It's not at all clear that Clapper committed perjury. He took an oath long before he testified at that hearing to not reveal certain secrets to unauthorized people, and that oath was backed by laws passed by Congress.
He also took an oath later to testify truthfully at that Congressional committee hearing.
When those oaths conflict, which one takes priority?
Note that due to the nature of Wyden's question, Clapper could not simply say that he could not answer and give as the reason for not answering that it would require revealing classified information, because that itself would strongly imply that the answer was "yes".
Also, didn't Wyden already know the answer to the question? I thought I read that the members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (and also those of the corresponding House committee) knew about these programs. If so, then Clapper's answer (no matter what he said) would convey no relevant information to the Committee. At common law, that would rule out any possibility of it being perjury. I don't know if there is a similar exception in the relevant perjury statutes for Congressional testimony.
When oaths conflict, lying to Congress is still a crime. His non-criminal response should have been "I am not at liberty to discuss program details" or something along those lines.
> It's not at all clear that Clapper committed perjury. He took an oath long before he testified at that hearing to not reveal certain secrets to unauthorized people, and that oath was backed by laws passed by Congress.
This is true, but it's bizarre that that the "Unauthorized people" would include Congress.
> When those oaths conflict, which one takes priority?
That might be a relevant question for whether or not he should be pardoned for committing perjury, but it's not a relevant question to deciding whether he committed perjury.
> That might be a relevant question for whether or not he should be pardoned for committing perjury, but it's not a relevant question to deciding whether he committed perjury.
I'm not a lawyer, but it could perhaps be an affirmative defense [0].
There are two reasons I can think of off the top of my head why that should not have been a problem:
1. Congressional committees that handle classified information can use closed-door sessions to hear these kinds of answers. There was no need for Clapper to lie.
2. Clapper also took an oath to uphold the constitution, before any other more specific oaths. It is difficult to see how lying to Congress fulfills this oath.
At best your argument rests on whether Wyden knew the answer and the common law argument that no answer could then be perjury. But there was no reason for Clapper to lie to a committee of the Congress.
In case you didn't notice, the Snowden leaks revealed filters that removed US citizens' communications, showing that they were complying with US laws that prevent the US military (of which the NSA is part of) from spying on US citizens.
Why would the NSA have these compliance filters as part of a classified program if they were allegedly performing illegal activities?
> What illegal activities did the NSA perform here?
See the first link in my comment.
> In case you didn't notice, the Snowden leaks revealed filters that removed US citizens' communications, showing that they were complying with US laws that prevent the US military (of which the NSA is part of) from spying on US citizens.
So what? As one of the 7.1 billion people who are not US citizens, I object to the notion that only the rights of Americans warrant protection. As surprising as this may sound, those of us born in other countries have the same rights too, and deserve the same protections. I regard suggestions to the contrary as insulting.
(for the record, I'm Australian, and I consider my own government's participation in these programs to be reprehensible)
If the Constitution says something, it applies to everyone everywhere. The Constitution of the United States does not apply to people it applies to the government. It says nothing about "US citizens" or "foreign nationals". It restricts what the government can do.
So if the fourth amendment right to protection against unreasonable searches applies here (which there seems to be some debate about), it would apply to everyone. Not just to US citizens. The government does not have the right to perform searches of personal property without a warrant detailing exactly what will be searched. Again, this restriction applies to the government, it is not a protection afforded to citizens.
My understanding has it that in practice "the people" means roughly "all citizens and residents of the US", not all people anywhere. You can disagree with the courts over what the words mean, but do so deliberately.
That is an excellent article! I actually learned quite a bit from that, thank you.
The main take-away that I had is that the courts generally uphold "the people" to mean "citizens", but there are some strong divisions on that and the case is far from settled. At the very least I agree with Harvard's opinion that this judgement cannot hold true to all instances of the the phrase "the people" without massively undoing hundreds of years of case law.
Based on that I will change my statement here to say "the Constitution restricts the government, but it's unclear in the courts whether it restricts the government's actions against non-citizens, although it probably should according to constitutional law scholars". So if you're a tourist in the US, watch what you say and do, because you may not have any right to freedom of speech or protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
Interestingly, the german preliminary constituion (we don't have a real one) that was written by the WWII allies also is about people but unambigously means all people on earth.
'Article 1 of the Basic Law (in German legal shorthand GG, for Grundgesetz), which establishes this principle that "human dignity is inviolable" and that human rights are directly applicable law, ...'
To be honest, I've not given the article I linked a careful read.
My understanding is that it's entirely uncontroversial (as a question of "is" rather than "ought") that those who are neither US citizens nor US residents, while also not present in the US, are not afforded the protections in the Constitution given to "the people". It is also entirely uncontroversial that they do apply (in sometimes disputed form) to American citizens in the US (and probably also while abroad), and that they usually apply to long-term US legal residents present in the US. Some other points on those spectra are less certain (especially to me).
The question is not whether foreigners are people, but whether they are a part of "the people", usually taken to mean "the people of the United States" - which is the context in which "the people" first appears.
The Constitution is American law, and American law does not apply extraterritorially except in narrow cases. That's a bedrock principle of Constitutional law. The only thing that binds the US government abroad is the law of the jungle.
And yes, I know, human rights and international law are kind of lacking enforcement, so compared to stealing a lollipop or something, of course there is no legal problem with what the NSA is doing. But "it's gotta be okay or it wouldn't happen"? Nah.
> those of us born in other countries have the same rights too
Not in US law we don't. To my knowledge there is no internationally agreed and enforceable privacy law. Now, as a UK citizen, I'm not exactly jumping with joy for either what the NSA or GCHQ have done but, from the point of view of US courts, spying on me is not something that bothers them hugely.
You're correct in the legal sense, but there is also the moral/philosophical aspect to it. Here's what the US Declaration of Independence had to say on the matter:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
This is the moral/philosophical aspect. (I consider privacy to be one component of liberty, but expect it's not a universally-held view).
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
This is the legal aspect.
So it depends on which you look at. In my comment above I was referring to the former. And specifically, my argument was based on that laid out at the very beginning of one of the country's most important founding documents, which I hope would carry some weight with those US citizens who believe in the moral principles on which their country is purportedly based.
Also, "all men" is referring specifically to white males, since at the time women were not treated equally and, you know, they had slavery back then.
It's important to keep in mind the spirit of these historical documents and how that spirit can be applied today, but it's also important to remember that these are imperfect documents from an imperfect time and that they can't be treated as gospel. Even the founding fathers believed that, which is why they built in mechanisms for updating the Constitution.
> Also, "all men" is referring specifically to white males, since at the time women were not treated equally and, you know, they had slavery back then.
Different people involved with the writing of that document had different ideas, and there were many drafts, and it was a creation of compromise. That it was left as open as it was, when prior revisions had specific clauses critical of the slave trade removed[1], is a testament to how contentious it was. That it was still used as later evidence for the abolition of slavery is to the credit of those that fought for a more inclusive wording. That it didn't include specific reference to women... well yeah, that sucks, but at least you can argue later that "man" was meant in the sense of (or should be interpreted as) "humanity".
> As one of the 7.1 billion people who are not US citizens, I object to the notion that only the rights of Americans warrant protection.
People who are neither within the US, nor US citizens, have generally less protection from rights guaranteed by the US Constitution, even when the actor involved is the US government. You can object to that all you want, but its unlikely to change. Fundamentally, neither our Constitution nor our government is about you.
> As surprising as this may sound, those of us born in other countries have the same rights too
The big advance of popular government was that people have enforceable personal rights against their government, at least by citizenship and sometimes even by geography without citizenship. But it hasn't reversed the fundamental issue of sovereignty that there is very little in the way of substantially enforceable personal rights against a foreign sovereign, except those which your own sovereign guarantees and is willing to go to war (and capable of winning) to enforce.
And whether this is the way thing should be or not, it is fundamentally incorrectable -- its the essential nature of sovereignty. You could make it irrelevant by establishing a single world sovereignty guaranteeing the rights you believe should exist for all against all governments, but that doesn't seem likely in the near future.
NSA cannot target Americans or American residents for spying. But they are allowed to spy and are in fact tasked with spying on non-Americans.
It is what a U.S. spy agency does. And the spy agency of other countries, western and non-western, are supposed to be doing, e.g. spying on people outside of their countries. (Spying on your own people is akin to living in a totalitarian state.)
What Snowden did was reveal to the world how extensive and deep the NSA's reach was. His initial objection was NSA's ability to spy on Americans, but when he blew the whistle, the entire world found out they too were being spied on.
Misfire! Should he be punished or rewarded? It is a double edged sword.
>So what? As one of the 7.1 billion people who are not US citizens, I object to the notion that only the rights of Americans warrant protection.
If you're that keen to be covered by the United States Constitution, you can always petition for statehood; there's a procedure right there in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1. Go to it, and good luck!
A careful reading of the U.S. Constitution reveals that the majority of the clauses that establish rights actually forbid the U.S. federal government from performing certain actions, period, rather than forbid it from performing those actions or not, conditional on citizenship.
The 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures apply to everyone, everywhere. The U.S. government must always get a warrant, regardless of borders.
U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990) [0] established precedent stating otherwise, but I agree with Brennan's dissent and Stevens' concurrence. The majority opinion basically said it would be too difficult for the U.S. to project its power overseas if it still had to obey its own laws there. I don't find political expedience to be an acceptable argument for voiding anyone's rights.
Of course, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., those protections are unenforceable in practice regardless, because the target likely cannot access any court that might be able to grant relief. It might be interesting for a foreign national to ask to enter the U.S. for the purpose of petitioning for redress of grievances against the U.S. in a U.S. court.
