What did Edward Snowden get wrong? Everything

[mimi85]

By Andrew Liepman
August 10, 2013

Edward Snowden is now out of his limbo at Moscow's airport, presumably ensconced in some Russian dacha, wondering what the next phase of his young life will bring. Having spent 30 years in the intelligence business, I fervently hope the food is lousy, the winter is cold, and the Internet access is awful. But I worry less about what happens to this one man and more about the damage Snowden has done — and could still do — to America's long-term ability to strike the right balance between privacy and security.

Ever since Snowden, a former contractor for the National Security Agency, leaked top-secret material about its surveillance programs, he and the U.S. government have locked horns about the nature of those programs.

But those following the Snowden saga should understand two key points. First, though many things need to be kept secret in today's dangerous world, the line between "secret" and "not secret" is fuzzy rather than stark, and if the goal is security, the harsh truth is that we should often err toward more secrets rather than fewer. Second, despite the grumbling from Snowden and his admirers, the U.S. government truly does make strenuous efforts not to violate privacy, not just because it respects privacy (which it does), but because it simply doesn't have the time to read irrelevant emails or listen in on conversations unconnected to possible plots against American civilians.

<snip>

LINK

<snip>

Yes, some things that are classified probably don't need to be. That may undermine public trust and dilute our ability to protect the data that really need protecting. But some things — especially U.S. sources and methods — must be kept secret. Snowden didn't offer fresh insight about a massive policy failure. Rather, he took upon himself the authority to decide what tradecraft the intelligence community needs to keep his fellow citizens safe. Sadly, Snowden has captured the public's imagination and attention, and the government's reaction now seems too little, too late and too reactive. But the intelligence community — always a less sympathetic protagonist than a self-styled whistle-blower — actually has a good story to tell about how seriously the government takes privacy issues. We should tell it.

Andrew Liepman, a senior analyst at Rand Corp., was a career CIA officer and is a former deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center.

[msongs]

1. our government respects privacy - privacy for itself to do anything it wants in secret nt

[backscatter712]

3. Privacy for them, but not for us. n/t

[kardonb]

70. gvmt

its hard to face the truth , isn't it : Snowden and Manning are dirty traitors . I hope they will enjoy their " dacha " (gulag ) in Siberia .

[backscatter712]

75. How can you expect to earn a paycheck if you can't get your facts straight?

Bradley Manning's in custody, remember?

Talk about an amateur. A professional psy-op persona operator writes with proper grammar.

[cantbeserious]

2. The New Talking Points Have Been Released To The Character Assassins

eom

[backscatter712]

4. Yep. The weekend shift has clocked in. n/t

[KoKo]

7. From the Rand Corporation....so things must be gettin dicey if they are

getting concerned enough to put this out to get picked up and spread out here on the Blogs. They usually like to work more "behind the scenes."

[msanthrope]

29. Ellsberg was Rand Corporation. What does that tell you? nt

[Number23]

85. !!

Still waiting for an answer, eh?

[darkangel218]

30. lmao!!

[Katashi_itto]

66. I wonder if they get 401ks and dental.

[Cali_Democrat]

5. Criticism is not character assassination

Using your logic, every criticism of Obama is character assassination.

Silly.

[cantbeserious]

8. When A Government Has An Agenda - Criticism Is Equivalent To Character Assassination

eom

[Cali_Democrat]

12. And Snowden and Greenwald don't have an agenda?

Of course they do. I see a double standard on your part.

[cantbeserious]

15. Yes - To Expose Government Duplicity And The Desecration Of The 4th Amendment

Thank you for the opportunity to point that out.

Have a great day!

[Cali_Democrat]

19. So why is criticism of Snowden character assassination,

But criticism of other folks isn't?

[cantbeserious]

24. Asked And Answered - Thank You For The Opportunity To Clarify

eom

[Cali_Democrat]

25. LOL

[cantbeserious]

31. LOL In Return

eom

[Sheepshank]

39. I saw the asking, I didn't see an answer specifically to the question....

why is criticism of Snowden dubbed a character assassination, but denied to be such when there is criticism posted against Obama?

