Edward Snowden, American Hero

[seemslikeadream]

Snowden seeks temporary asylum in Russia
Anna Arutunyan and Doug Stanglin, USA TODAY 10:47 a.m. EDT July 12, 2013
NSA leaker Edward Snowden spoke at Moscow airport during a meeting with human rights groups.

MOSCOW — Edward Snowden, the alleged National Security Agency leaker, said Friday at a meeting with human rights groups that he is asking for temporary asylum in Russia while he attempts to win permanent political asylum in a Latin American country.

Snowden expressed his intentions during a meeting with representatives of 13 human rights groups.

According to Tatyana Lokshina of Human Rights Watch, Snowden seeks to stay in Russia because he "can't fly to Latin America yet," RT.com reports.

Snowden, who fled to Hong Kong after leaking information on NSA's worldwide surveillance and data-gathering networks, has applied for asylum in more than two dozen countries. Bolivia and Venezuelan have offered to accept him.

Lawmaker Vyacheslav Nikonov, chairman of the Russian state Duma also confirmed Snowden's intentions after he and a dozen other prominent officials and activists met with Snowden in the transit zone of Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport, where he has been marooned since June 23.

Also at the meeting were Sergei Nikitin, head of Amnesty International Russia, Vladimir Lukin, Russia's presidential human rights ombudsman, and attorney Genri Reznik.

Snowden said he is ready to ask Russia for political asylum and that he "does not intend to harm the U.S. in the future," according to Nikonov.

"No actions I take or plan are meant to harm the U.S. .. I want the U.S. to succeed," Snowden said, RT.comr reports.

Dmitry Peskov, the spokesman for Putin, told Russian news agencies after the announcement Friday that Russia has not received a new bid for asylum from Snowden and that Putin would continue to insist that Snowden stop leaking information.

Snowden says the government in Western Europe and North American are acting outside the law by preventing him from traveling and called on the rights activists to intervene with Putin on his behalf, Lokshina said.

Snowden in a statement before the meeting thathe had invited the groups "for a brief statement and discussion regarding the next steps forward in my situation."

The emailed invitation from edsnowden@lavabit.com also states: "I have been extremely fortunate to enjoy and accept many offers of support and asylum from brave countries around the world. These nations have my gratitude, and I hope to travel to each of them to extend my personal thanks to their people and leaders."

In the Invitation Snowden claims that the U.S. government is trying to "deny my right to seek and enjoy this asylum under Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The scale of threatening behavior is without precedent."


Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport, where National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden is said to be staying in the airport's transit zone.(Photo: Sergei Grits, AP)
Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin, said that the Kremlin has not been invited to the meeting.

Snowden arrived in Russia on June 23 but has not been seen in public despite being believed to be in the airport's transit zone while bidding for asylum. Friday's developments therefore offer an opportunity to confirm that Snowden is still in Russia.

Snowden is thought to be seeking refuge in a Latin American country, with Venezuela the current front-runner even though President Nicolas Maduro has said that no formal application has been made.

The American Civil LIberties Union, meanwhile, issued a statement Thursday asserting that the former defense contractor "has serious claims for asylum and has a legitimate right to seek asylum irrespective of the human rights record of the country that he ultimately ends up in."

The statement charges that the USA has interfered with Snowden's right to seek asylum by revoking his passport and appears to have prevented him from receiving fair and impartial consideration of his application in many of the countries to which he has applied.

Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU human rights program, and Chandra Bhatnaqar, senior attorney for the progam, also warn that by infringing on Snowden's right to asylum, "U.S. actions also create the risk of providing cover for other countries to crack down on whistleblowers and deny asylum to individuals who have exposed illegal activity or human rights violations.

"That's a very dangerous precedent to set," the statement says.

Follow the Guardian's live blog of Snowden's meeting with human rights groups

[Joao]

Statement by Edward Snowden to human rights groups at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport.

Hello. My name is Ed Snowden. A little over one month ago, I had family, a home in paradise, and I lived in great comfort. I also had the capability without any warrant to search for, seize, and read your communications. Anyone's communications at any time. That is the power to change people's fates.

It is also a serious violation of the law. The 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution of my country, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and numerous statutes and treaties forbid such systems of massive, pervasive surveillance. While the US Constitution marks these programs as illegal, my government argues that secret court rulings, which the world is not permitted to see, somehow legitimize an illegal affair. These rulings simply corrupt the most basic notion of justice – that it must be seen to be done. The immoral cannot be made moral through the use of secret law.

I believe in the principle declared at Nuremberg in 1945: "Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring."

Accordingly, I did what I believed right and began a campaign to correct this wrongdoing. I did not seek to enrich myself. I did not seek to sell US secrets. I did not partner with any foreign government to guarantee my safety. Instead, I took what I knew to the public, so what affects all of us can be discussed by all of us in the light of day, and I asked the world for justice.

That moral decision to tell the public about spying that affects all of us has been costly, but it was the right thing to do and I have no regrets.

Since that time, the government and intelligence services of the United States of America have attempted to make an example of me, a warning to all others who might speak out as I have. I have been made stateless and hounded for my act of political expression. The United States Government has placed me on no-fly lists. It demanded Hong Kong return me outside of the framework of its laws, in direct violation of the principle of non-refoulement – the Law of Nations. It has threatened with sanctions countries who would stand up for my human rights and the UN asylum system. It has even taken the unprecedented step of ordering military allies to ground a Latin American president's plane in search for a political refugee. These dangerous escalations represent a threat not just to the dignity of Latin America, but to the basic rights shared by every person, every nation, to live free from persecution, and to seek and enjoy asylum.

Yet even in the face of this historically disproportionate aggression, countries around the world have offered support and asylum. These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless. By refusing to compromise their principles in the face of intimidation, they have earned the respect of the world. It is my intention to travel to each of these countries to extend my personal thanks to their people and leaders.

I announce today my formal acceptance of all offers of support or asylum I have been extended and all others that may be offered in the future. With, for example, the grant of asylum provided by Venezuela's President Maduro, my asylee status is now formal, and no state has a basis by which to limit or interfere with my right to enjoy that asylum. As we have seen, however, some governments in Western European and North American states have demonstrated a willingness to act outside the law, and this behavior persists today. This unlawful threat makes it impossible for me to travel to Latin America and enjoy the asylum granted there in accordance with our shared rights.

