All Things Edward Snowden

[JMS]

Saw this article,  thought it would be interesting to discuss.   Didn't see an Edward Snowden Thread yet.
 

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/24/snowden_has_done_a_service_former_bush_official_lawrence_wilkerson_applauds_the_whistleblower/

THURSDAY, MAR 24, 2016 02:57 AM PDT[/size]

“Snowden has done a service”: Former Bush official Lawrence Wilkerson applauds the whistleblower 

Wilkerson says Snowden did not threaten U.S. security, and, in a perfect world, the whistleblower would be rewarded

“I try to stay up with Snowden,” said Lawrence “Larry” Wilkerson. “God, has he revealed a lot,” he laughed.

A retired Army colonel who served as the chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell in President George W. Bush’s administration, Wilkerson has established himself as a prominent critic of U.S. foreign policy.

He sat down with Salon for an extended interview, discussing a huge range of issues from the war in Syria to climate change, from ISIS to whistle-blower Edward Snowden, of whom Wilkerson spoke quite highly.

“I think Snowden has done a service,” Wilkerson explained. “I wouldn’t have had the courage, and maybe not even the intellectual capacity, to do it the way he did it.”

Snowden’s reputation in mainstream U.S. politics, to put it lightly, is a negative one. In the summer of 2013, the 29-year-old techno wiz and private contractor for the NSA worked with journalists to expose the global surveillance program run by the U.S. government.

His revelations informed the public not only that the NSA was sucking up information on millions of average Americans’ private communications; they also proved that the U.S. government was likely violating international law by spying on dozens of other countries, and even listening to the phone calls of allied heads of state such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who subsequently compared the NSA to the Stasi, East Germany’s secret police.

Breaking with establishment political figures, Col. Wilkerson commended Snowden for his work and the way in which he carried it out.

“There’s a logic to what he has done that is impressive,” Wilkerson told Salon. “He really has refrained from anything that was truly dangerous, with regard to our security — regardless of what people say.”

“He has been circumspect about what he’s released, how he’s released it, who he’s released it to,” he continued.

Snowden worked with journalists Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Ewen MacAskill, and published the revelations in renowned international newspapers, including the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post and Der Spiegel.

“It’s clear to me from listening to his personal statements — I think those are important — that he did have a genuinely altruistic motive for doing it,” Wilkerson explained.

“Snowden seems to me to be pure as a driven snow,” he laughed. “You can be dangerous if you’re that way, but you can also be helpful. And I think he’s been more helpful than dangerous.”

The whistle-blower himself says he has always been incredibly careful about what exactly he discloses, and to whom. “I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest,” Snowden told the Guardian. “There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn’t turn over.”

Wilkerson believes the whistle-blower. Many American officials do not.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle have accused Snowden of a slew of crimes, and the Obama administration charged the whistle-blower on two counts of violating the 1917 Espionage Act and theft of U.S. government or foreign government property.

President Barack Obama has harshly cracked down on whistle-blowers, using the World War I-era Espionage Act to punish whistle-blowers who leaked to journalists more than all previous U.S. presidential administrations combined.

Former Bush-era CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden even made comments that suggested he would like to put Snowden on the Kill List (although he claimed in his recent book that his remarks were misinterpreted).

Wilkerson feels the opposite way. “I credit Snowden for having a great deal of courage, because he’s ruined himself forever,” he told Salon.

[JMS]

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/23/glenn_greenwald_im_sorry_why_i_changed_my_mind_on_edward_snowden/

 

SATURDAY, MAY 23, 2015 07:29 AM PDT

Glenn Greenwald, I’m sorry: Why I changed my mind on Edward Snowden

After 60 years in public life, my first reaction to Snowden leaks was rage. I was wrong. So was most of the media

HODDING CARTER III

Excerpted from "After Snowden: Privacy, Secrecy and Security in the Information Age."
There gets to be a point when the question is, whose side are you on? Now, I’m Secretary of State of the United States and I’m on our side.
—Secretary of State Dean Rusk

What follows is based on sixty years of experience in public life and journalism. It arises from deepening concern about the people’s limited appreciation of the First Amendment and disgust with media waffling behind timidity’s breastworks. It also arises from urgent unease about government overreach in the name of “homeland security,” an overreach based on post-9/11 fear, political opportunism and an all but explicit assertion that a free people do not need to know and should not demand to know how they are being protected. There is no pretense here of carefully allocated balance, that briefly treasured convention of American journalism. Instead, this is an attempt to explain the evolution of today’s media-government confrontations and to suggest answers to the hard questions that currently face the press when national security clashes with the Bill of Rights.

