General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSnowden Answers: "Why I Challenged Putin about Russia's Mass Surveillance..."
Last edited Sat Apr 19, 2014, 10:08 AM - Edit history (3)
Snowden Calls BS On Putin's Answer: Says He Was Playing The Role Of Ron Wyden--by Mike Masnick
Yesterday we, like many, were perplexed by Ed Snowden's decision to go on a Russian television program, and to ask Vladimir Putin a question about whether or not the Russians do mass surveillance like the NSA does (which was, of course, exposed by Ed Snowden). It was clearly playing into Putin's propaganda efforts, because Putin immediately took the opportunity to insist that no, Russia does not do mass surveillance like that. Of course, Putin's answer was not true. Many of Snowden's detractors immediately jumped on this as an example of how he was working for the Putin propaganda machine -- and many (including us), wondered if he was, at the very least, pressured to play a role in order to keep his temporary asylum. Others thought he was just being naive. Some Snowden supporters, however, insisted that we should hear him out, and see if there was some more specific motive behind his question.
Apparently, we didn't have to wait long. Snowden himself has now directly called Putin out for lying about Russian surveillance, and said that his question was designed to act similar to Senator Ron Wyden's now famous question to James Clapper, leading to Clapper's lie, which (in part) sparked Snowden's decision to finally release the files he'd been collecting. Snowden, writing in the Guardian, explained:
I went on to challenge whether, even if such a mass surveillance program were effective and technically legal, it could ever be morally justified.
The question was intended to mirror the now infamous exchange in US Senate intelligence committee hearings between senator Ron Wyden and the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, about whether the NSA collected records on millions of Americans, and to invite either an important concession or a clear evasion. (See a side-by-side comparison of Wyden's question and mine here.)
Clapper's lie to the Senate and to the public was a major motivating force behind my decision to go public, and a historic example of the importance of official accountability.
He goes on to say:
Finally, he notes that his position continues to remain entirely consistent:
Last year, I risked family, life, and freedom to help initiate a global debate that even Obama himself conceded "will make our nation stronger". I am no more willing to trade my principles for privilege today than I was then.
I understand the concerns of critics, but there is a more obvious explanation for my question than a secret desire to defend the kind of policies I sacrificed a comfortable life to challenge: if we are to test the truth of officials' claims, we must first give them an opportunity to make those claims.
I don't think many people -- other than perhaps the most diehard Snowden supporters -- expected something quite like this. For months, many Snowden detractors have repeatedly criticized Snowden for not speaking out against Russian authoritarianism and surveillance. Many of us have felt that those criticisms were significantly off-base, in part because that wasn't Snowden's particular fight (nor did he have any unique knowledge of Russian surveillance, as he did with the US). It seemed like a stupid false equivalency to try to make Snowden look bad. And when he asked his question to Putin, some people argued that this showed he was actually "questioning" Russian surveillance. Except that the TV question felt like such a softball, so designed to allow Putin to spin some propaganda that this didn't really seem like Snowden challenging anything.
However, this latest response suggests that Snowden is (once again) playing a game where he's several moves ahead of many folks. The question may have set up a propaganda answer, but it appears there was a bigger strategy behind it -- and one that remains entirely consistent with what Snowden has claimed his position has been since the beginning. Frankly, while this possibility was raised about his original question to Putin, many people (myself included) thought it was unlikely that Snowden would so directly go after his current hosts (who only became his hosts thanks to the US pulling his passport). Putin is not known for gracefully handling those who directly challenge him, and I don't think it would be surprise anyone if Snowden had continued to stay out of the question of Russian surveillance, simply out of basic necessity.
Snowden, however, has said from the beginning, that this story has never been about him, and he accepts that the end result of his starting the process may not be good for himself. He's made it clear that he was willing to effectively sacrifice himself to get this debate going -- and having done it once, he apparently has decided he can do it again in another context. While I was confused by this move 24 hours ago, I'll admit it was because I never thought Snowden would go this far (and so quickly) to criticize Russia while he was there. Already, given what Snowden did in releasing the NSA documents, he's shown that he's much braver (and in many ways, patriotic to the public) than just about anyone. In now questioning -- and then calling BS on Putin's answer -- he's shown that bravery was not a one-time thing, but a position he intends to live by going forward.
