Ben Smith Wants You to Ignore This

Posted on | June 24, 2013 | 122 Comments

As soon as Edward Snowden came forward as the “face” of the NSA leaks, the question immediately suggested itself: “Hero or Traitor?”

Revelations about the NSA surveillance program had made worldwide headlines. Coming on the heels of other scandals, it seemed to fit into an emerging neo-Nixonian picture of the Obama administration. As I wrote Friday at The American Spectator:

Welcome to America in 2013, where Hope and Change have transmogrified into Fear and Loathing, where even a liberal reporter who last year praised Obama as “one of the most talented politicians around” could not resist the pervasive paranoia inspired by what voters were once promised would be “the most transparent administration in history.” Between the IRS secretly punishing the president’s political enemies, the Justice Department secretly seizing reporters’ phone records and the NSA’s secret surveillance, the only thing transparent about this administration is its dishonest hypocrisy.

One little problem: The IRS scandal and the DOJ scandal are genuine scandals — clear-cut abuses of power — whereas the NSA surveillance program had no actual victims. That is to say, while the NSA’s access to phone and e-mail records raises Fourth Amendment concerns about potential abuse, there is no one who can point to an instance where actual abuse has occurred. So far as we know, no one has been arrested on the basis of illegally obtained information or targeted by the NSA because they’re on Obama’s Enemies List of political opponents.

Apparently, Glenn Greenwald’s idea to solve this problem was to present the world with Edward Snowden as the hero-victim, making him the symbol (as Greenwald saw it) of how the administration was punishing courageous truth-tellers. However, rational people (a category from which Greenwald long ago excluded himself) recognized this as problematic: Snowden wasn’t an IRS employee revealing important truths about unlawful political abuse of government power, or a DOJ staffer disclosing the surveillance of journalists. Snowden had top-secret clearance at an agency whose express mission it is to gather communications (“signals intelligence,” or sigint) about America’s enemies. There is a world of difference between these two categories, and my antennae detected this difference when I saw the quote from Snowden praising Army Pvt. Bradley Manning as “a classic whistleblower” who “was inspired by the public good.”

Thanks for clearing that up, Ed: Having declared that Manning is a traitor who should be shot by a firing squad, I needed nothing else but your praise of him to form an opinion of you. If Bradley Manning is your hero, you can share a cell with him at Leavenworth.

Army privates don’t get to decide what classified documents the Army keeps secret, and 29-year-old computer nerds don’t get to decide what NSA operations our enemies can know about. And there was a certain too-good-to-be-true quality to the narrative:

Hollywood Script: Hipster Geek With Hot
Girlfriend Fights ‘Omniscient’ Government

Something about this movie scenario I instantly disliked. If leaking top-secret information made Ed Snowden a hero, then everyone with access to classified information who doesn’t leak it is a villain. And the more I looked at the backstory, the less I liked it:

After leaving the CIA a few years later, however, Snowden seemed disillusioned and suspicious toward government. In a comment on an Ars Technica article about surveillance software developed by Cisco, Snowden expressed concern about “how little this sort of corporate behavior bothers those outside of technology circles.” Criticizing what he called an attitude of “unquestioning obedience,” Snowden suggested that such surveillance had “sneaked in undetected because of pervasive government secrecy.”

Oh, what fresh hell is this? When I see the word “corporate” used as a pejorative, coupled with a jab at “unquestioning obedience,” I don’t think of Jefferson, Madison and Patrick Henry. Instead I think of Theodor Adorno, C. Wright Mills and Herbert Marcuse — the leftist indictment of 1950s America as proto-fascist oppression. I also think of every disgruntled misfit I’ve ever had the misfortune to know, malcontent whiners grumbling about the “bosses” and doing their best to spread demoralization throughout the organization.

Lee Stranahan yesterday finally went off on the conservatives who have made their pilgrimage to the Sacred Temple of Saint Edward the Whistleblower, where Glenn Greenwald presides as High Priest.

