is widely considered a hero by a good fraction of population.
- strictnein 10y ago
  Come on, you're acting like he celebrated his birthday at the Russian consulate in Hong Kong and then stayed there for a couple of days until the Russians secretly transported him to the airport for his flight to Russia. Oh, wait, that is what happened.
  - saynsedit 10y ago
    Putin was behind this, I knew it!
  - coldtea 10y ago
    LOL, because where else would he go? Some western country in bed with the US, or some third world place where people mysteriously "disappear" and anything can happen?
- CapitalistCartr 10y ago
  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You've given none, only speculation. He claims to be in Russia out of necessity, which is likely; can you show otherwise?
- coldtea 10y ago
  >He revealed what everyone interested was already suspecting. The reason Russia shelters him is that he was working for them Yeah, Russia (e.g. not USSR, but the present second-tier world player) has so many spies in the US, including in major government agencies, and people affecting internal politics and decision making so much. /s It's time people understand that not all nations are alike or of the same power -- there is a single global bully who gets to do whatever they like and influence whatever it wants mostly unchecked and mostly unchallenged. And it's neither Russia, nor China. China has meddle somewhat in Asia, but it hasn't been in war or toppling governments and setting up Banana Republics at Europe or Latin America or Africa. Others had. The only enemy to this single power, if it can even be called that, since unlike 99.9% of actual enemies in actual history it hasn't done to it an iota of damage statistically speaking, is the fanatic islamists -- random people from 20+ countries, including goat herders, conspiring, without even a single nation state daring to openly support them. In fact, their biggest supporter, state wise, is also in bed with the single power. Go figure.
bsparker 10y ago
A medal? I understand the importance of Snowden's revelations and I know he believes he did everything the only way it played out. But that doesn't mean he is above the law. Civil disobedience still implies civility and he should come to his day in court. We don't know what he's given Russia or China in order to remain on the run, even Glenn Greenwald admits that here, when discussing Snowden's "self preservation": https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/352213748917874688 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/352213748917874688
- ng12 10y ago
  > he should come to his day in court It's not like it's a mystery what would happen if he did. Only tyrants make martyrs.
  - varjag 10y ago
    He might not have a luxury of choice soon. If Trump wins the elections, Putin might well hand him over as a friendly gesture.
- freehunter 10y ago
  If I'm being chased by a murderer and I steal a bicycle to get away from certain death, should I later be punished for stealing that bicycle? Or is it generally accepted that I did what I had to do to save my life from the injustice that would surely happen had I not been able to escape?
- waqf 10y ago
  > he should come to his day in court. I don't believe he would get a fair trial. I don't think he believes he would, either. In fact, the US refuses to promise him one: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/edward-snowden-wants-to-return-us-115697 http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/edward-snowden-wants-t... If you think he'd even get a fair trial if he returned to the US, then that's the point you need to be justifying.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  "But that doesn't mean he is above the law. Civil disobedience still implies civility and he should come to his day in court." The Constitution says we get due process in trials. People in Espionage Act trials don't. Further, there's no intent by the U.S. government or courts to prosecute anyone the leaks revealed were deceiving Americans in a number of ways. Accountability works both ways. Either they all get tried for their crimes with due process or I find it highly corrupt to only want one charged while others remain above the law. I'm against him being tried unless the others are and with a defense allowed with full access to relevant, classified info. At least what's already leaked.
tFXR89qo 10y ago
Or... finally fix your broken judiciary so he can have a fair trial.
- fixermark 10y ago
  That may not be possible given the category of law he's charged with. Since his leak did damages to espionage programs that are undisclosable (under classified information law), prosecuting him fairly may not be compatible with the American system of justice as laid out in the Constitution. No real way to do it without building a "star court" with privileged access to classified information, that can therefore not be a randomly-chosen jury of his peers. ... which, one could argue, is a problem with the way the US runs espionage.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    Yeah, I think that's kind of the point. The fact that we don't really have a method for conducting a fair trial for him is arguably a bigger problem.
- sickbeard 10y ago
  What part of the Judiciary is broken, or are you just being intellectually lazy?
