Three months after their publication, the
revelations of US National Security Agency functionary Edward Snowden
leave a series of unanswered questions. The version that presents
Snowden as a solitary hero confronting the imperialist espionage
apparatus needs to be reconsidered.
In many ways the positive role of
revelations like those of Snowden, Wikileaks and Bradley Manning is
undeniable in uncovering imperialist crimes and presenting to the
general public the truly totalitarian nature of US global power.
However, it is also undeniable that these revelations are filtered
through various powerful military, financial ,media and political
interests. The revelations not only express a citizens' revolt against
imperial violations of basic freedoms but they also, perhaps above all,
express contradictions at the very heart of the Western élites.
One example of the romanticizing
propaganda of what has been discovered in recent years is an article by
Julian Assange published by the Australian web site The Stringer on
August 24th this year,
i which shows the role of the Google company executives as global flunkeys of the US State Department and NSA.
Assange concludes, “That Google was
taking NSA money in exchange for handing over people’s data comes as no
surprise. When Google encountered the big bad world, Google itself got
big and bad.”
What Assange fails to mention is that
among the sectors supporting Snowden and Wikileaks itself are other
powerful interests equally “big and bad”
Snowden and the CIA
According to the official version that can be more or less reconstructed from reports on the matter,
ii
, Snowden was talented in computer skills and also in his knowledge of
Japanese and Chinese. He has no university degree, hardly even a high
school qualification. As an adolescent, Snowden ““He was a geek like the
rest of us,......We played video games, watched animations. It was
before geek was cool.” according to an anonymous acquaintance of
Snowden's quoted by the New York Times.
iii
In May 2004, Snowden enlisted in the
Reserve of the US Army as a Special Forces recruit but never finished
his training after breaking both legs. The following year he found work
as a security guard
iv in the University of
Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language,
an institution regarded as having close links to the National Security
Agency. In very little time, Snowden then began a contract with the CIA
working on information security.
Despite his lack of formal qualifications, Snowden received Top Secret security clearance
v
and in 2007 was assigned to the US embassy in Geneva, as a specialist
in network security. Over time, Snowden underwent a crisis of conscience
as a result of his work with the agency some of which he considered
ethically objectionable
vi and in 2009 he quit.....moving to a job in the National Security Agency.
Is that not strange? How can it be
that a CIA functionary with high level security clearance just quits
their job and in no time at all turns up working as a private contractor
for another US espionage agency? After all, over several years, the CIA
invested considerable resources in Snowden, as well as paying him
extremely well. For example he says he took a 6 month course in
information security at that time.
vii
If Snowden had a crisis of conscience that motivated him to leave the
CIA, how did he manage to conceal that from his superiors during the
rigorous debriefing process that takes place whenever someone with high
level security clearance ends their assignment.
It hardly seems credible that Snowden
simply said one day “I don't want to work for the CIA any more....” and
his controllers replied “Ok, kid, we wish you well with your next
career move....” More unbelievable still is that he was allowed to
continue with his high level security clearance privileges.
In interviews, Snowden has said that
he earned around US$200,000 as an NSA contractor. Others have said it
was more likely US$120,000. Whatever the exact amount, that is certainly
more or less the salary level of an employee with the Top Secret/SCI
security clearance which Snowden seems to have had.
When Snowden in 2013 told his boss in
the Booz Allen Hamilton agency that he wanted some time off to treat a
recently diagnosed epileptic condition, surely that might have caught
somone's attention? Epilepsy is not a mental illness, but medical
opinion agrees that it does increase the risk of mental illness, which
would be grounds for immediately suspending an individual's security
clearance.
In any case, after Snowden's initial revelations, a Homeland Security sub-committee
viii
undertook to find out how it was that Snowden managed to receive that
Top Secret security clearance. The Inspector General of the federal
government's Office of Personnel Management, Patrick McFarland, has said
he has information on Snowden but could not reveal it, self-evidently,
since Snowden had been a CIA employee. However, what did emerge from
that meeting was a series of very disturbing data on the level of
mismanagement in relation to access to classified information in the US.
It transpires that 87% of
investigations into candidates for such access are never finished. The
Top Secret classification can mean different things for different
agencies. One single contractor, the US Information Service, does 65% of
the investigations. Over US$1 billion paid by the federal Office of
Personnel Management for those investigations has never been audited. At
least eighteen OPM investigators have been found to have falsified
their investigation results.
