Hacker News Reader

> If they pardon him, they say it's alright to release national secrets based on "feelings" (even if it's morally correct to do so, they can't have that).

You're missing an important point IMHO. If the NSA is an organisation that works on behalf of the US citizens then he is a hero and the US gov should give him a metal. Right before that, they need to create a sort of structure which allows these guys to express their concerns without being sidelined.

If the NSA is an organisation serving the government (or some other more sinister group of people) disregarding US Citizens then you're right.

The biggest reason I believe they will not pardon Snowden is to keep the sentiment among three-letter agency officials that he is a traitor because [reasons] and the government doesn't want to go against these guys because they hold the keys to a very dangerous infrastructure that I believe is developing an agenda (and has a mind) of it's own.

ps. I might totally off, that's just my take from what I see from far and beyond.

You really think NSA (or any other security secret service/organization) work for the citizens? I mean, they should, but you know...

>If they pardon him, they say it's alright to release national secrets based on "feelings"

Ah, but the thing is, they built the domestic surveillance infrastructure based on "feelings" — after all, the real threat of terrorism is minor compared to all sorts of other dangers the resources could have been spent on.

And the idea that they really did it because of terrorism is pretty much the most charitable interpretation of why they did it — it is easy to devise darker ones.

If they don't pardon Snowden, then they are saying (yet again) that it is alright for the government to waste our tax money — in secret and in order to spy on us, no less — based on feelings.

If they pardon him that doesn't mean he will or has to go back to the US. Also your ""feelings"" argument can easily be refuted: A) There are proves that he did use the official channels first. B) This isn't even a moral but a legal concern. C) You can excuse participation in the Holocaust with it.

I see where you're coming from, but you can spin it either way. What I think they should to is to use the pardon to gain trust and create anonymous contact points so that whistleblowers will use the official channels first.

This may be hard to believe on Hacker News, and you and I might think it's wrong, but most Americans do not like Snowden. They've done opinion polls and more than 60% of Americans have a negative opinion of Snowden. Very very few think he's a hero.

Politicians want him home for a public trial. But if there's a secret trial or he's assassinated, there will be outrage in certain circles (ACLU/journalists), but he won't be a huge martyr.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/04/21/edward-snowde...

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/edward-snowden-rasmussen-po...

And I think this is ultimately why Obama will not pardon him, because they think it will hurt the democrats politically. Time and again, both sides pick politics over.. anything.

I'm not sure there's as strong a correlation between current opinion of a public figure, and the degree to which their death becomes a cause célèbre.

Do you have historical American counterexamples?

Regardless, while assassination maybe would be a cause celebre, almost certainly a trial would be politically popular.

Lincoln: "It was only with his death that Lincoln's popularity soared. Lincoln was slain on Good Friday, and pastors who had for four years criticized Lincoln from their pulpits rewrote their Easter Sunday sermons to remember him as an American Moses who brought his people out of slavery but was not allowed to cross over into the Promised Land"

From: http://www.civilwar.org/hallowed-ground-magazine/unpopular-m...

Citing a 150 year old example is hardly a compelling case. And Lincoln had other things going for him. Like the fact that he was president. If Trump died I'm sure his opinion polls would go up too.

If you're going to ask for historical examples, don't complain you're given historical examples.

I stand by my point that if the only example you can find is 150 years old (and also has literally no similarities to Snowden - e.g. it wasn't even a government assassination or an enemy of the govt), you don't have much of a case.

You only need a small minority to believe something. If they believe it loud enough they will create a ruckus.

Then the government will have to actually prove all the character assassination attempts. Even though there is no evidence they really have against him at this point. I mean, in terms of being a Russian spy, or an alcoholic or something.

Also, remember these are the same pollsters who had Hillary winning the election...

Also, remember these are the same pollsters who had Hillary winning the election...

No, polls said "more people will vote for Hillary than Trump" - and they were right. The failure was of the journalists and pundits interpreting that as a win.

No, they don't have to prove any of the character assasination attempts. They just have to prove Snowden committed a crime, which even Snowden has admitted to.

I agree, and I think right now the timing is really bad.

It is the wrong time to weaken the IC any further given how that would play in the "IC vs Incoming administration" showdown that seems to be squaring up.

"It's OK to share information and run to Russia" is not a good thing to pardon when you're trying to investigate whether people close to the incoming administration have shared information with Russia.