  - whamlastxmas 10y ago
    The parts where we have public defenders that cannot provide adequate representation, plea bargains that ruin any chance for real justice, bails set at outrageous amounts, prison sentences that are ridiculous by most any other first world country standard, contempt of court used to keep people in jail for over a decade, the list is miles long. The judiciary system is thought by some to be the most political of the branches of government and it shows.
    - michael_fine 10y ago
      It seems few of those apply to Snowden -- he wouldn't need a public defender, he probably wants a trial rather than a plea bargain, I'm not sure if there's a systemic problem with outrageous bail but Snowden is a textbook case for flight risk, ridiculous prison sentences -- perhaps, but just because a law is harsh doesn't mean that that law is applied unfairly.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mark_l_watson 10y ago
A little off topic but: my wife and I saw Oliver Stone's movie "Snowdon" last night with some friends. Everyone really enjoyed it (great acting, fast paced story, basically a fun movie to watch - recommended!). I think that Stone took some liberties with historical facts, but everyone else I was with didn't agree with my skepticism. In any case, I would recommend seeing the movie.
- maerF0x0 10y ago
  "Snowden" was more story like, Citizen four more documentary like. Knowing that going in will help keep things in perspective. For me, I liked Citizen Four more, but think people should see both.
- DougWebb 10y ago
  Oliver Stone was on The Late Show last week, and he said that he's a storyteller not a historian, and that he couldn't tell the whole story in a two hour movie and make it entertaining without taking some liberties. However, he also said that Snowden saw the movie and approved of its overall accuracy, accounting for Stone's needs to make a movie.
maerF0x0 10y ago
I dont understand what a pardon or a medal will accomplish. At this point I would assume that the moment the US is aware of his location he would be snuffed out, as discretely as possible. Unsure if there are any verifiable marks that prove he's even still alive (like him sending signed messages or something?).
- Namrog84 10y ago
  He already did the thing. Do you think he poses any more real risk beyond that of potentialially becoming a martyr? While it's likely some people wouldn't want him being the voice for some things now. Anyone could probably do that just fine. I'd be surprised if anything happens to him beyond maybe putting him behind bars.
  - maerF0x0 10y ago
    Killing him would have a greater chilling effect.
Cypher 10y ago
What good is a medal going to do? He needs to be president to sort this shit out.
- EdSharkey 10y ago
  What a lovely work of fiction it would be to envision a President Snowden. I think it's the one-in-a-million chance premises like that that make the best stories. Alas, there's been too much two-minutes-hate, Emmanuel Goldstein-style demonization ginned up against Snowden. He'll never get a pardon, much less a medal or the presidency.
JulienRbrt 10y ago
I am wondering, we always discuss about Snowden, OK he needs to be pardoned, but what about Assange... I would like to remind you that he (and WikiLeaks) revealed, as well, important documents about what do our governements and he's still stuck in an embassy in England...
- DogPawHat 10y ago
  I think what needs to happen there is that the US needs to promise not to extradite him in exchange for him surrendering to the Swedish authorities for the rape claims. I don't believe he should be extradited to the US to be incarcerated under criminally draconian anti-whistle blower; I do believe that he has to submit to a fair trial after being legitimately charged with a unambiguously horrific crime. Assuming (and I believe this is the most likely seniario given the info I have) that the Swedish prosecution is acting in good faith and believe that they have a legitimate case, the US refusal to rule out extradition is, quite frankly, obstructing real justice for the parties to the Swedish case. Dealing with rape cases is far more important than grudges against Wikileaks.
  - nikdaheratik 10y ago
    Assuming that everything Assange is saying about this is on the level and that he's not just hiding out in the embassy to dodge both legal problems.
- pbarnes_1 10y ago
  Assange is an alleged rapist. Also kind of a dick. So people have less sympathy for him. People like Snowden 'cause he seems like a nice guy who genuinely believes in what he says.
vaadu 10y ago
He should be executed. What he did revealing domestic government activities is clearly whistle blowing. What he did after that is inexcusable and on par with what the Rosenberg's did.
- MBlume 10y ago
  What did he do after that?
kerrynusticeNkJ 10y ago
a medal, a metal how fast
freyr 10y ago
Interestingly, the editorial board of the Washington Post recently published an article opposing Snowden's pardon. The same Washington Post that published Snowden's documents, and won a Pultizer for doing so.
kerrynusticeNkJ 10y ago
a medal, a metal how fast
kerrynusticeNkJ 10y ago
a medal, a metal how fast?
egberts5 10y ago
I propose a new medal category: Arnold Benedict commemorative medal.

