14 ms·

Edward Snowden, Whistle-Blower

804 points by Anechoic 13y ago

ajays 13y ago
On the surface, I welcome this editorial. About time. But the NYT has deep connections to the USG, so I'm wondering where this editorial is coming from. It could be a trial balloon on the part of the administration to test the public's appetite for a reduced sentence for Snowden.
- scw 13y ago
  That's an interesting idea. Are there past documented instances of the editorial board being used in this capacity?
  - belluchan 13y ago
    In no shape or form is the vaunted editorial page of The New York Times going to be let itself used as the president's trial balloon. You've got to be kidding me.
    - polarix 13y ago
      Is your comment sarcasm?
    - visakanv 13y ago
      This implies a very straightforward "either the NYT is the POTUS's bitch, or it is independent" situation. I think there's a win-win outcome to be had, from the NYT's perspective, where the NYT prides itself on being the authoritative source that even the POTUS relies on.
- gavinlynch 13y ago
  Without making a judgement call on the virtue of his of actions: I consider myself very skeptical of the notion that this administration, which has cracked down on whistle-blowers/leakers as much (or more) than any other, is about to offer anything other than the "full weight of Justice" on Snowden. I enjoyed Philip Bump's piece from the Atlantic about this: "Why Does CBS Keep Asking Its Ridiculous Amnesty Question About Snowden?" http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/12/why-does-cbs-keep-asking-its-completely-wrong-amnesty-question-about-snowden/356431/ http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/12/why-does-cbs-keep-as... What can Snowden promise them, anyway, that they would make this deal? The toothpaste is out of the tube.
  - davidw 13y ago
    > What can Snowden promise them, anyway, that they would make this deal? The toothpaste is out of the tube. My understanding is that he has actually been quite a bit more judicious than Manning about what he has released, putting out stuff that clearly shows what the NSA is doing wrong. I get the impression that he does have more material that could go out but he doesn't feel really needs to be public, as a bargaining chip.
    - ceejayoz 13y ago
      > My understanding is that he has actually been quite a bit more judicious than Manning about what he has released, putting out stuff that clearly shows what the NSA is doing wrong. I get the impression that he does have more material that could go out but he doesn't feel really needs to be public, as a bargaining chip. I believe he's claimed to have gotten rid of all materials prior to going to Russia. They're in the hands of the team of journalists distributed around the world.
      - gavinlynch 13y ago
        This was my impression as well.
      - tripzilch 13y ago
        > I believe he's claimed to have gotten rid of all materials prior to going to Russia. This was in response to the question about this data accidentally falling into wrong hands. He said he was very confident that nothing was stolen copied or accessed during his stay in Hong Kong, and that he completely wiped his harddisk before going to Russia. This doesn't mean that this data does not exist, anywhere, as a bargaining chip. Just that it is not present with him, on a physical storage medium in Russia.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      > My understanding is that he has actually been quite a bit more judicious than Manning about what he has released, putting out stuff that clearly shows what the NSA is doing wrong. That was his claim, yes, but it's quite incorrect. Various journalists have the data now and are piecing through it, not Snowden, but things like details of Chinese hacking or tapping into Merkel or Medvedev's phone calls are not violations of U.S. civil liberties and can hardly be said to have been judicious disclosures. In that regard Manning actually ends up with a better case IMHO; Snowden claimed to have specifically looked at and identified every piece of data he took as requiring disclosure (although taking 58,000-1,000,000+ pieces in a year with a full-time job to do would tend to argue against being 'selective'), so any areas where Snowden leaked something that was only vital to national security happened after he specifically cleared it. Manning, on the other hand, specifically released a few things but other than that let loose a bunch of data she never quite scanned through. This was definitely negligent, but doesn't seem to have been malicious.
dstarin 13y ago
The Snowdens -- fyi http://www.snowden-warfield.com/ http://www.snowden-warfield.com/ More recently -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FQ_CfWIVXA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FQ_CfWIVXA It is perhaps the most famous picture of World War II. Then Captain; now Marine General Larry Snowden is the oldest surviving officer from the Pacific's fiercest battle. "Second half of my platoon, I'm already over that ridge," said Snowden. The Flag hasn’t been raised yet in this picture, when it was; Snowden says it wasn’t as romantic then as it is now. "I've read many accounts that says, when the flag went up the troops all over the island stood up and cheered. No way. Not where I was, you stood up you were a dead marine." At 92, Snowden fought in three wars, he was wounded twice. At Iwo Jima he held dying marines in his arms. "I had a son just a year and half old, back in the states. And I had the momentary flash about what it would mean to me if somebody was telling me that my son is dead. I went to Los Angeles to..." General Snowden still keeps a hectic travel schedule, speaking on freedom and veterans. He say you can’t have one without the other. "Veterans are what brought us to freedom. Veterans are the ones who keep us free. Veterans are still fighting over seas, in people they don't know, in lands they don't know." As America celebrates its independence with bar B cues, picnics, and fireworks, Snowden's wish is that parents share the reason America is free with their children. "You do what you want to do. The high cost of freedom is just that, a very high cost." Larry Snowden, one of the reasons we are celebrating our freedom. Snowden served in the military for 37 years. After leaving the military he served as trade negotiator with Japan.
joelrunyon 13y ago
I'm young, so excuse my naiveté, but I can't remember another time (in my lifetime) that the gov't & press have been in such a standoff with a stark contrast of opinion. It seems news these days is mostly feeding people's opinions back to them ("here's what you had to say on twitter") and taking pot shots at the other sides of the spectrum on lots of surface level points that quite frankly - neither side is going to shift anytime soon. That said, if nothing else, it seems the quality of news post-snowden has picked up a little & it seems the press is finally starting to do their job in informing the public rather than just appeasing it (or maybe I'm just paying attention more).
- visakanv 13y ago
