Ed Snowden

[Guest anonone]

Don't know if anyone else caught it, but NBC News just aired an extended interview (one hour) with Snowden.  Very interesting discussion and a really compelling guy. 

 

The interview is available on their website:  http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-snowden-interview

 

Worth some time to watch if you are interested in the privacy issue....

[Alexx]

I hope he will (be allowed to) run for president.

[Bob]

I'm a bit dumbfounded by what seems to be the one-sided (black or white) views (he's a "hero" or "patriot" versus he's a "traitor") regarding Snowden.  Subject to learning something else about his motives, I don't view him as a "traitor" given it currently appears that he disclosed most (but not all) information so as to inform US citizens as to what he felt were unconstitutional invasions of privacy by the government (NSA).  I say "most" there as I totally disagree with his releasing any information about what the NSA was doing outside the United States.

 

But I have difficulty considering him a "hero" given I don't believe he made substantial efforts to release the information here in the US (i.e., as of yet, I don't find his statements on that issue to be credible) and, additionally, rather than stand his ground for his beliefs (as, say, Daniel Ellsberg did), he ran.  He took a fairly serious oath of secrecy and he knowingly violated it and for that he ought to pay (although, if I was the sentencing judge, I'd tend to be fairly lenient absent learning something new about his motives and/or finding out that his actions caused substantial harm to some people).

[KhorTose]

I don't completely agree Bob about he should return.  The same elected elected officials who passed these laws also used torture to extract information, and killed an American in Yeman (and his 16 year old son) without any kind of trail.  Can Snowden get a fair trail from people who have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of the US and failed to do so?  I really have my doubts that any evidence they present would be reliable.  These are oath breakers and yes, that includes Obama who promised us one thing but has taken another darker path on this issue.

[Bob]

Geez, there's just a slight difference between a politician not fulfilling promises made on the campaign trail (especially when he ended up with a Congress that wouldn't approve anything) and somebody violating an oath such as Snowden took.  Of course, I'm using a whole lot of understatement when I say a "slight difference."

 

What I also don't understand at all is why Snowden released information about what the NSA is doing outside the US (listening to phone calls other world leaders are making, for example).  Releasing that type of information is not at all consistent with his claim that his only interest is to encourage a healthy debate about and/or changes to US governmental snooping on its own citizens.

[Guest anonone]

I didn't follow much about the specifics of Snowden's actions prior to watching the interview. 

 

Snowden stated during the interview that he compiled and took the documents, but then turned them over to a couple of journalists.  His supposed reasoning was that the journalists would be in a better position to evaluate what should be released, without causing undue harm to the United States security. 

 

It was shocking to learn that the US government still has no way of knowing what documents were taken.  That in itself shows a tremendous lack of control over the private information that the US has (and is) gathering. 

 

I agree with you, Bob, that it does not lend itself to a black and white (traitor vs patriot) decision.  The whole security versus freedom continuum is a balancing act.  I feel we have swayed way too far into the "security" side and need some major reforms to better balance freedom and privacy back into acceptable levels. 

 

After watching the entire interview, I was left with a much more positive view of Snowden then what I inferred from watching news reports.  I am now viewing him much more as  a "whistle-blower" then any sort of traitor.  I tend to think the reaction from the US government and security agencies is much more about being caught doing things they knew people would object to....

[KhorTose]

Too follow up on Anonone, I can easily see why an European journalist would consider snooping on allied countries leaders to be extremely important information to release.  In the four years I spent in the Army Security Agency, which is a military branch of the National Security Agency, I can tell you that spying on our allies was definitely a no-no.  So when did we start doing that, and Bob, why aren"t you asking yourself, "why we are doing that?"  I strongly agree with Anonone that this sound all to much like a branch of government that is totally out of control and frankly I am appalled that they are holding private information on American citizens without a legal court oder.  If Snowden could get it, who else has tapped into it.  Have we forgotten that in Nixon we once had a Paranoid President who could and would use such information against his domestic enemies?

[KhorTose]

Very good article in the Guardian about Daniel Ellsberg wherein he states that he thinks Snowden would not get a fair trail.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/30/daniel-ellsberg-snowden-fair-trial-kerry-espionage-act

[Guest abang1961]

Isn't it common knowledge that spying is still very rampant.