This willingness by powerful states to act extra-legally represents a threat to all of us, and must not be allowed to succeed. Accordingly, I ask for your assistance in requesting guarantees of safe passage from the relevant nations in securing my travel to Latin America, as well as requesting asylum in Russia until such time as these states accede to law and my legal travel is permitted. I will be submitting my request to Russia today, and hope it will be accepted favorably.

[seemslikeadream]

Snowden case: comments from head of Amnesty's Moscow office after meeting whistleblower today

Posted: 12 July 2013

‘What he has disclosed is patently in the public interest and as a whistleblower his actions were justified’ - Sergei Nikitin

Speaking after taking part in a meeting with the US whistleblower Edward Snowden at Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport earlier this afternoon, Sergei Nikitin, Head of Amnesty International's Moscow office, said:

“Amnesty International was pleased to reiterate our support for Edward Snowden in person.

“We will continue to pressure governments to ensure his rights are respected - this includes the unassailable right to claim asylum wherever he may choose.

“What he has disclosed is patently in the public interest and as a whistleblower his actions were justified. He has exposed unlawful sweeping surveillance programmes that unquestionably interfere with an individual’s right to privacy.

“States that attempt to stop a person from revealing such unlawful behaviour are flouting international law. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right.

“Instead of addressing or even owning up to these blatant breaches, the US government is more intent on persecuting him. Attempts to pressure governments to block his efforts to seek asylum are deplorable.”

Notes to editors:
Sergei Nikitin is available for interview from Moscow.

Widney Brown, Amnesty International’s Senior Director of International Law and Policy is available for interview from London.

[seemslikeadream]

New Snowden revelation shows Skype may be privacy's biggest enemy
By Preston Gralla
July 12, 2013 11:41 AM
New information made available by Edward Snowden reveals that Skype's turning over video and audio information to the NSA has skyrocketed in the past year, by a factor of three. Given that Skype already helps the Chinese government snoop on its citizens, this makes Skype one of the world's biggest privacy invaders.

The information about Skype was published yesterday by the Guardian, in a report that details just how closely Microsoft has collaborated with NSA and other U.S. intelligence services via the Prism program. The report says, among other things, that Microsoft has helped Prism gain easier access to SkyDrive, that it has helped the NSA crack its Outlook.com encryption, and that it provides emails in pre-encrypted form to the NSA.

The article devotes a great deal of attention to details about Skype's cooperation with Prism. Skype began cooperating with Prism, in February, 2011, before it was bought by Microsoft. In May, 2011, Microsoft signed a deal to buy Skype, and by October of that year, the purchase was complete.

After Microsoft bought Skype, the cooperation with Prism increased dramatically. The Guardian reports:

The NSA has devoted substantial efforts in the last two years to work with Microsoft to ensure increased access to Skype, which has an estimated 663 million global users.

One document boasts that Prism monitoring of Skype video production has roughly tripled since a new capability was added on 14 July 2012. "The audio portions of these sessions have been processed correctly all along, but without the accompanying video. Now, analysts will have the complete 'picture'," it says.
Skype had previously said that it wasn't able to wiretap its users, says the ACLU's Chris Soghoian. Skype's claim clearly isn't true. Soghoian told the Guardian.

"In the past, Skype made affirmative promises to users about their inability to perform wiretaps. It's hard to square Microsoft's secret collaboration with the NSA with its high-profile efforts to compete on privacy with Google."
This is the second privacy scandal that Skype has been involved in. In March of this year, a computer-science graduate student at the University of New Mexico revealed that Skype has cooperated with the Chinese government to spy on Chinese citizens, gather information about their political beliefs, and censor what they can say to one another.

People in China have to use a special version of Skype, called TOM-Skype, a joint venture between Microsoft and Tom Online, a Chinese wireless Internet company. As of March, 2013, TOM-Skype had nearly 96 million users.

The graduate student, Jeffrey Knockel, cracked the encryption that Skype uses to hide what information it's gathering from Chinese citizens. He found that TOM-Skype servers upload keyword lists to every Skype user's machine. Skype monitors every message sent and received by that machine, and scans them for words in the keyword list. If it finds one, it sends the entire message in which the word is contained to TOM-Skype servers. It also sends "the account's username, time and date of transmission, and whether the message was sent or received by the user," according to Bloomberg Business Week. Sometimes, the message is also blocked from being sent, not allowing people to communicate with one another about certain topics. The keyword list is constantly updated.

What happens when all those messages and all that information get sent to the TOM-Skype servers? Most likely, it's sent to Chinese spy agencies and police departments.

Skype's privacy policy claims: "Skype is committed to respecting your privacy and the confidentiality of your personal data, traffic data and communications content." Clearly, that's as far from the truth as can be. Be aware of that the next time you use the service, especially when communicating with someone overseas.

[Nordic]

Seeing this picture, and a couple of others from the last day or so, shows how tiny this guy is.

Bradley Manning is also incredibly tiny.

What's up with that? These teeny little guys with big brass balls.

[coffin_dodger]

Greenwald: "The US Government Should Be On Its Knees Every Day Praying That Nothing Happens To Snowden" 07/13/2013

Edward Snowden may be America's persona most non grata in the entire world, but he has an insurance policy against "accidents": a treasure trove of supposedly damaging secrets about the US that will hit the public domain if something were to happen to the 30 year old whistleblower. A trove is so damaging that according to Glenn Greenwald, Snowden "poses more of a threat to the U.S. than anyone in the country’s history."

more at link:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-13/greenwald-us-government-should-be-its-knees-every-day-praying-nothing-happens-snowde

It makes me wonder if Snowden is sitting on some shit that the US just ain't ready to hear yet. Maybe the conditioning runs so deep that the info will be generally dismissed as fantasy. Someone, somewhere will be questioning their own beliefs and collating evidence to back the undisclosed claims. Heavy-duty insurance with a twist.

[Nordic]

So let me get this straight. I'm confused. Snowden is sitting on information that, if he releases it, will totally fuck up the United States. But he's sitting on it because if he doesn't, he has no leverage and the US might kill him? But he's ALREADY in the process of being fucked by the United States - i.e. they want to fuck him up and will the first chance he gets.

So why is he sitting on this again?

Because he doesn't WANT to fuck up the U.S.?

Or is it because it's not really about him, but about his loved ones still in the U.S?

I'm having trouble making sense of this.

Why say you're sitting on something, when you're a whistleblower, if you're not gonna blow the whistle on it?

It's kind of infuriating. Then again I'm not in his shoes.

