Snowden Says He Took No Secret Files to Russia

[alp227]

Source: NY Times

Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, said in an extensive interview this month that he did not take any secret N.S.A. documents with him to Russia when he fled there in June, assuring that Russian intelligence officials could not get access to them.

Mr. Snowden said he gave all of the classified documents he had obtained to journalists he met in Hong Kong, before flying to Moscow, and did not keep any copies for himself. He did not take the files to Russia “because it wouldn’t serve the public interest,” he said.

“What would be the unique value of personally carrying another copy of the materials onward?” he added.

He also asserted that he was able to protect the documents from China’s spies because he was familiar with that nation’s intelligence abilities, saying that as an N.S.A. contractor he had targeted Chinese operations and had taught a course on Chinese cybercounterintelligence.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/world/snowden-says-he-took-no-secret-files-to-russia.html?pagewanted=all

[Thinkingabout]

1. Snowden is not someone you can put your trust, he has stolen information he said he would not

Give to other sources so he has lied also. Don't trust someone who has broken trust.

[Hissyspit]

7. Yes, I put all my trust in anonymous Internet posters.

[L0oniX]

14. ...especailly 'sense-able' internet posters. n/t

[Thinkingabout]

17. How can you put trust into which statement he makes. No, I will not pass on information

I have learned while working at NSA or his statement he makes now saying he has not passed this information on to Russia. One statement we know he lied about was passing the information to sources outside of the NSA, it makes him a liar.
.

[L0oniX]

18. So he's a liar ...just like our government? Remember Jessica Lynch? ...and WMD's?

Yea ...who is more honourable or dishonourable is just ridiculous false equivalency bullshit?

[JDPriestly]

8. Did you read the article? He explains precisely why he did what he did.

He is a conscientious objector of sorts. I am grateful for the courage he showed.

We all owe our freedom and the human rights we enjoy in the US to people like Snowden who remind us over and over that corruption will destroy our nation and that keeping violations of our rights and of the law secret is a greater crime than printing secrets that should not be secret.

How can Americans support or condemn a program like the NSA surveillance if it is kept secret?

I doubt that the polls will reflect the real impact of the information provided to us by Snowden yet. The press and many DUers rushed to condemn him without thinking about what he really did. Quite simply, it is in the interest of the American people and of our democratic republic that we know what our government is doing, especially if it might "inadvertently" violate our personal property or deprive us of a fundamental right guaranteed us by the Constitution.

I think that Snowden's noble act will help put the brakes on the NSA surveillance of Americans. And that should be important to all of us.

[Thinkingabout]

19. Your explanation is likened to if I kill you and then post an article in the nyt as to why I killed

You then it makes it ok because I have explained why I killed you? If you don't like the NSA gathering data but you say his collection of data is ok and he has proven he has been willing to pass this information to whomever he chooses, make his deeds wrong.

[caseymoz]

34. Oh, crazy false equivalency here.

It reminds me of Scalia's argument that if we can't illegalize gay sex we can't illegalize murder. It's not even a similar category with the same moral rules. Not even apples and oranges. What you're saying is like comparing apples and asparagus.

If you make the following corrections, your comparison would be more like what Snowden did: it's more like if you expose routine, ongoing murders and you run because you go fugitive because you know you'll either get killed yourself, or they'll all be pinned on you.

That would be more like what Snowden did and is doing, and you're on the side that's trying to put the guy in prison for the murder or have him killed because squealing on your friends is the worse crime. That's just morally numb.

[Thinkingabout]

46. Bottom line, Snowden is a liar, he can not explain away his lies.

[caseymoz]

57. Great fall back postion. nt

[JDPriestly]

39. Snowden didn't kill anyone. Snowden told the American people and the world that the US

was violating laws and secretly placing a good part of the world and of Americans under surveillance. Snowden presented documents to prove his claims. Everything he said was true. He did not exaggerate.

He explains in that article that the reason that he revealed the facts about the US government's surveillance was because he became aware that the government, the NSA more precisely, had violated and was violating the law, a court order. Snowden released enough data to prove that the NSA was violating the law.

Snowden was undeniably correct when he stated, “If the highest officials in government can break the law without fearing punishment or even any repercussions at all, . . . secret powers become tremendously dangerous.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/world/snowden-says-he-took-no-secret-files-to-russia.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Snowden is undeniably right: “If the highest officials in government can break the law without fearing punishment or even any repercussions at all, . . . secret powers become tremendously dangerous.”

And I thank him for having the courage to confront the government about its violations of the law and its excessive surveillance.