About damned time somebody said it. Greenwald had been secretly communicating with Ed Snowden for months. Greenwald timed the disclosure of the NSA documents and then presented the world with the Heroic Truth-Teller in a carefully scripted morality tale, and some people swallowed the entire narrative without stopping to think: How do we know Ed Snowden is actually telling the truth?

Gen. Keith Alexander says Snowden is lying and so we have to ask ourselves who we believe, the career Army officer who has dedicated his entire life to defending America from its enemies, or the dropout gamer who is Glenn Greenwald’s new man-crush?

Meanwhile, emerging from the JournoList conference call to share with us the Official Media Consensus, Ben Smith declares that Ed Snowden’s motives ares now utterly irrelevant to the narrative.

Permit me to quote from memory: “Fuck you. War.”

ADDENDUM: How strangely coincidental that Ben Smith decided to declare Snowden’s motives irrelevant as soon as Saint Edward embarked on the Grand Tour of America’s Adversaries.

If you hate America and love the idea of it being at risk, Snowden is your guy. So is Greenwald. If you don't hate America, you bet wrong.

— Lee Stranahan (@Stranahan) June 23, 2013

Category: Crime, Journalism, Military

Comments

122 Responses to “Ben Smith Wants You to Ignore This”

RS
June 24th, 2013 @ 11:18 am

The gratuitous “Free Kate” reference, does little to advance the debate. As for facts, we know this administration has used its powers to harrass law-abiding citizens who merely wish to exercise their rights. We know a program exists which sweeps up data. We are asked to trust the powers that be, to “trust us.” As I said in a different comment: Snowden is irrelevant to me. He may be a traitor, but that doesn’t mean that we should automatically accept as gospel everything the government says about the usurpation of rights, given its history of surpressing those rights in other contexts.
The Other McCain: Ben Smith Wants You to Ignore This | The Rio Norte Line
June 24th, 2013 @ 11:22 am

[…] Stacey McCain writes: […]
RS
June 24th, 2013 @ 11:25 am

Yes, but that was during the Bush Administration, so by definition it was evil.The current administraion would never stoop so low.
Pablo
June 24th, 2013 @ 11:35 am

Surely someone would be put on paid administrative leave for this today, once Obama found out about it from the media.
Bob Belvedere
June 24th, 2013 @ 11:38 am

‘Writs Of Assistance’, they called ’em in the Days Of The Dead White Male.
ComradeArthur
June 24th, 2013 @ 12:03 pm

RT @rsmccain: Generally, when liberals tell me to ignore something, I pay close attention to whatever they want me to ignore. http://t.co/c…
You can think what you wish about Mr. Snowden, but his choices of countries to visit troubles me | The Daley Gator
June 24th, 2013 @ 12:14 pm

[…] McCain asks, and I think, answers the hero vs traitor questions about Edward […]
Robin H
June 24th, 2013 @ 1:08 pm

The problem with all of this is that it was released at a time where we all think the government has overstepped its boundaries (IRS). I wonder what the reaction to this would have been had it been released a year ago? Maybe a yawn? Snowden has taken advantage of the timing. And what makes me very suspicious of him is his going to Hong Kong and now Ecuador? Via Russia? Was he already spying for them and this was a good way to get him out and get him some sympathy?
And the other problem with this is that it is all confidential information. The government can’t come out and tell us exactly what’s being collected, just like your physician can’t openly contradict something you say about him without disclosing personal information.
So who do we believe? Personally I don’t believe either one of them. When Snowden gave his first interview and said that this shouldn’t be about him, he made it all about him. And I certainly don’t believe that this administration would be able to control themselves when it comes to collecting information about us.
Dana
June 24th, 2013 @ 1:20 pm

Comparing this to #FreeKate assumes that those of us who do not trust the Obama Administration or the NSA program must, inter alia, want to declare Edward Snowden a hero and someone who ought not to be prosecuted. I’ve said it many times: I’m glad the information came out, because it exposes the Obama Administration, but I still think that Mr Snowden ought to get to share a cell with Bradley Manning.

That Mr Snowden and Mr Greenwald may have exaggerated things is absolutely possible, but that doesn’t mean that I particularly trust the Administration even if what they have said is the Lord’s truth.

