Snowden Did the World a Favor and Deserves Asylum, Says Activist Daniel Ellsberg

01/13/2014 - 08h37

Several American critics of Edward Snowden like to compare him unfavorably to Daniel Ellsberg, 82, the most famous activist who, before him, also leaked data and embarrassed an American president.

Ellsberg did not flee the country and faced justice (and harassment from the government), shortly after leaking a revealing study about the Vietnam War dubbed the Pentagon Papers to 18 American newspapers in 1971.

The crisis that would end the war and would eventually overthrow the government of Richard Nixon started with him.

Ellsberg hates being used in attacks on Snowden. "If it were today, I would have done the same thing he did and fled," he said. "The country in which I denounced Nixon was quite different from today."

In an exclusive interview with Folha, Ellsberg, 82, said that "democracy is not compatible with governments that know every communication, every credit card transaction, every cell phone message of its citizens" and argued that Brazil should grant Snowden asylum.

Folha - Was Snowden wrong to have fled to China and Russia without facing the consequences, like you did in 1971?

Daniel Ellsberg - The country where I decided to say and face justice was very different. The Supreme Court had several judges that guaranteed the defense of freedom of speech and of the press.

Obama has already used the Espionage Act more times to persecute those who speak out than all previous presidents.

I was indicted, but I doubt that Supreme Court convicted me. The country has changed a lot, leaning toward the right, in my opinion.

Was fleeing his only option?

Snowden could see what they did to Chelsea Manning [formerly Bradley Manning], who was placed in solitary confinement for nine months. Manning was never interviewed by a single journalist. The press did not have access to her.

According to the UN, what they did to Manning was cruel treatment. It was torture, in my opinion. Snowden learned he needed to be out of the country to do what he did. In his place, I would have done the same.

Should Brazil grant Snowden asylum?

It would be admirable if Brazil would grant Snowden asylum. The world needs to thank this guy. His dream would be to return to his paradise, Hawaii, but I think he will live out his life in exile. I see no chance of a presidential pardon here.

He made a great sacrifice. Snowden is in danger of death in any place, maybe less so in Russia, but I think he would like to be in a more democratic and open place.

But Brazil wouldn't suffer retaliation from the US?

It's not easy to antagonize the richest and most powerful country in the world. Many prioritize their relationship with the US.

Brazil could face sanctions. But no country as the right to spy on the private communications of citizens around the world.

Snowden did the world a favor, far beyond espionage.

What favor?

Democracy is not compatible with governments controlling and knowing every personal communication, every credit card transaction, every e-mail, every cell phone message. This information can be used for blackmail, with political and commercial purposes.

Brazil, for example, is not a threat to US security or to the personal communications of Chancellor Merkel. These uses have nothing to do with terrorism.

President Obama is expected to announce on Friday changes in NSA (National Security Agency) spying. What do you expect will change?

I think Obama will only disclose superficial espionage changes. I do not expect major principle reforms. Presidents do not like reducing powers. The Congress and the courts should counterbalance each other, but are not fulfilling that role.

After the September 11 attacks, the US had to greatly strengthen security. How can this necessity be reconciled with the need for privacy?

September 11 served for many things. To invade Iraq, for a government to lie to Congress, which is another violation of the Constitution. It doesn't surprise me that Obama has not changed or gone back on abuses of power from the Bush-Cheney era. We had torture, espionage, and Congress and the public are guilty of accepting these abuses.

A certain degree of vigilance is necessary. There are obviously great dangers because of terrorism, but experts don't think it's necessary to have so much data collection. This absurd scale of monitoring makes their job even harder.

Democrat and Republican senators and deputies say that the US is more insecure thanks to Snowden.

It doesn't surprise me that they're against Snowden; they're complicit. But some deputies have already said that there is no evidence of a single attempt that was avoided because of espionage.

Much of the American press also holds a position against Snowden.

Newspaper columnists, editor and TV commentators need to have access to Washington's sources, exchanging what they consider "scoops" in reporting for access to the powerful. They are not critical as they should be of illegalities in exchanges for access to bigwigs in Washington.

But the great American public has formed a different opinion of Snowden. Many people, research says, think he did what needed to be done.

What is the difference between the way the Nixon administration treated you and Obama with Snowden?

Obama's reaction has been very similar to Nixon's. What has changed is that what he did to me was illegal. What Obama is doing to Snowden and Manning today is legal.

Nixon used the CIA to hold me, invade my psychiatrist's office to try to discover my weaknesses or vulnerabilities; there was even a group to drug or incapacitate me that, fortunately, did not fulfill the plan. All this was a crime, obstruction of justice, which ended up closing my judgment.

I was like a fugitive for two weeks with my wife, hidden, while I passed information to other newspapers, as the Court had temporarily prohibited The New York Times from disclosing the papers. It was my equivalent of Snowden fleeing.

Today, we use the CIA domestically, and it would be easy to invade and seize documents, and the president even has a list authorizing executions [by drones]. The Patriot Act after September 11 made all of this legal.

Snowden didn't break a confidentiality agreement?

Snowden did not break an oath. That kind of oath of secrecy does not exist. Snowden and I broke an agreement, known as Standard 312, that we signed when we were hired. It provides certain civil and administrative penalties for disclosing confidential information.

It's enough to keep everyone quiet. Any authority of the US government or of Congress swears (or affirms) to support and defend the Constitution against internal or external enemies. There are several amendments to the Constitution on civil liberties and privacy that need to be defended.

Translated by JILL LANGLOIS

Read the article in the original language

	Stephen Hird -1º.nov.2004/Reuters
	Daniel Ellsberg risked career suicide and a century in prison to blow the whistle on U.S. President Nixon's Vietnam war plans