[Thinkingabout]

47. Snowden is a liar and has broken laws, he can not explain away the truth, it

Will be lies and more lies.

[JDPriestly]

50. He did not lie to the American people. Clapper did.

[Thinkingabout]

52. You dont know which and how many times he has lied, he started with a lie, he has told

How he has "revealed" information of which had been revealed by Bush in 2005 so how in the hell did he reveal it in 2013, it was not new information, so he lied again. As long as he is given an opening he will lie, this is what he does best.

[JDPriestly]

53. One lie. Please tell me one lie that Snowden told to the American people.

[Thinkingabout]

55. Does he claim he "revealed" information about the collecting phone call records? The

Information was talked about in 2005 by Bush in a news conference so Snowden did not reveal what had already been revealed.

[JDPriestly]

56. He revealed the documents. I don't think he claims he revealed information that was already

public knowledge.

You accused him of telling a lie. What was that lie? Don't ask me. I didn't claim he lied. He revealed facts backed by documents including court orders to the American people. He didn't claim much at all. He produced documents that spoke for themselves. I don't think people paid that much attention to what he said. It is the documents that spoke. It is the documents that he revealed. Those had never been revealed to us before as far as I know.

[Thinkingabout]

60. Would you think documents such as the FISA act dating back to 1979 would be something which

spoke for itself? Sure it does and did. This was talked about lots during the Bush administration, again not new. So his claim to fame is retelling something which occurred some time ago. Do you know the reason behind the FISA act?

[JDPriestly]

67. Yes. I know the reason behind the FISA ACt, and I think that our NSA is violating the premise

if not the precise wording of the Act.

I remember Nixon's election. I remember Kennedy's election. I even remember Truman's election. Thank you.

[Thinkingabout]

71. Then you know this was not revealed by Snowden as I have previously stated.

[JDPriestly]

72. Snowden revealed the documents that proved what was going on and defined the scope of the

unconstitutional activities. It's pretty appalling. I realize that a lot of people do not fully comprehend what the NSA activities mean about our human rights. I've lived in Europe near the border with the then Eastern European countries (three of them). I knew refugees from Eastern Europe. This surveillance is characteristic of dictatorships and will facilitate any would-be dictator in taking over the country.

The government should get individual warrants in order to place individual Americans or individual accounts under surveillance. It's not that difficult. The Constitution requires probable cause and specificity.

I know all about the Maryland decision in the late 1970s. Read it, and understand it. Because of the reality of our computer capacity and that of the NSA today, the facts of that case no longer exist. They have changed.

I used to work for the phone company. I know what the billing records looked like in the 1970s and what they represented. I also have an inkling of what the mega-computers that exist today can do when it comes to crunching information, linking people by lists of those with whom they communicate. Information about family relations, neighbors, etc. have been available and organized into databases for some years now.

But organizing information gleaned from e-mail accounts and phone records, vast numbers of them, is just horrific. The power that bestows on the one person at the top who decides what information to seek and what to do with it defies the imagination. Democracy, even just a structure that looks like democracy cannot last long if our government obtains the power to analyze all our communications in that way.

That is why I so adamantly oppose the surveillance without very specific warrants based on very specific probable cause and information that explains the specific need for obtaining the information.

[Thinkingabout]

73. Then if you worked for the phone company you also signed the Code of Conduct and

Know what espionage detail meant. If you know and saw the phone call records you did not have the details of the phone calls as well and if you was in a position to hear information you knew not to reveal this information which makes all this even more silly. The biggest problem is rogue employees doing the wrong things. It is more dangerous for Snowden and other rogue employees hauling your information all over the world. Again bottom line he is wrong in his decisions. It is not about letting everyone know what is going on, we already knew this, it is an attempt by he and his group to do damage and for many of us who know and understand these motives does not believe and see this is exactly what is occurring. You can continue to ramp this up all you want, he has committed espionage and the only ones believing this crap are those who wants to make something out of nothing. Shameful.

[jtuck004]

15. By that standard it corrals every administration since this country began. Nice job. n/t

[L0oniX]

16. Broken trust? Ah I get it. So don't trust the US government. Thanks for making that clear.

[rhett o rick]

20. So you dont trust him. What's your point? That you dont like whistleblowers? nm

[7962]

2. Thank God he left them with JOURNALISTS! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!

Because who could be trusted more than a group of journalists in Hong Kong?

Snowden: "I don't want to live in a country that spies on its citizens"
And he lives in Russia......

[last1standing]

6. Certainly not those who illegally gathered the info to begin with! HAHAHAHAHAHA....wait a second....

Looks like the joke is on us.

