Blowing the Whistle on CIA, NSA and U.S. President
“Testifying before this Senate committee in January 1975, CIA Director William Colby admitted that his agency had infiltrated domestic groups, used surveillance on U.S. citizens, opened citizen’s mail, and amassed files on at least ten thousand “dissidents.” – Joseph A. Califano, Jr.
In 2013, Edward Snowden “blew the whistle,” but not in the usual manner of following the “chain of command.” Snowden decided to forego the “proper channels” of the National Security Agency (NSA) and sought a messenger, the “Fourth Estate.”
In 2016, data and privacy became an issue. Then in 2018, a new whistleblower reportedly emerged, Christopher Wylie. Hearing the whistle, Democrats jumped. Their pounce was so high they’re still in the air.
Faster than you can whistle, “Christopher Wylie, the whistleblower at the defunct Cambridge Analytica who exposed the British data firm’s collection of Facebook user data, testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on privacy regulations.” However, what started out as manipulation of online users’ privacy and data soon became known as “election interference.”
Election 2016 outcome provoked a manhunt by the Democratic Party for what they saw as the culprit responsible for the Republicans’ party victory. After three relentless years, the Mueller Report was published during the “Ides of March” in 2019. After perusing hundreds of pages, Democrats appeared to have found little that would make their case for impeachment. And then, as if by chance, the sound of another whistle was heard.
The recent anonymous whistleblower’s complaint is directed at the U.S. Executive Branch. Not surprisingly, Democrats, still on the hunt for evidence of election interference have pounced from the Mueller Report to the Whistleblower Report sniffing for clues.
However, Joseph Maguire, Acting Director of National intelligence (DNI) reiterated that the matter at hand was on a “conversation with the President and a Foreign Leader, not on election interference.” But it’s the country who this leader represents that seems to be at issue here; Ukraine. Naturally, Russia is seen guilty by association.
U.S.-Mexico and Russia-Ukraine – Speaking of Annexations
I will leave the history of land disputes between the Ukraine and Russia to experts. My brief interjection here is to point out the apparent hypocrisy of some critics in the U.S., or as author Ali Behdad notes in his book, A Forgetful Nation. It seems convenient for U.S. politicians to develop historical amnesia as to their nation’s own history of annexations (i.e. The Mexican Cession).
U.S. vast territorial acquisition from Mexico came to about 1,370,104 km2. Juxtaposing the U.S. newly gained land to Russia and Crimea’s size, about 27,000 km2, comparisons seem unfair. I imagine the people of Mexico also saw the large gain by the U.S. as unjust, only there was no superpower that came to their defense.
The United States of America were not always so united. A mere thirteen years after its large acquisition of Mexican land, the U.S. was at war with itself and by itself. History books do not suggest the Soviet Union incited division. Sure, Mexico lost the war with the U.S. ending in land deals. However, there is more to territorial dispute than merely land.
Key territories are central to nations as they represent strategic geographic locations critical to military operations and resources. Consider, had Mexico won the war, their reputation may have been that of a major Western power. Their popularity would have grown with their “gold rush” (California) and would be one of the major trading partners in oil (Texas). Instead, Mexico’s reputation is of a developing country and reported to be the country with the highest crime rate in the Americas.
Speaking of “high crimes and misdemeanors” a whistleblower has filed a complaint against the U.S. President.
Who Blew the Whistle on the President?
U.S. House Intelligence Committee heard testimony from Maguire about the complaint. How is this complaint different from others? According to Maguire, “This case is unique and unprecedented.” The whistleblower is “blowing the whistle” on the U.S. President.
In the last three years, the U.S. President and his Administration have been at the center of controversies starting with the 2016 Election and now the upcoming 2020 Election. Not surprisingly, during Trump’s tenure reports of leaks continue. Some point to the Administration, Congress, and others to the Intelligence Community.
Last December, a meeting was held on Intelligence Community Accountability where among the issues discussed were leaks and whistleblowers.
According to Michael Morell, former Deputy & Acting CIA Director, “Nothing I briefed Congress ever leaked.” If we take Morell at his word, then how is it that leaks reportedly persist? His response, “Most of the leaks do not come out of Congress. They come out of the Executive Branch.” To put this in context, Morell served in his respective roles under the Obama Administration.
Leaks and blowing the whistle are seen differently. Depending on who does it, what’s disclosed and who benefits results on whether it’s seen positively or not. Referencing his book, Permanent Record, Snowden states, “The reason you’re reading this book is that I did a dangerous thing for a man in my position: I decided to tell the truth. I collected internal IC documents that gave evidence of the US government’s lawbreaking…” Who really benefited from Snowden’s leak to the press?
