5 ms·

Was Snowden a Russian Agent?

23 points by artsandsci 10y ago

chrisbennet 10y ago
Has the account of artsandsci changed owners? I see he/she's been a member for 900+ days, submitting a story every once in a while. Then starting 27 days ago he/she began submitting over 12 stories a day on average.
- artsandsci 10y ago
  Nope, same old me, just got into the habit of submitting stories. I did see this for the first time a couple days ago: "Please don't submit so many links at once that the new page is dominated by your submissions." so I've been submitting less often.
- eatbitseveryday 10y ago
  157 submissions in the last 7 days (22 per day).
mudil 10y ago
The piece in WSJ from 2014 titled "Was Snowden's Heist a Foreign Espionage Operation?" is worth reading (https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304831304579542402390653932 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304831304579542...). Even though I am sympathetic to Showden for his disclosures of gov't surveillance of American citizens and others, the scope, complexity, and execution of operation leaves many questions unanswered. National security officials (both Republicans and Dems) are quoted in the piece that they believe that Showden operation was an espionage heist. From the article: "On June 10, 2013, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, described Mr. Snowden’s theft of documents as “an act of treason.” A former member of President Obama’s cabinet went even further, suggesting to me off the record in March this year that there are only three possible explanations for the Snowden heist: 1) It was a Russian espionage operation; 2) It was a Chinese espionage operation, or 3) It was a joint Sino-Russian operation." So on one hand we have people like the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Obama officials who were neck deep in intelligence work, and on the other we have feel-gooders like Oliver Stone, who really don't know what's going on, and who might never ever find out what really happened, because it could be classified for ages...
- bobbybobbybob 10y ago
  Because you should take everything everyone says at face value. Always.
- mturmon 10y ago
  The author of that WSJ piece is Epstein himself, who also authored the book under review. Your statement at the end basically says, we have classified sources saying Snowden was a Russian/Chinese spy, and we have "feel-gooders" like Oliver Stone saying otherwise, so who do we trust? The submitted article is by a reporter more neutral and level-headed than either Epstein or Stone, and he basically concludes: there is nothing at present but wild conjecture supporting the "Snowden was a spy" theory. So I think that may be the answer to your implicit question.
- Dirlewanger 10y ago
  >that they believe that Showden operation was an espionage heist Of course they say that. They have to. They're the ones that authorized (if not authorized, they very well knew about it) all the shit the NSA does. Yet to my knowledge there's no evidence for it. One cannot consciously call themselves American while also calling Snowden a traitor (Scotsman fallacy be damned). The egregious misdeeds he revealed far outweigh any laws he himself broke.
- fictioncircle 10y ago
  > "On June 10, 2013, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, described Mr. Snowden’s theft of documents as “an act of treason.” A former member of President Obama’s cabinet went even further, suggesting to me off the record in March this year that there are only three possible explanations for the Snowden heist: 1) It was a Russian espionage operation; 2) It was a Chinese espionage operation, or 3) It was a joint Sino-Russian operation." The problem with this is you are taking the word of people who: A) Genuinely and honestly believe that their domestic surveillance apparatus is legitimate. B) The bias from A has resulted in a true lack of introspection on any real level that what they are doing with A might be viewed as "wrong" by an American citizen. Once you realize that and realize almost everyone who is used to support that narrative is from the same pool of pro-Domestic-Surveillance folks, it isn't hard to realize their beliefs are likely an outcome of their biases rather than an observation of objective fact. The truth is we are not going to know until/unless the FSB ever declassifies their debriefing attempt(s) in regards to Edward Snowden. If the intelligence community truly possessed a smoking gun in regards to Edward Snowden, even if it compromised a valuable source or sources, it would be worth using it to terminate the political threat and scrutiny of their operations. The fact they have not means nothing they have on Snowden is conclusive. In other words, no one in the US (or its allies) really knows if Snowden is a foreign agent (or not). Ultimately, at this point, the fallout appears to be effectively 0 and there will be an expansion of domestic surveillance powers whenever something 'bad' happens. Regardless of the legitimacy of the tool, the fact they are unable to protect it appropriately means its as dangerous to them as it is to us and they are simply too naive to realize it.
