"Snowden’s delusions of grandeur are evaporating rapidly. There is no ticker tape parade, no open-armed welcome.
One former psychologist for the CIA profiled Snowden as a narcissist looking for the big win. “He inflated his importance. Period. He thought he could change the world, that the responsibility was on his shoulders and his alone. He didn’t want to go through proper channels or work hard enough to get in a position to actually make change. He believed – and may still believe – this will bring him enormous attention and adoration. That’s what he wants.”
The psychologist predicted Snowden will live the rest of his life lonely, with regrets, “This is how things usually go for these guys. They build up their importance to lofty levels and fantasize about how only they can save things. They come out with these big revelations, then nothing happens.”
The psychologist predicted, “Snowden is in for a lonely, bitter life. He’ll likely blame the government for ruining it because he is not the kind of person who will take responsibility. Defectors usually spend their lives wishing they had done things differently.”
He then quipped, “The good news is Ecuador is nice this time of year…”
PRISM NSA leaker Edward Snowden’s gross miscalculation | Washington Times Communities
WEST PALM BEACH, FL, June 29, 2013 – When Edward Snowden elected to release classified information to the world, he apparently saw himself as a Lone Ranger or Robin Hood-type hero, saving the world from big government eavesdropping.
Snowden presented himself as a reluctant champion, stepping forward only as a last resort, forced by a sense of duty to save the world.
He said he came forward to protect “basic liberties for people around the world” and that he had an “obligation to help free people from oppression.”
Although Snowden admitted he knew he could end up in jail, he clearly took precautions to avoid incarceration. Not only did he flee to Hong Kong to make his disclosures, he also quickly announced plans to seek asylum in Iceland.
Snowden also couched his revelations in public relations campaign wording, cloaking him as a white knight, trying to win supporters and deflect his wrong-doing.
Based on his actions and statements, it appears Snowden expected adulation and acceptance. He expected open armed welcomes from countries other than the United States and overwhelming American thanks for his disclosures.
Snowden was wrong.
Now resident in a Moscow airport, Snowden is a man without a country. He has supporters, certainly, but the groundswell is heading in the opposite direction, questioning at least Snowden’s motivations and methods, even if his sentiment was righteous.
To recap, Snowden is the man who willfully and intentionally disclosed classified information to the world. According to Snowden himself, he told employers at the NSA he was taking time off to seek medial treatment for epilepsy, told his girlfriend he was going to be away for a few weeks, then fled to Hong Kong to leak information to the UK-based Guardian newspaper.
Snowden gave the Guardian actual classified documents and provided details on the PRISM program, which reportedly monitors internet and telephone communication of U.S. citizens as part of counter-terrorism efforts.
PRISM was originally authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court under George Bush and continued under President Obama.
Snowden’s revelations initially garnered supporters, and some continue to back him. They laud Snowden for the courage to stand up to the government. He is not, they say, a traitor but a patriot for wanting to stop the U.S. government from spying on citizens.
While many still believe PRISM is a bad program and support Snowden for his disclosures, there are increasing questions about his motivations, methods and mental makeup.
For example, Snowden has repeatedly said he does not want the story to be about him. In his June 6 interview with the Guardian, he said, “I don’t want public attention because I don’t want the story to be about me. I want it to be about what the U.S. government is doing.”
Yet he did not take the path of anonymous source. Instead, the Guardian revealed Snowden’s name at his request. He said, “I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong,”
Canadian criminal-profile expert Jim van Allen noted that this type of behavior smacks of a need to be noticed. According to Allen, “He wants people to notice him. The fact this guy allowed himself to be named leads to a notoriety aspect of his personality.”
Moreover, it seems Snowden now has nowhere to go.
Snowden initially went to Hong Kong, which appears well-calculated on the surface. He likely hoped the Chinese would welcome him and help protect him from U.S. authorities. Oddly, Snowden said he chose Hong Kong – part of the People’s Republic of China – for its ““strong tradition of free speech.” It was also an odd choice because Hong Kong has an extradition agreement with the United States and works closely with the U.S. on law enforcement issues.
China did protect Snowden from the U.S., however, refusing Washington’s requests to extradite him.
But then the Chinese let him go.
Snowden went to Russia and is now in limbo in a Moscow airport while he waits for his next move. Although Russia also refused to extradite him, President Putin has avoided offering Snowden asylum and sparking a diplomatic disaster with the United States.
