Below is my column that ran this week in Al Jazerra on the one-year anniversary of the Snowden scandal. It is hard to believe that it has only been one year given the number of investigations, promised reforms, and articles. I previously wrote a piece explaining why a pardon or commutation would not be inconsistent with prior cases, but that still seems unlikely. While I disagree with Snowden’s release of classified information that could harm the country, I do believe that his case is more nuanced than his critics have suggested. What is fascinating is that, after a year, we appear no closer to a consensus on what Snowden represents.
Edward Snowden: Whistleblower or traitor?
Jonathan Turley
It is hard to imagine that just one year ago, Edward Snowden famously walked away. He was a low-level employee of Dell contractor at a nondescript National Security Agency site. A non-entity by design. Just one of hundreds of thousands of people working in the burgeoning national security complex in the United States – the ultimate faceless cog. Now, one year later, he is a household name but the world remains divided on who Edward Snowden is. Is he a whistleblower or a traitor? It turns out that question is often answered not by how people view Snowden but how they view their government.
Snowden the whistleblower
For many around the world, and a growing number of Americans, Snowden is a hero and whistleblower who put his own freedom at stake to reveal shocking abuses by the US intelligence agencies. Much of what Snowden has done certainly looks like a whistleblower. First, he does not appear to have sought money for his disclosures. Indeed, he appears to have thought more about what he was taking than where he was taking it.
Secondly, and most importantly, is the breathtaking disclosures that he made. Consider a few of the more important disclosures:
Secret orders under which the NSA was seizing phone and text records of virtually every citizen in the United States. The scope and lack of protection in the program was described by a federal judge as “almost Orwellian”.Surveillance of world leaders, including some of our closest allies like German Chancellor Angela Merkel. At least 122 world leaders were intercepted by the United States.The forced cooperation of US telecommunication companies to turn over data on every US citizen under programmes like PRISM.Programmes like XKeyscore to search “nearly everything a user does on the Internet” through data it intercepts across the world.The tapping of fiber optic cables by British spy agency, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) in conjunction with the NSA.The interception of millions of calls in foreign countries, including every single call in places like Afghanistan.
What is most striking is that in the wake of these disclosures, the Obama Administration first denied the allegations. National Intelligence Director James R Clapper Jr not only denied the existence of the programme before the Senate but he later explained that his testimony was “the least untrue”statement that he could make. Of course, that would still make it untrue, but he has never been investigated, let alone prosecuted.
While President Barack Obama would later insist that Snowden did not influence the various reforms implemented after his disclosure, few people believe that claim. There is no question that Snowden succeeded in forcing multiple task force investigations and a series of changes, including the claimed cessation of some aspects of these programmes.
Snowden the traitor
What so many people around the world admire about Snowden is precisely what makes him such a hated figure within government. He broke the rules and worse yet, embarrassed some of the most powerful leaders in Washington. He obviously broke the law in removing and disclosing classified information – material potentially harmful to the security of the United States.
The anger over Snowden clearly goes beyond the act itself however. For many of Washington’s elite, Snowden is as baffling as some alien from another planet. These are people who spent their lives playing by the rules in a system controlled by a duopoly of power. With two parties controlling the system, there is little that happens in Washington that is not predictable and often controlled. The reactions of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and current Secretary of State John Kerry are particularly illustrative.
Clinton came off as a classic passive aggressive – expressing utter bewilderment over Snowden: “I was puzzled because we have all these protections for whistleblowers. If he were concerned and wanted to be part of the American debate, he could have been.”
Really, how? I represented the prior whistleblower who first revealed aspects of this programme years before Snowden. As I have testified in Congress, the whistleblower system referred to by Clinton is a colossal joke.
Firstly, there are exceptions under the whistleblower laws for national security information so Snowden could not use those protections. Secondly, the House and Senate oversight committees are viewed as the place that whistleblowers go to get arrested. There is a revolving door of staff going back and forth to the intelligence agencies. The only “debate” Snowden would have been part of would have been how best to terminate him in the shortest period of time.
Then there is Secretary of State John Kerry who recently offered his own brand of macho advice to the kid: “Man up and come back to the United States.”