To all this, one can add that the
USIS agency that investigated Snowden is itself under federal
investigation for not having done that work “in an appropriate and
detailed way”.
ix
Corruption and mismanagement are no surprise to anyone critical of the
United States government. Even so, nor should one forget that the US
intelligence agencies are experts at disinformation exercises.
With all that said, even if this kind
of institutional mismanagement were the case, that does not explain how
an individual like Edward Snowden can move from a highly paid job in
the public sector to a highly paid job in the private sector with no
questions asked. It simply does not add up that Snowden fooled, first,
the CIA, then his private employers, Dell and Booz Allen, and finally
the NSA. The chances are nil of the CIA letting Snowden move on with his
Top Secret security clearance with no control of any kind either by
them or his private sector employers or the NSA.
On June 10th this year in an
interview with the Guardian, Snowden said that from his office he was
able to intercept any communication, including those of federal judges
or even the US President so long as he had the relevant e-mail address.
Despite that, the NSA was unable to locate him in his Hong Kong hotel,
even when registered under his real name, just as they were unable to
check out the investigation awarding him Top Secret security clearance.
Frankly, the only reasonable
explanation that Snowden could travel to Hong Kong and then make it to
Moscow is that he was able to count on the complicity of the CIA to
change his job and subsequently desert. At least, that is the view of
journalist Jon Rappoport.
x
According to Rappoport, the CIA is in
conflict with the NSA. Currently, the NSA is a giant organization
managing immense resources and information while the CIA sees its power
and influence in decline. Rappoport cites a report in Wired Magazine
xi
of June this year according to which the Pentagon sought US$4.7 billion
for the NSA in the 2014 budget while the amounts for the CIA and other
US espionage agencies were cut to US$4.4 billion.
Rappoport thinks the CIA fed Snowden
the information that he in turn has fed to the Western media. That in
itself by no means suggests Snowden was not genuine in his actions and
may very well be sincerely convinced of the danger the NSA's global
spying capability represents for civil liberties.
George Soros
One thing definitely stands out in
the coverage given to Edward Snowden by left wing and progressive media
both in the imperialist countries and in our own. Namely, almost no one
mentions the role of Wall Street financier George Soros. In general, it
is an interesting question why almost no one discusses the role played
in the funding of the so-called alternative media by corporate interests
represented by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations and any other
similar institutions.
For decades, private foundations linked to big groups of US capital
xii,
usually closely linked to the US government apparatus, to the CIA and
to the Council for Foreign Relations, distribute millions of dollars in
their effort to control and guide public opinion.
One of the thirty most wealthy people in the world and number fifteen in the Forbes list of US millionaires,
xiii
Soros funds the greater part of the progressive and even radical
networks in North America that focus on defending rights to privacy and
freedom of information. But hardly anyone seems to be interested in
drawing the relevant conclusions in relation to that fact, given that
Soros' ideology is by no means progressive.
By contrast, the connections of George Soros to the networks of imperial power are well known.
xiv For example, the writer Eva Golinger
xv
notes that “parallel to his activities as a financial speculator,
George Soros, along with the Bush and Bin Laden families, is part of the
Carlyle Group led by Frank Carlucci, He is also a member of the
Bilderberg group, the Council for Foreign Relations, the International
Crisis Group and Human Rights Watch.” In 1993 Soros founded the Open
Society Institute which has participated actively in joint operations
with the CIA in former Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Georgia and Tibet. Likewise,
the misnamed philanthropic organizations funded by Soros were active
all through 2011 in their attempts to help the Muslim Brotherhood take
power in Egypt.
xvi
Soros funded groups, like Human
Rights Watch and Freedom House, take the lead in all the US government
psychological warfare campaigns against foreign governments perceived as
requiring destabilization so as to advance US interests. Along with
Soros, the International Crisis Group (ICS), includes senior US foreign
policy figures like Zbigniew Brzezinski, Richard Armitage and Kenneth
Aldelman. Armitage y Adelman are both signatories of the Project for a
New American Century which laid the doctrinal basis for the “war on
terror” of George W. Bush.
Together with Snowden during the
first press conference he gave after arriving at Moscow airport on July
12th was Tatyana Lokshina,
xvii
representative in Russia of the Soros-funded Human Rights Watch.
