The attacks on Edward Snowden have increased today. CNN’s Jeff Toobin who previously denounced Snowden as a “clown” has added that he is a “a grandiose narcissist who deserves to be in prison”. In the meantime, Senator Dianne Feinstein and House Speaker John Boehner have denounced Snowden as a “traitor.” Other media organizations have barred their reporters from referring to him as a “whistleblower” in what has become a deluge of negative stereotyping of Snowden -even before we know the whole story. Indeed, the attacks began with folks like Toobin almost immediately after he came forward.
Once again, I am not saying that Snowden does not have to answer for any crimes, but the effort to portray him as a craven traitor is a bit too much too early in this story.
In Toobin’s case, it is worth noting that he has also belittled the objections to the massive surveillance program — the same position taken by Democrats and the White House. He has explained his view of those programs, which I disagree with but respect. However, for Toobin to call a man a “grandiose narcissist” is bizarre. As noted yesterday, this is a man who threw his life away to reveal what he believed to be an abusive surveillance program (as to many other citizens). This is one of the most narcissistic towns on Earth and its leading denizens in politics and the media often seem uncomfortable with people who are willing to throw away their lives on principle. It is the type of self-sacrifice that they would never consider in their own lives. We have many principled and honest people living in this town. However this is also a town with an abnormally high number of sycophants, self-promoters, adulterers and the rest. In other words, narcissists. It is not surprising that so many would find an individual like Snowden hard to understand or dangerous.
The labeling of Snowden as a traitor will only increase the likelihood that he will flee to another country. This individual and story is clearly more complex than dismissing him as a “clown” or “traitor.” He insists that he revealed this information protect the public and privacy. That is not the motivation of a traitor.
As for the refusal to call him a whistleblower, it seems part of the full court press to demonize Snowden or prevent favorable references to him. [It brings to mind the successful effort to convince media to call waterboarding “enhanced interrogation” in the media rather than “torture” as it has long been defined by courts] Snowden is a whistleblower in my mind. It is true that the Administration can argue that these programs were lawful to the Supreme Court’s precedent stripping pen registers of full constitutional protection in Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). Many of us disagree with that ruling, but this is a new application of the precedent. While the government has long sought the information for individuals, the Administration is essentially issuing a national security letter against the entire population. Moreover, it does appear that violations have occurred in these programs.
Putting aside the legality issue, whistleblowers are defined more probably by public interest organizations. For example, The Government Accountability Project, a leading nonprofit handling whistleblowers, defines the term as “an employee who discloses information that s/he reasonably believes is evidence of illegality, gross waste or fraud, mismanagement, abuse of power, general wrongdoing, or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. Typically, whistleblowers speak out to parties that can influence and rectify the situation. These parties include the media, organizational managers, hotlines, or Congressional members/staff, to name a few.”
Snowden clearly fits that more common definition of whistleblower, even if the government contests the application of statutory protections. Many can legitimately question Snowden’s chosen means for objecting to this program. However, the hostile and dismissive treatment by the establishment reflects an obvious fear of the implications of this scandal. Even US Sen. Al Franken (D, Minn.) has tried to stamp out the outcry by insisting that he was aware of the program and “I can assure you, this is not about spying on the American people.” Democrats are scrambling to deal with the latest betrayal of civil liberties without their knowledge and consent. Franken knows that the issue is not how it has been used (though abuses are being reported) but its potential for abuse. It is a databank allowing transparency of every citizens calls and associations. Nevertheless, the establishment is joined together in mutual interest to deaden the reaction of citizens, as I discussed in a column this week.
The effort to discredit Snowden is an impressive effort and could well succeed. There is less discussion of the loss of privacy as the focus has shifted to the price of hotel rooms and annual salaries for Snowden. We are being told again, by people like Franken, to trust us and go back to sleep. Franken added “There are certain things that are appropriate for me to know that is not appropriate for the bad guys to know.” Of course, it was not just the bad guys who were not allowed to know. Citizens were also not supposed to know, but Snowden blew the plan. Now people are actually demanding answers and accountability – something secrecy was supposed to prevent.
Before we repeat the growing effort to label Snowden as a traitor, perhaps we should ask about the betrayal of our privacy and constitutional values by others pushing these labels.
didnt the soviet union have psychiatric hospitals full of political prisoners?
Boner has to go as does most of the congress and senate. Time to vote for liberty defending independents.
