Cover for Action

            It has been more than a year since Edward Snowden exposed the world to the disturbing message that the NSA seems to believe that it is perfectly reasonable for their office to have full, unrestrained access to the private, everyday dealings of any and every person living in the U.S. as well as many persons living abroad. In that span of time, the intelligence agencies at home and many abroad have tried their damnedest to discredit Snowden, labeling him a traitor and claiming that he put American (and British) lives at risk; and furthermore saying that his leaks are aiding terrorists in their efforts.

           

            These latter accusations, while quite polarizing and provocative, simply lack any firm foundation. The NSA has had fifteen months to produce even one instance of concrete evidence that Snowden's revelations have in fact harmed the U.S. or its citizens, and in that time they have come up empty handed. Considering the fact that many polls show  public support for Snowden hovering around fifty percent, one might think it would be in the NSA's best interest to show us some proof and thus tip the scales of public opinion in their favor. Every day that passes with them failing to do so, Snowden's case looks stronger and stronger.

           

            The favored claim--which is the main one Anthony Glees cites in the referenced article-- made against Snowden is that terrorists have shifted their tactics away from communications which can be intercepted, that cell phone traffic has dropped off precipitously after Snowden exposed the NSA's Prism surveillance program; and that without that broadcast traffic, our intelligence community is at a profound disadvantage. According to this logic, then, the argument proceeds that Edward Snowden is to blame for the recent round of beheadings carried out by the rabid, jihadist group, ISIL. Because ISIL stopped mobile communications, Glees argues, we couldn't find them--and therefore we couldn't find the hostages. 

            Who, then is to blame for all the prior beheadings of Americans in the region? We didn't have a great track record when it came to finding and rescuing hostages well before Snowden entered the picture. Also, before we buy into any argument which props up Snowden as an excuse for the CIA not being able to find dangerous people, let us remind ourselves who it was that took ten years to find Osama Bin Laden. Maybe they were too busy trying to find ways to subvert our constitutional rights to notice his change of address form.

            At best, Glees is delusional. Are we seriously expected to believe that, as a result of the NSA's actions being exposed, terrorists are, as the reporter suggests communicating "with each other only in person"? Not only is this notion quaint and silly, it is tactically unfeasible. There is no way in the twenty-first century that a fighting force like ISIL, with over 30,000 members spread across two countries can effectively carry out a campaign of terror using mid-nineteenth century technology. Conversely if they are really, as Glees posits eschewing modern technology, then they are at a serious disadvantage in the long term...which would mean that Snowden's actions actually impeded, not aided the terrorists in their efforts.

            Let's not get ahead of ourselves, though; the terrorists out there who wish to bring harm to the world are in fact using their cell-phones, their laptops, their twitter accounts and all other manner of technology. Perhaps post-Snowden they were a tad more leery for a spell, but it isn't like they didn't already know they were being watched. Nowadays, it doesn't take an inordinate amount of skill to combat electronic surveillance, and violent extremists bent on destruction have long-known of the many ways to avoid detection. Removal of the cell phone's battery; changing cell phones frequently ('burners'); encryption; 'spoofing' technologies which bounce internet communications off a remote IP address to mask location--these are all stock-in-trade tools in a terrorist's arsenal.

            Certainly the American intelligence community has counter-measures for some of these tactics, but without reliable on-the-ground, person-to-person intel to enhance what we gather electronically, these comparatively primitive techniques employed by ISIL are relatively effective at minimizing the value of remote surveillance. There is a fundamental and understandable mistrust of Westerners in the region which has made asset acquisition next to impossible. A strong argument could be made that this is the real reason for our intelligence failures in the years since 9/11: just as the NSA has broken the trust of the American citizenry, they have consistently failed to gain the trust of the good people of Iraq whose help they desperately need to win this war. This idea doesn't arise from a flowery or naive belief in the good of every human being, but rather the practical necessity for human intel in winning a war.

            Blaming Snowden for deaths in Iraq is like blaming a warning siren in your neighborhood for starting a fire across town. If we examine his whistle blowing charges against the NSA, we see that they are quite specifically aimed at illegal surveillance, particularly against citizens of the United States. To this point, the NSA and their ilk have not been able to come up with one shred of tangible, reportable proof that their Prism program, designed to find "a needle in a haystack," has done anything at all positive in halting terrorism. In suggesting otherwise, Mr. Glees is grasping at straws.

             

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2768841/An-intelligence-expert-s-devastating-verdict-Leaks-Edward-Snowden-Guardian-British-hostages-greater-peril.html