The Snowden Affair

Status
Not open for further replies.

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Who knows a "29 years old hacker" (in Obama's words) can make the US top officials change their public scripts so radically in such a short time? All he did was telling the world what we've been suspecting Uncle Sam doing behind our backs are true, if not in much grander scale that even Hollywood screenwriters can't match.

Now they're doing everything they can to get back to the good old days of China bashing with impunity...

Please, since when has western politicians been know for their consistency? And Kerry in particular did not earn his 'flip flopper' moniker by accident either.

If you cannot shamelessly change position and go back on your own word at will, you won't get far as a politician.
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
There is a game in play here in no half measure. It will be impossible to work out what the real objective is however until its all over.

Snowden is scattering asylum applications like confetti, which is forcing the State Dept to work overtime on multiple avenues, which means they will be stretched and unlikely to be working with a single, dedicated, Snowden team. This increases the likelihood of a slip up and further diplomatic resentment as the US gets heavy with other nations.

Putin's comment was very interesting. His message is clear. He is telling Washington that Snowden will be permitted to sit safely in Moscow and ensure a continuous drip feed of very bad news days unless the US begs him to offer Snowden asylum and bring it to an end.

This way the offer of asylum cannot be presented as any kind of unfriendly act.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
Snowden is making asylum requests to eighteen countries, including China. I will be disappointed if China declines outright.

I doubt China will accept his asylum. Like my sister told me a week ago (she makes a good point), that China and the US economies are so integrated that it's relationship to trades are far more important for both sides to get straddle by one whistle blower. Now the only two countries I could think of that can give Snowden asylum would be either Cuba or Venezuela.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
I wonder what Biden said to Correa to make Ecuador drop its asylum offer.

I heard that Ecuador going cool on Snowdon might be down to Assage's meddling, whereby there is resentment in Ecuador that there is a perception that the it is Assage who is pulling the strings, so he is getting a lot of the credit the Ecuador government wanted for itself.

Why should Ecuador take all the risks and suffer America's displeasure by giving Snowdon asylum if Assage is going to come away with all the credit?
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
I think someone sees big congressional hearings ahead.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Clapper apologizes for 'erroneous' answer on NSA


Associated Press
KIMBERLY DOZIER


WASHINGTON (AP) — Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has apologized for telling Congress earlier this year that the National Security Agency does not collect data on millions of Americans, a response he now says was "clearly erroneous."

Clapper apologized in a letter to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein. His agency posted the letter Tuesday on its website.

Leaks by former NSA systems analyst Edward Snowden have revealed the NSA's sweeping data collection of U.S. phone records and some Internet traffic every day, though U.S. intelligence officials have said the programs are aimed at targeting foreigners and terrorist suspects mostly overseas.

Clapper was asked during a hearing in March by Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, if the NSA gathered "any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans."

At first, Clapper answered definitively: "No."

Pressed by Wyden, Clapper changed his answer. "Not wittingly," he said. "There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly."

Last month, in an interview with NBC News after revelations about the program, Clapper said: "I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner" — because the program was classified.

In his letter to Feinstein, Clapper wrote that he was thinking about whether the NSA gathered the content of emails, rather than the metadata of the phone records — the record of calls to and from U.S. citizens and the length of those phone calls.

"I realized later Sen. Wyden was asking about ... metadata collection, rather than content collection," Clapper wrote. "Thus, my response was clearly erroneous, for which I apologize."

Feinstein said in a statement Tuesday: "I have received Director Clapper's letter and believe it speaks for itself. I have no further comment at this time."

Wyden spokesman Tom Caiazza said Tuesday that when Wyden staffers contacted Clapper's office shortly after the hearing, his staffers "acknowledged that the statement was inaccurate but refused to correct the public record when given the opportunity."

"Sen. Wyden is deeply troubled by a number of misleading statements senior officials have made about domestic surveillance in the past several years. He will continue pushing for an open and honest debate," Caiazza said.

In the letter, Clapper said he could now publicly correct the record, because the existence of the metadata collection program has been declassified since the deluge of leaks from Snowden. A copy of the letter posted on the DNI website was stamped June 21 but made public on Tuesday.

Snowden is believed to be in a Moscow airport transit area, seeking asylum from one of more than a dozen countries.

Since the revelations, the Obama administration has said the leaks have caused damage to national security, including tipping off al-Qaida and other terrorist groups to specific types of U.S. electronic surveillance.