505 points by mariusavram 10y ago

zeveb 10y ago

An opposing view: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/09/what_snowden_gets_wrong_about_its_hero.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/... And the unanimous, bipartisan report of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: http://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=692 http://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?Docum...

tvon 10y ago
I honestly do not know who to believe, but a counter to the report: https://tcf.org/content/commentary/house-intelligence-committees-terrible-horrible-bad-snowden-report/ https://tcf.org/content/commentary/house-intelligence-commit...
- tptacek 10y ago
  I hadn't read this and generally admire Gellman. Thanks for the link. We can analyze the claims Gellman makes here, though, and further our understanding of the controversy. I believe these are all of them: * The House report claims Snowden lied saying he left military training due to broken legs, and instead washed out due to "shin splints". Gellman objects, saying he has a documented diagnosis for Snowden saying he was discharged with "bilaterial tibial stress fractures". But tibial stress fractures are a form --- a common form --- of shin splint. * The House report claims Snowden never completed his high school equivalency. Gellman has the score Snowden got on his equivalency back in 2004. The House report's claim is inexplicable. * The House report claims Snowden was a very low level employee. Gellman objects based on his titles and the fact that he was sent to Europe under diplomatic cover. It's difficult to evaluate this dispute. His claims about Snowden's titles are very unconvincing --- it's also extremely unlikely that Snowden had the role Gellman claims he had w/r/t/ Dell's cybersecurity group (Dell employs a huge number of infosec people). You'd also want to know whether it was routine for people employed at CIA to be deployed under diplomatic cover, because Gellman uses that as evidence of his seniority. * The House report claims Snowden doctored his performance evaluations. Gellman rebuts that Snowden was demonstrating a vulnerability in the web app that displayed it. I'm inclined to believe both sides of this story could believe their side in good faith, but you might disagree. * The House report claims Snowden stole the answers to an employment questionnaire. (This claim was also made by officials on 60 Minutes) Gellman rebuts that the test in question was very basic, and by this point in Snowden's career he'd had so much experience --- and an MCSE certificate --- that he wouldn't need to. Gellman doesn't know whether this happened, or what test they're talking about. The 60 Minutes claim is that the test involved getting into NSA's TAO group, which makes me think the MCSE certificate not so relevant. But ultimately: we don't know, and neither does Gellman. * The House report makes mention of Snowden's flight to Russia. Gellman rebuts that it was in fact a thwarted flight to Ecuador. I think Gellman is probably wrong about this: the claim that Snowden was diligently trying to reach Ecuador depends on him being stuck in Sheremetyevo due to passport invalidation, but it's been pointed out repeatedly that he could have obtained an exit visa without a valid passport. There's also the wrinkles that Snowden spent time (days) in the Russian consulate in Hong Kong, and that he was advised by others to seek asylum in Russia. Both sides again might have valid reasons to push their arguments, but Gellman's rebuttal isn't dispositive. * The House report notes that Snowden didn't avail himself of whistleblower protections in the US. Gellman claims he could not have. Both sides can be right. There is very little evidence that Snowden attempted to escalate his findings through channels (there are a lot of public claims that he did, but the actual evidence apparently comes down to a single email that makes no mention of an urgent complaint). Further, we have Snowden's own claim that he took the Booz Allen job specifically to get access to these documents and send them overseas --- internal whistleblower channels would impede that objective. Moreover: this is a slippery argument: Gellman can always define some action (for instance: bulk delivery of internal documents to The Guardian) for which whistleblower protections would not apply. * The House report claims that Snowden stole 1.5MM documents. Gellman says we don't have evidence as to the specific number. I mean, sure. Whatever. * Members of the House Intelligence Committee have claimed that Snowden did more damage to US interests than anyone in history. Gellman, rightly, points out that this is total bullshit. It's worth remembering that Gellman is focusing primarily on a single section of the executive summary of the House report --- the one claiming that Snowden is a fabulist. Like I said: I'm an admirer of Gellman's. It's clear to me that Gellman is several steps removed from the lingo and trade knowledge of information security, so I think he can sometimes find himself convinced by things that would leave an expert wary. But I also think Gellman, more than some other writers, is at pains to make reported, fact-based, good-faith arguments. I didn't find this piece totally convincing, but there are clearly claims that the House IC has made that don't withstand any scrutiny, so the fact check is definitely valuable. Thanks again for finding it!
  - kenko 10y ago
    "but it's been pointed out repeatedly that he could have obtained an exit visa without a valid passport" But only by grace of some entity with the power to grant him such a visa, right? He couldn't just ask for one and get it (someone in Slate I think said something like, look, Russia could have given him a visa and Cuba could have let him in—yeah, but those are things Russia and Cuba have to decide to do, not things Snowden can do off his own bat).
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Yes, this is true, but if that's what's happening, the Russians are holding him hostage. You can simplify this whole point to: Unless the Russians aren't benign --- in which case it's a very bad thing that Snowden is in Russia --- if Snowden wanted to be in Ecuador, he'd be in Ecuador.