  As a general rule, I think the press doesn't push itself very hard- it largely does whatever it has to do to sell papers (or equivalent). Here's what I think: Intelligent commentary on difficult issues emerges into popular consciousness whenever the difficult issues are serious enough that the intelligent, thoughtful folk are forced to have conversations with the general masses. In this simplistic sense, major issues "shake up" sociopolitical reality. I know this sounds a little elitist. I don't consider myself to be one of the "intelligent, thoughtful folk". I'm a veritable moron. But whenever these shakeups happen, there's an increased demand for intelligent commentary, and the press moves to fulfill that demand. That's my theory. I could be totally wrong; would love to hear input/criticism from others on this.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  I'm not all that young anymore, and I certainly don't remember this either. As others have noted, Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s is probably the most recent precedent. And the mainstream press have absolutely been falling down on the job, with very few exceptions. The Times is barely worth reading, and I'm finding NPR/BBC increasingly unlistenable (or simply not worth my time). The Guardian has hit my must-read list, and I'll be very interested to see what Greenwald does with his new venture.
umanwizard 13y ago
I find it pleasantly surprising -- almost unbelievable, in fact -- that a highly sought-after fugitive accused of treason and practically certain to be found guilty of serious crimes is so widely supported by the public and the media. Has there ever been another person whom the executive has done everything in its power to paint as a dangerous enemy of the state, whose approval rating was several points higher than the President's and several times higher than that of Congress? Or is this a never-before-seen situation? The inverted totalitarianism[1] we live in can seem almost invincible, but this to me is a big glimmer of hope that some people at least are still unwilling to swallow the (two-)party line. I hope this leads to some real change, but then again, I can't exactly hold my breath. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
- ewoodrich 13y ago
  An NBC/WSJ poll from late July [1] (the most recent poll I found that assessed general favorability of both President Obama and Edward Snowden, lists Snowden with a favorability of 11%, 37% behind Obama's number at that point in time. A Harvard poll of millennials [2] (defined as 18-29) show that 22% consider him a "traitor", 22% consider him a patriot, and the remainder are "not sure". Of course, polls which pose questions about approval of his release of documents may differ substantially, but then again, so do polls about specific actions the President has taken. I don't know where the data for your assertion comes from. [1] http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/130724-July-NBC-WSJ-poll.pdf http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today... [2] http://iop.harvard.edu/blog/iop-releases-new-fall-poll-5-key-findings-and-trends-millennial-viewpoints http://iop.harvard.edu/blog/iop-releases-new-fall-poll-5-key...
  - schainks 13y ago
    A "catch 22" you might say...
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    Those numbers ring true. You just have to serve on a jury to learn how much deference the average person gives to people in positions of authority. Even the tech industry, which is losing tens of billions due to loss of trust, is glacially slow to act, or even announce measures against surveillance, because a real defense against the NSA also means users will be able to hide information from law enforcement, and they will have to decide to slaughter other sacred cows of the data security business.
Rogerh91 13y ago
The New York Times, which has stood up countless times for freedom of speech and constitutional principles (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan regarding free reporting of civil rights violations without fear of libel, and New York Times Co. v. United States regarding the free dissemination of the classified Pentagon Papers) has once again, delivered a masterclass in defense of Edward Snowden. I know some of you may have doubts as to the ties between the media and the government, but the historical record does indicate that the New York Times has had a flagship role in challenging government abuse on many levels. I don't see why it would not have a similar role in this debate.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  The Times has certainly had its bright moments, but it's also had its dark ones, and its performance and actions over the past decade haven't been particularly upstanding. I do applaud the editorial. Enough that I'll add my "but it's been a while coming" in a separate sentence. But it's been a while coming. Remember that it was The Times's own prior record which prompted Snowden to reach out instead to Laura Poitras, and independent, and Glen Greenwald of The Guardian.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  <cough>Judith Miller</cough>
detcader 13y ago
For the occurrence of this editorial we can chiefly thank Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald, for presenting Snowden's documents and handling the journalism carefully and with great influential power. Lesser journalists wouldn't have known what to do, or who to consult to figure out what to do, how to word and interpret things precise enough, and one bad step could have led to disaster, whether in terms of the story, or of Snowden's/their own safety. People can point out potential imperfections in their methods, but today they have this editorial (on top of everything else, including the federal judge rulings) to show for themselves. They convinced the "Paper of Record," one with a history of party-blind fealty to power, to put out something like this. What has any of us done?
pvnick 13y ago
That was such a refreshing article. I've been saying it for a while now, I'm hopeful that we're going to see some very positive reforms in 2014 or 2015, as well as an eventual hero's welcome for Snowden. It takes a while for such a massive shift in public opinion, but it's inevitable. The reason it's taking so long is just a knowledge gab with the people that aren't as well-informed and don't know the magnitude of the abuses. As people learn the full scope of what's been revealed they tend to be (for the most part) outraged. I look forward to a couple decades from now, when I can tell my kids about how us folks who were paying attention were all vindicated when the NSA reforms were enacted and Snowden was given a full pardon.
- hooande 13y ago