But under pressure from lawmakers and privacy activists, the administration took the extraordinary step of declassifying many of the details surrounding the surveillance programs and how they work, to explain to Americans that NSA is not spying directly on them, which would violate its charter.

___

Online:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Follow Kimberly Dozier on Twitter at
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

advill

Junior Member
Looks like Snowden is in a very serious quandary, as presently it appears "no country" wants to give asylum to a branded fugitive who revealed National Security and US Military Secrets. Putin will only allow him to stay at the Transit Lounge (perhaps for years?) at Moscow Airport, and neither will China wants to be openly involved, or condoned Snowden's treacherous acts for obvious reasons. That leaves Ecuador (which already has a problem with WikiLeaks founder Assage "holed-up" in its London Embassy), & possibly 2 other countries i.e. Venezuela & Cuba that have their own internal & external relations dilemmas.



I heard that Ecuador going cool on Snowdon might be down to Assage's meddling, whereby there is resentment in Ecuador that there is a perception that the it is Assage who is pulling the strings, so he is getting a lot of the credit the Ecuador government wanted for itself.

Why should Ecuador take all the risks and suffer America's displeasure by giving Snowdon asylum if Assage is going to come away with all the credit?
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
There is a game in play here in no half measure. It will be impossible to work out what the real objective is however until its all over.

Snowden is scattering asylum applications like confetti, which is forcing the State Dept to work overtime on multiple avenues, which means they will be stretched and unlikely to be working with a single, dedicated, Snowden team. This increases the likelihood of a slip up and further diplomatic resentment as the US gets heavy with other nations.

.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Of which the above story; regarding the Bolivean President having his plane diverted, is a prime and timely example.
 

delft

Brigadier
An article in Asia Times on line by Peter van Buren, who blew the whistle on waste and mismanagement by the State Department in Iraq:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The lonely flight of Edward Snowden
By Peter Van Buren

As a US State Department whistleblower, I think a lot about Edward Snowden. I can't help myself. My friendships with other whistleblowers like Tom Drake, Jesslyn Radack, Daniel Ellsberg, and John Kiriakou lead me to believe that, however different we may be as individuals, our acts have given us much in common. I suspect that includes Snowden, though I've never had the slightest contact with him.

Still, as he took his long flight from Hong Kong into the unknown, I couldn't help feeling that he was thinking some of my thoughts, or I his. Here are five things that I imagine were on his mind (they would have been on mine) as that plane took off.

I am afraid
Whistleblowers act on conscience because they encounter something so horrifying, unconstitutional, wasteful, fraudulent, or mismanaged that they are overcome by the need to speak out. There is always a calculus of pain and gain (for others, if not oneself), but first thoughts are about what you've uncovered, the information you feel compelled to bring into the light, rather than your own circumstances.

In my case, I was ignorant of what would happen once I blew the whistle. I didn't expect the Department of State to attack me. National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Tom Drake was similarly unprepared. He initially believed that, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation first came to interview him, they were on his side, eager to learn more about the criminal acts he had uncovered at the NSA. Snowden was different in this. He had the example of Bradley Manning and others to learn from. He clearly never doubted that the full weight of the US government would fall on him.

He knew what to fear. He knew the Obama administration was determined to make any whistleblower pay, likely via yet another prosecution under the Espionage Act (with the potential for the death penalty). He also knew what his government had done since 9/11 without compunction: it had tortured and abused people to crush them; it had forced those it considered enemies into years of indefinite imprisonment, creating isolation cells for suspected terrorists and even a pre-trial whistleblower. It had murdered Americans without due process, and then, of course, there were the extraordinary renditions in which US agents kidnapped perceived enemies and delivered them into the archipelago of post-9/11 horrors.

Sooner or later, if you're a whistleblower, you get scared. It's only human. On that flight, I imagine that Snowden, for all his youthful confidence and bravado, was afraid. Would the Russians turn him over to Washington as part of some secret deal, maybe the sort of spy-for-spy trade that would harken back to the Cold War era?

Even if he made it out of Moscow, he couldn't have doubted that the full resources of the NSA and other parts of the US government would be turned on him. How many CIA case officers and Joint Special Operations Command types did the US have undercover in Ecuador? After all, the dirty tricks had already started. The partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, who broke Snowden's story, had his laptop stolen from their residence in Brazil. This happened only after Greenwald told him via Skype that he would send him an encrypted copy of Snowden's documents.

