While the fate of Snowden – namely whether or not other countries will offer asylum considering the international fiasco that has ensued – is unclear, it’s starkly reminiscent of that of infamous leaker Julian Assange, the founder of the now nefarious Wiki Leaks, who is holed up in an Ecuadorean embassy in London. Now, it seems, that Snowden could suffer a similar fate should Russia not be so inclined to offer asylum, as they are so demonstrating at the moment.
According to Putin, few nations are interested in the international pressure and debacle that would be tantamount to offering asylum to the rogue whistle blower.
“If he wants to go somewhere and there are those who would take him, he is welcome to do that,” Putin said in a recent statement to the press. “If he wants to stay here, there is one condition: he must stop his activities aimed at inflicting damage to our American partners, no matter how strange it may sound on my lips.”
But Snowden is in no hurry to cease his damaging leaks of high level classified information that relates to NSA policy. Apparently, Putin, in a measure reticent of his KGB Cold War era heydays, is profoundly bound by the clandestine services pledge: You don’t leak classified information about the spy network that employed you to anyone.
“Just because he feels that he is a human rights defender, rights activist, he doesn’t seem to have an intention to stop such work,” Putin said of Snowden’s pursuit in leaking classified documents to the international community.
New information that has just recently been leaked resulted in scathing reactions from numerous EU nations, after having been apprised that many of their diplomatic cables, embassy offices, emails, internet communications and telephone calls had been recorded or intercepted illegally by the NSA. The results of which have heralded wide rebuke from the international community regarding the US spying policies abroad on friendly nations.
“We cannot accept this kind of behavior from partners and allies,” French President Francois Hollande said on French television on Monday.
Germany was outspoken about their opinion regarding the matter, too, stating this week that, “Eavesdropping on friends is unacceptable,” German government spokesman Steffen Seibert told reporters in Berlin. “We’re not in the Cold War anymore.”
As the Obama administration races to quell the fanning flames, it’s finding itself in quite the precarious indisposition regarding international affairs, ally relations and citizen controversy regarding what is, quite possibly, the largest leak of intelligence in US history.
]]>Is the opaqueness of the clandestine services community coming into question after all of these years? Seriously, it’s called clandestine services for a reason. The reason being that you have to have a clearance level to access classified files. And those who leak them, like the accused Edward Snowden, are subject to harsh prosecutions often resulting in lengthy prison sentences. Then again, these contractors also swore an oath and received their clearances after attesting they would never leak anything, and that compromises the core of these agencies and their sensitive operations altogether.
“I think there are legitimate issues to be raised about how much more leg can be shown … to facilitate public debate and a debate in Congress,” said Paul Pillar, a former chief counterterrorism analyst for the CIA. “But the main risk and damage that’s been caused in these leaks is in hurting the cooperation and confidence between private sector companies that are involved and the government agencies.”
Reported last week, The Washington Post and Guardian newspapers flipped the lid on the FBI and NSA access to millions of phone records and emails. But this is nothing new. (Read more on this in our previous article: Pres. Obama to U.S. Public: NSA Snooping Was the “Right Balance”), as apparently such operations have been conducted in a similar scope since the 70s. It should be noted that all three branches of government and congress oversaw and approved these controversial programs that have successfully deflected and prevented numerous terrorist attacks, especially a large scale one that was intended to be carried out in a subway in New York City.
Some people say that terrorists like Osama Bin Laden evaded such calamities by refraining from electronic communications altogether, something that many analysts purport undermines the ability to track these terrorist cells.
“I’m not sure what kind of advantage an adversary gets when we say, ‘Hey, we’re collecting a lot of phone and e-mail records,’ ” said Philip Mudd, a former FBI and CIA counterterrorism official.
NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander says that the secrecy of such programs is incremental to them working. After all, how are you supposed to thwart terrorist attacks if the suspects are aware of your entire game plan, but you are not aware of theirs?
“Our ability to discuss these activities is limited by our need to protect intelligence sources and methods,” Clapper said. “Disclosing information about the specific methods the government uses to collect communications can obviously give our enemies a ‘playbook’ of how to avoid detection.”
A recent USA Today article sheds some further light on the debate between the delicate balance of the rights of people and in secretive government programs that are intended to undo terrorist plannings, yet that in the process of doing so, also touch a very red line on individual privacy rights that are granted by the constitution:
Susan Landau, author of Surveillance or Security?: The Risks Posed by New Wiretapping Technology, counters that government has the right to protect algorithms, the specific mathematical formulas the NSA uses to process and analyze the data. But the public is entitled to know the kinds of data collected and how its use can be restricted to prevent abuse of law-abiding citizens, she said.
“We really need to discuss how this meta-data should be handled under the law,” Landau said. “What data is collected and what the minimization rules are for that data.”
In the recent past, Congress has shown little appetite for making public even the general outlines of the government’s surveillance programs. Last year, three disclosure proposals were offered by Democratic Reps. Bobby Scott of Virginia, Jerrold Nadler of New York and Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, but were defeated by the House Judiciary Committee.
The debate is open. As for Edward Snowden, he is unlikely to find solace or refugee status in any country that has ties to the U.S., as he is a citizen. The Justice Department will assuredly seek prosecution for a laundry list of federal crimes, and Hong Kong is no safe haven whatsoever for him, according to officials over there; notwithstanding the fragile nature of U.S.-China relations that could be deleteriously impacted should an international incident take place regarding China granting a defacto and rogue intelligence contractor safe haven.
But what do you think? Is the NSA going too far and overstepping its authority by authorizing such invasions? Or is this necessary to protect ourselves from repeating 911?
]]>