

Edward Snowden: 'The US government will say I aided our enemies' [video] - hermanywong
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jul/08/edward-snowden-video-interview

======
tptacek
The US government will say that Snowden's actions harmed the US, and because
the harm pertains to national security, America's enemies will be part of the
discussion.

What's missing from this point is intent. If the USG believed that Snowden had
set out to aid America's enemies, he'd have been charged with treason.

~~~
acqq
_If the USG believed that Snowden had set out to aid America 's enemies, he'd
have been charged with treason._

And the US government would try anything to get him, like grounding the planes
of presidents of other countries on suspicion that he might be there. Er,
wait, they actually did that!

Are you really sure that the treason charge won't happen once he's jailed? The
treason would expose him to the death penalty, one more good legal ground to
give him asylum.

Still whatever the charges against Snowden are, they are going to claim on the
court that he aided the enemies, just like in Manning's case ("bin Laden
himself wanted to read that, that automatically means Manning aided bin
Laden.")

~~~
tptacek
The USG could tomorrow transform itself into a despotism dedicated to the
proposition that all men should wear loincloths made of cheese curds. You
can't falsify that argument either.

I'm not making a substantive argument about Snowden's charges, except to point
out that the notion of "aiding America's enemies" has force only when coupled
with intent. Treason isn't a strict liability crime.

------
pvnick
Nice! This just made my day. I must have listened to part 1 dozens of times to
try and extract every bit of information, and I admit I enjoy hearing his
voice. Notice this is still from the June 6th interview; Snowden's proved to
be so prescient, especially with regards to the response by the US government.
Also, the planning on the Guardian's part is quite commendable.

~~~
lordCarbonFiber
Just a minor note, Snowden has been in no way prescient. Everyone that works
with confidential information has to be briefed on export control and the
associated consequences for security violations. I know he's pretty popular
around here, but the fact of the matter is he would be facing most (if not
all) of the charges just for leaving the country with top secret data even
without adding any penalty for releasing some subset of said data to the
public.

------
WestCoastJustin
Around 3:50 mark -- Snowden talks about NSA PRISM access and US tech giants.
This might have been the underpinning of the "direct access" quotes made by
The Guardian and The Washington Post in the past.

Also, Glenn Greenwald is a great story teller. He releases documents, lets the
public digest and understand them, and then he releases a second video, which
builds on our existing understanding.

~~~
Sven7
I think there are good odds we will see privacy related whistleblowing
happening at US tech giants in the coming years.

~~~
Asparagirl
"From your mouth to God's ears" as my grandmother would say.

------
grey-area
It'll be interesting to see this Laura Poitras film when it comes out with a
full set of interviews. According to this tweet by Greenwald [1] she has
hundreds of hours of footage which she's no doubt in the process of editing. I
hadn't seen this video before either by Poitras about Binney, done for the
NYT, he gives a nice explanation of the way this sort of multi-domain
surveillance is more intrusive than what came before. [2]

[1]
[https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/354275009826533377](https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/354275009826533377)

[2] [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/opinion/the-national-
secur...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/opinion/the-national-security-
agencys-domestic-spying-program.html?_r=0)

~~~
jacquesm
I think you meant 'he'.

~~~
grey-area
I meant she, the tweet is about Poitras and as the film-maker she has the
video, not Greenwald.

~~~
jacquesm
Ah of course, sorry!

------
jayfuerstenberg
I love that this video was recorded in advance of the US government actually
saying all the thing he predicted.

It deflates the whole argument that Snowden "aided the enemy" in a way that
would not work if he responded to the accusation after the fact.

------
spoiledtechie
What I believe is truly interesting is the plain fact that:

We have heard many companies, politicians and even directors of three letter
orgs specifically say things that contrast this video. Direct back end access
to corporations data without their knowledge.

I love the fact that we are hearing these things in parts. Because after the
first video we heard plenty of things from those mentioned above, but then
Snowden comes out in part 2 and says those things they have said in the past
month, that are directly contradicting and therefore lying.

------
gdonelli
Any idea why they delayed the release of this second video?

~~~
scrrr
I think it's just good journalism. The story needs to stay popular for as long
as possible. They are storing and reading all our private communication, for
crying out loud.

------
kurd_debuggr
Part 2 people, the Guardian should get a Golden Globe for this highly
organized (and entertaining) delivery of the news.

------
trendoid
so this undermines the statement made by Larry or has he been kept in the dark
? "First, we have not joined any program that would give the U.S.
government—or any other government—direct access to our servers. Indeed, the
U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the
information stored in our data centers. We had not heard of a program called
PRISM until yesterday."

------
mpyne
So if someone predicts the actions of some other party, does that in itself
make that other party's actions invalid?

I'll try, then: "The US government will conduct a census in 2020".

Or on a more humorous vein, the normal joke about the car driver who convinced
the cop who pulled him over to call for backup, and later mentioned to the
supervisor "I'll bet that asshole told you I was speeding, too".

~~~
yebyen
Upvote, that's a funny joke. I hadn't heard it.

As for your first sentence, I'm not really sure what you're saying. Should we
disbelieve when the US government says Snowden aided the enemy, just because
he predicted it? I had to really struggle to get that interpretation out of
what you said.

~~~
mpyne
> Should we disbelieve when the US government says Snowden aided the enemy,
> just because he predicted it? I had to really struggle to get that
> interpretation out of what you said.

To be more clear (as I had very little time when I was writing the original),
the title of the article implies that Snowden is prophesying; that he is
predicting some future event based on something that he, and those of us
waiting on his every word, alone are able to foresee.

This is a fairly normal propaganda ploy to build up our heroes: We see that
future! He saw it too! My hero, thank $DEITY he too can unmask the Man Behind
the Curtain!

Instead I'm saying that what he really predicted is of the same degree of
difficulty as predicting the sun will rise tomorrow (especially given that he
knew before the government what he would be leaking). Even Miss Cleo's antics
are more impressive than that.

Unfortunately I never did get to see the video in the time I had thanks to the
'third world' Internet that my branch of the government gets to work with, so
it's possible Snowden himself was insightful and prescient. But the title
wasn't, IMHO.