In such moments, you try to push back the sense of paranoia that creeps into your mind when you realize that you are being monitored, followed, watched. It's uncomfortable, scary. You have to wonder what your fate will be once the media grows bored with your story, or when whatever government has given you asylum changes its stance vis-a-vis the US. When the knock comes at the door, who will protect you? So who can doubt that fear made the journey with him?

Could I go back to the US?
Amnesty International was on target when it stated that Snowden "could be at risk of ill-treatment if extradited to the US". As if to prove them right, months, if not years, before any trial, Speaker of the House John Boehner called Snowden a "traitor"; Congressman Peter King called him a "defector"; and others were already demanding his execution. If that wasn't enough, the abuse Bradley Manning suffered had already convinced Snowden that a fair trial and humane treatment were impossible dreams for a whistleblower of his sort. (He specifically cited Manning in his appeal for asylum to Ecuador.)

So on that flight he knew - as he had long known - that the natural desire to go back to the US and make a stand was beyond foolhardy. Yet the urge to return to the country he loves must have been traveling with him, too. Perhaps on that flight he found himself grimly amused that, after years of running roughshod over international standards - Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, "enhanced interrogation techniques", "black sites" - the US had the nerve to chide Hong Kong, China, and Russia for not following the rule of law.

He certainly knew that his own revelations about extensive NSA cyber-spying on Hong Kong and China had deeply embarrassed the Obama administration. It had, after all, been blistering the Chinese for hacking into US military and corporate computers. He himself had ensured that the Chinese wouldn't turn him over, in the same way that history - decades of US bullying in Latin America - ensured that he had a shot at a future in someplace like in Ecuador.

If he knew his extradition history, Snowden might also have thought about another time when Washington squirmed as a man it wanted left a friendly country for asylum. In 2004, the US had chess great Bobby Fischer detained in Japan on charges that he had attended a 1992 match in Yugoslavia in violation of a US trade ban. Others suggested that the real reason Washington was after him may have been Fischer's post 9/11 statement: "It's time to finish off the US once and for all. This just shows what comes around, goes around."

Fischer's American passport was revoked just like Snowden's. In the fashion of Hong Kong more recently, the Japanese released Fischer on an immigration technicality, and he flew to Iceland, where he was granted citizenship.

I was a diplomat in Japan at the time, and had a ringside seat for the negotiations. They must have paralleled what went on in Hong Kong: the appeals to treaty and international law; US diplomats sounding like so many disappointed parents scolding a child; the pale hopes expressed for future good relations; the search for a sympathetic ear among local law enforcement agencies, immigration, and the foreign ministry - anybody, in fact - and finally, the desperate attempt to call in personal favors to buy more time for whatever Plan B might be. As with Snowden, in the end the US stood by helplessly as its prey flew off.

How will i live now?
At some point, every whistleblower realizes his life will never be the same. For me, that meant losing my job of 24 years at the State Department. For Tom Drake, it meant financial ruin as the government tried to bankrupt him through endless litigation. For CIA agent John Kiriakou, it might have been the moment when, convicted of disclosing classified information to journalists, he said goodbye to his family and walked into Loretto Federal Correctional Institution.

Snowden could not have avoided anxiety about the future. Wherever he ended up, how would he live? What work would he do? He's just turned 30 and faces, at best, a lifetime in some foreign country he's never seen where he might not know the language or much of anything else.

So fear again, in a slightly different form. It never leaves you, not when you take on the world's most powerful government. Would he ever see his family and friends again? Would they disown him, fearful of retaliation or affected by the smear campaign against him? Would his parents/best friend/girlfriend come to believe he was a traitor, a defector, a dangerous man?

All whistleblowers find their personal relationships strained. Marriages are tested or broken, friends lost, children teased or bullied at school. I know from my own whistleblower's journey that it's an ugly penalty - encouraged by a government scorned - for acting on conscience.

If he had a deeper sense of history, Snowden might have found humor in the way the Obama administration chose to revoke his passport just before he left Hong Kong. After all, in the Cold War years, it was the "evil empire", the Soviet Union, which was notorious for refusing to grant dissidents passports, while the US regularly waived such requirements when they escaped to the West.

To deepen the irony of the moment, perhaps he was able to Google up the 2009-2011 figures on US grants of asylum: 1,222 Russians, 9,493 Chinese, and 22 Ecuadorians, not including family members. Maybe he learned that, despite the tantrums US officials threw regarding the international obligation of Russia to extradite him, the US has recently refused Russian requests to extradite two of its citizens.

Snowden might have mused over then-candidate Obama's explicit pledge to protect whistleblowers.

"Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government," Obama then said, "is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism... should be encouraged rather than stifled as they have been during the Bush administration." It might have been Snowden's only laugh of the flight.

I don't hate the US ... but believe it has strayed
On that flight, Snowden took his love of America with him. It's what all of us whistleblowers share: a love of country, if not necessarily its government, its military, or its intelligence services. We care what happens to us the people. That may have been his anchor on his unsettling journey. It would have been mine.

Remember, if we were working in the government in the first place, like every federal employee, soldier, and many government contractors, we had taken an oath that states: "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same." We didn't pledge fealty to the government or a president or party, only - as the Constitution makes clear - to the ultimate source of legitimacy in our nation, "the people".

In an interview, Snowden indicated that he held off on making his disclosures for some time, in hopes that Barack Obama might look into the abyss and decide to become the bravest president in our history by reversing the country's course. Only when Obama's courage or intelligence failed was it time to become a whistleblower.

Some pundits claim that Snowden deserves nothing because he didn't go through "proper channels". They couldn't be more wrong, and Snowden knows it. As with many of us whistleblowers facing a government acting in opposition to the Constitution, Snowden went through the channels that matter most: he used a free press to speak directly to his real boss, the American people.

In that sense, whatever the fear and anxiety about his life and his future, he must have felt easy with his actions. He had not betrayed his country, he had sought to inform it.

As with Bradley Manning, Obama administration officials are now claiming that Snowden has blood on his hands. Typically, Secretary of State John Kerry claimed: "People may die as a consequence to what this man did. It is possible that the United States would be attacked because terrorists may now know how to protect themselves in some way or another that they didn't know before."

Snowden had heard the same slurs circling around Bradley Manning: that he had put people in danger. After the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to speak of the war on terror, there is irony too obvious to dwell upon in such charges.

Flying into the unknown, Snowden had to feel secure in having risked everything to show Americans how their government and the NSA bend or break laws to collect information on us in direct conflict with the Fourth Amendment's protections. Amnesty International pointed out that blood-on-hands wasn't at issue. "It appears he is being charged primarily for revealing US and other governments' unlawful actions that violate human rights." Those whispers of support are something to take into the dark with you.

I believe in things bigger than myself
Some of the charges against Snowden would make anyone pause: that, for instance, he did what he did for the thrill of publicity, out of narcissism, or for his own selfish reasons. To any of the members of the post-9/11 club of whistleblowers, the idea that we acted primarily for our own benefit has a theater of the absurd quality to it. Having been there, the negative sentiments expressed do not read or ring true.

Snowden himself laughed off the notion that he had acted for his own benefit. If he had wanted money, any number of foreign governments would have paid handsomely for the information he handed out to journalists for free, and he would never have had to embark on that plane flight from Hong Kong. (No one ever called Aldrich Ames a whistleblower.) If he wanted fame, there were potential book contracts and film deals to be had.

No, it was conscience. I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere along the line Snowden had read the Declaration of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal: "Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring".

Edward Snowden undoubtedly took comfort knowing that a growing group of Americans are outraged enough to resist a government turning against its own people. His thoughts were mirrored by Julian Assange, who said, "In the Obama administration's attempt to crush these young whistleblowers with espionage charges, the US government is taking on a generation, a young generation of people who find the mass violation of the rights of privacy and open process unacceptable. In taking on the generation, the Obama administration can only lose."

Snowden surely hoped President Obama would ask himself why he has pursued more than double the number of Espionage Act cases of all his presidential predecessors combined, and why almost all of those prosecutions failed.

On that flight, Snowden must have reflected on what he had lost, including the high salary, the sweet life in Hawaii and Switzerland, the personal relationships, and the excitement of being on the inside, as well as the coolness of knowing tomorrow's news today. He has already lost much that matters in an individual life, but not everything that matters.

Sometimes - and any whistleblower comes to know this in a deep way - you have to believe that something other, more, deeper, better than yourself matters. You have to believe that one courageous act of conscience might make a difference in an America gone astray or simply that, matter or not, you did the right thing for your country.

Peter Van Buren blew the whistle on State Department waste and mismanagement in his book We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People.

Used with permission TomDispatch.

(Copyright 2013 Peter Van Buren)
As Van Buren says Snowdon could hardly have been safe in Equador. The safest place is probably Moscow and perhaps in the end the US government will want him to stay there if they can't have him back. As SampanViking suggests.
Snowdon may well have thought of that even before he started for HK.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top