[dmix]

There's no way Obama, or any mainstream president, would have done that. He loved the intelligence agencies even more than Bush as it gave the US the same power projection without any of the dirty business being under public scrutiny. The "polite societies" way of do much of the same which was highly criticized in the prior administration. Despite the convenient optics I don't see him being any more liberal on the matter than mainline political angle (which is solidly against Assange / Snowden / etc).

The administration gave them tons of leeway (ie, ignoring the destruction of thousands of tapes of torture in the Thailand black site with zero repercussions for the agents involved) and made the strategic shift of the power/resources from the military towards the IC when he got in office.

He also famously prosecuted more whistleblowers than any other president. Letting Manning go after 7rs in solitary confinement is the closest he got at trying to revise his history on the matter - at the last minute. So I don't see how such an action would make any sense in the context of his 8yrs of actions otherwise (rhetoric is another matter which people seem to value more in politics than action).

Nor is this is not a partisan issue. Both establishment parties are fully in support of doing the IC's bidding.

[blhack]

I know, and this is why it would have gained him so much respect in my eyes.

I think it's possible to both recognize the importance of intelligence agencies, and recognize why whistleblowing should be discouraged, but at the same time recognize the patriotism required to do it anyway.

Giving these people the Medal of Freedom, to me, would have been an acknowledgment of that. "Yeah, you shouldn't have done that, but you did it anyway, and you deserve to be recognized for that."

"I disagree with what you're saying, but will defend to the death your right to say it" and all that.

[alexandercrohde]

> and recognize why whistleblowing should be discouraged

It drives me nuts that whistle-blower has become a bad word. It is by definition good. The government has made laws to pay people for whistle-blowing, to help reduce corruption.

Definition of whistle-blowing: * a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity.

So if you catch Nixon breaking into the DNC and you report it, you're whistle-blowing (and the greatest hero possible). If you publish random private information online, that is merely leaking.

[eeeuo]

Leaking secrets is not a freedom of speech issue.

I would agree with you if Snowden narrowly leaked the details of the PRISM program. I think if he did that he would have been a genuine hero. But he didn't. He downloaded as much secret information as he could, and gave them to organizations that were openly hostile to American interests.

Consider the level of detail of methods and sources in the information leaked by Snowden. I think one would have to be extremely naive to believe that Russia and China did not get their hands on the Snowden leaks very quickly(and that's the most charitable interpretation). Therefore, the leaks weakened the US's geopolitical position and improved the position of their rivals.

For a command-in-chief to reward a person who did that with a Medal of Freedom would be a truly baffling choice.

[Buge]

Did Snowden give is data to organizations that were hostile to the US? I thought he gave it to journalists, and let them censor as they saw fit.

[na85]

>organizations that were openly hostile to American interests.

Exactly which organizations are you referring to?

[bitofhope]

Yea I'd like to have this elaborated on. As is the GP makes The Guardian sound like Daesh.

[eeeuo]

Wikileaks.

[na85]

Snowden went to Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras who aren't with WikiLeaks.

[eeeuo]

This is true, but he also was financially aided, advised and accompanied by Wikileaks every step of the way.

Nonetheless, you are correct. I would edit the previous post if I could, as it's not especially critical to the overall point.

[dmix]

Isn't it also naive to think China and Russia weren't fully aware of the NSA's capabilities? If anything the only effect it had on intelligence agencies is it accelerated the smaller countries towards this type of mass surveillance, they learned thoroughly what was possible - beyond what you can buy at miltech trade shows. And now we see many awful countries mimicking this type of stuff now, like in Ethiopia.

But otherwise for 99% of it the only one it was new and valuable to was the public.

As good as the FBI/IC is at counter-intelligence if Snowden can do this stuff I'm sure a highly trained spy recruited by any top tier agency could get similar access.

Also notably Snowden did not leak the really sensitive TAO stuff, which was well compartmentalized. He mostly leaked spreadsheets for the 'middle management' in NSA. I'm sure he only revealed a small portion of their top-teir capabilities. And the stuff he did leak was almost always very vague, often just a few bullet points in a spreadsheet was all we had to work with...

[eeeuo]

> Isn't it also naive to think China and Russia weren't fully aware of the NSA's capabilities?

The latest Mueller indictment suggests no.

I believe that the NSA's domestic surveillance programs were an egregious mistake. However, I do not think that "awful countries" implemented domestic surveillance programs because they read the PRISM documents. Nor does it explain why Snowden leaked details of activities that were not illegal and fully within the mandate of the NSA.

[bachbach]

You may correct me if you know better, but I have not seen any information that was leaked that I didn't imagine Russia or China already being very aware of.

Was this information revealed to only Russia/China and kept from journalists? If so how do you know about it?

[remarkEon]

"They probably already know about it" seems like a weird standard to use for answering the question of if making a particular state secret public harms the National interest.

