
Was Snowden a Russian Agent? - artsandsci
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/02/09/edward-snowden-russian-agent/
======
seanieb
> "By pulling back at the end of his book, Epstein tries to have it both ways:
> weaving conspiracy theories while maintaining plausible deniability and some
> veneer of evidence-based journalism. But his indulgence in speculation, his
> treatment of questionable claims as established facts, and his
> misunderstanding of surveillance combine to undermine his book’s
> credibility."

TLDR - Epstein's book is horse shit and the accusation of Snowden being a Rus.
agent is horse shit.

------
Shalhoub
"Was Snowden a Russian Agent?" .. no, he was an outside contractor with a
conscience, illustrating the perils of outsourcing your spying. Why an IT
functionary would need access to the raw files to do his job just beggers
disbelief. After all if you wanted to compromise a security service, what
better way than infiltrating some IT services company or even simpler, start
one yourself.

------
slg
>I think there's a difference between what really motivated him to leak & what
he's leaked out of self-preservation

Glenn Greenwald -
[https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/352213748917874688](https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/352213748917874688)

I always come back to this Tweet when this subject comes up. Like the article
suggests, it isn't a matter of _if_ Snowden was compromised but _when_. I
would like to think it was after he was stranded in Russia with no hope. That
might explain his later actions but I don't think it can ever justify them. If
even Greenwald thinks Snowden has "leaked out of self-preservation", I find it
hard to support the narrative of a whistleblowing American hero who deserves a
pardon.

~~~
hutzlibu
"it isn't a matter of if Snowden was compromised but when"

Strong accusation. I suppose you have solid facts behind your claim? Or do you
count the tweet as a fact for anything?? Because it is kind of vague ...

~~~
slg
Greenwald knows more about it than either you or I do and I don't see much
vagueness in the quote. Who does Snowden need preservation from? The two
current options are the US and Russia with the Chinese having temporary
influence over him immediately after the leak. The logical conclusion is that
some of the information Snowden leaked was done to placate the US, Russia, or
China. I think we can rule out the US considering Snowden is still living in
exile and there seems to be little to no contact between him and the US
government. That leaves China and Russia. Considering the time spent in both
those countries, I think Russia is the more likely of the two. Greenwald seems
to be implying that Snowden has leaked information in order to gain favor with
Russia. Where is the flaw in this conclusion? What else could "leaked out of
self-preservation" mean? Who else could he need self-preservation from?

~~~
hutzlibu
" I think there's a difference between what really motivated him to leak &
what he's leaked out of self-preservation"

It could also refer to, what he did NOT leaked.

" Who else could he need self-preservation from?"

To not land on a certain list, some people openly joked about wanting to put
him on? I also do remember some remarks, how he did not leaked everything he
had, so he had some backup(at his lawers/friends) to be leaked, in case he
suddendly had a heart attack, car accident or simple explosion.

And in case he actually did give some information to russia out of
desparation, why the harsh judgment

"but I don't think it can ever justify them"

without actually knowing what kind of information? Especially considering the
good things he did revealing the treachery of the secret services?

~~~
slg
>It could also refer to, what he did NOT leaked.

I can see how you would get that impression if you only read the Tweet I
highlighted, but Greenwald was responding to a conversation questioning if
Snowden's disclosures were in fact whistleblowing. In context Greenwald is
clearly referring to what was leaked and not what wasn't leaked.

>To not land on a certain list, some people openly joked about wanting to put
him on? I also do remember some remarks, how he did not leaked everything he
had, so he had some backup(at his lawers/friends) to be leaked, in case he
suddendly had a heart attack, car accident or simple explosion.

This is intertwined with my previous comment. Beyond that, if Snowden was
leaking things to gain favor with the US government or intelligence
communities he would have to be leaking something that puts them in a positive
light. I haven't seen really anything Snowden leaked that would counteract the
negatives he leaked about the US intelligence community.

>And in case he actually did give some information to russia out of
desparation, why the harsh judgment "but I don't think it can ever justify
them" without actually knowing what kind of information? Especially
considering the good things he did revealing the treachery of the secret
services?