  It's unfair to characterize people who disagree with you as being uninformed. A lot of people who don't like Snowden's actions know as much about the situation as you do. They've just drawn different conclusions. The gap here is one of personal philosophy and opinion, not one of knowledge. I''m not entirely sure why Snowden is getting so much personal credit. I remember watching an episode of Frontline on PBS that discussed “Room 641A” [1]. A few quotes from the cited wikipedia page, emphasis added: ”[the room] is fed by fiber optic lines from beam splitters installed in fiber optic trunks carrying Internet backbone traffic and, as analyzed by J. Scott Marcus, a former CTO for GTE and a former adviser to the FCC, has access to all Internet traffic that passes through the building, and therefore 'the capability to enable surveillance and analysis of internet content on a massive scale, including both overseas and purely domestic traffic.” ”[the program] was originally broadcast on May 15, 2007. It was also featured on PBS's NOW on March 14, 2008. The room was also covered in the PBS Nova episode 'The Spy Factory'.” I admittedly watch more PBS than the average person. I was talking about Room 641A and concept of the NSA directly siphoning every call, email, text and url sent from the AT&T Pacific data center several years ago. Snowden’s revelations were news and he provided theretofore unnknown details. But they weren't completely out of the blue. People knew that the NSA was collecting data on an unprecedented scale before Edward Snowden. These programs aren’t new, they didn’t start last year. Snowden unquestioningly gets credit for coming forward, he deserves praise for taking such a risk. It’s clear that he provided us with a paper trail and evidence that no one had in May of 2007. But our knowledge of the NSA’s activities is not “entirely because of information provided to journalists by Edward Snowden” as the NYT OpEd alleges. People had the knowledge years ago. The outrage is recent. We'll see if the future holds substantive policy reforms or presidential pardons. Cautious optimism never hurts. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
Fuxy 13y ago
I doubt Snowden would be gullible enough to bite. The truth is it will take years before any offer the US government would give will be truly sincere and not just an attempt to get him back into the country so they can do with him what they please. Then again leaking info was risky so he might.
notastartup 13y ago
I just want to know, was Obama administration responsible for increased NSA surveillance? or was this something set in motion by the Royal George Bush Family Inc. and that can't be stopped? Seems like Obama is getting all the shit for something his predecessor set in motion and now cannot be stopped. It seems like there's forces even more elite and powerful than the president that dictates what he can do and can't do and that he is largely a puppet with strings being pulled by stakeholders that benefits most from totalitarian power over it's peons. Without Edward Snowden, this tyranny would've gone unnoticed for centuries. I think he should run for President.
- lukifer 13y ago
  Systematic dragnet spying is a holdover from Cold War thinking, and predates Bush II by decades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee#Results_of_the_investigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee#Results_of_the...
- oleganza 13y ago
  What's the point of electing a president if for 5 years he doesn't know what his government is doing?
  - lukeschlather 13y ago
    Knowing is only half the battle. Possibly even less than that.
- ameister14 13y ago
  Well, Obama not only supports it, he definitely has the power to do something about it if he wanted to. He doesn't want to. It's not that it can't be stopped; if the President wanted to do so he could conceivably fire the CIA and the NSA.
  - rurban 13y ago
    I don't think that the president has the effective power to do any harm to the security apparatus. He didn't even try so far, though it was rumored that he might go Bulworth some day. They probably have too much power and info over him. But at least he is still alive. JFK tried too but was eliminated by them, and afterwards only the Church committee tried to limit their power a bit, but not their budgets. The fact the Obama completely turned 180° on all security and constitutional matters from his senate times should tell you.
furyg3 13y ago
I'm not sure that Obama will waste political capital on this. If there were a decision to excuse his actions, it would be a pardon at the end of his term...
- Shivetya 13y ago
  Well he certainly would not do it before the 2014 elections and unless a rift occurs within his party I do not expect it when he leaves office. The only safe time would be right after the 2014 elections. Yet why would he? Snowden caused him grief and this is a President who doesn't seem to give one wit about public opinion. Oh sure they float trial balloons but only to deflect. I would prefer to see a major European country step forward and offer his citizenship and protection. That or push through the UN a resolution protecting people like him
seanieb 13y ago
Obama appears not to have had a clear picture of the issues back in August when he delivered a speech solidifying his administrations views on the issue. The president suggested that if Mr. Snowden had wanted to avoid criminal charges he could have simply told his superiors about the abuses. However, whistle blower protections do not apply to contractors, only to intelligence employees, rendering its protections useless to Mr. Snowden. And the New York Times Editorial board agrees: >"In retrospect, Mr. Snowden was clearly justified in believing that the only way to blow the whistle on this kind of intelligence-gathering was to expose it to the public and let the resulting furor do the work his superiors would not."
r0h1n 13y ago
Absolutely! I especially loved this part: >> "His leaks revealed that James Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, lied to Congress when testifying in March that the N.S.A. was not collecting data on millions of Americans. (There has been no discussion of punishment for that lie.)"
- sbt 13y ago
  As a foreigner, this is probably the most astounding. After all the commotion in the 90s with Bill Clinton lying about the Monica Lewinsky affair, the double standard is striking. From the outside it seems as if Clapper is simply above the law.
  - rbanffy 13y ago
    It's sad, but not surprising. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair
  - dmoo 13y ago
    Also Mr Clapper probably has the goods on just about anybody who might want to bring charges.
    - freerobby 13y ago
      If this is true, it's a shame those in charge didn't learn the lesson from J. Edgar Hoover.
  - er35826 13y ago
    Clapper was also in the unfortunate position of being legally required to lie: Refusing the respond, or deferring his response to a closed session, would have been evidence enough that such a program existed. Anything other than a simple, direct denial would have been 'leaking' information about the possibility of such a program existing, which is expressly against the law as well.
    - 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
infruset 13y ago
When I saw the title, I thought he had died. It (the title) sounds oddly like an obituary. Or is the title meant to reflect the change of perception (from "traitor" to "whistle-blower")?
- ryusage 13y ago
  I interpreted it as the latter, and I actually really like it. Since this whole thing started, there's been a lot of debate about whether he's a patriot or a traitor. Without even reading the article, I think that headline is the clearest, boldest statement the NYT could make about where they fall on that question.
batgaijin 13y ago
Jesus I would rather deal with the Reich than these face fucked flip flops Also fuck Greenwald and Snowden; their actions show they have no problem crowning themselves as new Robespierres
- jnsaff2 13y ago
  I'm currently reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, the first part of the book talks about the methods Hitler and others used to get to power. Trust me, you'd take your statement back if you knew. SA was in essence a gang of lowlifes that used murder, intimidation and terror to get rid of opponents. Hitler had amazing abilities to lie to everyone to get to the result he wanted. That said, one can not fail drawing up parallels with some of the aspects how The Third Reich got to power and how the people running it operated with what's going on in the world today. http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Third-Reich-ebook/dp/B005Z57E18/ http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Third-Reich-ebook/dp/B005Z57...
