Edward Snowden

See other issues.

We have a generally favorable view of Edward Snowden. We believe that he is genuinely concerned about abuse of power by the U.S. intelligence community, especially when it is directed at its own citizens. We here address some of the points made by critics of Edward Snowden's leaks.

No Reliable System in Place for Voicing His Concerns

Critics of Edward Snowden often make the claim that he failed to take advantage of an existing and functioning system for voicing concerns to initiate reform. These critics, however, cannot provide any details regarding how this system works. From a theoretical standpoint, it seems foolish to us, to imagine that any system in which we report abuse to the abuser can be anything more than moderately effective. In fact, we should expect that such a system should be rife with examples of whistle blowers being singled out for special abuse. As it would happen, this is exactly what we see.

One case, in particular, which occurred shortly before Snowden's revelations, has been cited by Snowden himself as being a significant one in informing his decision to flee the country to make the revelations. In 2002, Thomas Drake followed the process in order to report waste in a poorly performing tool called Trailblazer. In 2004, the Inspector General issued a report that helped discontinue the program. Drake was subsequently indicted, under suspicion of hording documents. (Something that whistle blowers are commonly advised to do.) While all charges were eventually dropped, the resulting court battle left him financially ruined. Retaliation was suspected by the head of the office's whistleblower unit, Crane, who began making inquires, but was unable to get a straight answer as to whether Drake's involvement in the Trailblazer inquiry had been leaked. He did, however find, that documents that would have helped provide for Drakes defense had been illegally destroyed, and his attempts to dig into the case eventually led to his being forced out. Crane filed a formal complaint with the Office of Special Counsel, which resulted in that office finding that there was a substantiial likelihood of retaliation in the case.

There are plenty of other anecdotes testifying to the fact that whistle blowers can have their lives ruined if they "follow the process".

So, what is a whistle blower to do then if he finds that his government is abusing its citizens, with no legal means of affecting change without being singled out for this kind of retaliation? Edward Snowden actually attempted to voice concerns with his superiors but was ignored and worse. Simply leaking the information can mean lots of jail time. Nowhere inside the country is safe, so, from our own analysis fleeing the country seems the only option for making the leak without being quickly silenced. Really, it is worse than silence, because then your character is assassinated by government propagandists and your message is lost, not that bizarre character assassinations haven't been attempted, but by remaining relatively free to have a voice, Snowden can continue to assert his identity and plainly contradict the spin.

Snowden Didn't Defect

Another criticism of Snowden is that his move to China and then Russia proves that he was committing treason, and giving them special intelligence.

This is a non-sequitur. Such a theory is consistent with the observation that Snowden sought refuge in these countries. However, these observations are also consistent with the scenario of a de facto whistle blower trying to avoid being silenced. Fleeing the country is the best bet, and if one is to do that, then in order to avoid extradition or extraction, it is necessary to choose a country that has the political muscle to defy the U.S. and a willingness to do so.

Even further, though, if Snowden was working for China, then why did he have to leave, and if he was working for Russia, the why was his original plan to head to South America. The only reason he stopped in Russia was because U.S. authorities acted to stop him from continuing on, and then, once he had been granted asylum, it became, really, one of the safest places he could be.

Revelations Were Not Old News

Another point made by some critics is that the NSA's domestic spying was already known, that he didn't reveal anything on that issue.

Nevertheless, we find that in 2013, Jim Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence was sitting before congress denying the existence of any such programs as the ones Snowden was about to expose. It seems apparent that the existence of such programs had been known, but that these programs were supposed to have been shut down.

This begs the question of whether these same programs, once again supposed to have been shut down, really are shut down this time.

Some Other Resources

• Edward Snowden, Wikipedia
• PRISM (surveillance program), Wikipedia
• Edward Snowden - Twitter
• Rob Lever, "Washington Post takes heat for Snowden prosecution call", Yahoo, 21 Sep 2016
• Rebecca Savransky, "Washington Post calls for prosecution of Snowden, who leaked docs to paper", The Hill, 18 Sep 2016
• Ewen MacAskill, "Edward Snowden makes 'moral' case for presidential pardon", The Guardian, 13 Sep 2016
• Theresa Tedesco, "How Snowden escaped", National Post, Sep 2016
• Daniel Halper, "Edward Snowden is making so much money in US speaking fees", New York Post, 11 Aug 2016
• "WikiLeaks' methods questioned by whistleblower Edward Snowden", PC World, 29 Jul 2016
• "Snowden loses lawsuit against Norway to prevent extradition", Yahoo, 27 Jun 2016
• Andrew Rice, "I, Snowbot", New York, 26 Jun 2016
• Eli Lake, "Intel Whistle-Blowers Fear Government Won't Protect Them", RT, 2 Mar, 2016 11:18
• Spencer Ackerman, "FBI quietly changes its privacy rules for accessing NSA data on Americans", The Guardian, 8 March 2016
• Anthony Kimery, "Snowden Openly Engaging With ISIS, Al Qaeda Members, Supporters Via Social Media", Homeland Security Today.us, 22 Oct 2015