An opposing view: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/...
And the unanimous, bipartisan report of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: http://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?Docum...
And the unanimous, bipartisan report of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: http://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?Docum...
We can analyze the claims Gellman makes here, though, and further our understanding of the controversy. I believe these are all of them:
* The House report claims Snowden lied saying he left military training due to broken legs, and instead washed out due to "shin splints". Gellman objects, saying he has a documented diagnosis for Snowden saying he was discharged with "bilaterial tibial stress fractures". But tibial stress fractures are a form --- a common form --- of shin splint.
* The House report claims Snowden never completed his high school equivalency. Gellman has the score Snowden got on his equivalency back in 2004. The House report's claim is inexplicable.
* The House report claims Snowden was a very low level employee. Gellman objects based on his titles and the fact that he was sent to Europe under diplomatic cover. It's difficult to evaluate this dispute. His claims about Snowden's titles are very unconvincing --- it's also extremely unlikely that Snowden had the role Gellman claims he had w/r/t/ Dell's cybersecurity group (Dell employs a huge number of infosec people). You'd also want to know whether it was routine for people employed at CIA to be deployed under diplomatic cover, because Gellman uses that as evidence of his seniority.
* The House report claims Snowden doctored his performance evaluations. Gellman rebuts that Snowden was demonstrating a vulnerability in the web app that displayed it. I'm inclined to believe both sides of this story could believe their side in good faith, but you might disagree.
* The House report claims Snowden stole the answers to an employment questionnaire. (This claim was also made by officials on 60 Minutes) Gellman rebuts that the test in question was very basic, and by this point in Snowden's career he'd had so much experience --- and an MCSE certificate --- that he wouldn't need to. Gellman doesn't know whether this happened, or what test they're talking about. The 60 Minutes claim is that the test involved getting into NSA's TAO group, which makes me think the MCSE certificate not so relevant. But ultimately: we don't know, and neither does Gellman.
* The House report makes mention of Snowden's flight to Russia. Gellman rebuts that it was in fact a thwarted flight to Ecuador. I think Gellman is probably wrong about this: the claim that Snowden was diligently trying to reach Ecuador depends on him being stuck in Sheremetyevo due to passport invalidation, but it's been pointed out repeatedly that he could have obtained an exit visa without a valid passport. There's also the wrinkles that Snowden spent time (days) in the Russian consulate in Hong Kong, and that he was advised by others to seek asylum in Russia. Both sides again might have valid reasons to push their arguments, but Gellman's rebuttal isn't dispositive.
* The House report notes that Snowden didn't avail himself of whistleblower protections in the US. Gellman claims he could not have. Both sides can be right. There is very little evidence that Snowden attempted to escalate his findings through channels (there are a lot of public claims that he did, but the actual evidence apparently comes down to a single email that makes no mention of an urgent complaint). Further, we have Snowden's own claim that he took the Booz Allen job specifically to get access to these documents and send them overseas --- internal whistleblower channels would impede that objective. Moreover: this is a slippery argument: Gellman can always define some action (for instance: bulk delivery of internal documents to The Guardian) for which whistleblower protections would not apply.
* The House report claims that Snowden stole 1.5MM documents. Gellman says we don't have evidence as to the specific number. I mean, sure. Whatever.
* Members of the House Intelligence Committee have claimed that Snowden did more damage to US interests than anyone in history. Gellman, rightly, points out that this is total bullshit.
It's worth remembering that Gellman is focusing primarily on a single section of the executive summary of the House report --- the one claiming that Snowden is a fabulist.
Like I said: I'm an admirer of Gellman's. It's clear to me that Gellman is several steps removed from the lingo and trade knowledge of information security, so I think he can sometimes find himself convinced by things that would leave an expert wary. But I also think Gellman, more than some other writers, is at pains to make reported, fact-based, good-faith arguments.
I didn't find this piece totally convincing, but there are clearly claims that the House IC has made that don't withstand any scrutiny, so the fact check is definitely valuable. Thanks again for finding it!