  - batgaijin 13y ago
    Well the krauts had consistency going for them at least The weak rule the weak the strong conquer the strange
- batgaijin 13y ago
  Also to be clear I mean the NY times. Nothing wrong with a multi faceted opinion but it's not cool that they don't even point out the evolution of their beliefs. I mean isn't that the point of having an awarded newspaper? P.s. I think I need a book on remedial grammar
Theodores 13y ago
I know that the U.S.A. is the greatest country on earth and utterly amazing in every possible way imaginable, however, the majority of the world's population do not live in the U.S.A. In the U.K. we like America, we even have a 'special relationship' (according to our politicians, the fact is that no American politicians see it that way or mention the fact). However, do most people in the U.K. want to visit or live in the U.S.A.? No! Further into Europe I really doubt that the average French person would want to up sticks and move to the U.S.A. If fleets of B-52's carpet bombed Europe with free U.S. passports, visas and one-way tickets to 'the land of the free, home of the brave' I very much doubt that there would be that much of a scramble to pick them up, hop on a plane and rush to the U.S.A. Sure, some would go, but even then, after a year or two they would want to return. It has been a while since I have heard anything about floods of refugees wanting to leave Russia, so life there can't be all that bad. What's to say that Snowden isn't actually enjoying life in Russia? His C.V. is rather impeccable and I doubt he will be struggling for work. He is almost certainly not without his female admirers too. He might just get used to knowing that the U.S.A. is off limits. He might also be able to be relaxed about personal security. He knows that if anything happens to him then it is pretty bad news for Uncle Sam even if it is a lone nutter that does the deed. Okay his asylum status runs out in less than a year but how much does he really value a U.S. passport? Or for charges to be dropped against him? It is not that big a deal. Uncle Sam has no leverage here even if Americans don't see it that way.
- bausson 13y ago
  I second this, as an European, I would rather not live in the US. Sure I would like to visit, there are lots of interesting place, but having to deal with the TSA is to much of a hassle on its own. Government shut-down closing those interesting places once in a while is just the bonus argument, but can prove even more bothersome than the TSA (which is after all only a bad moment).
  - pearkes 13y ago
    Aside from taking off your shoes, there's no practical difference between European airport security and American. Both can have long lines depending on the airport, cheeky and or angry staff.
swalsh 13y ago
I have a legal question, perhaps someone here would be more educated enough to answer. Which part of our "systems of checks and balances" is supposed to balance the system in this instance. The president seems uninterested in changing anything, congress seems uninterested (and incapable) of doing anything, and the supreme court can only knock things down. It would seem to me like there is a large amount of people who want an action taken, both to change the system, and to pardon snowdon. Is the answer really only to wait until the next election cycle?
- ethnt 13y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that cases like the ACLU v. NSA will be able to strike down programs like this. But you're correct, unless Congress is moved to do something about it (which, given their track record, seems unlikely), we'll have to wait until the next election for a mentality shift.
crusso 13y ago
Imagine a society where those in charge, all the way up to the President, were just as afraid of prosecution and life sentences for violating the law/Constitution as peons at the bottom like Snowden.
- lukeschlather 13y ago
  That probably means the judiciary is just as corrupt as the executive and legislative branches, so it's not so much a matter of whether or not they're violating the law, as how much they and their political opponents are paying the judges. Several failed Latin American democracies come to mind as concrete examples.
  - crusso 13y ago
    No political model succeeds in the face of unaddressed corruption.
zby 13y ago
There is a worldwide action tomorrow - who is #WaitingForEd? https://joindiaspora.com/posts/3457714 https://joindiaspora.com/posts/3457714 , https://www.facebook.com/events/1448773218676476 https://www.facebook.com/events/1448773218676476
lettergram 13y ago
I honestly think the Libertarian party (or perhaps independent) could play up the fact he would pardon Snowden during the 2016 election process and sway a few percentage of votes his/her way.
mdesq 13y ago
Even if Snowden was granted clemency, ten bucks says that if he returns to the US, he'll be found mysteriously dead of a car crash or "suicide" within 18 months.
Rogerh91 13y ago
"In my estimation, there has not been in American history a more important leak than Edward Snowden's release of NSA material – and that definitely includes the Pentagon Papers 40 years ago."-Pentagon Papers Whistle-Blower Daniel Ellsberg
mrcactu5 13y ago
Why are we so surprised the NSA is spying on us? Why are we reacting now? Think about all the data we have voluntarily injected into the public sphere - thru Google, Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr... Everybody is famous now. We are our own papparazzi.
fuckpig 13y ago
If you post anti-Snowden comments around here, the mods shadow-ban you. So instead I'll say this: Whistle-blowing means you go up the chain of command FIRST and find someone who can fix the problem. What Snowden did was steal information, run to the enemies of this country and reveal it under the guise of being a whistle-blower. If we don't have a set of rules that we all consistently follow, there is no expectation of honesty or justice... and all command structures fall apart. When that happens, you have an absence of social order into which void will fall the real tyrants. Snowden is no hero. He should be returned to the United States to face trial and if convicted, the traitor's penalty.
- samstave 13y ago
  >Whistle-blowing means you go up the chain of command FIRST and find someone who can fix the problem. Have you not heard of Binney? Or any of the other WB's in the past who did just that and were silenced. Also, your version is predicated on the assumption that the chain of command is not already a corrupt path. In the case of Snowden and the USG, it has now been proven beyond a doubt that the NSA/USG is a completely corrupt criminal organization.
hpvic03 13y ago
While I agree with the overall sentiment of this editorial, I think one thing is very wonky. It says that Snowden provided "enormous value" and "has done his country a great service." But if you agree with these statements then how could a successful resolution include a "please bargain" and punishment, even if it is "substantially reduced"? The whole idea of being a whistleblower is that you get immunity. If you agree that Snowden is a de facto whistleblower then punishment and prison time shouldn't even be on the table.

