Time magazine is completely off. The entire article is made up of so many bs reports of what coulda, woulda, shoulda logic its unbelievable.
The most important points are, Snowdens passport has not been revoked. Its not even legal per the US state dept website to do so.
He has a completely valid US passport to travel with. What he IS doing is stopping in places long enough to tantalize local officials with the data he has to see where that might lead.
Unless he travels to a country that the US can throw Interpol at him, he is a free man. That sounds easier than it really is. But its still a true fact.
Rather than speculating that he's in a Russian suburb, being drugged by alleged KGB thugs, it might be more constructive to realize he could easily take a private plane out of Moscow and reach his destination if he has one.
No entity including the US is going to kill the golden goose when it laid its egg before it could be hatched.
As Julian Assange said, no state will be able to prevent the release of the complete trove of information.
So if you want to play international poker, you had better be holding the cards.
> The most important points are, Snowdens passport has not been revoked. Its not even legal per the US state dept website to do so.
His passport has been cancelled according to all available reports. I think you're confusing citizenship (which cannot be revoked) with the passport (which can be cancelled).
Quote: "As is routine and consistent with US regulations, persons with felony arrest warrants are subject to having their passport revoked. Such a revocation does not affect citizenship status."
There's no official word from the State Department confirming this has occurred due to "privacy".
Sorry check the US State Dept website on the legality of revoking a US passport, not only does Snowdens case not qualify under the law, they didnt even do it.
While that may be a desirous outcome for the US, the fact is his passport completely valid is still in his physical possession and he may travel freely to any place that does not have extradition treaties with the US. And your comment only pertains to "felony arrest warrants" and not the reasons or probable cause for those warrants which are restricted by federal law when it comes to passport revocation.
This would seem to be demonstrably false given the large number of news sources stating that his passport was "revoked", and also given this language on the State Dept website:
Passport revocation may be effected when ... the person would not be entitled to a new passport under 22 CFR 51.70 (a) or (b)
When is a person not entitled to a new passport under 22 CFR 51.70 (a) or (b)?
A federal or state law enforcement agency may request the denial of a passport on several regulatory grounds under 22 CFR 51.70 and 51.72. The principal law enforcement reasons for passport denial are a federal warrant of arrest, a federal or state criminal court order, a condition of parole or probation forbidding departure from the United States (or the jurisdiction of the court), or a request for extradition. The HHS child support database and the Marshals Service WIN database are checked automatically for entitlement to a passport.
It is also common for a passport to be revoked when a child is abducted or in custody cases (to prevent the minor from being taken out of the country), see http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/family/family_864.html under "Assistance to Law Enforcement Agencies in Abduction Cases", so the entire idea that it is not legal for the State Department to revoke a passport seems to be based on incomplete information.
Lets see. You have a high level figure arrive in your country. He is a US national. A country you spend a great amount of time, money still spying on. (The cold war never offically stopped - US vs Russia spying still goes on).
You know the figure worked in key area's of the NSA. His own passport has been cancelled. He is in a precarious position diplomatically and he is on your "home turf".
Any Spymaster worth their salt would not hesitate to act. To debrief and learn as much information the person has in exchange for asylum.
ok, so by your theory Snowden is being waterboarded to hand over his laptops to the russians when he would just show them what he has in the first place?
Snowden has literally nothing to lose so whats your point?
He doesnt need to be interrogated. He is exposing an international fraud. If he is what he says he is, all he has to do is say Hi and the rest will follow.
I think you do have to ask yourself what reasons the Russian government would have to not be interested in talking to Snowden as much as they possibly can, and the answer would be there are almost no reasons why it would not be in their self interest to do so - just as any other government would have extreme amounts of self-interest to talk to a self-confessed offensive hacker from another country's intelligence service.
So all of this postulating is based on the opinions of a KGB double agent dinosaur from the Cold War (Gordievsky)? We know what happens when news agencies start spouting innuendo based on shaky claims by third parties [1]:
>In lieu of any evidence, the NYT circulated this obviously significant assertion by quoting what it called "two Western intelligence experts" who "worked for major government spy agencies". Those "experts" were not identified. The article then stated that these experts "said they believed that the Chinese government had managed to drain the contents of the four laptops that Mr. Snowden said he brought to Hong Kong"
This is the story now that's being put forth to try and discredit Snowden, that the information on his 4 laptops (media: "That's a lot of data!" groan), previously known only to the US government, has now found its way into the hands of either Chinese or Russian intelligence. Until I see some _actual_ evidence supporting that assertion, I'm not even going to entertain that possibility.