Whether a program violates the 4th Amendment or not is not "feelings", it is an objective fact.

Given Obama having just expanded the NSA's powers[1] just before leaving office, it would be out of character for him to pardon Snowden.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/obama...

What about the possibility that Snowden dies from a freak accident or suspicious circumstances while in exile? Either will look like a government coverup. It's probably better to get him home one way or the other - I'd prefer a pardon -, or you very quietly make sure that all his needs and wants are tended to.

>If they try to get him to the US for a public trial

He'll likely get convicted. The US would be happy to put him on trial.

>If they bring him home for a secret trial, the risk rioting or a martyr

Secret trial? Rioting? I think you're overestimating general support for Snowden and have some odd ideas about the way the justice system works.

Could go either way. If I were on the jury, it would hang. I'd be weeded out during jury selection, of course, but there are not a few people like me.

I'm not really seeing it. If you look at Espionage Act cases that involve the actual passing of classified information (rather than, say, intimidating socialists and anarchists), just about everyone gets convicted. Ellsberg and Russo might have been able to rely on public sentiment but charges against them were dismissed. Snowden's position is much weaker.

Lesson: only blow whistles if you plan to become popular. Make sure they're whistles that popular opinion likes amd supports.

Politics.

I'd be careful asserting "what he stands for". At the moment he is at the mercy of the Russian intelligence services and the Russian government, in a nation far more "flexible" about human rights and democracy. Let's just say: if they had a request for some particular information, or a message being delivered to his followers, he isn't exactly in a position to refuse.

On the other hand, we know that Russia is recruiting intelligence assets like him all over the western world. It is entirely possible Snowden was recruited by Russian operatives before his defection to Russia, maybe even before stealing the files.

He's a valuable Russian intelligence asset who suddenly runs off to Hong Kong to talk to journalists? That doesn't really make much sense.

My impression is that he went to the ChiComs first, they decided his stolen files were too hot for them to handle, so he went to Russia as a backup plan.

Nothing is too hot to handle for a big nation state like China. I don't know exactly why China didn't detain him. But there are a whole lot of possibilities from being to slow off the mark, avoiding ruffled feathers with the US, up to an agreement with Russia.

Maybe Snowden really hadn't anything with him in Hong Kong which he hasn't already shared with Journalists and the Russians.

I've assumed that both China and Russia have access to his complete unfiltered information in exchange for his safety.

Hard for Snowden to say no to those demands at that point. "Give us everything you have right now and we won't send you back to the US."

China does the same for any equipment or planes they seize from the US- inspect the hell out of it and then return it.

"avoiding ruffled feathers with the US" is what I meant by China deciding his data was too hot to handle. I agree with the other possibilities, too.

It makes a whole lot of sense if you consider that the goal of Snowden's defection isn't just to bring secret information to Russia, but rather to undermine Trust in western democracy - a well documented goal of Russia's intelligence services.

You still don't get the point that Snowden may be flat out lying over certain things, like his reasons to go to Hongkong or to "choose" Russian exile.

It still doesn't make sense. Why blow a super-valuable asset to 'undermine trust in western democracy'? I mean, you have a mole in the NSA and your next step is... TV interviews in Moscow? To make him a Russian agent you have to explain or make up a whole pile of things for which there is no evidence at all, so far.

Nope. He may not have been willing or capable to be a long-term asset. It was possible and probable he would have been revealed. He may have had scruples as to how far to betray his country. He may not even have had access to an ongoing stream of documents to justify the risk.

What do I have to make up? He went to Russia and helped Putin's cause. That's all I know.

I do believe this to be at least as plausible as the apparently more popular alternative that Snowden is a saint, didn't lie about anything and only wanted to make the world a better and more democratic place by getting help from China, Putin, Castro and Venezuela.

He may not have been willing or capable to be a long-term asset. It was possible and probable he would have been revealed. He may have had scruples as to how far to betray his country. He may not even have had access to an ongoing stream of documents to justify the risk.

You just made all of these up to explain away his behaviour which is generally not that consistent with "Russian spy". For the simpler version - "he probably wasn't a Russian spy" you don't have to propose any of these (really strange) things. Can you think of any spy who behaved like that? Did Kim Philby give interviews on his way to Moscow? You don't have to believe Snowden is a saint or hasn't lied about or obfuscated his motives to think there is little evidence he's a Russian agent because there really isn't any, so far.