seanieb 10y ago
> "By pulling back at the end of his book, Epstein tries to have it both ways: weaving conspiracy theories while maintaining plausible deniability and some veneer of evidence-based journalism. But his indulgence in speculation, his treatment of questionable claims as established facts, and his misunderstanding of surveillance combine to undermine his book’s credibility." TLDR - Epstein's book is horse shit and the accusation of Snowden being a Rus. agent is horse shit.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
bobbybobbybob 10y ago
No. Next (ridiculous) question please?
- besselheim 10y ago
  It's not really a ridiculous question. The popular narrative of Snowden's actions and motivations doesn't add up when you look at all the available evidence. It's quite reasonable for people to suspiciously probe the mythos built up around him.
  - marssaxman 10y ago
    Sure it does. His statements about his motivations are consistent with his actions. It's remarkable, actually, just how consistent it all is, and that's part of the reason people admire him.
LeoPanthera 10y ago
Betteridge's law of headlines applies here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
slg 10y ago
>I think there's a difference between what really motivated him to leak & what he's leaked out of self-preservation Glenn Greenwald - https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/352213748917874688 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/352213748917874688 I always come back to this Tweet when this subject comes up. Like the article suggests, it isn't a matter of if Snowden was compromised but when. I would like to think it was after he was stranded in Russia with no hope. That might explain his later actions but I don't think it can ever justify them. If even Greenwald thinks Snowden has "leaked out of self-preservation", I find it hard to support the narrative of a whistleblowing American hero who deserves a pardon.
- fictioncircle 10y ago
  If Snowden basically handed it all over to Russia because the US revoked his passport while he was in a Russian airport, the US is the ultimate cause of the event by their choice of timing.
- hutzlibu 10y ago
  "it isn't a matter of if Snowden was compromised but when" Strong accusation. I suppose you have solid facts behind your claim? Or do you count the tweet as a fact for anything?? Because it is kind of vague ...
  - slg 10y ago
    Greenwald knows more about it than either you or I do and I don't see much vagueness in the quote. Who does Snowden need preservation from? The two current options are the US and Russia with the Chinese having temporary influence over him immediately after the leak. The logical conclusion is that some of the information Snowden leaked was done to placate the US, Russia, or China. I think we can rule out the US considering Snowden is still living in exile and there seems to be little to no contact between him and the US government. That leaves China and Russia. Considering the time spent in both those countries, I think Russia is the more likely of the two. Greenwald seems to be implying that Snowden has leaked information in order to gain favor with Russia. Where is the flaw in this conclusion? What else could "leaked out of self-preservation" mean? Who else could he need self-preservation from?
hutzlibu 10y ago
"those who hold darker views about Snowden include lawmakers and officials who “base it on classified reports” and “have been at least partially briefed” about the NSA’s investigation. " I only skipped the article, but this seems to be the main content and vague rumors around. People who have been caught lying over and over again, are now a trustworthy source for anything?
Shalhoub 10y ago
"Was Snowden a Russian Agent?" .. no, he was an outside contractor with a conscience, illustrating the perils of outsourcing your spying. Why an IT functionary would need access to the raw files to do his job just beggers disbelief. After all if you wanted to compromise a security service, what better way than infiltrating some IT services company or even simpler, start one yourself.
camus2 10y ago
No, a Russian agent wouldn't have leaked anything to the western press. A Russian agent would have only disclosed what he knows to his superiors. Russian agents that leak anything to the public usually end up dead pretty quickly. The reason why he ended up in Russia from Hong Kong is that his passport was voided by US authorities and Russia ended being the only country willing to take him without sending him back to US.
plugger 10y ago
I think you misspelled Assange.

