The following was sent to me.
I post it in its entirety because of the pertinent nature of the content as continued hostility between the USA and Russia is in the news and because of its clarification and challenge to various tropes in the media.
I do not know what is true in this matter - whether the allegations in this article are true, as opposed to allegations in the movie and other portrayals. If what is implied in this excerpt are true then it seems to portent a more conflicted future. The following is an extended excerpt from a new book “How America Lost Its Secrets: Edward Snowden, the Man and the Theft,” by Edward Jay Epstein.
"Of all the lies that Edward Snowden
has told since his massive theft of secrets from the National Security
Agency and his journey to Russia via Hong Kong in 2013, none is more
provocative than the claim that he never intended to engage in
espionage, and was only a “whistleblower” seeking to expose the
overreach of NSA’s information gathering. With the clock ticking on Mr.
Snowden’s chance of a pardon, now is a good time to review what we have
learned about his real mission.
Mr. Snowden’s theft of America’s
most closely guarded communication secrets occurred in May 2013,
according to the criminal complaint filed against him by federal
prosecutors the following month. At the time Mr. Snowden was a
29-year-old technologist working as an analyst-in-training for the
consulting firm of Booz Allen Hamilton at the regional base of the
National Security Agency (NSA) in Oahu, Hawaii. On May 20, only some six
weeks after his job there began, he failed to show up for work,
emailing his supervisor that he was at the hospital being tested for
epilepsy.
This excuse was untrue. Mr. Snowden was not even in
Hawaii. He was in Hong Kong. He had flown there with a cache of secret
data that he had stolen from the NSA.
This
was not the only lie Mr. Snowden told. As became clear during my
investigation over the past three years, nearly every element of the
narrative Mr. Snowden has provided, which reached its final iteration in
Oliver Stone’s 2016 movie, “Snowden,” is demonstrably false.
This narrative began soon after Mr. Snowden arrived in Hong Kong, where he arranged to meet with Laura Poitras, a Berlin-based documentary filmmaker, and Glenn Greenwald,
a Brazil-based blogger for the Guardian. Both journalists were longtime
critics of NSA surveillance with whom Mr. Snowden (under the alias
Citizen Four) had been in contact for four months.
To provide
them with scoops discrediting NSA operations, Mr. Snowden culled several
thousand documents out of his huge cache of stolen material, including
two explosive documents he asked them to use in their initial stories.
One was the now-famous secret order from America’s Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act court requiring Verizon to turn over to the NSA its
billing records for its phone users in the U.S. The other was an NSA
slide presentation detailing its ability to intercept communications of
non-American users of the internet via a joint program with the FBI
code-named Prism.
These documents were published in 2013 on June 5
and 6, followed by a video in which he identified himself as the leaker
and a whistleblower.
At the heart of Mr. Snowden’s narrative was
his claim that while he may have incidentally “touched” other data in
his search of NSA files, he took only documents that exposed the
malfeasance of the NSA and gave all of them to journalists.
Yet
even as Mr. Snowden’s narrative was taking hold in the public realm, a
secret damage assessment done by the NSA and Pentagon told a very
different story. According to a unanimous report
declassified on Dec. 22 by the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, the investigation showed that Mr. Snowden had “removed”
(not merely touched) 1.5 million documents. That huge number was based
on, among other evidence, electronic logs that recorded the selection,
copying and moving of documents.
The
number of purloined documents is more than what NSA officials were
willing to say in 2013 about the removal of data, possibly because the
House committee had the benefit of the Pentagon’s more-extensive
investigation. But even just taking into account the material that Mr.
Snowden handed over to journalists, the December House report concluded
that he compromised “secrets that protect American troops overseas and
secrets that provide vital defenses against terrorists and
nation-states.” These were, the report said, “merely the tip of the
iceberg.”
The Pentagon’s investigation during 2013 and 2014
employed hundreds of military-intelligence officers, working around the
clock, to review all 1.5 million documents. Most had nothing to do with
domestic surveillance or whistle blowing. They were mainly military
secrets, as Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
testified before the House Armed Services Committee on March 6, 2014.