[cantbeserious]

43. When A Government Has An Agenda - Criticism Is Equivalent To Character Assassination

Answered

[Sheepshank]

45. again, you use an example that also applies to Snowden ET AL

you are so confident that there wasn't an agenda on Snowden's part? Non whatsoever?

[cascadiance]

32. When providing a document to us that shows how government is secretly spying on ALL of us...

... and VIOLATING ALL OF OUR 4th Amendment rights, WHY is that as "everything he's done is wrong" WRONG?

And by providing that to us, it gives us standing to take our concerns to court and have these policies discussed by the American people, not just those that are making these rules up on how our country is run without the consent of us the people that is the principle of democracy.

I'm sorry, but I don't think taking big risks to tell us how the secret and powerful people running our country are breaking the laws of this country to arguably destroy the very fabric of it as a democracy as being "wrong". People that say that is "wrong" in my book are part of the problem.

[cantbeserious]

44. + 1,000

eom

[Cha]

71. Because wah wah... "snowden good.. President Obama is bad"

Don't ask them why.. they can't come up with anything except gobbleygook about snowden the hypocritical saint. ooops.

[Maedhros]

72. Here's a reasoned response to your question, Cali Democrat.

A large number of posters frame their criticism of Snowden based upon ad hominem attacks rather than addressing his points - the information he released is not to be believed because:

He is a Libertarian.
He broke the law.
He fled the country.
He had ulterior motives for joining Booz Allen.

These are classic examples of argumentum ad hominem:

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy,[3][4][5] more precisely an irrelevance.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

The core question under debate is "Does the NSA surveillance program infringe on our Constitutional rights to privacy?" The leaked documents clearly show that the scope and intensity of the program are greater than previously thought. It is fair to argue that the NSA program is necessary or constitutional, just as it is fair to make counter-arguments to those points.

It is not fair to argue that the NSA program is not problematic because Snowden supports Ron Paul or because Greenwald plans on writing a book. It is likewise not fair to argue that the NSA program is wrong because Obama invited Reverend Warren to speak at his inauguration.

[Mojorabbit]

82. +1000 nt

[MattSh]

17. And that agenda is?

Just curious!

[cantbeserious]

28. Too Hoodwink The American People And Keep The Illegal Surveillance State In Place

eom

[morningfog]

64. Many have claimed that every criticism of Obama is racism.

[randome]

6. Well, if you're going to give credence to Tice, who last worked for the NSA 8 years ago...

...you may as well consider this writer's perspective, as well.

For those interested in arriving at nothing but a clearer picture, all perspectives should be welcomed.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[cantbeserious]

14. I Worked At The NSA 25 Years Ago - We Did Not Spy On American Citizens

Oh, but I worked there too long ago to matter.

Sorry to trouble you.

Please carry on.

[randome]

20. I'm certainly not willing to discount your perspective, either, then.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Sheepshank]

49. Janitors works for NSA and don't spy on anyone.

While this is an extreme example, working for the NSA is any capacity doesn't make me think they know what every other employee of every other department is doing, every single time, then or now.

[KoKo]

18. Check out the writer of article: Andrew Liepman

Andrew Liepman, a senior analyst at Rand Corp., was a career CIA officer and is a former deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center.

[randome]

23. I didn't say his perspective was prominent.

But having been in the intelligence field -and counterterrorism, which is similar to NSA's mission now- gives his perspective some weight.

It's definitely not the only perspective out there.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[msanthrope]

33. Funny, right? Ellsberg was Rand Corporation, too. History--I knows it! nt

[randome]

46. Yes but this guy isn't the right 'kind' of former RC.

He has a different perspective so he's 'other'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[msanthrope]

53. What if Ellsberg is the Rand Corp.'s longest black bag op? You're gonna need

a triple-layer of tinfoil just to think about that one!

[millennialmax]

9. Yep. The GROUNDSWELL of anti-Obama threads today makes me think you're right. eom

[bowens43]

78. Obama did this to himself, lies and misdeeds are coming back to bite him the ass.

[villager]

51. And they will quote CIA operatives and RAND employees... with straight faces.

Incredible.