Coordinating Snowden's legal defence in the US one finds another Soros
funded organization, the American Civil Liberties Union
xviii involved in public disagreements with the lawyers of Snowden's father, Lon, and Lon Snowden's Russian lawyer.
xix
A declaration by the Soros-funded Open Society Foundation
xx
on July 12th this year criticised the administration of President Obama
for excessive use of the archaic Espionage Act to punish various
whistle blowers who in recent years have revealed information affecting
imperial interests, among them Bradley Manning and Snowden himself.
The declaration by OSF legal adviser,
Morton Halperin, asserts that President Obama's use of the legislation
creates a serious threat to the public right to know and to the process
by which Americans are informed about US government activities in
matters of National Security.
It is a well established fact that
Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald who took the lead in reporting Edward
Snowden's revelations is someone closely connected with the Soros
networks. In 2008, Greenwald and writer Jane Hamsher founded the
political pressure group Accountability Now
xxi
aiming to “move the Democrat Party to the Left”. The most importnt
members of Accountability now are almost all members of the Soros
network.
xxii
Laura Poitras was the first person
contacted by Snowden when he sought to publish his information in the
New York Times. Laura Poitras also filmed the interview with Snowden
conducted in his hotel in Hong Kong. Both Laura Poitras and Glenn
Greenwald are board members of the Freedom of the Press Foundation
xxiii, funded by the Foundation for National Progress which publishes the investigative journalism magazine Mother Jones.
As a documentary maker, Poitras'
career is characterized by critical political and social reporting
especially after the September 11th 2001 attacks on the US. Her film “My
country, my country” on the effects of the US occupation of Iraq was
nominated for an Oscar. Poitras believes that this film got her placed
on “the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) watch list" with the
highest threat rate the Department of Homeland Security assigns.
xxiv
As it happens, in 2012 Poitras received a prestigious fellowship from the MacArthur Foundation,
xxv
of US$500,000 on the basis that her “elegant and illuminating
documentaries capture the lives and intimate experiences of families and
communities largely inaccessible to the American media.”
The MacArthur Foundation
xxvi
helps organizations and individuals committed to “building a more just,
verdant and peaceful world”. Among the groups receiving help from the
MacArthur Foundation is the Center for Global Development, among the
first 150 of the hundreds of groups receiving help from the Open Society
Institute of George Soros.
xxvii
Robert L. Gallucci
xxviii,
current president of the MacArthur Foundation has a long record of
service in the US State Department where he worked among other
assignments in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and much later as
Special Envoy to
deal with the threat posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles
and weapons of mass destruction. Gallucci is also currently a member of
the US State Department Advisory Board of International Security
Advisors and, superfluous to say, a member of the Council for Foreign Relations.
With those antecedents one can well
ask how it comes about that an institution whose president is a key
imperialist strategic adviser can stand over an award of half a million
dollars to a documentary maker who in her own words is considered by the
Department of Homeland Security to represent the highest level of
threat to the United States of America. And it may be worth remembering a
detail of that MacArthur Foundation fellowship. The foundation explains
on its web site
xxix that “Although nominees are reviewed for their achievements, the fellowship is not a reward for past accomplishment,
but rather an investment in a person's originality, insight, and potential” (italics added)
On its web site, the Freedom of the
Press Foundation states it “is dedicated to helping defend and support
aggressive, public-interest journalism focused on exposing
mismanagement, corruption, and law-breaking in government.”
xxx
To fund this the organization uses a strategy known as “crowd-sourcing
funding” by which the public can donate to one or several alternative
media among a group proposed on a bi-monthy basis by the FPF on its web
page. The FPF explains, “Our goal is to broaden the financial base of
these types of institutions—both start-ups and established non-profit
organizations — by crowd-sourcing funding and making it easy for people
to support the best journalism from an array of organizations all in one
place.”
In a Huffington Post interview of December 16th 2012
xxxi,
Trevor Timm, co funder and executive director of the FPF, explains that
the original idea for the FPF came out of conversations with both
Daniel Ellsberg, the whistle blower who published the Pentagon Papers
and John Perry Barlow of the Grateful Dead rock group who co-founded the
Electronic Frontier Foundation, promoting free software and Internet
privacy.