Unless informed consent is to be treated as a dangerous relic of more tranquil times, these questions should be answered on behalf of the American people as often as they arise. That means applying general principles to specific cases. Knowing the evolution of press freedom can be useful. Having an accurate picture of the chaotic realities of the murky present is crucial. Hard cases are inevitable; hard-and-fast rules are rarely available and too often inapplicable to current conditions. In the end, as always, it is up to each journalist and news organization to be willing to stand alone, to ask, and to answer individually:

“Whose side are you on?”

*

When Edward Snowden’s breathtaking leap off the high board made its first splash, most public and media reactions featured shock and outrage, even among those appalled by the scope of the government’s electronic eavesdropping that he revealed. A minority applauded. A smaller minority yawned. But public ambivalence all but vanished within a month. Consecutive polls showed growing numbers giving emphatic thumbs-down. “You weren’t acting on my behalf,” they seemed to roar.

Not much surprise there. It wasn’t Pearl Harbor and it wasn’t 9/11, but selective media use of Snowden’s huge cache of stolen NSA files seemed to give obvious aid and comfort to America’s enemies and a black eye to the nation. The images of the collapsing Twin Towers were still vivid. No surprise to friends and family, either, when my snap reaction was rage. The ex-Marine, “Gunboats Carter” persona was in full swing. Hang first, try later. It was self-evident that Snowden was a traitor.

Having worked for and with government officials from federal marshals to Presidents for over five decades, I knew that they and I were in lockstep solidarity. Contempt and consternation were near universal, both about Snowden’s betrayal of the public trust and about media publication. They—we—saw both as flaunting a cavalier disregard of legal and moral obligations to safeguard vital national security secrets. As then-National Security Administration Director General Keith B. Alexander claimed, Snowden’s revelations were causing “the greatest damage to our combined nations’ intelligence systems that we have ever suffered.”

The critics did not wear jackboots. Among them were former college classmates who had spent considerable time in the national intelligence enterprise, children of the mid-century who knew where their duty lay. They were vehemently certain that the electronic excavation of private as well as public records was as constitutional as it was vital. They were proud of their response in younger days to the call of duty, knowing the fragility of freedom and the ferocity of its enemies. The new world disorder seemed confirmation enough that questions about their mission were for academic seminars only.

And then I changed my mind, though God knows the generally uninspiring media reaction was not responsible. It is hard even now to fully appreciate how many press commentaries either saluted the official line or fell back on patronizing, snide dismissals of Snowden’s character and intelligence. Those who supported him were few and far between, though vigorous in their support. Among them were The New Yorker, The Guardian, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, McClatchy newspapers, and Knight Ridder. To others overlooked in that summary listing, my apologies. Those who decided to go forward with their coverage deserve sustained public applause. They took significant chances when they pressed the print button and revealed the NSA’s dirty linen. Of no less importance, they sounded the alarm, warning the American people anew of how much further down the road to an all-intrusive garrison state Washington had ventured.

The number of major media organizations and figures who twitched at every government accusation was appalling. For the more pompous, Snowden and his media shepherds were unworthy intruders in the grand game of serious journalism and commentary. Planted in a self-referential clique, it was all but unnecessary for them to grapple with the meaning of a government that conceived, created, and operated a secret high-tech vacuum cleaner to suck the meaning out of the Fourth Amendment.

[zoony]

"discussion"

Haha. Tell another one

[TheGoodBits]

Still have failed to grasp exactly what he revealed that was so shocking. It's exactly what everyone assumed took place behind the scenes in a post 9/11 Patriot Act world.

Meanwhile terrorists altered their online activities to make them harder to track specifically because of what Snowden leaked. So yeah he's a traitor. He may have raised some additional awareness to privacy issues, but he's still a traitor.

[PokerPacker]

Still have failed to grasp exactly what he revealed that was so shocking. It's exactly what everyone assumed took place behind the scenes in a post 9/11 Patriot Act world.