[backscatter712]

54. Yep! Because they're obviously concerned progressives!

[Scurrilous]

10. Thanks.

K & R

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Daniel Ellsber, the ACLU, Amnesty Interantional, and more, disagree.

[OnyxCollie]

13. Okey Dokey.

Thanks for the lulz.

[gvstn]

16. Snowden/Greenwald's mistake was the broad generalizations

If Snowden, as he said, could tap into anyone's files he should have tapped in to some prominent media personality's files.

"Hey, Wolf Blitzer, here are 20 of your personal emails."
"Hey, Shep Smith, here are 20 of your personal emails."
"Hey, editor of the Washington Post, here are 20 of your personal emails."

This story would hit nice and close to home in easily digestible form.

[cantbeserious]

21. One Presumes That Obama's Agreement With Snowden Was Not Sufficient

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3435721

[frylock]

22. well if you can't trust a former career CIA officer from the Rand Corp......

[Ichingcarpenter]

47. Appointed by George Bush

He always picks the great ones.

[reusrename]

26. Idiotic strawman bullshit.

Hey, they don't read everybody's email? No shit? Who'd 'a thunkit?

The question for this idiot is who's emails are they actually reading, exactly?

Members of Congress who oppose the Wall Street handouts?

Environmentalists organizing against fracking or the XL pipeline?

Union organizers lobbying for higher pay?

Anybody have a damn clue? Of course not, it's secret don't ya' know.

[Warpy]

27. The line between secret and not secret is anything but fuzzy

For instance, we always suspected that the NSA, deprived of its original function of spying on the USSR, had turned to spying on everyone including us. Snowden crossed the secrecy line by confirming this and being able to back it up with the files on his computer. Bureaucrats are embarrassed and that is the real problem. The secrecy line was created to protect them from embarrassment.

He's right that many things are classified that do not need to be, except that they protect bureaucrats.

However, the thing Snowden told us that we didn't know was that a great deal of the NSA's spy work is being farmed out to corporations that are beyond any oversight, at all. That's the real scandal here, and nearly everybody seems to be missing it.

[Link Speed]

67. Spot on, Warpy

The bureaucrats are covering their asses while the contractors run wild and bill us. I don't understand how anyone could justify paying a third party to spy on said 'anyone'.

[snappyturtle]

34. If the gov't truly respects my privacy it wouldn't collect my data in

whatever form or way it does. The gov't all ready knows plenty via the IRS, SocSec, etc.
This article is propaganda neatly married to the comfort presser. imho

[Th1onein]

35. Low post count, check. Attacking the messenger, check. Apologizing for spying, check.

Welcome to my Ignore list, mimi85.

[JimDandy]

57. One more: Hit and Run. n/t

[Th1onein]

59. Thank you, JimDandy.

[mimi85]

80. You won't see this

but amazing as it seems, I didn't write the article. Email the writer at the LA Times. Just thought some of "the other side" should be heard. Nowhere did I say I agreed with the article.

[Mojorabbit]

83. We have a swarm of people here posting "the other side".

And on a supposedly progressive board at that.
Welcome to DU
Peace, Mojo

[progressoid]

36. The Rand Corp.

Ooookay.

[Bradical79]

37. Terrible unconvincing article.

The summation is basically: "we have your best interests at heart. Trust me, I worked for the CIA".

I don't see a single thing in that article pointing out what Snowden got wrong.

[wtmusic]

40. Same as Obama..."trust me".

Clueless on why there are checks/balances: because no one should need to be trusted.

[wtmusic]

38. "Sadly, Snowden has captured the public's imagination and attention..."

Sadly for NSA apologists

[Vinnie From Indy]

41. Gee, I wonder who butters this guy's bread?

I don't believe him.

[AppleBottom]

42. "the harsh truth is that we should often err toward more secrets rather than fewer."

Wow, just... wow...

I'm not going to debate this nonsense, I'm going to let this guy debate the issues here.

[bigtree]

48. oh, Liepman. You RANDy little scamp

. . . thanks for making me feel more comfortable.

You do tell a good 'story.'