804 points by Anechoic 13y ago

ajays 13y ago

On the surface, I welcome this editorial. About time. But the NYT has deep connections to the USG, so I'm wondering where this editorial is coming from. It could be a trial balloon on the part of the administration to test the public's appetite for a reduced sentence for Snowden.

scw 13y ago
That's an interesting idea. Are there past documented instances of the editorial board being used in this capacity?
- belluchan 13y ago
  In no shape or form is the vaunted editorial page of The New York Times going to be let itself used as the president's trial balloon. You've got to be kidding me.
  - polarix 13y ago
    Is your comment sarcasm?
  - visakanv 13y ago
    This implies a very straightforward "either the NYT is the POTUS's bitch, or it is independent" situation. I think there's a win-win outcome to be had, from the NYT's perspective, where the NYT prides itself on being the authoritative source that even the POTUS relies on.
gavinlynch 13y ago
Without making a judgement call on the virtue of his of actions: I consider myself very skeptical of the notion that this administration, which has cracked down on whistle-blowers/leakers as much (or more) than any other, is about to offer anything other than the "full weight of Justice" on Snowden. I enjoyed Philip Bump's piece from the Atlantic about this: "Why Does CBS Keep Asking Its Ridiculous Amnesty Question About Snowden?" http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/12/why-does-cbs-keep-asking-its-completely-wrong-amnesty-question-about-snowden/356431/ http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/12/why-does-cbs-keep-as... What can Snowden promise them, anyway, that they would make this deal? The toothpaste is out of the tube.
- davidw 13y ago
  > What can Snowden promise them, anyway, that they would make this deal? The toothpaste is out of the tube. My understanding is that he has actually been quite a bit more judicious than Manning about what he has released, putting out stuff that clearly shows what the NSA is doing wrong. I get the impression that he does have more material that could go out but he doesn't feel really needs to be public, as a bargaining chip.
  - ceejayoz 13y ago
    > My understanding is that he has actually been quite a bit more judicious than Manning about what he has released, putting out stuff that clearly shows what the NSA is doing wrong. I get the impression that he does have more material that could go out but he doesn't feel really needs to be public, as a bargaining chip. I believe he's claimed to have gotten rid of all materials prior to going to Russia. They're in the hands of the team of journalists distributed around the world.
    - gavinlynch 13y ago
      This was my impression as well.
    - tripzilch 13y ago
      > I believe he's claimed to have gotten rid of all materials prior to going to Russia. This was in response to the question about this data accidentally falling into wrong hands. He said he was very confident that nothing was stolen copied or accessed during his stay in Hong Kong, and that he completely wiped his harddisk before going to Russia. This doesn't mean that this data does not exist, anywhere, as a bargaining chip. Just that it is not present with him, on a physical storage medium in Russia.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > My understanding is that he has actually been quite a bit more judicious than Manning about what he has released, putting out stuff that clearly shows what the NSA is doing wrong. That was his claim, yes, but it's quite incorrect. Various journalists have the data now and are piecing through it, not Snowden, but things like details of Chinese hacking or tapping into Merkel or Medvedev's phone calls are not violations of U.S. civil liberties and can hardly be said to have been judicious disclosures. In that regard Manning actually ends up with a better case IMHO; Snowden claimed to have specifically looked at and identified every piece of data he took as requiring disclosure (although taking 58,000-1,000,000+ pieces in a year with a full-time job to do would tend to argue against being 'selective'), so any areas where Snowden leaked something that was only vital to national security happened after he specifically cleared it. Manning, on the other hand, specifically released a few things but other than that let loose a bunch of data she never quite scanned through. This was definitely negligent, but doesn't seem to have been malicious.

dstarin 13y ago

The Snowdens -- fyi http://www.snowden-warfield.com/ http://www.snowden-warfield.com/ More recently -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FQ_CfWIVXA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FQ_CfWIVXA It is perhaps the most famous picture of World War II. Then Captain; now Marine General Larry Snowden is the oldest surviving officer from the Pacific's fiercest battle. "Second half of my platoon, I'm already over that ridge," said Snowden. The Flag hasn’t been raised yet in this picture, when it was; Snowden says it wasn’t as romantic then as it is now. "I've read many accounts that says, when the flag went up the troops all over the island stood up and cheered. No way. Not where I was, you stood up you were a dead marine." At 92, Snowden fought in three wars, he was wounded twice. At Iwo Jima he held dying marines in his arms. "I had a son just a year and half old, back in the states. And I had the momentary flash about what it would mean to me if somebody was telling me that my son is dead. I went to Los Angeles to..." General Snowden still keeps a hectic travel schedule, speaking on freedom and veterans. He say you can’t have one without the other. "Veterans are what brought us to freedom. Veterans are the ones who keep us free. Veterans are still fighting over seas, in people they don't know, in lands they don't know." As America celebrates its independence with bar B cues, picnics, and fireworks, Snowden's wish is that parents share the reason America is free with their children. "You do what you want to do. The high cost of freedom is just that, a very high cost." Larry Snowden, one of the reasons we are celebrating our freedom. Snowden served in the military for 37 years. After leaving the military he served as trade negotiator with Japan.

joelrunyon 13y ago

I'm young, so excuse my naiveté, but I can't remember another time (in my lifetime) that the gov't & press have been in such a standoff with a stark contrast of opinion. It seems news these days is mostly feeding people's opinions back to them ("here's what you had to say on twitter") and taking pot shots at the other sides of the spectrum on lots of surface level points that quite frankly - neither side is going to shift anytime soon. That said, if nothing else, it seems the quality of news post-snowden has picked up a little & it seems the press is finally starting to do their job in informing the public rather than just appeasing it (or maybe I'm just paying attention more).