23 points by artsandsci 10y ago

Has the account of artsandsci changed owners? I see he/she's been a member for 900+ days, submitting a story every once in a while. Then starting 27 days ago he/she began submitting over 12 stories a day on average.

artsandsci 10y ago
Nope, same old me, just got into the habit of submitting stories. I did see this for the first time a couple days ago: "Please don't submit so many links at once that the new page is dominated by your submissions." so I've been submitting less often.
eatbitseveryday 10y ago
157 submissions in the last 7 days (22 per day).

mudil 10y ago

The piece in WSJ from 2014 titled "Was Snowden's Heist a Foreign Espionage Operation?" is worth reading (https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304831304579542402390653932 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304831304579542...). Even though I am sympathetic to Showden for his disclosures of gov't surveillance of American citizens and others, the scope, complexity, and execution of operation leaves many questions unanswered. National security officials (both Republicans and Dems) are quoted in the piece that they believe that Showden operation was an espionage heist. From the article: "On June 10, 2013, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, described Mr. Snowden’s theft of documents as “an act of treason.” A former member of President Obama’s cabinet went even further, suggesting to me off the record in March this year that there are only three possible explanations for the Snowden heist: 1) It was a Russian espionage operation; 2) It was a Chinese espionage operation, or 3) It was a joint Sino-Russian operation." So on one hand we have people like the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Obama officials who were neck deep in intelligence work, and on the other we have feel-gooders like Oliver Stone, who really don't know what's going on, and who might never ever find out what really happened, because it could be classified for ages...

bobbybobbybob 10y ago
Because you should take everything everyone says at face value. Always.
mturmon 10y ago
The author of that WSJ piece is Epstein himself, who also authored the book under review. Your statement at the end basically says, we have classified sources saying Snowden was a Russian/Chinese spy, and we have "feel-gooders" like Oliver Stone saying otherwise, so who do we trust? The submitted article is by a reporter more neutral and level-headed than either Epstein or Stone, and he basically concludes: there is nothing at present but wild conjecture supporting the "Snowden was a spy" theory. So I think that may be the answer to your implicit question.
Dirlewanger 10y ago
>that they believe that Showden operation was an espionage heist Of course they say that. They have to. They're the ones that authorized (if not authorized, they very well knew about it) all the shit the NSA does. Yet to my knowledge there's no evidence for it. One cannot consciously call themselves American while also calling Snowden a traitor (Scotsman fallacy be damned). The egregious misdeeds he revealed far outweigh any laws he himself broke.
fictioncircle 10y ago
> "On June 10, 2013, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, described Mr. Snowden’s theft of documents as “an act of treason.” A former member of President Obama’s cabinet went even further, suggesting to me off the record in March this year that there are only three possible explanations for the Snowden heist: 1) It was a Russian espionage operation; 2) It was a Chinese espionage operation, or 3) It was a joint Sino-Russian operation." The problem with this is you are taking the word of people who: A) Genuinely and honestly believe that their domestic surveillance apparatus is legitimate. B) The bias from A has resulted in a true lack of introspection on any real level that what they are doing with A might be viewed as "wrong" by an American citizen. Once you realize that and realize almost everyone who is used to support that narrative is from the same pool of pro-Domestic-Surveillance folks, it isn't hard to realize their beliefs are likely an outcome of their biases rather than an observation of objective fact. The truth is we are not going to know until/unless the FSB ever declassifies their debriefing attempt(s) in regards to Edward Snowden. If the intelligence community truly possessed a smoking gun in regards to Edward Snowden, even if it compromised a valuable source or sources, it would be worth using it to terminate the political threat and scrutiny of their operations. The fact they have not means nothing they have on Snowden is conclusive. In other words, no one in the US (or its allies) really knows if Snowden is a foreign agent (or not). Ultimately, at this point, the fallout appears to be effectively 0 and there will be an expansion of domestic surveillance powers whenever something 'bad' happens. Regardless of the legitimacy of the tool, the fact they are unable to protect it appropriately means its as dangerous to them as it is to us and they are simply too naive to realize it.