A foreign state need not petition for statehood. It would be sufficient to establish by treaty a court wherein a foreign person may sue a U.S. government and its agents for violations of U.S. law. That would be a double-edged sword, of course. It might also allow a U.S. entity to sue foreign persons for violations of U.S. laws in that foreign state's jurisdiction. (I'm thinking specifically about intellectual property suits.)
> The 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures apply to everyone, everywhere.
Even granting that, what is "reasonable" depends on a lot of other factors (both legal -- such as specific grants of power to Congress, and laws passed under such grants -- and factual), and the nature of world of multiple sovereign states and the grant of power to Congress to regulate interactions with them, and laws passed by Congress make surveillance of purely foreign material "reasonable" under circumstances where it would not be domestically.
> It would be sufficient to establish by treaty a court wherein a foreign person may sue a U.S. government and its agents for violations of U.S. law.
I don't see how such a treaty can be reconciled with Article III; the treaty power does not extend to contravention of the Constitution.
> It might also allow a U.S. entity to sue foreign persons for violations of U.S. laws in that foreign state's jurisdiction.
US entities can already sue foreign persons for violations of US laws in foreign states territory in US courts to the extent that the US law at issue has extra-territorial application.
Being able to actually enforce such a judgment would either require a treaty or that the defendant or defendant's property enter U.S. territory.
I don't see how Article III would prevent the establishment of a U.S. District Court outside the territory of the U.S. There is no distinction there that makes the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington any more or less legal than a theoretical U.S. District Court for Ireland and Great Britain, or U.S. District Court for France.
28 U.S. Code § 1331: The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Article III, Section 2, allows an inferior court to hear a civil case brought by a foreign person against the U.S., with the Supreme Court having appellate jurisdiction.
A treaty cannot establish such a court; it can only require that Congress either establish such a court, or be in breach of the treaty.
> I don't see how Article III would prevent the establishment of a U.S. District Court outside the territory of the U.S.
It wouldn't, it would prevent something other than an Article III court from being established by treaty (and anything established by treaty would not be an Article III court.) Congress can establish, and has established Article III courts outside of the US (notably, the U.S. Court for China.) Not, of course, that such a court would be necessary to allow foreigners to sue US officials for violations of Constitutional rights, since offenses cognizable under US law that occur outside of any established judicial district can already be filed in district courts; see, 28 USC Sec. 1391(b)(1) and (b)(3).
(Aside from reducing inconvenience in the US government policing US citizens when granted an extraterritorial privilege to do so, as was the case with the sui generis US Court for China, the main benefit of a foreign-located US Court would be to provide a US -- from a legal perspective -- venue for parties to sue non-US persons local to the area where the court was located where forum non conveniens is less likely to be invoked as a reason for dismissal.)
> A treaty cannot establish such a court
But, upthread, you suggested that a court for the purpose you had in mind would be established by treaty, which I took issue with precisely because a treaty cannot establish such a court.
That's splitting hairs, in my opinion. There is a distinction possible between "established by treaty" and "established by an Act of Congress pursuant to a treaty", but I didn't think it was necessary to make it upthread.
My main point was that foreign states need not become one of the United States to be protected by certain rights clauses in the U.S. Constitution. The key question is how to make the agents of the U.S. obey U.S. laws when outside of U.S. territorial jurisdiction, and there are many possible answers that do not involve extending U.S. territorial jurisdiction beyond its current bounds.
If there are no district courts outside U.S. territory, suing the U.S. as a foreign person may become prohibitively expensive in relation to the magnitude of the offense. The suit could further be impeded by using immigration laws against the plaintiff, possibly impeding discovery or appearances. Retaining a local attorney would be de facto required rather than optional, and hourly rates might combine with currency exchange rates and national economies to ensure that the price tag is simply too high.
> My main point was that foreign states need not become one of the United States to be protected by certain rights clauses in the U.S. Constitution.
But the courts argument is irrelevant to that. To the extent that the US Constitutional rights (or other rights under US law) extend to foreign nationals in foreign territory, the existence of a US court on their soil is irrelevant to such protection, it has no effect either way. So the whole court thing was a non sequitur.
> If there are no district courts outside U.S. territory, suing the U.S. as a foreign person may become prohibitively expensive in relation to the magnitude of the offense.
That might be a practical concern, but it is irrelevant to the actual legal concern, which is that it is well-established law that many protections of the US Constitution do not, in fact, apply to foreign persons outside of the US in the same way as they apply either to US citizens or to persons within the US (some don't apply at all, and even for those that do, the differences in factual circumstance between US and foreign jurisdiction and the fact that the US government has express granted powers in governing relations with foreign nations changes how they apply), and that, in fact, to be protected by those rights in the same way as would be the case for those within the US, the states they were in would, contrary to your argument, need to become part of the United States.
>The majority opinion basically said it would be too difficult for the U.S. to project its power overseas if it still had to obey its own laws there. I don't find political expedience to be an acceptable argument for voiding anyone's rights.
Are any other nations obligated to follow this principle as well, or just the United States?
>A foreign state need not petition for statehood. It would be sufficient to establish by treaty a court wherein a foreign person may sue a U.S. government and its agents for violations of U.S. law.
Philosophy and politics do not always intersect in convenient places. The only law that all nations must currently obey is "might makes right". In taking the position that the U.S. may break its own laws whenever following them would be too inconvenient, the Supreme Court implicitly says that the rule of law is more of a guideline, really.
They apparently have not plumbed the deeper meanings of "wherever you go, there you are".
Why, indeed? The foreign state might desire it so that U.S. agents could not act with such impunity against its subjects, but what would be in it for the U.S.? Like any other treaty, that would be a point for negotiation.
Reprehensible isn't the same as illegal. The 4th amendment does not apply to foreign citizens on foreign soil. NSA spying on Australians may be undesirable for various reasons, but it is legal.
> As one of the 7.1 billion people who are not US citizens, I object to the notion that only the rights of Americans warrant protection.
As I see it, that is exactly as it should be. Just as you are not subject to American law, except when you are in America or the provisions of a treaty, you should also not be protected by it, except when you are in America, etc. etc.
> As surprising as this may sound, those of us born in other countries have the same rights too, and deserve the same protections.
Those protections that you may have derive from your own government and your own set of laws and the treaties made within that framework. You want to be protected by the laws of the United States of America, then be a citizen, with all the duties and responsibilities thereof.
We need to do everything we can to support Snowden. Do not let the cynics win. We defeated SOPA in 2012 by making millions of phone calls to Congress, and we protected Net Neutrality in 2014 with millions of public comments to the FCC. Do not let the cynics win.
Call your reps: TryVoices.com
Petition the president: pardonsnowden.org/
One thing this article doesn't take into account is that the movie the author undoubtedly watched before writing this was full of inaccuracies, and had the purpose of establishing Snowden as a martyr or sorts. This is evident because rather than just prove their point, the author makes several attempts to make sure the reader knows that if you hold an opposing view, you are intellectually lazy and unable to cope with reality.
Not arguing either way, but if you are going to take a strong stance, don't make an article about how the opposing stance is only held by the weak minded.
>don't make an article about how the opposing stance is only held by the weak minded.
What if you really think that's the case?
Screw it, I'll say it. I think anyone who condemns Snowden is intellectually lazy or has vested interests in NSA surveillance. I have yet to see a single cogent rebuttal of Snowden's moral case.
There's a difference in saying you have that opinion, and asserting that opinion is objectively true as in the article.
While I disagree with the "anyone" part, I do believe that condemnation of Snowden comes most often from ignorance. The more I learned of the leaks in particular, and Snowden's reasoning on the information, the more I came to view his actions as necessary for a free society.
Indeed, the "anyone" was hyperbolic and misguided on my part. It should read "I have yet to see a condemnation of Snowden that was not intellectually lazy or misinformed".
Nah, some people just think that the crimes Snowden committed, like violation of NDAs etc., outweigh his moral duty to publish the misdeeds of various NSA programs. I'm not one of them but that's still a logical and consistent point of view anyone can have. Some people also value honor higher than not lying, and vice versa, or keeping a promise given to a friend higher than life&death. Values are tricky and there are no easy solutions.
There are some things it's not worth arguing because the facts have already been well presented and at this point anyone arguing to the contrary has deliberately chosen to ignore those facts. Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. Climate change is not real. Jet fuel can't melt steel beams. JFK was killed by a magic bullet. The Holocaust never happened. Snowden is a terrorist and a treasonous traitor.
Does anyone really still have the time or energy to argue with a birther? Or a Holocaust denier? There's no evidence supporting their point of view, so why is it up to me to have to prove them wrong? Every reasonable person already accepts that what the NSA was doing is wrong. You can't hold the simultaneous opinions that Snowden was a traitor who should be punished and that the NSA was wrong for conducting illegal wiretaps.
I would actually argue that it's not wasting time to insult them, it's wasting time arguing with them. If you try to prove them wrong, they're going to engage you in their nonsense, because their mind is already made up. If you insult them, they're more likely to just leave you alone. But no matter what, you're not going to change their minds.
>I would actually argue that it's not wasting time to insult them, it's wasting time arguing with them.
That's exactly the attitude that brought us Donald Trump. If you mock and delegitimize people for long enough, they'll stop taking the system seriously and just give you the finger in any way they can.
No, it happens further back than that. If you pretend that all opinions are equally important, if you legitimize provably wrong opinions just for the sake of "teaching the controversy" or "hearing both sides of the argument", you teach people that it's okay to be ignorant, that it's okay to put their fingers in their ears and ignore the facts when they're presented.