Meanwhile terrorists altered their online activities to make them harder to track specifically because of what Snowden leaked. So yeah he's a traitor. He may have raised some additional awareness to privacy issues, but he's still a traitor.

You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Everyone assumed everything that was being done was happening, but terrorists changed their methods from the revelation of what they all assumed was happening anyways?

[TheGoodBits]

You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Everyone assumed everything that was being done was happening, but terrorists changed their methods from the revelation of what they all assumed was happening anyways?

Well, speaking in generalities will get you in trouble like that. By "everyone" what I really meant was "anyone who bothered to try to understand what was possible." Yes it was an abstract idea rather than specific. But the specifics released were what told terrorists "oh **** they know all of our yahoo accounts."

[grhqofb5]

God I hope this thread does before people start trying to show each other how smart they are. JMS- back to the campaign thread u are needed there.

[JMS]

Based upon what Snowden released  the all three branches of the federal government,  the courts, the congress, and the Presidency found abuses and announced reforms to the NSA's practices.
 
The Courts
 

NY Times
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/us/nsa-phone-records-collection-ruled-illegal-by-appeals-court.html?_r=0
 
N.S.A. Collection of Bulk Call Data Is Ruled Illegal

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court in New York ruled on Thursday that the once-secret National Security Agency program that is systematically collecting Americans’ phone records in bulk is illegal. The decision comes as a fight in Congress is intensifying over whether to end and replace the program, or to extend it without changes.

In a 97-page ruling, a three-judge panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a provision of the U.S.A. Patriot Act, known as Section 215, cannot be legitimately interpreted to allow the bulk collection of domestic calling records.

 
 
Congress
 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/02/politics/senate-usa-freedom-act-vote-patriot-act-nsa/
NSA surveillance bill passes after weeks-long showdown
 

Washington (CNN)The National Security Agency lost its authority to collect the phone records of millions of Americans, thanks to a new reform measure Congress passed on Tuesday. President Barack Obama signed the bill into law on Tuesday evening.

It is the first piece of legislation to reform post 9/11 surveillance measures.
 
"It's historical," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, one of the leading architects of the reform efforts. "It's the first major overhaul of government surveillance in decades."

 
 
 The Presidency

 

 

http://bostonreview.net/us/elizabeth-goitein-obama-surveillance-reform-promises-one-year-later

 

 

Obama’s NSA Reforms, One Year Later

 

 

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/nsa-snooping/senate-vote-measure-reform-nsa-surveillance-n368341
 
 
 
Barack Obama Signs 'USA Freedom Act' to Reform NSA Surveillance

[JMS]

Also Just so everybody is on the same page on this..   Edward Snowden didn't release the documents on a website like Wikileaks did.

 

 

Edward Snowden carefully vetted documents to The NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, and The Guardian.   Each document which was released was carefully reviewed and the damage it would cause was consider against the public's right to know what their government was doing.

[grhqofb5]

Also Just so everybody is on the same page on this..   Edward Snowden didn't release the documents on a website like Wikileaks did.

 

 

Edward Snowden carefully vetted documents to The NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, and The Guardian.   Each document which was released was carefully reviewed and the damage it would cause was consider against the public's right to know what their government was doing.

 

Free Edward Snowden!!!  Now, back to the election thread with you.

[Chew]

**** that dude.

There's my deep thought contribution to this thread.

[PleaseBlitz]

I......agree.......with.......[stabbing pain to chest]......JMS.

[Popeman38]

I would like to point out that Edward Snowden worked for the CIA and NSA, lied on multiple federal forms (each a separate felony), knowingly downloaded classified documents (again, each a felony), knowingly removed the classified material from a secure location (again, each a felony), knowing ly transported those classified documents to a foreign country (again, each a felony), and published the classified material without approval (again, each a felony).

 

He is a traitor and a thief. He, in the name of public interest, fled the US for China and further to Russia, both countries with less privacy than the US has and who has worse human rights infringements. He did not use the legally provided whistleblower avenues available to him (no matter how much he says he did), and instead took a job at the NSA in Hawaii with the intent of collecting as much as he could and then fleeing. He did not do this for the public good. He did this because he thinks of himself as a hero. 

 

He is a spy. He should spend multiple decades in jail. You know when you apply for a clearance that you are taking oaths to protect government information. He intentionally violated the oaths. He is the worst form of scum.

