The errors of Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald
Edward Snowden is a child of the internet and at the same time an old American typethe solitary individual whose religion is conscience, and who follows his own regardless of where it takes him. The type goes back to the English Protestant dissenters who settled the New World in the 17th century. Its most eloquent exemplar was Henry David Thoreau, who wrote in Civil Disobedience (1849): It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. Thoreau withdrew to a cabin on Walden Pond, and he refused to pay taxes in protest against the Mexican War and slavery. Snowden lives in the hyperconnected isolation of the internet, and in June 2013 he committed what might have been the largest breach of state secrecy in American history, exposing the extent of internet and phone surveillance by the US National Security Agency (NSA).
In the famous hotel-room interview in Hong Kong that revealed his identity on video, Snowden said: If living unfreely but comfortably is something youre willing to acceptand I think many of us are, its the human natureyou can get up every day, you can go to work, you can collect your large pay cheque for relatively little work, against the public interest, and go to sleep at night after watching your shows. It sounds like the quiet desperation Thoreau attributed to most of his fellow men. But if, like Snowden, you cant rest until youve tested the courage of your conviction by taking radical action, then you realise that you might be willing to accept any risk and it doesnt matter what the outcome is. As things turned out this proved not to be quite trueinstead of returning to the US to face trial and the possibility of a long jail term, Snowden fled to Russia and sought asylum. But what matters more is that this is the kind of person he wanted and imagined himself to be.
Not caring about the outcome is what Max Weber, in Politics as a Vocation, called the ethic of ultimate ends, in contrast with the ethic of responsibility. There are many reasons to criticise this ethic and the uncompromising Thoreauvians who wear it as a badge of honour, but one has to admit that the issue of mass surveillance in America would not have come to public attention without a type like Snowden. A troubled but basically loyal official who passed his concerns along internal channels would have been turned aside, as others before Snowden were. The dire consequences for disclosing top secrets would have deterred anyone who hadnt arrived at the Manichean either/or that drove Snowden to plan his massive document leak methodically over many months. The scale of itnearly two million documents, by some accountsis a measure of the purity of his conviction. No particle of nuance could be allowed to adulterate it. He has been accused of grandiosity, but nothing short of that would have done the job.
Politically, Snowdens views fall into a related American tradition, going back to Thomas Jefferson and the even more radical founders, though in a distinctly contemporary form. Snowden is a libertarian whose distrust of institutions and hostility to any intrusion on personal autonomy place him beyond the sphere in American politics where left and right are relevant categories. A temperament as much as a philosophy, libertarianism is often on the verge of rejecting politics itself, with its dissatisfying but necessary trade-offs; it tends toward absolutist positions, which grow best in the mental equivalent of a hermetic laboratory environment. Libertarianism has become practically the default position of young people who work in technology, especially the most precocious among them. It also reflects, though not completely, the political outlook of Glenn Greenwald, the former Guardian columnist whom Snowden chose to receive the files, and who has just published his account of the story, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the US Surveillance State.
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/the-errors-of-edward-snowden-and-glenn-greenwald/#.U30M6Sjpbcs
A nuanced, even and very well thought-out critique of the whole sideshow...
EDIT: Mona Holland is of course the first commenter...Does she even have a job? Or is she paid to attack any critique of Greenwald (even balanced, light critiques) no matter how random or obscure the source?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Their primary mistake is not being registered Democrats.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)It's a long piece, but the author's summary at the end lists several of the same issues I've brought up regularly with no real discussion, much less resolution....
chimpymustgo
(12,774 posts)and consider them.
Once again, the government fellators are hard at work TRYING to tear down Snowden and Greenwald. The truth will set you - and the rest of us - free. But that's the opposite of the official agenda, right?
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/05/22/george-packer-is-good-at-fellatio/
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/24/greenwalds_haters_exposed_the_real_reason_michael_kinsley_hates_him/
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,320 posts)Attack the messenger(s) when you have no defense against their message.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Or maybe, you should have just shouted, "Blasphemy!"
struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)But, I thought this reply in the Comments pointed out the flaws with bits of his writing:
-----------
Mona Holland
Mr Packer, there are a great many misrepresentations in your article, and for all its eloquence, it fails to convey the truth about Mr. Greenwald and Mr. Snowden. (Disclosure: I am Greenwalds former law partner and long-time friend.)
Some examples. You write:
nor indeed is Greenwald ever pro-war columnist Glenn Greenwald, though the preface to his first book says that he did initially support the war in Iraq, before changing his mind after the invasion.
Glenn Greenwald never was a pro-war columnist. He did not emerge into public life and opinionating until late 2005, by which time he wrote always and only against the invasion of Iraq. When he acquiesced to that war he was a private citizen and attorney practicing law 70 hours a week, and had not yet immersed himself in politics to develop what came to be more definitive views.
John Burns, by contrast, was a cheerleader for the Iraq war. He did this publicly and professionally, unlike Edward Snowden who, as with Greenwald, held pro-war views as a private citizen, and has never publicly advocated for the Iraq war. Snowden was against it long before he leaked and thereby became a public figure. That would be why in Greenwalds book Snowden is never: pro-war leaker Edward Snowden.
As to this:
Greenwald asserts that Snowden had not taken all possible steps to cover his tracks because he did not want his colleagues to be subjected to investigations or false accusations. But he doesnt mention the Reuters article showing that Snowden borrowed logins and passwords from colleagues in order to gain access to more files. The article reported that A handful of agency [NSA] employees who gave their login details to Snowden were identified, questioned and removed from their assignments.
You clearly have no idea, at all, what happens to people suspected of being NSA leakers, and to their families. I would commend to you the Frontline documentary, U.S. of Secrets, part I of which aired this past Tuesday, and part II of which concludes this coming Tuesday on PBS. There you may learn how the FBI terrorized and pillaged the homes of NSA emnployees J. Kirk Wiebe, William Binney, Ed Loomis and several other innocent individuals who did *not leak the warrantless wiretapping program to the New York Times. (The pursuit of this leaker caused Wiebe to say he felt as if he were living in the Soviet Union. Loomis became a recluse.)
Edward Snowden knew what had happened to these (internal) NSA dissidents, and did not want any other individuals to endure such horror. For that reason, he wanted to quickly make his identity known; there would be no Soviet-style pursuit of supsects. Whatever employment sanctions may have been levied against several NSA employees whose passwords Snowden may have used, are simply nothing in comparison.
Edward Snowden protected his fellow NSA employees from the worst that the NSA and FBI can inflict.
I disagree with your views especially of Greenwald, and could dispute other claims, but the above will do for now.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)itself away as the glib, vapid propaganda for the status quo (erudite allusions don't change that).