Donald Trump is what happens when you tell someone "yes, it's okay for you to think the president is a Muslim from Kenya" and not challenge that opinion. Unless you seriously think we should continue to pretend that these are actually legitimate opinions to hold? If someone says "vaccines cause autism" and you show them the facts but they come back and say "but those facts were made up by so-called "scientists"!", what then? What's your next move? You've already proven them wrong, they've already ignored you.
Either you continue to listen to them, thereby legitimizing their point of view, or you say they're crazy and move on with your life. Because you can only argue with facts. If you argue with them, you're inherently accepting their opinion as fact. We need to foster the idea that it's not okay to ignore easily provable facts. Ignorance is not an option. We need to shut down Donald Trump and Jenny McCarthy as soon as they start talking, not hear them out like they're part of the conversation.
I think this is an important conversation, so I'd love to hear how you would handle the balance between not legitimizing their opinions and not forcing them to double down due to persecution. It's something that we, as a whole, seem to be failing at right now, and you're right, I don't have a good answer for it.
I'd handle that balance by dropping the "not legitimizing their opinions" part completely.
There's a lot to unpack here, but briefly, the idea of "legitimizing" an opinion suggests that there is some group of people who have the authority to decide what opinions are okay to hold and what aren't. The problem is, a) there is no dispassionate authority you can refer to when we're talking about political issues; everyone brings their own biases whether consciously or not, and b) people who already disagree will not cooperate with that authority voluntarily, and c) the authority has no actual power in a democratic polity anyway. You can't arrest the other side, you can't put them in camps, you can't fine them. All you can do is yell insults at them, and if they don't care what you think, you are effectively powerless -- and obviously powerless to anyone watching.
Your only option in a democratic society is to have faith in the truth, plainly and calmly and repeatedly and respectfully spoken. When the other side comes at you with illogical nonsense, don't get angry; look at it as an opportunity to educate the onlookers, an opportunity that the other side has generously given you. And take that opportunity as often as they foolishly provide it to you.
And yes, one can be cynical and believe that the truth doesn't always win out. But suppression of lies either ends up in the fascist state you're trying to prevent, or eventually collapses in on itself and creates an even worse reaction. In an open society, the fascists are a couple of losers in basements complaining to themselves while the world moves past them. In an increasingly closed society such as the one we live in now, they become the brave rebels fighting the Establishment. Don't let them be the brave rebels.
Thanks for the opportunity to express these thoughts.
Very well said. I think you're spot on that these folks aren't going to back down, but at least you can use the opportunity to explain the facts to other people who might be more willing o hear them. That's something we're missing during these discussions, we put a lot of emphasis on hearing both sides of the story, but not a lot on making sure everyone is aware of the facts, even if it hurts the rhetoric of one side of the argument. Fact checking during debates or roundtable discussions would go a long way towards rectifying that.
Thanks for the conversation, I do see your point and I agree. It's a no-win (or at least a only-partial-win) situation, but stating the facts and moving on is probably the most effective route, with the hope that the truth wins in the end.
One way to make those interactions less annoying is to, perhaps temporarily, put aside your goal of getting them to agree with you, and choose another more achievable goal. Here are a few you could try:
Have a cordial interaction with someone who sees things differently
Learn from this person about one of the things they are an expert on
Understand more deeply the pseudo-logic of their mindset and where it comes from
All of those goals are realistically achievable which should make them less frustrating than trying to win. And as a side benefit if you succeed at any of the above, you should be in a better position to bring them around should you go back to trying to do that.
You are conflating fact and opinion. Someone's opinion on Snowden isn't necessarily based on facts. You can be objectively wrong about a fact, but you can't be objective wrong about an opinion.
>You can't hold the simultaneous opinions that Snowden was a traitor who should be punished and that the NSA was wrong for conducting illegal wiretaps.
Sure I can. Snowden could have leaked one single document that would blow open the illegal meta data case--the FISA subpoena. Instead he leaked thousands upon thousands of pages about stuff that had nothing to do with illegal wiretapping. He leaked stuff that is the unambiguously legal.
A huge percent of what snowden leaked was stuff he just didn't personally agree with. And sorry, that's not good enough for me. The USA isn't run by Edward Snowden.
I believe opinions do have to be based on fact. That's the difference between opinion and faith. People have faith that God exists, even if they don't have proof. But opinions are really just your interpretation of the facts you're presented with. Opinions change as you get new facts, faith persists even in the face of facts. If you believe something even though fact says otherwise, that is not an opinion. It's faith.
And yeah, it's fine to believe that Snowden went too far while also believing the NSA went too far. But you specifically are not arguing against what I said. I said "you can't believe Snowden is a traitor...", you said "yes I can", and then went on to say "but I don't think he's a traitor". So... anyway.
It's more than just interpreting facts. People make value judgements too. A lot of the pro Snowden support is based on a belief that transparency is a good thing. That isn't a universal truth. Reasonable people can disagree.
Okay, you're right. Opinions can be based on faith, as well. But anyone would be well within the realm of sanity to weight opinions based on faith lower than opinions based on fact.
"I base my opinion on X on the fact that my religion says X is right/wrong, I base that religion on faith" doesn't mean the opinion is based on fact. You've got me on that one.
If you only base your opinions on facts, you can't really have opinions about very many things. Very mundane details of historical events. Narrowly defined conclusions of studies which are almost never actually specifically applicable to any situation at hand. If you believe science reporting headlines you might think you are basing your opinions on facts, but if you actually read the papers you realize how little science can actually say.
Very few of the principles that basically everyone relies on to make value judgements are based on actual research. Most people who purport to base their opinions solely on scientific research are saying that because they have some small number of sample opinions that contradict commonly held opinions and which are based on facts. They then generalize to "all my beliefs are based on facts" even though basically none of these people actually audit their beliefs in any systematic way. The subjective experience of being an outspoken proponent of a factual analysis leads to the false generalization of that story into all aspects of their life.
But in fact we make thousands of judgements every day, the vast majority of which are based on a few casual observations, or our internal model of the universe, which, while based on facts, is not a reliable witness, nor is it a scientifically valid source of data.
But there's a difference between "scientific proof" and "fact". Science has never proven that Old Spice is the best scent, but the fact is that's what I wear and my wife likes the way I smell. It is my opinion that Old Spice is the best based on the fact that my wife likes it.
Fact doesn't have to be based on research or science, all it means is "the truth". It is a fact that I have a dog sitting on my couch. I don't need actual research to back that up, it's just a fact. It is not a fact that my friend, who died a few years ago, is also sitting on the couch beside me. That's just a belief, based on faith. There has been zero scientific research into either of these claims, but one is undeniable fact and the other is not. It doesn't matter if you don't believe that I have a dog. Your lack of belief doesn't make it less true.
I honestly don't even remember what we're actually talking about, and at this point I'm pretty sure I don't care anymore. Sorry.
> It is my opinion that Old Spice is the best based on the fact that my wife likes it.
That's not a rational conclusion. Why make a baseless comparative judgement like "it's the best" when you can make a qualitative judgement, like "it's good" or "my wife likes it".
That's my point. You think you're scientifically minded, but you have opinions like "Old Spice is the best" that aren't based on facts at all.
> It is a fact that I have a dog sitting on my couch.
This falls into the category of "mundane historical events" I mentioned above.
> I honestly don't even remember what we're actually talking about, and at this point I'm pretty sure I don't care anymore. Sorry.
My guess is you don't have any rational disagreement with what I said, so you just started saying random things about hypothetical situations and you bored yourself.
Weak-minded people don't read opposing views to change their minds. They read opposing views exactly to pick them them apart, reject them, and reinforce their own.
If the opposite view is truly held by the weak-minded, then there is way more value in further ostracizing them than providing a case to and trying to reason with them.
That wasn't really my point, though I can see how I may have been unclear/provocative.
In any case, I think the article we're commenting upon makes the case better than I could. Opinions to to the contrary (from what I've seen) tout the damage (unquantified and unqualified) that was done to the intelligence community and gloss over the obvious wrongdoing on the part of the government. Further, I have yet to see a single article that both condemns Snowden while directly arguing against his moral case for whistleblowing.
But again, none of this was my point. My point is rather that I see no reason why such an opinion should invalidate or detract from a movie/article/whatever.
I interpreted the parent comment as saying "if you accuse anyone of intellectual laziness, that detracts from your work". I find this view problematic, especially when there's ample evidence of intellectual laziness: condemnation without addressing a well-argued moral case.
I think there's a big leap between saying Snowden should get a pass and saying he should get a medal. WTH kind of message does this send to other "would be Snowdens" who turn out to leak data that is important to national security and cause people, both civilians and US soldiers, to get killed.
One person may not have the whole picture or understand everything they need to know to weigh the costs. IMO, Snowden didn't know everything he needed to prove what he was doing was the right course at the time. He just got help from the fact that the government is too secret for its own good and that we are in a relatively peaceful time and don't have many existential threats.
Snowden has a well-argued moral case for what he did. He demonstrably tried to minimize harm and maximize the positive impact of his disclosures.
You give literally no reason for your condemnation (though in all fairness, your comment is likely to be rhetorical).
More to the point, you will likely argue that he broke laws and cite some unspecified damage to the intelligence community that can neither be qualified nor quantified. Importantly, you will likely do this -- as every condemning voice has -- without offering a cogent rebuttal to Snowden's case. Lastly, and perhaps more importantly, you will fail to address the the clear and present danger of allowing a government to perform dragnet surveillance on its citizens without suspecting them of criminal activity.
If that's not intellectual laziness, then I honestly don't know what is.
If that's not going to be your line of argumentation, then congratulations! You are literally the first person I have encountered who condemns Snowden without being intellectually lazy or dishonest. I'll believe it when I see it.
(I feel compelled to mention, once more, that I mean no disrespect. I think your comment is rhetorical in nature, so I beg of you not to take anything personally.)