The anonymous whistleblower is presumed to be an intelligence analyst. In a recent interview, John McLaughlin, Former Deputy Director, U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) stated “If you read the complaint…frankly, has CIA analyst written all over it.” However, unlike Snowden’s reported first-hand knowledge and documentation, the whistleblower’s complaint is derived of “allegations from second-hand information.” Still, the IC Inspector General assessed said complaint as “credible” and an “urgent concern.”
Was the assessment based on who the whistleblower presumably is? If the whistleblower is a current or former CIA analyst, then it begs the question, Why did he/she feel compel to blow the whistle given past treatment of whistleblowers? Who does the complaint benefit? It appears to benefit the Democratic Party, some may argue.
Whistleblowers’ intent may be to inform the public of the truth about government, leaders, and industry wrongdoings. But in the end the actions of some may be deemed bias and convey an agenda branding them bad actors.
Public Servants or Public Enemies
In the case of Snowden, Morell notes that “two of the programs that Snowden disclosed had multiple oversight.” How did the NSA drop the ball? Did the agency overlook proper vetting of Snowden because of their need for technical skills? Easily and yes. Recall in his recent interview Snowden states, “I didn’t have skepticism.” One could argue that that is precisely why he and others like him are hired. No critical thinking skills needed, don’t ask questions. Just follow orders.
For Snowden, the issue appeared to be about global surveillance. As was reportedly disclosed by Snowden in 2013, member countries “banded together to sort of co-operate and share the costs of intelligence gathering infrastructure” and ultimately inform on its own citizens. Yet, he argues that “In many ways, 2013 wasn’t about surveillance at all. What it was about was a violation of the Constitution.” Yet, he ignores that The Founders saw the Constitution as an experiment.
In this grand ole trial, government and special interests continue to test America’s politics, social, cultural, morality, ethics, religion, etc. Had Snowden been uncomfortable in being one of those who helped run the “experiment”, he should have departed, especially by the time he started to work for the CIA.
Snowden, surveillance is about monitoring just as observing and investigation are about experiments. Even the act of whistleblowing results in further investigations. Consider the words of one of your former colleagues in the CIA, McLaughlin, “This whistleblower complaint is a roadmap, if you will, for further investigation.” The object of intelligence agencies is to collect data. Whether the Intel is good, bad, or lawbreaking, it’s all part of the experiment. Your personal judgment is immaterial.
Who Represents the Whistleblowers?
Speaking of intelligence agencies, recall the December meeting I mentioned above held on Intelligence Community Accountability discussing leaks and whistleblowers. At the time, Attorney Mark Zaid’s statements seemed sympathetic toward whistleblowers. So it’s no surprise that one of the attorneys representing the whistleblower who filed a complaint against the President is reportedly Zaid.
However, it begs the question, why would Snowden not formally file a whistleblower complaint and seek representation from Zaid? Did Zaid find Snowden’s actions questionable based on his “proof” or position(s)? Or both? If not an analyst or an agent, was he “just another young technologist.” It’s no surprise as Zaid notes, “Snowden said he went outside the system because he saw how others were treated.” I imagine that like regulations in U.S. systems, laws to protect whistleblowers look good on paper but have “no teeth.”
According to Zaid, “All laws are in favor of whistleblowers . . . but they’re not received well enough.” Consequently, irrespective of Snowden’s actions being seen as heroic by some in the public, others see him as a traitor whose disclosures benefited the enemy.
Former Deputy Director of the CIA McLaughlin commented as to the anonymous whistleblower, “I have confidence in what Director Maguire said about his determination to protect the whistleblower from reprisals…On the other hand, all the controversy about this will inevitably discourage whistleblowing in the government generally and perhaps in the intelligence community.” However, the new whistleblower blew the whistle on the President. How patriotic is that?
According to McLaughlin, “I’m kind of proud to say this, it took a member of the intelligence community to step up and bring it forward.” McLaughlin, it seems to me that Snowden also stepped up to the plate. Oh, that’s right, Snowden was speaking against the Intel community. By contrast, the anonymous whistleblower speaks against your President.
“The Snowden Effect” or Convenient Truths?
It appears that “The Snowden Effect” did not manifest itself with Wylie but with the anonymous whistleblower complaint. Attempts of unmasking real whistleblowers are diverted when the public continues to buy admission to a circus just to find out they’re part of the act.