But only by grace of some entity with the power to grant him such a visa, right? He couldn't just ask for one and get it (someone in Slate I think said something like, look, Russia could have given him a visa and Cuba could have let him in—yeah, but those are things Russia and Cuba have to decide to do, not things Snowden can do off his own bat).
You can simplify this whole point to:
Unless the Russians aren't benign --- in which case it's a very bad thing that Snowden is in Russia --- if Snowden wanted to be in Ecuador, he'd be in Ecuador.
I think this is very naïve. The US wanted him very badly, and we can throw our weight around pretty well. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
The US can't prevent Snowden from boarding a plan in Moscow. (Well, I mean, there are all kinds of means by which it might attempt to do so, but no one in this thread has suggested that they would be likely to use them.)
It can, and would be far more likely to, OTOH, use its influence to a prevent a plane from Moscow from reaching Ecuador without being forced to the ground, searched for Snowden, etc., if Snowden did board it (or was suspected to have done so.)
Which is exactly what happened (except, of course, that Snowden had not actually boarded the plane, despite the US suspicion that he had, and that the destination was Bolivia, not Ecuador) in the Evo Morales grounding incident referenced upthread, so I'm somewhat surprised that you didn't understand the fairly direct implication.
Furthermore, what does any of this have to do with Snowden's suspended passport? The passport isn't what's keeping him in Russia. I think the two plausible things that might be are: (1) Snowden, (2) Russia. You think there's a third? Can you explain it in some detail?
The US has foreign intelligence services, utilizing both human and technical means, and they attempt to monitor movements of persons who are of concern to the US, with varying degrees of success.
(The degree to which Snowden is still actively a concern to the US is a bit less clear.)
> If you believe Assange
I don't, particularly, but on this particular point his claim isn't implausible, and, more to the point, isn't materially relevant.
> the reason for the Morales incident was that Assange leaked false information to make that happen.
Sure, that might be what they US believed Snowden was on the plane. Of course, were the US not both able and inclined to stop even a foreign leader's plane from transitting unmolested from Russia to South America if Snowden was believed to be on it, Assange's false leak (assuming that is the source of the belief) would be immaterial. That they have the capacity and will, however, to take such acts is demonstrated by the Morales incident independently of the source of the false belief that Snowden was on the plane.
> Furthermore, what does any of this have to do with Snowden's suspended passport?
Nothing, I wasn't responding to a claim about a passport I was responding to the claim that if Snowden wanted to be in Ecuador, he would be in Ecuador, and there is nothing the US could do to stop him from simply boarding a plane in Moscow and flying to Ecuador.
Their manifestly is something the US could do, and has demonstrated both the ability and willingness to do, to stop him from doing that.
> The passport isn't what's keeping him in Russia. I think the two plausible things that might be are: (1) Snowden, (2) Russia. You think there's a third? Can you explain it in some detail?
The United States. And I think I've explained it in excruciating detail in this post, and my prior post in this subthread.
It actually doesn't, since the logic at issue is "they have shown both the capacity and the will to do this to planes they believe are carrying Snowden from Russia to South America in the past".
They clearly have not shown the capacity and will to grab Snowden off the street in the past.
Its certainly not impossible that they could, but its a different category of risk from something that they have demonstrated both the capacity and will to do against the specific target in the past.
I will note, with bemusement, that our shadowy spy network was unable to effect his capture when he was known to be in Hong Kong. We must have a gap in capabilities for the most westernized part of China.
If he remains in Moscow, he has near zero chance of being rendered. If he leaves, he is one piece of HUMINT/SIGINT away from being grounded and taken into custody.
I think even a few of the more intelligent dog breeds would be able to choose correctly here.
I found an interesting Assange interview on the Morales incident [0]. The whole thing is worth reading, but let me just quote one bit:
Portugal, Spain and France closed their airspace. Some other things happened. Some preemptive extradition requests were sent out, for example, to Iceland, which we got hold of and published. So there was — the U.S. was pressuring countries where flights might go through or land or refuel. And as a result of that operation, then it became clear that in fact it was too dangerous to — at that moment, at least, to take any flight out of Moscow. And this is what then led to his eventual asylum. It wasn’t just the removal of the passport, which removed his ability to use commercial flights. It was that the U.S. was closing airspace and acting in a manner where you would have to assume that they — you know, if a flight went past the United States — not over U.S. territory, but past the United States — there might be some kind of interdiction.