Snowden did have his 15 minutes of fame but what is more important, he really opens the world that we are no long SAFE.

 

Just as we hop/surf the net, the websites we read are captured in some super-powerful servers somewhere.. probably in China, Russia and of course, USA.  Let say, I am looking for the hotel accommodation in Bangkok and two days after browsing through various sites, advertisements of these hotels are popping up in other websites I surf.

 

I believe Snowden "chose" the right country to live in (at least for now) as the Russians seem to be the Number 1 Public Enemy of other country, after they took over Crimea and other CIS regions.

[Alexx]

As with any other complex case similar to Snowden's, it will be history that will ultimately judge him, not us contemporaries or a court of law. It's impossible to judge Snowden without knowing just how good or bad the NSA really is. As of now, I'm pretty open-minded as far as that's concerned. They might be a criminal outfit that uses the terrorist hunt as window dressing for any other agenda they're actually pursuing. Or they might be the good guys that attempt to protect America and need to be intrusive to a certain point in order to be successful. There's also a lot of gray space in between these extremes, they might have good intentions but misguidedly do bad things and so on... Accordingly, that Snowden broke his oath was either justified or not. His personal agenda at this point remains just as murky - because like Bob wrote, he went way beyond warning fellow Americans.

[Bob]

I can tell you that spying on our allies was definitely a no-no.  So when did we start doing that, and Bob, why aren"t you asking yourself, "why we are doing that?" 

 

Well, we part company on that issue.  I think it's extremely important that we know that what allies are saying to our face is the same thing they're saying in private.  If the US has the ability to listen in on phone calls of every world leader, I'd consider it malpractice if we didn't do it.  Not all these "allies" have always been allies (and, if history is any judge of it, some of them likely won't be again).  

 

And, although I have no proof of it, I'd be rather dumbfounded if all other countries (including allied countries) who have the ability to do so aren't doing the same thing themselves. 

 

But this is a side issue and perhaps you could explain the justification for Snowden allowing the release of that information.  It's not very consistent with his claimed purpose for all of this (to alert the American people as to what their government is doing to them).  

[KhorTose]

But this is a side issue and perhaps you could explain the justification for Snowden allowing the release of that information.  It's not very consistent with his claimed purpose for all of this (to alert the American people as to what their government is doing to them).  

Strange, i think it is consistent in that I do not know what the government is doing with that information, and it is illegal for them to have it in the first place.  Bob, you really should watch that interview as many of these questions where covered.  How about you giving me the justification for spying on Americans without a court order.  Please sight the court decisions that allow this act.

[Bob]

None of usl can cite decisions by the FISA courts as those proceedings are entirely secret!  But would note:

 

(1)  I share some of the same concerns you have regarding what the US is doing with respect to its own citizens and I'd like to see a open investigation by Congress to hopefully discover exactly what is happening and, then, having a healthy debate as to whether what they've done is legal and/or whether we (the citizens) want them to be doing that.  As you may know, the administration is expressly saying that only "metadata" has been collected with respect to US citizens and that no actual content of telephone calls or emails has actually been collected, listened to, or heard (with some exceptions - where court orders have been issued and/or where the NSA collected the information on foreign soil and it just happened that the foreigner was communicating with a US citizen).  Well, I'm with you in that I don't particularly trust any government to tell us the whole truth so a fair and open investigation ought to occur. 

 

(2)  You (Khun Khortose), are attempting to slide off the question posed.  It's not at all illegal for the US, for example, to listen in to phone calls occurring in Europe, Asia, or wherever (that's not to say I approve of it).  We know (or let's assume it's true) that the NSA was listening in to the phone calls of the leaders of Brazil, Germany, etc.  Okay, given Snowden's alleged claim as to why he's taken the actions he's taking (to alert the American people as to what the NSA is doing to American citizens), please explain why Snowden would tell anybody about the foreign activities. 

 

I watched the entire Snowden interview (and parts of it more than once).  While Snowden seemed to be sincere in most of what he said, I personally didn't buy parts of it.  And, although Brian Williams is a nice guy, I personally thought he did a lousy job of interviewing Snowden.  If the interview was just a platform to allow Snowden to have his say, then, okay, I'd think Williams did a good job; however, if Williams thought he was in any manner playing the role of a cross-examiner as to Snowden's obviously rehearsed lines, he failed miserably in my opinion.   

