Snowden's yet-unleaked leaks could be America's 'worst nightmare,' says Greenwald

boing
25

Talk about a painting a giant target for anyone with a beef against the US/NSA.

It doesn’t paint a “target” on him, it puts a pet 900 pound gorilla named DeathMonkey at his side.

The people most worried about the leaks of this nature are multi-national corporatists anyway. Don’t fool yourself into thinking the people who profit off of the the United States military complex are all from the shiny USA alone. Just look at all the countries that are too chicken-shit to offer him asylum for a clue on this.

A huge amount of classified infos protects corruption for monied interests that have their tentacles spread across the globe.

You’re taking an America-centric approach to a DeathMonkey that has a voracious, worldwide appetite.

1 Like
26

But death isn’t the only thing he has to worry about. He still has friends and family who can find themselves at risk. One of them suddenly starts having some legal trouble, or has some skeletons in their closet. Or more worrying maybe they manage to dig up his browser history. Either way the feds come forward and offer to keep his secrets as long as he keeps theirs.

I don’t think this is very likely, if they ever did something that looked like a threat of that sort it would be a massive scandal, but we don’t know what secrets he still has. If anyone can find a way to get some leverage on you it’s the NSA.

27

He still has friends and family who can find themselves at risk.

I’ll just put it this way… That only pisses off DeathMonkey even more, capisce?

If anyone can find a way to get some leverage on you it’s the NSA.

Oh dear, but what if there’s more moles inside the NSA who are on Snowden’s side?
Oh, my… oh… my…

Night.

28

How would that be a revelation?

29

The US government should just cut its losses and stop embarrassing itself. Chasing around a guy who leaked the greatest violation of the 4th amendment in US history just makes the US look pathetic. The fact that he can drop a bomb on the NSA should just be extra incentive to get him on his way. The wisest course of action would be for the US to quietly bribe someone to get Snowden out of the airport and on his way to whatever country wants him. Once Snowden is safely in tucked away in South America, he is either going to fade away or hurt his own credibility by letting himself get paraded around by a government that enjoys pissing on its citizens civil liberty as much as the US.

The only two reasons I can imagine for the US not just scooting his ass along is that first, they want to scare the shit out of future leakers. Maybe the PR hit and the humiliation is worth it if future leakers when confronted with gross violations of civil liberty are too scared to leak. Second, as long as we are talking about Snowden, we are not talking about how a military spy agency is using the constitution as toilet paper in a cowardly effort to stop a threat that kills fewer people than bathtubs each year.

2 Likes
30

Interesting article about how the US is harboring an ex-President of Bolivia who is wanted for trial for ordering a mass killing. All while demanding extradition of Snowden. American Exceptionalism on display.

2 Likes
31

The proverbial military-industrial complex, as Eisenhower warned. Now it has transmuted somewhat into the military-industrial-financial-computational complex: bigger, badder, more nebulous, global and life-sucking, but still the same force.

Soon, it will be the military-industrial-financial-computational-healthcare-agricultural-educational-travel-and-entertainment complex, complete with its own logo that gets tattooed on your forehead in special remotely manageable thought-ink.

32

Don’t forget “-congressional”.

"Geoffrey Perret, in his biography of Eisenhower, claims that, in one draft of the speech, the phrase was “military-industrial-congressional complex”, indicating the essential role that the United States Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry, but the word “congressional” was dropped from the final version to appease the then-currently elected officials.

James Ledbetter calls this a “stubborn misconception” not supported by any evidence; likewise a claim by Douglas Brinkley that it was originally “military-industrial-scientific complex”.[7][8] Additionally, Henry Giroux claims that it was originally “military-industrial-academic complex”

1 Like
33

The one factor that you are forgetting is that the current government is full of zealots. They see nothing wrong with spending a hundred billion dollars on a manhunt. They RELISH it as a welcome challenge.

1 Like
34

Yes. It should be the entire government, because the Agencies (under the executive) are just as much a player, as is the Justice Dept. and even the Supreme Court, for slowly churning its wheels …over here while the FISC works its dark superlegal magic …over there.

35

The Man as signed an has a confidentiality oath to his employer the US Government. The saying goes don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. He weighted the factors in his head and now is black-mailing the US Government. Lets wait and see what he has to say. I have no idea to be sympathetic, lets see after the trial.

I don’t care if a select high level government group has software to pick up criminally active buzz words or look at my used toilet paper. Just as long as my personal information is kept private. The work for us and they must do their job in a responsible manner. Let the Cards fall, let him snitch on him employer and let him be tried. If he has truly sacrificed his life and freedom to save us we can beg the next administration to show mercy to him for making our life better if he is found guilty. Don’t hide the facts lets let the card fall where the fall and let the justice take place first.