I never said Snowden was a "spy". The alternative I am proposing is that he was approached by a covert operative (a "spy") who nudged or convinced him on what he eventually did. This doesn't even require ultimately require financial motives or a will to betray his country. He may even believe to be helping his country, even though he is cooperating with a foreign government.

And yes, this kind of thing happens all the time. "Moles" are the exception in terms of covert "assets". Double agents even more so. On the other hand, there are recurring reports of employees in the government and defense contractors being approached by operatives (or other assets). The Chinese seem to be very fond of honey traps, too.

Saying Snowden isn't an asset isn't that much simpler and it doesn't need less assumptions. Because I am not deciding on either possibility, and not trying to convict him, Snowden's honesty isn't a proven fact in my view. I don't have the burden of proof to assume he could be lying, just as nobody can prove he isn't lying.

The alternative I am proposing is that he was approached by a covert operative (a "spy") who nudged or convinced him on what he eventually did.

I.e. recruited Snowden as a spy. I'm not sure what we're hairsplitting over.

You do have the burden of, if not proof, then some kind of plausible theory supported by something other than complete speculation. None of the stuff Snowden did (you can safely ignore everything he's said) really fits with 'Russian agent'. Why leave at all? Why go to Hong Kong? Why deal with journalists? Why even actually carry the data around? None of this really makes much sense.

There are plenty of reasonable 'Snowden, the not-saint' theories you can put forward that can at least be used to explain some of his actions. For instance, maybe Snowden took all the extra data in the hopes of passing it to a foreign intelligence service/government in exchange for his safety. That's distinctly non-saintly and at odds with what he's said. But it's self-consistent.

A Russian agent has infiltrated the NSA but then somehow his handlers can neither keep him in place nor safely extract him OR his (their!) data. He then takes off galavanting across the world, talking to journalists and in possession of a giant pile of classified material. Eventually and seemingly accidentally, he get stuck in Moscow. Is this possible? Maybe. But it sure is convoluted and implausible. It's just speculation that doesn't really fit anything and seems mostly to serve as a roundabout way of saying 'I really don't like Snowden'. I think it's easier to just say you really don't like Snowden.

You are idealizing the reach of "spies". And no, an asset/source is not necessarily a "spy", and there is no incentive to become and stay a "mole".

Snowden never "infiltrated" the NSA. He got access to some data he shouldn't have had.

You also assume that the Russians didn't get the data, either before or after his flight.

This fits perfectly with the goal of shaking confidence in western democracy. For this it makes perfect sense to give the data to journalists and come up with a simple and untainted origin story. It doesn't mean that the data Snowden had didn't end up in the FSB's hand. It doesn't mean the data he had access to was more valuable to the FSB if not passed on to journalists.

The only way this theory doesn't fit is when viewed in light of simplistic notions of "Human Intelligence" methods, inspired by some bad spy movies. In reality, it's much more boring, and limited compromise of foreign assets seems the norm, rather than some super-spies becoming moles or double agents.

You are idealizing the reach of "spies". And no, an asset/source is not necessarily a "spy", and there is no incentive to become and stay a "mole". Snowden never "infiltrated" the NSA. He got access to some data he shouldn't have had.

Again, I have no idea what this discussion of terminology has to do with anything. I'm using the plain English meaning of 'spy'. It's not really that important. Although Snowden specifically sought a job to gain access to data and social-engineered passwords out of coworkers. It's not like he was finding files people had forgotten in bathroom stalls and then bumped into the Russian Naval attache at Starbucks and they got to talking.

You also assume that the Russians didn't get the data, either before or after his flight.

Where did I assume that? And again, how is that related to anything?

This fits perfectly with the goal of shaking confidence in western democracy. For this it makes perfect sense to give the data to journalists and come up with a simple and untainted origin story.

No. It doesn't. Snowden's impact has been extremely limited. His value as a source at his job would far, far outweigh any imaginary 'influence operation'. You're essentially saying that the most important thing to Russian intelligence is not actual intelligence but making the west look bad. You haven't answered the zillion of simple questions that arise - why on earth would anyone cultivate a source with such valuable access only to blow him on some completely ridiculous sideshow that could have been accomplished much more cheaply. And, of course, you'd have to do it perfectly - there is nothing the US would like to do more than to discredit Snowden as a Russian spy. So one slip, one little bit of evidence and not only have you wasted this invaluable source, your 'confidence shaking' operation is discredited. Nobody would do that. Your theory has to provide some sort of rational motives for the players and it doesn't - it just piles on improbable things. I'm not trying to defend Snowden. I'm trying to defend common sense. If you think he's a spy, try explaining his actions, his motivations, the motivations of his handlers, etc. I don't think you can.

