O que é este blog?

Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org. Para a maior parte de meus textos, ver minha página na plataforma Academia.edu, link: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida;

Meu Twitter: https://twitter.com/PauloAlmeida53

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/paulobooks

Mostrando postagens com marcador Edward Snowden. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador Edward Snowden. Mostrar todas as postagens

terça-feira, 13 de maio de 2014

No Place to Hide: Greenwald book on Snowden and the NSA - Michiko Kakutani



Books


BOOKS OF THE TIMES

Snowden’s Story, Behind the Scenes

The title of the journalist Glenn Greenwald’s impassioned new book, “No Place to Hide,” comes from a chilling observation made in 1975 by Senator Frank Church, then chairman of a select committee on intelligence. The United States government, he said, had perfected “a technological capability that enables us to monitor the messages that go through the air.” That capability, he added, could at any time “be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide.”
That was nearly 40 years ago, and as the documents leaked last year by the former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed, the N.S.A.’s ability to spy on our daily lives has grown exponentially to Orwellian proportions. The documents provided by Mr. Snowden revealed that the agency has an ability to monitor or collect information fromhundreds of millions of people around the globe, that it has broken into the communications links of major data centers across the world, that it has circumvented or cracked much of the encryption that protects sensitive data on the Internet, and that, according to its own records, it has broken privacy laws or exceeded its authority thousands of times a year. The first journalist Mr. Snowden approached by email was Glenn Greenwald, a columnist for The Guardian and former constitutional lawyer who had frequently written about civil liberties, the dangers of enhanced executive power, and surveillance abuses in post-Sept. 11 America. (Mr. Greenwald has since left The Guardian to work with Pierre Omidyar, the founder of eBay, on building a new media venture, which includes the news site The Intercept, of which Mr. Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Jeremy Scahill are founding editors.)
In “No Place to Hide,” Mr. Greenwald recounts the story of how he and Ms. Poitras, a documentary filmmaker, traveled to Hong Kong to meet with Mr. Snowden and the race to publish articles based on the documents he provided, all the while fearful of authorities’ closing in. The outlines of this story will be familiar to readers who followed it in real time last year, and to readers of the recent book “The Snowden Files” (by the Guardian reporter Luke Harding), just as much of the material here about the N.S.A. will be familiar to readers of articles that have appeared in The Guardian (many with Mr. Greenwald’s byline), The Washington Post and The New York Times.
“No Place to Hide” is enlivened by reproductions of dozens of fascinating documents from the Snowden archive that help illustrate the N.S.A.’s methodology and that showcase its strange corporatelike boosterism (complete with sometimes corny graphics). And Mr. Greenwald fleshes out his portrait of Mr. Snowden with fresh observations from their exchanges. He amplifies our understanding of the N.S.A.’s sweeping ambitions, methods and global reach, and provides detailed insights into what he calls the agency’s “corporate partnerships,” which “extend beyond intelligence and defense contractors to include the world’s largest and most important Internet corporations and telecoms.”
For instance, the agency’s Stormbrew program, Mr. Greenwald writes, “gives the N.S.A. access to Internet and telephone traffic that enters the United States at various ‘choke points’ on U.S. soil. It exploits the fact that the vast majority of the world’s Internet traffic at some point flows through the U.S. communications infrastructure — a residual by-product of the central role that the United States had played in developing the network.” According to the N.S.A., he says, Stormbrew “is currently comprised of very sensitive relationships with two U.S. telecom providers (cover terms ARTIFICE and WOLFPOINT)”; the identity of such corporate partners, he adds, “is one of the most closely guarded secrets in the N.S.A.”
Mr. Greenwald portrays Mr. Snowden — regarded by some as a heroic whistle-blower, by others as a traitor — as a courageous idealist who felt he needed to act on his beliefs. That outlook, Mr. Greenwald suggests, was partly shaped by books Mr. Snowden read growing up — Greek mythology and “The Hero With a Thousand Faces” by Joseph Campbell, which convinced Mr. Snowden that, in his own words, “it is we who infuse life with meaning through our actions and the stories we create with them.”
Mr. Snowden also confided “with a hint of embarrassment,” Mr. Greenwald writes, that video games had taught him certain lessons. As Mr. Snowden put it: “The protagonist is often an ordinary person, who finds himself faced with grave injustices from powerful forces and has the choice to flee in fear or to fight for his beliefs. And history also shows that seemingly ordinary people who are sufficiently resolute about justice can triumph over the most formidable adversaries.”
In the course of this book, Mr. Greenwald describes how he received his first communication from Mr. Snowden on Dec. 1, 2012, though he had no idea who it was from. The email came from someone calling himself Cincinnatus and urged Mr. Greenwald to begin using PGP encryption so that Cincinnatus could communicate with him securely. Busy with other projects, Mr. Greenwald procrastinated about installing the encryption program, and Mr. Snowden was only able to make contact with him months later, through Ms. Poitras.
According to Mr. Greenwald, Mr. Snowden would later describe his frustration: “Here am I ready to risk my liberty, perhaps even my life, to hand this guy thousands of Top Secret documents from the nation’s most secretive agency — a leak that will produce dozens if not hundreds of huge journalistic scoops. And he can’t even be bothered to install an encryption program.”
The most gripping sections of “No Place to Hide” recount Mr. Greenwald and Ms. Poitras’s 10-day trip to Hong Kong, where they and The Guardian’s veteran correspondent Ewen MacAskill met with Mr. Snowden in his hotel room. Mr. Greenwald describes the tradecraft they employed (removing batteries from their cellphones, or placing the phones in the minibar refrigerator) to avoid detection; his initial five-hour, litigatorlike grilling of Mr. Snowden; and the “giddy gallows humor” that later crept into their conversations (“I call the bottom bunk at Gitmo,” Mr. Snowden reportedly joked).
Mr. Greenwald writes that Mr. Snowden said one turning point in his decision to become a leaker came in 2010, when he was working as an N.S.A. contractor in Japan. “The stuff I saw really began to disturb me,” Mr. Snowden recalled. “I could watch drones in real time as they surveilled the people they might kill.” He added: “I watched N.S.A. tracking people’s Internet activities as they typed. I became aware of just how invasive U.S. surveillance capabilities had become. I realized the true breadth of this system. And almost nobody knew it was happening”
Substantial sections of this book deal not with Mr. Greenwald’s relationship with Mr. Snowden and the N.S.A., but with his combative view of “the establishment media,” which he has denounced for “glaring subservience to political power” and to which he condescends as inferior to his more activist kind of journalism.
In “No Place to Hide,” Mr. Greenwald is critical of the process by which publications like The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Guardian speak with government officials before publishing sensitive articles dealing with national security issues; he contends that this process allows the “government to control disclosures and minimize, even neuter, their impact.” He also makes self-dramatizing boasts about his own mission: “Only audacious journalism could give the story the power it needed to overcome the climate of fear the government had imposed on journalists and their sources.”
In one passage, Mr. Greenwald makes the demonstrably false assertion that one “unwritten rule designed to protect the government is that media outlets publish only a few such secret documents, and then stop,” that “they would report on an archive like Snowden’s so as to limit its impact — publish a handful of stories, revel in the accolades of a ‘big scoop,’ collect prizes, and then walk away, ensuring that nothing had really changed.” Many establishment media outlets obviously continue to pursue the Snowden story. Further, many of Mr. Greenwald’s gross generalizations about the establishment media do a terrible disservice to the many tenacious investigative reporters who have broken important stories on some of the very subjects like the war on terror and executive power that Mr. Greenwald feels so strongly about.
When Mr. Greenwald turns his fervor to the issue of surveillance and its implications for ordinary citizens’ civil liberties, he is far more credible. Sometimes eloquent. He places the N.S.A.’s current activities in historical perspective with the F.B.I.’s Cointelpro program to target political groups and individuals, begun in 1956 and ended in 1971. And he delivers a fierce argument in defense of the right of privacy, quoting the Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis’s famous dissent in the 1928 case Olmstead v. United States, of the founding fathers’ efforts “to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations.”
The makers of our Constitution, Brandeis argued, conferred “the right to be let alone.”