Most likely, both the Chinese and Russian intelligence services met with Snowden and decided he lacks valuable information. Neither country would care about the PRISM program itself – although they may be interested in the technical details of data collection – and with no other real secrets, Snowden is not worth the diplomatic capital.
Iceland, where Snowden has originally said he would seek asylum, has demurred on reaching out to the whistleblower. Diplomats in Iceland explain Snowden must physically be in-country to apply for asylum, but has said little else on the case.
Luckily for Snowden, President Correa of Ecuador is willing to use Snowden to pick a fight with the United States. Correa has suggested he will grant asylum to Snowden provided he can get to Ecuador to request it, as it did for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.
For Ecuador, the issue is not Snowden but the United States. Correa is likely giddy at the prospect of poking Washington and burnishing his socialist credentials in Latin America.
Even the United States government has lost enthusiasm for Snowden. The press has moved on to other stories, and President Obama undercut his importance by saying, “I’m not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker,” and that he had not asked Putin for Snowden because he is not going to enact diplomatic “wheeling and dealing.”
Snowden’s delusions of grandeur are evaporating rapidly. There is no ticker tape parade, no open-armed welcome.
One former psychologist for the CIA profiled Snowden as a narcissist looking for the big win. “He inflated his importance. Period. He thought he could change the world, that the responsibility was on his shoulders and his alone. He didn’t want to go through proper channels or work hard enough to get in a position to actually make change. He believed – and may still believe – this will bring him enormous attention and adoration. That’s what he wants.”
The psychologist predicted Snowden will live the rest of his life lonely, with regrets, “This is how things usually go for these guys. They build up their importance to lofty levels and fantasize about how only they can save things. They come out with these big revelations, then nothing happens.”
The psychologist predicted, “Snowden is in for a lonely, bitter life. He’ll likely blame the government for ruining it because he is not the kind of person who will take responsibility. Defectors usually spend their lives wishing they had done things differently.”
He then quipped, “The good news is Ecuador is nice this time of year…”
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
An automobile of the embassy of Equador appears at Sheremetyevo Airport where an Aeroflot flight from Hong Kong carrying Edward Snowden arrived on Sunday. Photograph: Novoderezhkin Anton/Novoderezhkin Anton/ITAR-TASS Photo/Corbis
No offense to Iceland, but Latin America is where the fugitive leaker Edward Snowden should settle.
He apparently has the same idea. News reports suggest that he is in Moscow awaiting transport to Cuba, Venezuela, and/or Ecuador. A Facebook post suggests Bolivia may have granted Snowden asylum. Nothing has been heard from Nicaragua, Peru, Brazil, or Argentina, but any or all might also welcome him.
Any country that grants asylum to Snowden risks retaliation from the United States, including diplomatic isolation and costly trade sanctions. Several don't seem to care. The fact that Latin America has become the favored refuge for a United States citizen accused of treason and espionage is an eye-popping reminder of how fully the continent has emerged from Washington's shadow.
"Latin America is not gone, and we want to keep it," President Richard Nixon told aides as he was pressing the covert operation that brought down the Chilean government in 1973. A decade later, the Reagan administration was fighting proxy wars in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala. In the 1980s the US Army invaded two Caribbean countries, Grenada and Panama, to depose leaders who had defied Washington.
During the 1990s the United States sought to impose the "Washington Consensus" on Latin American governments. It embodied what Latin Americans call "neo-liberal" principles: budget cuts, privatization, deregulation of business, and incentives for foreign companies. This campaign sparked bitter resistance and ultimately collapsed.
In spite of these military, political, and economic assaults – or perhaps because of them – much of Latin America has become profoundly dissatisfied with the made-in-USA model. Some of the continent's most popular leaders rose to power by denouncing the "Washington Consensus" and pledging to pull their countries out of the United States orbit.
Because President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela was the most flamboyant of these defiant leaders, some outsiders may have expected that following his death, the region would return to its traditional state of submission. In fact, not just a handful of leaders but huge populations in Latin America have decided that they wish for more independence from Washington.
This is vital for Snowden because it reduces the chances that a sudden change of government could mean his extradition. If he can make it to Latin America, he will never lack for friends or supporters.
One would be the American-educated President Rafael Correa of Ecuador, an avowed socialist and admirer of Fidel Castro. In 2009 Correa forced the United States to abandon its military base in his country, despite repeated protests from Washington. He has already granted a form of asylum to Wiki-leaks founder Julian Assange, who is living inside the Ecuadoran embassy in London. Having publicly welcomed Assange to "the club of the persecuted," he would presumably embrace Snowden as another member.
