The NSA Leaks and the Pentagon Papers: What's the Difference Between Snowden and Ellsberg?

[xchrom]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/the-nsa-leaks-and-the-pentagon-papers-whats-the-difference-between-edward-snowden-and-daniel-ellsberg/276741/



Edward Snowden has so raised the hackles of members of Congress and political commentators, it's worth taking a minute to try to understand why. It can't just be his leaks -- no similar reaction greeted revelations by Thomas Drake and William Binney, two recent NSA whistle-blowers who also sought to publicize post-9/11 intelligence overreach. Snowden told South China Morning Post reporter Lana Lam, "I'm neither traitor nor hero. I'm an American." But there are many sorts of Americans, and not all of them like each other. Something about Snowden has set many people off -- and the sources of the irritation with him are worth spelling out as a way of trying to understand the political moment, and how it differs in particular from the environment that greeted the man to whom he's most been compared, Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg. This is not a comprehensive list, but one intended to elucidate some of what's at issue.

1. Leakers Are Often Treated as a Type of Snitch. The first and most obvious source of negative reaction has to do with what he did. (Duh.) New York Times and Washington Post persuasively argue that Snowden cannot be guilty of treason -- as some have suggested -- since by revealing surveillance inside the Unites States (or even inside China) he is not aiding and abetting an enemy with whom we are formally at war. But he is guilty of violating basic human and workplace norms, in addition to his legally actionable promises as a person with top-secret clearance. From the gang-driven Stop Snitchin' campaign in Baltimore to professional cultural norms that ostracize people who publicly complain about their last employer or seek redress for discrimination, people have an instinctive cultural dislike of those seen as tattletales, even if what they have to say is accurate, important, and socially beneficial to disclose. This is why there are formal whistle-blower protections within the federal government and legal protections against retaliation in discrimination cases -- because there need to be, since the first instinct is always against them. So let's posit that Snowden begins his public life with this strike against him -- this inherent prejudice -- at the outset, in addition to the widely held prejudice against people who break laws, as he just openly did.

2. Snowden Lacks Stature and Insider Ties. Ellsberg had stature when he leaked the Pentagon Papers. As the Washington Post put it, "Ellsberg was a senior military analyst working at the Pentagon who had a direct role in drafting the Pentagon Papers." Meanwhile Snowden was, according to the Post, "a contractor who moved through a series of low-ranking jobs for the CIA and the NSA."

***SNIP

3. Snowden Is Culturally Isolated. Ellsberg's actions came at a time when there was a robust social movement demanding change in the exact direction his revelations suggested U.S. policy go -- out of Vietnam. Without the anti-Vietnam War movement, it's arguable he would not have been as important a historical figure, or as daring.

[creon]

1. Agee

Be careful.
Snowden may bear a greater resemblance to Phillip Agee than he does Ellsberg.

[Thinkingabout]

2. Would you want to believe Snowden's Code of Ethics as a condition of employment in any way gave

Him the right to copy any file available to him in his workplace and collect files to place on a thumb drive? He does not have any integrity, he is a criminal, the FBI has the information on every key stroke he made while in NSA. He has decided to release and copy information he agreed not to do and to a foreign media source.

[randome]

3. Snowden is wrong.

Damn, that was easy.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[JackRiddler]

16. It's always easy for you.

[GeorgeGist]

4. The can of worms is open.

Who seems rather irrelevant ... at the moment.

[Downwinder]

5. Scope.

Ellsberg at most had regional effect.

Snowden has global implications.

[fredamae]

6. We simply don't

have enuf Credible evidence to decide what the hell is going on.

No matter what-this has been bubbling to the suface from that "river of crap" running beneath us for Years.
People were PO and upset when it hit the "news" under bushco.
Some who connected the dots years ago---warned us and We Ignored--buried our own heads in the sand. Called them "foil hatted crazies" etc.
I suggest we don't make judgement calls on this one unless and until We can trust the information and right now--there are so many different stories and versions and opinions and "facts" out there..one cannot reasonably draw Any "concrete" conclusion for there are no "real credible" facts right now Except the verification from authorities that this Is occurring.
Less focus on the messenger, please and more focus, thought and attention on the issue--We'll be better off in the long run.