[Renegade7]

I recommend "citizenfour" for anyone that hasn't seen it yet.  There's also a great Frontline piece on the PRISM program.

 

I agree he needs to be in jail, and felt a certain way when you looked at the list of countries he was trying to bounce between to keep from getting sent back to the US.  Anyone can say "F you, US Government" from a Russian Airport.

 

Having said that, I don't believe there's a single whistle blower mailbox he could've gone to to get this to stop.  The directives were coming straight from the top (POTUS) and any other people that we're trying to speak up were getting messed with hard as well.  It's a lose lose, and we and the UK did take it too far.

[PokerPacker]

I agree he needs to be in jail, and felt a certain way when you looked at the list of countries he was trying to bounce between to keep from getting sent back to the US.  Anyone can say "F you, US Government" from a Russian Airport.

You think just anyone could give up the ability to live in the United States or any country that extradites to the United States, or really, any country that's not Russia? Obviously the reason he left US jurisdiction is because he wasn't going to be given a fair trial. They want to charge him with espionage which would make him guilty regardless of whether or not the programs he blew the whistle on were illegal. Who in their right mind would go to a US-friendly country when they're about to blow the whistle on the US?

I would like to point out that Edward Snowden worked for the CIA and NSA, lied on multiple federal forms (each a separate felony), knowingly downloaded classified documents (again, each a felony), knowingly removed the classified material from a secure location (again, each a felony), knowing ly transported those classified documents to a foreign country (again, each a felony), and published the classified material without approval (again, each a felony).

Let's ignore all the laws that the government was breaking that he was exposing, because they made exposing their breaking of the law illegal.

[Renegade7]

You think just anyone could give up the ability to live in the United States or any country that extradites to the United States, or really, any country that's not Russia? Obviously the reason he left US jurisdiction is because he wasn't going to be given a fair trial. They want to charge him with espionage which would make him guilty regardless of whether or not the programs he blew the whistle on were illegal. Who in their right mind would go to a US-friendly country when they're about to blow the whistle on the US?

 

 

Like I said, I've seen CitizenFour, so I know there's no way he wasn't going to face the music if he did ever do trial because they were going to hit him with the Espionage Act.  I don't feel this makes him a hero, and from get go he made it clear he was going to make it public that it was he that leaked the info.  If we had no idea who Edward Snowden was, this would be a different conversation, and I always felt that way.

 

The discussion has always been difficult because of how tough it is to separate what the government did vs what Snowden did.  Most people agree, as do I, that the government was dead wrong for what they did.  Its more mixed on if the same can be said for Snowden.  My issue has always been consistent with the fact he broke the law after gaining high level clearance, then my opinion soured even more after I kept seeing him talk on TV. 

 

And I don't buy that he went public so that people would believe it, because there were other whistle blowers saying the same thing as him.  You can also make the argument that was waaaay overkill with the number of docs he released.

[JMS]

I recommend "citizenfour" for anyone that hasn't seen it yet.  There's also a great Frontline piece on the PRISM program.

 

I agree he needs to be in jail, and felt a certain way when you looked at the list of countries he was trying to bounce between to keep from getting sent back to the US.  Anyone can say "F you, US Government" from a Russian Airport.

 

Having said that, I don't believe there's a single whistle blower mailbox he could've gone to to get this to stop.  The directives were coming straight from the top (POTUS) and any other people that we're trying to speak up were getting messed with hard as well.  It's a lose lose, and we and the UK did take it too far.

It's also not like their is a Judicial or Legislative alternative to the path which Snowden ultimately took.

The NSA's internal process for reporting abuses was to meet with an Omnibudsman internally to voice your concerns. Snowden met with the Omnibudsman who according to Snowden was himself alarmed at what Snowden told him.

[JMS]

Like I said, I've seen CitizenFour, so I know there's no way he wasn't going to face the music if he did ever do trial because they were going to hit him with the Espionage Act.  I don't feel this makes him a hero, and from get go he made it clear he was going to make it public that it was he that leaked the info.  If we had no idea who Edward Snowden was, this would be a different conversation, and I always felt that way.

The problem with you analysis is that Snowden didn't leak any documents to foreign governments. Snowden turned over documents to News Organizations. Is that what we are calling espionage now?