Ecuador, with its long coastline, majestic mountains, and lush rain forest, is an ideal place for such a club to assemble. It is more than twice the size of Iceland and considerably warmer. Its people, not just its president, are known for gentle hospitality.
From Ecuador, Snowden could travel widely. Everything from the splendor of Bolivia's Lake Titicaca to the vibrancy of teeming Caracas awaits him. With luck, he might even be able to visit Guatemala in September to attend the grand festival being planned for the 100th anniversary of the birth of Jacobo Arbenz, the reformist president who the United States deposed in 1954.
Snowden would have much to celebrate upon landing in Latin America, and much to anticipate. He might not be truly free, however. Some in Washington have raised his case, like those of Assange and Corporal Bradley Manning, into major national security tests. They might press for a "rendition" in which Snowden would be snatched and brought home for trial.
Two breathtakingly different possible lives await Snowden. If the United States has its way, he will probably end up with something like the long prison sentence that is being prepared for Corporal Manning. If not, he could spend years in an Ecuadoran beach town like Playas, where the lobster is cheap, the sunsets are spectacular, and internet connections could keep him on the front line of the information war for years.
Read the whole story
· · · ·
Susan Rice said Edward Snowden's NSA leaks were something 'we will get through, as we've gotten through all the issues like this in the past'. Photograph: Devra Berkowitz/AP
The incoming US national security adviser has dismissed claims that the surveillance whistleblowerEdward Snowden has weakened the president, Barack Obama, and damaged American foreign policy.
Susan Rice, the outgoing US ambassador to the United Nations, said it was too soon to judge whether there would be any long-term repercussions from the intelligence leaks by the former National Security Agency contractor, which were published by the Guardian.
Rice rejected suggestions that Snowden's disclosures had made Obama a lame duck, damaged his political base and hurt US foreign policy, saying: "I think that's bunk."
"I don't think the diplomatic consequences, at least as they are foreseeable now, are that significant," she added.
"I think the United States of America is and will remain the most influential, powerful and important country in the world, the largest economy, and the largest military, [with] a network of alliances, values that are universally respected."
Chuck Hagel, the defence secretary, and General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, have called Snowden's leaks a serious breach that damaged national security. Hagel said on Thursday an assessment of the damage was under way.
"There will always be difficult issues of the day and frankly this period is not particularly unique," Rice said. "I think the Snowden thing is obviously something that we will get through, as we've gotten through all the issues like this in the past."
The US has charged Snowden with espionage and demanded his extradition, but Hong Kong said the request was legally flawed and let him fly to Moscow and the Russians have so far refused.
Rice's comments came after it emerged on Friday that the plan to spirit Snowden to sanctuary in Latin America appeared to be unravelling, amid tension between Ecuador's government and Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, who is holed up in the country's London embassy.
The president, Rafael Correa, halted an effort to help Snowden leave Russia amid concern that Assange was usurping the role of the Ecuadoran government, according to leaked diplomatic correspondence obtained by the Spanish-language broadcaster Univision and shared with the Wall Street Journal.
Correa declared that the safe conduct pass issued by Ecuador's London consul – in collaboration with Assange – was unauthorised, after other Ecuadorean diplomats privately said the WikiLeaks founder could be perceived as "running the show".
Amid signs Quito was cooling with Snowden and irritated with Assange, Correa declared invalid a temporary travel document which could have helped extract Snowden from his reported location in Moscow.
Read the whole story
· · ·
The former Senate majority leader suggested that controversies over surveillance, the IRS and Benghazi are distractions.
Reuters
In an item yesterday, I praised the considerable accomplishments and reflectiveness of statesman George Mitchell. I also noted that I often disagree with his politics without giving an example. A statement of his that touched on the NSA controversy captures the differences in our perspectives.
Mitchell spoke for a lot of people in this exchange:
Moderator: George, as someone who has weathered many a government crisis ... are things like the IRS controversy, the NSA operation where they're monitoring ... connections that people are making with others, things like Benghazi, do you think that when the press spends a lot of time on these things, are they distractions, or are they things that really continue to undermine the public trust?
George Mitchell: They will undermine the public trust, of course, but in fact, they're minor, secondary issues that have been given dramatic attention by both an anxious opposition and, no criticism, a media which regards much of its task as creating controversy where it doesn't exist and exacerbating it where it does.