[Vietnameravet]

7. My thoughts

Snowden is no hero. He has betrayed national secrets and harmed our intelligence gathering abilities.

In an ideal world we would not need this kind of spying but we have real enemies that are trying to kill us and we need to defend ourselves.

Some people on the right think we can live in a world where everyone can have easy access to any kind of gun in the name of protecting their rights and any restrictions whatsoever are an assault on their freedoms. Some on the left think we can live in a world where their rights are absolute and, just like the gun lobby, anything less is intolerable. IMO they are both Alice in Wonderland types.


I wonder how long our freedoms would last if terrorists succeeded in a nuclear or biological attack on a major US city?

[xchrom]

8. where's the cost benefit analysis of all this spying?

there ought to be several, several reports of detailed CBA considering how far back all this goes.

[JackRiddler]

10. Doesn't that depend on the standard?

The operative CBAs unfortunately are measured in the profit margins of the contractors and, from the surveillance beast's perspective, in the sheer size of the budgets and the reach of their apparatus. It's a self-licking ice cream cone.

[xchrom]

11. i don't disagree with you -- i disagree with the batch of right wing talking points

i was responding to.

there's not a lot of rationality in making excuses for all of this spying -- but there is a lot of profit for all these new age spy mercenaries.

[KittyWampus]

19. That is actually what sticks in my craw about this all. The huge chunks of pork going into a black

hole.

[Katashi_itto]

14. A variation of the "ticking bomb" argument...

[JackRiddler]

9. The difference? About 42 years...

Ellsberg was demonized, defamed, mocked, harrassed, trivialized, misrepresented and attacked by the authoritarian statists of that time, called a traitor and a sick man, prosecuted facing a long and harsh sentence, got lucky in court or maybe he would have died in prison. It's only with distance and perspective that he's now treated (in some cases by the same pundit-asses who condemned him) as a hero and patriot. We already went through this meme a couple of years ago with Wikileaks: All the old farts of journalism whining that Assange was no Ellsberg, suppressing that Ellsberg himself is still around and saying that Assange is an Ellsberg and presenting him with prizes.

And on #3: Screw that. The majority according to polls may be expecting and welcoming having the government routinely snoop up their ass, but this is shifting (in part thanks to Snowden's release). At the moment Snowden has as many fans as Lady Gaga (also not a majority preference), is she culturally isolated?

[xchrom]

12. +1

[truebluegreen]

13. It was a different time...

the attempt to dig up dirt on Daniel Ellsberg by burgling his psychiatrist's office was part of one of the Articles of Impeachment voted against Nixon by the House Judiciary Committee....

Digging up dirt on those who buck the PTB is just what they do to discredit the leakers, and distract us.

[JackRiddler]

15. Because see, if there's any dirt on the whistleblower...

Then I guess the NSA is not currently up everyone's ass. Right? Right?!

It's a pathetic and frightened maneuver. Peace.

[truebluegreen]

17. Egg-zactly.

[KittyWampus]

22. There's a difference between demonizing and digging up dirt (Ellsberg) & exposing a liar (Snowden).

In the first instance, the PTB go out of their way to discredit someone with damaging info.

And the second instance, anyone who cares about reality sees the person as less than credible.

[KittyWampus]

18. Did Ellsberg lie repeatedly about his credentials? Did he misconstrue information he leaked?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Ellsberg blew the whistle to the NY Times rather than the Guardian (durn furriners).

[backscatter712]

21. Ellsberg and Snowden both had gangs of authoritarian shitbags working very hard to slime him.

The only difference is that now, the shitbags have the Internet to help them with their shitflinging.

[KittyWampus]

23. In the fact-based world, Snowden slimed himself.

[xchrom]

24. No. You act as a j. Edgar Hoover proxy

Gather irrelevant bull shit to slime the messenger in order to destroy the message.

Nixon couldn't approve more.