> Lastly, and perhaps more importantly, you will fail to address the the clear and present danger of allowing a government to perform dragnet surveillance on its citizens without suspecting them of criminal activity.
"Most incidents are self-reported", which says to me that they do not have effective monitoring - there are doubtless abuses that have gone undetected.
How come proven collateral damage such as innocent deaths caused by US military interventionism is widely considered reasonable and acceptable. So, tenuous upside/blatant downside = no outrage.
But the unproven collateral damage of Snowden's leaks, which had the giant upside of revealing democracy-chilling surveillance techniques, leads to mass reaction from the government. So, undeniable upside/debatable downside = Enemy of the State, threats to nations that offer him asylum.
But they are wide awake and outraged when Snowden's ostensible act of espionage has caused an enormous amount of public good and technological innovation.
It's not really the American's fault. We hear few of their real voices. It's the media that speaks the loudest.
Don't sell Americans short on their ability to withold empathy for non-Americans though. They know that the men who stole control of four planes on 9/11 were civilians too, and they still generally trust that their government is ID'ing threats to national security correctly.
Whether the government is actually doing that (and whether---even if it were---that's sufficient for completely extrajudicial killing that would be called "waging warfare" in any other context) may not be things an average American is asking before going to sleep at night.
Who are these generic Americans that think that Snowden should be condemned? Everyone American I know is very grateful for what he did. And I know quite a few.
I've only ever heard official policy statements condemning him. I am not even really sure those stating such policy agree with what they are saying (at a personal level).
I live near a military base, views against him are quite common here. The defense culture, in general, and those who view "security" [0] as the primary role of our government also condemn him.
[0] This is a non-partisan view. I hear it from Democrats, Republicans, and some Libertarians (who hold more to the fiscal sense of modern libertarianism than the civil liberties sense, which is a shame). There's a large group of people in the US who seem to believe that security for-its-own-sake cannot be evil, in an ends-justify-the-means version of morality.
Thanks for explaining. As jacalata pointed out I don't have much interaction with people with that point of view, hence why I have such a strong aversion to comments saying Americans feel that way.
This reminds me of my friend who was convinced John Kerry would win the election because "I don't know anybody who will vote for Bush!" In other words, I suspect you have a strong selection bias informing your view of Americans.
Of course not. I understood your comment to be questioning whether there exist any individual Americans who condemn Snowden and proposing as evidence for their non-existence "Everyone American I know". If you were just saying that you don't think the majority of Americans condemn Snowden then I have no disagreement.
I was disagreeing with the premise that all Americans think exactly the same thing by presenting any example of Americans who disagree. Since I know quite a few, it's at least enough that you can't say "Americans think X," which is what the post I replied to said.
> Everyone American I know is very grateful for what he did. And I know quite a few.
This is an enormously basic fallacy. I was born and raised in the US and have spent a quarter century of life here, so I think it's fair to say "I know quite a few" Americans. But I would think it beyond insane to claim that my sample is useful for statements like "I know a lot of Americans and none feel this way. Who are they?". I also don't know any Trump supporters, any single parents, any heroin addicts, any cardiosurgeons, any farmers...is it really that difficult to believe that your sample of Americans isn't typical (despite its impressive size of "quite a few")?
(The comment I was replying to said that Americans are ok with one thing but not ok with another. It was implying that all Americans think the same way and I disagree)
He leaked classified information beyond what he needed to expose illegal programs. Most of his purpose was to expose programs he had an ideological problem with. I don't believe that is a good enough reason to leak classified information.
Edward Snowden isn't an elected official. It wasn't his job to decide which US policies he agrees with. Government can't function if low level employees take it upon themselves to rule.
Snowden did not expose the documents, the journalists did... It was their journalistic duty to reveal a minimal yet sufficient amount of evidence to inform the public, not his.
I roughly agree with you in that I think the "Snowden is in the wrong" perspective is overrepresented in the media. That's what I meant by "it's not their fault." I'd bet the public on average is less extreme in judging Snowden.
You're obviously hanging around only certain groups of people, and not reading message boards filled with pro-authoritarian people. Go to any message board with right-wingers and you'll see him denounced as a traitor. HN is simply not the place where you're going to see this.
Fair enough, but pro-authoritarian boards do not represent all Americans. I was replying to a post that said "Americans think..." implying that all or most Americans think the same thing, so I was presenting a counter-point that not all or even most Americans think like that.
HN denizens and tech-heads do not represent all Americans either.
Seriously, there are very few traits that I can think of which really represent all Americans; we're much too diverse for that, and we're growing farther and farther apart. The lifestyles and attitudes in rural areas are extremely different from those in urban centers, and it's becoming more and more divergent (for instance, Millennials are abandoning car ownership).
So any time you see someone say something like "Americans think..." you have to take it with a grain of salt, and at best realize that they're talking about some sizeable demographic, which probably is not an absolute majority, but is large enough to make it a valid statement, unless you want to quibble about what qualifies such a statement, as if you demand that it apply to a clear majority (say, over 60%), then no such statement will probably ever be true of Americans, except things that are also true of people in many other places (for instance: "Americans like smartphones" -- not at all unique to Americans).
Pro-authoritarian boards do indeed represent a sizeable swath of Americans, like it or not. Just look at how popular the alt-right is these days.
>Yeah, Americans sleep when they hear 90% of drone attack deaths are civilians:
No, 90% of the drone deaths weren't known indented targets. If you bomb a Taliban camp to kill a known Taliban leader, you are going to kill a lot of people, but they aren't going to be mostly civilians.
Sure some of them are civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But that's legal under international law and essentially unavoidable in war.
You could argue that maybe America is aiming at targets without any regard for who surrounds them, but that you can't use that 90% figure to do it. And I also believe that you'd be wrong.
I don't think it's acceptable, but at least "collateral damage" has the virtue of having been approved by elected officials and is something considered before we go to war or order attacks somewhere. Snowden's leaks weren't approved of by anyone but Snowden, and if they had managed to get people killed even if that wasn't Snowden's intention they would still be enough to consider as Treason.
In counter point, if we start allowing anyone who feels like they can leak this stuff on their own authority, and it starts costing lives of Americans, how many would you consider "worth it"? At what point does it move from whistle-blowing so it's okay to treason?
Don't use strawman arguments? That would silence 90% of the arguments on the internet!
(Honestly, I am seeing a general trend toward better arguing and less fallacious logic as time goes on, but you are absolutely right, the argument should not be based on a basic logical fallacy)
The GP is (humorously) claiming to make almost exclusively non serious arguments on the internet, so it would obviously be inconsistent for him/her to use the correct term.
(I thought it was funny, but both I and the GP should probably be voted down to keep whimsical humour like this off HN. The GP will probably argue I should be upvoted for suggesting a downvote of whimsical humor.)
You have to be either weak-minded or very selective about reading up on these things to not think he did some good that's reported in the article. Here's a few:
1. They kept promising it was just metadata they were collecting. Alexander got specific on all extra services they weren't collecting on. This was lies.
2. Another lies under oath to Congress about same thing.
3. They said it was just selective stuff to find terrorists. Snowden leaks revealed vast majority of this spying was on Europe, South America, and Asia with stuff like Dell PowerEdge servers terrorists probably aren't using. ;)
4. Americans assumed it was us and our allies versus the terrorist again with these tools for that. Instead, we find they were doing stuff like spying on Beligian industry taking down their telecoms in the process. Stuff like that, done in secret by groups with immunity, could really bite Americans in the ass as a whole and should be up for national, policy debate.
5. The NSA has been pushing INFOSEC recommendations to military, defense contractors, federal government, and rest of us for years. I pointed out most of it was EAL4+ or less, meaning it definitely get hacked by enemies. They knew this. Incompetence or evil (SIGINT)? Snowden leaks indicate it was them leaving backdoors in for themselves that our enemies might use against us as well. Did in a few cases I believe.
6. Similar to 5, they were believed to be helping us improve our security standards and cyberspace readiness. Instead, BULLRUN program aimed to subvert that as much as possible in ways that would damage us. The combo of 5 and 6 makes the NSA the 2nd greatest threat to American INFOSEC of them all right after American capitalism insistence on treating INFOSEC like a liability.
7. Prior to leaks, Alexander and others always explained they only collected on Americans when they had a court order. Nobody explained that FISA warrants are for "targeting criteria" run against all the data of all Americans they're already intercepting. On top of a court that virtually never rejects anything and doesn't imprison offenders.
So, these are 7 quick revelations from the leaks that should result in resistance from Americans, some job openings in government, and prosecution of specific individuals for actual crimes. Internal channels always squashed information like this since the problems were driven from top down by people who lie to Americans and Congress. US government also kept saying judicial system couldn't participate at all. Leaking to public is all that's left in such a situation. He certainly could've filtered the leaks themselves a bit but the domestic stuff would have to come out pretty much in full to back his assertions.
The NSA isn't an antiterrorism agency. It's a general purpose spy agency. If you thought that it only was collecting meta data for terrorists purposes, that's on you. That was never the purpose of the agency and I'm not really sure how anyone could believe it was. What did you think they were doing during the Cold War?
It's also common knowledge that allies spy on each. America's biggest counter-intelligence threat is actually Israel. They are spying on us all the time.
You're missing the point of the comment. I know what NSA does and Im fine with collecting foreign intelligence. The point is they asked for broad powers, including over Americans, with secrecy and immunity. The stated reason for these was stopping terrorist threat. Actually, it was originally a USAP that nobody even agreed to that they said was about terrorism after initial leaks. They also said only collecting metadata and that it contained nothing that would worry people.