Of course, given that some of the President’s minions have lied, under oath, about the program doesn’t give me much confidence that what they have said constitutes Gospel.
AmPowerBlog
June 24th, 2013 @ 1:51 pm

RT @rsmccain: Ben Smith Wants You to Ignore This http://t.co/cXaCHRaGhV | @AmPowerBlog @Stranahan @DanRiehl @instapundit @AceofSpadesHQ #tc…
Bob Belvedere
June 24th, 2013 @ 2:01 pm

Joseph Story’s commentaries on the Fourth Amendment:

§ 1895. This provision seems indispensable to the full enjoyment of the rights of personal security, personal liberty, and private property. It is little more. than the affirmance of a great constitutional doctrine of the common law. And its introduction into the amendments was doubtless occasioned by the strong sensibility excited, both in England and America, upon the subject of general warrants almost upon the eve of the American Revolution. Although special warrants upon complaints under oath, stating the crime, and the party by name, against whom the accusation is made, are the only legal warrants, upon which an arrest can be made according to the law of England;2 yet a practice had obtained in the secretaries’ office ever since the restoration, (grounded on some clauses in the acts for regulating the press,) of issuing general warrants to take up, without naming any persons in particular, the authors, printers, and publishers of such obscene, or seditious libels, as were particularly specified in the warrant. When these acts expired, in 1694, the same practice was continued in every reign, and under every administration, except the four last years of Queen Anne’s reign, down to the year 1763. The general warrants, so issued, in general terms authorized the officers to apprehend all persons suspected, without naming, or describing any person in special. In the year 1763, the legality of these general warrants was brought before the King’s Bench for solemn decision; and they were adjudged to be illegal, and void for uncertainty. A warrant, and the complaint, on which the same is founded, to be legal, must not only state the name of the party, but also the time, and place, and nature of the offence with reasonable certainty.

As Richard wrote ‘every single one of us has been and continues to be victimized by this’ because of the simple act of the data collection itself – that is the crime. Our e-mails, text messages, telephone calls, our Tweets, etc. are not public property. Depending on our agreement with the provider of the above services, they may be usable by the provider, but we have not signed any agreements with the government.
Da Tech Guy On DaRadio Blog » Blog Archive » …and Snowden’s flight is a Gift to the Obama Administration & MSM
June 24th, 2013 @ 3:35 pm

[…] case based on one of two descriptions of Snowden (Hero or Traitor) and the NSA program (Necessary security or Troubling to civil rights) Snowden’s decision to flee to some of the worst countries out […]
RichFader
June 24th, 2013 @ 3:42 pm

You can say Greenwald (in company with most of the journalistic profession) is full of crap, you can say Snowden is the straight Brad Manning with all that implies, and you can still then ask the question “Now that the possibility’s been raised, do I trust the same administration that’s using the IRS and Justice for partisan political purposes *not* to use the NSA likewise?” and answer it “Hell, no!”
Adjoran
June 24th, 2013 @ 3:43 pm

People claim not to believe Greenwald or to be defending Snowden, then turn around and behave as if every allegation those two America-hating leftist traitors have made is true.

Access to calling records held by your telephone service provider is not “wiretapping” and doesn’t even require a warrant, and hasn’t for a very long time. It’s even part of popular culture – how many times have you heard TV cops say, “You get a warrant for the house and car, I’ll dump the phones.”? You have no expectation of privacy in those records.

Greenwald has played the sympathetic chord that struck the paranoid strain in conservatives perfectly. Libertarians were already three-quarters crazy, that was easy.

Suckers.
Pablo
June 24th, 2013 @ 3:47 pm

Access to calling records held by your telephone service provider is not
“wiretapping” and doesn’t even require a warrant, and hasn’t for a very
long time.