[7962]

9. Lets see what he's doing in a year, as I've said before.

Said he was only going to expose things that the govt was doing against us citizens. In reality he's exposed MUCH more than that and much more damaging info as well.
If anything has come out of this its that the govt and its contractors need to do a LOT better job screening their employees.

[last1standing]

10. Yes, the lesson learned is that the government needs to keep its illegal actions a better secret.

It worked out so well in Tuskegee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

[7962]

28. Hello apple, meet orange.

I'm sure the people who suffered through that travesty 50 years ago think reading emails violates people exactly the same way.

[last1standing]

29. Ah! So if those whose communications are violated don't get syphillis there is no comparison.

Gotcha.

Government overreach and illegal activities only count when you say they do. Understood.

[7962]

30. In severity, no. But to you illegal is illegal and thats all that matters. Wow.

Its like someone who is divorced telling a widow "I know how you feel, I lost my husband too"
I would bet this subject is the most divisive in DU history.

Like I've said elsewhere, let's see what 'ol Eddie is doing in a year or so.

[last1standing]

31. So now you're saying it's cantelope to watermelon instead of apples to oranges.

Yes, for this purpose, illegal is illegal and it's not like a divorced person telling a widow "I know how you feel..."

It's like the government breaking the law by infringing on the rights of the people for no good purpose.

[7962]

36. As I said, most divisive subject on DU in the yrs I've been around.

No way I'll equate killing people with a disease with reading an email just because both are illegal.

[last1standing]

37. So it's fine because no one's dead, yet (so far as we know).

Seems reasonable to me.

[JDPriestly]

40. Snowden explained in clear terms.

“If the highest officials in government can break the law without fearing punishment or even any repercussions at all, . . . secret powers become tremendously dangerous.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/world/snowden-says-he-took-no-secret-files-to-russia.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

For me, that makes what Snowden did really important and valuable. I'm grateful for it.

Government oversteps sometimes. And when it does it needs to be called on the carpet for it. Snowden did that. Took courage. Took integrity. Took initiative. Took good judgment. Much better judgment than Clapper and Alexander. Clapper, who did not have the courage to tell the truth to Congress and the American people. What a coward compared to Snowden. Clapper wanted to keep his job. That was more important to him than being honest and truthful with the American people.

[rhett o rick]

21. LOL, I think the joke is on you. You intimate that the Russians spy on their people more

than the USofA. But do you really know that? Or is it just what you want to believe. We are the good guys, and Russia are the bad guys. I thought that simplified thinking went out decades ago. If you are presented evidence that your government is spying on all Americans, you immediately put your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes and moan over and over, "But Snowden's girlfriend was a pole dancer."

Sorry if your comfortable denial bubble has been burst.

Are you politically liberal?

[7962]

26. They certainly spy on their gays and lesbians a lot more, I'm pretty sure of that.

Of course I know that our govt spies on us. And of course I know a lot of it is not warranted and probably illegal. But all you need to do is ask any Russian who has been thrown in jail for writing a newspaper column critical of Putin if the US is just as bad.
I know that my President knows a hell of a lot more about whats REALLY going on in the world than we do. Which is why I think he hasnt done a few of the things he promised to do when he was campaigning. I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt, within reason. So many of you "defenders" immediately attack anyone who disagrees by accusing them of putting on blinders. Pole dancer? Wow, you really have to pull that as a defense? Jeeze.
I dont know what being "politically liberal" has to do with it at all. I guess you dont consider the president to be liberal either?

The issue is Snowden, and what he did and how he chose to do it. He's contradicted himself many times already and has given me no reason to trust anything he says.
Have fun thinking he's a hero. Like I said, let's se what he's up to in a year or so.

[xfundy]

32. How do you "know" the US spies on LGBTs less than Russia?

I call bullshit. Every older gay man I've spoken to on surveillance speaks of having to have gay magazines like the Advocate mailed in plain brown envelopes.

Many of us are still wary, especially as repigs & fundies get a special thrill out of watching us, and there are repigs and fundies in the gov't.

[7962]

35. I didnt say "know", I said "pretty sure". Big difference.

And in the old days many magazines were mailed in plain brown envelopes. The Advocate mailed NOW in a plain wrapper? they offer that as an option? I'm sure there are gays being spied on, but I seriously doubt its because they are gay. Maybe in the bad old days, but not anymore. Our laws are moving in the opposite direction of Russia's. So is public opinion.

[mike_c]

3. another pro-surveillance talking point crumbles....