Such systematic deception of American people, Congress, courts, etc is a problem. That they were targeting Americans themselves while saying they werent is bigger. That two leaders committed perjury but dont get punished makes it worse.
This isnt some authorized action conducting itself ethically, effectively, and accountably. It's been opposite across the board. And the leakers are only reason we knew.
I think its time we all revisit "Born On The Fourth of July". Stone's bore of a movie in search of a plot. What it lacks in direction and basic story-telling it makes up for in emotion and political bias. I lost braincells watching this foolishness and it is enough to convince me to ignore all other politically sensitive Stone movies. Stone should go back to doing movies like "Conan the Barbarian", which is a classic.
When it comes to matters of American National Security, there is very little daylight between Democratic and Republican positions, so calling a report bipartisan is not something that indicates that its contents were carefully debated, but rather that debate on these issues is nearly absent. GIGO.
I hadn't read this and generally admire Gellman. Thanks for the link.
We can analyze the claims Gellman makes here, though, and further our understanding of the controversy. I believe these are all of them:
* The House report claims Snowden lied saying he left military training due to broken legs, and instead washed out due to "shin splints". Gellman objects, saying he has a documented diagnosis for Snowden saying he was discharged with "bilaterial tibial stress fractures". But tibial stress fractures are a form --- a common form --- of shin splint.
* The House report claims Snowden never completed his high school equivalency. Gellman has the score Snowden got on his equivalency back in 2004. The House report's claim is inexplicable.
* The House report claims Snowden was a very low level employee. Gellman objects based on his titles and the fact that he was sent to Europe under diplomatic cover. It's difficult to evaluate this dispute. His claims about Snowden's titles are very unconvincing --- it's also extremely unlikely that Snowden had the role Gellman claims he had w/r/t/ Dell's cybersecurity group (Dell employs a huge number of infosec people). You'd also want to know whether it was routine for people employed at CIA to be deployed under diplomatic cover, because Gellman uses that as evidence of his seniority.
* The House report claims Snowden doctored his performance evaluations. Gellman rebuts that Snowden was demonstrating a vulnerability in the web app that displayed it. I'm inclined to believe both sides of this story could believe their side in good faith, but you might disagree.
* The House report claims Snowden stole the answers to an employment questionnaire. (This claim was also made by officials on 60 Minutes) Gellman rebuts that the test in question was very basic, and by this point in Snowden's career he'd had so much experience --- and an MCSE certificate --- that he wouldn't need to. Gellman doesn't know whether this happened, or what test they're talking about. The 60 Minutes claim is that the test involved getting into NSA's TAO group, which makes me think the MCSE certificate not so relevant. But ultimately: we don't know, and neither does Gellman.
* The House report makes mention of Snowden's flight to Russia. Gellman rebuts that it was in fact a thwarted flight to Ecuador. I think Gellman is probably wrong about this: the claim that Snowden was diligently trying to reach Ecuador depends on him being stuck in Sheremetyevo due to passport invalidation, but it's been pointed out repeatedly that he could have obtained an exit visa without a valid passport. There's also the wrinkles that Snowden spent time (days) in the Russian consulate in Hong Kong, and that he was advised by others to seek asylum in Russia. Both sides again might have valid reasons to push their arguments, but Gellman's rebuttal isn't dispositive.
* The House report notes that Snowden didn't avail himself of whistleblower protections in the US. Gellman claims he could not have. Both sides can be right. There is very little evidence that Snowden attempted to escalate his findings through channels (there are a lot of public claims that he did, but the actual evidence apparently comes down to a single email that makes no mention of an urgent complaint). Further, we have Snowden's own claim that he took the Booz Allen job specifically to get access to these documents and send them overseas --- internal whistleblower channels would impede that objective. Moreover: this is a slippery argument: Gellman can always define some action (for instance: bulk delivery of internal documents to The Guardian) for which whistleblower protections would not apply.
* The House report claims that Snowden stole 1.5MM documents. Gellman says we don't have evidence as to the specific number. I mean, sure. Whatever.
* Members of the House Intelligence Committee have claimed that Snowden did more damage to US interests than anyone in history. Gellman, rightly, points out that this is total bullshit.
It's worth remembering that Gellman is focusing primarily on a single section of the executive summary of the House report --- the one claiming that Snowden is a fabulist.
Like I said: I'm an admirer of Gellman's. It's clear to me that Gellman is several steps removed from the lingo and trade knowledge of information security, so I think he can sometimes find himself convinced by things that would leave an expert wary. But I also think Gellman, more than some other writers, is at pains to make reported, fact-based, good-faith arguments.
I didn't find this piece totally convincing, but there are clearly claims that the House IC has made that don't withstand any scrutiny, so the fact check is definitely valuable. Thanks again for finding it!
> The House report claims Snowden lied saying he left military training due to broken legs, and instead washed out due to "shin splints". Gellman objects, saying he has a documented diagnosis for Snowden saying he was discharged with "bilaterial tibial stress fractures". But tibial stress fractures are a form --- a common form --- of shin splint.
A stress fracture is a broken bone. Tibial stress fractures are (among the more severe and longer-healing) manifestations of medial tibial stress syndrome ("shin splints"). So, Gellman's evidence is consistent with the House reports claim that Snowden washed out due to "shin splints", but nevertheless rebuts the House reports claim that Snowden lied about broken legs.
Essentially, the House report is itself lying in a fairly brazen fashion (and counting on ignorance of the meaning of the terms used to get away with it) by claiming that they can paint something as a lie based on a fact which is itself entirely consistent with the claim it is supposed to demonstrate is a lie.
Having gone through military basic training (and later being peripherally involved with recruiting), we had people wash out relatively often for 'shin splints'.
If you washed out it would have to be severe -- if the shin splints were minor you'd simply be given time to heal and the ability to rollback into the next class. But even if they were severe, we (recruits and staff alike) called them 'shin splints', not 'broken legs'.
However technically true Snowden's usage of 'my legs were broken' may have been, we would never have called it 'broken legs' unless he'd suffered a macroscopic fracture or a break (in other words, something that'd normally require a cast, splint, or crutches).
So the fact that Snowden did so is actually quite consistent with the HPSCI's assertions about his 'narcissistic' and 'self-serving' nature. There /should/ be little shame in washing out for shin splints, certainly not enough to be deceptive about it when your credibility is about to be closely examined for something that is theoretically far more important to you.
He also said 'it wasn't shin splints' when the conceit to this thread appears to be that 'shin splints are just a different way of saying bone fractures in your legs'.
We have Barton Gellman defending Snowden by saying that he was diagnosed with 'bilateral tibial stress fractures'. But, this is consistent with shin splints (albeit more severe) and could be the result of trying to maintain the exercise regimen that gave you shin splints in the first place. But nor are bilateral tibial stress fractures something you get in a training accident or other single event -- it's a repetitive injury that you get when your body cannot sustain the level of demand being placed on it over time.
It still hurts like a bitch if you let it get to that point, and Snowden would not be anywhere near the first or the last to wash out of a military training pipeline due to that. But he sells it like he broke his legs in some sort of accident at a single SF training event, not like the exact same type of repetitive stress injury that has been a common cause of medical washouts in many other men and women attempting the same training (even for ceremonial duties! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2807419/).
A wrinkle: Snowden was 18X, so he wasn't doing standard basic training, but accelerated basic/advanced combined. So a shin splint injury that might have been manageable in normal basic training, in 18X...?
That's just it, I heard it was training for SF, so I thought he had literally broken his legs, their training isn't just doing a bunch of running so it would certainly be plausible to break a leg doing something like fast-roping out of a helo or a parachute jump.
I haven't gone through anything close to SF training but wash-outs happen all the time; you heal up and generally get to try again, since it's not like you can just stay with your class, and the military services need SOF-quality forces bad enough that if you're otherwise qualified to get into that pipeline then it's beneficial for them to give you that opportunity.
On the other hand in a basic training environment, if you get shin splints you may get a medical profile or light duty chit saying not to do certain types of exercise (or even to wear different shoes) to give your lower legs time to heal. But if it's bad enough you can be pulled out of training completely and put in a holding company to heal up properly and then roll back into a class.
I was briefly in a holding company for something else; there were recruits there who had been out of training due to shin splints for months, usually when they refused to go to medical when they first started noticing symptoms and tried to tough it out.
I think both sides are spinning. It's clear to me how the House Report lawyers Snowden's training history, but where you see Gellman rebutting a House Report claim that no bone fractures were involved in Snowden's separation from the army, I see Gellman failing to acknowledge that a tibial stress fractures are a common medical diagnosis for "shin splints".
I think it's clearer in light of Snowden's original claim to the Guardian that he left training after "breaking both legs in a training accident" (it is possible, but unlikely, that Snowden acquired stress fractions as a result of a single discrete training event --- but Snowden was getting a lot of mileage out of the ambiguity).
> I see Gellman failing to acknowledge that a tibial stress fractures are a common medical diagnosis for "shin splints".
Even if "shin splints" weren't the common name for a different and lesser less severe diagnosis, those wouldn't be equivalent.
The House report would still be dishonest in calling Snowden a liar for a statement that is completely accurate. And Gellman would still be completely dishonest (even with the failure to acknowledge that you suggest) in painting the House report as dishonest for dishonestly calling Snowden a liar for a statement that is completely accurate.
This isn't "both sides spinning". It is one side outright lying and using misdirection to get away with that, and one side pointing this out without any misdirection.
