He's either "protected" in Russia or dead. I seriously doubt he could return to the US without suffering some horrible traumatic body-and-evidence-destroying "accident" ...
Honest question - do you truly think that could happen? I've no doubt certain individuals would like it to, but would the people in power allow it?
I personally suspect at this stage, his death would turn him into a martyr and the last thing the individuals operating these illegal surveillance programs want is more attention back on what they are doing.
I don't know how he could really do much more damage at this point. What would killing him achieve. And also can't they get him in Russia too? I mean in a country like that with all the mafia, etc. A few million would go a long way. I wonder how much Russia is protecting him from a CIA hit. In Russia he's much more of a threat as Putin's useful idiot than he would be on American soil. I am not saying he's a useful idiot, I am saying he's a useful idiot to Putin and that's why Putin has given him protection. Also I don't think that you hand over a chip like Snowden without serious concessions from the US. But could happen under Trump.
Assassinating someone on Russian soil is a great way to start a war. You seem to be assuming that it could be covered up successfully. History proves otherwise; all too often, the truth comes out eventually. And if he were assassinated, the party responsible would be fairly obvious early on, because there's only one country that would have the motivation to finance that operation.
Putin gives him protection because it lets him thumb his nose at the US.
Killing somebody on foreign soil opens you up to a whole can of worms that killing on your own soil doesn't, so regardless of whether or not he is being actively protected there is significant passive protection just by being there.
So are we to assume that the CIA wants Snowden dead, but they can't get a chance to kill him in Russia? I found that hard to believe. Maybe, there is some kind of commitment to the FSB (don't kill in the US, we won't go on a killing spree in Russian soil kind of deal), but even that I find it hard to believe. I also find very hard to believe the claim the the FSB somehow protects him.
So are we to assume that the CIA wants Snowden dead, but they can't get a chance to kill him in Russia?
Not so much can't get a chance as the price would be too high. He's under Russian protection. That protection is political far more than tactical. The CIA could probably pick him up in less than an hour if they knew they could do it without pissing off the Russians. It's the "pissing off the Russians" part that's stopping them, not the logistics.
It isn't just pissing off the Russians, its pissing off everybody. When you perform an act on foreign soil you open yourself up to scrutiny from everyone. The USA is already largely considered a warmonger state
As for whether the CIA would want Snowden dead - I presume it would only have been useful to them pre-leak, and I doubt murder would have been on the cards then anyway. I don't see retribution as being particularly high on the CIA's list of priorities, and the political entities in the US that are keeping Snowden relevant wouldn't appear to gain anything from his death.
The US Govt kills people on foreign soil often, even in countries that we're not at war with. If we hear about it happening in Pakistan, where does it happen that we don't hear about? Also, you're assuming that the US Govt is rational and doesn't want an excuse to go to war with Russia or anyone else.
First, let's accept the conceit (for now) that nation-states have both the desire and the capability to do this.
In that context, it's very easy to imagine ways to frame the death such that it would prevent him from seeming a martyr. Died in a car accident, strangled during auto-erotic asphyxiation, shot in a drug deal gone bad, depression-related suicide, etc. The right context could be used to discredit him further, in addition to silencing any potential impact by giving speeches or serving as a public figure for a privacy-focused organization in the future (for example).
Of course, you could then respond that it would still spawn conspiracy theories, but the doubt planted would certainly blunt the kind of wide-spread movement (or public outrage) that might otherwise sprout from a bald-faced assassination. Realistically, conspiracy theories will pop up in any situation in which Snowden doesn't die of old age at 95, so this isn't much of a dissuading factor for our hypothetical villains.
We know that state-sponsored assassination is possible, based on the basically-obvious case of Litvinenko. Crucially, we can also never know of any attempt which was successfully reframed, which makes it impossible to determine whether or not these "accidents" exist; there are many, many deaths which have been nominated as candidates, but no conclusive evidence of those that I'm aware of.
So, rather than "would the people in power allow it", I think the following 3 questions are more pertinent:
1 - Are nation-states competent enough to plausibly disguise the attempt?
2 - Which nation-states conduct this kind of behavior?
3 - Who in the intersection of Q1 and Q2 cares enough about Snowden to do it?
I think the public has a short attention span. What if Snowden disappeared without a trace? He wouldn't be a martyr - intelligent people might assume that he's dead, and everyone else would be worried about the current distraction in media and entertainment.
Why on earth would the US government bother doing this and what 'evidence' is there to destroy? This weirdly popular idea that Snowden (or Assange, etc) are the targets of active, persistent USG plots to murder them doesn't make much sense. What could the US gain by this, for the hassle?