[bachbach]

That is an issue of reputation or PR.

[GW150914]

If I were Snowden I’d be really pissed to be in the same breath as Assange. Snowden gave up a good life to tell people about pervasive monitoring, while Asange was always a relentless self-promoter and scumbag who tried to have his cake and eat it too.

[slg]

I agree, it really is a disservice for people to lump them all together. Whisleblowing is an important act and it needs to be protected. But there is more to whisleblowing then just revealing secrets. Snowden handled things better than Manning by being more focused in what was revealed and filtering things through journalists. Both of them are worlds better than Assange. Lumping them together will only help turn people with legitimate gripes against Assange against people like Snowden and Manning.

[resters]

I'd argue that Snowden's leaks would have been better sent to Wikileaks. We've seen perhaps 5% of the information, and much of the illegal behavior is likely still going on.

The only hope that US intel agencies have to redeem themselves as working toward the interests of the people and not against them is to be totally transparent about all illegal behavior and to undergo a full audit to stop all of it.

[slg]

Which is exactly my point. Whistleblowing shouldn't be done with a shotgun approach that reveals all secrets. Every piece of information should be reviewed and judged in a vacuum as to whether there is a benefit to the public for it to be revealed. Wikileaks just releases everything and doesn't care about the public value or any negative results from that release. That isn't whistleblowing. You are free to agree politically with Wikileaks, but don't pretend it is something it is not. That only ends up hurting the real whistleblowers.

[resters]

I will continue to ponder your point, but I am inclined to disagree. Suppose we consider a two page document of classified information. Leaking one or two sentences from the document can be done in a highly misleading way.

In fact, our officials routinely leak information in this way, fed to reporters to spin a narrative that supports a political goal.

But seeing a trove of documents can make the broader malfeasance much more clear.

[viraptor]

If that was the process, we'd hear about everything lumped together and quickly forgotten about in confusion. The way it was published instead, people have time to process specific revelations and let the whole thing stay alive for multiple media cycles.

[resters]

After being put under duress by many state sponsored attacks, Assange had to resort to a PR stunt strategy. Yes, it is unfortunate, but anyone who was under such attacks and was determined to make such a vital institution as WL survive would have done the same thing.

They attacked WL's journalistic partners, fundraising channels, even forced Assange to hole up in an embassy, as well as (likely) many other attacks.

[mc32]

Snowden isn’t without culpability. Yes it was patritic to illuminate the spying on Americans citizens etc., but he also revealed some things which i think he should not have.

Most people were in agreement with Wikipedia leaks until they thought he hrlped a political candidate they disagreed with. If Snowden tomorrow released some information which hurts Dems, I’m convinced hidden pitchforks woul come out from hiding too. Same for Repubs

[res0nat0r]

If Assange is going to get anything from the USA is extradited to it and charged with trading in knowingly stolen material to undermine the candidate of the 2016 election he didn't like. Based on what was in the last Mueller indictment we'll see what happens between the US and the UK.

[scottmf]

Yeah, Assange is no hero. His communications with Trump Jr and the leaked Wikileaks chats make that clear—as well as his meetings with people like Nigel Farage and Dana Rohrabacher. Assange has had a very clear agenda for some time now.

[mancerayder]

Assange has had a very clear agenda for some time now.

I thought his agenda was exposing privacy violations and the implications for authoritarian snooping without cause.

But it smells like you wanted to say something else and ran out of time while writing that comment?

[belltaco]

>I thought his agenda was exposing privacy violations and the implications for authoritarian snooping without cause.

Keyword 'was'. In the run to the election after it, it became all about hating on one political party, colluding with the other, and influencing the election.

[resters]

If you were Assange and you were trying to convince Trump Jr to hand over documents to you, would you pretend to be indifferent about the outcome of the election?

Assange wants to help reveal any secret information that will help fix the many problems stemming from secrecy and corruption of governments and institutions. Every one of his actions have supported that mission.

The focus on Assange's alleged political views and his personal life are an attempt to "shoot the messenger". We should really be 99% concerned with the information that was leaked and at most 1% concerned with anything about Assange's personality.

[kej]

WikiLeaks sat on Manafort's group sex and blood money texts, but released Podesta's emails less than an hour after the Access Hollywood tape was published. His agenda was more than an act to get on Don Jr.'s good side.

[boomboomsubban]

>WikiLeaks sat on...

Source for them "sitting on" time sensitive material?

[malvosenior]

Podesta’s emails had proof of the Clinton campaign colluding with the media. You can not compare that with details of Manafort’s private life.

It’s clear why one would be in the public’s interest to learn about and the other is just gossip.

[intrasight]

Well spoken. Thanks.

[smokeyj]

> Both establishment parties are fully in support of doing the IC's bidding.

It'a almost like we have a shadow government spreading Fake News. Trump may be an idiot but a broken clock is right twice a day.