What is striking to me is the uniformity of the treatment of Snowden by so many different news sources.
It is almost as though an executive committee made a decision and everybody fell into line.
I don’t recall this kind of treatment or uniformity in the case of Manning.
I think the difference is that Manning released 500 to 700 thousand documents. With that number it is impossible for there to be any clear focus. Manning may have done great damage but there is no danger that his actions could focus and mobilize public sentiment.
Snowden in contrast has confirmed some of our worst fears regarding a few important programs.
If there is any chance that public opinion will mobilize and demand a change regarding warrants, and monitoring of email, and phone data it lies with Snowden and the public’s perception of his action.
It is necessary to demonize Snowden in a way that was never important for Manning.
It is clear that many in the media believe that if they can control the terms of debate they can determine the conclusions reached.
For those people it is absolutely essential that Snowden be know as a leaker, or worse – a clown or a traitor, and not as a whistle blower.
“What is striking to me is the uniformity of the treatment of Snowden by so many different news sources.”
BFM,
I think you realize that it ain’t no coincidence.
The irony is now, finally, there is bipartisanship (against Snowden).
I agree with other posters. It is not clear if he is a good guy or a bad guy. This may well give ‘aid and comfort to the enemy’. It is also something that while it may need to be secretive, and to be, it is not what this country is supposed to be about (well until the Patriot Act, at any rate – I know Nixon, Hoover, etc but I am talking about currently)
Michael S Goodman : “We need to know why a 29-year old was making $200+ K at this private contractor.
Had he been directly employed by the NSA or CIA, he wouldn’t have been earning nearly as much.”
He was making that much because he had Top Security clearance.
There is a shortage of such people.
A Washington Post study estimated that there were only 854,000 such people. This might seem like ‘a lot’, but there are sooooo many private contractors who need to have them on the payroll in order to get contracts and make loadza billions of dollars.
Booz Allen say they have about 8000 employess with that level of cearance.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/
“Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.”
Read it and weep.
Goodman would probably make less than half that salary working directly for the taxpayer.
He would not have to be wonderfully gifted technically. His security clearance would be more important. He would just have to avoid screwing up the systems that he administered.
From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/10/edward-snowden-booz-allen-hamilton-contractors
“It has been estimated that the average annual cost of a United States Government civilian employee is $126,500,” the committee found, “while the average annual cost of a ‘fully loaded’ (including overhead) core contractor is $250,000.”
The Guardian link gives some idea of how the billions are being swallowed.
That WaPo study indicates:
“Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.”
That’s a mess.
It is understandable that the administration would hang, draw and quarter (multiple times) anyone who leaked information. They have to terrorise anyone who might be thinking about whistleblowing.
The stores of secrets are like a billion gallons of cow slurry in a gigantic rusty tank. If one of those ~5 million people get away with leaking confidential level, or one of those ~800,000 people get away with leaking top secret – the game is up. The tank will start to burst.
It does not strike the powers that a solution might lie in not in the first place having guilty secrets that might motivate people to leak them.
I don’t think that Snowden, Manning or any whistleblowers in the past would have done what they did if the secrets that they had access to had been benign.
Long term, the aim must be to build huge data stores ( e.g. Utah ) combined with ultra-massive computing power running artificial intelligence software. That would minimize the exposure to those undependable humans.
The reality that such software would have to be written by some really intelligent poeple must lead to a suspicion that intelligence is not all that it is cracked up to be.
“Michael S Goodman : “We need to know why a 29-year old was making $200+ K at this private contractor.
Had he been directly employed by the NSA or CIA, he wouldn’t have been earning nearly as much.”
Michael S. Goodman,
In both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, private contractors doing the same job as soldiers make perhaps 10 times more money for taking similar risks. The government since at least 1980, has not only had ever growing “contracting out” of government jobs, but seems happy to pay the premium wages to the non-government workers.
I think there should be a Turley v Toobin cage match w/ proceeds going to the winner’s charity of choice.
Max 1 great u tube copy. Clapper has some splaining to do.
Related to WITTING
Synonyms
alive, apprehensive, aware, cognizant, mindful, sensible, sentient, ware, conscious
Antonyms
insensible, oblivious, unaware, unconscious, unmindful, unwitting
Related Words
alert, attentive, careful, cautious, heedful, observant, open-eyed, regardful, safe, vigilant, wary, watchful, wide-awake; hyperaware, hyperconscious
Near Antonyms
careless, heedless, inattentive, incautious, mindless, unguarded, unheeding, unwary
“Snowden is a whistleblower in my mind.” – JT
Bingo.