Assange perpetuates these ideas for publicity. Snowden likely fears for his safety (rightfully so; Trump's CIA pick has said he wants Snowden dead), but seems to be much less hysterical about hitmen and death.
Odd that, say, Daniel Ellsberg has lived to be 85 and has not been hit by a ninja CIA bus. No NSA anvil has fallen on James Bramford (age 70). And there are dozens of others you can think of. There's next to no evidence the US government operates in the way you assume with respect to such people. Why does Snowden suddenly get his own squad of assassins?
And strategically, assassinating Snowden is about the worst possible move for a US linked agency since (i) it makes them look bad, even to some of the people who think Chelsea Manning got off lightly and (ii) it makes Snowden's revelations interesting to a whole bunch of people that don't read Hacker News and think that articles about email monitoring sound incredibly dull.
You don't have to believe that every US chain of command in every theatre of operations has qualms about "disappearing" people suspected of quietly leaking secrets to think that causing an international incident over a public figure like Snowden, even if the assassins were guaranteed to succeed and not perish in a firefight with Russian cops called by an FSB security detail, isn't going to do them any good.
There've been several just in the last few years, Ellsberg was a genuine whistleblower, the NSA wanted to stop the publication of Bramford's work. On top of that there have been multiple genuine, grade A, real spies. They get caught, tried, convicted and imprisoned - they don't end up dying in car accidents or even accidentally falling on a pair of scissors in prison.
You're assuming he's released everything he has... and he didnt. He censored stuff, he left it up to news outlets to pull out newsworthy stuff and not share things likely to compromize national security... those things are out there still... and he has them, so yes, he still has damage he can do... i believe he has no interest in doing said damage, but the potential is there
The damage is already done. It's much more likely that every interested intelligence organization has already got their hands on everything he took (because that's their job) than 'US intelligence is plotting an assassination attempt' (not really their job).
Comments
It doesn't matter.
He's either "protected" in Russia or dead. I seriously doubt he could return to the US without suffering some horrible traumatic body-and-evidence-destroying "accident" ...
Honest question - do you truly think that could happen? I've no doubt certain individuals would like it to, but would the people in power allow it?
I personally suspect at this stage, his death would turn him into a martyr and the last thing the individuals operating these illegal surveillance programs want is more attention back on what they are doing.
I don't know how he could really do much more damage at this point. What would killing him achieve. And also can't they get him in Russia too? I mean in a country like that with all the mafia, etc. A few million would go a long way. I wonder how much Russia is protecting him from a CIA hit. In Russia he's much more of a threat as Putin's useful idiot than he would be on American soil. I am not saying he's a useful idiot, I am saying he's a useful idiot to Putin and that's why Putin has given him protection. Also I don't think that you hand over a chip like Snowden without serious concessions from the US. But could happen under Trump.
Assassinating someone on Russian soil is a great way to start a war. You seem to be assuming that it could be covered up successfully. History proves otherwise; all too often, the truth comes out eventually. And if he were assassinated, the party responsible would be fairly obvious early on, because there's only one country that would have the motivation to finance that operation.
Putin gives him protection because it lets him thumb his nose at the US.
Killing somebody on foreign soil opens you up to a whole can of worms that killing on your own soil doesn't, so regardless of whether or not he is being actively protected there is significant passive protection just by being there.
So are we to assume that the CIA wants Snowden dead, but they can't get a chance to kill him in Russia? I found that hard to believe. Maybe, there is some kind of commitment to the FSB (don't kill in the US, we won't go on a killing spree in Russian soil kind of deal), but even that I find it hard to believe. I also find very hard to believe the claim the the FSB somehow protects him.
Not so much can't get a chance as the price would be too high. He's under Russian protection. That protection is political far more than tactical. The CIA could probably pick him up in less than an hour if they knew they could do it without pissing off the Russians. It's the "pissing off the Russians" part that's stopping them, not the logistics.
It isn't just pissing off the Russians, its pissing off everybody. When you perform an act on foreign soil you open yourself up to scrutiny from everyone. The USA is already largely considered a warmonger state
As for whether the CIA would want Snowden dead - I presume it would only have been useful to them pre-leak, and I doubt murder would have been on the cards then anyway. I don't see retribution as being particularly high on the CIA's list of priorities, and the political entities in the US that are keeping Snowden relevant wouldn't appear to gain anything from his death.