Assange goes on to suggest that Russia had their hands forced by the US Government's willingness to pull strings to catch Snowden, and by the willingness of Western Europe -- France, Portugal, and Spain, at least -- to roll over. This put Putin in the position of either granting Snowden's asylum request or looking like another US patsy. Well, the last thing Putin would ever do is look weak. (I suspect Putin is not really too unhappy to make sure Snowden stays alive.)
Anyway, although Putin's cooperation is clearly necessary, the primary force keeping Snowden in Russia is, and has always been, the US Government.
[0] http://www.democracynow.org/2015/5/28/assange_on_the_untold_...
We're talking about why, of all the places he could be in the world, he's in Russia --- and not Ecuador, where he claims he intended to go.
You used the word "hostage" upthread. I don't think this is in any sense a hostage situation.
There are direct flights between Moscow and Havana every day.
Fun fact: the country Snowden supposedly wanted to flee to has an extradition treaty with the US.
Anyway, you yourself mentioned the possibility of grabbing Snowden off the streets. I don't think for a moment that Putin would allow that to happen; the governments of Central and South America are another matter (not that they would willingly cooperate, necessarily, only that they couldn't do anything about it).
(For the record, I don't accept your claim that the passport is irrelevant. I don't really know how these things work, but I don't have the impression that it's easy for a known international fugitive to persuade a commercial carrier to board him with a canceled passport. I will grant that if Putin wanted Snowden to leave Russia, he could have made it happen; in that sense, the passport is not a barrier.)
As for the extradition treaty -- is it possible Snowden would have made a mistake in selecting his destination? Of course it is. What's your point? [ETA: I get it. You think the whole story is a lie and Snowden planned to stay in Russia all along. I think the absurdity of that view is matched only by its cynicism.]
The language I'm seeing says that "shin splints" refer specifically to what's called a "medial stress syndrome", which is different from (and of lesser degree) than an actual "stress fracture" like Snowden was diagnosed with.
The main point is no one would normally accuse someone who suffered a stress fracture of exaggerating or misstating the nature of their condition by referring to it as a "broken X." The Committee's attempt to get us to believe otherwise in Snowden's case (along with the gratuitous phrase, "washed out") is a blatant attempt at semantic and psychological manipulation.
I would: I think that it indicates a propensity to exaggerate.
Moreover, I know folks who've had far worse than just shin splints (broken legs, in fact), and did make it through basic training. Washing out is generally indicative of one wanting to wash out: the military gives one the tools to either succeed or fail, as one wishes.
Perhaps you would, but if so you'd be placing yourself at odds with the consensus definition of what constitutes a "broken bone". Not that it specifically includes "stress fractures":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_fracture
Moreover, I know folks who've had far worse than just shin splints (broken legs, in fact)
I'd continue, but you're going in circles. It's already been established Snowden did not merely have "shin splints."
Neither Gellman nor the House Intelligence report is incorrect here.
The whole point is that there's no way one can reasonably claim Snowden was exaggerating or misstating the reason for his discharge. The Committee's assertions on this point were just a smear, and a pretty crude one at that.
Unfortunately, your argument is made more difficult by the original narrative of Snowden's story, which claims he "broke both legs in a training accident". Were tibial stress fractures what anyone conjured up from that description?
Both sides --- Gellman and the House committee --- spun this particular issue. Both sides should have provided more context.
Personally, I also think both Gellman and the House report are litigating the dumbest, least important aspect of the Snowden events. I don't really care what kind of person Snowden is, and I don't understand what his personality has to do with public policy. I'm surprised Gellman conceded this dimension of the debate --- especially because a lot of the facts aren't really on his side, in the persuasive sense. Surely Snowden was more sympathetic when we thought he'd been in a pair of casts after a parachute mishap. The House report succeeded in re-casting this part of the story, with some assistance by Gellman.