visakanv 13y ago
As a general rule, I think the press doesn't push itself very hard- it largely does whatever it has to do to sell papers (or equivalent). Here's what I think: Intelligent commentary on difficult issues emerges into popular consciousness whenever the difficult issues are serious enough that the intelligent, thoughtful folk are forced to have conversations with the general masses. In this simplistic sense, major issues "shake up" sociopolitical reality. I know this sounds a little elitist. I don't consider myself to be one of the "intelligent, thoughtful folk". I'm a veritable moron. But whenever these shakeups happen, there's an increased demand for intelligent commentary, and the press moves to fulfill that demand. That's my theory. I could be totally wrong; would love to hear input/criticism from others on this.
dredmorbius 13y ago
I'm not all that young anymore, and I certainly don't remember this either. As others have noted, Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s is probably the most recent precedent. And the mainstream press have absolutely been falling down on the job, with very few exceptions. The Times is barely worth reading, and I'm finding NPR/BBC increasingly unlistenable (or simply not worth my time). The Guardian has hit my must-read list, and I'll be very interested to see what Greenwald does with his new venture.

umanwizard 13y ago

I find it pleasantly surprising -- almost unbelievable, in fact -- that a highly sought-after fugitive accused of treason and practically certain to be found guilty of serious crimes is so widely supported by the public and the media. Has there ever been another person whom the executive has done everything in its power to paint as a dangerous enemy of the state, whose approval rating was several points higher than the President's and several times higher than that of Congress? Or is this a never-before-seen situation? The inverted totalitarianism[1] we live in can seem almost invincible, but this to me is a big glimmer of hope that some people at least are still unwilling to swallow the (two-)party line. I hope this leads to some real change, but then again, I can't exactly hold my breath. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

ewoodrich 13y ago
An NBC/WSJ poll from late July [1] (the most recent poll I found that assessed general favorability of both President Obama and Edward Snowden, lists Snowden with a favorability of 11%, 37% behind Obama's number at that point in time. A Harvard poll of millennials [2] (defined as 18-29) show that 22% consider him a "traitor", 22% consider him a patriot, and the remainder are "not sure". Of course, polls which pose questions about approval of his release of documents may differ substantially, but then again, so do polls about specific actions the President has taken. I don't know where the data for your assertion comes from. [1] http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/130724-July-NBC-WSJ-poll.pdf http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today... [2] http://iop.harvard.edu/blog/iop-releases-new-fall-poll-5-key-findings-and-trends-millennial-viewpoints http://iop.harvard.edu/blog/iop-releases-new-fall-poll-5-key...
- schainks 13y ago
  A "catch 22" you might say...
- Zigurd 13y ago
  Those numbers ring true. You just have to serve on a jury to learn how much deference the average person gives to people in positions of authority. Even the tech industry, which is losing tens of billions due to loss of trust, is glacially slow to act, or even announce measures against surveillance, because a real defense against the NSA also means users will be able to hide information from law enforcement, and they will have to decide to slaughter other sacred cows of the data security business.

Rogerh91 13y ago

The New York Times, which has stood up countless times for freedom of speech and constitutional principles (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan regarding free reporting of civil rights violations without fear of libel, and New York Times Co. v. United States regarding the free dissemination of the classified Pentagon Papers) has once again, delivered a masterclass in defense of Edward Snowden. I know some of you may have doubts as to the ties between the media and the government, but the historical record does indicate that the New York Times has had a flagship role in challenging government abuse on many levels. I don't see why it would not have a similar role in this debate.

dredmorbius 13y ago
The Times has certainly had its bright moments, but it's also had its dark ones, and its performance and actions over the past decade haven't been particularly upstanding. I do applaud the editorial. Enough that I'll add my "but it's been a while coming" in a separate sentence. But it's been a while coming. Remember that it was The Times's own prior record which prompted Snowden to reach out instead to Laura Poitras, and independent, and Glen Greenwald of The Guardian.
Zigurd 13y ago
<cough>Judith Miller</cough>

detcader 13y ago

For the occurrence of this editorial we can chiefly thank Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald, for presenting Snowden's documents and handling the journalism carefully and with great influential power. Lesser journalists wouldn't have known what to do, or who to consult to figure out what to do, how to word and interpret things precise enough, and one bad step could have led to disaster, whether in terms of the story, or of Snowden's/their own safety. People can point out potential imperfections in their methods, but today they have this editorial (on top of everything else, including the federal judge rulings) to show for themselves. They convinced the "Paper of Record," one with a history of party-blind fealty to power, to put out something like this. What has any of us done?

pvnick 13y ago

That was such a refreshing article. I've been saying it for a while now, I'm hopeful that we're going to see some very positive reforms in 2014 or 2015, as well as an eventual hero's welcome for Snowden. It takes a while for such a massive shift in public opinion, but it's inevitable. The reason it's taking so long is just a knowledge gab with the people that aren't as well-informed and don't know the magnitude of the abuses. As people learn the full scope of what's been revealed they tend to be (for the most part) outraged. I look forward to a couple decades from now, when I can tell my kids about how us folks who were paying attention were all vindicated when the NSA reforms were enacted and Snowden was given a full pardon.

hooande 13y ago
It's unfair to characterize people who disagree with you as being uninformed. A lot of people who don't like Snowden's actions know as much about the situation as you do. They've just drawn different conclusions. The gap here is one of personal philosophy and opinion, not one of knowledge. I''m not entirely sure why Snowden is getting so much personal credit. I remember watching an episode of Frontline on PBS that discussed “Room 641A” [1]. A few quotes from the cited wikipedia page, emphasis added: ”[the room] is fed by fiber optic lines from beam splitters installed in fiber optic trunks carrying Internet backbone traffic and, as analyzed by J. Scott Marcus, a former CTO for GTE and a former adviser to the FCC, has access to all Internet traffic that passes through the building, and therefore 'the capability to enable surveillance and analysis of internet content on a massive scale, including both overseas and purely domestic traffic.” ”[the program] was originally broadcast on May 15, 2007. It was also featured on PBS's NOW on March 14, 2008. The room was also covered in the PBS Nova episode 'The Spy Factory'.” I admittedly watch more PBS than the average person. I was talking about Room 641A and concept of the NSA directly siphoning every call, email, text and url sent from the AT&T Pacific data center several years ago. Snowden’s revelations were news and he provided theretofore unnknown details. But they weren't completely out of the blue. People knew that the NSA was collecting data on an unprecedented scale before Edward Snowden. These programs aren’t new, they didn’t start last year. Snowden unquestioningly gets credit for coming forward, he deserves praise for taking such a risk. It’s clear that he provided us with a paper trail and evidence that no one had in May of 2007. But our knowledge of the NSA’s activities is not “entirely because of information provided to journalists by Edward Snowden” as the NYT OpEd alleges. People had the knowledge years ago. The outrage is recent. We'll see if the future holds substantive policy reforms or presidential pardons. Cautious optimism never hurts. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