      - ScottBurson 10y ago
        > if Snowden wanted to be in Ecuador, he'd be in Ecuador I think this is very naïve. The US wanted him very badly, and we can throw our weight around pretty well. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
        tptacek 10y ago
        Could you better explain what you're trying to say here? How is it that the US can prevent Snowden from boarding a plane in Moscow?
        tedunangst 10y ago
        They use the HAARP installation to control the weather and cause a catastrophic lightning strike on his plane. That's why he can't go outside.
        10y ago
dgnnmdhn 10y ago
Oh wow, bipartisan? You mean both authoritarian business parties approved it? Surely this level of cooperation is unprecedented!
frandroid 10y ago
When it comes to matters of American National Security, there is very little daylight between Democratic and Republican positions, so calling a report bipartisan is not something that indicates that its contents were carefully debated, but rather that debate on these issues is nearly absent. GIGO.
probably_wrong 10y ago
I think the first article falls for the easiest of traps: it's a movie, not a documentary. Every single movie "based on real events" is pretty much made up. Pointing to the differences between the movie and real life is (IMHO) a pointless exercise. More so when it's used then to justify a political position. Put another way: as good as JFK is, I wouldn't put anyone in jail because of it.
- nsxwolf 10y ago
  Mitch Hedberg: I like when they say a movie is inspired by a true story. That's kind of silly. "Hey, Mitch, did you hear that story about that lady who drove her car into the lake with her kids and they all drowned?" "Yeah, I did, and you know what - that inspires me to write a movie about a gorilla!"
- ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
  "Fact checking" a movie to derive its "artistic worth" is indeed pointless. That said though if a movie paints a certain picture while bending or omitting some facts which contradict the said picture then I don't see anything wrong with pointing out the discrepancies. Claiming moral high ground comes with scrutiny. If for example he had indeed stolen the test questions to pass the test that paints a slightly different picture of the character he and his supporters are trying to sell.
kafkaesq 10y ago
Aside from the fact that the report makes no mention of the crimes Snowden exposed (as if the American public were too dumb to notice, or care) -- would you care to comment on any of the apparently quite egregiously misleading assertions it makes? Questioning his lower leg fractures or his GED, in particular, smacks of birtherism. https://tcf.org/content/commentary/house-intelligence-committees-terrible-horrible-bad-snowden-report/ https://tcf.org/content/commentary/house-intelligence-commit...
- zeveb 10y ago
  > Questioning his lower leg fractures or his GED, in particular, smacks of birtherism. You mean these statements? 'He claimed to have left Army basic training because of broken legs when in fact he washed out because of shin splints. He claimed to have obtained a high school degree equivalent when in fact he never did.' They go to Snowden's credibility (or complete lack thereof). Presumably the full report (an unclassified version of which has not yet been released) goes into details. Regarding his stress fractures, he made it sound as though he was left a temporary cripple; shin splints aren't that big a deal and plenty of people heal up and complete basic training after having them. Right now, one of Snowden's allies claims Snowden got a GED; the House Committee claims he did not get a high school degree equivalent. I'll trust the House Committee until the report is released. For now, I see someone who claimed to have mono, who claimed to have epilepsy, who claimed to have washed out of basic training due to broken legs (leaving 'on crutches,' which may be technically true but misleading), who claimed to have all sorts of evidence of illegal actions, not one of whose claims of illegal actions has been borne out, yet who also claims to have released evidence of legal activity to adversary state. His trustworthiness rating looks incredibly low.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    Presumably the full report (an unclassified version of which has not yet been released) goes into details. There's no reason to believe they'd be hiding the "goods" on these accusations in the classified report. The only reason they aren't providing any more detail is because... they don't have any. Regarding his stress fractures, he made it sound as though he was left a temporary cripple; Where? Quotes, please. BTW if you've ever had any kind of a bone fracture -- in that part of the body, it does make you a "temporary cripple". Presumably the Army agreed, which is why they discharged him. Shin splints aren't that big a deal and plenty of people heal up and complete basic training after having them. But he wasn't diagnosed for shin splints (or anything equivalent to it); his actual diagnoses was for something different (and categorically more serious). "Shin splints" are just an invention of the Intelligence Committee. Right now, one of Snowden's allies claims Snowden got a GED; the House Committee claims he did not get a high school degree equivalent. I'll trust the House Committee until the report is released. The article refers to documents on file with the Maryland State Department of Education, which is the authority I'll trust on this matter. But if you want to believe what the IC report nakedly asserts on the matter (despite not providing a shred of evidence), go ahead -- whatever works for you.
gravypod 10y ago
I'd like to ask something. Is it leaking information if the information is commonly known? It is said in this article that Snowden leaked information that is appropriately done by the NSA as part of their charter. The direct quote: Whatever one’s views of U.S. foreign policy in those parts of the world, these activities are legitimate aspects of the NSA’s charter If this is the case, as in these activities are specified in the NSA's charter, then there can be no harm with talking about them publicly right?