That’s according to the same people who found abortion in the Bill of Rights but not the liberty to grow food on your own land, right?
thatMrGguy
June 24th, 2013 @ 4:17 pm

Ben Smith Wants You to Ignore This http://t.co/Gt2QHw1ks2
AmPowerBlog
June 24th, 2013 @ 5:33 pm

.@BuzzFeedBen Wants You to Ignore This http://t.co/BGwgRjNKMB via @RSMcCain #CyberTerrorism #Treason #Journalism
K-Bob
June 24th, 2013 @ 6:03 pm

No, that’s according to long-standing court rulings with regard to who owns the records of your calls.

Wiretapping was something they could request, with a warrant, after reviewing your telephone records. Pretty much always has been.
K-Bob
June 24th, 2013 @ 6:14 pm

Read Andy McCarthy’s piece on this. We have two different types of data: your “call logs” (metadata) and the content of an individual call. It’s longstanding law that you do not own the call logs. End of story. But you DO need a warrant to “listen in” on a call. THAT’s what wiretapping is.

Also, people need to remember that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t trump Articles 1 and 4. They go hand in hand, and are designed to contend with each other, depending on the level of tyranny involved. (Similarly, the SCOTUS wasn’t designed to be the final arbiter of Constitutional interpretation – contention among and between the branches and the states was built in).

In other words, the Fourth Amendment is no shield from being investigated, and the First and Fourth Articles are no grant of carte blanche to law enforcement to batter down your door whenever they feel like it.
Torqued
June 24th, 2013 @ 6:18 pm

1. I believe nothing the government says.
2. How many votes have been changed due to illegal snooping by ovomit and his merry band of commie criminals? Ever hear the words blackmail and extortion before?
3. I have an extensive list of traitorous that need expunging from American society.
bet0001970
June 24th, 2013 @ 6:18 pm

And this is why the collection of this information also treads on the 5th Amendment as well. To say there are no victims is ridiculous.

It’s getting tedious, constantly having to point out the obvious. Having to defend the Constitution. Everyone should defend it. And I can’t understand why the violations of our Constitution isn’t THE issue everyone is talking about.

Instead, it’s Snowden. If people actually knew how many “Snowdens” there were out there, nobody wouldn’t give a damn about him.
K-Bob
June 24th, 2013 @ 6:19 pm

Exactly. My very first comment on this was about Greenwald being the guy Snowden went to. Smelled fishy from the get go.

Also,barack LOVES this scandal, because while people are busy whining about data, their Republic is being sold down the river by Republicans for a price the tribe who sold Manhatten would laugh at.

We should deal with the stupid Amnesty bill first, Benghazi second, the I R S third, AHCA fourth, and NSA fifth, if that.
bet0001970
June 24th, 2013 @ 6:22 pm

Because those responsible officials have lied under oath and because what they are doing is, in fact, illegal. I already posted on this. If you want me to show you in greater detail exactly how it is illegal, I will be more than happy to send you an email.

McCain, just because you want everyone to agree with you on this…doesn’t mean they are going to do it. If you are so frustrated, maybe you should let it go.

And don’t start comparing people who demand that the law be upheld, to Free-Katers.
bet0001970
June 24th, 2013 @ 6:29 pm

Thank you. I’m tired of people here accusing me of calling Snowden a hero simply because I choose to defend the Constitution first and foremost. You would think that EVERYONE would do that.
K-Bob
June 24th, 2013 @ 6:29 pm

It’s not about trusting the government. It’s about allowing this so-called hero to derail the focus on barack’s serial predation on the Constitution, and on individuals.

NSA data didn’t kill the men in Benghazi, NSA data didn’t cause the I R S to slow-walk processing of conservative groups’ requests for 501c standing. NSA data were not behind wiretapping of AP reporters. NSA data didn’t cause the massive vote fraud in 2008 and 2012. NSA data are not behind the Fast and Furious sale of arms to foreign criminals and the death of US citizen(s) they caused. NSA didn’t decide to treat the Fort Hood shotter as workplace violence.

barack LOVES the NSA scandal, because it gets the left mad, hogs all the media attention, and lets him laugh while we should be prosecuting him for real offenses.
K-Bob
June 24th, 2013 @ 6:34 pm

You presume it’s not possible to expose a security process while lying about it.