Fuxy 13y ago

I doubt Snowden would be gullible enough to bite. The truth is it will take years before any offer the US government would give will be truly sincere and not just an attempt to get him back into the country so they can do with him what they please. Then again leaking info was risky so he might.

notastartup 13y ago

I just want to know, was Obama administration responsible for increased NSA surveillance? or was this something set in motion by the Royal George Bush Family Inc. and that can't be stopped? Seems like Obama is getting all the shit for something his predecessor set in motion and now cannot be stopped. It seems like there's forces even more elite and powerful than the president that dictates what he can do and can't do and that he is largely a puppet with strings being pulled by stakeholders that benefits most from totalitarian power over it's peons. Without Edward Snowden, this tyranny would've gone unnoticed for centuries. I think he should run for President.

lukifer 13y ago
Systematic dragnet spying is a holdover from Cold War thinking, and predates Bush II by decades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee#Results_of_the_investigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee#Results_of_the...
oleganza 13y ago
What's the point of electing a president if for 5 years he doesn't know what his government is doing?
- lukeschlather 13y ago
  Knowing is only half the battle. Possibly even less than that.
ameister14 13y ago
Well, Obama not only supports it, he definitely has the power to do something about it if he wanted to. He doesn't want to. It's not that it can't be stopped; if the President wanted to do so he could conceivably fire the CIA and the NSA.
- rurban 13y ago
  I don't think that the president has the effective power to do any harm to the security apparatus. He didn't even try so far, though it was rumored that he might go Bulworth some day. They probably have too much power and info over him. But at least he is still alive. JFK tried too but was eliminated by them, and afterwards only the Church committee tried to limit their power a bit, but not their budgets. The fact the Obama completely turned 180° on all security and constitutional matters from his senate times should tell you.

furyg3 13y ago

I'm not sure that Obama will waste political capital on this. If there were a decision to excuse his actions, it would be a pardon at the end of his term...

Shivetya 13y ago
Well he certainly would not do it before the 2014 elections and unless a rift occurs within his party I do not expect it when he leaves office. The only safe time would be right after the 2014 elections. Yet why would he? Snowden caused him grief and this is a President who doesn't seem to give one wit about public opinion. Oh sure they float trial balloons but only to deflect. I would prefer to see a major European country step forward and offer his citizenship and protection. That or push through the UN a resolution protecting people like him

seanieb 13y ago

Obama appears not to have had a clear picture of the issues back in August when he delivered a speech solidifying his administrations views on the issue. The president suggested that if Mr. Snowden had wanted to avoid criminal charges he could have simply told his superiors about the abuses. However, whistle blower protections do not apply to contractors, only to intelligence employees, rendering its protections useless to Mr. Snowden. And the New York Times Editorial board agrees: >"In retrospect, Mr. Snowden was clearly justified in believing that the only way to blow the whistle on this kind of intelligence-gathering was to expose it to the public and let the resulting furor do the work his superiors would not."

r0h1n 13y ago

Absolutely! I especially loved this part: >> "His leaks revealed that James Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, lied to Congress when testifying in March that the N.S.A. was not collecting data on millions of Americans. (There has been no discussion of punishment for that lie.)"

sbt 13y ago
As a foreigner, this is probably the most astounding. After all the commotion in the 90s with Bill Clinton lying about the Monica Lewinsky affair, the double standard is striking. From the outside it seems as if Clapper is simply above the law.
- rbanffy 13y ago
  It's sad, but not surprising. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair
- dmoo 13y ago
  Also Mr Clapper probably has the goods on just about anybody who might want to bring charges.
  - freerobby 13y ago
    If this is true, it's a shame those in charge didn't learn the lesson from J. Edgar Hoover.
- er35826 13y ago
  Clapper was also in the unfortunate position of being legally required to lie: Refusing the respond, or deferring his response to a closed session, would have been evidence enough that such a program existed. Anything other than a simple, direct denial would have been 'leaking' information about the possibility of such a program existing, which is expressly against the law as well.
  - 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

infruset 13y ago

When I saw the title, I thought he had died. It (the title) sounds oddly like an obituary. Or is the title meant to reflect the change of perception (from "traitor" to "whistle-blower")?

ryusage 13y ago
I interpreted it as the latter, and I actually really like it. Since this whole thing started, there's been a lot of debate about whether he's a patriot or a traitor. Without even reading the article, I think that headline is the clearest, boldest statement the NYT could make about where they fall on that question.

batgaijin 13y ago

Jesus I would rather deal with the Reich than these face fucked flip flops Also fuck Greenwald and Snowden; their actions show they have no problem crowning themselves as new Robespierres

jnsaff2 13y ago
I'm currently reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, the first part of the book talks about the methods Hitler and others used to get to power. Trust me, you'd take your statement back if you knew. SA was in essence a gang of lowlifes that used murder, intimidation and terror to get rid of opponents. Hitler had amazing abilities to lie to everyone to get to the result he wanted. That said, one can not fail drawing up parallels with some of the aspects how The Third Reich got to power and how the people running it operated with what's going on in the world today. http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Third-Reich-ebook/dp/B005Z57E18/ http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Third-Reich-ebook/dp/B005Z57...
- batgaijin 13y ago
  Well the krauts had consistency going for them at least The weak rule the weak the strong conquer the strange
batgaijin 13y ago
Also to be clear I mean the NY times. Nothing wrong with a multi faceted opinion but it's not cool that they don't even point out the evolution of their beliefs. I mean isn't that the point of having an awarded newspaper? P.s. I think I need a book on remedial grammar

