I Don't Have Time for This
See updates below.
Commenter Gleb asks,
Marie, What's with the hate towards Snowden? He revealed US spying on Chinese? Believe me, they already knew. And remember a couple of months ago there was talk of 'cyber war'? Well seems now the high horse is no longer there. So the end result is Snowden revealed something that might stop a confrontation with China. Something we did not need to know? Come on, we needed to know this, Marie!
Commenter WaltWis sez,
I've already expressed my disappointment with the comments expressed here about the Edward Snowden story, which seem to support the view of him as a 'traitor' or a 'wuss.' The comments based on the initial reports and a hostility toward G. Greenwald. Here is Max Frankel's take on Snowden and his importance in providing the public with information that the public ought to know.
Marie-- Please answer Gleb's question.
As regular readers of Reality Chex know, I am one person, & my day is the same length as yours. I link to news items that I think might be of interest to readers and to commentary on those news stories, whether or not I agree with the commentary. Readers of Reality Chex, as the Comments section proves every day, are pretty damned smart, and they form their own well-considered opinions. If I thought my readers needed constant guidance, maybe I'd spend more of my limited time expressing my opinions in posts like this one. Instead, I write opinion pieces only occasionally, and then it is usually to clarify or synthesize something I've noticed. I certainly don't write to lay down the law as to what is “correct” or “wrong” thinking. I merely add to the conversation. But it is a conversation, and readers are bound to disagree with me. Sometimes they say so, sometimes not.
To more or less demand that I defend my positions is fairly intrusive. If I make a comment on a news item or opinion piece, the reason for my comment is usually self-explanatory – if you read the underlying story I've linked. Moreover, this is my site. I get to write stupid stuff as long as it's lawful stupid stuff.
I don't know where Gleb gets the idea I hate Ed Snowden. I think Snowden is a naïve, selfish, careless jerk, but that doesn't mean I hate him. I don't. It's rather silly to make charges about my feelings when they are not feelings I've ever expressed but are ones someone has decided to attribute to me. I've wasted a whole minute-and-a-half of my life here refuting something I didn't write or say.
I also don't know where WaltWis gets the notion I am hostile to Glenn Greenwald. I'm not. But I have warned readers that Greenwald is not a commentator like, say, Jim Fallows or Steve Benen. Those writers look at issues in a balanced, sensible way. They consider – and acknowledge – factors that might mitigate against their views and they may alter their views in light of new information. Greenwald, by contrast, is an advocate. He has a point of view, and he attacks it as an attorney representing a client would do; that is, he shades, obfuscates, elides, misdirects, assails, etc., to get his guy off, without outright lying to judge & jury. That doesn't make Greenwald a bad guy, but it does mean that the reader must be skeptical of everything he writes. Greenwald does not write to illuminate as much as he does to convince. His objective is to get you to acquit or convict, not to get you to a place of greater understanding.
I think the comment to which Gleb & WaltWis are objecting was my remarking about “more info we don't need to know,” my response to this:
Toby Helm, et al., of the Guardian: 'Edward Snowden, the former CIA technician who blew the whistle on global surveillance operations, has opened a new front against the US authorities, claiming they hacked into Chinese mobile phone companies to access millions of private text messages.'
WaltWis seems to suggest that Max Frankel disagrees with me. Really? As far as I can tell, there is nothing in Frankel's essay that contradicts what I wrote. In fact, I fully agree with Frankel's op-ed. Frankel does not change my opinion of Snowden (nor does he attempt to). Perhaps Gleb & WaltWis should read Henry Blodgett's take, also linked today. Blodgett expresses what I – and subsequently many other commentators – have said since Snowden surfaced & began giving up information of interest to the Chinese.