callcall 10y ago

We need to do everything we can to support Snowden. Do not let the cynics win. We defeated SOPA in 2012 by making millions of phone calls to Congress, and we protected Net Neutrality in 2014 with millions of public comments to the FCC. Do not let the cynics win. Call your reps: TryVoices.com Petition the president: pardonsnowden.org/

Sneakos 10y ago

One thing this article doesn't take into account is that the movie the author undoubtedly watched before writing this was full of inaccuracies, and had the purpose of establishing Snowden as a martyr or sorts. This is evident because rather than just prove their point, the author makes several attempts to make sure the reader knows that if you hold an opposing view, you are intellectually lazy and unable to cope with reality. Not arguing either way, but if you are going to take a strong stance, don't make an article about how the opposing stance is only held by the weak minded.

omginternets 10y ago
>don't make an article about how the opposing stance is only held by the weak minded. What if you really think that's the case? Screw it, I'll say it. I think anyone who condemns Snowden is intellectually lazy or has vested interests in NSA surveillance. I have yet to see a single cogent rebuttal of Snowden's moral case.
- watwatwatwat 10y ago
  I condemn Snowden. Prove that I'm intellectually lazy.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwawaymaroon 10y ago
    ...this is an intellectually lazy approach?
  - jacalata 10y ago
    Well, you didn't bother to give any reasoning....
    - hood_syntax 10y ago
      Obviously it's just low-hanging fruit /s