I think it is highly disingenuous of Greenwald to be angry that a news organization is quoting anonymous sources for their opinion as 1) the original NYT article makes it very clear that it was just an opinion and 2) anonymous sources has very often been the bedrock of his own reporting (as in the original Verizon FISA story).
I think that is to confuse the form of something with the meaning of something.
Anonymous sources for reports that are at odds with the powerful are anonymous for fear of retaliation if found out. Anonymous sources for reports that validate the powerful are anonymous for fear of discrediting "the message" if found out.
I don't know why you are groaning. 4 laptops has to be a 'lot of data' surely? It stands to reason. It's four times as much as one laptop and that can be a lot these days. <double groan>
If you can just drug people to tell the truth why doesn't the FBI just drug the Guantanamo detainees or in fact why don't we just drug every suspected criminal arrested on probable cause?
Because those drugs don't really work. It's like getting someone drunk and then asking them questions. It makes it harder to lie effectively because you have trouble thinking and people may trust people the shouldn't nothing we know about can force you to be truthfull.
tl;dr difficulty lying != forced to tell the truth
Even if they aren't, this makes a good point that a country should make it safe to return, even give some incentive, to somebody who knows a lot of stuff you don't want other countries to know...
In hindsight, just wondering if running around the world is any better than giving yourself up to the local police. Given the media spotlight he is under, wonder if there would be a repeat of what happened with Manning. He might have got more support too.
I mean if you are passionate enough about your beliefs to throw your life away why not face the consequences head on. Sort of like a King or Gandhi. I realize its an unfair question to ask, but it would seem that sitting in some South American country or Russia without knowing anyone constantly looking over your shoulder is equivalent to sitting in jail.
Russia is treading gently to preserve amicable relations with the US. (E.g., Putin: "If he wants to stay here, there is one condition: He must stop his activities aimed at inflicting damage on our American partners, no matter how strange it may sound coming from my lips.") The leaks embarrass a lot of countries that Russia does not mind seeing embarrassed, but they don't want to be seen as sponsoring it. The public relations would be messy if evidence of Russia interrogating him leaked while they were publicly insisting that they had no contact. If interrogation occurred, it would be great for the US government to see that information leak (because it would make Russia look bad and make Snowden and WikiLeak's decision to route through Russia look bad). Relative to someone like Gordievsky, I think the likelihood of evidence of an interrogation leaking eventually (via Snowden and people near him or by an internal leak) would be uncomfortably high. Meanwhile, we know that there are double agents in the intelligence agencies of both countries, so it's likely that Russia already has most of this information.
Edit: Meanwhile, it's entirely possible that Snowden has encrypted everything important on those laptops using a key that he is not carrying with him. Additionally, the narrative of Russia interrogating Snowden or otherwise stealing his data is so attractive to the US government that I would not be surprised if they would take steps to manufacture that story. The political motivations here should make journalists doubly cautious about accepting anonymous tips.
If the US had provided a safe way for him to expose the wrongdoing of his employers, such that he could do so without fear of being persecuted, he could have stayed on US soil the whole time.
Now, because he knows he's going to end up in jail (or worse) if & when he returns to the US, he ends up having to spend time in countries which are likely to want to interrogate him for all the information he has.
So I think we all know by now that what the NSA is doing is technically "legal", and Snowden's actions are "illegal".
However what the NSA is doing is unethical, and Snowden's actions are ethical. That's because the law is unjust, and (apparently) violates the US constitution. Also a lot of people are very upset about the secret "interpretations" of the law.
See also: Gandhi, Mandela, Luther King Jr, et. al.
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
Here's the ironic thing: If Snowden had done the more courageous thing and stayed in his country and released this data he'd be viewed as much more of a hero and would make it 10 times harder to prosecute him. To me that's the difference between a true patriot vs someone who wants all the glory but none of the consequences of their actions.
We saw with the treatment of Bradley Manning that it is very unlikely Snowden would have been treated well. Yes, there is merit in the argument that being willing to go to jail for your beliefs improves your moral standing. But there's also the argument that Snowden could do more good as a free man who (when he arrives somewhere safe) is able to speak freely about the issues and participate in the public discussion, which he would be unable to do from jail.
I don't really see any upside, for him or the public, to him being locked away.
Just personal speculation, but I think that his remaining "on the run" has extended the discussion over the actual issues. Of course there has been a lot of focus put on 'Where Snowden will go' and 'What options does he really have' but even events such as the forced landing of the Bolivian president's plane have added to the spying discussion. Honestly I think if Snowden had remained in the US and been arrested, there wouldn't have been enough "intrigue" for the media to continue running the NSA story at all.