The next day, December 17th 2012, the EFF
announced on its web page it had decided to become a legal adviser to
the FPF. As well as Barlow, Rainey Reitman, EFF's head of activism is
also a co-founder of the FPF and works as a member of the of the EFF's
technology team.
xxxii
A footnote to that December 17th news item states that although one of
the EFF directors and some of its employees were active in the FPF, the
EFF as such was not a member of the Freedom of the Press Foundation but
merely its legal adviser.
In fact, what is certain is that the EFF is a regular recipient of funding from the Open Society Institute of George Soros.
xxxiii
The links between Soros and another of the EFF directors, Brian
Behlendorf, developer of the Apache web server software, go back at
least as far as 1998 when both participated in the political lobbying
group MoveOn.org, in response to the indignation caused by President
Bill Clinton's affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Back then
the group urged congress to censure the President and “move on”.
xxxiv
One example of how this kind of
arrangement works is the support the FPF has given WikiLeaks since
December 2012. "Since WikiLeaks became a front-page news story, secrecy
has gotten worse in the U.S," as Trevor Timm declared to the Huffington
Post.
xxxv
Behind the Snowden scandal lies a
struggle for power in the heart of the dominant Western élites. There is
a possible link between the CIA's interest in making problems for the
NSA and the interests of big finance, namely the massive ability of
electronic spying to monitor not only the various terrorist threats but
also the activities of the big banks.
Writer Jon Rappoport
xxxvi takes up the inference made by novelist Brad Thor in his novel Black List,
xxxvii
in which he suggests the existence of a super-espionage agency which
imagines a super-espionage agency which “for years ….has used its
technological superiority to carry out massive business transactions
based on privileged information”. One may well ask whether global
mega-banks like JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs or the Quantum Group of George
Soros would take with equanimity the existence of an espionage agency
with the ability to know more about them than they know themselves.
The revelations in perspective
Putting things in perspective, one has to ask what the revelations of Edward Snowden really mean.
Without disparaging their value, it
is hard to believe that the intelligence services of US target countries
like Russia or China would have been ignorant of :
- The existence of the ECHELON global
telecommunications spying system and the so called FUKUSA network
composed of the USA, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand which
has been active since the 1970s. New Zealand journalist Nicky Hager
revealed this information in considerable detail in 1996:
xxxviii
- The existence of an army of US
analysts controlling all Internet traffic using tools like the HKEYSCORE
program. One has only to look at the structure of global fibre optic
communications to ee that the majority of these pass through the United
States and are easy for the US authorities to intercept. Long before the
revelations of Edward Snowden the symbiosis was clear between big
companies like Google or Microsoft and the imperial war and espionage
apparatus. (Try searching duckduckgo.com using the term In-Q-Tel).
xxxix
Obviously other data in Snowden's
power like the instruction manual on the workings of the NSA or the
complete list of its analysts are important information. But it would
not be the first time this kind of information has ended up in the hands
of foreign intelligence services. Many cases of high level infiltration
in intelligence services have taken place without causing the kind
debacle of which Edwards Snowden's enemies are accusing him of having
provoked.
The fundamental importance of
Snowden's revelations is political. They show in an irrefutable way in
front of worldwide public opinion the complete contempt of the imperial
powers for individual rights to privacy. One is no longer dealing with
target categories like “terrorists” or “criminals” but absolutely
anyone.
On the other hand, the Russian and
Chinese intelligence services must have been well aware from the start
of the powerful networks supporting Snowden which is why they treated
his request for asylum with such circumspection. With hindsight it has
been fortunate that Snowden did not end up in Latin America.
Snowden's revelations are playing an
important role in the awakening of awareness among large sections of the
world population of the totalitarian Western system dominating most of
the contemporary world. But people around the globe will be unable to
use that information to defeat the designs of the imperial powers unless
they understand clearly the true nature of the powerful Western elite
interests attempting to manipulate that information for their own ends.