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

peterkelly 10y ago

Another important question is whether or not the NSA should be pardoned for their illegal activity: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-nsa-idUSKBN0NS1IN20150507 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-nsa-idUSKBN0N... Or whether James Clapper deserves a pardon for committing perjury during a testimony to Congress: http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com Edit: /s

d33 10y ago
Excuse me, why would they?
- tfinniga 10y ago
  I haven't heard any arguments that they should receive a pardon, or any news of them being prosecuted. In the absence of that I'm just assuming that nothing will happen.
- Kinnard 10y ago
  He's being sarcastic.
  - irishcoffee 10y ago
    I sure hope so. I'm trying to wrap my head around his logic and its not clicking.
    - peterkelly 10y ago
      Just to confirm, yes I was being sarcastic :)
mozumder 10y ago
What illegal activities did the NSA perform here? In case you didn't notice, the Snowden leaks revealed filters that removed US citizens' communications, showing that they were complying with US laws that prevent the US military (of which the NSA is part of) from spying on US citizens. Why would the NSA have these compliance filters as part of a classified program if they were allegedly performing illegal activities?

astazangasta 10y ago

If he comes home we need to have a parade for him.

grabcocque 10y ago

Thanks to Snowden, the US intelligence services are now able to do more bulk surveillance, and they do so on a sounder legal footing and with full political backing but minimal oversight. None of this would have been possible without Snowden. So, thanks, I guess.

NoGravitas 10y ago
Could you expand on your reasoning here?
- freehunter 10y ago
  I can on his behalf, because I understand where he's coming from (though I don't agree with the conclusion). I've actually heard this argument a number of times before. Obviously I'm not speaking for him, just my interpretation of where he's coming from. Snowden revealed the things the NSA was doing that he believed to be illegal. The government agreed that what the NSA was doing was illegal, but no one really knew about it before Snowden revealed it. However in the aftermath, the government decided that while the NSA was doing something illegal, they were doing it because they believed it was necessary, and the government agreed. So they changed the laws to make legal what the NSA had previously been doing illegally. The net result is, everything Snowden warned us about is now legal and nothing has changed. An unfortunate, unintended consequence, but I would strongly hesitate to blame it on Snowden. If he hadn't said anything, it would have continued, hidden away. If he did say something, it would be codified into law. Net result is, it was going to happen anyway. But at least everyone knows about it now, and I consider that to be a positive.
  - okwhatthe2 10y ago
    > nothing has changed. A key part of any propaganda war is convincing people to abandon the cause. Now that Snowden has stood up, we have no option, as citizens who care about reformation, but to ultimately support him.
  - rhino369 10y ago
    I think a more accurate description of it is: NSA was acting under the assumption that it was acting legally. The main criticism thrown at metadata collection was that it was a 4th amendment violation. However, a straight forward look at US Supreme Court caselaw shows that it isn't a 4th Amendment violation. The NSA's interpretation was correct. What they overlooked was that the patriot act section 215, which they relied on for power to ask for metadata records, only allowed to them data related to an investigation. But they were preemptively getting all meta data totally unrelated to any investigation. So they created a new law to allow the NSA to collect targeted metadata. Which some privacy proponents believe is just as bad, but it's definitely more limited than what the NSA was doing before. It was never reasonable to believe that the NSA couldn't ever get your meta data. Police can get it for regular investigations too. They just can't get everyone's for no reason. IMO Snowden ended the bulk collection.

RogtamBar 10y ago

He already has a medal, very likely. He revealed what everyone interested was already suspecting. The reason Russia shelters him is that he was working for them. It's a reward, and one they have to give out, otherwise no on smart would cooperate with them. If he wasn't a former Russian agent, it'd be better for them letting America make an example of him, because what would make US look worse than jailing for life someone who is widely considered a hero by a good fraction of population.

