Sorry for the scroll-spam. Good article though.
50KalSo not that I disagree with you but it is in the WSJ "opinion" section.
Also do you have a WSJ account and can you post the whole article? Its only letting me read 3 paragraphs.
Of all the lies that Edward Snowden has told since his massive theft
of secrets from the National Security Agency and his journey to Russia
via Hong Kong in 2013, none is more provocative than the claim that he
never intended to engage in espionage, and was only a “whistleblower”
seeking to expose the overreach of NSA’s information gathering. With the
clock ticking on Mr. Snowden’s chance of a pardon, now is a good time
to review what we have learned about his real mission.
Mr. Snowden’s theft of America’s most
closely guarded communication secrets occurred in May 2013, according to
the criminal complaint filed against him by federal prosecutors the
following month. At the time Mr. Snowden was a 29-year-old technologist
working as an analyst-in-training for the consulting firm of Booz Allen
Hamilton at the regional base of the National Security Agency (NSA) in
Oahu, Hawaii. On May 20, only some six weeks after his job there began,
he failed to show up for work, emailing his supervisor that he was at
the hospital being tested for epilepsy.
This excuse was untrue. Mr. Snowden was not even in Hawaii. He
was in Hong Kong. He had flown there with a cache of secret data that he
had stolen from the NSA.
This was not the only lie Mr. Snowden told. As became clear
during my investigation over the past three years, nearly every element
of the narrative Mr. Snowden has provided, which reached its final
iteration in Oliver Stone’s 2016 movie, “Snowden,” is demonstrably
false
This narrative began soon after Mr. Snowden arrived in Hong
Kong, where he arranged to meet with Laura Poitras, a Berlin-based
documentary filmmaker, and Glenn Greenwald, a Brazil-based blogger for
the Guardian. Both journalists were longtime critics of NSA surveillance
with whom Mr. Snowden (under the alias Citizen Four) had been in
contact for four months.
To provide them with scoops discrediting NSA operations, Mr.
Snowden culled several thousand documents out of his huge cache of
stolen material, including two explosive documents he asked them to use
in their initial stories. One was the now-famous secret order from
America’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court requiring Verizon
to turn over to the NSA its billing records for its phone users in the
U.S. The other was an NSA slide presentation detailing its ability to
intercept communications of non-American users of the internet via a
joint program with the FBI code-named Prism.
These documents were published in 2013 on June 5 and 6,
followed by a video in which he identified himself as the leaker and a
whistleblower.
At the heart of Mr. Snowden’s narrative was his claim that
while he may have incidentally “touched” other data in his search of NSA
files, he took only documents that exposed the malfeasance of the NSA
and gave all of them to journalists.
Yet even as Mr. Snowden’s narrative was taking hold in the
public realm, a secret damage assessment done by the NSA and Pentagon
told a very different story. According to a unanimous
report
declassified on Dec. 22 by the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, the investigation showed that Mr. Snowden had “removed”
(not merely touched) 1.5 million documents. That huge number was based
on, among other evidence, electronic logs that recorded the selection,
copying and moving of documents.
The number of purloined documents is more than what NSA
officials were willing to say in 2013 about the removal of data,
possibly because the House committee had the benefit of the Pentagon’s
more-extensive investigation. But even just taking into account the
material that Mr. Snowden handed over to journalists, the December House
report concluded that he compromised “secrets that protect American
troops overseas and secrets that provide vital defenses against
terrorists and nation-states.” These were, the report said, “merely the
tip of the iceberg.”
The Pentagon’s investigation during 2013 and 2014 employed
hundreds of military-intelligence officers, working around the clock, to
review all 1.5 million documents. Most had nothing to do with domestic
surveillance or whistle blowing. They were mainly military secrets, as
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified
before the House Armed Services Committee on March 6, 2014.