[Hunter]

New Snowden revelation shows Skype may be privacy's biggest enemy
By Preston Gralla
July 12, 2013 11:41 AM
New information made available by Edward Snowden reveals that Skype's turning over video and audio information to the NSA has skyrocketed in the past year, by a factor of three. Given that Skype already helps the Chinese government snoop on its citizens, this makes Skype one of the world's biggest privacy invaders.

The information about Skype was published yesterday by the Guardian, in a report that details just how closely Microsoft has collaborated with NSA and other U.S. intelligence services via the Prism program. The report says, among other things, that Microsoft has helped Prism gain easier access to SkyDrive, that it has helped the NSA crack its Outlook.com encryption, and that it provides emails in pre-encrypted form to the NSA.

The article devotes a great deal of attention to details about Skype's cooperation with Prism. Skype began cooperating with Prism, in February, 2011, before it was bought by Microsoft. In May, 2011, Microsoft signed a deal to buy Skype, and by October of that year, the purchase was complete.

After Microsoft bought Skype, the cooperation with Prism increased dramatically. The Guardian reports:

The NSA has devoted substantial efforts in the last two years to work with Microsoft to ensure increased access to Skype, which has an estimated 663 million global users.

One document boasts that Prism monitoring of Skype video production has roughly tripled since a new capability was added on 14 July 2012. "The audio portions of these sessions have been processed correctly all along, but without the accompanying video. Now, analysts will have the complete 'picture'," it says.
Skype had previously said that it wasn't able to wiretap its users, says the ACLU's Chris Soghoian. Skype's claim clearly isn't true. Soghoian told the Guardian.

"In the past, Skype made affirmative promises to users about their inability to perform wiretaps. It's hard to square Microsoft's secret collaboration with the NSA with its high-profile efforts to compete on privacy with Google."
This is the second privacy scandal that Skype has been involved in. In March of this year, a computer-science graduate student at the University of New Mexico revealed that Skype has cooperated with the Chinese government to spy on Chinese citizens, gather information about their political beliefs, and censor what they can say to one another.

People in China have to use a special version of Skype, called TOM-Skype, a joint venture between Microsoft and Tom Online, a Chinese wireless Internet company. As of March, 2013, TOM-Skype had nearly 96 million users.

The graduate student, Jeffrey Knockel, cracked the encryption that Skype uses to hide what information it's gathering from Chinese citizens. He found that TOM-Skype servers upload keyword lists to every Skype user's machine. Skype monitors every message sent and received by that machine, and scans them for words in the keyword list. If it finds one, it sends the entire message in which the word is contained to TOM-Skype servers. It also sends "the account's username, time and date of transmission, and whether the message was sent or received by the user," according to Bloomberg Business Week. Sometimes, the message is also blocked from being sent, not allowing people to communicate with one another about certain topics. The keyword list is constantly updated.

What happens when all those messages and all that information get sent to the TOM-Skype servers? Most likely, it's sent to Chinese spy agencies and police departments.

Skype's privacy policy claims: "Skype is committed to respecting your privacy and the confidentiality of your personal data, traffic data and communications content." Clearly, that's as far from the truth as can be. Be aware of that the next time you use the service, especially when communicating with someone overseas.

So this isnt far from what I predicted, they are tapping in to our video cameras in some way or another and if they are doing this on skype I am certain they can activate the cameras on your laptops and smart TVs too, THIS is the information that Snowden is sitting on and using as leverage by saying look if you harm me this information is all set to be released the day I die or am captured and it will result in massive blowblack throughout the entire world. For the first time in my life I really am starting to feel like we are getting close to another world war type event. I really do and I rarely think in terms of doom and gloom but something similar to a world war is on the horizon. I pity people with young children and the world that they will be inheriting as wonderful as technology could make the future for all of humanity it is very clear that it is instead going to be used in all the wrong ways by all the wrong people and it is really our fault, all of us, we allowed it, it happened on our watch, where are the revolutionaries of past eras and generations, oh where has the spirit if true and real revolution gone AND I AM NOT TALKING VIOLENCE I AM TALKING ABOUT using our voices, our pens and paper and most importantly our sheer numbers, to demand change, we outnumber them hundreds of thousands to one, perhaps even millions to one. And yet this small group of elites control us and do whatever the fuck they want and we basically do nothing about it but pass the time discussing it until the next interesting story gets our attention, and yes I am guilty as the rest.

[Hunter]

So Snowden is sitting on info that poses the greatest threat in the history of the world, what in the fuck. Holy shit this is getting nuts my friends, all I want to do is play with my cat and grow my fucking tomatoes in peace, is that too much to ask you tyrannical fucks?


You do realize that all we tin foil hatters are no longer being laughed at and mocked anymore, its the other way around now, we were right all along AND TRUST ME WHEN I TELL YOU THAT DOESNT MAKE ME HAPPY I NEVER WANTED TO BE RIGHT THAT THINGS WERE THIS FUCKED UP.

[Hunter]

The only other thing I can think of is like SLAD said they are blackmailing everyone and the intell community is actually running the entire country an possibly the world OR perhaps he has proof that we are in contact with ETs they live among us and are our overlords, fuck anything is possible these days who the fuck knows.

[Hunter]

So let me get this straight. I'm confused. Snowden is sitting on information that, if he releases it, will totally fuck up the United States. But he's sitting on it because if he doesn't, he has no leverage and the US might kill him? But he's ALREADY in the process of being fucked by the United States - i.e. they want to fuck him up and will the first chance he gets.

So why is he sitting on this again?

Because he doesn't WANT to fuck up the U.S.?

Or is it because it's not really about him, but about his loved ones still in the U.S?

I'm having trouble making sense of this.

Why say you're sitting on something, when you're a whistleblower, if you're not gonna blow the whistle on it?

It's kind of infuriating. Then again I'm not in his shoes.

I would imagine this is BIG TIME STUFF DUDE and not something Snowden is going to take lightly and release it willy nilly until hi safety is 100% ensured, what this all tells me is that this is no longer about cell phones and emails, this is big time time earth shattering stuff that could and may very well lead to world war 3. this is just no longer a small matter, things just got very big, very important, very life changing for all of us and most importantly very fucking SCARY AND UNNERVING.

He is sitting on it for leverage and insurance, he has it all set up that if he is killed her captured the info will be released immediately by a third party who I assume is probably wikileaks who has an encrypted copy of it and a key would be all they would need to break it and release it and and Snowden has that hidden which can be found if he is killed or captured, it is info that is unlike anything in the HISTORY OF THRE COUNTRY PERHAPS THE WORLD.