Wylie’s reported “revelation” of user data collection and manipulation ignores that for decades countless private and public entities have been doing just that. Moreover, Wylie’s exposition of the firm he worked for and his participation run counter to his alleged concerns of “security threats to Western Democracies.” Should the public be kind to Wylie as he explains that he was 24 years old…? His explanations are not so much naïve as they appear convenient. He argues that, “The company that really profited by this is Facebook.” Wylie, do you have a book out or speaking engagements? Why would Wylie lie?
Snowden’s take on the book of faces? “Facebook is not the problem it’s a product of the problem.” Yes and no. They created the platforms for users. Users became both the product and the problem. This is why as I note in my paper, “Icing the Grid,” the platforms are made up of connected users. You ice the tech grid and you succeed in “breaking it down,” the companies. But, then it ALL comes down, the platform along with the product, the users.
After six years, it seems that for all of Snowden’s troubles, users have largely ignored his “whistleblowing.” Users anxiously await and buy the latest smartphone and upload the latest app, clicking away consent of their data. Users do not appear to be interested in Snowden’s “truth.”
Exposing Spies, Lies, and Improper Surveillance
“Hence the use of spies…local, inward, converted, doomed, and surviving.” – Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Referring to whistleblowers as heroes, patriots, or spies seems unfair to those who actually put their life on the line and whose privacy is critical to protect them and their country. Yet, to go as far as to label someone a traitor requires evidence of committing treason.
Snowden is said to have disclosed classified information, but only to journalists, not foreign agents. Moreover, that he “didn’t cooperate with the Russian intelligence services.” If not Russia, who then did he cooperate with? What has he been doing for the past six years? Co-authoring a book? Some believe he is telling the truth. But is it the whole truth? Or, did he lie and has he been spying all along?
Snowden’s two key cues:
❽ “It’s the proof that matters, not where it came from.”
❽ “In fact, the number of documents that I disclosed directly to the public is zero.”
Multiple plays can be made from this information or “web of lies.” Was Snowden simply the cue? If so, who was playing him?
1st play – U.S. intelligence community was alerted and briefed on Snowden. Surveilling Snowden, the idea of converting the spy was not plausible. Plan was to “bait the mouse” with bad Intel or “classified documents.”
2nd play – Journalists could have run a story with alleged documents. Naturally, the public would have questioned them as to their source with the response being that they can’t reveal their source. Up until the last ten years the public has accepted this response. But with recent “fake news” and “disinformation” the public was not likely to buy it. Journalists needed a story. They needed someone to “speak truth to power.” Enter Snowden’s, “I decided to tell the truth. I collected internal IC documents that gave evidence of the US government’s lawbreaking and turned them over to journalists, who vetted and published them to a scandalized world.” And nothing sells headlines faster than scandal.
If a double agent, did Snowden consider two critical factors?: 1. New Administrations bring changes in U.S. Foreign Policy and 2. Practice of quid pro quo between foreign adversaries in exchanging spies. Except in Snowden’s case, extradition to his home country may not be ideal. If that be the case, which of Tzu’s five uses of spies will Snowden fall into, local, inward, converted, doomed, or surviving?
I‘d like to defer some of these pertinent questions to *I.C. Smith, Former Special Agent at the FBI. In his book Inside, A Top G-Man Exposes Spies, Lies, and Bureaucratic Bungling Inside the FBI, he points out that “the FBI, with principal responsibility for detecting spies in the United States, had not detected [Robert] Hanssen for well over a decade.” Then again, this was before the internet.
Smith says, “…consider all the reasons that might motivate an individual to commit espionage – revenge, ideology, the “game,” coercion, etc. . .” In Snowden’s case, ideology seems to be the best answer given his admission to being naïve, or is he feigning? But what would be his reason?
Did Snowden rationalize his reasons for disclosing classified documents to his reported “messenger,” journalists? Referring to spies, Smith says, “I feel certain that they justified their actions, in part, due to their belief (correct as it turned out) that in the big picture their actions would do little harm to the U.S. and not tilt the ideological and economic battle toward the Soviet Union.” Yet, in respect to today’s Russia, one could argue that Snowden’s actions facilitated the revelation of classified information that may have negatively impacted the intelligence community.
Giving Snowden the benefit of the doubt, it seems to me that when he grasped the magnitude of what he had become and was part of, he was unable to reconcile his idealist preconceived notions with reality. He reflects that “…the person I used to be-a spy for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA), just another young technologist out to build what I was sure would be a better world.” Recall that for him it was about “violation of the Constitution.”