It was not the quantity of Mr. Snowden’s theft but the quality
that was most telling. Mr. Snowden’s theft put documents at risk that
could reveal the NSA’s Level 3 tool kit—a reference to documents
containing the NSA’s most-important sources and methods. Since the
agency was created in 1952, Russia and other adversary nations had been
trying to penetrate its Level-3 secrets without great success.
Yet it was precisely these secrets that Mr. Snowden changed
jobs to steal. In an interview in Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post
on June 15, 2013, he said he sought to work on a Booz Allen contract at
the CIA, even at a cut in pay, because it gave him access to secret
lists of computers that the NSA was tapping into around the world.
He evidently succeeded. In a 2014 interview with Vanity Fair,
Richard Ledgett, the NSA executive who headed the damage-assessment
team, described one lengthy document taken by Mr. Snowden that, if it
fell into the wrong hands, would provide a “road map” to what targets
abroad the NSA was, and was not, covering. It contained the requests
made by the 17 U.S. services in the so-called Intelligence Community for
NSA interceptions abroad.
On June 23, less than two weeks after Mr. Snowden released the
video that helped present his narrative, he left Hong Kong and flew to
Moscow, where he received protection by the Russian government. In much
of the media coverage that followed, the ultimate destination of these
stolen secrets was fogged over—if not totally obscured from the
public—by the unverified claims that Mr. Snowden was spoon feeding to
handpicked journalists.
In his narrative, Mr. Snowden always claims that he was a
conscientious “whistleblower” who turned over all the stolen NSA
material to journalists in Hong Kong. He has insisted he had no
intention of defecting to Russia but was on his way to Latin America
when he was trapped in Russia by the U.S. government in an attempt to
demonize him.
For example, in October 2014, he told the editor of the Nation,
“I’m in exile. My government revoked my passport intentionally to leave
me exiled” and “chose to keep me in Russia.” According to Mr. Snowden,
the U.S. government accomplished this entrapment by suspending his
passport while he was in midair after he departed Hong Kong on June 23,
thus forcing him into the hands of President Vladimir Putin’s regime.
None of this is true. The State Department invalidated Mr.
Snowden’s passport while he was still in Hong Kong, not after he left
for Moscow on June 23. The “Consul General-Hong Kong confirmed that Hong
Kong authorities were notified that Mr. Snowden’s passport was revoked
June 22,” according to the State Department’s senior watch officer, as
reported by ABC news on June 23, 2013.
Mr. Snowden could not have been unaware of the government’s
pursuit of him, since the criminal complaint against him, which was
filed June 14, had been headline news in Hong Kong. That the U.S. acted
against him while he was still in Hong Kong is of great importance to
the timeline because it points to the direct involvement of
Aeroflot,
an airline which the Russian government effectively controls.
Aeroflot bypassed its normal procedures to allow Mr. Snowden to board
the Moscow flight—even though he had neither a valid passport nor a
Russian visa, as his newly assigned lawyer, Anatoly Kucherena, said at a
press conference in Russia on July 12, 2013.
By falsely claiming his passport was invalidated after the
plane departed Hong Kong—instead of before he left—Mr. Snowden hoped to
conceal this extraordinary waiver. The Russian government further
revealed its helping hand, judging by a report in Russia’s Izvestia
newspaper when, on arrival, Mr. Snowden was taken off the plane by a
security team in a “special operation.”
Nor was it any kind of accident. Vladimir Putin personally
authorized this assistance after Mr. Snowden met with Russian officials
in Hong Kong, as Mr. Putin admitted in a televised press conference on
Sept. 2, 2013.
To provide a smokescreen for Mr. Snowden’s escape from Hong
Kong, WikiLeaks (an organization that the Obama administration asserted
to be a tool of Russian intelligence after the hacking of Democratic
Party leaders’ email in 2016) booked a dozen or more diversionary flight
reservations to other destinations for Mr. Snowden.
WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange also dispatched Sarah
Harrison, his deputy at WikiLeaks, to fly to Hong Kong to pay Mr.
Snowden’s expenses and escort him to Moscow. In short, Mr. Snowden’s
arrival in Moscow was neither accidental nor the work of the U.S.
government.