[PSPS]

50. Gee, what a surprise. A #13 with a #10 twist from the Rand Corp (big gov contractor/RW think tank)

Worshiper/Apologist Hit Parade:

1. This is nothing new
2. I have nothing to hide
3. What are you, a freeper?
4. But Obama is better than Christie/Romney/Bush/Hitler
5. Greenwald/Flaherty/Gillum/Apuzzo/Braun is a hack
6. We have red light cameras, so this is no big deal
7. Corporations have my data anyway
8. At least Obama is trying
9. This is just the media trying to take Obama down
10. It's a misunderstanding/you are confused
11. You're a racist
12. Nobody cares about this anyway / "unfounded fears"
13. I don't like Snowden, therefore we must disregard all of this
14. Other countries do it

[backscatter712]

55. Now I really need to put that Bullshit Bingo game back together!

We're gonna need about 25 talking points in total...

[dipsydoodle]

52. Andrew Liepman - lame article writer extraordinaire

.

[dkf]

56. Says this joker who I trust no further than I can throw him.

[rhett o rick]

58. Well I want to say I dont think Mr. Liepman is very smart or something is clouding his judgement.

I agree that it is extremely important to have some secrecy to maintain our security. I dont agree that we should error on the side of security. As we have seen, once we start down that trail there is no turning back.

But we as free citizens need to keep control on those that are supposed to be keeping us safe. There is always the temptation to have authoritarian control over freedom. It's much easier. Also, those with the big money and influence may not agree with us who should be kept secure.

If our government abuses secrecy for political purposes or to control the 99%, then all bets are off. I am guessing Mr. Liepman carries water for the 1%. They want the 99% to keep in our place and thank them for controlling us.

When there is no way for a whistle-blower to inform us that Booz-Allen is taking our billions and abusing our Constitution, then let the chips fall where they may.

I am not ready to give up my Fourth Amendment for the PROMISE of security. And if you are, move to China.

[Brigid]

60. Sorry Mr. Liepman, but no sale.

I am 55 years old, and I grew up on Viet Nam and Watergate. People with backgrounds like yours have been lying to me all my life. See ya!

[Rex]

61. This article is like a pitbull giving a review on chewy toys.

At Starbucks while nursing a white tiger.

[Warren DeMontague]

62. Nothing to see here, folks! The "goal is security", remember! You like security, right?

[LiberalLovinLug]

63. Liepman's last line says it all:

But the intelligence community — always a less sympathetic protagonist than a self-styled whistle-blower — actually has a good story to tell about how seriously the government takes privacy issues. We should tell it.

Yes you SHOULD tell it. And if Snowden did not make his revelations there would not be any conversation happening and NSA Director Keith Alexander's lies to the contrary would still be taken at face value.

Yes we all want to know, how seriously DOES the government take privacy issues?

[LittleBlue]

65. All I see is Snowden residing comfortably in Moscow

and the president scrambling to explain why he was spying on Americans.

So I'll go ahead and correct the title: Snowden got it right. The spy state apologists are eating crow after yesterday.

[99th_Monkey]

68. Oh the damage done

damage to the NSA's ability to continue illegally spying on Americans?

damage to Obama's image?

damage to the secret 100%-saturation Surveillance & Security State?

^these^are^actually^good^things^imho

oh and speaking of leaks:

[School Teacher]

69. Payed Well to Write this Stuff

I am sure the author is payed well to write this brainwashing garbage. I don't believe it for a minute!

[Cha]

73. Hey "School Teacher".. It's "paid".

[Cha]

74. thanks mimi.. bookmarking!

[99Forever]

76. More authoritarian bullshit.

Desperate and pathetic.

No one is fooled.

[bowens43]

77. blah blah blah blah blah blah etc

[elehhhhna]

79. Rand corp? REALLY? FUCK THIS SHIT.

[Egalitarian Thug]

81. A new drinking game! How many lies and meaningless scare-words can a Reich-Wing asshole

get into each paragraph?

and shame on you for bring this complete garbage in here.

[marions ghost]

84. What garbage

but what can you expect from the Rand Corp?