The Edward Snowden Affair (13 page)

Hearing this from Snowden, especially when he illustrates a point by including fragments of daily life inside the intelligence community, makes the veracity of his claims difficult to doubt. It is clear he is not attempting to exaggerate the severity of what he has witnessed: “I didn’t change these [documents],” he attests. “I didn’t modify the story. This is the truth. This is what’s happening. You should decide whether we need to be doing this.” His earnestness is apparent from the conviction in his voice during the interview, which is perpetually accompanied by the suggestion of stanch disapproval.

Greenwald had accomplished what he set out to do. While the Obama administration scurried over with fire extinguishers to put out one Greenwald-sponsored fire, the attorney-turned-journalist was striking the next match, and the next one, and the next one, all before presenting his towering inferno of a finale.

He had done the unthinkable. Not only had he shattered the illusion that 21
^st
-century America had not caught up to George Orwell’s
Nineteen Eighty-Four
, but he also produced the biggest intelligence leak in American history. Greenwald had gotten the American people to doubt the two things it couldn’t live without: cell phones and the Internet. He’d even delivered the man behind the Rubik’s Cube. Though every bit as exhausted as the American government, Greenwald couldn’t afford the luxury of sitting down, because the world was now after a man named Edward Snowden.

It would find him in less than 24 hours.

^*
Friday, June 7, “UK gathering secret intelligence via covert NSA operation.”

B
Y
M
ONDAY MORNING THE WORLD WAS ABUZZ
with the man behind the NSA leaks. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of Snowden’s immediate impact was he’d blurred partisan affinities. Shortly after Poitras’ video aired, Democratic icon Michael Moore tweeted that Snowden was “Man of the Year.”
²
Conservative media personality Glenn Beck followed minutes later with “I think I have just read about the man [in reference to Snowden] for which I have waited. Earmarks of a real hero.”
³
The next day former presidential candidate Ron Paul said, “We should be thankful for individuals like Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald who see injustice being carried out by their own government and speak out, despite the risk. They have done a great service to the American people by exposing the truth about what our government is doing in secret.”
⁴

Though Moore’s liberal defense of societal freedoms being seconded by Paul’s Libertarian belief in liberty was hardly surprising considering their parties’ contemporary philosophies, Beck’s statement baffled his core audience. Over the years, people had grown accustomed to Beck’s steadfast Republican support of national defense. But his Fox network peers, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly, would express similar opinions during the upcoming week.

As he informed his radio listeners that Snowden’s disclosures shouldn’t be surprising because the talk show host assumed “this kind of stuff has been going on a long time,” Limbaugh was reserved in his initial assessment of Snowden. He nevertheless displayed admiration for Snowden’s intelligence, “[ … ] when I was 29, I wasn’t capable of speaking that way. I didn’t know anywhere near what this guy knew about the ways of the world. Not just about the CIA but the ways of the world. I don’t think I had anywhere near that level or degree of maturity, at least as I read what the guy had to say.”
⁵
Similarly, O’Reilly refused to pass blanket judgment on Snowden during his television program,
The O’Reilly Factor
. He approved of metadata collection but declared the PRISM program was unconstitutional. The television commentator was also apprehensive about the dangers involved in data preservation. He mentioned contemporary cases where retained information had been deliberately leaked in the face of political or economic opposition. Though O’Reilly didn’t specifically cite the incident, metadata had revealed Army General and then-CIA director David Petraeus’ extramarital affair. The information was leaked by the FBI to various attorneys who proceeded to go public. Petraeus resigned in November 2012.
⁶
O’Reilly added that Snowden “should be arrested” even if “what he did may ultimately be a good thing.”
⁷

On the opposite end of the political gamut, former Democratic president Jimmy Carter echoed O’Reilly. He refrained from explicitly endorsing Snowden but conjectured the whistleblower’s actions might ultimately prove “beneficial.”
⁸
The night the Verizon article broke, former vice president Al Gore tweeted “[ … ] secret blanket surveillance [is] obscenely outrageous.”
⁹
The next week he informed
The Guardian
, “[U.S. domestic surveillance] violates the Constitution—the Fourth Amendment and the First Amendment—and the Fourth Amendment’s language is crystal clear.”
¹⁰

The reason Beck, Limbaugh and O’Reilly’s perspectives are confusing is they are typically more akin to those of House Republican and chair of the homeland security subcommittee Peter King. On Monday King called for Snowden’s extradition.
¹¹
Likewise, on the Tuesday edition of ABC’s
Good Morning America
, Republican House Speaker John Boehner labeled Snowden a “traitor.”
¹²
This would be the exact term former vice president Dick Cheney would apply the following weekend.
¹³
Aside from their party affiliation, King and Boehner’s condemnation of Snowden was to be somewhat expected given their government roles. Likewise, Democratic senator and chairman of the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Diane Feinstein went on record stating, “I don’t look at this as being a whistleblower. I think it’s an act of treason.”
¹⁴
One of the few dissenters on Capitol Hill was Ron Paul’s son, Senator Rand Paul.
¹⁵