MORE AT:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140418/00394026952/snowden-calls-bs-putins-answer-says-he-was-playing-role-ron-wyden.shtml
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)in a country that doesn't give as much consideration to either of those as the country from which he came. I'm glad he exposed what was going on at the NSA, but he isn't in a position to know any Russian intelligence and others there are in a better position to illicit more accurate answers from Putin, so I think he may be taking an unnecessary and ill conceived risk.
ETA: oops should have read all the way down...this was already said.
frylock
(34,825 posts)knr
KoKo
(84,711 posts)And as a counter to the Snowden/Greenwald Naysayers who think these two are Traitors and not TRUTH TELLERS.
I thought Mike Masrick pointed out very interesting scenario in his post. Folks fail to recognize that for SOME of US....TRUTH TO OUT POWER...is something worth Doing...and what happens is less important than that you EXPOSE Criminality.... unlike the Oligarchs who PRESERVE and PROTECT POWER...at ALL COSTS.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)He is still alive.
unreadierLizard
(475 posts)If a democrat does it, it's legal and okay. Not really surveillance, just "legal govt programs" lol)
If a Republican was doing it, y'all'd be up in arms in a heartbeat over it, rightfully so.
"WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH EASTASIA!"
K&R for Edward Snowden. American - no, global hero.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)uhnope
(6,419 posts)This is an article analyzing and glorifying Snowden's Guardian piece, and that glorification is for domestic consumption in the West, primarily in the USA and UK, and primarily for Snowden fans admiring his "bravery" even though "this story has never been about him." How much difference will this "calling BS on Putin's answer" article in "techdirt.com" make in Russia? Zilch (нулевой ).
So let's turn to Snowden's article. First, the point is the same--a Guardian piece is not going to affect the debate in Russia, precisely because Putin has closed down the independent media that might have translated it into Russia and ran it in a major Russian news service (and Putin's regime is now even threatening to make bloggers register as news agencies.)
Now, to the article itself. If we take it at face value, and believe that Snowden was consciously intending to set up Putin as he imagines Clapper was set up (and not that this isn't yet more Monday morning quarterbacking/damage control), then we have to ask what kind of fantasy world is Snowden living in. There is no functioning democratic process in Russia that can seize on Putin's lying answer to Snowden's question, as Snowden seems to believe (and which makes the US democracy look pretty functioning in comparison). There will be no committee to investigate government surveillance and make their findings public. Putin's government officials who run spying and surveillance will not be called to testify. There will be no president who responds to the controversy and makes regular public commentary on the progress of the investigations and on the importance of the issue, giving it a healthy public debate, as Obama has done. Can Snowden really not know what kind of place he's chosen to live in? Does he think he's still in America? Does he think he's some kind of mastermind laying a trap for Putin? Because the springing of the trap would be some kind of robust response of democratic institution and public voices in Russia. Guess what, that's not going to happen, just like it hasn't happened after any of Putin's egregious lies and outrageous statements.
Therefore, all that's left is what the Russian people will see--the American martyr for freedom who chose Russia, making a public appearance with Das Leader, as he helps create the illusion of open debate in a controlled propaganda broadcast.
Let's look in detail at Snowden's article:
"Generously speaking." That's actually quite funny. He's being generous to himself! Because we'll see how "likely" it is to be "revisited by journalists" in a Russia where the independent media has been shut down. Snowden goes on about this:
Again, mastermind Snowden is freeing the journalists and unleashing civil society. How, exactly, is unclear, since those journalists and that civil society has already been ground down despite much stronger catalysts than a softball question in a staged event that reflects well on Putin.
This is actually quite insulting to the dissidents and journalists who have actually been murdered in Russia, who have spent time in prison for simple protest. Snowden imagines that he risked "family" or "life" (I suppose from silly articles like this) but this kind of self-proclamation reinforces the view that he lives in a comic-book world where he's the superhero, even though it's "not about him," oblivious to real examples of persecution all around him in his chosen home.