In the case of the new whistleblower, the complaint also appears to center on the “violation of the constitution” and points to “election interference.” Some may see it as a convenient truth. But is the truth for the “greater good” of Democracy or the Democratic Party? Skepticism has grown as to the veracity of the whistleblower’s complaint. If he or she is a CIA analyst, as some have deduced, can they be trusted?
According to Smith, “Analysts are useless if they are tempted to “cook” their analysis to suit the preconceived ideas of the very operational agents who decide when to hire, fire, and promote them. In that sense, the CIA was ahead of us, for the CIA had always distinguished between operations on the one side and analysis on the other.” Notwithstanding Smith’s expertise and professional analysis, his description of the CIA may be incomplete.
In the spirit of presenting a fair analysis, let’s also consider “a McNamara whiz kid, an LBJ assistant…the Washington Post lawyer during Watergate,” **Joseph A. Califano, Jr. Among other critical roles, Califano held the distinguished title of Special Assistant to the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Defense.
Califano writes in his 2004 book, Inside, A Public and Private Life, “In 1975, the Senate Select Committee to study governmental intelligence activities . . . exposed improper surveillance, mail intercepts, and wiretaps by the Central Intelligence Agency.” It appears Snowden and others did not read Califano’s book.
Surveillance goes back centuries. Snowden, you are NOT correct in saying “This was the beginning of surveillance capitalism…” Monitoring people has been going on for centuries. We no longer live in a “scandalized world.” It appears your knowledge of the Constitution is limited as you seem to ignore that hackers go back to the time of the Founders and spies go back to Sun Tzu.
The physical space of Tzu’s Art of War was sketched into the virtual space by Asian, Russian, and Middle Eastern powers. Notwithstanding China, Russia, Iran, and India’s innovated advancements in cyberspace in their own right, recent reports of cyberattacks and penetrations that lead to theft of intellectual property may be a testament to leaked information. In the West, both the public and private sector fruitlessly attempt to secure cyberspace when all they can do is manage risk.
Snowden, whether you were naïve or not, some would agree with you in saying that you “did a dangerous thing.” Foolish seems more apropos and I might add unintelligent “for a man in [your] position” who spied for the CIA and NSA. But, is it also fair to brand you a traitor? Well, let’s fairly consider this.
The Case Against Snowden and the Messenger
Recall, Snowden stated “It’s the proof that matters, not where it came from.” If that were the case, he would not have relied on journalists and handed it over to the “average joe.” Unlike some who may have an agenda or others who are manipulators, Snowden’s position would have deemed him an authority on the subject of surveillance whereby the public may not have questioned him or his proof.
By contrast, the anonymous whistleblower reportedly disclosed the complaint directly to the public via their governmental agency. Did the proof matter enough for the public to believe that as a public servant, the whistleblower did not stand to gain or benefit from the complaint? Unlike Snowden, he/she chose “which of [the] country’s secrets should be made known to the public and which should not.” Who told the truth?
And what of Snowden’s messenger? Snowden “disclosed the government’s documents only to journalists.” But was he in the company of those he could trust? Were the chosen journalists “who vetted” the “IC documents “ biased? In a time when media outlets are increasingly being bought by entrepreneurs and controlled by special interests, does the Fourth Estate truly represent the people? Snowden, time will tell if in shooting out your message, the Fourth Estate’s arrow shot you along with it.
As to the anonymous whistleblower, it does appear that as Snowden says, “The whistleblower, they’re not indicting a system, they’re indicting a man.” Yes, and the same may be said of you if you decide to return to the U.S. and face trial. What may concern you is not so much what is largely undisputed by the intelligence community, breaking the law, as the act being deemed unjustified. According to U.S. criminal law, that privilege applies to citizens committing justifiable acts. The Federal government applies justice differently to traitors whose presumption of guilt is indisputable.
If one agrees that the technician “judges states in terms of their capacity to utilize techniques effectively, not in terms of their relative justice,” then I think Snowden’s real concern is to be judged by the same system he helped run effectively. I do not see the CIAs John McLaughlin paying Snowden the same praises he lavished on the anonymous whistleblower, “I’m kind of proud to say this, it took a member of the intelligence community to step up and bring it forward.”
Snowden’s self-bestowed right “to build what I was sure would be a better world,” contradicts his justification of “I refuse to presume to be the sole arbiter of another’s privacy…” How does he define “better world” in the current technological state of affairs?
“Technique and the State”
In the September 2019 interview, Snowden states “I risked my freedom, my life.” Before taking that step, he might have read, The Technological Society by Jacques Ellul, 1964, “…Freedom is not static but dynamic; not a vested interest, but a prize continually to be won… He is most enslaved when he thinks he is comfortably settled in freedom.”