The US Govt kills people on foreign soil often, even in countries that we're not at war with. If we hear about it happening in Pakistan, where does it happen that we don't hear about? Also, you're assuming that the US Govt is rational and doesn't want an excuse to go to war with Russia or anyone else.
I'm sure the USG would love to put him on trial if he would return to the USA.
Obama said as much in why he pardoned Manning and not Snowden, in that Manning has already gone through the justice system whereas Snowden has not.
First, let's accept the conceit (for now) that nation-states have both the desire and the capability to do this.
In that context, it's very easy to imagine ways to frame the death such that it would prevent him from seeming a martyr. Died in a car accident, strangled during auto-erotic asphyxiation, shot in a drug deal gone bad, depression-related suicide, etc. The right context could be used to discredit him further, in addition to silencing any potential impact by giving speeches or serving as a public figure for a privacy-focused organization in the future (for example).
Of course, you could then respond that it would still spawn conspiracy theories, but the doubt planted would certainly blunt the kind of wide-spread movement (or public outrage) that might otherwise sprout from a bald-faced assassination. Realistically, conspiracy theories will pop up in any situation in which Snowden doesn't die of old age at 95, so this isn't much of a dissuading factor for our hypothetical villains.
We know that state-sponsored assassination is possible, based on the basically-obvious case of Litvinenko. Crucially, we can also never know of any attempt which was successfully reframed, which makes it impossible to determine whether or not these "accidents" exist; there are many, many deaths which have been nominated as candidates, but no conclusive evidence of those that I'm aware of.
So, rather than "would the people in power allow it", I think the following 3 questions are more pertinent:
1 - Are nation-states competent enough to plausibly disguise the attempt?
2 - Which nation-states conduct this kind of behavior?
3 - Who in the intersection of Q1 and Q2 cares enough about Snowden to do it?
I think the public has a short attention span. What if Snowden disappeared without a trace? He wouldn't be a martyr - intelligent people might assume that he's dead, and everyone else would be worried about the current distraction in media and entertainment.
Why on earth would the US government bother doing this and what 'evidence' is there to destroy? This weirdly popular idea that Snowden (or Assange, etc) are the targets of active, persistent USG plots to murder them doesn't make much sense. What could the US gain by this, for the hassle?
Assange perpetuates these ideas for publicity. Snowden likely fears for his safety (rightfully so; Trump's CIA pick has said he wants Snowden dead), but seems to be much less hysterical about hitmen and death.
It would probably be done to
1) get revenge (human nature)
2) scare other potential whistle blowers
Odd that, say, Daniel Ellsberg has lived to be 85 and has not been hit by a ninja CIA bus. No NSA anvil has fallen on James Bramford (age 70). And there are dozens of others you can think of. There's next to no evidence the US government operates in the way you assume with respect to such people. Why does Snowden suddenly get his own squad of assassins?
And strategically, assassinating Snowden is about the worst possible move for a US linked agency since (i) it makes them look bad, even to some of the people who think Chelsea Manning got off lightly and (ii) it makes Snowden's revelations interesting to a whole bunch of people that don't read Hacker News and think that articles about email monitoring sound incredibly dull.
You don't have to believe that every US chain of command in every theatre of operations has qualms about "disappearing" people suspected of quietly leaking secrets to think that causing an international incident over a public figure like Snowden, even if the assassins were guaranteed to succeed and not perish in a firefight with Russian cops called by an FSB security detail, isn't going to do them any good.
I can't think of dozens of living whistleblowers who blew the whistle on the CIA or NSA, or both. Which group were you referring to?
There've been several just in the last few years, Ellsberg was a genuine whistleblower, the NSA wanted to stop the publication of Bramford's work. On top of that there have been multiple genuine, grade A, real spies. They get caught, tried, convicted and imprisoned - they don't end up dying in car accidents or even accidentally falling on a pair of scissors in prison.
I think that the risk of Assange ending in the US via Sweden, if he leaves the embassy is very real.
Maybe but that's hardly assassination.
They'd have much more incentive to wipe him out if he hadn't leaked the documents already. After the leak, there's not much further damage he can do.
You're assuming he's released everything he has... and he didnt. He censored stuff, he left it up to news outlets to pull out newsworthy stuff and not share things likely to compromize national security... those things are out there still... and he has them, so yes, he still has damage he can do... i believe he has no interest in doing said damage, but the potential is there
The damage is already done. It's much more likely that every interested intelligence organization has already got their hands on everything he took (because that's their job) than 'US intelligence is plotting an assassination attempt' (not really their job).