Well, granting the analogy for the sake of argument, the problem here is the House report says that Snowden lied by saying he was diagnosed with chronic pharyngitis when he really had a sore throat.
IOW, he is being called a liar for saying something that is literally and exactly factually true about his discharge, and which is exactly supported by the discharge papers.
(The analogy isn't precise, because at best the description used in the House report is less specific, and implies a much less serious injury in the common mind even if it can include the actual injury that occurred. So, the House report is even more dishonest than the analogy in the above paragraph would suggest.)
> Personally, I also think both Gellman and the House report are litigating the dumbest, least important aspect of the Snowden events. I don't really care what kind of person Snowden is
Sure, you don't, but you aren't representative of the masses of the public, and what the House report is trying to do (and do so at least as dishonestly as it is trying to paint Snowden as doing) -- and Gellman is trying to negate (and perhaps even turn back on the House report itself) -- is poisoning the well. They know that the substance of the matter regarding Snowden's action is difficult and complex, and they want to give the public a clear and easy to grasp reason to tune the whole thing out because "Snowden is dishonest".
Politically, its in a way the most important thing even if it is substantively least important, because its exactly the kind of thing which will -- and this is the whole reason that any time and ink has been spent on it -- prevent the substantive parts from getting attention.
I know my original post reads like a list of complaints I have about Gellman's post, but it isn't: it's a list of all the claims Gellman makes, and a short take on each of them.
So, I think it's worth knowing that when Gellman says the House Report is lying because Snowden has a diagnosis of "bilateral tibial stress fractures", he's describing a common result of seeking medical attention for shin splints. That's all.
It's worth mentioning here that the Snowden movie --- I haven't seen it, but that's why all this stuff is coming up now --- appears to be false on this point in no uncertain terms. But then, the broader narrative point the movie is trying to make --- that Snowden was prevented from joining the Special Forces for medical reasons --- might not be. But then a narrower issue is whether he washed out of X-ray Special Forces Training (the "street directly to special forces training" program), or out of the military in general --- that is: did he wash out because he was only willing to serve if he could go straight to Special Forces, when he could have managed his repetitive stress injury, stayed engaged with the Army, and taken the conventional path into Special Forces? And on and on. The whole thing is a mess.
We are rapidly approaching a point where I am going to start reading reports on parachutists managing tibial stress fractures and I'd be happier if we didn't get all the way to that point.
No, it's not. It's quite a silly comparison, actually.
"Shin splints" is a diagnosis, in that its the popular name for medial tibial stress syndrome.
If the only point you're making is that the House Report is dishonest in not acknowledging that nobody is diagnosed with literally the term "shin splints", OK, sure, I agree.
But it's a little crazy to me that we're discussing this to this extent, since it's the least important claim in both Gellman and the House's documents.
And attempted comparisons to a "runny nose", even more so.
They are, or rather, they are diagnosed with medial tibial stress syndrome, which is a distinct and generally less serious thing from a tibial stress fractures (though, AFAICT, may include tibial stress fractures.)
But the relationship between the "shin splits" and medial tibial stress syndrome is clear -- one is the common name and one the formal medical term.
And that's not, in fact, what Snowden was diagnosed with.
And what Snowden was actually diagnosed with is, in fact, broken bones in both legs, so for the House report to paint him as a liar in saying that he was discharged with broken legs because he was -- by the reports description -- discharged with mere shin splints is a lie of such breathtaking brazenness, on such a trivial matter, so far from the substantive meat of the issue, that it demonstrates that the report was written with the intent to smear Snowden everywhere possible without any regard for the actual facts. And that's what makes it important, rather than the importance of the particular claim to the substantive matter.
A stress fracture is a broken bone. Tibial stress fractures are (among the more severe and longer-healing) manifestations of medial tibial stress syndrome ("shin splints"). So, Gellman's evidence is consistent with the House reports claim that Snowden washed out due to "shin splints", but nevertheless rebuts the House reports claim that Snowden lied about broken legs.
