Edward Snowden, he of the Hong Kong hideout and the National Security Administration leaks, is repeatedly being compared to another former intelligence analyst, Daniel Ellsberg. So it’s time for a quick history primer on Ellsberg, and a discussion of why the two men have even more in common than you might think.
In 1971, Ellsberg released a series of documents that came to be known as The Pentagon Papers. He had spent two years gathering classified materials on the Vietnam War and secretly photocopying them, back when that technology still seemed reasonably miraculous.
Ellsberg showed the documents to a number of people, including a few sympathetic U.S. Senators. He tried to convince them to reveal the documents on the floor of the Senate, where they would be immune from prosecution. But none of them were willing, so Ellsberg risked all by offering the documents to the New York Times.
The Old Gray Lady began publishing and reporting on The Pentagon Papers in June. They contained a host of damning revelations, including:
- U.S. officials knew early on that the United States would probably lose the Vietnam War.
- U.S. officials knew early on that prolonging the war would substantially increase casualties.
- U.S. officials decided to prolong the war nevertheless.
- U.S. officials in the Johnson and Nixon administrations systematically lied about all of this to Congress and the public.
The Nixon administration responded to the leak by suing the Times. At first, an injunction halted further publication of the papers. But the government lost its case in court, and the Times resumed its coverage.
In late June, Ellsberg surrendered. He faced charges of theft, conspiracy, and espionage. It seemed likely that he would be convicted, something that Ellsberg was well aw
are of when he came in from the cold.
But Tricky Dick Nixon couldn’t leave well enough alone. In August, his thugs broke into the Los Angeles office of a psychiatrist Ellsberg had visited. G. Gordon Libby, Howard Hunt, and three CIA agents were looking for Ellsberg’s psychiatric file, hoping they could leak it to the press and discredit him in the court of public opinion.
Nicknamed “The Plumbers,” this is the same team that would execute the Watergate break-in the following year. In that episode, their bumbling efforts would get them arrested, which in turn led to Nixon’s eventual resignation. In L.A. they didn’t get caught. But they also didn’t find Ellsberg’s psychiatric file.
What the Plumbers did manage to do, however, was inadvertently insulate Ellsberg from criminal prosecution. When details of the break-in emerged, they discredited much of the prosecution’s case against America’s most wanted leaker. Then came news of the illegal wiretaps on Ellsberg’s phone. And that the prosecution had withheld evidence from the Ellsberg’s defense team.
All charges were dismissed.
While it all worked out to Ellsberg’s advantage in the end, the relevant point here is that the federal government tried to discredit a leaker by painting him as mentally ill.
The same thing has gone on with Bradley Manning, who leaked the State Department files to Wikileaks, and is on trial as we speak. Just Google “Bradley Manning mentally ill.” You’ll get 2.8 million hits.
So when I see journalists and professional pundits engaging in a no-holds barred smear campaign against Snowden, despite the fact that this story is just days old and these esteemed scribes know next to nothing about this guy, it makes me wonder.
It’s easy enough to dismiss Ralph Peters of the New York Post for calling Snowden “the impossibly self-important NSA contractor” and a “Kim Kardashian with stubble,” who only did what he did because he’s looking for “the surest way to attain super-cool status and fame.”
That’s exactly the kind of low-grade drivel you expect from America’s oldest and most ridiculous newspaper.
But then there’s Richard Cohen of the Washington Post calling Snowden a “cross-dressing Little Red Riding Hood.”
And Jeffrey Toobin of The New Yorker labeling him “a grandiose narcissist.”
Schoolyard taunts a
re beneath Washington’s Post if not New York’s. Cohen’s publisher should be embarrassed. His editor should be upbraided. This is the story of the year, maybe of the decade. When a rogue employee of a major intelligence sub-contractor goes public about the National Security Agency’s massive data collection system on the phone and internet habits of countless millions of Americans, and he does so shortly after the head of the NSA lied through his teeth to Congress about that exact issue, it’s very serious business. One of America’s premier news outlets should offering a higher degree of discourse than pubescent name-calling.
But in some ways, it’s Toobin’s statement that is particularly is jarring. Reading those words, I can’t help but wonder if he’s just being flippantly pseudo-intellectual, or if he’s consciously smearing Snowden. Is it casual character assassination or a more purposeful variety? Is Toobin irresponsible or worse?
It’s probably nothing more than a writer’s emotions getting the best of him. After all, Toobin has a history of poor judgment on matters of emotion.
Nevertheless, it’s a legitimate question to ask given the federal government’s history of launching slanderous attacks on the mental health of leakers and critics. I could cite numerous examples, from former Hatian President Jean Bertrand Aristide to recently deceased Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, all of whom were smeared as “crazy” by U.S. officials and in the press.
But the most relevant example is of course Ellsberg.
Opinions on Snowden’s actions are coming from all sides. So it’s not surprising that some writers are upset and think what he did is unconscionable. I don’t agree with that assessment at this early date, though I’m open to reasonable arguments.
But readers should be dismissive of writers who are dismissive of Snowden. Because Edward Snowden is not Kim Kardashian. He is not a cartoon character. He is not a schoolyard punk. He is, for now, the central figure in the most important news story of the year.
It’s time for sober analysis. So pundits, save the epithets for hoi polloi cocktail parties, use your overpriced soap boxes responsibly, and accord your audience the respect this story deserves.
For those who have trouble rising to the occasion, I offer some sample study questions you might consider while banging out your next thousand words:
- What data, exactly, is the federal government collecting on its own citizens?
- Do citizens have a right to know?
- What are corporations’ legal obligations and ethical responsibilities while snitching on their own customers?
- When must national security yield to the Fourth Amendment and visa versa.
- What should be the consequences, if any, for NSA chief James Clapper for knowingly and directly perjuring himself to Congress?
- If the danger is sufficient to justify Americans being spied on by their own government, is the public then entitled to a better understanding of just how much and what kind of danger it is actually in?
- Et Cetera