As government largely condemned Snowden and the media leaned in favor of him, the American populace sat equally divided. The Tuesday following the bulk disclosures, Gallup surveyed 1,008 people via telephone and asked, “Do you think it was right or wrong for him [Snowden] to share that [classified intelligence] information?” Forty-four percent said it was right, and 42 percent said it was wrong. Registered Democrats showed a 10 percent greater disapproval amongst themselves whereas Republicans reported an 11 percent favoritism. Without Snowden in the picture, the populace’s difference of opinion widened. When questioned, “Based on what you have heard or read about the program[s], would you say you approve or disapprove of th[ese] government program[s],” 53 percent disapproved, while only 37 percent supported them. Democratic pollsters were 49-40 in favor of surveillance, while a great chasm separated Republican voters, 32-63.
¹⁶

When moving from right to left on the political spectrum, personal freedoms are revoked in favor of state cohesion. Theoretically Democrats should be the proponents of national security as they edge toward socialism, whereas Republicans, and especially Libertarians, ought to exhibit trepidation while nearing anarchism. However, in post-9/11 American politics—due largely to the unrelated platform association—Republicans have traditionally voted to restrict civil liberties to ensure a stronger national defense. Until Snowden, Democrats demanded the converse: greater civil rights and less militarization. Libertarians had stringently advocated minimal restrictions on either a state or civilian level. This was the reason Snowden had avoided contacting the two largest news outlets, the right-leaning
The Wall Street Journal
and Fox News, and instead looked into the leftist
The Guardian
,
The Washington Post
and
The New York Times
.

Moore, Gore and Carter were in ideological defiance of their political principles and Feinstein remained dogmatically true. Similarly Boehner, King and Cheney ran counter to the tenets of their party as Beck, Limbaugh and O’Reilly returned thematically home, as did the American populace. In respect to modern political practice, it was the converse. Moore, Gore and Carter were true Democrats as Feinstein reneged on her party, much like Beck, Limbaugh and O’Reilly. Boehner, King and Cheney represented the current Republican outlook. The general population was in a state of political contradiction.

The most likely explanation for the contemporary legislative confusion is that the current administration was Democratic. Liberals did not want to appear hypocritical after having avidly protested Bush’s wiretapping laws. Republicans had an opportunity to further criticize an already controversial president. Had Snowden gone public during Bush’s time in office, it is very probable the popular response would have been flipped and maintained its modern political outlook.

A portion of the 44 percent of Americans who believed Snowden was justified in his actions started a petition on June 9.
¹⁷
They asked the White House to issue the former intelligence worker “a full, free, and absolute pardon for any crimes he has committed or may have committed related to blowing the whistle on secret NSA surveillance programs.” The White House promises to address any petition that obtains 100,000 signatures in 30 days or less. Snowden’s appeal had the requisite number of autographs in half that time. The U.S. government remained silent even though it had responded to numerous other petitions within the same timeframe. Some of the appeals it addressed during this time housed less than the required number of signatures. When questioned about the delay, National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden stated, “Response times vary” and the obvious, “We’re not in a position to comment on the substance of a response before it has been issued.”
¹⁸
The White House metaphorically informed its people that it was unable to tell everyone how a cake tasted until it had been baked.

Everyone seemed to have an opinion about Snowden. Despite having his reasons for doing what he did, the world wanted to know more about the guy who was too young to have single-handedly hoodwinked the NSA, FBI and CIA. Reporters across the globe banged their heads on their computer terminals. There were no Edward Snowden Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest or Instagram accounts. What made journalistic matters worse is that Snowden had spent his entire adult life in the intelligence community. It was therefore unlikely any government employee could be socially or financially engineered into talking. Midway through their desperate, frantic scramble for a lead, the press and public finally stumbled across Greenwald and MacAskill’s interview with Snowden.
¹⁹

The article serves as a rough overview of Snowden. It dispatches piecemeal information with little or no explanation.
The Guardian
team incorrectly relays that Snowden had earned a GED and first worked for the U.S. government as a security guard for the NSA. The journalists subtly blow another whistle by telling the tale of Snowden growing disillusioned with the intelligence community early in his career after having witnessed the CIA’s extortion of a Swiss banker. Likewise, Greenwald and Co. expose Dell as a previous employer before referencing the existence of a girlfriend, his childhood in Elizabeth City and throughout Maryland, time spent in Japan and Snowden’s Army enlistment. The interview quietly brings to audiences’ attention one of the avenues by which Snowden used to anonymously communicate with his journalists: “His allegiance to internet freedom is reflected in the stickers on his laptop: ‘I support Online Rights: Electronic Frontier Foundation,’ reads one. Another hails the online organisation offering anonymity, the Tor Project.” Similarly Greenwald and MacAskill initiated a fund-raising campaign for Snowden
²⁰
by mentioning his daily expenses in Hong Kong. As a slap in the U.S. government’s face, the journalists also outline the process by which Snowden fled the country and how he used the ruse of needing a two-week medical leave to treat epilepsy before departing Hawaii on May 20.

Reporters searched for answers anywhere they could. Phones rang at Dell and the Swiss Foreign Ministry. Comments were sought from the Army. FBI agents and news crews traveled to Maryland and Hawaii to conduct interviews with anyone and everyone who might have known, worked or associated with Snowden. The FBI had already darkened the doorway of Lon Snowden’s Pennsylvania home before supper on Monday.
²¹

The press quickly discovered Mills’ online presence and set to sensationalize her “pole dancing.” Other reports focused on the real estate agent responsible for the property which Snowden’s landlord had him evacuate by May 1 so it could be sold. In typical news-writing fashion, because there was so little to be had about the man behind the leaks and the acronym and jargon-riddled disclosures didn’t lend themselves to being transformed into sound bites or condensed into 300word articles, the press started running with stories.