Gleb (and Roger Henry – see today's Comments) argue that Snowden's revelations about the U.S. & U.K. spying on others don't matter because “they already knew.” This argument shows a complete lack of understanding of human nature, diplomacy and the honor/shame code. Snowden's revelations have embarrassed the Chinese as well as our allies & frenemies who attended the 2009 G-8, not to mention the U.S. & U.K. It is not in our national interest to have to publicly acknowledge spying on countries with whom we wish to maintain or establish good relations. (For some reason, Angela Merkel, by the way, was not all that reassured to learn that Obama claimed the NSA was only listening in on “foreigners.”) As long as China, et al., could pretend things were going along swimmingly, their “honor” remained intact. Snowden's revelations “shamed” them. So now, some heads will likely roll in China's version of the NSA, & China will shore up their software systems. We, in turn, will have to expend a pile of dough paying Booz Allen programmers to hack their newly-encrypted systems.
Maybe you can better understand this dynamic if I personalize it. Fred & Maude are married. Fred has been fooling around for years, and that's okay with Maude because she isn't all that into Fred but she likes the style of living to which he has accustomed her. Maude busies herself collecting things for the church bazaar & going to the garden club. She considers herself a pillar of the community, an admirable, “honorable” woman. One day at a garden club meeting, Maude's friend Agnes blurts out what Maude has known for years: “Fred has a girlfriend; he's had lots of girlfriends. You deserve better, Maude.” Agnes has shamed Maude. Because of this public shame, Maude feels she has to change her comfortable life to regain part of her honor. She'll never get it all back. Whatever decision she makes, she'll never again be that pillar of the community who deserves the admiration of others. Oh, and she won't be friends with Agnes anymore. In Maude's view, it was Agnes who ruined Maude's life, not Fred.
I don't think Ed Snowden gets that. Hong Kong may or not protect him,* but China is going to blame Snowden, not the U.S., for embarrassing them. China will, however, use Snowden's revelations as a chip against the U.S. & U.K. any & every time it is convenient for them to do so.
The danger in taking a hardline approach on anything is that it can blind you to reason. Some people think they have to take a “stand” on Ed Snowden, for instance. He's either a good guy or a bad guy. Once they decided he's a good guy, then everything he does is good. Then, if somebody says, “Well, Snowden did the nation a service by revealing X,” the hardliner assumes that somebody is on Snowden's side. I don't know what Max Frankel's thinking is on Snowden's character, but at this point, I have no reason to think Frankel's view is different from mine. Frankel didn't address the issue. He probably doesn't care. Snowden provided some information that Frankel – and I – think is important to know. And from there, as Frankel writes, we need to learn more. Russ Tice is moving us in that direction.
Now I have to go feed the stray cat and clean the pool.
* Update: I guess we more or less know now how Hong Kong deals with a sticky wicket.
Update 2: "Are too" is not conversation; it's the wail of a brat in a sandbox. So if there are any other zealots, wingers or Glennbots who would like to -- again -- repeat what I've already rebutted, it would be in your interest to stifle yourself. I'm trolled out, and as noted above, I don't have time for this shit. I'll just delete your comment.
Share Article
Reader Comments (13)
Bravo, Marie. Whether I agree or disagree with what you say, since I 'found' you several years ago, you have consistently shown a humane view of the world in which we all live ~ a perspective on which I place a high value.
Have to admit I looked forward to this one with unseemly eagerness; glad you put off the cat and pool business long enough to produce it; knew I'd enjoy your response, and I did.
No, even with all the "explanations" he has provided, we don't know what Mr. Snowden was and is thinking but we can guess and clothe those guesses with speculative garments as we see fit. Early reporting suggested he's pleased to be seen in libertarian garb, so much of the commentary on this site has followed that lead, sometimes expanding from Snowden himself into the psychology and beliefs of libertarians in general, which to my understanding and taste are simplistic, intransigent and most often wrong (even dumb.)
I see libertarians and communitarians as two poles of our political and social worlds. Most of us live somewhere in the vast middle. Those at the extremes either don't much like the majority of humanity, wish it were somehow different than it is and have in their box of tricks the perfect utopian scheme to will bring enlightenment to the benighted.... or the brilliance of themselves and their ideology simply blinds them to the world's complexities, which is where the dumb part comes in.
Whether any of this applies to Snowden I do not know, because I do not know him. But like others, I can listen to what he has said and make tentative guesses about his personality, maybe even couching those guesses in what I have come to know about myself.