If snowden stayed in the country he would be locked in solitary, and wouldnt even have a trial scheduled for 2 to 3 years. And his trial would have been 'classified' and the public would have no knowledge of the precedings.
This article is inaccurate, and I've been corresponding with the author.
It's predicated on the data being in the laptops.
As well, even by the author's own wild story, Snowden would "feel terrible, and remember being drugged and losing the information"
That doesn't jive with:
1) Snowden and Assange & Appelbaum (who likely are advising) would NOT make the rookie mistake are carrying the data on one's person. That'd be like Assamge carrying the original Wikileaks dump with him at all times.
2) Greenwald has talked by phone (Snowden called him) on Sat and again this Tues, and Snowden told him no such drugging story. Indeed, his spirits are high and he's satisfied with the global debate that's ensued from his actions. He said specifically he's never been in China or Russia authorities' hands.
The #FoutLaptops are for Snowden to get online securely. There's even that hashtag on Twitter to debunk the silly rumors about the laptops.
NYT is spreading a false, wild speculation.
NYT is also responsible for the earlier "while in HK his laptops were compromised" rumor (wrong-he was in a hotel provided by his HK media and parliament contacts).
That rumor was "quoted" by the New Yorker reporter in Beijing and that's the genesis of how it spread. I contacted that reporter (who I know tangentially) and told him not to publish the NYT speculation the day he posted it. Now that its even more refuted, I contacted him again last night.
Snowden (and Asaange/Appelbaum likely advising) are much too skilled to make an unprofessional infosec mistake. Everyone knows the security is both "physical" and "electronic". That's 1st grader knowledge, and the NYT apparently has little infosec training.
Why would Snowden steal four laptops from the US government if not for the data on them? Is the theory that he took them for his own personal usage, rather than taking a personal laptop he already had with him? If so, why four?
Also the idea that a hashtag on twitter can "debunk the silly rumors" itself seems rather silly, as the entire argument rests on the word of Snowden/Wikileaks/Greenwald/etc. There is no verifiable way - on either side of the argument - to know what is going on inside the special transit section of the Moscow airport he is holed up in.
It doesn't matter whether Snowden has physical assets on his person. If he knows things that could be useful to Russian intelligence, which he certainly does, and if he can access things that would be useful to them, he has put himself in a position where they can make it extremely difficult to deny them whatever they want. You think they play beanbag?
Snowden has said that if his goal was to do business with foreign intelligence, he could be "living in a palace petting a phoenix." If he really believed that his leverage as a defector was strong, then he's hopelessly naïf and who knows what other missteps he's making. I see his flight from China to Russia as an indication that this may be the case: He appears to have thought that he could play China against Russia and take the better deal. When China laughed in his face and sent him packing, he had to throw himself on the mercy of Russia.
On the other hand, if he knew what really awaits defectors, he was making a disingenuous argument. In which case, how much of the rest of his story is like that?
>So Gordievsky believes Snowden would have gotten roughly the same treatment that the KGB spy got back in 1985. “They would have fed him something to loosen his tongue,” Gordievsky says by phone from the U.K., where he has been living in exile for nearly three decades. “Many different kinds of drugs are available, as I experienced for myself.” Having been called back to Moscow, Gordievsky says his KGB comrades drugged him with a substance that “turned out his lights” and made him “start talking in a very animated way.” Although the drug wiped out most of his memory of the incident, the parts he did recollect horrified him the following morning, when he woke up feeling ill. “I realized that I had completely compromised myself,” he says.
Some conspiracy-minded speculation: Can it be assumed that the CIA has parity with the late KGB when it comes to pharmaceutical interrogation technology? It's known that the CIA experimented on subjects with LSD, and it's safe to assume the full extent of those experiments is not known.
It's so great that Russia has awesome drugs like that. And such a bummer that we in the free world don't have them. It would be so great if we did. Then we could just
give them to terrorists we capture and get them to spill their ghastly secrets without having to morally compromise ourselves by torturing people.
It is unfortunate indeed that the Russians are so far ahead of us in this regard and apparently have been for many years. Maybe we can persuade them to let us have the formula to at least one of these drugs. We are after all fighting terrorism together.
In fact if they are good as described, with most people not remembering anything, if the Russians did let us have their secret formula we could use the drug in so many ways - drugging foreign embassy officials, senior executives... the potential applications are endless.