I know he spoke for a lot of people because immediately after he spoke those words the audience erupted in applause. But I think his characterization of the NSA controversy is exactly wrong.
The surveillance state is not a minor, secondary issue: the NSA's ability to spy on American citizens cuts right to the heart of the relationship between the government and its citizens; their doing so in secret, while occasionally lying to Congress in its capacity as an oversight body, and misleading the public generally, cuts to the heart of whether our national security policy will be made in a fashion befitting a democratic republic, or by an executive branch that last seized this much autonomy and power in the era when the abuses uncovered by the Church Committee were perpetrated (though many of them wouldn't be discovered until many years later).
Technology is fundamentally changing the nature of the surveillance state, and a robust public debate about how much privacy Americans ought to have, as a matter of Constitutional law, prudent policy, and morality, could scarcely be more important. It is a major issue of the first order, and a moment's historical reflection is enough to conjure up the numerous instances in which giving surveillance authorities too much power with too little oversight led to horrific abuses. Insofar as Mitchell's assessment of the NSA controversy is rooted in trust of the establishment, it is misplaced, a lesson that Americans ought to have learned a half dozen abuses ago.
Read the whole story
· · ·
Keith Alexander, the general in charge of the National Security Agency, told ABC News on Sunday that intelligence revelations by fugitive contractor Edward Snowden had "caused irreversible and significant damage to our country and to our allies."
But no worries, President Obama seems to think it's no big deal. "I have not called [Chinese] President Xi personally or [Russian] President Putin personally" about the case, Mr. Obama said on Thursday in Senegal.
And why not? "Number one, I shouldn't have to," Mr. Obama said. "Number two, we've got a whole lot of business that we do with China and Russia, and I'm not going to have one case of a suspect who we're trying to extradite suddenly being elevated to the point where I've got to start doing wheeling and dealing and trading on a whole host of other issues." Oh, and he doesn't want to "be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker."
That's a revealing answer, and not in a good way. Mr. Obama has invested precious diplomatic capital trying to "reset" relations with Russia and personalize relations with China's leaders, including this month with Mr. Xi in Palm Springs. Hanging with dictators can't be Mr. Obama's idea of a good time, but if there's a point to the exercise it's precisely so he can pick up the phone and intercede with Vlad and Jinping over this kind of issue.
It's worth wondering whether Mr. Obama didn't make the calls because he feared a personal rebuke, or he wants to downplay the national-security and diplomatic humiliation, or he thinks the Snowden affair is beneath his dignity and best handled by consular officials filling out paperwork—or because he really thinks Gen. Alexander is exaggerating the damage Mr. Snowden has done.
If it's the latter, Mr. Obama could do the public a service by confirming that Mr. Snowden hasn't put the crown jewels of U.S. intelligence in foreign hands. Especially because that's not the view emerging from other government sources.
The Washington Post reports that U.S. analysts fear Mr. Snowden stole much more than he's disclosed. "They think he copied so much stuff—that almost everything that place does, he has," a former government official said.
Several reports quote intelligence sources as saying that al Qaeda and terrorist groups have gained insight into how to avoid NSA detection. The Russian and Chinese intelligence services almost certainly copied whatever Mr. Snowden hauled with him to Hong Kong and Moscow. Nearby on these pages, journalist Edward Jay Epstein connects a few dots and suggests that Mr. Snowden took his consultant job with plans to steal and that he may have had help. In short, there is much more to this debacle than we know so far.
Meantime, Mr. Obama seems to think the only way to force Mr. Snowden's extradition is to make concessions to the Chinese and Russians, rather than demand his return and force Moscow and Beijing to pay a price for failing to comply. Perhaps it's because this Administration rarely seems to exact any price for the misbehavior of other countries that our diplomatic demarches are now treated with such open disdain.
This is why Mr. Snowden remains in a Moscow airport terminal, making demands (via his father) of the terms the U.S. must meet before he returns home. This is also how Russia merrily arms Bashar Assad's forces in Syria, and how Mr. Assad unleashes chemical weapons on his own people, and how Iran marches toward an atomic bomb—all with little concern for what the U.S. might do.
A version of this article appeared June 29, 2013, on page A16 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The President and the 'Hacker'.
Read the whole story
· ·
Keith Alexander, the general in charge of the National Security Agency, told ABC News on Sunday that intelligence revelations by fugitive contractor Edward Snowden had "caused irreversible and significant damage to our country and to our allies."