But he helped the Russians, he helped the Russians. Or maybe he didn't.

[JDPriestly]

4. Maybe Snowden really is a hero. In any case, he is noble and not the traitor some think.

There is lots more. Let me just quote this, the portion that explains the motivation behind his self-sacrificing act:

Mr. Snowden said he finally decided to act when he discovered a copy of a classified 2009 inspector general’s report on the N.S.A.’s warrantless wiretapping program during the Bush administration. He said he found the document through a “dirty word search,” which he described as an effort by a systems administrator to check a computer system for things that should not be there in order to delete them and sanitize the system.

“It was too highly classified to be where it was,” he said of the report. He opened the document to make certain that it did not belong there, and after seeing what it revealed, “curiosity prevailed,” he said.

After reading about the program, which skirted the existing surveillance laws, he concluded that it had been illegal, he said. “If the highest officials in government can break the law without fearing punishment or even any repercussions at all,” he said, “secret powers become tremendously dangerous.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/world/snowden-says-he-took-no-secret-files-to-russia.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

And that is precisely the point: If the highest officials in government can break the law without fearing punishment or even any repercussions at all, . . . secret powers become tremendously dangerous.”

That is why he did what he did. He is brilliant, very brilliant. His intelligence specifically comprehends systems, how they work, where they can go. He also has imagination, the kind of imagination that permits him to understand the potential risks and benefits of his own actions and of the information and computer data he sees before him.

Those who would disregard the warning that Snowden has given us, for those who refuse to acknowledge that he sacrificed for values that are important for our society and the security of our nation, should read the entire article.

[KoKo]

42. Recommend...Thanks for this info...

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. I stole those other things! Not these things! The other things!

Enjoy Russia, Mr. Snowden. Learn the language and make a home. It's your country now, pal. Like, POI-MANENT.

[PSPS]

11. The swooners will have a #13 field day with this

After all, what's not to like about having the US government watch, record and store everything you do, write or utter, right?

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

[L0oniX]

13. ^^^^this^^^^ ...and ...nice collection. n/t

[IveWornAHundredPants]

23. You forgot "Snowden has a messy garage"

or whatever that was.

[JDPriestly]

41. And there was, "his girlfriend was a dancer."

[QC]

61. She was alternately a pole dancer and a ballet dancer,

depending on whether the goal at the moment was to slut shame her or make Snowden out to be an ogre who broke a sweet little ballerina's heart.

[Blue_Tires]

63. I don't have blind, unquestioning faith in either the gov't OR SnowWald

Last edited Fri Oct 18, 2013, 12:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Sadly almost all of DU wants so very badly to believe 100% in one or the other...

Meanwhile, I try to bring up what I feel are legit questions or observations which go unanswered because everyone is content to snipe at the 'other' side....

[L0oniX]

12. Snowden is a hero.

O yea ...just it case you are sarcasm impaired ....

[4bucksagallon]

22. Oh sure Snowden is completely trustworthy......

Just ask his former employer if he would hire him back..

[IveWornAHundredPants]

24. So, to determine if Snowden is trustworthy,

we should simply ask the NSA and trust them instead? Yes, I'm sure they have no reason to lie.

[4bucksagallon]

27. Do you steal from your employer or condone stealing from an employer? Because that's what he did.

I am sure with his security clearance he had to sign an oath also so he is a traitor.

[xfundy]

33. OH! Your 666th post!

Does it burn?

[4bucksagallon]

49. If that is meant to be a crack it didn't work I am an iconoclast.

I do not discriminate I despise all religions equally. Snowden is/was a traitor, sling mud, or BS in your case, all you want.

[JDPriestly]

43. Snowden's employer was the people of the United States, and he gave our information

back to us. At least he told the truth to us. Clapper of the NSA did not.

I have to defend Snowden. Normally giving away secrets is not justified. But the government is listening in on and reading our secrets when it has no right to. That is more wrong than Snowden's warning us about what the government is doing.

[Luminous Animal]

64. If my employer was doing something illegal that caused harm...

I'd hope I'd do the moral thing.

[Lil Missy]

25. Uh huh, yeah, that's the ticket. n/t

[reddread]

38. Ironic that tonight C SPAN live coverage of the 40th Anniversary discussion

of the Saturday Night Massacre.
Back when decency had its champions in high places.
Do these surveillance fetishists mourn Watergate?

[JDPriestly]

45. These surveillance fetishists are trying to make Watergate legal -- retroactively legal.

[Sunlei]

44. really like to know who exactly pays all his bills over the past couple years. and got him those job

[Pterodactyl]

48. Oh, good. I was worried he might have.

[SoapBox]

51. Oh shut the fuck up Comrade Eddie.

...you're not even American now.

