Fact-checking Hillary Clinton's comments on Edward Snowden and the NSA

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks to a group of supporters and students at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida February 26, 2014. REUTERS/Gaston De Cardenas


Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks to a group of supporters and students at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida February 26, 2014. REUTERS/Gaston De Cardenas

Hillary Clinton made her first extended public remarks about Edward Snowden late last week, and unfortunately she misstated some basic facts about the NSA whistleblower and how events have played out in the last year. Here’s a breakdown of what she said and where she went wrong:

Clinton: "If he were concerned and wanted to be part of the American debate, he could have been… I don't understand why he couldn't have been part of the debate at home."

This is one of the biggest misconceptions about Snowden that even NSA reform advocates have furthered. Edward Snowden could not be part of this debate at home, period.

First, as Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellbserg explained in the Washington Post, Snowden would likely be in a maximum security prison right now if he remained in the United States, unable to speak to the media. Second and more importantly, Snowden would likely be barred from making any of arguments claiming he was a whistleblower during his trial, since the government is charging him under the draconian Espionage Act of 1917. As we have pointed out repeatedly, lower court rulings in other cases against leakers have prevented defendants from telling a jury about their intent to inform the American public, the lack of harm their leaks caused, and the benefits to society. The government even tried to bar NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake from mentioning the words “whistleblower” or “First Amendment” during his trial.

Simply put, it would be impossible for Edward Snowden to participate in an informed debate in the public or the courtroom if he was in the United States.

Clinton: "When he emerged and when he absconded with all that material, I was puzzled, because we have all these protections for whistleblowers."

What’s really puzzling is that Ms. Clinton—and President Obama (who has made similar remarks)—is not familiar with the current state of the law as it relates to whistleblowers. Contractors like Snowden lack the protections that federal employees are entitled to, and the government is free to retaliate against such people under the law. As Angela Canterbury, director of public policy at the Project on Government Oversight, has explained: “[T]here is a gaping loophole for intelligence community contractors. The riskiest whistle-blowing that you can possibly do on the government is as an intelligence contractor.”

Despite the risks, Snowden has said he repeatedly went his superiors with complaints and they were never acted upon. From his interview with Vanity Fair:

“The N.S.A. at this point not only knows I raised complaints, but that there is evidence that I made my concerns known to the N.S.A.’s lawyers, because I did some of it through e-mail. I directly challenge the N.S.A. to deny that I contacted N.S.A. oversight and compliance bodies directly via e-mail and that I specifically expressed concerns about their suspect interpretation of the law, and I welcome members of Congress to request a written answer to this question [from the N.S.A.].”

Clinton: "I have a hard time thinking that somebody who is a champion of privacy and liberty has taken refuge in Russia under Putin's authority."

Snowden did not “take refuge” in Russia at all, and in fact, it’s the fault of the United States government he was stuck there. Snowden’s legal adviser Ben Wizner put it best when asked about this on Meet the Press last year:

I actually think if there is one thing that we all should agree on, it’s that Edward Snowden shouldn’t be in Russia. The reason why he’s in Russia is that the United States revoked his passport when he was transiting through there. And I hope that the U.S. will-- will see that it’s not in anybody’s best interests for him to be there, and that even if he isn’t going to return here, that there should be some other place where he can live.

Clinton: "I think turning over a lot of that material—intentionally or unintentionally, because of the way it can be drained—gave all kinds of information, not only to big countries, but to networks and terrorist groups and the like."

Snowden has repeatedly stated he did not turn over information to anyone besides journalists, he did not even take any data with him to Russia, and the US government has not put forth any evidence that a foreign government has gained access to information that is not in the public record. Thankfully, Snowden is highly trained in protecting data in high-risk places, as he even once taught a DIA course in the subject to other diplomats.

Ms. Clinton is widely considered the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for President in 2016. It’s very possible she was just testing the waters about how to react to the issue of NSA surveillance. We hope she will takes these facts into consideration and adjust her opinion accordingly. Bill Clinton was much more conciliatory and nuanced about people's anger over the NSA when he made comments a few weeks ago, so it would be easy for her to switch gears. And if these tweets are any indication, privacy could be a more important election issue than ever.

Note: Edward Snowden is a member of Freedom of the Press Foundation's board of directors.

Notable Replies

  1. IMB says:

    Hillary is part of the machinery.

  2. I love the talking point of "Why didn't he stay in the US so we could turn him into another Chelsea Manning?", as if that question didn't answer itself.

    For keeping control of his message and keeping the media engaged, Snowden did exactly what he had to do. These people are angry because he's not letting himself and the problem he exposed be swept under the rug.

  3. davel says:

  4. Ygret says:

    What worse? Are you suggesting he be assassinated? Really? And you honestly don't think the American people have a right to know that their government is spying on them in direct contravention of the 4th amendment?

    The people who betray the nation are the ones that think the Constitution is just a bunch of words that can be twisted and turned to suit whatever they want to do. Dragnet surveillance of the American people is EXACTLY what the 4th amendment was written to protect us against. In the lead up to the Revolutionary War British soldiers were permitted to enter any abode and search it, whether there was cause or not. This is the root of the 4th amendment. You may not respect the 4th, but neither you, the NSA nor the president have the right to decide for me whether I am protected by it. If you think violation of the 4th amendment is justified to protect us from the extremely weak threat of terrorism, what rights would you abrogate if we faced a real threat? Would you accept the police entering your home without your permission to search for drugs, or weapons, or whatever other fishing expedition they wished to go on? I ask because by accepting the violations of the 4th amendment the NSA is committing as I write this, you are accepting whatever future violations they wish to commit. Once they are permitted to ignore the 4th amendment you have just ceded your right to privacy and if the government decides you are someone they want to punish they can fish through your financial data, private emails, phone calls and person effects to find something, anything they can arrest you for. And believe me, they'll find something if they want to. Carrying water for the authoritarians won't protect you.

  5. It's not my job to write an article pointing these things out.

    Right, it's just your job to shill for the NSA apparently.

Continue the discussion bbs.boingboing.net

124 more replies

Participants