[KhorTose]

(2)  You (Khun Khortose), are attempting to slide off the question posed.  It's not at all illegal for the US, for example, to listen in to phone calls occurring in Europe, Asia, or wherever (that's not to say I approve of it).  We know (or let's assume it's true) that the NSA was listening in to the phone calls of the leaders of Brazil, Germany, etc.  Okay, given Snowden's alleged claim as to why he's taken the actions he's taking (to alert the American people as to what the NSA is doing to American citizens), please explain why Snowden would tell anybody about the foreign activities. 

 

I watched the entire Snowden interview (and parts of it more than once).  While Snowden seemed to be sincere in most of what he said, I personally didn't buy parts of it.  And, although Brian Williams is a nice guy, I personally thought he did a lousy job of interviewing Snowden.  If the interview was just a platform to allow Snowden to have his say, then, okay, I'd think Williams did a good job; however, if Williams thought he was in any manner playing the role of a cross-examiner as to Snowden's obviously rehearsed lines, he failed miserably in my opinion.   

I love what you said in Part 1.  Perfect summation.  I am glad you saw the interview and yes, Brian could have been more aggressive at times.  I would have loved to ask him some other questions myself.  I sort of disagree with part two for a number of reasons.  One lit is clearly against the Geneva Convention on espionage.  However, we never ratified that treaty and some people interrupt that part of the convention to only mean in war time.  Howevver, in ASA school we were taught

that it did apply to us and that is the reason we never wear are unit badge in a war zone.  Also Snowden's information revealed one thing that is illegal, and another where the way they go about it shows NSA thinks it is also illegal.  I also have a story from my time in the service were the military did something illegal by Nixon's orders and swore everyone to additional secrecy showing they knew or thought it was also illegal.

1.  According to Snowden's information we spied on the UN.  This is illegal under treaties and agreements that we have signed and/or ratified. (1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, the 1947 agreement between the United Nations and the United States, and the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations^{.  )}

2.  Once again according to Snowdlen we asked England and other allies to spy on our citizens and in return we agreed to spy on theirs as a quid pro quo.  The fact NSA  took this route means they know what they wqanted done is illegal and conspiracy to break the law is the same as breaking the law.

3.  Now public knowledge (no longer a secret) but top Secret then.  ASA did spy on the anti-war Vietnam "March on Washington".  I did not participate but know some who did.  They were told it was a matter of National Security and had to sign a special statement never to reveal that they had done this.  Clearly showing that the ASA General in charge (who personality lead the effort)  knew what they were doing was illegal.  The march was clearly a political movement that was opposed by Nixon who then used his powers as Commander in Chief to do yet another illegal action that had no justification in law.  Yes, because of things like this, I do not trust our government with this information.

 

Interesting side note in that Oliver Stone announced today that he is going to do a movie on Snowden.  Tongue in cheek, I am sure he will be impartial in telling the story.

 

[Bob]

Hate to keep this thread going but you still haven't responded to the question posed - why, given his claimed purpose, did Snowden release any information regarding US spying on non-US citizens.

 

As for spying at the UN or spying involving other world leaders, I certainly hope NSA is doing that!  That's the kind of stuff which I consider to be legitimate national security.  

[KhorTose]

Hate to keep this thread going but you still haven't responded to the question posed - why, given his claimed purpose, did Snowden release any information regarding US spying on non-US citizens.

 

As for spying at the UN or spying involving other world leaders, I certainly hope NSA is doing that!  That's the kind of stuff which I consider to be legitimate national security.  

I thought i did by naming the treaties with UN and explaining how we were recruiting other allied countries to do our spying for us.  A treaty has the force of law according to many supreme court rulings.  If we are going to make a treaty and then not abide by it, what does that say about our word.  Yeskspy on the UN, but don't say you are not doing it when you are.  One correction is that Snowden revealed we are spying on our allies, unknown until now.  Everyone knows we spy on everyone else.  That secret is long gone.

[KhorTose]

I posted this to show some interesting poll numbers and the difference between what young and older Americans think about Snowden.  Gore gave a very good answer and I like his assessment.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/10/edward-snowden-nsa-leaks-important-service-al-gore