I am sure once he gets perma asylum somewhere, and is living safely, protected, comfortable and happy,he will then release it but he cant now because it is his only insurance and leverage to protect his life and safety.

It is actually a brilliant move IF SNOWDEN is for real and is who he claims to be,

[coffin_dodger]

Hunter said:

this is big time time earth shattering stuff that could and may very well lead to world war 3

I'm not sure about that - but what I do know is that the best kept secrets are always in the last place you('re allowed to) look.

[seemslikeadream]

Published on Monday, July 15, 2013 by Common Dreams
Snowden Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
Swedish professor nominates whistleblower for heroically revealing extent of U.S. government surveillance

- Andrea Germanos, staff writer

Edward Snowden has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his "heroic effort" in revealing the extent of the U.S. government's vast sureillance programs. (Photo: campact/cc/flickr)
A Swedish professor has nominated NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden for the Nobel Peace Prize for revealing the extent of the NSA's vast surveillance program "in a heroic effort at great personal cost."

In his letter to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, Stefan Svallfors, a professor of sociology at Sweden's Umeå University, added that awarding the prize to Snowden would "also help to save the Nobel Peace Prize from the disrepute that incurred by the hasty and ill-conceived decision to award U.S. President Barack Obama 2009 award."

In revealing the extent of the NSA's extensive spying, "conducted in contravention of national laws and international agreements," Snowden "has helped to make the world a little better and safer," the professor writes. He "has also shown that individuals can stand up for fundamental rights and freedoms."

Svallfors tweeted a copy of the letter for the Nobel committee on Saturday, and a translation of his letter to the Nobel committee was published online by the UK's Daily Mail and RT on Monday.

"I did what I believed right and began a campaign to correct this wrongdoing," Snowden told representatives from international human rights groups on Friday at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport.

"I did not seek to enrich myself," he said. "I did not seek to sell US secrets. I did not partner with any foreign government to guarantee my safety. Instead, I took what I knew to the public, so what affects all of us can be discussed by all of us in the light of day, and I asked the world for justice."

According to the criteria listed on the official site of the Nobel Prize, the nomination of Snowden is considered valid because Svallfors is a professor of a social science, though it may have to be considered for 2014 because the February deadline for 2013 nominees has passed.

The names of Nobel laureates are announced in October.

The award ceremy for the Nobel Peace Prize takes place in Oslo, Norway, a country where Snowden made an unsuccessful bid for asylum.

Snowden joins two other previous nominees for the prize who have been demonized for revealing U.S. wrongdoing: Julian Assange and Bradley Manning.

[seemslikeadream]

What Happens When We Actually Catch Edward Snowden?
By David Pozen
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 9:56 AM

The United States is pressing hard to get hold of National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden. But if and when Snowden is apprehended, what then? This question deserves attention, too, because the denouement to this drama may be unpleasant not just for Snowden, but for his captors as well.

The downside for Snowden is straightforward. He faces prison time in this country. Even if his disclosures were well-intentioned or exposed any misconduct, no court has allowed a classified information leaker to escape liability on those grounds.

In the past, leakers typically got off easy. The vast majority were never charged with any crime. The first media leaker convicted under the Espionage Act, Samuel Morison, received a two-year sentence, served eight months, and was later pardoned. However, the Obama administration has taken leak enforcement to a new level. And Snowden’s security breach was so remarkable that his sentence could be much stiffer.

If the case law is on its side, why would the government have reason to worry about prosecuting Snowden?

One source of concern is the jury. Snowden says his leaks revealed an unconstitutional and undemocratic system of surveillance. Polls suggest that many Americans agree. Even if the judge instructs the jury to set aside its views on the rightness or wrongness of Snowden’s acts, there is no guarantee it will. Jurors might be tempted to acquit Snowden, not because they believe he is factually innocent but because they believe he was morally justified.

It has happened before—in England. In 1985, Clive Ponting looked destined for prison after leaking Ministry of Defence documents that called into question the official story of the Falklands War. Ponting fessed up to being the source. The jury voted to acquit him nevertheless, and in so doing helped catalyze a movement to liberalize the laws against unauthorized disclosures.

Additional concerns relate to the trial. Snowden would no doubt obtain high-powered lawyers. Protesters would ring the courthouse. Journalists would camp out inside. As proceedings dragged on for months, the spotlight would remain on the N.S.A.’s spying and the administration’s pursuit of leakers. Instead of fading into obscurity, the Snowden affair would continue to grab headlines, and thus to undermine the White House’s ability to shape political discourse.

A trial could turn out to be much more than a distraction: It could be a focal point for domestic and international outrage. From the executive branch’s institutional perspective, the greatest danger posed by the Snowden case is not to any particular program. It is to the credibility of the secrecy system, and at one remove the ideal of our government as a force for good.

To do their jobs, the U.S. intelligence agencies must be able to keep secrets. But even more fundamentally, they must be able to sustain a democratic mandate. They need Congress to give them the money and the discretion to engage in clandestine activities. They need the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to approve their domestic eavesdropping. They need technology companies and allied governments to cooperate with them. They need voters to elect presidents and legislators who support their mission. They need talented young people to want to sign up.

Snowden’s leaks have at least provisionally compromised public trust in these agencies, as well as programs like PRISM and Boundless Informant. (Pause to savor that label—Boundless Informant. The very title of the program condemns it.) A criminal case against Snowden risks deepening and entrenching this alienation. The case would invite even more scrutiny, and potentially unprecedented judicial scrutiny, of the N.S.A.’s practices. It would feed the perception that this administration is determined to stifle dissent. Above all, in the figure of Snowden, it would give skeptics worldwide a concrete symbol around which to rally.

Because it is so secretive, the N.S.A. must tend carefully to its legitimacy. Conspiracy theories and Big Brother fears always swirl at the margins of respectable opinion, threatening to go mainstream. A rogue leaker is a serious problem for the agency’s short-term intelligence operations. A rogue leaker who comes to be seen by a large number of Americans as a persecuted truth-teller is a serious problem for its long-term political viability.

More broadly, Snowden’s case may clash with certain foreign policy goals. The United States often wants other countries’ dissidents to be able to find refuge abroad; this is a longstanding plank of its human rights agenda. The United States also wants illiberal regimes to tolerate online expression that challenges their authority; this is the core of its developing Internet freedom agenda.

Snowden’s prosecution may limit our soft power to lead and persuade in these areas. Of course, U.S. officials could emphasize that Snowden is different, that he’s not a courageous activist but a reckless criminal. But that is what the repressive governments say about their prisoners, too.

