Thursday, May 29, 2014

More on Kinsley vs. Greenwald …

… NY Times Book Review, Michael Kinsley, Glenn Greenwald Controversy | New Republic. (Hat tip, Dave Lull.)

Kinsley is surely correct that the press cannot have unlimited freedom to publish any government secret. What would we say about a journalist who published American battle plans, or the location of nuclear weapons silos, or the identity of undercover agents? Just as Kinsley said, someone has to decide where to draw the curtain of secrecy, without worrying that any individual with an Internet connection can poke holes in it. Yet Greenwald is also convincing when he writes that, were we to leave such decisions entirely up to the government, we would be left in the dark about all kinds of wrongdoing that could not survive public exposure. Here is a genuine conflict of values, and the side one takes depends on one’s view of the dangers of anarchy versus the dangers of tyranny.
Kinsley would have a point if anyone had been endangered by Snowden's revelations. I have seen no evidence that anyone has. What has been revealed is the government's attempt to turn this country into a surveillance state. James Clapper lied under oath to a Congressional committee. There's where the outrage should be focused.  

16 comments:

  1. As far as I am concerned, the jury remains out on the Snowden affair. I guess I'm influenced by my past: when I had Top Secret (and above) crypto-clearances in the Navy, I understood what would happen to me (even if I acted out of conscience) if I ever compromised classified information, material, or equipment (i.e., I would still be in prison somewhere with the likes of CWO John Walker). With that as the background, I'm having difficulty finding enough extenuation to acquit Snowden. The system upon which he blew the whistle might be corrupt, but blowing the whistle was a crime. Ah, the dilemma persists, and I do not think I can yet excuse Snowden's breach of classified information.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was impressed by Snowdon during his interview with Brian Williams. It seems he did make known to his colleagues and superiors his concerns regarding the legality of certain operations and procedures. Apparently, they did not disagree, but he was eventually told to keep the matter to himself. There can be no doubt that he broke the letter of a law. But I think he adhered to the spirit of the law. After all, a law forbidding you from reporting a violation of the law is formally contradictory and invalid. It seems clear that our country is in danger of becoming a surveillance statue ostensibly, as is always the case, to protect us from our enemies. But I'm with my fellow Philadelphian Benjamin Franklin on this: Anyone who would trade his freedom for security deserves neither. We must remember that we are citizens, not subjects. The government is meant to serve us, and to honor and protect our rights, which are God-given, not state-given.

      Delete
  2. Frank, you argue persuasively, but I think I will wait for more evidence before settling upon either the patriot or traitor label. I think much more evidence is lurking in the shadows. But I could be wrong. We wait and watch.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Frank,

    No one stopped Snowden from reporting violations.

    He could have filed an anonymous IG complaint as NSA is a Defense Department agency with an Inspector General's office. He did not.

    For many years when I was a Defense Department civilian I was tasked with investigating IG complaints. I followed agency regulations as well as public law in my investigations. It is a strict, formal process.

    Snowden could have also called the FBI, the U.S. Attorney's Office, or his congressman. He did not.

    In my view, Snowden is an egotist who willingly betrayed his country and flew into the arms of our adversaries - two totalitian governments, China and Russia - and handled over our secrets.

    So in protesting excessive government surveillance, Snowden flies to two countries with near total surveillance of their people.

    In my view, Snowden is a sneak thief and a traitor.

    And by the way, despite his claims to NBC, he was not a "spy" or an intelligence officer.

    Snowden as Walter Mitty, the NSA tech contractor.

    Paul

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you seriously believe that reporting violations of the scale indicated by Snowden's revelations through official channels would have led anywhere? Seriously? (Do think about it before jumping in with a defensive response!)

      If nothing else, Snowden's actions have encouraged public discussion about privacy, surveillance, and security long overdue in this electronic age.

      As to labelling people -- egoist, sneak thief, traitor -- I prefer to be more cautious. It's awfully, frighteningly easy to cast stones.

      Delete
  4. I see the Government released Snowden's sole email to NSA's Office of General Counsel:

    http://icontherecord.tumblr.com/

    Paul

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you have any evidence that it is his sole email? I certainly don't trust any NSA claims, but I also wonder why Snowden hasn't produced copies of his own emails. You'd think he'd have kept them.