Essentially, the House report is itself lying in a fairly brazen fashion (and counting on ignorance of the meaning of the terms used to get away with it) by claiming that they can paint something as a lie based on a fact which is itself entirely consistent with the claim it is supposed to demonstrate is a lie.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12535114
I think both sides are spinning. It's clear to me how the House Report lawyers Snowden's training history, but where you see Gellman rebutting a House Report claim that no bone fractures were involved in Snowden's separation from the army, I see Gellman failing to acknowledge that a tibial stress fractures are a common medical diagnosis for "shin splints".
I think it's clearer in light of Snowden's original claim to the Guardian that he left training after "breaking both legs in a training accident" (it is possible, but unlikely, that Snowden acquired stress fractions as a result of a single discrete training event --- but Snowden was getting a lot of mileage out of the ambiguity).
Even if "shin splints" weren't the common name for a different and lesser less severe diagnosis, those wouldn't be equivalent.
The House report would still be dishonest in calling Snowden a liar for a statement that is completely accurate. And Gellman would still be completely dishonest (even with the failure to acknowledge that you suggest) in painting the House report as dishonest for dishonestly calling Snowden a liar for a statement that is completely accurate.
This isn't "both sides spinning". It is one side outright lying and using misdirection to get away with that, and one side pointing this out without any misdirection.
The acknowledgement (even if it were accurate) that you fault Gellman for giving is irrelevant to the point in dispute, which isn't "Snowden actually had something that can be described with the term 'shin splints'", but "Snowden was dishonest in saying that he had broken legs". His discharge report indicates that he had broken bones in both legs. Snowden was not dishonest. At best, if one accepts your description, the House report relied on people's ignorance to sell a different, nonconflicting-but-also-not-incorrect description of the events as a conflicting one so that it could call Snowden a liar; at worst it actually invented a false narrative to call Snowden a liar, but whether it was a false narrative or simply relied on a false presentation of conflict, the House report relied on deliberate falsehood to call Snowden a liar.
> I think it's clearer in light of Snowden's original claim to the Guardian that he left training after "breaking both legs in a training accident" (it is possible, but unlikely, that Snowden acquired stress fractions as a result of a single discrete training event --- but Snowden was getting a lot of mileage out of the ambiguity).
Its not all that unlikely that the stress fractures, if not being acquired, became acute enough to cause him to leave training as a result of a single discrete training event, and its even less unlikely that he became unable to train and sought or was referred to medical attention as a result of pain and lack of ability to take weight occurring in the immediate context of a discrete training event and in the course of being diagnosed, was not disabused of the notion that the training event in which the injury was recognized was not necessarily the sole or major cause. So, its not improbable that Snowden's description to the Guardian was accurate, and even more likely that it accurately reflected the facts as he knew them.
If you washed out it would have to be severe -- if the shin splints were minor you'd simply be given time to heal and the ability to rollback into the next class. But even if they were severe, we (recruits and staff alike) called them 'shin splints', not 'broken legs'.
However technically true Snowden's usage of 'my legs were broken' may have been, we would never have called it 'broken legs' unless he'd suffered a macroscopic fracture or a break (in other words, something that'd normally require a cast, splint, or crutches).
So the fact that Snowden did so is actually quite consistent with the HPSCI's assertions about his 'narcissistic' and 'self-serving' nature. There /should/ be little shame in washing out for shin splints, certainly not enough to be deceptive about it when your credibility is about to be closely examined for something that is theoretically far more important to you.
I haven't gone through anything close to SF training but wash-outs happen all the time; you heal up and generally get to try again, since it's not like you can just stay with your class, and the military services need SOF-quality forces bad enough that if you're otherwise qualified to get into that pipeline then it's beneficial for them to give you that opportunity.
On the other hand in a basic training environment, if you get shin splints you may get a medical profile or light duty chit saying not to do certain types of exercise (or even to wear different shoes) to give your lower legs time to heal. But if it's bad enough you can be pulled out of training completely and put in a holding company to heal up properly and then roll back into a class.