These concerns might seem abstract in comparison to the vividness of Snowden’s transgressions and the concreteness of his revelations, the quiddity of those four laptops and the PowerPoint slides. And so they are. That does not make them any less significant.

Against these costs, the benefits from prosecuting Snowden are no less speculative. If allowing Snowden to remain abroad enhanced his ability to spill secrets, there would be an obvious reason for the U.S. government to want to nab him as quickly as possible. It seems increasingly clear, however, that the government has no chance of securing Snowden’s stash. In addition to the Guardian and the Washington Post, WikiLeaks reportedly was given the files. The Chinese and Russian intelligence services may have acquired them. Unknown others may have still more copies.

The documents Snowden took with him, in short, are never coming back. They are a sunk cost for the government. Prosecuting Snowden can’t reduce that cost and, by inflaming his associates, might even accelerate the process of full public disclosure.

Yet if incapacitating Snowden won’t do any direct good for national security, what about setting an example for potential future leakers? Wouldn’t some of them be scared off by seeing Snowden behind bars? Maybe, but that is not the right deterrence question to ask. The relevant question now is, what is the marginal deterrence value of prosecuting Snowden over and above offering him a plea deal (with a low enough sentence to entice him back) or hounding him into effective exile in a country like Venezuela (which has offered him asylum)?

Not much, possibly. A long prison term is a terrible fate. But even a short prison term would scare any rational person, and exile is a profound punishment as well. Indeed, it is an ancient response to offenses that are viewed as betraying one’s community.

The United States has invested a lot of time, effort, and political capital into trying to apprehend Snowden. Those efforts have gone a long way toward limiting his options. The more the U.S. government continues to insist that nothing short of immediate extradition is acceptable, the more it invites the perception that its diplomacy was a failure rather than a success.

A plea deal or an asylum arrangement would frustrate almost everyone. It wouldn’t satisfy those who are appalled by Snowden’s actions and wish to see a spectacular challenge to U.S. rules and institutions met with the full force of the criminal justice system. It would equally disappoint those who think Snowden deserves a hero’s welcome home.

We are long past the time for ideal solutions, however. If the U.S. government can’t win in this matter, maybe it ought to think about cutting its losses.

Leaks from Edward Snowden focus attention on NSA director Keith Alexander

WRITTEN BY Max Ehrenfreund MONDAY, JULY 15, 1:00 PM E-mail the writer
The secret documents describing U.S. surveillance operations that Edward Snowden gave to journalists have focused new attention on the National Security Agency and its director, Gen. Keith Alexander. Alexander has worked tirelessly since taking charge of the agency in 2005 to expand its capabilities:
In his eight years at the helm of the country’s electronic surveillance agency, Alexander, 61, has quietly presided over a revolution in the government’s ability to scoop up information in the name of national security. And, as he did in Iraq, Alexander has pushed hard for everything he can get: tools, resources and the legal authority to collect and store vast quantities of raw information on American and foreign communications.

His successes have won accolades from political leaders of both parties as well as from counterterrorism and intelligence professionals who say the NSA chief’s efforts have helped foil dozens of terrorist attacks. His approach also has drawn attack from civil rights groups and a bipartisan group of lawmakers. One Democrat who confronted Alexander at a congressional hearing last month accused the NSA of crossing a line by collecting the cellphone records of millions of Americans.

“What authorization gave you the grounds for acquiring my cellphone data?” demanded Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), waving his mobile phone at the four-star general. . .

As portrayed by supporters, Alexander is animated by a spymaster’s awareness of serious, overlapping threats arrayed against the United States. They include foreign and homegrown terrorists. They also include a host of adversaries who are constantly probing the country’s cyberdefenses, looking for opportunities to steal secrets or unleash mayhem by shutting down critical infrastructure. Like many national security officials of his generation, Alexander’s sensibilities were shaped by a series of painful intelligence lapses leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks.

To some of Alexander’s most vociferous critics, Snowden’s disclosures confirm their image of an agency and a director so enamored of technological prowess that they have sacrificed privacy rights.

“He is absolutely obsessed and completely driven to take it all, whenever possible,” said Thomas Drake, a former NSA official and whistleblower. The continuation of Alexander’s policies, Drake said, would result in the “complete evisceration of our civil liberties.”

Alexander frequently points out that collection programs are subject to oversight by Congress as well as the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, although the proceedings of both bodies are shrouded in secrecy. But even his defenders say Alexander’s aggressiveness has sometimes taken him to the outer edge of his legal authority.

Some in Congress complain that Alexander’s NSA is sometimes slow to inform the oversight committees of problems, particularly when the agency’s eavesdroppers inadvertently pick up communications that fall outside the NSA’s legal mandates. Others are uncomfortable with the extraordinarily broad powers vested in the NSA chief. In 2010, he became the first head of U.S. Cyber Command, set up to defend Defense Department networks against hackers and, when authorized, conduct attacks on adversaries. Pentagon officials and Alexander say the command’s mission is also to defend the nation against cyberattacks.

“He is the only man in the land that can promote a problem by virtue of his intelligence hat and then promote a solution by virtue of his military hat,” said one former Pentagon official, voicing a concern that the lines governing the two authorities are not clearly demarcated and that Alexander can evade effective public oversight as a result.
Ellen Nakashima and Joby Warrick
Snowden, a former contractor at the NSA, said Friday he plans to apply for asylum in Russia and hopes eventually to travel to Latin America. He is wanted in the United States on criminal charges after he copied material from NSA databases:
Glenn Greenwald, a columnist with The Guardian newspaper who first reported on the intelligence leaks, told The Associated Press that disclosure of the information in the documents “would allow somebody who read them to know exactly how the NSA does what it does, which would in turn allow them to evade that surveillance or replicate it.”

He said the “literally thousands of documents” taken by Snowden constitute “basically the instruction manual for how the NSA is built.”

“In order to take documents with him that proved that what he was saying was true he had to take ones that included very sensitive, detailed blueprints of how the NSA does what they do,” the journalist said Sunday in a Rio de Janeiro hotel room. He said the interview was taking place about four hours after his last interaction with Snowden.

Greenwald said he believes the disclosure of the information in the documents would not prove harmful to Americans or their national security, but that Snowden has insisted they not be made public.

“I think it would be harmful to the U.S. government, as they perceive their own interests, if the details of those programs were revealed,” he said.