Leaving aside the why, I do know what I think about what he has done. Though I do not like being surveilled, I cannot see that his actions have made it less likely that I will be watched far more than I wish in the future.
The watching, by governments, by Safeway, General Motors and Bank of America, is made possible, and by the logic of commerce and security, necessary, by the way we connect with one another. I do not see those internet and cell phone connections going away any time soon. I'd wager in fact the days of two conspirators meeting in the dark on horseback under the cottonwood down by the river are gone for good.
So...to Marie's question: what good is done telling us something we pretty much already knew? Not much. By making public what everyone knew but had the grace to leave unacknowledged? Potentially quite a bit.
That's why I can't see Snowden as anything approaching heroic. In fact, when I look at him, in addition to mild annoyance, I feel pity for someone who seems too young, naive and hurt to be in the middle of such a big mess, and I have never felt that way about Superman.
But then, I know that's my own psychology at work. Clothe it as you will.
Was wondering if you were going to address this, Marie, or slough it off and give stray cats and pools priority. I, myself, was prepared to address this, but thought better of it thinking it was none of my business. So––thoroughly enjoyed your rebuttal especially your spelling out the difference between someone like Greenwald and writers like Fallows and Benen; a difference that is crucial in being able to understand an issue reasonably and thoroughly.
And Ken––Your second to last paragraph––I'm with you on this all the way.
As an aside: some years back when my grandson was still enmeshed in Super Heroes although just beginning to question their validity he told me that he was thinking that maybe all those super heroes weren't really real like maybe Santa Claus wasn't real either. I said, "It sounds to me you've been thinking very hard about all this." He looked up at me, wide eyed and said, "Yeah, I think it's all just make believe––except Superman–-maybe he's real." I just smiled.
The best way to dispense with Snowden is to assassinate his character. Shoot the messenger.
CW says Edward Snowden is “a naïve, selfish, careless jerk.”
The insults continue to pile up. Other cheap psyop epithets used to discredit Snowden include “self-indulgent, loser and a narcissist.”
As Corey Robin writes: “In the same way that journalists call high-level leakers in the executive branch “White House officials” and low-level guys like Snowden “narcissists” or “losers,” so do they dole out accolades like “Secretary of State” to mass murderers like Henry Kissinger while holding the Snowden-like epithets in reserve for Al Qaeda, Communists, the Militia Movement, and the Weather Underground.” http://coreyrobin.com/2013/06/18/edward-snowdens-retail-psychoanalysts-in-the-media/
The real issue is not Snowden. The issue is what he revealed.
CW says Greenwald’s “objective is to get you to acquit or convict, not to get you to a place of greater understanding.”
Jay Rosen @ Press Think counters that Glenn Greenwald has been teaching the profession of journalism a lesson: “He thinks the public should know what’s going on. He spends most of his time verifying, digging and writing, delivering information in the form of public argument about what the government is really doing...This is the life of a political journalist, although it is equally correct to say that Glenn is a lawyer who writes about the fate of the republic rather than practicing law. He is also an activist, if we mean by that someone who thinks his fellow citizens should wake up and change things, and who participates himself within the limits of the forms he has chosen. With Greenwald the forms are writing, blogging, researching, political commentary in the “reported opinion” style, public speaking and appearing on television. He is good at all of them.” http://pressthink.org/2013/06/politics-some-politics-none-two-ways-to-excel-in-political-journalism-neither-dominates/
The nation owes both a debt of gratitude for opening the debate on our power-mad government.
Even more appalling and chilling, the “leak” nobody's noticed, is President Obama’s Insider Threat Program:
“Even before a former U.S. intelligence contractor exposed the secret collection of Americans’ phone records, the Obama administration was pressing a government-wide crackdown on security threats that requires federal employees to keep closer tabs on their co-workers and exhorts managers to punish those who fail to report their suspicions.”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/06/20/194513/obamas-crackdown-views-leaks-as.html#.UcdFiowo6lg
@Denis Neville: Corey Robin is playing language games. (College professors do that a lot.) If I may paraphrase the philosopher Richard Nixon, "When the president does it, it's not a leak." That is, if the president reveals some information that was heretofore classified, it is no longer classified. The president has the authority to declassify information, whether he does so formally by writing a note on a classified document or reveals the information in a less formal manner -- either in a public remark or in a remark to a reporter. The same is true of top-level officials. Generally, these revelations come not as off-the-cuff oopsies, but as calculated remarks, pre-vetted with staff &/or higher-ups.