NOTES
i"Google and the NSA: Who’s holding the ‘shit-bag’ now?”, Julian Assange.
iiThe Guardian, 11 de junio de 2013
The Guardian, 10 de juni de 2013
Entrada sobre Edward Snowden en Wikipedia (inglés)
ivSnowden,
para conseguir ese trabajo como guardia de seguridad en una instalación
de la NSA ya debe haber tenido algún tipo de autorización de seguridad –
algo que lleva tiempo conseguir. Según este artículo del Washington
Post, desde el 11 de septiembre de 2001, ha habido un gran aumento en la
cantidad de puestos de contratistas y empleados del sector público a
los que se requiere presenten una autorización de seguridad, desde
personal de mantenimiento en agencias de espionaje hasta técnicos y
desarrolladores de software. En 2010, el número de estos trabajadores se
calculaba en unos 854,000 en todos los EE.UU.
vBásicamente,
en los EE.UU. hay tres niveles de acceso a información clasificada:
CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET y TOP SECRET. Para lograr una autorización al nivel
más bajo, CONFIDENTIAL, se requiere pasar por una investigación de
entre unas semanas y unos meses, que cubre los últimos 7 años de la vida
del sujeto. Para obtener una autorización en el siguiente nivel,
SECRET, el período de la investigación va de algunos meses hasta un año,
siendo un pobre historial financiero la causa más común de
descalificación del sujeto. Este tipo de autorización es la más común a
nivel de contratistas civiles trabajando para el Estado de EE.UU. Para
obtener una autorización TOP SECTRET (TS), que da acceso a información
sobre seguridad nacional, antiterrorismo y contrainteligencia, los
requerimientos del estudio del sujeto son mucho más estrictos. Se debe
pasar por una investigación SSBI que debe ser hecha de nuevo cada 5
años. Se investigan los últimos 10 años de vida del sujeto (o, en su
defecto, a partir de los 18 años). También se investiga a su familia y
al registro del aplicante en otras agencias federales del gobierno de
los EE.UU. Esta investigación incluye entrevistas con familiares,
antiguos empleadores, conocidos, y con el sujeto mismo. Sujetos que han
recibido una autorización de acceso a información clasificada de esta
categoría pueden además acceder a una autorización de acceso a
Información Sensible Compartimentada (SCI), ya sea para Inteligencia de
las Comunicaciones (SIGINT), para información sobre armas nucleares,
para blancos de armas nucleares, etcétera. El requisito indispensable
para acceder a una autorización SCI es haber pasado por una
investigación SSBI. En el caso de Snowden, lo más probable es que
tuviera una autorización de acceso a información clasificada TS/SCI.
viCuenta
la historia que Snowden se sintió defraudado cuando en Ginebra, la CIA
deliberadamente emborrachó a un banquero con el fin de chantajearlo y
lograr reclutarlo para la agencia y así tener acceso a información
secreta sobre la banca del país helvético, que en ese momento se
encontraba una legislación para aumentar la transparencia bancaria.
x“Matrix: Who is Edward Snowden?”
xiiiSoros según la revista Forbes
xivHeather Coffin: “George Soros, Imperial Wizard”, Cover Action Quarterly, fall 2002.
xvEva
Golinger y Romain Migus: “La Telaraña Imperial, enciclopedia de
injerencia y subversión”, Centro Internacional Miranda, 2008, pp
209-210.
El 15 de agosto, el diario Wall Street
Journal informó que una sesión de chat que tuvieron Edward Snowden y su
padre, Lon, se realizó contra la voluntad de los abogados que asesoran a
éste último. El chat de dos horas entre padre e hijo se llevó a cabo
con la ayuda de Ben Wizner, abogado de la ACLU. Wizner pertenece al
equipo de abogados defensores de Edward Snowden en los EE.UU. Según el
diario estadounidense, el contacto entre padre e hijo se realizó contra
la recomendación del abogado de Lon Snowden, Bruce Fein. Al ser
informado de la conversación el abogado ruso de Edwad Snowden, Anatoly
Kucherena, dijo que le había urgido a su cliente que no hablase con su
padre ni por medios electrónicos ni por teléfono, y les pidió a ambos no
tener contacto hasta que pudiesen encontrarse en persona.
Una
nota de febrero de 2009 señala que los miembros de AccountabilityNow
entonces eran los grupos: "Daily Kos, MoveOn, the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU), ColorofChange.org, Democracy for America,
21st Century Democrats" y "BlogPAC".
Greenwald, Poitras y Freedom of the Press Foundation
xxviiEn
2011, esta fundación se encontraba en el puesto 115 entre los
receptores de ayuda de Soros, de acuerdo al sitio sorosfiles.com
xxxiThe Huffington Post, 16 de diciembre de 2012.
xxxiiiVer, por ejemplo los reportes anuales de la organización:
xxxvThe Huffington Post, 16 de diciembre de 2012.