I was briefly in a holding company for something else; there were recruits there who had been out of training due to shin splints for months, usually when they refused to go to medical when they first started noticing symptoms and tried to tough it out.
We have Barton Gellman defending Snowden by saying that he was diagnosed with 'bilateral tibial stress fractures'. But, this is consistent with shin splints (albeit more severe) and could be the result of trying to maintain the exercise regimen that gave you shin splints in the first place. But nor are bilateral tibial stress fractures something you get in a training accident or other single event -- it's a repetitive injury that you get when your body cannot sustain the level of demand being placed on it over time.
It still hurts like a bitch if you let it get to that point, and Snowden would not be anywhere near the first or the last to wash out of a military training pipeline due to that. But he sells it like he broke his legs in some sort of accident at a single SF training event, not like the exact same type of repetitive stress injury that has been a common cause of medical washouts in many other men and women attempting the same training (even for ceremonial duties! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2807419/).
Every single movie "based on real events" is pretty much made up. Pointing to the differences between the movie and real life is (IMHO) a pointless exercise. More so when it's used then to justify a political position.
Put another way: as good as JFK is, I wouldn't put anyone in jail because of it.
I like when they say a movie is inspired by a true story. That's kind of silly. "Hey, Mitch, did you hear that story about that lady who drove her car into the lake with her kids and they all drowned?" "Yeah, I did, and you know what - that inspires me to write a movie about a gorilla!"
Claiming moral high ground comes with scrutiny. If for example he had indeed stolen the test questions to pass the test that paints a slightly different picture of the character he and his supporters are trying to sell.
https://tcf.org/content/commentary/house-intelligence-commit...
You mean these statements? 'He claimed to have left Army basic training because of broken legs when in fact he washed out because of shin splints. He claimed to have obtained a high school degree equivalent when in fact he never did.'
They go to Snowden's credibility (or complete lack thereof). Presumably the full report (an unclassified version of which has not yet been released) goes into details.
Regarding his stress fractures, he made it sound as though he was left a temporary cripple; shin splints aren't that big a deal and plenty of people heal up and complete basic training after having them.
Right now, one of Snowden's allies claims Snowden got a GED; the House Committee claims he did not get a high school degree equivalent. I'll trust the House Committee until the report is released.
For now, I see someone who claimed to have mono, who claimed to have epilepsy, who claimed to have washed out of basic training due to broken legs (leaving 'on crutches,' which may be technically true but misleading), who claimed to have all sorts of evidence of illegal actions, not one of whose claims of illegal actions has been borne out, yet who also claims to have released evidence of legal activity to adversary state. His trustworthiness rating looks incredibly low.
There's no reason to believe they'd be hiding the "goods" on these accusations in the classified report. The only reason they aren't providing any more detail is because... they don't have any.
Regarding his stress fractures, he made it sound as though he was left a temporary cripple;
Where? Quotes, please.
BTW if you've ever had any kind of a bone fracture -- in that part of the body, it does make you a "temporary cripple". Presumably the Army agreed, which is why they discharged him.
Shin splints aren't that big a deal and plenty of people heal up and complete basic training after having them.
But he wasn't diagnosed for shin splints (or anything equivalent to it); his actual diagnoses was for something different (and categorically more serious). "Shin splints" are just an invention of the Intelligence Committee.
Right now, one of Snowden's allies claims Snowden got a GED; the House Committee claims he did not get a high school degree equivalent. I'll trust the House Committee until the report is released.
The article refers to documents on file with the Maryland State Department of Education, which is the authority I'll trust on this matter. But if you want to believe what the IC report nakedly asserts on the matter (despite not providing a shred of evidence), go ahead -- whatever works for you.
It is said in this article that Snowden leaked information that is appropriately done by the NSA as part of their charter. The direct quote:
Whatever one’s views of U.S. foreign policy in those parts of the world, these activities are legitimate aspects of the NSA’s charter