A phony "hero"

When the so-called “Patriot” Act was passed following the World Trade Center bombings, it was called “patriot” for a reason: Anyone who dared question its provisions for “enhanced” spying—even on U.S. citizens—was to be regarded as “unpatriotic.” Save for an instance where a phone service provider was accused of cooperating with intelligence services, most of the complaints about it during the Bush administration came from fringe left media that was largely ignored, as was most of the crimes committed by that  administration. Of course, the Obama administration has been put on notice by the media and self-styled “public interest” types that similar activities on his watch will not be tolerated. A black guy spying on “innocent” white people? Why, that’s outrageous!  

Of course, Barack Obama isn’t spying on anyone himself; it is other agencies which are carrying out anti-terrorist surveillance as they see “fit.” This kind of thing occurs in every country to varying degrees, some much worse. Some countries arrest and torture “suspicious” people rather than simply wasting time spying on them. J. Edgar Hoover and his boys at the FBI routinely spied on and compiled dossiers on leftist groups and personalities; Charlie Chaplin was eventually banished from the land, and ex-Beatle John Lennon was for years denied a Green card for permanent residency. Some of the most notorious members of the Weather Underground never served time, because the illegal surveillance methods used by the FBI were ruled inadmissible as evidence (just as an interesting anecdote, I’ve wondered why the recent documentary on the group allowed ex-Weatherman Brian Flanagan to avoid discussing his pre-Underground trial in 1970,  when he was charged with an attack that left Richard Elrod paralyzed after a “Days of Rage” incident in Chicago in 1969). 

Personally, I don’t like the idea of spying on people simply on whim or for prurient interest. That brings us to the latest leaker of classified information, Edward Snowden, in regard to CIA spying programs such as PRISM, which tracks internet traffic by foreign persons or entities. According to The Guardian, he is a high school dropout who enlisted in the Army and spent time in Iraq, an experience which “disillusioned” about the war. Because of his “experience” in the military and in recognition of his “service,” the glib Snowden got a job as a security guard at an NSA facility, was allegedly employed by the CIA in Geneva, and more recently worked for a consulting firm contracted by the CIA. What he actually was allowed to do with a questionable background is unclear, although it appears that when there was a call for “computer nerds” to assist in surveillance programs, like the Mariel Boatlift in 1980 so many came calling it was natural that more than a few less than savory types would slip in.

Snowden claims that "Any analyst at any time can target anyone. Any selector. Anywhere. I, sitting at my desk, had the authority to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president if I had a personal email." First of all, I’m certain that there were some guidelines given to an “analyst” not to waste time by examining every email or phone call, but to isolate “indicators” that might be “suspicious.” Now, if an irresponsible, untrustworthy person like Snowden was tempted to go beyond protocol, then the question is how did someone like that get the job in the first place. That he even thought of doing so when a more discerning analyst would not only shows his unfitness; if anything, what has been proved here is the lack of adequate screening of candidates for such sensitive jobs that allow unqualified and improperly trained people to have such power and access to classified information.

I dislike people like Snowden who fashion themselves as being “patriotic” and the media calling them “heroes” and “public-spirited” persons. He isn’t any of these things; he is someone with a swollen head who wishes to be a “somebody.” If he really was brave he wouldn’t have escaped to Hong Kong, hoping to gain “political” asylum. To me he is just some guy looking for attention. Take the following statements:

“I’m not going to hide. Allowing the U.S. government to intimidate its people with threats of retaliation for revealing wrongdoing is contrary to the public interest...(and he will) ask for asylum from any countries that believe in free speech and oppose the victimization of global privacy...My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them.”

First of all, while what is being done might be construed as unethical if the wrong people are involved, it isn’t against the law. The only “wrongdoing” being done here is by Snowden. Whether it is in the “public interest” is again a matter of opinion, if the authority is being abused rather than used for constructive purposes that are in the public interest, such as seeking out potential terrorist activity. Claiming a “free speech” right to break the law is the refuge of people who don’t respect the law; ironically, Snowden may be protected from extradition by China, which has been accused of conducting cyber attacks in the U.S. and hardly has a notable record of free speech, and freedom period. He may feel so “patriotic” that he might actually divulge secrets to the Chinese.  As for what is being done against the public, I have yet to see the evidence that anyone has actually been harmed, save potential terrorists--certainly not in the way Hoover used information to blackmail, or threaten to blackmail, public figures. 

The fact that Snowden is the only person to date to come forward with allegations of potential boundary crossing indicates he is one of the few who thinks this was the mandate of these intelligence programs; no adequately trained, experienced or responsible analyst would be tempted to “investigate” matters out of the purview of his or her task. That is why he is a fraud in my mind.