Of course, now we know about these devastating new biointelligence weapons how can we be sure that the Russians aren't doing it to us all the time? Maybe they are drugging our officials and executives constantly? All that drinking and eating pickles is just a cover for this kind of intelligence gathering? (a vodka hangover would be a great cover for feeling shitty from the effects of the drug wouldn't it?) It's a pretty chilling thought.
Or maybe it's just a bunch of bs?
It's so hard to know what to believe these days. Thank goodness with have classy journalists who do deep investigative reporting to set us straight. Just imagine how confused we could all be if journos indulged in the kind of wild speculation that ordinary people are so prey to indulge in.
43 comments
[ 5.2 ms ] story [ 112 ms ] threadThe most important points are, Snowdens passport has not been revoked. Its not even legal per the US state dept website to do so.
He has a completely valid US passport to travel with. What he IS doing is stopping in places long enough to tantalize local officials with the data he has to see where that might lead.
Unless he travels to a country that the US can throw Interpol at him, he is a free man. That sounds easier than it really is. But its still a true fact.
Rather than speculating that he's in a Russian suburb, being drugged by alleged KGB thugs, it might be more constructive to realize he could easily take a private plane out of Moscow and reach his destination if he has one.
No entity including the US is going to kill the golden goose when it laid its egg before it could be hatched.
As Julian Assange said, no state will be able to prevent the release of the complete trove of information.
So if you want to play international poker, you had better be holding the cards.
Place your bets....
His passport has been cancelled according to all available reports. I think you're confusing citizenship (which cannot be revoked) with the passport (which can be cancelled).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/23/nsa-director-sno...
Quote: "As is routine and consistent with US regulations, persons with felony arrest warrants are subject to having their passport revoked. Such a revocation does not affect citizenship status."
There's no official word from the State Department confirming this has occurred due to "privacy".
Passport revocation may be effected when ... the person would not be entitled to a new passport under 22 CFR 51.70 (a) or (b)
When is a person not entitled to a new passport under 22 CFR 51.70 (a) or (b)?
A federal or state law enforcement agency may request the denial of a passport on several regulatory grounds under 22 CFR 51.70 and 51.72. The principal law enforcement reasons for passport denial are a federal warrant of arrest, a federal or state criminal court order, a condition of parole or probation forbidding departure from the United States (or the jurisdiction of the court), or a request for extradition. The HHS child support database and the Marshals Service WIN database are checked automatically for entitlement to a passport.
http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/info/info_870.html
It is also common for a passport to be revoked when a child is abducted or in custody cases (to prevent the minor from being taken out of the country), see http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/family/family_864.html under "Assistance to Law Enforcement Agencies in Abduction Cases", so the entire idea that it is not legal for the State Department to revoke a passport seems to be based on incomplete information.
Also see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_passport#Administ... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_passport#Applicat...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haig_v._Agee
What is your source that it is illegal for the State Department to revoke a passport?
Recent chatter suggests he's had a world passport issued:
https://twitter.com/worldcitizengov/status/35434221478205440...
until he gets kidnapped to another jurisdiction.
You know the figure worked in key area's of the NSA. His own passport has been cancelled. He is in a precarious position diplomatically and he is on your "home turf".
Any Spymaster worth their salt would not hesitate to act. To debrief and learn as much information the person has in exchange for asylum.
Snowden has literally nothing to lose so whats your point?
>In lieu of any evidence, the NYT circulated this obviously significant assertion by quoting what it called "two Western intelligence experts" who "worked for major government spy agencies". Those "experts" were not identified. The article then stated that these experts "said they believed that the Chinese government had managed to drain the contents of the four laptops that Mr. Snowden said he brought to Hong Kong"
This is the story now that's being put forth to try and discredit Snowden, that the information on his 4 laptops (media: "That's a lot of data!" groan), previously known only to the US government, has now found its way into the hands of either Chinese or Russian intelligence. Until I see some _actual_ evidence supporting that assertion, I'm not even going to entertain that possibility.
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/10/snowden-...
Anonymous sources for reports that are at odds with the powerful are anonymous for fear of retaliation if found out. Anonymous sources for reports that validate the powerful are anonymous for fear of discrediting "the message" if found out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/opinion/22pubed.html?_r=0
tl;dr difficulty lying != forced to tell the truth
I mean if you are passionate enough about your beliefs to throw your life away why not face the consequences head on. Sort of like a King or Gandhi. I realize its an unfair question to ask, but it would seem that sitting in some South American country or Russia without knowing anyone constantly looking over your shoulder is equivalent to sitting in jail.