Kerry appears ready to give him an “attaboy” on his way to solitary confinement to cut off virtually any contact with the outside world. I have great faith and love for our legal system, but national security law has become increasingly draconian and outcome determinative due to various changes in the last decade. This administration has continued the use of secret legal opinions and secret evidence in cases. The agencies continue to classify information to prevent the disclosure of potentially embarrassing or conflicting material.
Obama has refused to close tribunal proceedings and reserves the right to determine whether people go to real courts or the widely ridiculed tribunal proceedings. Even with a federal trial, Snowden would be placed under Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) to cut off any outside contact and impose limitations on even his cleared counsel in speaking with him. At trial, federal judges are increasingly barring arguments from defendants as “immaterial” even when those arguments are the real reason for their actions.
So there you have it: hero or traitor. Take your pick. What is clear is that Snowden pulled back the curtain on new reality of living within a fishbowl of constant surveillance. People clearly don’t like it, even if they don’t like Snowden. They are left however with the same sense of frustration and isolation when it comes to their government. Snowden stepped outside of a system that many Americans now view as impenetrable and unchanging. Whatever he may be, Snowden remains fascinating precisely because he proved to be the malfunctioning cog, the one who walked away.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and has handled national security cases in federal court.
Al Jazeera: June 9, 2014
Max-1,
That is a new one.
Following too big to fail, too big to jail, they are to big to be law abiding.
Oaths to a People’s Constitution or Oaths to usurp those Constitutional Rights of the people?
Too Big To Comply? NSA Says It’s Too Large, Complex to Comply With Court Order
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/too-big-comply-nsa-says-its-too-large-complex-comply-court-order
A Nation of Laws or a Nation of men breaking laws with impunity?
Max-1 – we can only hope the court(s) do not buy the argument.
As probably the only person commenting here who has had a security clearance, I have mixed feelings. Everyone in that community is forced to watch films on famous spies, e.g. Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen. We learn that the actions of spies often result in double-agents being killed after they are revealed. Did Snowden’s actions result in that? I do not know.
I agree that our government has gone too far with respect to keeping secrets. The farce over whether the Rocky Flats grand jury could release its findings is a great example. Also relevant are the many nuclear weapons tests in the American West and Pacific Ocean where the government never bothered to tell people living nearby that nasty radioactive fallout would soon be falling on their doorstep.
But Snowden is a fruitcake. He breathlessly told us via NBC News that the NSA trained him as a spy. I think not. He was a lowly sysadmin, and by his own admission, only took the job to steal secrets, meaning he had made up his mind to be a spy before he knew anything was wrong.
And I am sickened by the people who proclaim Snowden to be a hero because they are afraid the NSA will learn of their child porn habit or cyber-crime job.
saucy – I do not think he is a hero and I am concerned about his transfer to Hawaii were the security was lax. However, I do believe he is a whistleblower. Given the secrecy of the current administration, the use of secret courts and secret committee meetings, I am glad this is out in the open. I would be more concerned if he just sold the info to someone.
I cannot speak to whether he was ‘trained as a spy’ or not. It seems everyone is padding their resume these days. I have my doubts about his claim, but do not have the inside track to know.
Yes, our skin is but wrapping on data for CorporatGov to harvest…
https://twitter.com/Thomas_Drake1/statuses/476131148633227264
Somebody ask Rootin’ Tootin’ Putin if he’d trade Snowden for Obama. Now that would be a shrewd bargain; certainly accretive to the national interests.
One if by land… HERO!
Of course the King’s men told Paul Revere to “man up and come home”.
James Bamford has been educating us about the secret activities of
the agencies for years…in “A Pretext For War”…he informs us…The NSA
had also obtained Bin Laden’s phone number—00873-682505331—and was
able “..to secretly eavesdrop on it as he signals transited communications
satellites.” p.163
Other evidence that the agencies had prior knowledge of 9.11(or should
have) was the
report by Newsweek of June 10, 2002 of the Kuala Lumpar meeting of
January 2000 which was attended by Alhazmi and Almidhar(2 of the
terrorists that would be on flight 77 that crashed into the pentagon.
The cia found out about this meeting from the bug by the NSA, FBI,
CIA on the phone of Ahmed al Hada which was the main logistics line
for Al Qaeda operatives to send information from around the world
to Bin Laden… and the CIA was monitoring the activity of the terrorists
before 911….