And yeah, if he faced "justice" in the US, he would have been denied a trial as any american understands that concept, and gone directly to sentencing where he could expect to spend the rest of his life in jail for the crime of exposing what the President, Congress, and Federal Courts are all calling abuses today.   

 

 

Quotes by Edward Snowden

 

 

On NSA spying and whistleblowing:

“These programs were never about terrorism: they’re about economic spying, social control, and diplomatic manipulation. They’re about power.” — “An Open Letter to the People of Brazil,” December 2013

“The NSA set fire to the Internet’s future. The people in this room are all the firefighters.” — “Edward Snowden speaks to SXSW,” March 2014

“Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American.” — “Edward Snowden: NSA whistleblower answers reader questions,” Oct. 3, 2014

On Privacy:

“Privacy matters. Privacy is what allows us to determine who we are and who we want to be.” — “Snowden Sends Christmas Message To USA,” Dec. 25, 2013

“Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” — Edward Snowden’s “Ask Me Anything” on Reddit, May 21, 2015

“Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we’ve been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it.” — “Edward Snowden: NSA whistleblower answers reader questions,” Oct. 3, 2014

“I don’t want to live in a world where everything that I say, everything I do, everyone I talk to, every expression of creativity or love or friendship is recorded.” — “Edward Snowden: ‘The US government will say I aided our enemies,’” July 8, 2013

On the future:

“A child born today will grow up with no conception of privacy at all. They’ll never know what it means to have a private moment to themselves an unrecorded, unanalyzed thought. And that’s a problem because privacy matters; privacy is what allows us to determine who we are and who we want to be.” — “Snowden Sends Christmas Message To USA,” Dec. 25, 2013

“The tide has turned, and we can finally see a future where we can enjoy security without sacrificing our privacy. Our rights cannot be limited by a secret organization … Even the defenders of mass surveillance, those who may not be persuaded that our surveillance technologies have dangerously outpaced democratic controls, now agree that in democracies, surveillance of the public must be debated by the public.” — “An Open Letter to the People of Brazil,” Dec. 17, 2013

“The conversation occurring today will determine the amount of trust we can place both in the technology that surrounds us and the government that regulates it. Together we can find a better balance, end mass surveillance, and remind the government that if it really wants to know how we feel, asking is always cheaper than spying.” — “Snowden Sends Christmas Message To USA,” Dec. 25, 2013

[PeterMP]

Also Just so everybody is on the same page on this..   Edward Snowden didn't release the documents on a website like Wikileaks did.

 

 

Edward Snowden carefully vetted documents to The NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, and The Guardian.   Each document which was released was carefully reviewed and the damage it would cause was consider against the public's right to know what their government was doing.

 

I don't think this is really true.

 

What public right to know was served by releasing that Canada helped the NSA set up spying platforms posts on international targets?

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snowden-document-shows-canada-set-up-spy-posts-for-nsa-1.2456886

 

He released tens of thousands of documents.  Do you really think he personally vetted tens of thousands of documents? And he reportedly walked away with hundreds of thousands to China and Russia.

 

Why did he do that?

 

Do you really believe he couldn't have achieved the same impact from about 100 documents?

[PeterMP]

The problem with you analysis is that Snowden didn't leak any documents to foreign governments. Snowden turned over documents to News Organizations. Is that what we are calling espionage now?

 

If turned information over to a Chinese news organization knowing that they'd give the information to the public/Chinese government is that espionage?

 

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1259508/edward-snowden-us-government-has-been-hacking-hong-kong-and-china

[Popeman38]

Let's ignore all the laws that the government was breaking that he was exposing, because they made exposing their breaking of the law illegal.

I am not arguing that the govt wasn't wrong. I am stating he intentionally and maliciously stole hundreds of thousands of classified documents and then fled to China, and further to Russia. Anyone who knows anything about international travel knows that when any electronic device enters China, it will be exploited. He took multiple laptops and multiple USB drives with him, as documented in Citizen Four. To think that China was unable to copy any of the stolen classified documents is naive at best, or willfully ignorant. Additionally, he handed documents over to a Chinese newspaper.

 

That, by definition, is espionage. Not to mention the multitude of laws he knowingly broke by stealing the documents and leaving the country with. Laws he intended to break when he applied for his job at NSA. He is a spy. What he did was the tradecraft of a spy. Plain and simple. You can't use an ends justifies the means argument for national security.