Edit: Meanwhile, it's entirely possible that Snowden has encrypted everything important on those laptops using a key that he is not carrying with him. Additionally, the narrative of Russia interrogating Snowden or otherwise stealing his data is so attractive to the US government that I would not be surprised if they would take steps to manufacture that story. The political motivations here should make journalists doubly cautious about accepting anonymous tips.
If the US had provided a safe way for him to expose the wrongdoing of his employers, such that he could do so without fear of being persecuted, he could have stayed on US soil the whole time.
Now, because he knows he's going to end up in jail (or worse) if & when he returns to the US, he ends up having to spend time in countries which are likely to want to interrogate him for all the information he has.
Nice move, US.
I could certainly list the laws that Snowden broke if you'd like.
So I think we all know by now that what the NSA is doing is technically "legal", and Snowden's actions are "illegal".
However what the NSA is doing is unethical, and Snowden's actions are ethical. That's because the law is unjust, and (apparently) violates the US constitution. Also a lot of people are very upset about the secret "interpretations" of the law.
See also: Gandhi, Mandela, Luther King Jr, et. al.
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
- Thomas Jefferson
I don't really see any upside, for him or the public, to him being locked away.
It's predicated on the data being in the laptops. As well, even by the author's own wild story, Snowden would "feel terrible, and remember being drugged and losing the information"
That doesn't jive with:
1) Snowden and Assange & Appelbaum (who likely are advising) would NOT make the rookie mistake are carrying the data on one's person. That'd be like Assamge carrying the original Wikileaks dump with him at all times.
2) Greenwald has talked by phone (Snowden called him) on Sat and again this Tues, and Snowden told him no such drugging story. Indeed, his spirits are high and he's satisfied with the global debate that's ensued from his actions. He said specifically he's never been in China or Russia authorities' hands.
The #FoutLaptops are for Snowden to get online securely. There's even that hashtag on Twitter to debunk the silly rumors about the laptops.
NYT is spreading a false, wild speculation.
NYT is also responsible for the earlier "while in HK his laptops were compromised" rumor (wrong-he was in a hotel provided by his HK media and parliament contacts).
That rumor was "quoted" by the New Yorker reporter in Beijing and that's the genesis of how it spread. I contacted that reporter (who I know tangentially) and told him not to publish the NYT speculation the day he posted it. Now that its even more refuted, I contacted him again last night.
Snowden (and Asaange/Appelbaum likely advising) are much too skilled to make an unprofessional infosec mistake. Everyone knows the security is both "physical" and "electronic". That's 1st grader knowledge, and the NYT apparently has little infosec training.
Also the idea that a hashtag on twitter can "debunk the silly rumors" itself seems rather silly, as the entire argument rests on the word of Snowden/Wikileaks/Greenwald/etc. There is no verifiable way - on either side of the argument - to know what is going on inside the special transit section of the Moscow airport he is holed up in.
Snowden has said that if his goal was to do business with foreign intelligence, he could be "living in a palace petting a phoenix." If he really believed that his leverage as a defector was strong, then he's hopelessly naïf and who knows what other missteps he's making. I see his flight from China to Russia as an indication that this may be the case: He appears to have thought that he could play China against Russia and take the better deal. When China laughed in his face and sent him packing, he had to throw himself on the mercy of Russia.
On the other hand, if he knew what really awaits defectors, he was making a disingenuous argument. In which case, how much of the rest of his story is like that?
Some conspiracy-minded speculation: Can it be assumed that the CIA has parity with the late KGB when it comes to pharmaceutical interrogation technology? It's known that the CIA experimented on subjects with LSD, and it's safe to assume the full extent of those experiments is not known.
It is unfortunate indeed that the Russians are so far ahead of us in this regard and apparently have been for many years. Maybe we can persuade them to let us have the formula to at least one of these drugs. We are after all fighting terrorism together.
In fact if they are good as described, with most people not remembering anything, if the Russians did let us have their secret formula we could use the drug in so many ways - drugging foreign embassy officials, senior executives... the potential applications are endless.
Of course, now we know about these devastating new biointelligence weapons how can we be sure that the Russians aren't doing it to us all the time? Maybe they are drugging our officials and executives constantly? All that drinking and eating pickles is just a cover for this kind of intelligence gathering? (a vodka hangover would be a great cover for feeling shitty from the effects of the drug wouldn't it?) It's a pretty chilling thought.
Or maybe it's just a bunch of bs?
It's so hard to know what to believe these days. Thank goodness with have classy journalists who do deep investigative reporting to set us straight. Just imagine how confused we could all be if journos indulged in the kind of wild speculation that ordinary people are so prey to indulge in.