seanieb 10y ago

> "By pulling back at the end of his book, Epstein tries to have it both ways: weaving conspiracy theories while maintaining plausible deniability and some veneer of evidence-based journalism. But his indulgence in speculation, his treatment of questionable claims as established facts, and his misunderstanding of surveillance combine to undermine his book’s credibility." TLDR - Epstein's book is horse shit and the accusation of Snowden being a Rus. agent is horse shit.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

bobbybobbybob 10y ago

No. Next (ridiculous) question please?

besselheim 10y ago
It's not really a ridiculous question. The popular narrative of Snowden's actions and motivations doesn't add up when you look at all the available evidence. It's quite reasonable for people to suspiciously probe the mythos built up around him.
- marssaxman 10y ago
  Sure it does. His statements about his motivations are consistent with his actions. It's remarkable, actually, just how consistent it all is, and that's part of the reason people admire him.

LeoPanthera 10y ago

Betteridge's law of headlines applies here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

slg 10y ago

>I think there's a difference between what really motivated him to leak & what he's leaked out of self-preservation Glenn Greenwald - https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/352213748917874688 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/352213748917874688 I always come back to this Tweet when this subject comes up. Like the article suggests, it isn't a matter of if Snowden was compromised but when. I would like to think it was after he was stranded in Russia with no hope. That might explain his later actions but I don't think it can ever justify them. If even Greenwald thinks Snowden has "leaked out of self-preservation", I find it hard to support the narrative of a whistleblowing American hero who deserves a pardon.

fictioncircle 10y ago
If Snowden basically handed it all over to Russia because the US revoked his passport while he was in a Russian airport, the US is the ultimate cause of the event by their choice of timing.
hutzlibu 10y ago
"it isn't a matter of if Snowden was compromised but when" Strong accusation. I suppose you have solid facts behind your claim? Or do you count the tweet as a fact for anything?? Because it is kind of vague ...
- slg 10y ago
  Greenwald knows more about it than either you or I do and I don't see much vagueness in the quote. Who does Snowden need preservation from? The two current options are the US and Russia with the Chinese having temporary influence over him immediately after the leak. The logical conclusion is that some of the information Snowden leaked was done to placate the US, Russia, or China. I think we can rule out the US considering Snowden is still living in exile and there seems to be little to no contact between him and the US government. That leaves China and Russia. Considering the time spent in both those countries, I think Russia is the more likely of the two. Greenwald seems to be implying that Snowden has leaked information in order to gain favor with Russia. Where is the flaw in this conclusion? What else could "leaked out of self-preservation" mean? Who else could he need self-preservation from?

hutzlibu 10y ago

"those who hold darker views about Snowden include lawmakers and officials who “base it on classified reports” and “have been at least partially briefed” about the NSA’s investigation. " I only skipped the article, but this seems to be the main content and vague rumors around. People who have been caught lying over and over again, are now a trustworthy source for anything?

Shalhoub 10y ago

"Was Snowden a Russian Agent?" .. no, he was an outside contractor with a conscience, illustrating the perils of outsourcing your spying. Why an IT functionary would need access to the raw files to do his job just beggers disbelief. After all if you wanted to compromise a security service, what better way than infiltrating some IT services company or even simpler, start one yourself.

camus2 10y ago

No, a Russian agent wouldn't have leaked anything to the western press. A Russian agent would have only disclosed what he knows to his superiors. Russian agents that leak anything to the public usually end up dead pretty quickly. The reason why he ended up in Russia from Hong Kong is that his passport was voided by US authorities and Russia ended being the only country willing to take him without sending him back to US.

plugger 10y ago

I think you misspelled Assange.