[mimi85]

58. Totally agree! nt

[Hissyspit]

59. I would rather hear from him than you.

[Luminous Animal]

69. Oh, so he's a Rooskie now is he? Is this the 1950s calling?

[onehandle]

54. Hard Winter Tip #1: Protect Your Tip.

Penis, that is.

Enjoy living in the 19th Century+, thief.

[Blue_Tires]

62. This doesn't even begin to jibe with the official story so far, and only raises more questions

Greenwald and Poitras have maintained from the start that Snowden keeps the bulk of the info as an "insurance policy" or whatever, and it's not like he'd let some outside party hold them for safekeeping...If he gave it to Assange we'd all have known about it by now...

Besides, wasn't Greenwald's partner detained at Heathrow while acting as a courier between the two?? Clearly someone is lying, but I have no idea who or what they are trying to protect...

And let's be serious here: Modern Russia has probably the biggest ingrained "favor for a favor" culture in the world...Am I really supposed to believe they granted Snowden asylum while expecting *nothing* in return?? I'm not saying Snowden gave them the keys to the NSA castle, but I'm betting dollars to yen that SOME kind of agreement was made...

[Luminous Animal]

65. Neither have said any such thing.

What he's done is distribute the information, encrypted, and he does not have the keys thus he has no access to the documents anymore. All have been clear on this point. I expect the insurance files require more than one key and each key holder can only unlock one lock.

Greenwald's husband was acting as a courier between Poitras and Greenwald. Snowden was not in the mix. But what he was carrying is unknown. It could have been work product based on the documents.

[Blue_Tires]

66. My mistake...I'm just trying to get the story straight

Last edited Fri Oct 18, 2013, 02:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Here, it's pretty concrete that Greenwald has a large number of files:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022989366
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3000948
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023415993

But here Greenwald says Snowden has held a lot back:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023286691

And here, Snowden insinuates he does have sensitive documents in Moscow, but they are completely safe from being compromised: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023303854
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023275112

And here, it's clear that several other people have the files (but no keys) as an insurance policy: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014518195

So where did Greenwald say he no longer has any access to the cache? And why does Snowden say he took nothing sensitive to Russia? I just want to piece it together...

[Luminous Animal]

68. It is no secret that Poitras, Greenwald, and Gellman have a large number of files.

"But here Greenwald says Snowden has held a lot back:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023286691 "

He says no such thing. From your link:

Glenn Greenwald explains why Snowden doesn't control which documents get leaked and when
I think there’s a real misconception over whether he’ll continue to leak,” Greenwald said. “He turned over to us many thousands of documents weeks and weeks ago back in Hong Kong and we’ve been the ones deciding which stories get published and in which order. As far as I know he doesn’t have any intention of disclosing any more documents to us.”

The only thing Greenwald is saying here is that, as far as he knows... which, means, he doesn't know if Snowden retained anymore documents than the ones given to him and others.

And this:

And here, Snowden insinuates he does have sensitive documents in Moscow, but they are completely safe from being compromised: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023303854
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023275112

Anyone with half a brain realized that Snowden was admitting he no longer retained the documents or the keys and because of that, he would be unable, even under torture, of exposing them.

And this is the only thing that you may be right about but personally, I think it is way more complicated than Greenwald's characterization:

And here, it's clear that several other people have the files (but no keys) as an insurance policy: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014518195

And here is where Greenwald says he no longer had access:

http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/25199014

and here:

http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/25202374

[Blue_Tires]

70. Language is a funny thing

There's a difference between saying "He has nothing more to give us," and "He has no intention of giving any more to us...

There's also a difference between saying "I cannot be coerced into revealing info, even under torture," and "The information is properly compartmentalized and shielded so any torture of me will yield nothing useful"

I guess I'm too much of a literalist and suck at reading between the lines...Thanks for setting someone with half a brain straight...So for now I wait for Greenwald to publish on the remaining thousands of unused documents in the original handover...

And now my final question to tie it all together -- If he had nothing to give the Russians, why would they offer asylum? (and I don't think "To piss of the USA" is a strong enough reason)...From the start of this whole ordeal, why didn't Snowden just make arrangements to go directly to Brazil from day one??

[jmowreader]

74. It's strange he wouldn't know the "unique value" of carrying that stuff into Russia

If you're trying to buy asylum in Russia, a couple gigabytes' worth of NSA documents would be a fairly decent medium of exchange.