He has previously said the documents have been encrypted to help ensure their safekeeping.
Associated Press

Journalist Glenn Greenwald says NSA leaker Edward Snowden has documents that detail what the NSA does and how it works. (Associated Press)

Journalist Sheila Weller attacks Greenwald for his relationship with Snowden:
Most disconcertingly, Snowden’s assertions – especially those made through his sponsor/mouthpiece, “journalist” Glenn Greenwald — seem more like threats, even blackmail, than exhortations to the “conversation” about government overreach that he claims to want to start.

“Snowden has enough information to cause harm to the U.S. government in a single minute than any other person has ever had. The U.S. government should be on its knees every day begging that nothing happens to Snowden, because if something does happen to him, all the information will be revealed and it could be its worse nightmare,” Greenwald said the other day, outdoing even his own previous arrogant rhetoric.
Sheila Weller
Snowden’s personal situation has been more widely covered than the surveillance programs themselves. Not only are the programs complex, but a comprehensive, accurate description of them remains unavailable:
Amid the cascading disclosures about National Security Agency surveillance programs, the top lawyer in the U.S. intelligence community opened his remarks at a rare public appearance last week with a lament about how much of the information being spilled was wrong.

“A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on,” said Robert Litt, citing a line often attributed to Mark Twain. “Unfortunately, there’s been a lot of misinformation that’s come out about these programs.”

The remark by Litt, general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, was aimed at news organizations. But details that have emerged from the exposure of hundreds of pages of previously classified NSA documents indicate that public assertions about these programs by senior U.S. officials have also often been misleading, erroneous or simply false. . .

A remark by Litt’s boss, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., has perhaps drawn the most attention. Asked during a congressional hearing in March whether the NSA collected data on millions of Americans, Clapper replied, “No, sir.”

U.S. officials have cited a variety of factors to explain the discrepancies, including the challenge of speaking publicly and definitively about programs that remain classified and involve procedures and technical systems that are highly complex. . .

Beyond inadvertent missteps, however, an examination of public statements over a period of years suggests that officials have often relied on legalistic parsing and carefully hedged characterizations in discussing the NSA’s collection of communications.

Obama’s assurances have hinged, for example, on a term — targeting — that has a specific meaning for U.S. spy agencies that would elude most ordinary citizens.

“What I can say unequivocally is that if you are a U.S. person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls and the NSA cannot target your e-mails,” Obama said in his June 17 interview on PBS’s “Charlie Rose Show.”

But even if it is not allowed to target U.S. citizens, the NSA has significant latitude to collect and keep the contents of e-mails and other communications of U.S. citizens that are swept up as part of the agency’s court-approved monitoring of a target overseas.

The law allows the NSA to examine such messages and share them with other agencies if it determines that the information contained is evidence of a crime, conveys a serious threat or is necessary to understand foreign intelligence.
Greg Miller

[seemslikeadream]

Email exchange between Edward Snowden and former GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey
"I believe you have done the right thing in exposing what I regard as massive violation of the United States Constitution"

Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 16 July 2013 14.12 EDT
Jump to comments (177)
Former two-term GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey of New Hampshire emailed Edward Snowden yesterday [emphasis added]:


Mr. Snowden,

Provided you have not leaked information that would put in harms way any intelligence agent, I believe you have done the right thing in exposing what I regard as massive violation of the United States Constitution.

Having served in the United States Senate for twelve years as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services Committee and the Judiciary Committee, I think I have a good grounding to reach my conclusion.

I wish you well in your efforts to secure asylum and encourage you to persevere.

Kindly acknowledge this message, so that I will know it reached you.

Regards,
Gordon J. Humphrey
Former United States Senator
New Hampshire

After I contacted Sen. Humphrey to confirm its authenticity, he wrote to me [emphasis added]:

Mr. Greenwald,

Yes. It was I who sent the email message to Edward Snowden, thanking him for exposing astonishing violations of the US Constitution and encouraging him to persevere in the search for asylum.

To my knowledge, Mr. Snowden has disclosed only the existence of a program and not details that would place any person in harm's way. I regard him as a courageous whistle-blower.

I object to the monumentally disproportionate campaign being waged by the U.S. Government against Edward Snowden, while no effort is being made to identify, remove from office and bring to justice those officials who have abused power, seriously and repeatedly violating the Constitution of the United States and the rights of millions of unsuspecting citizens.

Americans concerned about the growing arrogance of our government and its increasingly menacing nature should be working to help Mr. Snowden find asylum. Former Members of Congress, especially, should step forward and speak out.

Regards,
Gordon Humphrey

Snowden's reply to Sen. Humphrey:


Mr. Humphrey,

Thank you for your words of support. I only wish more of our lawmakers shared your principles - the actions I've taken would not have been necessary.

The media has distorted my actions and intentions to distract from the substance of Constitutional violations and instead focus on personalities. It seems they believe every modern narrative requires a bad guy. Perhaps it does. Perhaps, in such times, loving one's country means being hated by its government.

If history proves that be so, I will not shy from that hatred. I will not hesitate to wear those charges of villainy for the rest of my life as a civic duty, allowing those governing few who dared not do so themselves to use me as an excuse to right these wrongs.

My intention, which I outlined when this began, is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them. I remain committed to that. Though reporters and officials may never believe it, I have not provided any information that would harm our people - agent or not - and I have no intention to do so.

Further, no intelligence service - not even our own - has the capacity to compromise the secrets I continue to protect. While it has not been reported in the media, one of my specializations was to teach our people at DIA how to keep such information from being compromised even in the highest threat counter-intelligence environments (i.e. China).

You may rest easy knowing I cannot be coerced into revealing that information, even under torture.

With my thanks for your service to the nation we both love,

Edward Snowden

11 'Leakers' Charged With Espionage
Background
What Sets Edward Snowden Apart From Other Alleged Leakers?
Story by Larisa Epatko -- Edward Snowden is the eighth leaker to be charged with espionage under the Obama administration. Before 2010, only 3 previous leakers had ever been saddled with charges under the 1917 Espionage Act.
The Justice Department has not addressed the question of why this administration has repeatedly turned to the espionage statutues except to say it's not a deliberate policy of going all out, it's just how things have turned out, said Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. Aftergood has his own theories to explain the increase in espionage charges, including that it's simply become easier to identify the leaker. "More and more of our communications leave easily accessible electronic footprints, whether it's email or phone records or downloads of documents on classified networks. It is easier than ever to track them to their source," he said. Read the full article.

Below, you can explore the history of leakers, from the Pentagon Papers to Wikileaks.

