5 ms·

Slightly off topic: The article mentions a "dead man's switch" set up by Snowden prior to making his disclosures. If he is assassinated, apparently all the docu

Slightly off topic: The article mentions a "dead man's switch" set up by Snowden prior to making his disclosures. If he is assassinated, apparently all the documents will be publicly released. Greenwald also mentioned that the totality of what Snowden controls is "enough information to cause more damage to the US government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States." Let's assume that's not an entirely hyperbolic statement. From the point of view of the Obama Administration, the real threat is not Snowden's/Greenwald's principled (even patriotic) drip of information, but that an enemy of the US might kill Snowden, and stage it to look like a US op, thus tripping the dead man's switch. Snowden has, on his own, made himself a prime target for any sufficiently ambitious US antagonist. And so the US wants Snowden back not only to prosecute him, but also to "protect" him. (Nothing like four years of solitary to keep you safe, comrade.) Until and unless he is granted a pardon or some other form of immunity from prosecution, it seems that Snowden's best interest is to stay in the strongest and most secure country he can find. A country with a highly developed security apparatus (to protect him from hostile agents), one that is adversarial to America (to disallow his rendition or extradition), but not openly antagonistic (to want to kill him to harm the US). And that is exactly the country where he finds himself right now. Obama and Putin have quite the chess match coming up. God bless the man whose life is in their hands. [Edited for clarity]

decryptthis_NSA 13y ago
don't think it's hyperbole. Snowden planned this for a while and looks like he had access to and knew where to find everything. USA probably spends $100+ Billion in intel and knowing what foreign leaders, generals and business leaders say and write can be more powerful than a few aircraft carriers. Of course then there is the trust issue, many world leaders will be pissed to learn that their "friend" has been reading their emails and monitoring their phone calls, even private ones.
mikemoka 13y ago
solitary confinement could trigger it as well probably, it depends on how things have been set up. Obama should have handled this in a totally different way, he should have treated him as a partner for having shed light upon a corrupted practice of the NSA, and should have asked the people heading the NSA to resign. This would have been a checkmate against any other US antagonist in my opinion, but I admit that is definitely too easy to judge things you don't know in every aspect from the comfort of your own home.
- seferphier 13y ago
  that would make obama score points in the public, but it is his second term as president already. this would also encourage more whistleblower activity that may get out of hand.
  - onebaddude 13y ago
    There is no such thing as "too much" whistle blowing.
    - notdrunkatall 13y ago
      That depends on which side of the whistle you find yourself.
    - lectrick 13y ago
      Let's assume for a moment that there exists an individual who (via unknown mechanisms) knows about 90% of the hidden affairs of marriages in the world. Should that person "blow that whistle", as it were, suddenly turning almost all relationships "honest"? Or would it cause widespread havoc and upheaval?
      - onebaddude 13y ago
        >Should that person "blow that whistle" Ask the people who are being cheated on. Or spied on.
        lectrick 13y ago
        I'm not suggesting an answer. I'm posing a thought experiment. I think it's a reasonably good analogy. My answer is probably odd- I'd want to know if I was the possible jiltee, but I don't know if I'd say that it should be revealed for ALL people.
- mtgx 13y ago
  The problem is Obama completely agreed with what the NSA was doing, and most likely even ordered everything to be done that way (that's why he so viciously defended the FISA Amendments Act last year, and why he tried to get lawsuits dismissed). However, I agree that is what he should do anyway. Clapper and Alexander should get fired immediately, and so should Holder - but he's been bailing out Holder so many times, I'm starting to think it's a lost cause that he'd ever stop protecting him. If there was a video of Holder shooting a man in head, he'd probably still pardon him. I disagree with your last part, though, that it would prevent other whistleblowers from coming out. Why would it? It would prove Snowden did a good thing, and more would come out later to fix the system (which is exactly what should happen).
lectrick 13y ago
> "enough information to cause more damage to the US government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States." I don't see how this is not analogous to a longstanding marriage with a hidden affair. Would you reveal the affair thereby destroying the marriage (but gaining a greater measure of truth)? Or would you leave it in secret? I don't believe that a thing based partly on secrets the revelation of which might bring about the end of that thing, is a sustainable thing, nor a healthy thing, nor a long-term-good thing.
- mhurron 13y ago
  Well there is the simple difference that a marriage is not the Government.
  - bpatrianakos 13y ago
    That's not relevant here. The point is that in doing harm to the US government while attaining a higher level of truth one may inadvertently create more problems for its citizens than the original act itself causes. In the marriage analogy, by revealing the affair you may get one partner to be honest going forward but the other partner may not forgive the first, leading to a divorce or a permanently strained relationship. The children may suffer as a result as well. Imagine what might happen if damaging information were to get out- information more damaging than the NSA information itself. A healthy and informed debate and, if we're lucky, changes to the US security apparatus may take place but at the cost of putting the US in a weakened position influentially and economically. If you're not a US citizen this may seem like no big deal or a good lesson but for me, living in the US, I don't want to see that.
maratd 13y ago
> Until and unless he is granted a pardon or some other form of immunity from prosecution, it seems that Snowden's best interest ... Isn't that the rub? The rational action on Obama's part would be to pardon him, just to get him back. Instead, he is vindictively pursuing him across the globe and devoting resources that seem absolutely disproportionate to what was revealed.
- mseebach 13y ago
  Pardoning him would create a pretty bad precedent for everyone else with a security clearance. How do you tell the next guy that dumps a stash of classified documents in some journalist's lap that, no, that wasn't juicy enough to get a pardon, so he's going to jail? Despite the public interest in what Snowden revealed is, the position of the administration can only practically be that whatever you think about it, if it's classified, it's not up to you to decide that it should be public.
stefanix 13y ago
The biggest threat to the gov is quite possibly that Snowden's courage is contagious and it opens the flood gates on the more secret sides of power, stating with the intelligence and war industry. It could potentially change how government currently works. So far the actions of the Obama administration are quite consistent with walking a line between maximum deterrent and just not too much public uproar.
- shabble 13y ago
  Given the sheer number of people with clearances[1], which I assume has grown primarily over the last 11 years, I wonder if demand or scaling problems has hindered the background check and psych evaluations that would normally try to reject those sort of people from jobs involving sensitive material. [1] The WP's "Top Secret America" series quotes 850K+ with Top-Secret clearance: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/ http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articl...