You assume Snowden had the ability and willingness to stay hidden as a mole and continously feed data to his handlers. Apparently the NSA did figure out a lot of what he did, and quite quickly, so it was reasonable he should fear detection.

The handler then would face the decision: Force Snowden to do what he can't and/or wouldn't do, or moving on with the secondary plan.

It is my understanding that he was rid of all of the documents before he went to Russia. How could he serve them even if he wanted to?

I think you are somewhat out of touch with his own statements and circumstances.

He says that he got rid of the documents, there's no way to verify it. I think there are no reasons to take his statements at the face value, given the players involved in the overall situation -- the world's top intelligence agencies.

Exactly. But look at what responses I get when I just point out the possibility Snowden may be lying.

I do recognize the value of the revelations. I just don't accept Snowden's motives at face value.

I'm not saying there is evidence for colusion with Russia prior to the affair, but it's very possible and explains quite a few things.

>Exactly. But look at what responses I get when I just point out the possibility Snowden may be lying.

Given the number of times the intelligence agencies have verifiably lied about this affair alone (many) and the number of times Snowden has verifiably lied (zero), why would you default to believing the known liars?

>and explains quite a few things

There's very little that is unexplained about Snowden.

So somebody who hasn't been caught lying yet can't possibly lie?

I'm not really believing much of what the NSA or CIA said about him. I don't need to in order to entertain the possibility that Snowden was recruited by a covert operative -before- the affair. It explains how a lowly sysadmin comes up with the courage and the plan to flee half way around the world.

I also don't believe the intended travel itinerary. Wouldn't it be easier to make a vacation in Venezuela, publish his material from a nice cushy hotel and THEN try to get asylum? How did he know China wouldn't detain/deport him? Same with Russia? There is no proof for either version. But enough suspicion to justify holding off on making Snowden a saint of democracy.

Why would China or Russia deport him or detain him any longer than necessary to strip him and squeeze him a bit? It's not like he's getting any new info, and this way he remains a source of political destabilization for the US.

Oh, plenty of possible reasons. For example in exchange for some captured spies or hardware. Or some other concessions.

He also may have access to material nobody published yet. Again, it's not about what happened, but what he would have had to fear if he didn't have contact with the Chinese or Russian government before fleeing there.

>So somebody who hasn't been caught lying yet can't possibly lie?

Is, as you are well aware, not what I said.

>I'm not really believing much of what the NSA or CIA said about him.

...except the accusation that he's a Russian spy which you are very attached to.

>I also don't believe the intended travel itinerary. Wouldn't it be easier to make a vacation in Venezuela

If he booked a flight to Venezuela and didn't tell anybody he would have been detained at the airport. If he told somebody he would have been investigated and then game over. This was explained at the time. There were certain places people like him could fly to which wouldn't set off any trip wires. Hong Kong was the only one he could fly to where he wasn't just going to be detained and sent home (I mean, he could ahve gone to the UK too but probably not so wise).

The NSA did not dispute this part of the story.

>How did he know China wouldn't detain/deport him?

He didn't. They probably just seemed like the least likely to detain him of all the places he could fly to unmonitored.

I'm not saying you beat your wife, but it's very possible and explains quite a few things.

Now seriously, I honestly don't know: what would Snowden being in colusion with Russa prior to the affair explain, or explain better?

His itinerary, for example. Or the successful application of covert techniques (as opposed to Manning and Assange).

Less of a factor is that in my opinion, the whole endeavor would be more believably be the result of someone being convinced and assured of assistance, maybe even rewarded, than the courage of a singular man.

Please keep in mind, I value the alternatives where Snowden wasn't recruited beforehand as equally plausible. Not that much more plausible, though.

I think you are out of touch with the possibility Snowden could simply be lying.

He could still have had access to part of the documents. He could have given the documents he published, or another set of documents, to a Russian operative up to a few months earlier.

He certainly revealed everything he knew to the FSB. Or do you think the FSB would take "no" for an answer from someone who is fully at the mercy of the Russian government?

Surprised they haven't back-channelled a suggestion he moves to a jurisdiction less hostile to the US, like Ecuador for example. They get all the benefits of the above while not needing to worry that FSB will break him or get something useful.