Mr. Snowden’s own narrative asserts that he came to Russia not
only empty-handed but without access to any of the stolen material. He
wrote in Vanity Fair in 2014 that he had destroyed all of it before
arriving in Moscow—the very data that he went to such lengths to steal a
few weeks earlier in Hawaii.
As it turns out, this claim is also untrue. It is belied by two
Kremlin insiders who were in a position to know what Mr. Snowden
actually brought with him to Moscow. One of them, Frants Klintsevich,
was the first deputy chairman of the defense and security committee of
the Duma (Russia’s parliament) at the time of Mr. Snowden’s defection.
“Let’s be frank,” Mr. Klintsevich said in a taped interview with NPR in
June 2016, “Mr. Snowden did share intelligence. This is what security
services do."
The other insider was Anatoly Kucherena, a well-connected
Moscow lawyer and Mr. Putin’s friend. Mr. Kucherena served as the
intermediary between Mr. Snowden and Russian authorities. On Sept. 23,
2013, Mr. Kucherena gave a long interview to Sophie Shevardnadze, a
journalist for Russia Today television.
When Ms. Shevardnadze directly asked him if Mr. Snowden had
given all the documents he had taken from the NSA to journalists in Hong
Kong, Mr. Kucherena said Mr. Snowden had only given “some” of the NSA’s
documents in his possession to journalists in Hong Kong. “So he [Mr.
Snowden] does have some materials that haven’t been made public yet?”
Ms. Shevardnadze asked. “Certainly,” Mr. Kucherena answered.
This disclosure filled in a crucial piece of the puzzle. It
explained why NSA documents that Mr. Snowden had copied, but had not
given to the journalists in Hong Kong—such as the embarrassing
revelation about the NSA targeting the cellphone of German Chancellor
Angela Merkel—continued to surface after Mr. Snowden arrived in Moscow,
along with NSA documents released via WikiLeaks.
As this was a critical discrepancy in Mr. Snowden’s narrative, I
went to Moscow in October 2015 to see Mr. Kucherena. During our
conversation, Mr. Kucherena confirmed that his interview with Ms.
Shevardnadze was accurate, and that Mr. Snowden had brought secret
material with him to Moscow.
Mr. Snowden’s narrative also includes the assertion that he was
neither debriefed by nor even met with any Russian government official
after he arrived in Moscow. This part of the narrative runs counter to
findings of U.S. intelligence. According to the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence report, Mr. Snowden, since he arrived in
Moscow, “has had, and continues to have, contact with Russian
intelligence services.” This finding is consistent with Russian
debriefing practices, as described by the ex-KGB officers with whom I
spoke in Moscow
Mr. Snowden also publicly claimed in Moscow in December 2013 to
have secrets in his head, including “access to every target, every
active operation. Full lists of them.” Could Mr. Snowden’s Russian hosts
ignore such an opportunity after Mr. Putin had authorized his
exfiltration to Moscow? Mr. Snowden, with no exit options, was in the
palm of their hands. Under such circumstances, as Mr. Klintsevich
pointed out in his June NPR interview: “If there’s a possibility to get
information, they [the Russian intelligence services] will get it.”
The transfer of state secrets from Mr. Snowden to Russia did
not occur in a vacuum. The intelligence war did not end with the
termination of the Cold War; it shifted to cyberspace. Even if Russia
could not match the NSA’s state-of-the-art sensors, computers and
productive partnerships with the cipher services of Britain, Israel,
Germany and other allies, it could nullify the U.S. agency’s edge by
obtaining its sources and methods from even a single contractor with
access to Level 3 documents.
Russian intelligence uses a single umbrella term to cover
anyone who delivers it secret intelligence. Whether a person acted out
of idealistic motives, sold information for money or remained clueless
of the role he or she played in the transfer of secrets—the provider of
secret data is considered an “espionage source.” By any measure, it is a
job description that fits Mr. Snowden.