It's also not like their is a Judicial or Legislative alternative to the path which Snowden ultimately took.

The NSA's internal process for reporting abuses was to meet with an Omnibudsman internally to voice your concerns. Snowden met with the Omnibudsman who according to Snowden was himself alarmed at what Snowden told him.

It really is something that you have a "Question Everything" in your avi but swallow everything Snowden says as truth. There are no records of Snowden trying to raise concerns with anyone. He sent a short question via email. You don't apply for an NSA position in Hawaii in order to illegally harvest and release classified documents because you disagree with the govt. THAT IS BLATANTLY ILLEGAL. That makes him a traitor, by definition.

[zoony]

I would just like to say, this does not have to be an either or

Edward Snowden can be a self important, self aggrandizing, criminal, attention whoring asshole of epic proportions and the government can be wrong all at the same time

[Popeman38]

The problem with you analysis is that Snowden didn't leak (1) any documents to foreign governments. Snowden turned over documents to News Organizations. Is that what we are calling espionage now?

(2) And yeah, if he faced "justice" in the US, he would have been denied a trial as any american understands that concept, and gone directly to sentencing where he could expect to spend the rest of his life in jail for the crime of exposing what the President, Congress, and Federal Courts are all calling abuses today.   

 

 

Quotes by Edward Snowden

(1) Wrong. He allowed the Chinese to see documents. By allowing documents to be published, he released them to all foreign governments. Yes, espionage.

 

(2) Facing US justice would be short and sweet. He knowingly stole and released hundreds of thousands of classified documents. He can't deny it. He went on freaking TV and discussed how he did it. He allowed a documentary to be made about it. There is no defense.

I would just like to say, this does not have to be an either or

Edward Snowden can be a self important, self aggrandizing, criminal, attention whoring asshole of epic proportions and the government can be wrong all at the same time

And the govt should be reformed and Snowden should rot in jail.

[Renegade7]

It's also not like their is a Judicial or Legislative alternative to the path which Snowden ultimately took.

The NSA's internal process for reporting abuses was to meet with an Omnibudsman internally to voice your concerns. Snowden met with the Omnibudsman who according to Snowden was himself alarmed at what Snowden told him.

 

Like I said, he's not the only one to bring this up, and others had gotten shut down or harrassed before him.  There's no legal way he could've gotten the program shut down internally, but c'mon with this "he did what he could with due diligence" nonsense.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/united-states-of-secrets/

[JMS]

I am not arguing that the govt wasn't wrong. I am stating he intentionally and maliciously stole hundreds of thousands of classified documents and then fled to China, and further to Russia. Anyone who knows anything about international travel knows that when any electronic device enters China, it will be exploited. He took multiple laptops and multiple USB drives with him, as documented in Citizen Four. To think that China was unable to copy any of the stolen classified documents is naive at best, or willfully ignorant. Additionally, he handed documents over to a Chinese newspaper.

Yeah Snowden would have to have fought a class on how to secure your data from Chinese espionage in order to have safeguarded that hardware.. Oh that's right he did.

And of coarse he didn't take any documents with him to Russia. He gave select documents he thought highlighted the abuses going on at the NSA to Newspapers like the NYTimes, Washington Post, and Guardian. He did not leak hundreds of thousands of documents.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/world/snowden-says-he-took-no-secret-files-to-russia.html

There is a lot of misinformation about what Snowden took, and what he did with it.

That, by definition, is espionage.

Actually it's really not.. Not unless you are also claiming he worked for or gave documents to a foreign government. Which he didn't.

Not to mention the multitude of laws he knowingly broke by stealing the documents and leaving the country with. Laws he intended to break when he applied for his job at NSA. He is a spy. What he did was the tradecraft of a spy. Plain and simple. You can't use an ends justifies the means argument for national security.

Isn't that exactly where "end justified means" arguments belong? I mean we have whistleblower laws which clearly Snowden falls under, but since Snowden isn't eligible for a trial in a traditional sense those laws may not apply. How is that right?

There are no records of Snowden trying to raise concerns with anyone. He sent a short question via email.

So which is it? He sent a short email outlining his concerns or their is no record of him raising such concerns? In reality according to Snowden he reported his concerns up through channels including meeting personally several times with an Omnibudsman to discuss said concerns. There was no legal recourse left to him, and that's why he decided to selectively give documents to the press.