decryptthis_NSA 13y ago

don't think it's hyperbole. Snowden planned this for a while and looks like he had access to and knew where to find everything. USA probably spends $100+ Billion in intel and knowing what foreign leaders, generals and business leaders say and write can be more powerful than a few aircraft carriers. Of course then there is the trust issue, many world leaders will be pissed to learn that their "friend" has been reading their emails and monitoring their phone calls, even private ones.

mikemoka 13y ago

solitary confinement could trigger it as well probably, it depends on how things have been set up. Obama should have handled this in a totally different way, he should have treated him as a partner for having shed light upon a corrupted practice of the NSA, and should have asked the people heading the NSA to resign. This would have been a checkmate against any other US antagonist in my opinion, but I admit that is definitely too easy to judge things you don't know in every aspect from the comfort of your own home.

seferphier 13y ago
that would make obama score points in the public, but it is his second term as president already. this would also encourage more whistleblower activity that may get out of hand.
- onebaddude 13y ago
  There is no such thing as "too much" whistle blowing.
  - notdrunkatall 13y ago
    That depends on which side of the whistle you find yourself.
  - lectrick 13y ago
    Let's assume for a moment that there exists an individual who (via unknown mechanisms) knows about 90% of the hidden affairs of marriages in the world. Should that person "blow that whistle", as it were, suddenly turning almost all relationships "honest"? Or would it cause widespread havoc and upheaval?
    - onebaddude 13y ago
      >Should that person "blow that whistle" Ask the people who are being cheated on. Or spied on.
      - lectrick 13y ago
        I'm not suggesting an answer. I'm posing a thought experiment. I think it's a reasonably good analogy. My answer is probably odd- I'd want to know if I was the possible jiltee, but I don't know if I'd say that it should be revealed for ALL people.
mtgx 13y ago
The problem is Obama completely agreed with what the NSA was doing, and most likely even ordered everything to be done that way (that's why he so viciously defended the FISA Amendments Act last year, and why he tried to get lawsuits dismissed). However, I agree that is what he should do anyway. Clapper and Alexander should get fired immediately, and so should Holder - but he's been bailing out Holder so many times, I'm starting to think it's a lost cause that he'd ever stop protecting him. If there was a video of Holder shooting a man in head, he'd probably still pardon him. I disagree with your last part, though, that it would prevent other whistleblowers from coming out. Why would it? It would prove Snowden did a good thing, and more would come out later to fix the system (which is exactly what should happen).

lectrick 13y ago

> "enough information to cause more damage to the US government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States." I don't see how this is not analogous to a longstanding marriage with a hidden affair. Would you reveal the affair thereby destroying the marriage (but gaining a greater measure of truth)? Or would you leave it in secret? I don't believe that a thing based partly on secrets the revelation of which might bring about the end of that thing, is a sustainable thing, nor a healthy thing, nor a long-term-good thing.

mhurron 13y ago
Well there is the simple difference that a marriage is not the Government.
- bpatrianakos 13y ago
  That's not relevant here. The point is that in doing harm to the US government while attaining a higher level of truth one may inadvertently create more problems for its citizens than the original act itself causes. In the marriage analogy, by revealing the affair you may get one partner to be honest going forward but the other partner may not forgive the first, leading to a divorce or a permanently strained relationship. The children may suffer as a result as well. Imagine what might happen if damaging information were to get out- information more damaging than the NSA information itself. A healthy and informed debate and, if we're lucky, changes to the US security apparatus may take place but at the cost of putting the US in a weakened position influentially and economically. If you're not a US citizen this may seem like no big deal or a good lesson but for me, living in the US, I don't want to see that.

maratd 13y ago

> Until and unless he is granted a pardon or some other form of immunity from prosecution, it seems that Snowden's best interest ... Isn't that the rub? The rational action on Obama's part would be to pardon him, just to get him back. Instead, he is vindictively pursuing him across the globe and devoting resources that seem absolutely disproportionate to what was revealed.

mseebach 13y ago
Pardoning him would create a pretty bad precedent for everyone else with a security clearance. How do you tell the next guy that dumps a stash of classified documents in some journalist's lap that, no, that wasn't juicy enough to get a pardon, so he's going to jail? Despite the public interest in what Snowden revealed is, the position of the administration can only practically be that whatever you think about it, if it's classified, it's not up to you to decide that it should be public.

stefanix 13y ago

The biggest threat to the gov is quite possibly that Snowden's courage is contagious and it opens the flood gates on the more secret sides of power, stating with the intelligence and war industry. It could potentially change how government currently works. So far the actions of the Obama administration are quite consistent with walking a line between maximum deterrent and just not too much public uproar.

shabble 13y ago
Given the sheer number of people with clearances[1], which I assume has grown primarily over the last 11 years, I wonder if demand or scaling problems has hindered the background check and psych evaluations that would normally try to reject those sort of people from jobs involving sensitive material. [1] The WP's "Top Secret America" series quotes 850K+ with Top-Secret clearance: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/ http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articl...