strictnein 10y ago
Come on, you're acting like he celebrated his birthday at the Russian consulate in Hong Kong and then stayed there for a couple of days until the Russians secretly transported him to the airport for his flight to Russia. Oh, wait, that is what happened.
- saynsedit 10y ago
  Putin was behind this, I knew it!
- coldtea 10y ago
  LOL, because where else would he go? Some western country in bed with the US, or some third world place where people mysteriously "disappear" and anything can happen?
CapitalistCartr 10y ago
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You've given none, only speculation. He claims to be in Russia out of necessity, which is likely; can you show otherwise?
coldtea 10y ago
>He revealed what everyone interested was already suspecting. The reason Russia shelters him is that he was working for them Yeah, Russia (e.g. not USSR, but the present second-tier world player) has so many spies in the US, including in major government agencies, and people affecting internal politics and decision making so much. /s It's time people understand that not all nations are alike or of the same power -- there is a single global bully who gets to do whatever they like and influence whatever it wants mostly unchecked and mostly unchallenged. And it's neither Russia, nor China. China has meddle somewhat in Asia, but it hasn't been in war or toppling governments and setting up Banana Republics at Europe or Latin America or Africa. Others had. The only enemy to this single power, if it can even be called that, since unlike 99.9% of actual enemies in actual history it hasn't done to it an iota of damage statistically speaking, is the fanatic islamists -- random people from 20+ countries, including goat herders, conspiring, without even a single nation state daring to openly support them. In fact, their biggest supporter, state wise, is also in bed with the single power. Go figure.

bsparker 10y ago

A medal? I understand the importance of Snowden's revelations and I know he believes he did everything the only way it played out. But that doesn't mean he is above the law. Civil disobedience still implies civility and he should come to his day in court. We don't know what he's given Russia or China in order to remain on the run, even Glenn Greenwald admits that here, when discussing Snowden's "self preservation": https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/352213748917874688 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/352213748917874688

ng12 10y ago
> he should come to his day in court It's not like it's a mystery what would happen if he did. Only tyrants make martyrs.
- varjag 10y ago
  He might not have a luxury of choice soon. If Trump wins the elections, Putin might well hand him over as a friendly gesture.
freehunter 10y ago
If I'm being chased by a murderer and I steal a bicycle to get away from certain death, should I later be punished for stealing that bicycle? Or is it generally accepted that I did what I had to do to save my life from the injustice that would surely happen had I not been able to escape?
waqf 10y ago
> he should come to his day in court. I don't believe he would get a fair trial. I don't think he believes he would, either. In fact, the US refuses to promise him one: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/edward-snowden-wants-to-return-us-115697 http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/edward-snowden-wants-t... If you think he'd even get a fair trial if he returned to the US, then that's the point you need to be justifying.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
"But that doesn't mean he is above the law. Civil disobedience still implies civility and he should come to his day in court." The Constitution says we get due process in trials. People in Espionage Act trials don't. Further, there's no intent by the U.S. government or courts to prosecute anyone the leaks revealed were deceiving Americans in a number of ways. Accountability works both ways. Either they all get tried for their crimes with due process or I find it highly corrupt to only want one charged while others remain above the law. I'm against him being tried unless the others are and with a defense allowed with full access to relevant, classified info. At least what's already leaked.

tFXR89qo 10y ago

Or... finally fix your broken judiciary so he can have a fair trial.

fixermark 10y ago
That may not be possible given the category of law he's charged with. Since his leak did damages to espionage programs that are undisclosable (under classified information law), prosecuting him fairly may not be compatible with the American system of justice as laid out in the Constitution. No real way to do it without building a "star court" with privileged access to classified information, that can therefore not be a randomly-chosen jury of his peers. ... which, one could argue, is a problem with the way the US runs espionage.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  Yeah, I think that's kind of the point. The fact that we don't really have a method for conducting a fair trial for him is arguably a bigger problem.
sickbeard 10y ago
What part of the Judiciary is broken, or are you just being intellectually lazy?
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  The parts where we have public defenders that cannot provide adequate representation, plea bargains that ruin any chance for real justice, bails set at outrageous amounts, prison sentences that are ridiculous by most any other first world country standard, contempt of court used to keep people in jail for over a decade, the list is miles long. The judiciary system is thought by some to be the most political of the branches of government and it shows.
  - michael_fine 10y ago
    It seems few of those apply to Snowden -- he wouldn't need a public defender, he probably wants a trial rather than a plea bargain, I'm not sure if there's a systemic problem with outrageous bail but Snowden is a textbook case for flight risk, ridiculous prison sentences -- perhaps, but just because a law is harsh doesn't mean that that law is applied unfairly.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

mark_l_watson 10y ago

A little off topic but: my wife and I saw Oliver Stone's movie "Snowdon" last night with some friends. Everyone really enjoyed it (great acting, fast paced story, basically a fun movie to watch - recommended!). I think that Stone took some liberties with historical facts, but everyone else I was with didn't agree with my skepticism. In any case, I would recommend seeing the movie.