SUPPORT PROVIDED BY:

Daniel Ellsberg
June 1971 || Richard Nixon Administration
Daniel Ellsberg worked on a top secret study of U.S. decision making in Vietnam. In 1969, he photocopied the 7,000 page study and gave it to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In 1971 he gave it to the New York Times, the Washington Post and 17 other newspapers. The New York Times published what would be the first of nine excerpts of the study, known as the Pentagon Papers, on Sunday, June 13, 1971. Read the indictment

Outcome: DISMISSED
Ellsberg's case (which carried a possible sentence of 115 years) was dismissed in 1973 on grounds of governmental misconduct against him, including illegal wiretapping. This misconduct was included in the impeachment proceedings against President Nixon.

Espionage Charges
793(c): Receiving national defense documents
793(d) (e): Communicating national defense documents
793(e): Retaining National Defense Documents
"I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public."
Samuel Morison
October 1984 | Ronald Reagan Administration
Samuel Morison was a former American intelligence professional who was charged with sending confidential satellite images of Soviet nuclear-powered aircraft carriers to a military defense magazine. The government did not claim that Morison's actions had damaged U.S. interests, only that further disclosures of comparable information might eventually enhance Soviet capabilities. Read the case file.

Outcome: PARDONED
Morison was convicted on two counts of espionage and two counts of theft of government property on October 17, 1985 and was sentenced to two years in prison on December 4, 1985. President Clinton pardoned Morison on January 20, 2001, the last day of his presidency, despite opposition by the CIA.

Espionage Charges
793(d): Communicating national defense documents
793(e): Retaining National Defense Documents
"[I]f the American people knew what the Soviets were doing, they would increase the defense budget."
Lawrence Franklin
May 2005 | George W. Bush Administration
Lawrence Franklin, a former United States Department of Defense employee with hopes of gaining a "harder line" on Iranian policy, passed classified documents regarding U.S. policy towards Iran to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), who in turn provided the information to Israel. Read the case file.

Outcome: GUILTY
A federal grand jury indicted Franklin on five charges of violating the Espionage Act. He pled guilty and was sentenced in January 2006 to nearly 13 years of prison -- later reduced to ten months house arrest.

Espionage Charges
793(d): Communicating national defense documents
793(d), (e) and (g): Conspiracy to communicate national defense infonnation to persons not entitled to receive it
"I wanted to kind of shock people at the [National Security Council], to shock them into pausing and giving another consideration into why regime change needed to be the policy."
Thomas Drake
April 2010 | Barack Obama Administration
In 2006 Thomas Drake, a senior executive of the NSA, communicated unclassified information to a reporter who subsequently wrote articles about the waste, fraud and abuse at the NSA that Drake had complained about. In November 2007 the FBI raided Drake's residence and confiscated his computers, documents and books. Drake initially cooperated with the investigation, telling the FBI about the alleged illegality of the NSA's activities. Read the case file.

Outcome: GUILTY, but not for espionage
The government dropped all charges against Drake and agreed not to seek any jail time in return for Drake's agreement to plead guilty to a misdemeanor of misusing the agency's computer system. Drake was sentenced to one year of probation and community service.

Espionage Charges
793(e): Retention of Classified Information
793(c): Retention of Classified Information
793(e): Retention of Classified Information
793(e): Retention of Classified Information
793(e): Retention of Classified Information
"I did what I did because I am rooted in the faith that my duty was to the American people."
Shamai Leibowitz
May 2010 | Barack Obama Administration
Shamai Leibowitz worked as a Hebrew linguist for the FBI to translate wiretapped conversations among Israeli diplomats in the U.S. He passed classified transcripts of conversations describing an Israeli diplomatic campaign to create a hostile environment for U.S. relations with Iran to a blogger who subsequently published them. Read the case file.

Outcome: GUILTY
Leibowitz was sentenced to 20 months in prison. ProPublica reports that at the time of his sentencing, not even the judge knew exactly what he had leaked, though later disclosures indicated it was FBI wiretaps of conversations between Israeli diplomats about Iran.

Espionage Charges
798(a): Disclosure of Classified Information
"During the course of my work I came across wrongdoings that led me to conclude this is an abuse of power ... I should not have done what I did, and I regret it terribly."
Bradley Manning
May 2010 | Barack Obama Administration
Pfc. Bradley Manning was charged with multiple violations of the Espionage Act after disclosing tens of thousands of classified state department cables and government documents to WikiLeaks. Read the case file.

Outcome: GUILTY, ONGOING
Manning was eventually charged with 22 offenses, including several falling under the Espionage Act. On February 28, 2013, Manning pleaded guilty to 10 of the charges. In a trial that began June 3, prosecutors are pursuing a court-martial on the remaining charges.

Espionage Charges
Presented by incidence
793(e): The 2007 July 12 Baghdad video
793(e): A file named "12 JUL 07 CZ ENGAGEMENT ZONE 30 GC Anyone.avi"
793(e): Memorandi from a US intelligence agency
793(e): >20 records from the CIDNEI database
793(e): >20 records from the CIDNEA database
793(e): >3 records from a US Southern Command database
793(e): >5 records relating to an operation in Farah Province, Afghanistan
793(e): The files "BE22 PAX.zip" and "BE22 PAX.wmv"
793(e): A record of a US Army Intelligence organization
"[H]ypothetical question: if you had free reign over classified networks for long periods of time... say, 8-9 months... and you saw incredible things, awful things... things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC... what would you do?"
Stephen Jin-Woo Kim
August 2010 || Barack Obama Administration
Stephen Kim, a former a senior adviser for intelligence on detail to the State Department's arms control compliance bureau, was charged for revealing classified information to a reporter that North Korea might test a nuclear bomb. Read the case file.

Outcome: PENDING
Kim has pled not guilty. Trial is ongoing.

Espionage Charges
793(d): Unauthorized Disclosure of National Defense Information

Jeffrey Sterling
December 2010 || Barack Obama Administration
Former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling was charged for revealing details about Operation Merlin -- an alleged covert operation under the Clinton Administration to provide Iran with a flawed design for building a nuclear weapon in order to delay the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program -- to New York Times journalist James Risen. Read the case file.

Outcome: PENDING
Sterling's defense has entered a not guilty plea. The prosecution has subpoenaed James Risen to testify and reveal his journalistic sources; Risen is contesting.

