Taking Bearings

Cambridge, MA — From the outset, Edward Snowden has deviated substantially from typical “whistleblower” behavior.

At a Harvard Kennedy School of Government forum on NSA Secrecy and National Security held in April 2014, a select panel of national security experts, including John Deutch, Director of Central Intelligence from1995 to 96, discussed  Snowden’s revelations of NSA domestic spying using technology. Deutch characterized the NSA program cast into the public eye by Snowden as “very much in the interests of the United States and counter-terrorism.”

Other panel participants included moderator Graham Allison (Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs), Jane Harman (Director, President and CEO, Woodrow Wilson Center), J, Dina Temple-Raston (NPR Counterterrorism Correspondent and Harvard Neiman Fellow), David Sanger (Chief Washington Correspondent of the New York Times), and Joseph Nye (Dean, Harvard Kennedy School (1995-2004).

The panel strongly agreed that Snowden’s disclosures of U.S. technology and intelligence gathering capacity and protocols were extremely damaging to defense and the security of the United States, including security against both terrorism and criminal activity

In response to a moderator question about whether Edward Snowden’s revelations and actions ultimately benefited Americans, panel opinion essentially split on whether Snowden’s revelations did more than simply accelerate privacy discussions already underway.

Nye argued that NSA “was doing its job and doing it very well,” it was Congress that was “on autopilot” regarding NSA’s actions.

Harman further argued that if Snowden’s motives were as claimed, that Snowden could have gone to Congress, or countries other than China or Russia. Deutch’s characterization of Snowden as a “criminal” who “had to run somewhere” drew applause from the Kennedy School forum audience.

Harmen said Snowden needs to return. to U.S. and face trial. Harmen said that until Americans understand the damage Snowden’s thefts have done to U.S. Defense capacity, Snowden will initially have enormous public sympathy.

The most intriguing questions about Snowden and other parties involved in the theft of classified information are yet to be answered. We are still on the learning curve concerning Snowden’s actions and motivations. Even in the best light, Snowden’s comments about alleged US operations against foreign targets ran counter to his initial “shocked into action” whistleblower narrative.

Mr. Snowden seeks to keep himself highly relevant. He teases and taunts about additional disclosures and has yet to disclose exactly what information he took about ongoing operations. He has refused to allow journalists to review all his evidence (See South China Morning Post reporting on this story).

Snowden said he sought Booz Allen job to gather evidence on NSA surveillance. The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald recently told The Associated Press that Snowden has “literally thousands of documents” that constitute a form of “instruction manual” for how the NSA operates.”

That’s not typical whistleblower behavior.

I confess that I tend to see these things in the larger context of allegiance to oath and how classified information is handled. I wrote about TIA programs before Congress rejected TIA —and it is clear the NSA just decided to do what it did in spite of Congress. The technology simply proved too alluring and the culture of the time offered convenient excuse.

The fact is, however, that Snowden could have gone other routes — traditional whistleblower routes. He chose to be a traitor.

There is no whistleblower exception in the Espionage Act but Snowden would have had protection under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act passed in 1998. He could have –and should have — gone to the Inspector General’s Office at the NSA or spoken to congressional intelligence committees. He would have given up any whistleblower protections, but if his reasons were as pure as he claims, Snowden could have leaked what he knew to NYT or WP and given them time (as with the Pentagon Papers) to more carefully sift the classified data and protect that which was not relevant. By going to gadfly Glenn Greenwald (and gadfly is not necessarily an insulting term for a journalist) the whole timeline accelerated and the Washington Post and Guardian had no time to properly handle the material.

Had he gone any other path, Snowden could have revealed what he felt compelled to reveal and not done broader damage to the U.S. intelligence interests.

Snowden was no brave patriot. Whatever his initial motivations, in the end he fled for his own sake and handed additional classified information to enemies of his country.

=====

Photo Credit: (left to right), panel moderator Graham Allison (Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs), Jane Harman (Director, President and CEO, Woodrow Wilson Center), John Deutch (Director of Central Intelligence, 1995-96), Dina Temple-Raston (NPR Counterterrorism Correspondent and Harvard Neiman Fellow), David Sanger (Chief Washington Correspondent of the New York Times), and Joseph Nye (Dean, Harvard Kennedy School (1995-2004) Photo by K Lee Lerner ©LMG All rights reserved.