Like those “stolen valor” guys, you can find a lot of details about which the average citizen knows nothing in their list of “credentials.” So it takes an actual expert to uncover them. You could fake being a soldier and expose real info about a secret operation at the same time.

This guy gets no free pass from me.
rsmccain
June 24th, 2013 @ 6:36 pm

RT @AmPowerBlog: .@BuzzFeedBen Wants You to Ignore This http://t.co/BGwgRjNKMB via @RSMcCain #CyberTerrorism #Treason #Journalism
K-Bob
June 24th, 2013 @ 6:39 pm

Go argue the specifics with Andy McCarthy if you want. He has also posed on this, and he’s got the specifics.

Overreach does not invalidate law enforcement. Never did, never will. It’s just overreach, it has to be treated as overreach, and the system need to be put back in balance, not destroyed.

We have a Fourth Amendment for a reason, but that reason is not the abrogation of law enforcement’s ability to investigate crime and acts of war.
Quartermaster
June 24th, 2013 @ 6:56 pm

This!
K-Bob
June 24th, 2013 @ 7:04 pm

Watering down the concept of “victim” in defense of one part of the Constitution while ignoring other parts is not productive.

We will have no republic if this immigration bill gets beyond the Senate. The NSA stuff comes much further down on any rational viewing of the problems we face today.
bet0001970
June 24th, 2013 @ 7:16 pm

NSA is not “law enforcement”. It’s an intelligence agency. You can call it overreach all you want. It’s still against the law. And this is the last time I’m going to explain this.

EO 12333 forbids NSA from collecting on US persons on US soil. They know this. So the FBI went in and got warrants. However, they didn’t use the warrants. The NSA did. Probably because the FBI doesn’t have the toys to collect on such a massive scale. Anyway, it’s a violation of 12333, so it’s totally illegal.

Now the warrants themselves violate the 4th Amendment because of specificity and probable cause. Now I understand that you may not want to hear any of this. But in this country the law, and more importantly, the Constitution is supposed to mean something.

The government and law enforcement don’t get a free pass on breaking the law simply because they are the government. Not if we are a nation of laws.
tnted96
June 24th, 2013 @ 7:16 pm

Ben Smith Wants You to Ignore This http://t.co/PdVmtkK3OW
K-Bob
June 24th, 2013 @ 7:27 pm

You can pretend to be the only one “explaining” things all you want. Clearly the part where they broke the law is overreach. It remains overreach despite your protestations. NSA–as an intelligence agency–exists to support the Constitutional obligations in Article 1 and 4, to defend the citizens. As such, they support both law enforcement, and national security.

It doesn’t exist as some independent entity with no ties to anything else.

This particular bit of overreach, just as some of Hoover’s FBI actions were overreach, does not therefore mandate the elimination of the NSA (or whatever it is you folks seem to be demanding). Nor does it excuse the bizarre, hyper-focus on something anyone who has been paying attention in the last decade already knew was happening.

Meanwhile the Republic is slipping away in the Senate, right this very minute, and people want to scream bloody murder over this latest in a long, long line of overreach in law enforcement (and to address your quibble, associated agencies, such as the NSA).

I agree with McCain on this one. It shouldn’t be surprising that I agree with Mark Levin on it, and Andy McCarthy, as well.
bet0001970
June 24th, 2013 @ 7:40 pm

Obviously I’m not the only explaining this. However, you seem fixated on MY comments, since you’ve been responding more to mine than anyone else on this post.

I NEVER said eliminate the NSA. Point out where I’ve said that. I’m talking about holding people criminally accountable.

Clearly the part where they broke the law, is criminal. What you’re essentially saying is that Nixon committed overreach. If that was case, then why was a pardon necessary? Believe it or not, we are allowed to hold government officials criminally accountable.

You are entitled to your opinion. Just as I and the others here are entitled to ours. But if we don’t protect the Constitution, then our Republic won’t be worth saving.

That is the point of all of this.
Pablo
June 24th, 2013 @ 7:44 pm

Personally, I find that having a government that considers its citizens to be adversaries as a problem worth some attention. That manifests itself in any number of areas including both an out of control NSA and a legislature pushing shamnesty.
Pablo
June 24th, 2013 @ 7:48 pm

It’s longstanding law that you do not own the call logs.

