Denver Nicks at Swampland writes:
An internal National Security Agency memo offers the most detailed public account yet of how former contractor Edward Snowden obtained access to the agency’s vast database of secrets. The memo, provided to members of Congress and obtained by NBC News, lends support to reports that Snowden stole a colleague’s password, something Snowden has publicly denied.
According to the memo, “at Mr. Snowden’s request, the civilian entered his PKI password at Mr. Snowden’s computer terminal. Unbeknownst to the civilian, Mr. Snowden was able to capture the password, allowing him even greater access to classified information.”
I don’t know if this is true or not. I do know that the NSA certainly would benefit by painting Snowden as a password-stealer. (“You know who else steals passwords? Those scary internet pirates who are always sending you e-mails promising money! You sure do hate those people, don’t you, folks?”) But it may be true. It may not be true. But I do know this: It doesn’t matter.
If Edward Snowden suspected that the NSA had a surveillance program this broad, and if he needed to acquire a password from a coworker to garner hard evidence of that program, then that’s a moral decision that I’m fully prepared to endorse. Edward Snowden is a national hero for revealing the existence of this secret program to Americans. Sometimes the right thing isn’t the legal thing. The only news report that would ever get to me to change my mind about Snowden’s actions would be if it was revealed that he fabricated the information to make it more sensationalistic. Even Snowden’s most vehement detractors—the people who want to see him hanged for treason—admit that the information is true. Nobody has denied that the NSA surveillance program is much, much larger than the American people were led to believe. Edward Snowden gave us that information. That makes Edward Snowden a hero.
The problem with die-hard Snowden supporters is precisely that they start from the premise that he is a hero. When you start from that premise then you can dismiss all critical or conflicting facts that come out. It’s like saying “I’m not thinking about that!” and sticking your fingers in your ears, which is exactly what this post is.
Actually, it’s been reported from the beginning that he used multiple coworkers accounts to steal his information, and that many of those people were fired. But you don’t care because he is a hero.
It’s a convenient outlook that excuses you from ever considering Snowden or Greenwald or their motivations at all.
For instance, Snowden stole documents numbering in the tens of thousands at the minimum, and some estimates up to a million. Do you really believe that all of those documents reveal something illegal? Do you think any of those documents could reveal the identify of one of our spies? Someone spying for us in a dangerous country who would likely be killed if revealed? What is your justification for Snowden to take info like that and give it to multiple journalists? Is that whistle blowing? How so?
Snowden is a Ron Paul supporting conservative libertarian who lashed out viciously at other whistle blowers in the past. He took the NSA contractor job under false pretenses in order to steal reams of your government’s secret data in bulk and then defect to Russia. But whatever, because “he’s a hero.”
How is Greenwald using this information? If you examined Greenwald’s bank account the month before we ever heard of Snowden and today, how much bigger do think it would be? He seems to be doing very well by being the “caretaker” of this information. What are his motivations? He seems to hate the US a lot. He’s revealed many NSA leaks to foreign countries simply to embarrass the US. That activity wasn’t illegal. It isn’t illegal to spy on foreign nations, and revealing has zero to do with protecting your 4th amendment rights. So why is Greenwald leaking those types of stories in country after country around the globe?
Anyway, I know you don’t care about any of these nuances and never will because “Snowden is a hero.”
Damn, I was just gonna be snarky and point out how ‘principled’ Snowden was, and agree with PC that he’s right, it doesn’t matter – Snowden remains a traitor.
But damn Blabby, well said indeed!
I really couldn’t care less about what Snowden’s motivations were/are. Did he get his job under false pretenses? Did he steal from/dupe his coworkers? Was defecting to Russia part of the plan from the very beginning? Is he a nice guy? Doesn’t matter. The end result is the same.
Perhaps he wasn’t as wise in his choosing of leakees as absolute prudence and due consideration demanded he be (though he obviously could’ve been A LOT sloppier about it than he was), and perhaps his revelations have resulted in some (justifiable??) ‘collateral damage’, but I don’t think it can be argued for a second that, in the end, what he did wasn’t a great service to everyone everywhere.
Seriously, do any of us, liberal or conservative, wish that we could go back to being content in the false belief that such rampant, unchecked government surveillance only goes on in the minds of loony conspiracy theorists? Regardless of what we think of his methods or politics, what he did has helped force extra scrutiny and oversight into areas that severely need extra scrutiny and oversight. And, for all we know (including Snowden himself), all that he uncovered isn’t even the half of it.
I, too, am reluctant to throw around the term “hero” too freely. But the same goes for “traitor”. I don’t think it’s as simple as that, nor are these labels mutually exclusive. Technically, he is most definitely a criminal. But, as we all know, there have been many people throughout history who committed acts that were unambiguously criminal at the time but are now regarded as praiseworthy and absolutely necessary steps in our evolution toward gaining whatever knowledge or security or freedoms we enjoy today because of them.
It’s a huge moral/political/ethical/legal/diplomatic mess, to be sure. Not much black or white; PLENTY of gray.
One last thing, regarding the ‘collateral damage’ I mentioned (way the fuck) above: I was talking about stuff like lost jobs, strained diplomatic relations and embarrassment, but I totally understand and agree with your point, Blabby, about how some of his revelations might actually come to endanger certain individuals’ lives. However, it appears that he was at least somewhat picky about the types of information he passed on, and under what conditions. So far, I think the lack of any news about any spies being outed and/or captured bears this presumption out.