Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Snowden in Full
Ask me the narrow question of whether Edward Snowden did the right thing in revealing the NSA’s metadata collection programs on American citizens, and I’ll answer in the affirmative: such a program strikes me as a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment and — based on admittedly imperfect information — a poor use of the NSA’s skills and resources. Ask what I think of Snowden himself and my opinions have been negative ever since he first ran off to Hong Kong and Russia.
Regardless, one could plausibly argue that Snowden did the right thing in leaking the information, while still holding his self-preservation in contempt; he did the right thing for a while … until he started doing the wrong thing to cover himself. Well, Snowden’s not done leaking and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to justify his behavior at all:
American and British Intelligence secretly tapped into live video feeds from Israeli drones and fighter jets, monitoring military operations in Gaza, watching for a potential strike against Iran, and keeping tabs on the drone technology Israel exports around the world.
Under a classified program code-named “Anarchist,” the U.K.’s Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ, working with the National Security Agency, systematically targeted Israeli drones from a mountaintop on the Mediterranean island of Cyprus. GCHQ files provided by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden include a series of “Anarchist snapshots” — thumbnail images from videos recorded by drone cameras. The files also show location data mapping the flight paths of the aircraft. In essence, U.S. and British agencies stole a bird’s-eye view from the drones.
Now, I think this is a perfectly legitimate news story and that The Intercept has done nothing wrong in disclosing it. My question, however, is why is Snowden providing them with the information? Whatever else one might think of it, hacking into the military hardware of a foreign nation — even one that we’re on friendly terms with — does not violate the privacy of any American. Heck, it doesn’t even meaningfully violate the privacy of any Israeli! It may be prudent or foolish, a violation of an ally’s trust or a we-all-play-this-game sort of thing, but it’s not relevant to Snowden’s supposed mission as a crusader for privacy.
There are two ways to call attention to an abuse of trust by an organization you’re a member of. If you take the path of restraint, exposing only those materials directly related to the abuse — and remain indignantly silent when asked for anything else — we call that whistle-blowing, a dangerous-but-honorable option in many cases. If you take the other path and expose everything you can get your hands on … well, there’s a name for that, too.
Published in Foreign Policy
Your post reminds me that we only know what has been released. We don’t know what, if any, additional information he may have given the Russians or others that they are holding for their own use.
Having allies in Congress who can effectively mug the camera, demonstrate on your behalf, and introduce evidence you’ve provided them into the congressional record is a powerful tool. I’m not sure which hate machine you’re referencing but 1) the GOPe ain’t quite as powerful as we’ve seen it to be and 2) Paul has fairly good relations with McConnell, which is useful in circumstances like this.
100% agreed here.
I suspect the Russians and other intelligence agencies already knew a lot of what Snowden has revealed. Although it is a difficult call, I believe we needed to know this is happening. It is a radical departure from the Constitutional understanding of most of us. When it comes to spying on allies, the US has shrilly condemned allies who spy on us. What is the standard here?
I should have capitalized it. The Hate Machine. The Trillion-Dollar Hate Machine consisting of media, the public employees unions, Celebrity-Americans, academia, professional Democrats. Unless there were some obvious angle by which this would destroy Republicans and gain more power for the left, they would be against it. If it would make the Obama administration look bad, they would be against it. GOPe would be coming up with reasons why this is not the right time or the right case to antagonize The Hate Machine.
Having allies in Congress who can do as you say has proven to be a remarkably ineffective tool. Witness the Benghazi hearings.
This is a little different case in that it doesn’t divide people along the traditional fault lines, but we’ve been through this drill time and again.
Celebrity-Americans. Heh.
Need to remember that whenever they get up to preach to us about anything. “Nothing to see here. Just another Celebrity-American talking about something that has nothing to do with their own lives.”