In that sense, I have never thought, for instance, that outting Valerie Plame was a leak: I think Vice President Cheney authorized it. That is, as ham-handed, diabolical, & vengeful as it was -- it was legal. It was not technically a leak. Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury (& related charges), not of leaking classified information.
So when Robin says that high-level leakers are called "White House officials," he's being clever, but he's not really being accurate. White House officials, unless they do so accidentally, can't "leak" information since they have the authority to declassify it.
As for my remarks about Snowden's personality, I am apt to make the same types of remarks about the personalities of political officials. There is a difference, though, and it is an important one. Snowden's acts fall into the category of "aberrant behavior," & as such it is reasonable to ask, "Why'd he do that?" Whether you think his actions were noble or base, useful or harmful (or in my view, a combination thereof), one still looks for character traits to figure out why he did something so extreme.
By contrast, if a bunch of "White House officials" have a meeting in which they debate whether or not to release some classified information, then decide to release it -- their behavior falls into normative parameters. One is less inclined to look to their character to ask "Why'd they do that?" A political or policy motive usually provides a satisfactory answer. For better or worse, these "White House officials" are releasing previously classified information as part of their jobs, not so much as the result of some peculiar character traits (though "peculiar traits" cannot always be ruled out -- see Cheney). This obviously cannot be said of Snowden, so we look for other -- personal -- reasons.
As for your remarks about Greenwald, he definitely does bring important matters -- particularly in regard to civil liberties -- to the forefront (and as Rosen points out, in this case, he got the scoop because of his partisanship). That's why I read him. But I've always read his stuff with a grain of salt, and I explained why in this post. Rosen does a good job of explaining why the type of partisan reporting Greenwald does has value. This is of particular interest to Rosen who long ago mounted what began as more-or-less a quixotic one-man crusade to get MSM journalists to can the he-said/she-said form of journalism. But note that he is not saying that Greenwald is better than a Times reporter who does weigh the facts & report them accurately; he is saying that both methods can produce good journalism.
Marie
This post by Darksyde at Daily Kos is an interesting comment on the coverage of the Snowden hullabaloo.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/23/1217302/-Honchos-and-worker-bees
And pretty well sums up how I feel about it today. Tomorrow, who knows....
Doesn't take many words to get to the heart of the matter. Denis Nevilee summed it up: "The real issue is not Snowden. The issue is what he revealed."
I agree with Marie. I think Snowden is naive and he's being played by Greenwald and the media., much as Jane Fonda was played by the North Vietnamese. (My wife calls her Jane MaySheBurninHell Fonda--my wife isn't one to mince words.)
The reason Greenwald comes across as a lawyer is that's what he is. Not just any lawyer but a litigation lawyer, where he argued cases regarding civil rights and constitutional issues.
As I said the other day, with Glenn, the sky is always falling.
And although I don't know Snowden, from what I've seen, I don't much care for him.
If Snowden is naïve, then I say thank God for young, naïve people. It amazes me that people think it's OK for the NSA and their contractors to collect and keep all of our electronic communications. And to spend billions doing it while sequestering is going on in this country, with threats of cutting off food stamps. Really, Marie, I thought you were more attuned to the importance of civil liberties than your response to the NSA revelations indicate. They sound suspiciously tinged with animosity toward Glenn Greenwald.
@BarbaraSpirit: Yes, my animosity toward Greenwald is probably why I link his stuff. I rate "insightful" comments like yours right up there with Rush Limbaugh's calling Sandra Fluke a slut.
Marie
Marie,
As always, thanks for having time for this--and us. I actually read your discourse and the comments BEFORE reading Krugman this morning. Some status you've got with me.
Jack
Several commenters have suggested that the problem with Ed Snowden’s NSA revelations is not the revelator but what he revealed.