It
was not the quantity of Mr. Snowden’s theft but the quality that was
most telling. Mr. Snowden’s theft put documents at risk that could
reveal the NSA’s Level 3 tool kit—a reference to documents containing
the NSA’s most-important sources and methods. Since the agency was
created in 1952, Russia and other adversary nations had been trying to
penetrate its Level-3 secrets without great success.
Yet it was
precisely these secrets that Mr. Snowden changed jobs to steal. In an
interview in Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post on June 15, 2013, he
said he sought to work on a Booz Allen contract at the CIA, even at a
cut in pay, because it gave him access to secret lists of computers that
the NSA was tapping into around the world.
He evidently succeeded. In a 2014 interview with Vanity Fair, Richard Ledgett,
the NSA executive who headed the damage-assessment team, described one
lengthy document taken by Mr. Snowden that, if it fell into the wrong
hands, would provide a “road map” to what targets abroad the NSA was,
and was not, covering. It contained the requests made by the 17 U.S.
services in the so-called Intelligence Community for NSA interceptions
abroad.
On
June 23, less than two weeks after Mr. Snowden released the video that
helped present his narrative, he left Hong Kong and flew to Moscow,
where he received protection by the Russian government. In much of the
media coverage that followed, the ultimate destination of these stolen
secrets was fogged over—if not totally obscured from the public—by the
unverified claims that Mr. Snowden was spoon feeding to handpicked
journalists.
In his narrative, Mr. Snowden always claims that he
was a conscientious “whistleblower” who turned over all the stolen NSA
material to journalists in Hong Kong. He has insisted he had no
intention of defecting to Russia but was on his way to Latin America
when he was trapped in Russia by the U.S. government in an attempt to
demonize him.
For example, in October 2014, he told the editor of
the Nation, “I’m in exile. My government revoked my passport
intentionally to leave me exiled” and “chose to keep me in Russia.”
According to Mr. Snowden, the U.S. government accomplished this
entrapment by suspending his passport while he was in midair after he
departed Hong Kong on June 23, thus forcing him into the hands of
President Vladimir Putin’s regime.
None of this is true.
The State Department invalidated Mr. Snowden’s passport while he was
still in Hong Kong, not after he left for Moscow on June 23. The “Consul
General-Hong Kong confirmed that Hong Kong authorities were notified
that Mr. Snowden’s passport was revoked June 22,” according to the State
Department’s senior watch officer, as reported by ABC news on June 23,
2013.
Mr. Snowden could not have been unaware of the
government’s pursuit of him, since the criminal complaint against him,
which was filed June 14, had been headline news in Hong Kong. That the
U.S. acted against him while he was still in Hong Kong is of great
importance to the timeline because it points to the direct involvement
of Aeroflot,
an airline which the Russian government effectively controls. Aeroflot
bypassed its normal procedures to allow Mr. Snowden to board the Moscow
flight—even though he had neither a valid passport nor a Russian visa,
as his newly assigned lawyer, Anatoly Kucherena, said at a press conference in Russia on July 12, 2013.
By
falsely claiming his passport was invalidated after the plane departed
Hong Kong—instead of before he left—Mr. Snowden hoped to conceal this
extraordinary waiver. The Russian government further revealed its
helping hand, judging by a report in Russia’s Izvestia newspaper when,
on arrival, Mr. Snowden was taken off the plane by a security team in a
“special operation.”
Nor was it any kind of accident. Vladimir
Putin personally authorized this assistance after Mr. Snowden met with
Russian officials in Hong Kong, as Mr. Putin admitted in a televised
press conference on Sept. 2, 2013.
To provide a smokescreen for
Mr. Snowden’s escape from Hong Kong, WikiLeaks (an organization that the
Obama administration asserted to be a tool of Russian intelligence
after the hacking of Democratic Party leaders’ email in 2016) booked a
dozen or more diversionary flight reservations to other destinations for
Mr. Snowden.
WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange also dispatched Sarah Harrison,
his deputy at WikiLeaks, to fly to Hong Kong to pay Mr. Snowden’s
expenses and escort him to Moscow. In short, Mr. Snowden’s arrival in
Moscow was neither accidental nor the work of the U.S. government.
Mr.
Snowden’s own narrative asserts that he came to Russia not only
empty-handed but without access to any of the stolen material. He wrote
in Vanity Fair in 2014 that he had destroyed all of it before arriving
in Moscow—the very data that he went to such lengths to steal a few
weeks earlier in Hawaii.
As it turns out, this claim is also
untrue. It is belied by two Kremlin insiders who were in a position to
know what Mr. Snowden actually brought with him to Moscow. One of them, Frants Klintsevich,
was the first deputy chairman of the defense and security committee of
the Duma (Russia’s parliament) at the time of Mr. Snowden’s defection.
“Let’s be frank,” Mr. Klintsevich said in a taped interview with NPR in
June 2016, “Mr. Snowden did share intelligence. This is what security
services do.”
The other insider was Anatoly Kucherena, a
well-connected Moscow lawyer and Mr. Putin’s friend. Mr. Kucherena
served as the intermediary between Mr. Snowden and Russian authorities.
On Sept. 23, 2013, Mr. Kucherena gave a long interview to Sophie Shevardnadze, a journalist for Russia Today television.
When
Ms. Shevardnadze directly asked him if Mr. Snowden had given all the
documents he had taken from the NSA to journalists in Hong Kong, Mr.
Kucherena said Mr. Snowden had only given “some” of the NSA’s documents
in his possession to journalists in Hong Kong. “So he [Mr. Snowden] does
have some materials that haven’t been made public yet?” Ms.
Shevardnadze asked. “Certainly,” Mr. Kucherena answered.
This
disclosure filled in a crucial piece of the puzzle. It explained why NSA
documents that Mr. Snowden had copied, but had not given to the
journalists in Hong Kong—such as the embarrassing revelation about the
NSA targeting the cellphone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel—continued to surface after Mr. Snowden arrived in Moscow, along with NSA documents released via WikiLeaks.
As
this was a critical discrepancy in Mr. Snowden’s narrative, I went to
Moscow in October 2015 to see Mr. Kucherena. During our conversation,
Mr. Kucherena confirmed that his interview with Ms. Shevardnadze was
accurate, and that Mr. Snowden had brought secret material with him to
Moscow.
Mr. Snowden’s narrative also includes the assertion that
he was neither debriefed by nor even met with any Russian government
official after he arrived in Moscow. This part of the narrative runs
counter to findings of U.S. intelligence. According to the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report, Mr. Snowden, since he
arrived in Moscow, “has had, and continues to have, contact with
Russian intelligence services.” This finding is consistent with Russian
debriefing practices, as described by the ex-KGB officers with whom I
spoke in Moscow.
Mr. Snowden also publicly claimed in
Moscow in December 2013 to have secrets in his head, including “access
to every target, every active operation. Full lists of them.” Could Mr.
Snowden’s Russian hosts ignore such an opportunity after Mr. Putin had
authorized his exfiltration to Moscow? Mr. Snowden, with no exit
options, was in the palm of their hands. Under such circumstances, as
Mr. Klintsevich pointed out in his June NPR interview: “If there’s a
possibility to get information, they [the Russian intelligence services]
will get it.”
The transfer of state secrets from Mr. Snowden to
Russia did not occur in a vacuum. The intelligence war did not end with
the termination of the Cold War; it shifted to cyberspace. Even if
Russia could not match the NSA’s state-of-the-art sensors, computers and
productive partnerships with the cipher services of Britain, Israel,
Germany and other allies, it could nullify the U.S. agency’s edge by
obtaining its sources and methods from even a single contractor with
access to Level 3 documents.
Russian intelligence uses a single
umbrella term to cover anyone who delivers it secret intelligence.
Whether a person acted out of idealistic motives, sold information for
money or remained clueless of the role he or she played in the transfer
of secrets—the provider of secret data is considered an “espionage
source.” By any measure, it is a job description that fits Mr. Snowden."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fable-of-edward-snowden-1483143143