Espionage Charges
793(d): Unauthorized Disclosure of National Defense Information
793(e): Unauthorized Disclosure of National Defense Information
793(e): Unlawful Retention of National Defense Information

John Kiriakou
January 2012 || Barack Obama Administration
John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer, was charged for leaking information about colleagues involved in "enhanced" interrogation programs, specifically waterboarding, with a reporter. On April 5, he was indicted with one count of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, three counts of violating the Espionage Act, and one count of making false statements for allegedly lying to the Publications Review Board of the CIA. Read the case file.

Outcome: GUILTY, but not for espionage
Kiriakou was convicted of violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and sentenced to 30 months in prison on January 25, 2013. He reported to the low-security Federal correctional facility in Loretto, Pennsylvania, to begin serving his term on February 28, 2013. He was not convicted for espionage.

Espionage Charges
93(d) - Disclosure of National Defense Information
"I believe my case was about torture, not about leaking. I'm right on the torture issue, the administration is wrong, and I'm just going to carry that with me."
James Hitselberger
December 2012 || Barack Obama Administration
James Hitselberger, a former Navy linguist and collector of rare documents, worked as an Arabic translator for the United States Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, conducting counterterrorism and special reconnaissance. He allegedly copied documents that revealed troop activities and gaps within U.S. intelligence about Bahrain. He was charged with violating the Espionage Act for providing classified documents to the Hoover Institution (pictured) at Stanford University. Read the case file.

Outcome: PENDING
Hitselberger is currently under home detention at his aunt's residence in Arlington, Va.

Espionage Charges
793(e): Unauthorized retention of national defense information
"There were classified materials? I am sure they brought unwanted excitement. Yes, there was indeed an incident in Bahrain. I was unable to locate my regular reading glasses that day ... and I did not notice the 'secret' designation at the bottom."
Edward Snowden
June 2013 || Barack Obama Administration
CIA employee Edward Snowden leaked details of top secret U.S. and British government mass surveillance programs, including PRISM and Tempora, anonymously to the press. Snowden's identity was made public by The Guardian at his request soon after. Read the case file.

Outcome: ONGOING
Snowden is currently in the transit area of a Moscow airport. His passport has been revoked and has applied for political asylum in more than 20 countries. U.S. officials are asking for his extradition to the U.S.

Espionage Charges
793(d) - Unauthorized Communication of National Defence Information
798(a)(3) - Willful Communication of Classified Communications Intelligence Information to an Unauthorized Person
"Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him ... the better off we all are."


Posted: July 12, 2013

Greenwald: Snowden docs contain NSA 'blueprint'
By JENNY BARCHFIELD / Associated Press / July 14, 2013

RIO DE JANEIRO (AP) — Edward Snowden has very sensitive ‘‘blueprints’’ detailing how the National Security Agency operates that would allow someone who read them to evade or even duplicate NSA surveillance, a journalist close to the intelligence leaker said Sunday.

Glenn Greenwald, a columnist with The Guardian newspaper who closely communicates with Snowden and first reported on his intelligence leaks, told The Associated Press that the former NSA systems analyst has ‘‘literally thousands of documents’’ that constitute ‘‘basically the instruction manual for how the NSA is built.’’

‘‘In order to take documents with him that proved that what he was saying was true he had to take ones that included very sensitive, detailed blueprints of how the NSA does what they do,’’ Greenwald said in Brazil, adding that the interview was taking place about four hours after his last interaction with Snowden.

Snowden emerged from weeks of hiding in a Moscow airport Friday, and said he was willing to meet President Vladimir Putin’s condition that he stop leaking U.S. secrets if it means Russia would give him asylum until he can move on to Latin America.

Greenwald told The AP that Snowden has insisted the information from those documents not be made public. The journalist said it ‘‘would allow somebody who read them to know exactly how the NSA does what it does, which would in turn allow them to evade that surveillance or replicate it.’’

Despite their sensitivity, Greenwald said he didn’t think that disclosure of the documents would prove harmful to Americans or their national security.

‘‘I think it would be harmful to the U.S. government, as they perceive their own interests, if the details of those programs were revealed,’’ said the 46-year-old former constitutional and civil rights lawyer who has written three books contending the government has violated personal rights in the name of protecting national security.

He has previously said the documents have been encrypted to help ensure their safekeeping.

Greenwald, who has also co-authored a series of articles in Rio de Janeiro’s O Globo newspaper focusing on NSA actions in Latin America, said he expected to continue publishing further stories based on other Snowden documents over the next four months.

Upcoming stories would likely include details on ‘‘other domestic spying programs that have yet to be revealed,’’ but which are similar in scope to those he has been reporting on. He did not provide further details on the nature of those programs.

Greenwald said he deliberately avoids talking to Snowden about issues related to where the former analyst might seek asylum in order to avoid possible legal problems for himself.

Snowden is believed to be stuck in the transit area of Moscow’s main international airport, where he arrived from Hong Kong on June 23. He’s had offers of asylum from Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia, but because his U.S. passport has been revoked, the logistics of reaching whichever country he chooses are complicated.

Still, Greenwald said that Snowden remains ‘‘calm and tranquil,’’ despite his predicament.

‘‘I haven’t sensed an iota of remorse or regret or anxiety over the situation that he’s in,’’ said Greenwald, speaking at a hotel in Rio de Janeiro, where he’s lived for the past eight years. ‘‘He’s of course tense and focused on his security and his short-term well-being to the best extent that he can, but he’s very resigned to the fact that things might go terribly wrong and he’s at peace with that.’’

Greenwald said he worried that interest in Snowden’s personal saga had detracted from the impact of his revelations, adding that Snowden deliberately turned down nearly all requests for interviews to avoid the media spotlight.

Asked whether Snowden seemed worried about his personal safety, Greenwald responded, ‘‘he’s concerned.’’

He said the U.S. has shown it’s ‘‘willing to take even the most extreme steps if they think doing so is necessary to neutralize a national security threat,’’ Greenwald said. ‘‘He’s aware of all those things, he’s concerned about them but he’s not going to be in any way paralyzed or constrained in what he thinks he can do as a result of that.’’

Asked about a so-called dead man’s pact, which Greenwald has said would allow several people to access Snowden’s trove of documents were anything to happen to him, Greenwald replied that ‘‘media descriptions of it have been overly simplistic.

‘‘It’s not just a matter of, if he dies, things get released, it’s more nuanced than that,’’ he said. ‘‘It’s really just a way to protect himself against extremely rogue behavior on the part of the United States, by which I mean violent actions toward him, designed to end his life, and it’s just a way to ensure that nobody feels incentivized to do that.’’