The Edward Snowden saga has confused me. He decided to reveal information about NSA surveillance. He revealed that information in a piecemeal and confusing way. He decided to surface in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is sovereign Chinese territory: we are supposed to believe that Chinese intelligence did not get any information from him while he was there. He then travelled to the Russian Federation. Once the U.S. began extradition proceedings in Hong Kong he might not have had any other options but Russia ... but nonetheless that is where he wound up.
Glenn Greenwald just told me on national television that Russian agents have not had any interactions with Mr. Snowden (or copied his data by other means) because they “want him gone.” I have immense trouble believing that.
The NSA surveillance programs are complicated things that deserve to be brought to light and debated. I am glad that Snowden revealed what he revealed. We now need to debate them. An American court of law seems not a bad place to have that debate. A braver man than Mr. Snowden would have risked going to court, as did Daniel Ellsberg. No?
Still, one can imagine why he would want to remain outside the American criminal justice system. But why then did he not surface in one of the Bolivarian nations in Latin America? Going to Hong Kong seems entirely mysterious unless Mr. Snowden intended to pass information to the Chinese government. And it was not hard to know that Hong Kong has an extradition agreement with the United States.
It is possible that Snowden wants to end up in Russia. It is not unreasonable to think that in Latin America he would not be safe from be vulnerable to apprehension by U.S. agents. But going to Russia, I would think, means giving Vladimir Putin all the information that he has. Am I wrong to assume that?
I am glad that Mr. Snowden revealed what he revealed. And I am gratified that the revelations have moved American public opinion despite Mr. Snowden’s odd decisions. But until new information is revealed, the man himself has not got my sympathy.
It would certainly have been wiser for him to thoroughly investigate possible exile locations BEFORE he decided to use his leftover security clearance to get a contractor job in order to expose secrets.
Also, I mention for your readers' interest (you already know this) that it is much more straightforward for the military to grant security clearances to 21-year-old guys who never left their home state before joining the service. The form would be four pages long. My experience as a 42-year-old is that the printout of my e-QIP security clearance renewal, with every place I've lived, worked, or gone to school in the past 10 years, along with a list of foreign nationals I count as friends, comes to 60 pages. For someone like Noel, who travels outside the US extensively, it would probably run to 80 pages.
Posted by: Jonathan | July 15, 2013 at 03:47 PM
Oh gosh yes. OPM is thorough.
But there is something backwards about a system that investigates young blank slates less completely than old open books. I do not know how to fix that, though.
Posted by: Noel Maurer | July 15, 2013 at 03:58 PM
Obviously anyone can be "turned" and become a spy; the point of having a security clearance system is to point out the most sheeplike of the population. Those folks can be safely trusted with "secrets" because in nearly all cases they are already being paid off by the government, both in salary and in future pension guarantees.
I think the idea of recruiting the young blank slates is excellent, and far more economical than going through the eQIP reports of old graybeards like you and me.
Of course, the authorities just have to keep the selected kids away from subversive literature and ideas.
Posted by: Jonathan | July 16, 2013 at 08:14 AM
Not to make an argument one way or the other here, but it's worth pointing out that Ellsberg himself thinks Snowden's decisions were reasonable.
Posted by: AK | August 27, 2013 at 06:55 AM