The acknowledgement (even if it were accurate) that you fault Gellman for giving is irrelevant to the point in dispute, which isn't "Snowden actually had something that can be described with the term 'shin splints'", but "Snowden was dishonest in saying that he had broken legs". His discharge report indicates that he had broken bones in both legs. Snowden was not dishonest. At best, if one accepts your description, the House report relied on people's ignorance to sell a different, nonconflicting-but-also-not-incorrect description of the events as a conflicting one so that it could call Snowden a liar; at worst it actually invented a false narrative to call Snowden a liar, but whether it was a false narrative or simply relied on a false presentation of conflict, the House report relied on deliberate falsehood to call Snowden a liar.
> I think it's clearer in light of Snowden's original claim to the Guardian that he left training after "breaking both legs in a training accident" (it is possible, but unlikely, that Snowden acquired stress fractions as a result of a single discrete training event --- but Snowden was getting a lot of mileage out of the ambiguity).
Its not all that unlikely that the stress fractures, if not being acquired, became acute enough to cause him to leave training as a result of a single discrete training event, and its even less unlikely that he became unable to train and sought or was referred to medical attention as a result of pain and lack of ability to take weight occurring in the immediate context of a discrete training event and in the course of being diagnosed, was not disabused of the notion that the training event in which the injury was recognized was not necessarily the sole or major cause. So, its not improbable that Snowden's description to the Guardian was accurate, and even more likely that it accurately reflected the facts as he knew them.
Am I wrong for seeing this ultimately as spliting hairs here? This whole argument seems.....unecessary. What is gained by being this parsimonious with how his legs were damaged?
"but it's been pointed out repeatedly that he could have obtained an exit visa without a valid passport"
But only by grace of some entity with the power to grant him such a visa, right? He couldn't just ask for one and get it (someone in Slate I think said something like, look, Russia could have given him a visa and Cuba could have let him in—yeah, but those are things Russia and Cuba have to decide to do, not things Snowden can do off his own bat).
Yes, this is true, but if that's what's happening, the Russians are holding him hostage.
You can simplify this whole point to:
Unless the Russians aren't benign --- in which case it's a very bad thing that Snowden is in Russia --- if Snowden wanted to be in Ecuador, he'd be in Ecuador.
> How is it that the US can prevent Snowden from boarding a plane in Moscow?
The US can't prevent Snowden from boarding a plan in Moscow. (Well, I mean, there are all kinds of means by which it might attempt to do so, but no one in this thread has suggested that they would be likely to use them.)
It can, and would be far more likely to, OTOH, use its influence to a prevent a plane from Moscow from reaching Ecuador without being forced to the ground, searched for Snowden, etc., if Snowden did board it (or was suspected to have done so.)
Which is exactly what happened (except, of course, that Snowden had not actually boarded the plane, despite the US suspicion that he had, and that the destination was Bolivia, not Ecuador) in the Evo Morales grounding incident referenced upthread, so I'm somewhat surprised that you didn't understand the fairly direct implication.
How would the US even know who was on a flight from Moscow? If you believe Assange, the reason for the Morales incident was that Assange leaked false information to make that happen.
Furthermore, what does any of this have to do with Snowden's suspended passport? The passport isn't what's keeping him in Russia. I think the two plausible things that might be are: (1) Snowden, (2) Russia. You think there's a third? Can you explain it in some detail?
> How would the US even know who was on a flight from Moscow?
The US has foreign intelligence services, utilizing both human and technical means, and they attempt to monitor movements of persons who are of concern to the US, with varying degrees of success.
(The degree to which Snowden is still actively a concern to the US is a bit less clear.)
> If you believe Assange
I don't, particularly, but on this particular point his claim isn't implausible, and, more to the point, isn't materially relevant.
> the reason for the Morales incident was that Assange leaked false information to make that happen.
Sure, that might be what they US believed Snowden was on the plane. Of course, were the US not both able and inclined to stop even a foreign leader's plane from transitting unmolested from Russia to South America if Snowden was believed to be on it, Assange's false leak (assuming that is the source of the belief) would be immaterial. That they have the capacity and will, however, to take such acts is demonstrated by the Morales incident independently of the source of the false belief that Snowden was on the plane.
> Furthermore, what does any of this have to do with Snowden's suspended passport?
Nothing, I wasn't responding to a claim about a passport I was responding to the claim that if Snowden wanted to be in Ecuador, he would be in Ecuador, and there is nothing the US could do to stop him from simply boarding a plane in Moscow and flying to Ecuador.
Their manifestly is something the US could do, and has demonstrated both the ability and willingness to do, to stop him from doing that.
> The passport isn't what's keeping him in Russia. I think the two plausible things that might be are: (1) Snowden, (2) Russia. You think there's a third? Can you explain it in some detail?
The United States. And I think I've explained it in excruciating detail in this post, and my prior post in this subthread.
> The same logic suggests they could grab Snowden off the streets in Moscow.
It actually doesn't, since the logic at issue is "they have shown both the capacity and the will to do this to planes they believe are carrying Snowden from Russia to South America in the past".
They clearly have not shown the capacity and will to grab Snowden off the street in the past.
Its certainly not impossible that they could, but its a different category of risk from something that they have demonstrated both the capacity and will to do against the specific target in the past.
I'm comfortable with where we've landed if we've arrived at the three reasons for Snowden not leaving Russia being (1) Snowden's desire to remain in Russia, (2) Russia's unwillingness to let Snowden leave, and (3) the US's shadowy spy network detecting the specific flight he's on and diverting it to effect his capture.
I will note, with bemusement, that our shadowy spy network was unable to effect his capture when he was known to be in Hong Kong. We must have a gap in capabilities for the most westernized part of China.
You're willfully refusing to acknowledge the very rational and demonstrably correct decision to not leave Moscow under the circumstances and instead choosing to attack a straw man so you can be a smartass.
If he remains in Moscow, he has near zero chance of being rendered. If he leaves, he is one piece of HUMINT/SIGINT away from being grounded and taken into custody.
I think even a few of the more intelligent dog breeds would be able to choose correctly here.
If Obama were to pardon Snowden, and the US reinstate his passport, I can't see Putin keeping him in Russia. Why would he do that? As long as Snowden is a thorn in the NSA's side, Putin is clearly glad to have him, but a pardon would neutralize the benefit. It's not even like he could trade Snowden for some Russian spies; what sense would that make? The US intelligence community does not think of Snowden as someone they want back on American soil, except maybe to kill him.
I found an interesting Assange interview on the Morales incident [0]. The whole thing is worth reading, but let me just quote one bit:
Portugal, Spain and France closed their airspace. Some other things happened. Some preemptive extradition requests were sent out, for example, to Iceland, which we got hold of and published. So there was — the U.S. was pressuring countries where flights might go through or land or refuel. And as a result of that operation, then it became clear that in fact it was too dangerous to — at that moment, at least, to take any flight out of Moscow. And this is what then led to his eventual asylum. It wasn’t just the removal of the passport, which removed his ability to use commercial flights. It was that the U.S. was closing airspace and acting in a manner where you would have to assume that they — you know, if a flight went past the United States — not over U.S. territory, but past the United States — there might be some kind of interdiction.
Assange goes on to suggest that Russia had their hands forced by the US Government's willingness to pull strings to catch Snowden, and by the willingness of Western Europe -- France, Portugal, and Spain, at least -- to roll over. This put Putin in the position of either granting Snowden's asylum request or looking like another US patsy. Well, the last thing Putin would ever do is look weak. (I suspect Putin is not really too unhappy to make sure Snowden stays alive.)
Anyway, although Putin's cooperation is clearly necessary, the primary force keeping Snowden in Russia is, and has always been, the US Government.
We're not talking about why Snowden isn't in the US. It's clear: the reason he's not here is that if he sets foot on American soil he will be arrested and prosecuted.
We're talking about why, of all the places he could be in the world, he's in Russia --- and not Ecuador, where he claims he intended to go.
Right. He didn't think he could get to Ecuador without winding up in the US's hands. Was that not clear from what I wrote? In fact, is that not clearly the argument being made in this entire subthread?
You used the word "hostage" upthread. I don't think this is in any sense a hostage situation.
Yeah, I get that you think that. But you haven't explained why that would be. What prevents him from leaving Russia and flying to Ecuador? It's not the passport. But that's the only reason I've seen getting.
There are direct flights between Moscow and Havana every day.
Fun fact: the country Snowden supposedly wanted to flee to has an extradition treaty with the US.
Assange addressed this; I guess you didn't read the interview. I still recommend it; I think it would be interesting even if you're not inclined to believe Assange.
Anyway, you yourself mentioned the possibility of grabbing Snowden off the streets. I don't think for a moment that Putin would allow that to happen; the governments of Central and South America are another matter (not that they would willingly cooperate, necessarily, only that they couldn't do anything about it).
(For the record, I don't accept your claim that the passport is irrelevant. I don't really know how these things work, but I don't have the impression that it's easy for a known international fugitive to persuade a commercial carrier to board him with a canceled passport. I will grant that if Putin wanted Snowden to leave Russia, he could have made it happen; in that sense, the passport is not a barrier.)
As for the extradition treaty -- is it possible Snowden would have made a mistake in selecting his destination? Of course it is. What's your point? [ETA: I get it. You think the whole story is a lie and Snowden planned to stay in Russia all along. I think the absurdity of that view is matched only by its cynicism.]
What do you get out of these comments? There was a time when these were downvoted out of existence, not merely slightly grayed. I'm not particularly swayed by your technical competence either. I'd be willing to bet as well that if I downloaded your comment history I'd find at least half of your comments are snark like this.
But tibial stress fractures are a form --- a common form --- of shin splint.
The language I'm seeing says that "shin splints" refer specifically to what's called a "medial stress syndrome", which is different from (and of lesser degree) than an actual "stress fracture" like Snowden was diagnosed with.