The government doesn’t own them either. If they’re not my property, they’re my phone providers property, and if the government needs a look at them, then they should get a frigging warrant, and not of the general sort. Something in compliance with the 4th, perhaps.
Pablo
June 24th, 2013 @ 7:52 pm

Who do you think decided that there’s a right to an abortion but not to grow wheat on your own land? Reagan?
Richard McEnroe
June 24th, 2013 @ 8:03 pm

Court rulings. You know, like Dredd Scott. They’re judges, not prophets, no matter what authority they arrogate unto themselves.
bet0001970
June 24th, 2013 @ 8:08 pm

Yeah. That was back in the day. You would either have been prosecuted or banished to some shithole in Alaska. Now apparently…they promote you to DC or put you in charge of Utah.
Da Tech Guy On DaRadio Blog » Blog Archive » Chicago Values and the NSA
June 24th, 2013 @ 9:00 pm

[…] Robert Stacy McCain […]
TheHeadJerk
June 24th, 2013 @ 9:09 pm

Welcome to America in 2013, where Hope and Change have transmogrified into Fear and Loathing http://t.co/kgYoJPJgPJ
leeleemunster
June 24th, 2013 @ 9:09 pm

RT @TheHeadJerk: Welcome to America in 2013, where Hope and Change have transmogrified into Fear and Loathing http://t.co/kgYoJPJgPJ
leeleemunster
June 24th, 2013 @ 9:10 pm

Ben Smith Wants You to Ignore This http://t.co/5r3X2uMt2C
libertyftw
June 24th, 2013 @ 11:00 pm

The fact that Greenwald’s or Snowden’s motivation or character is even being discussed shows how far actual journalism has fallen.

Your main concern should be about the *accuracy* of the leaks, the destruction of the 4th amendment, and the facts yet to be uncovered. That’s it.

My favorite part is your claim that the NSA wiretapping is so far a victimless crime. That’s a bold and likely incorrect claim — particularly from someone usually so skeptical of government power.

The hilarious irony of that half-baked point is this: in order to determine if there were actual victims in the NSA wiretapping scandal, we’d need ANOTHER whistleblower to come out and reveal that information. Are you going to call *him* a traitor, too?

/bangs head on desk
Montjoie
June 25th, 2013 @ 12:50 am

The Fourth Amendment does not say you only have the right to privacy if the government is prosecuting you. It says “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”. The NSA is violating that right.
K-Bob
June 25th, 2013 @ 4:49 am

Let’s not get delusions of grandeur here. This has never been a major, contentious point in law. So don’t promote it to the level of a Dredd Scott ruling. It’s a long-standing fact of law; something we have LOTS of in this country, much of which came from British law.

Courts also say that a cop can bust down your door if he hears a blood curdling scream. I don’t think we want to lump that in with Dredd Scott either.
K-Bob
June 25th, 2013 @ 4:50 am

So?
K-Bob
June 25th, 2013 @ 4:55 am

Then work to get that law passed. But you’ll have a major uphill battle to do it, and we have more important problems pressing.
K-Bob
June 25th, 2013 @ 4:59 am

Of course it’s worth attention: in all of the much more important areas where it’s going on, not down in some argument over a long-standing concept related to how warrants and subpoenas are issued.

Focusing on this is like worrying over field conditions in the big game, when what you really need to figure out is how to win with no quarterback. Sure, it’s a factor. In isolation, it’s actually damned important. But it is wayyyy down on the list of things we need to deal with NOW to save the Republic.
K-Bob
June 25th, 2013 @ 5:05 am

You put a lot of comments in the thread, why make something about getting replies?

You seem to be confusing the term “overreach” with “perfectly legal.”

Overreaching the Fourth Amendment, even when done illegally, does not invalidate the tools given to our law enforcement. For example, prosecutors who lose their jobs due to prosecutorial abuse don’t end the role of prosecutor. They just get replaced by ones who we hope won’t overreach.