Theodores 13y ago

I know that the U.S.A. is the greatest country on earth and utterly amazing in every possible way imaginable, however, the majority of the world's population do not live in the U.S.A. In the U.K. we like America, we even have a 'special relationship' (according to our politicians, the fact is that no American politicians see it that way or mention the fact). However, do most people in the U.K. want to visit or live in the U.S.A.? No! Further into Europe I really doubt that the average French person would want to up sticks and move to the U.S.A. If fleets of B-52's carpet bombed Europe with free U.S. passports, visas and one-way tickets to 'the land of the free, home of the brave' I very much doubt that there would be that much of a scramble to pick them up, hop on a plane and rush to the U.S.A. Sure, some would go, but even then, after a year or two they would want to return. It has been a while since I have heard anything about floods of refugees wanting to leave Russia, so life there can't be all that bad. What's to say that Snowden isn't actually enjoying life in Russia? His C.V. is rather impeccable and I doubt he will be struggling for work. He is almost certainly not without his female admirers too. He might just get used to knowing that the U.S.A. is off limits. He might also be able to be relaxed about personal security. He knows that if anything happens to him then it is pretty bad news for Uncle Sam even if it is a lone nutter that does the deed. Okay his asylum status runs out in less than a year but how much does he really value a U.S. passport? Or for charges to be dropped against him? It is not that big a deal. Uncle Sam has no leverage here even if Americans don't see it that way.

bausson 13y ago
I second this, as an European, I would rather not live in the US. Sure I would like to visit, there are lots of interesting place, but having to deal with the TSA is to much of a hassle on its own. Government shut-down closing those interesting places once in a while is just the bonus argument, but can prove even more bothersome than the TSA (which is after all only a bad moment).
- pearkes 13y ago
  Aside from taking off your shoes, there's no practical difference between European airport security and American. Both can have long lines depending on the airport, cheeky and or angry staff.

swalsh 13y ago

I have a legal question, perhaps someone here would be more educated enough to answer. Which part of our "systems of checks and balances" is supposed to balance the system in this instance. The president seems uninterested in changing anything, congress seems uninterested (and incapable) of doing anything, and the supreme court can only knock things down. It would seem to me like there is a large amount of people who want an action taken, both to change the system, and to pardon snowdon. Is the answer really only to wait until the next election cycle?

ethnt 13y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that cases like the ACLU v. NSA will be able to strike down programs like this. But you're correct, unless Congress is moved to do something about it (which, given their track record, seems unlikely), we'll have to wait until the next election for a mentality shift.

crusso 13y ago

Imagine a society where those in charge, all the way up to the President, were just as afraid of prosecution and life sentences for violating the law/Constitution as peons at the bottom like Snowden.

lukeschlather 13y ago
That probably means the judiciary is just as corrupt as the executive and legislative branches, so it's not so much a matter of whether or not they're violating the law, as how much they and their political opponents are paying the judges. Several failed Latin American democracies come to mind as concrete examples.
- crusso 13y ago
  No political model succeeds in the face of unaddressed corruption.

zby 13y ago

There is a worldwide action tomorrow - who is #WaitingForEd? https://joindiaspora.com/posts/3457714 https://joindiaspora.com/posts/3457714 , https://www.facebook.com/events/1448773218676476 https://www.facebook.com/events/1448773218676476

lettergram 13y ago

I honestly think the Libertarian party (or perhaps independent) could play up the fact he would pardon Snowden during the 2016 election process and sway a few percentage of votes his/her way.

mdesq 13y ago

Even if Snowden was granted clemency, ten bucks says that if he returns to the US, he'll be found mysteriously dead of a car crash or "suicide" within 18 months.

Rogerh91 13y ago

"In my estimation, there has not been in American history a more important leak than Edward Snowden's release of NSA material – and that definitely includes the Pentagon Papers 40 years ago."-Pentagon Papers Whistle-Blower Daniel Ellsberg

mrcactu5 13y ago

Why are we so surprised the NSA is spying on us? Why are we reacting now? Think about all the data we have voluntarily injected into the public sphere - thru Google, Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr... Everybody is famous now. We are our own papparazzi.

fuckpig 13y ago

If you post anti-Snowden comments around here, the mods shadow-ban you. So instead I'll say this: Whistle-blowing means you go up the chain of command FIRST and find someone who can fix the problem. What Snowden did was steal information, run to the enemies of this country and reveal it under the guise of being a whistle-blower. If we don't have a set of rules that we all consistently follow, there is no expectation of honesty or justice... and all command structures fall apart. When that happens, you have an absence of social order into which void will fall the real tyrants. Snowden is no hero. He should be returned to the United States to face trial and if convicted, the traitor's penalty.

samstave 13y ago
>Whistle-blowing means you go up the chain of command FIRST and find someone who can fix the problem. Have you not heard of Binney? Or any of the other WB's in the past who did just that and were silenced. Also, your version is predicated on the assumption that the chain of command is not already a corrupt path. In the case of Snowden and the USG, it has now been proven beyond a doubt that the NSA/USG is a completely corrupt criminal organization.

hpvic03 13y ago

While I agree with the overall sentiment of this editorial, I think one thing is very wonky. It says that Snowden provided "enormous value" and "has done his country a great service." But if you agree with these statements then how could a successful resolution include a "please bargain" and punishment, even if it is "substantially reduced"? The whole idea of being a whistleblower is that you get immunity. If you agree that Snowden is a de facto whistleblower then punishment and prison time shouldn't even be on the table.