      Delete
  5. Lee, Paul, and Frank: I repeat my concerns that too little is known about Snowden. His absence from the jurisdiction of the U.S. complicates matters -- and his "flight" to China and Russia exacerbate the problem -- and I doubt that Snowden will ever return to the U.S. However, there is a silver-lining in all of this (as long as the media covers the Snowden story: we have an important discussion about "national security" v. "citizens' rights." Note that I put those terms in quotation marks because the discussion must eventually involve clearer definitions and limits of those terms. So, perhaps in another few years, we will have more answers and more perspective. BTW -- as a sidebar question -- what are Snowden's means-of-support while living in China and Russia? (Snowden claims no close contact with the Russian government, but someone is taking care of his living expenses . . . )

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lee,

    Yes, with more than 37 years of doing security work in the U.S. Navy and the Defense Department, I know that internal reporting can be effective. IG departments are bound by public law.

    And yes, I too question why Snowden has not produced copies of the many emails he claims he sent.

    As for name calling, Snowden stole classified information. He stole passwords from his co-workings to get access to systems. So, clearly, he is a thief.

    He gave this classified information to our adversaries, the Communist Chinese and the Russians. This information has damamged our national security and costs the taxpayers billions of dollars. Clearly, He is a traitor.

    As for being an egotist, I believe that is Snowden's prime motive.

    By the way, many current and former military and civilian intelligence and security people are suggesting that Snowden may have been contacted by Russian intelligence years before he bolted for Hong Kong.

    He told NBC he was a spy, and perhaps he was after all - for the other side.

    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  7. Paul, the problem is exactly one of so-called public law: there is the letter of the law (in itself open to interpretation), the meaning of the law, and at times, a higher moral law.

    And would you kindly provide a link to credible documentation that Snowden 'gave this classified information to our adversaries, the Communist Chinese and the Russians'.

    A belief of the kind you maintain - no, an accusation! - ('egotist') needs to based on evidence, not just prejudice and supposition. However, it's now clear to me that you have made up your mind and will not be swayed by a more nuanced understanding of the situation, such as RT's comments demonstrate. So of course you're welcome to reply, but I won't bother commenting again. Something I've learned over the years: at times it's best to let the other guy have the last word.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Until evidence is presented to the contrary, yes, my mind is made up.

    Of course, Snowden gave secrets to the Chinese and Russia. Duh! As Homer Simpson would say.

    Why else would they host him and support him in Hong Kong and Moscow? His personality?

    Snowden gave them our secrets and by giving other secrets to the press, he also gave secrets to terrorist groups.

    As for Snowden being an egotist, I believe that because I've read his interview responses and I've seen his TV interviews. His is so full of himself.

    Also, I've been a student of crime and espionage nearly all of my life and in addition to doing government security work for many years, I've also covered crime and espionage as a writer for many years. I know that nearly all of the spies and traitors in history were egotists.

    Snowden fits the profile of the typical spy and traitor.

    ReplyDelete
  9. PS: To learn more about spies and traitors, you go to www.pauldavisoncrime.com and read my interview with the CIA officer who caught the spy and traitor Aldrich Ames and my interview with the NCIS agent who caught the spy and traitor Jonathan Pollard.

    And the latest issue of The Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security will offer my interview with the FBI agent who caught Robert Lipka, the NSA spy and traitor who predates Snowden.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Frank, your comments are on the mark.
    Unfortunately, for most Americans, the argument is about Snowden: who he is and what he did. That is a shame because Snowden is not important. What he revealed should be the subject of discussion. Snowden himself has said that, from the first interview in Hong Kong to latest on NBC.
    Main stream jounalism lived up to its shabby reputation Wednesday night. All the talk and all the questions were about Snowden. No one discussed the value and importance of what has been revealed.
    Too bad. Another opportunity lost.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Read what former CIA officer Robert Baer has to say about Snowden:

    http://www.pauldavisoncrime.com/2014/05/was-snowden-spying-for-russia-seven.html

    ReplyDelete
  12. My, my. This obviously a topic that rouses more interest than books. I do not suffer from undue reverence for government. I thought we broke from England to escape from from tyranny, not to raise our own variety. The IRA scandal demonstrates that the current administration is comfortable with using the apparatus of government to silence its political opponents. On the hand, I have no particular animus against the military or the intelligence community. I once worked for the federal government. A close family friend worked for the CIA. former Navy Secretary John Lehman, is a friend and former classmate and colleague of mine. But, as Lee said, the main point has to do with what we have learned about the federal government. When James Clapper was asked by Sen. Ron Wyden, a quite liberal Democrat, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” And Clapper responded, “No, sir … not wittingly,” Clapper. Lying to a Congressional committee and, by extension, to the citizens of this country, is at least as much cause for concern as what Snowdon did. BTW, as to how Snowdon pays his bills, according to his lawyer, he has job with a Russian website.

    ReplyDelete
  13. A website run by Russian intelligence no doubt...

    ReplyDelete