That isn't the way the law works. You can't do "good things" and use that as
currency to payoff your crimes, especially if those "good things" appeared to
have occurred before the most serious and potentially treasonous crimes even
occurred (EDIT: I'm talking about cooperating with the Russians and not
stealing the data in the first place which is a much lesser and pardonable
crime in my opinion).

~~~
hutzlibu
"I can see how you would get that impression if you only read the Tweet I
highlighted, but Greenwald was responding to a conversation questioning if
Snowden's disclosures were in fact whistleblowin"

Hm, I read a bit of that conversation before, but didn't got that impression.
I will read deeper into.

" to gain favor with the US government or intelligence communities he would
have to be leaking something that puts them in a positive light."

Or ... he choosed not to leak some other dark secrets, he learned about. But
still has them as a life insurance ...

"That isn't the way the law works."

Erm, first of all, I thought we were talking about your opinion on the matter
and afaik, you are not the law. And secondly, yes you can indeed negate
crimes, if you did something good ... if the "crimes" were the only way to do
the good. That's the whole concept of whistleblowing - it is a crime to reveal
secrets, if you agreed not to. But you are allowed if you show, that the
persons you work for, were (at least partial) criminal in the first place. And
this is what Snowden did.

And if he later after revealing, was left of no choice, than to go to the
russians - because nobody in the US-Government said, "ah good, you showed the
people the truth, now come home, we work things out for the better" \- I could
understand that, to give then the russians minor secrets, if forced to. What
else could he have done? But this is only speculation and far from being a
fact. And I don't think, the russians did pushed him in such a way, because of
public opinion ...

------
chrisbennet
Has the account of artsandsci changed owners?

I see he/she's been a member for 900+ days, submitting a story every once in a
while. Then starting 27 days ago he/she began submitting over 12 stories a day
on average.

~~~
artsandsci
Nope, same old me, just got into the habit of submitting stories. I did see
this for the first time a couple days ago: "Please don't submit so many links
at once that the new page is dominated by your submissions." so I've been
submitting less often.

------
mudil
The piece in WSJ from 2014 titled "Was Snowden's Heist a Foreign Espionage
Operation?" is worth reading
([https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304831304579542...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304831304579542402390653932)).

Even though I am sympathetic to Showden for his disclosures of gov't
surveillance of American citizens and others, the scope, complexity, and
execution of operation leaves many questions unanswered.

National security officials (both Republicans and Dems) are quoted in the
piece that they believe that Showden operation was an espionage heist.

From the article:

"On June 10, 2013, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), the head of the Senate
Intelligence Committee, described Mr. Snowden’s theft of documents as “an act
of treason.” A former member of President Obama’s cabinet went even further,
suggesting to me off the record in March this year that there are only three
possible explanations for the Snowden heist: 1) It was a Russian espionage
operation; 2) It was a Chinese espionage operation, or 3) It was a joint Sino-
Russian operation."

So on one hand we have people like the head of the Senate Intelligence
Committee and Obama officials who were neck deep in intelligence work, and on
the other we have feel-gooders like Oliver Stone, who really don't know what's
going on, and who might never ever find out what really happened, because it
could be classified for ages...

~~~
mturmon
The author of that _WSJ_ piece is Epstein himself, who also authored the book
under review.

Your statement at the end basically says, we have classified sources saying
Snowden was a Russian/Chinese spy, and we have "feel-gooders" like Oliver
Stone saying otherwise, so who do we trust?

The submitted article is by a reporter more neutral and level-headed than
either Epstein or Stone, and he basically concludes: there is nothing at
present but wild conjecture supporting the "Snowden was a spy" theory. So I
think that may be the answer to your implicit question.

------
camus2
No, a Russian agent wouldn't have leaked anything to the western press. A
Russian agent would have only disclosed what he knows to his superiors.
Russian agents that leak anything to the public usually end up dead pretty
quickly.

The reason why he ended up in Russia from Hong Kong is that his passport was
voided by US authorities and Russia ended being the only country willing to
take him without sending him back to US.

------
hutzlibu
"those who hold darker views about Snowden include lawmakers and officials who
“base it on classified reports” and “have been at least partially briefed”
about the NSA’s investigation. "

I only skipped the article, but this seems to be the main content and vague
rumors around. People who have been caught lying over and over again, are now
a trustworthy source for anything?

------
LeoPanthera
Betteridge's law of headlines applies here.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines)

------
bobbybobbybob
No.

Next (ridiculous) question please?

~~~
besselheim
It's not really a ridiculous question.

The popular narrative of Snowden's actions and motivations doesn't add up when
you look at all the available evidence.

It's quite reasonable for people to suspiciously probe the mythos built up
around him.

~~~
marssaxman
Sure it does. His statements about his motivations are consistent with his
actions. It's remarkable, actually, just how consistent it all is, and that's
part of the reason people admire him.

------
plugger
I think you misspelled Assange.