The shepherds and wolves are mounting the corral fence. The shepherds are spreading honied oats, don’t worry the government is for you, we will protect you. The wolves are howling fear fear, the teeth of terror are only moments away. Stay in your sheep pens or die.
Sheesh. Anyone notice us sheeples just ain’t getting as much money for our wool these days.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/us/aclu-files-suit-over-phone-surveillance-program.html?emc=edit_na_20130611&_r=0
J. Edgar Hooker would be proud of the jingoists whose tongues drip the syrupy propaganda of Stalingrad.
Bob K.,
“Stop making decisions based on fear would be a start.”
Yep.
And start making informed decisions.
Bruce D;
Well said (er – written)
Wish I had your penchant for writing.
He’s a whistleblower. Just like Bradley Manning. And for any fool who wants to use the term “traitor”? I suggest you read the definition of treason as contained within the Constitution, consider the actions of the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration, and the fact that none of them are in prison for ordering torture or aiding the Saudis in the wake of 9/11. Then take a good look at the comparative “aid to the enemy” each respective actions entailed and the comparative value to the average American citizen and the protection of their rights.
Then shut the Hell up.
John of Orange. Looking your direction.
We certainly should be wary of the use of ad hominem attacks on Mr. Snoden to distract from discussion of the various programs at work and what limits should be placed on government activities. At the same time we should be wary of praising him without more information, and similarly avoid wasting too much time talking about the messenger, rather than the content of the message.
I hope Mr. Snowden proves to be a hero, but I think that he, himself, said that he doesn’t want to be a distraction from the issues at hand.
Bob Krauten,
If not for Fear Itself, the United States would have to get by on Reactionary Panic, Mystic Dread, or Abstract Angst, instead. As Gore Vidal truly spoke:
“Americans are among the most easily frightened people on earth.”
The focus should be on assessing what Snowden did — in collaboration with the Washington Post and the Guardian. I don’t care why he did it, who he worked for, where he was born, whether he prefers cats to dogs, or whether he’s worthy of being labeled a hero — a term I’m personally reluctant to dole out to anyone other than my dad and an anonymous bone marrow donor I’m indebted to.
Was this disclosure to the Guardian and the Washington Post — coupled with their editing, censorship, publication and distribution of his information — a beneficial thing? And the answer isn’t clear — because it shifts based on whose interests you’re zeroed in on. There are winners and losers in this, but in my book, the American public — which got wake-up call from Snowden’s disclosures — profited. But their gain is only speculative. If they don’t act on what they suspected but now have confirmed, then all was for naught.
The President — both the specific individual and the office — took a hit on this. So did other government interests and agencies, except, perhaps, the IRS which may enjoy the respite from Page One that this affords them.
All in all, I believe that what happened was a terrific, much-needed, and long-overdue wake-up call. I’m happy to go along with the name-calling about Snowden. He doesn’t seem like a bright guy taking state secrets to China and hiding out there. That’s really his problem. I’m just glad he did this, regardless of his motivation or intention. I’d welcome more discussion about the pros and cons of the release of this information as I can always pick up the latest People or Us magazines to get the dirt on people I’m not particularly interested in.
A study of brainwashing in the Democratic People’s Republic of Corporatism:
Just load up the facial-recognition software, run it against the stored database of Omnivore personal surveillance videos and you get guaranteed probable cause for suspicion of looking unimpressed.
I’ve never met Snowden, or Assange, or Manning. I don’t know if they’re noble paragons of virtue. Probably not.
Doesn’t matter.
I’m grateful that they passed on information.
They’ve shown us the world that we’ve all created.
They’ve forced us to witness how weak, fearful people can be manipulated to create a perpetual-wartime security state. The one we live in.
“What are we going to do about it?” is the real question.
Stop making decisions based on fear would be a start.
“I’ve never met Snowden, or Assange, or Manning. I don’t know if they’re noble paragons of virtue. Probably not.”
Bob K.,
Good point. A deed should be judged on its merits and not the personality of the doer. Part of the trap we Americans often find ourselves in is judging people on personality, or looks, rather than their actions and how those actions affect others.