36

"Just as long as my personal information is kept private. "

But that’s the point. It isn’t. They are recording it all, every little bit of it. They work for you and are not doing their jobs in a responsible manner. He told on them, and now they are wanting to shut him up.

It isn’t about listening to criminally active buzz words, or finding high level targets. It’s about getting all the information on every single person, on file and ready to pull out if they ever feel like they need it. This is done under the cover of ‘fighting terrorism’, but it hardly seems worth it.

Snowden has been very clear he doesn’t want to endanger actual US interests. Nor has he released anything that does so - only information that exposes criminality.

2 Likes
37

Wow. Okay.

Members of the government signed an oath to uphold the constitution, and they are clearly trampling all over it here. additionally, not all laws are just and should be followed. I guess it depends on what you want out of a government–order or justice. If you just want order, well, there are plenty of repressive places that can give you that. If you want a more JUST society, well, as they say, to make an omelet, you sometimes have to agitate against unfair laws. We can only hope that there are people willing to create disorder in the case of a lack of justice, or else we’re all screwed. WE, ourselves, should embrace disorder in the face of injustice. It seems like Snowden saw something unjust and sought to correct it, at least on the surface.

3 Likes
38

What good comments, and I totally respect your thoughts, still I think we should allow /give time for the justice system to run it’s course, perhaps we learn more when he sheds his cards.

39

Because the justice system is so fair and balanced, right?

40

Because surely the US bullying and insulting sovereign countries from Europe to South America in their attempt to grab Snowden is a good sign of how dedicated they are to giving him a fair trial, their recent treatment of other whistleblowers notwithstanding.

Again, I wonder if people calling for a trial have any idea why asylum exists. And you know you don’t have to beg for reporters to be allowed into a trial to hear what Snowden has to say, right? He’s given interviews, for instance this one right here on BoingBoing.

3 Likes
41

IANAL, but…

An oath (contract) to conceal a crime, or to commit a crime is void and unenforceable. A person who takes an oath of confidentiality and later learns that the terms of the oath require them to commit or conceal a crime is not breaking that oath by revealing the crime. Legally, the oath never existed. Void ab initio.

3 Likes
42

It’s a game of cat and mouse, if he makes it to asylum then he has a new country and place to call home. If he is caught then he goes to trial.

45

So totally quotable. Or Quotably Total.

46

Can you all read these comments and legitimately think that the hyperbole is restricted to one side of this discussion?

Frankly, the pro-Snowden side seems far, far more guilty of doomsday speak, and wild speculation. If anything he has revealed does not qualify as whistleblowing (and it seems clear to me that some of it does not), then he’s guilty of a crime.

The deathswitch info, since it’s not being used to whistleblow (and it’s unclear whether it will ever be used) is illegitimately acquired and transported across international borders = a crime, no?

He could have done this without perpetrating huge crimes, and had a plausible defense. Now, the only defense he seems to have is the suggestion that whisteblowers should be forgiven a broad swath of crimes because they do good.

Also have to echo, the death switch thing, if legit, is a very strong reason for anyone outside of the US surveillance cooperative network (I think that network includes Russia, and probably China as well) to off him. Unless the news is so terrible that it would disrupt the global economy and damage everyone everywhere, countries like Iran or even Ecuador seem to have at least as much to gain by killing him in the guise of US agent, while hailing him as a hero of freedom.

I respect his will to live, (I myself quite enjoy living) but the deathswitch idea = holding the government hostage = potent fuel for the people who call him a traitor.

edit: actually let me take a step back. Am I wrong that he has already revealed in interviews some things that are run of the mill spying, that anyone under oath would be compelled by law to keep? Am I wrong in thinking that the defense of Snowden relies on forgiving clearly illegal stuff because he did a good thing?

(Less stepped-back, more aggressive what if: Hypothetically, can all instances in which the US willfully breaks the law of other countries without their knowledge be considered “whistleblowing”? For example, if the US embassy in some country employed a man it knew to be homosexual, despite a legal duty to out homosexuals in another country, would outing that person be whistleblowing? If the US is protecting and fostering Chinese dissidents, would outing them be whistleblowing? Surely Chinese officials would be as outraged by the violation of their sovereignty as some Germans have claimed to be.

I ask because a proper defense of the legality of some of his talk about international spying seems to rely on a similar rationale.)