That is not something they worry about. They've long assumed everything Snowden took is in the hands of hostile intelligence services. Anything else would be nuts.

Assuming the FSB didn't recruit him before his defection to Russia.

If they didn't, and he stumbled "by accident" into Russia, they don't need to "break" him at all, having all the leverage they could possible want.

It's interesting how these supposed ties to Russia conveniently popped up only after he was stranded there only because the US canceled his passport.

I remember all the claims of "he was hiding in the Russian consulate in Hong Kong" and "he celebrated his birthday with the Russian ambassador", with zero basis to confirm these until, surprise surprise, it turns out he was relying on a completely different network while there. Just basic and unsubtle character assassination, really.

I'm pretty sure that's why they wanted him stranded there.

Letting himself get associated with Russia is one of his few mistakes, although he didn't have many options.

Who say's he "stranded" in Russia? It may have been Snowden's plan all along.

And he didn't have any importance to the world at all, before he fled to Hongkong and Russia. How should "ties to Russia" emerge before? Wouldn't it be more reasonable, if those ties existed, to hide them?

Sorry, I know a lot of people don't like hearing it, but Snowden having been recruited by Russia before his defection is just as plausible as him having pure democratic motives and seeking the help of China and Russia.

There is absolutely zero reliable information on Snowden's motives.

If he were working for Russia, wouldn't it be more plausible to give them the secrets (just "forget" your USB stick in a cafe in Honolulu, which Ms. St. Petersburg sitting next to you will find...), and at the threat of discovery, go underground, and let himself be smuggled into Russia?

Why go to the trouble of trying to contact Greenwald, and Poitras. He tried to get Greenwald to set up mail encryption, it failed, Glenn ignored him for a few months until he managed to reach him through Poitras. A man who's sold state secrets and afraid the Men in Black are about to come would not wait that long.

But anyway, you deal in absolutes "There is absolutely zero reliable information on Snowden's motives.", so you probably know best.

You keep repeating "defection to Russia" but it's a well known and officially confirmed fact that US Justice Department revoked his passport during his attempt to fly from Hong Kong to Ecuador (connecting Via Moscow > Cuba > Venezuela). He landed in Moscow with invalid passport, unable to board the next plane.

Literally, the reason he is in Russia is because US government waned him there. Either because they calculated that might discredit him, or to point fingers to Russia, or sheer incompetence, or whatever other reason or reasons. But the fact is, Snowden is in Russia because the US government put him there.

Well, ultimately, even in your interpretation, he ended up in Russia and cooperating there. Even to the point of playing a complacent part in Putin's staged "ask me anything" spectacle on television.

You keep assuming he bought tickets to Cuba and Venezuela intending to use them. It might have been his plan all along to stay in Russia. It's funny how some people think Snowden is somehow a saint who can't possibly lie.

I passed no moral judgment. He certainly can lie, he's a human. But that's quite irrelevant. Evidence suggests he was trying to get to Ecuador.

Ricardo Patino, the foreign minister of Ecuador, confirmed they received a request from Snowden for political asylum. The plane of Bolivian president, flying from Moscow, was grounded in Austria on the on the suspicion of Snowden being on board. The plane was first denied access to airspace of Spain, France, and Italy. Spanish foreign minister Jose Garcia-Margallo, stated publicly on TV that they were told Snowden was on board.

Snowden didn't revoke his passport. He also didn't made three countries close their airspace and land the plane of Bolivian president in the fourth country. There's only one address with power to do that.

Same fallacy. Requesting political asylum in Ecuador does not mean he wanted to go to Ecuador. That is no "evidence".

US government believed he was trying to get out of Russia enough to ask 3 countries to close their airspace and ground the Bolivian president's plane to search it. But hey, feel free to keep living in denial.

The US government "believing something enough" to take a small chance is no evidence it is true or that it had been Snowden's intention to be on such a plane.

All the arguments I've heard so far against the possibility of Snowden having been recruited before the affair assume Snowden is telling the truth. Which is not sufficient in my view.

>Surprised they haven't back-channelled a suggestion he moves to a jurisdiction less hostile to the US, like Ecuador for example.

Moving him out of the country exposes him to risk. Look at what happened to Evo Morales.

There's a good chance Snowden will be extradited by Russia soon, to bolster Trump in his standoff with U.S. intelligence. Then the whole pardon debate is moot.