The Edward Snowden Affair

by Michael Gurnow

  It would find him in less than 24 hours.

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

  Chapter 4

  Pearl of the Orient

  “We hack everyone everywhere.”

  –Edward Snowden, The Guardian interview, June 9, 20131

  BY MONDAY 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 opi
nion 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 Snowden20 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.

  On Tuesday BAH announced, “Edward Snowden, 29, was an employee of our firm for less than 3 months, assigned to a team in Hawaii. Snowden, who had a salary at the rate of $122,000, was terminated June 10, 2013 for violations of the firm’s code of ethics and firm policy.”22 The salary disclosure appears out of place. However, this was a coy jab by BAH to discredit Snowden. In its introduction to the whistleblower, The Guardian team had stated, “He has had ‘a very comfortable life’ that included a salary of roughly $200,000.” The press took BAH’s cue. Numerous news outlets claimed Snowden’s 61 percent reported difference in pay brought his character and intent into question. Since Snowden had exaggerated his salary, people automatically started to wonder what else he might have embellished.

  The Post contacted Greenwald for comment. Being the ever vigilant attorney, Greenwald highlighted BAH’s use of the phrase “rate of $122,000.” He conjectured BAH had listed Snowden’s prorated pay.23 If this were the case, his year-end total would have been at least $488,800. Snowden would personally settle the matter six days later during a live Internet chat. When asked point blank, “Did you lie about your salary? What is the issue there? Why did you tell Glenn Greenwald that your salary was $200,000 a year, when it was only $122,000?” He responded, “I was debriefed by Glenn and his peers over a number of days, and not all of those conversations were recorded. The statement I made about earnings was that $200,000 was my ‘career high’ salary. I had to take pay cuts in the course of pursuing specific work. Booz was not the most I’ve been paid.”24 When asked by BAH why he was willing to incur such a substantial pay cut, he undoubtedly commented upon how he favored the idyllic locale, that he would be further expanding his résumé atop the job affording him new IT experiences.

  As one side of the world vainly grasped at the ghost of Snowden, people a quarter of the way around the globe had already found him.

  Shortly after noon the following Monday, Snowden was forced out of the Mira. A mass Twitter effort had identified his location using Poitras’ video. The purported giveaway was the particular design of a lamp within the hotel room despite Poitras trying to throw people off with a view of Victoria Harbor from Greenwald’s hotel.25 His whereabouts and activities for the next 13 days were veiled in the fog of ambiguity and rumor. It was presumed he relocated to a safe house.26 What could not be refuted was that he quickly went back to work. Within the next 48 hours, while the U.S. government began preparing charges against him, Snowden gave an interview to the Chinese English-language periodical, the South China Morning Post (SCMP).

  Theories began to circulate that he was a Chinese double agent. Others believed he was defecting. Though he would later inform the online community that he’s chosen China because he required “a country with the cultural and legal framework to allow me to work without being immediately detained,”27 the intelligence community knew why he was there. He wanted to personally ensure the delivery of SIGINT information which would reinforce Greenwald’s June 7 U.S. cyberattack exposé. Conducting the interview was yet another risky move, especially since the world now knew who he was. Instead of contenting himself with gathering the data, delivering it to the press, and refusing further involvement, then seeking personal safety in a country without an American extradition treaty, he continued his mission. He would tell the SCMP, “I am not here [in Hong Kong] to hide from justice; I am here to reveal criminality.”28

  Snowden admitted in his interview with Greenwald that most would assume his choice of destinations to be a mistake because “people think ‘Oh China, Great [Internet] Firewall.’”29 But he had done his homework. He was not in China, he was in Hong Kong. Unlike mainland China, where Internet usage and free speech are restricted, Hong Kong mirrored traditional American freedoms of expression.30 As later witnessed in news coverage, without reservation or impediment from regional authorities, protesters went to the streets of Hong Kong in support of Snowden.31

  Hong Kong was a British colony until it was returned to China in 1997. Due largely to its English influence and extreme Westernization by Eastern standards, China granted Hong Kong almost exclusive autonomy with the exception of militarization and foreign policy.32 Though these two components might appear crucial for Snowden, Hong Kong’s judiciary system is likewise independent of China. He was aware that surrender proceedings with Hong Kong were lengthy and would buy him time. (Only mainland China could extradite him, and it was not “technically” legally possible for Beijing to remove Snowden from Hong Kong under the latter’s “One Country, Two Systems” agreement.)33 He would buy himself even more time by disclosing data which would further incriminate the U.S. government in China’s eyes. It would endear him to the Chinese and give Hong Kong even greater pause in detaining him. Snowden also anticipated that the White House would trip over its own hubris and unintentionally give Hong Kong legitimate reason not to hand him over.

  When compared to Gellman and Greenwald’s reports, the SCMP’s coverage of Snowden’s disclosures is extremely short and sparse. This is because the newspaper tried to stretch headlines using a one-hour interview with Snowden.

  Remembering China is 13 hours ahead of the U.S., the SCMP ran a tea
ser article, “Whistle-blower Edward Snowden talks to South China Morning Post,”34 on Wednesday, June 12, at 8:51 p.m. local time. A day later, “Edward Snowden: US government has been hacking Hong Kong and China for years”35 was published. The article reports Snowden had provided the newspaper with documents containing evidence the NSA had been hacking into Hong Kong and mainland China since 2009. The agency had expressly targeted Hong Kong’s civilian population: Chinese University, public officials, various businesses and students. This was not traditional cyberwarfare. None of the Sino-related hacking paperwork showed any evidence of attacks upon Eastern military systems. Snowden added, “We [the U.S.] hack network backbones—like huge Internet routers, basically—that give us access to the communications of hundreds of thousands of computers without having to hack every single one.” Chinese University is one of the six major Chinese Internet hubs. It is home of the Hong Kong Internet Exchange, and all of the city’s Internet traffic is routed through the university system.

  The next day “Edward Snowden: Classified US data shows Hong Kong hacking targets36” appeared. It is a follow-up to the previous report and states the documents suggesting American intrusion of civilian networks include specific dates and IP addresses of Hong Kong and mainland computer systems. The data also lists whether a hack assignment had been completed or a particular computer system was perpetually monitored. As Snowden would relay in a later SCMP report concerning the evidence, “[T]he specific details of external and internal Internet protocol addresses could only have been obtained by hacking or with physical access to the computers.” A 75 percent success rate is noted. Snowden clarifies, “The primary issue of public importance to Hong Kong and mainland China should be that the NSA is illegally seizing the communications of tens of millions of individuals without any individualised suspicion of wrongdoing. They simply steal everything so they can search for any topics of interest.” Both whistleblowing articles include the annotation that the confiscated NSA documents could not be independently verified. Clearly the U.S. government was not willing to acknowledge them.