Able Danger –the highly classified military intelligence program that
identified Mohammad Atta and 3 other 911 terrorists 1 year before
911…
The 1 and 1/2 page report titled, “Bin Laden determined To Strike (in)
The US” and made available to Bush one month before 911…what
did he know and when did he know it….
How much did they know…that they are hiding and we dont know about.
Snowden did a great service to the average citizen…and establishment
bureaucrats that run these programs and establishment pundits are trying to muddy the waters and demonize Snowden to cover up the violation of
4th amendment(and other) rights of 300 plus million amerikans….if they
have this techology they can locate any terrorist they want…
Snowden didn’t swear allegiance to POTUS and/or NSA above all else;
but to the people and to protect our Constitution from all enemies foreign and
DOMESTIC……..
How you view Mr Snowden should not be the focus. The programs that our security state has implemented should be the debate. There should be bipartisan support to dismantle these programs and restore press freedoms. If you want to show Washington insiders your concern, vote Edward Snowden for President in 2016.
The article reminds me of the phrase: a choice, not an echo. There are more than just two ways to characterize Snowden. The article has it as Whistleblower or traitor. How about: Patriot or Traitor; Patriot and Whistleblower and one who sacrifices himself to reveal to the nation the crimes committed by Clapper and others?
One might pose these questions: Is Clapper just a criminal for his lies to Congress or is he a traitor?
Another thing: The government puts out this verbage about “data” and “metadata” in an effort to defuse the nature of their theft of our private information and invasions of our privacy.
I think that we need to have a discussion of Daniel Ellsberg. I think that we need to compare the present media corporations like the New York Times and Washington Post with the corporations and their families which controlled them back in the Watergate era and the Pentagon Papers litigation. Now, they wont publish the crimes committed by Clapper and others. Snowden and Greenwald had to go to The Guardian news media. We have gone downhill. We are in the sewer.
Nate, Snowden comported himself incredibly well in his NBC interview. But, it was opposite Dancing w/ The Stars, so few people saw it. Maybe Snowden should get on the Dancing w/ the Stars show.
Nick – Snowden would have to dance long distance. However, a couple of the professional dancers on DWTS have Russian backgrounds. I am sure they could get him a partner.
That this question is even being asked shows how far We’ve fallen.
For me, it’s the single clearest dividing line.
Those who support him are the good guys. Those who don’t, aren’t.
Karen, Putin saw a public relations opportunity and he took it. He has pimp slapped our allegedly “smartest guy in the room” President @ every turn. Hell, renegade leaders like Assad have scoffed @ Obama and called his bluff.
I started out thinking Snowden was a traitor, then moved to the I Don’t Know column, now I am in the whistleblower camp. Julian Assange needs to face trial for the rape of that woman. Agreeing to wear a condom and then not wearing one constitutes rape. He needs to face the charges. I am in the I Don’t Know column on Julian Assange, traitor or whistleblower.
Paulette:
“Snowden was an intelligence gatherer who reported on illegal intelligence gathering. A perfect example of two negatives making a positive.” So true!
I think his motives were altruistic. Any disclosure of illegal government activity is “whistleblowing,” and the country owes him a debt of gratitude for that aspect.
What I am not clear on is if he was careful to limit his disclosures to carefully vetted whistleblowing, or did he do a massive raw data dump. My concern was if legal classified information was included, such as the identities of embedded covert ops. I have not read through all the massive releases, so cannot say. I also have reservations about his chosen host country, who might benefit from information over and above whistleblowing.
Otherwise, when you’re reporting on the illegal activities of an Orwellian government, obviously you have to go outside its borders to disclose it.
“Really, how? I represented the prior whistleblower who first revealed aspects of this programme years before Snowden. As I have testified in Congress, the whistleblower system referred to by Clinton is a colossal joke.”
I think this answers the debate of whistleblower or traitor.
If there were legitimate protections in place it would be a different story. I also believe it would have played a role in the type and quantity of information he released.
Pulling back the curtain on “fishbowl of constant surveillance” was a great thing. The collective ADD response from the American electorate was not. Shock, outrage and then onto “income inequality” and battles from the frontline of the “war on women.”
Imagine how much panic a real third party would cause!!