This is only partly true. And let me state upfront that I have never been a supporter of the kind of surveillance we all undergo. I wasn’t happy with the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretaps and surveillance of American citizens and even less happy that the Obama administration saw fit to maintain some of the more egregious of his predecessor’s proclivities. I understand the desire for such oversight but I don’t condone its widespread and far-reaching implementation.
Clearly neither did (does) Ed Snowden.
But several things bother me about this affair, some I’ve mentioned before, such as Snowden’s dealings with the Chinese (and I don’t want to hear that he didn’t take money for it so it’s not espionage, whatever he gave them—and it appears he had four laptops full of information which the Chinese have drained)which, I believe, essentially constitutes treason. I don't care if his motives were pure. Giving information to a foreign power is treason. You can try to whitewash it but that's what it is. And I don’t care that “they already knew”. Maybe they knew and maybe they didn't but it's one thing to believe you know something. Far different to have incontrovertible proof from the laptop of someone previously doing the spying for the United States. That's a huge chip in a very big game.
And, as Marie pointed out, and as I have, somewhat obliquely previously, there are also realpolitik concerns here that partially transcend this issue, as important as it is.
But back to Mr. Snowden. Certainly his revelations are important in many ways. Transparency is a wonderful thing. I wish we had more of it. But our government—what government ever?—has never been very transparent. That’s not to say that I think it’s all hunky-dory. I don’t. But we have to fight our battles with circumspection and smarts, and that means understanding how to play the game. And here is where Mr. Snowden himself comes into play. And I do mean play. And here also is where we run into problems with the revelator.
I’ve said before that I have no idea of what was in Mr. Snowden’s head or heart. He didn’t do it for money, at least as far as we know (very likely not). But as I’ve previously contended, I wish he had gone about things differently. My earlier comparison with Daniel Ellsberg makes this point. Ellsberg was a true civil disobedient. Like Martin Luther King and Gandhi (to name just two of the more famous of that category), he pried open the can of worms then stuck around to face the music. This decision has the beneficial effect of turning the conversation back around to what has been revealed, rather than on the revealer.
Snowden, I believe, perhaps because he didn’t think it through all the way, or very well, or because of some personality tics (personal psychology does matter; it’s a human thing) has given the entire affair an operatic gloss (apart from his dealings with the Chinese which give it a darker cast) which takes a lot of the spotlight off the revelations (not all, thankfully) and make it, for much of the media, All About Ed.
It doesn’t’ matter whether he’s a narcissist or the embodiment of altruism. What matters is how it appears. Yes, I know that shouldn’t matter, but it does. And this is a problem. No question that all whistleblowers are painted as cranks and malcontents and pursued by those with a lot to lose. But many stick it out and are eventually able to see the fruits of their pains. Jeffrey Wigand who rolled on Brown and Williamson and their plans to increase the addictiveness of their tobacco products is one such, Ellsberg, of course, is another.
So there is an element of personality that Snowden has brought to this affair, whether accidentally or through lack of planning on his part, that somewhat clouds the issue.
On one hand, it’s not at all a bad thing to have a national conversation about the limits of government surveillance. But the less salutary aspects of these revelations have caused him to become more the story than his revelations, so to some extent, the story has become as much about the revelator as what he revealed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/world/asia/snowden-departure-from-hong-kong.html?ref=global-home
According to his Hong Kong lawyer in the above link, Snowden had no detailed knowledge of the Hong Kong legal system. He apparently didn't know that he could be held in jail with no computer indefinitely while the authorities reviewed his case. The no computer part really upset him. Also he apparently had vague plans about what to do next. If the Chinese did get the data off his laptops, that is treasonable. Of course, he could have been coerced by the Chinese who could have said "You want to leave? Give us the data." In any case, as the cops here abouts are wont to say "You're in a whole heap of trouble."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/24/1218358/-Edward-Snowden-is-somewhere-probably?showAll=yes
This link gives some interesting speculation about Eddie, including being interrogated by the Russians, which sounds like all kinds of fun. This raises the possibility that the Russians could also get his data.
As I said, naive.