maerF0x0 10y ago
"Snowden" was more story like, Citizen four more documentary like. Knowing that going in will help keep things in perspective. For me, I liked Citizen Four more, but think people should see both.
DougWebb 10y ago
Oliver Stone was on The Late Show last week, and he said that he's a storyteller not a historian, and that he couldn't tell the whole story in a two hour movie and make it entertaining without taking some liberties. However, he also said that Snowden saw the movie and approved of its overall accuracy, accounting for Stone's needs to make a movie.

maerF0x0 10y ago

I dont understand what a pardon or a medal will accomplish. At this point I would assume that the moment the US is aware of his location he would be snuffed out, as discretely as possible. Unsure if there are any verifiable marks that prove he's even still alive (like him sending signed messages or something?).

Namrog84 10y ago
He already did the thing. Do you think he poses any more real risk beyond that of potentialially becoming a martyr? While it's likely some people wouldn't want him being the voice for some things now. Anyone could probably do that just fine. I'd be surprised if anything happens to him beyond maybe putting him behind bars.
- maerF0x0 10y ago
  Killing him would have a greater chilling effect.

Cypher 10y ago

What good is a medal going to do? He needs to be president to sort this shit out.

EdSharkey 10y ago
What a lovely work of fiction it would be to envision a President Snowden. I think it's the one-in-a-million chance premises like that that make the best stories. Alas, there's been too much two-minutes-hate, Emmanuel Goldstein-style demonization ginned up against Snowden. He'll never get a pardon, much less a medal or the presidency.

JulienRbrt 10y ago

I am wondering, we always discuss about Snowden, OK he needs to be pardoned, but what about Assange... I would like to remind you that he (and WikiLeaks) revealed, as well, important documents about what do our governements and he's still stuck in an embassy in England...

DogPawHat 10y ago
I think what needs to happen there is that the US needs to promise not to extradite him in exchange for him surrendering to the Swedish authorities for the rape claims. I don't believe he should be extradited to the US to be incarcerated under criminally draconian anti-whistle blower; I do believe that he has to submit to a fair trial after being legitimately charged with a unambiguously horrific crime. Assuming (and I believe this is the most likely seniario given the info I have) that the Swedish prosecution is acting in good faith and believe that they have a legitimate case, the US refusal to rule out extradition is, quite frankly, obstructing real justice for the parties to the Swedish case. Dealing with rape cases is far more important than grudges against Wikileaks.
- nikdaheratik 10y ago
  Assuming that everything Assange is saying about this is on the level and that he's not just hiding out in the embassy to dodge both legal problems.
pbarnes_1 10y ago
Assange is an alleged rapist. Also kind of a dick. So people have less sympathy for him. People like Snowden 'cause he seems like a nice guy who genuinely believes in what he says.

vaadu 10y ago

He should be executed. What he did revealing domestic government activities is clearly whistle blowing. What he did after that is inexcusable and on par with what the Rosenberg's did.

MBlume 10y ago
What did he do after that?

kerrynusticeNkJ 10y ago

a medal, a metal how fast

freyr 10y ago

Interestingly, the editorial board of the Washington Post recently published an article opposing Snowden's pardon. The same Washington Post that published Snowden's documents, and won a Pultizer for doing so.

kerrynusticeNkJ 10y ago

a medal, a metal how fast

kerrynusticeNkJ 10y ago

a medal, a metal how fast?

egberts5 10y ago

I propose a new medal category: Arnold Benedict commemorative medal.