The main point is no one would normally accuse someone who suffered a stress fracture of exaggerating or misstating the nature of their condition by referring to it as a "broken X." The Committee's attempt to get us to believe otherwise in Snowden's case (along with the gratuitous phrase, "washed out") is a blatant attempt at semantic and psychological manipulation.
> The main point is no one would normally accuse someone who suffered a stress fracture of exaggerating or misstating the nature of their condition by referring to it as a "broken X."
I would: I think that it indicates a propensity to exaggerate.
Moreover, I know folks who've had far worse than just shin splints (broken legs, in fact), and did make it through basic training. Washing out is generally indicative of one wanting to wash out: the military gives one the tools to either succeed or fail, as one wishes.
I would: I think that it indicates a propensity to exaggerate.
Perhaps you would, but if so you'd be placing yourself at odds with the consensus definition of what constitutes a "broken bone". Not that it specifically includes "stress fractures":
No. "Shin splints" is a symptom, not a diagnosis. Tibial stress fractures are a cause of shin splints. A lot of people who have "shin splints" have, in fact, tibial stress fractures. The first line treatment for bilateral tibial stress fractures is "stop working out for 4-12 weeks". They are apparently common in basic training (and diagnosis is apparently getting better, so that a lot of people that would normally have just complained about shin splints are now being diagnosed with small stress fractures).
Neither Gellman nor the House Intelligence report is incorrect here.
Snowden's discharge report makes no mention of "shin splints". It unambiguously mentions "stress fracture", which is unambiguously a form of a "broken bone" by colloquial definition (being as there is no medical definition).
The whole point is that there's no way one can reasonably claim Snowden was exaggerating or misstating the reason for his discharge. The Committee's assertions on this point were just a smear, and a pretty crude one at that.
This is like saying someone wasn't washed out because of a persistent sore throat but was in fact diagnosed with chronic pharyngitis. I mean, OK. Sure.
Unfortunately, your argument is made more difficult by the original narrative of Snowden's story, which claims he "broke both legs in a training accident". Were tibial stress fractures what anyone conjured up from that description?
Both sides --- Gellman and the House committee --- spun this particular issue. Both sides should have provided more context.
Personally, I also think both Gellman and the House report are litigating the dumbest, least important aspect of the Snowden events. I don't really care what kind of person Snowden is, and I don't understand what his personality has to do with public policy. I'm surprised Gellman conceded this dimension of the debate --- especially because a lot of the facts aren't really on his side, in the persuasive sense. Surely Snowden was more sympathetic when we thought he'd been in a pair of casts after a parachute mishap. The House report succeeded in re-casting this part of the story, with some assistance by Gellman.
> This is like saying someone wasn't washed out because of a persistent sore throat but was in fact diagnosed with chronic pharyngitis. I mean, OK. Sure.
Well, granting the analogy for the sake of argument, the problem here is the House report says that Snowden lied by saying he was diagnosed with chronic pharyngitis when he really had a sore throat.
IOW, he is being called a liar for saying something that is literally and exactly factually true about his discharge, and which is exactly supported by the discharge papers.
(The analogy isn't precise, because at best the description used in the House report is less specific, and implies a much less serious injury in the common mind even if it can include the actual injury that occurred. So, the House report is even more dishonest than the analogy in the above paragraph would suggest.)
> Personally, I also think both Gellman and the House report are litigating the dumbest, least important aspect of the Snowden events. I don't really care what kind of person Snowden is
Sure, you don't, but you aren't representative of the masses of the public, and what the House report is trying to do (and do so at least as dishonestly as it is trying to paint Snowden as doing) -- and Gellman is trying to negate
(and perhaps even turn back on the House report itself) -- is poisoning the well. They know that the substance of the matter regarding Snowden's action is difficult and complex, and they want to give the public a clear and easy to grasp reason to tune the whole thing out because "Snowden is dishonest".
Politically, its in a way the most important thing even if it is substantively least important, because its exactly the kind of thing which will -- and this is the whole reason that any time and ink has been spent on it -- prevent the substantive parts from getting attention.
I don't know that we really disagree about anything here. About the worst thing I have to say about Gellman here --- besides that I think it was strategically a bad idea to pick this factual hill to fight on --- is that he's removing the context behind the "broken leg" claim.
I know my original post reads like a list of complaints I have about Gellman's post, but it isn't: it's a list of all the claims Gellman makes, and a short take on each of them.
So, I think it's worth knowing that when Gellman says the House Report is lying because Snowden has a diagnosis of "bilateral tibial stress fractures", he's describing a common result of seeking medical attention for shin splints. That's all.
It's worth mentioning here that the Snowden movie --- I haven't seen it, but that's why all this stuff is coming up now --- appears to be false on this point in no uncertain terms. But then, the broader narrative point the movie is trying to make --- that Snowden was prevented from joining the Special Forces for medical reasons --- might not be. But then a narrower issue is whether he washed out of X-ray Special Forces Training (the "street directly to special forces training" program), or out of the military in general --- that is: did he wash out because he was only willing to serve if he could go straight to Special Forces, when he could have managed his repetitive stress injury, stayed engaged with the Army, and taken the conventional path into Special Forces? And on and on. The whole thing is a mess.
We are rapidly approaching a point where I am going to start reading reports on parachutists managing tibial stress fractures and I'd be happier if we didn't get all the way to that point.
The point is that nobody is diagnosed with "shin splints", just like they aren't diagnosed with "runny nose and sore throat".
If the only point you're making is that the House Report is dishonest in not acknowledging that nobody is diagnosed with literally the term "shin splints", OK, sure, I agree.
But it's a little crazy to me that we're discussing this to this extent, since it's the least important claim in both Gellman and the House's documents.
> The point is that nobody is diagnosed with "shin splints",
They are, or rather, they are diagnosed with medial tibial stress syndrome, which is a distinct and generally less serious thing from a tibial stress fractures (though, AFAICT, may include tibial stress fractures.)
But the relationship between the "shin splits" and medial tibial stress syndrome is clear -- one is the common name and one the formal medical term.
And that's not, in fact, what Snowden was diagnosed with.
And what Snowden was actually diagnosed with is, in fact, broken bones in both legs, so for the House report to paint him as a liar in saying that he was discharged with broken legs because he was -- by the reports description -- discharged with mere shin splints is a lie of such breathtaking brazenness, on such a trivial matter, so far from the substantive meat of the issue, that it demonstrates that the report was written with the intent to smear Snowden everywhere possible without any regard for the actual facts. And that's what makes it important, rather than the importance of the particular claim to the substantive matter.
I don't know that this is worth litigating further. I think, for instance, it's much simpler to establish that the House Report was brazenly dishonest about Snowden's educational record. It's not like the trustworthiness of the spin in the House Report is in dispute: it's clearly not trustworthy.
I disagree with you on these particulars. But, overall, I feel like both sides are pulling a little bit too hard on the rope in this particular game of tug-of-war. Of course, I agree that House Intelligence is stretching as far as they can to portray Snowden in the worst possible light.
I think the first article falls for the easiest of traps: it's a movie, not a documentary.
Every single movie "based on real events" is pretty much made up. Pointing to the differences between the movie and real life is (IMHO) a pointless exercise. More so when it's used then to justify a political position.
Put another way: as good as JFK is, I wouldn't put anyone in jail because of it.
I like when they say a movie is inspired by a true story. That's kind of silly. "Hey, Mitch, did you hear that story about that lady who drove her car into the lake with her kids and they all drowned?" "Yeah, I did, and you know what - that inspires me to write a movie about a gorilla!"
"Fact checking" a movie to derive its "artistic worth" is indeed pointless. That said though if a movie paints a certain picture while bending or omitting some facts which contradict the said picture then I don't see anything wrong with pointing out the discrepancies.
Claiming moral high ground comes with scrutiny. If for example he had indeed stolen the test questions to pass the test that paints a slightly different picture of the character he and his supporters are trying to sell.
Aside from the fact that the report makes no mention of the crimes Snowden exposed (as if the American public were too dumb to notice, or care) -- would you care to comment on any of the apparently quite egregiously misleading assertions it makes? Questioning his lower leg fractures or his GED, in particular, smacks of birtherism.
> Questioning his lower leg fractures or his GED, in particular, smacks of birtherism.
You mean these statements? 'He claimed to have left Army basic training because of broken legs when in fact he washed out because of shin splints. He claimed to have obtained a high school degree equivalent when in fact he never did.'
They go to Snowden's credibility (or complete lack thereof). Presumably the full report (an unclassified version of which has not yet been released) goes into details.
Regarding his stress fractures, he made it sound as though he was left a temporary cripple; shin splints aren't that big a deal and plenty of people heal up and complete basic training after having them.
Right now, one of Snowden's allies claims Snowden got a GED; the House Committee claims he did not get a high school degree equivalent. I'll trust the House Committee until the report is released.
For now, I see someone who claimed to have mono, who claimed to have epilepsy, who claimed to have washed out of basic training due to broken legs (leaving 'on crutches,' which may be technically true but misleading), who claimed to have all sorts of evidence of illegal actions, not one of whose claims of illegal actions has been borne out, yet who also claims to have released evidence of legal activity to adversary state. His trustworthiness rating looks incredibly low.
Presumably the full report (an unclassified version of which has not yet been released) goes into details.
There's no reason to believe they'd be hiding the "goods" on these accusations in the classified report. The only reason they aren't providing any more detail is because... they don't have any.
Regarding his stress fractures, he made it sound as though he was left a temporary cripple;
Where? Quotes, please.
BTW if you've ever had any kind of a bone fracture -- in that part of the body, it does make you a "temporary cripple". Presumably the Army agreed, which is why they discharged him.
Shin splints aren't that big a deal and plenty of people heal up and complete basic training after having them.
