The Government Refuses to Prove Snowden Damaged National Security (Gizmodo/Vice)

[Hissyspit]

https://news.vice.com/article/official-reports-on-the-damage-caused-by-edward-snowdens-leaks-are-totally-redacted

Official Reports on the Damage Caused by Edward Snowden's Leaks Are Totally Redacted

But explicit details about the alleged damage Snowden caused, identified in the 39-page report as "grave," were omitted from that document as well. In fact, the existence of the DIA's report had been unknown until the White House secretly authorized the declassification of select portions of it so two Republican lawmakers could undercut the media narrative painting Snowden as a heroic whistleblower.

http://gizmodo.com/the-government-refuses-to-prove-snowden-damaged-nationa-1688033925

The Government Refuses to Prove Snowden Damaged National Security

Kate Knibbs
Today 3:54pm

Did Edward Snowden actually damage national security? There's no way in hell to tell from official documents released to the press—they've been thoroughly redacted to the point of uselessness.

- snip -

The idea that Snowden has jeopardized national security and the lives of troops is the linchpin for arguments that the ex-NSA contractor is a treasonous villain, not a whistleblower. That's why Vice sought out proof of this jeopardy in government documents:

In response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) recently released to VICE News more than 100 pages of internal reports prepared by a task force made up of two dozen DIA analysts that examined the alleged damage to national security resulting from Snowden's leaks.

The pages are largely blanked out (save for the Vice watermark slapped on to let everyone know that Vice knows how to file an FOIA). They reveal nothing about the impact of Edward Snowden's decision to reveal information about widespread state surveillance programs targeting wide swathes of the population or than the fact that there were internal documents about it.

- snip -

The only ways these documents could be more redacted is if they were simply not released.

If the Snowden leaks have caused grave damage to national security, it'd make sense if the government wanted proof of the damage in the public view, to back up its assessment that Snowden should be punished for his crimes, to back up the assessment that his actions were treasonous. The party line here is that the government can't reveal more because any additional information will screw up national security even further. (Yet it selectively leaked parts of a report to Congress to shore up anti-Snowden sentiment.)

Here's another option: The government isn't revealing more because doing so would run counter to the narrative that Snowden's decision hurt Americans more than it helped them. It is awfully strange that absolutely none of the specific ways that Snowden has damaged national security can even be summarized without fueling terrorists. Obviously ongoing threats need to be treated with sensitivity, but the breadth of this No Explanation edict is hard to swallow.

MORE

[riderinthestorm]

1. K&R

[gcomeau]

2. Sigh... alternative title...

"Government refuses to do more damage by releasing more sensitive information to satisfy the desires of random Snowden fans."


Meanwhile, back in reality, it is undisputed Snowden leaked to the Chinese the IP addresses the NSA was targeting there. Also known as taking action that damaged national security... and something that does not under any stretch of the imagination fall under the category of being a "whistleblower".

[uhnope]

3. +1. What is with Snowden fan club, anyway? Seems like they've lost the point

[gcomeau]

10. I don't think they were ever interested in the point...

At least, I haven't seen much indication they ever were.

[randome]

4. Even Greenwald admitted he did.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[joshcryer]

23. No, I think that if they were to make a good faith effort...

...it would show that absolute secrecy under FISA is unnecessary. The Ending Secret Law act would allow for summaries of various bits of cases.

Blacking out everything is just laziness and protectionism. They don't want to have to give out minor details. If it's known that Snowden gave out IP addresses of targets, then that could've been unblanked in the report.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. If they can't prove harm, where's the crime?

[gcomeau]

7. You must be joking.

You do understand that it is illegal to steal massive amounts of classified material and then publicize them... right???

So, ummm, there's the crime.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Then let them un-redact the evidence and prove harm.

Real harm, not theoretical harm.

[gcomeau]

11. Sigh...

What part of *sensitive classified material* do you not understand?

You are not the jury in his trial. They do not have to prove a damn thing to you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. What part of Habeus Coropus do you not understand?

Habeas corpus (/ˈheɪbiəs ˈkɔrpəs/; Latin for "you [shall] have the body&quot is a legal action or writ by means of which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Of course, Snowden isn't "detained", but I suspect he would be if the NSA could get their hands on him.

[gcomeau]

16. Are you just trolling me or something?

"Of course, Snowden isn't "detained""

Why no, he isn't! So what the fuck was your entire post about and why did you feel compelled to post it in my general direction just so you could conclude it with a statement that it was pointless and didn't actually apply to this situation????

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Your general comment was that Snowden harmed the country by revealing NSA "sensitive information".

"Sensitive information" as decided by the NSA. But, they chose not to reveal what harm was supposedly done by the "sensitive information" because doing so would reveal the "sensitive information" that was already released.

Kinda like telling the cops to arrest somebody for stealing something but refusing to tell the cops what was stolen.

[gcomeau]

18. Chose not to reveal TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

And seeing as it's classified data, guess why Captain Perceptive?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. General Public. You mean The People?

The underclasses? The common herd? We The People?

[gcomeau]

20. The people without fucking security clearance. FFS. -eom

[Hissyspit]

22. Hard-Set Truth.

Our government has too many secrets.

If you have to redact EVERYTHING, something is fucked up.

[gcomeau]

26. Quite possibly.

But they did not REDACT EVERYTHING. They redacted a document that was sent specifically to request details of what harm may have been done to highly classsified national security concerns. Expecting that document to come back NOT heavily redacted is childish.

[Blue_Tires]

6. I don't get the whining...

If Snowden snatched a million or more highly classified files, then why *wouldn't* the damage assessment report discussing highly classified programs also be heavily redacted?? Every other internal report discussing the case has been heavily redacted as well...

I'd have thought it was common sense to everyone but the author?

[joshcryer]

24. Damage can be surmised.

Since as far as we know the only data that has been released has been released publicly.

Much of the "damage" probably relates to revamping NSA internal security protocol (which was absurd that they would allow a low level IT guy admin access with the ability to escalate privileges on himself).

Redacting everything is just their not wanting to give up any sense of necessary secrecy. In reality the damage has probably been minimal and if anything it allowed the NSA to clean house and strengthen the operational protocols.

Heartbleed is a far more damaging thing to US security than anything Snowden did.

[Rex]

8. So the government can't prove to anyone he is a traitor, due to national security issues.

BRILLIANT!

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. Gee, Wonder why the government wouldn't publish ...

the areas which were compromised?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Because it might compromise the compromisation....or something.

[1StrongBlackMan]

15. Yeah, that's it. n/t

[elias49]

21. K&R

Not surprised.
Seems to me the government has no case.

[randome]

27. What 'case'? You're saying that if someone steals your car and returns it...

...after adding gas to the tank, then no crime has been committed? There is no case to be made. Snowden stole stuff.

He gave millions of classified documents to corporate media offices across the globe. Any way you look at it, that's a crime.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[elias49]

29. Meh. For the greater good.

There are a number of people on these boards that see everything in black and white...I call them Boy Scouts.
(And so as not to offend - Girl Scouts)
Laws, like 'rules', are meant to be broken from time to time IMO. Else nothing changes. Nothing is improved upon.
I've yet to hear of one single bit of 'damage' to nat'l security that is a result of Snowden's revelations. Unless you call embarrassment damage.
Shame on 'justice' for its zealotry in destroying a man's life in spite.

[Ichingcarpenter]

25. NSA spying damages US trade

With China

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026280973


With Europe


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026265344

[randome]

28. Objectively speaking, it was Snowden's stealing and causing to be published classified documents...

...that damaged any trade issues.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[elias49]

30. Yeah. The US got busted. nt