Snowden’s actions appear to stem from a childhood ideal that was not outgrown, an imagined world where the “Internet…was a friend, and a parent.” Yet, this world never existed. Did he ignore the creators of the internet, ARPANET, funded by DARPA? Did he see them as a friend or parent?
Snowden, those of us familiar with “Technique and the State” may understand your language, motives, and what appears to be your speculative narrative. It is the public that needs to know you and those like you and what concerns you, “…the technicians form a closed fraternity with their own esoteric vocabulary. Moreover, they are concerned only with what is, as distinct from what ought to be… The Technical Man is fascinated by results, by the immediate consequences of setting standardized devices into motion.”
Given Snowden’s technical background and experience, his explanations are highly suspect. This goes back to before he formally became a spy and what some may call a hack. As he states in his book, “The first thing I ever hacked was bedtime” and “From as far back as I can remember, my favorite activity was spying.” Instead of “hacking the system” like a true hacker who uses their tools efficiently, Snowden appears to have worked the system, and in plain sight walked in and taken the classified information. But the hack quacked and “leaked” it.
Had Snowden to do over again what would he do differently? “Come forward sooner” was his response. Yes, timing is everything.
Reawakening the Ghosts of Vietnam, Watergate, and Iraq
Timing is especially critical in elections. In 2013 Democratic President Barack Obama took office for a second term. Promises of the first term were not kept, his critics argued. Was Snowden one of those critics?
In 2016, Republican President Donald Trump succeeded Obama. Trump critics will not stand for a second term. But will allegations of “high crimes and misdemeanors” be sufficient to hinder a second term? What exactly are President Trump’s crimes?
Let’s consider this from the vantage point of hindsight and evaluate the consequences of what can be construed as “high crimes and misdemeanors” from past presidents (Democrat and Republican).
For Lyndon B. Johnson, fighting the ideology of communism in Vietnam to prevent it from spreading to the U.S. resulted in losing to Vietnam and the death of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians. And yet, Communist China became the U.S. major trading partner. On the premise of “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” and in search of “weapons of mass destruction,” George W. Bush reportedly invaded Iraq resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians. And yet, the U.S. is still “fighting them over there” and “here.”
Democrats may wish to be careful what they “whistle for.” The 2019 whistleblower complaint and its allegations may likely fail in its attempt to impeach Trump or force him to resign. What evidence has been put forth that warrants impeachment? Have the consequences of impeaching vs not impeaching to the nation been assessed?
In 1974, Republican President Richard Nixon resigned in his second term facing much criticism from across his party and supporters. However, today’s Republican Party and its supporters are not those of yesterday. They are cognizant of the ever presence and power of a “dark state,” be that foreign adversaries, Wall Street, Corporations or the Intelligence Community. Yet, in an election year, the people hold the greatest power, electing a President.
Impeachment or not, the future of Americans and the Electoral Process will likely never be the same.
“…the Internet was a very different thing…Everyone wore masks…” Edward Snowden
Future of Whistleblowers, Hackers, and Spies in Cyberspace?
Will the anonymous whistleblower step back into the shadows of the intelligence community or work in the private sector? Analysis and collecting Intel are useful tools of the trade that may come in handy in the field of Global Threats & National Security. Just ask the newly appointed CIA Director Gina Haspel.
Snowden, has social media and tech companies connected with you? Perhaps, you could help Congress combat foreign interference in elections. Or, has Microsoft already contracted you to work with their software, “ElectionGuard”? I imagine anti-trust took a backseat. “Recall, “to the technician, the nation is nothing more than another sphere in which to apply the instruments he has developed.”
Let’s not forget, for the technician, the state “is an enterprise providing services that must be made to function efficiently.” All you hackers cybering in space, is the timing ripe for execution? And will you use the tools “efficiently?”
“No enterprise is more likely to succeed than the one concealed from the enemy until it is ripe for execution.” – Machiavelli
____________________________
*I.C. Smith, Former Special Agent at the FBI statements in this paper are from his 2004 book Inside, A Top G-Man Exposes Spies, Lies, and Bureaucratic Bungling Inside the FBI. Smith’s statements here are not meant to reflect the present-day Whistleblower Complaint, Edward Joseph Snowden, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency, or Soviet Union (present day Russia).
**Joseph A. Califano, Jr. statements in this paper are from his 2004 book Inside, A Public and Private Life. Califano’s statements here are not meant to reflect the present-day Whistleblower Complaint, Senate Select Committee or the Central Intelligence Agency.