But he wasn't diagnosed for shin splints (or anything equivalent to it); his actual diagnoses was for something different (and categorically more serious). "Shin splints" are just an invention of the Intelligence Committee.
Right now, one of Snowden's allies claims Snowden got a GED; the House Committee claims he did not get a high school degree equivalent. I'll trust the House Committee until the report is released.
The article refers to documents on file with the Maryland State Department of Education, which is the authority I'll trust on this matter. But if you want to believe what the IC report nakedly asserts on the matter (despite not providing a shred of evidence), go ahead -- whatever works for you.
A little off topic but: my wife and I saw Oliver Stone's movie "Snowdon" last night with some friends. Everyone really enjoyed it (great acting, fast paced story, basically a fun movie to watch - recommended!).
I think that Stone took some liberties with historical facts, but everyone else I was with didn't agree with my skepticism. In any case, I would recommend seeing the movie.
Oliver Stone was on The Late Show last week, and he said that he's a storyteller not a historian, and that he couldn't tell the whole story in a two hour movie and make it entertaining without taking some liberties. However, he also said that Snowden saw the movie and approved of its overall accuracy, accounting for Stone's needs to make a movie.
"Snowden" was more story like, Citizen four more documentary like. Knowing that going in will help keep things in perspective. For me, I liked Citizen Four more, but think people should see both.
I am wondering, we always discuss about Snowden, OK he needs to be pardoned, but what about Assange... I would like to remind you that he (and WikiLeaks) revealed, as well, important documents about what do our governements and he's still stuck in an embassy in England...
I think what needs to happen there is that the US needs to promise not to extradite him in exchange for him surrendering to the Swedish authorities for the rape claims. I don't believe he should be extradited to the US to be incarcerated under criminally draconian anti-whistle blower; I do believe that he has to submit to a fair trial after being legitimately charged with a unambiguously horrific crime. Assuming (and I believe this is the most likely seniario given the info I have) that the Swedish prosecution is acting in good faith and believe that they have a legitimate case, the US refusal to rule out extradition is, quite frankly, obstructing real justice for the parties to the Swedish case. Dealing with rape cases is far more important than grudges against Wikileaks.
That may not be possible given the category of law he's charged with. Since his leak did damages to espionage programs that are undisclosable (under classified information law), prosecuting him fairly may not be compatible with the American system of justice as laid out in the Constitution. No real way to do it without building a "star court" with privileged access to classified information, that can therefore not be a randomly-chosen jury of his peers.
... which, one could argue, is a problem with the way the US runs espionage.
The parts where we have public defenders that cannot provide adequate representation, plea bargains that ruin any chance for real justice, bails set at outrageous amounts, prison sentences that are ridiculous by most any other first world country standard, contempt of court used to keep people in jail for over a decade, the list is miles long. The judiciary system is thought by some to be the most political of the branches of government and it shows.
It seems few of those apply to Snowden -- he wouldn't need a public defender, he probably wants a trial rather than a plea bargain, I'm not sure if there's a systemic problem with outrageous bail but Snowden is a textbook case for flight risk, ridiculous prison sentences -- perhaps, but just because a law is harsh doesn't mean that that law is applied unfairly.
The point is that the outcomes of actual trials are weighted towards too much punishment as a result of having the plea bargain system. We're disincentivizing people to actually have their day in court.
How about the existence of "setting an example" sentences, which would absolutely happen to Snowden?
Thanks to Snowden, the US intelligence services are now able to do more bulk surveillance, and they do so on a sounder legal footing and with full political backing but minimal oversight.
None of this would have been possible without Snowden.
I can on his behalf, because I understand where he's coming from (though I don't agree with the conclusion). I've actually heard this argument a number of times before. Obviously I'm not speaking for him, just my interpretation of where he's coming from.
Snowden revealed the things the NSA was doing that he believed to be illegal. The government agreed that what the NSA was doing was illegal, but no one really knew about it before Snowden revealed it. However in the aftermath, the government decided that while the NSA was doing something illegal, they were doing it because they believed it was necessary, and the government agreed. So they changed the laws to make legal what the NSA had previously been doing illegally. The net result is, everything Snowden warned us about is now legal and nothing has changed.
An unfortunate, unintended consequence, but I would strongly hesitate to blame it on Snowden. If he hadn't said anything, it would have continued, hidden away. If he did say something, it would be codified into law. Net result is, it was going to happen anyway. But at least everyone knows about it now, and I consider that to be a positive.
I think a more accurate description of it is: NSA was acting under the assumption that it was acting legally. The main criticism thrown at metadata collection was that it was a 4th amendment violation. However, a straight forward look at US Supreme Court caselaw shows that it isn't a 4th Amendment violation. The NSA's interpretation was correct.
What they overlooked was that the patriot act section 215, which they relied on for power to ask for metadata records, only allowed to them data related to an investigation. But they were preemptively getting all meta data totally unrelated to any investigation.
So they created a new law to allow the NSA to collect targeted metadata. Which some privacy proponents believe is just as bad, but it's definitely more limited than what the NSA was doing before.
It was never reasonable to believe that the NSA couldn't ever get your meta data. Police can get it for regular investigations too. They just can't get everyone's for no reason.
A key part of any propaganda war is convincing people to abandon the cause. Now that Snowden has stood up, we have no option, as citizens who care about reformation, but to ultimately support him.
What a lovely work of fiction it would be to envision a President Snowden. I think it's the one-in-a-million chance premises like that that make the best stories.
Alas, there's been too much two-minutes-hate, Emmanuel Goldstein-style demonization ginned up against Snowden. He'll never get a pardon, much less a medal or the presidency.
I dont understand what a pardon or a medal will accomplish. At this point I would assume that the moment the US is aware of his ___location he would be snuffed out, as discretely as possible. Unsure if there are any verifiable marks that prove he's even still alive (like him sending signed messages or something?).
He already did the thing. Do you think he poses any more real risk beyond that of potentialially becoming a martyr? While it's likely some people wouldn't want him being the voice for some things now. Anyone could probably do that just fine. I'd be surprised if anything happens to him beyond maybe putting him behind bars.
What he did revealing domestic government activities is clearly whistle blowing. What he did after that is inexcusable and on par with what the Rosenberg's did.
A medal? I understand the importance of Snowden's revelations and I know he believes he did everything the only way it played out. But that doesn't mean he is above the law. Civil disobedience still implies civility and he should come to his day in court. We don't know what he's given Russia or China in order to remain on the run, even Glenn Greenwald admits that here, when discussing Snowden's "self preservation": https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/352213748917874688
If I'm being chased by a murderer and I steal a bicycle to get away from certain death, should I later be punished for stealing that bicycle? Or is it generally accepted that I did what I had to do to save my life from the injustice that would surely happen had I not been able to escape?
"But that doesn't mean he is above the law. Civil disobedience still implies civility and he should come to his day in court."
The Constitution says we get due process in trials. People in Espionage Act trials don't. Further, there's no intent by the U.S. government or courts to prosecute anyone the leaks revealed were deceiving Americans in a number of ways. Accountability works both ways. Either they all get tried for their crimes with due process or I find it highly corrupt to only want one charged while others remain above the law. I'm against him being tried unless the others are and with a defense allowed with full access to relevant, classified info. At least what's already leaked.
He revealed what everyone interested was already suspecting. The reason Russia shelters him is that he was working for them. It's a reward, and one they have to give out, otherwise no on smart would cooperate with them.
If he wasn't a former Russian agent, it'd be better for them letting America make an example of him, because what would make US look worse than jailing for life someone who is widely considered a hero by a good fraction of population.
>He revealed what everyone interested was already suspecting. The reason Russia shelters him is that he was working for them
Yeah, Russia (e.g. not USSR, but the present second-tier world player) has so many spies in the US, including in major government agencies, and people affecting internal politics and decision making so much.
/s
It's time people understand that not all nations are alike or of the same power -- there is a single global bully who gets to do whatever they like and influence whatever it wants mostly unchecked and mostly unchallenged. And it's neither Russia, nor China. China has meddle somewhat in Asia, but it hasn't been in war or toppling governments and setting up Banana Republics at Europe or Latin America or Africa. Others had.
The only enemy to this single power, if it can even be called that, since unlike 99.9% of actual enemies in actual history it hasn't done to it an iota of damage statistically speaking, is the fanatic islamists -- random people from 20+ countries, including goat herders, conspiring, without even a single nation state daring to openly support them. In fact, their biggest supporter, state wise, is also in bed with the single power. Go figure.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You've given none, only speculation. He claims to be in Russia out of necessity, which is likely; can you show otherwise?
Come on, you're acting like he celebrated his birthday at the Russian consulate in Hong Kong and then stayed there for a couple of days until the Russians secretly transported him to the airport for his flight to Russia.
LOL, because where else would he go? Some western country in bed with the US, or some third world place where people mysteriously "disappear" and anything can happen?
That theory is incompatible with the theory that he's actually a deep-cover CIA agent acting to very publicly and internationally embarrass their rival department---the NSA---whom they feel has gathered too much power and overstepped its Constitutional authority.
Given the lack of evidence to support either theory, I choose to believe my conspiracy theory because I like it better. ;)
You can't trust a former CIA operative to be truthful about the operational deficiencies of the CIA! That book is just chaff thrown to confuse foreign intelligence services, luring them into a false sense of security about the CIA's imagined weaknesses...
(The fun thing about conspiracy theories is bending them to account for new facts with increasingly twisted, interally-consistent logic ;) )
It's not at all clear to me why another country would have their agent publicly disclose his findings to journalists and newspapers before returning home to safety. IMHO, this makes zero sense.
Or whether James Clapper deserves a pardon for committing perjury during a testimony to Congress: http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com
Edit: /s