DCSIMG

No Place to Hide: a book by Gleen Greenwald on Edward Snowden and the NSA surveillance

Book Reveals Wider Net of U.S. Spying on Envoys


WASHINGTON — In May 2010, when the United Nations Security Council was weighing sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, several members were undecided about how they would vote. The American ambassador to the United Nations, Susan E. Rice, asked the National Security Agency for help “so that she could develop a strategy,” a leaked agency document shows.
The N.S.A. swiftly went to work, developing the paperwork to obtain legal approval for spying on diplomats from four Security Council members — Bosnia, Gabon, Nigeria and Uganda — whose embassies and missions were not already under surveillance. The following month, 12 members of the 15-seat Security Council voted to approve new sanctions, with Lebanon abstaining and only Brazil and Turkey voting against.
Later that summer, Ms. Rice thanked the agency, saying its intelligence had helped her to know when diplomats from the other permanent representatives — China, England, France and Russia — “were telling the truth ... revealed their real position on sanctions ... gave us an upper hand in negotiations ... and provided information on various countries ‘red lines.’ ”
The two documents laying out that episode, both leaked by the former N.S.A. contractor Edward J. Snowden, are reproduced in a new book by Glenn Greenwald, “No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the N.S.A., and the U.S. Surveillance State.” The book is being published Tuesday.
Elements of the N.S.A.’s role in helping aid American diplomatic negotiations leading up to the Iran sanctions vote had been previously reported, including in an October 2013 article in the French newspaper Le Monde that focused on the agency’s spying on French diplomats.
Mr. Greenwald’s book also reproduces a document listing embassies and missions that had been penetrated by the N.S.A., including those of Brazil, Bulgaria, Colombia, the European Union, France, Georgia, Greece, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, Venezuela and Vietnam. Aspects of that document werereported in June by The Guardian.
Revelations about N.S.A. spying abroad, including on officials of American allies, has fueled anger at the United States. But Caitlin Hayden, an N.S.A. spokeswoman, noted that President Obama sought to address those issues in January when he promised greater limits on spying aimed at allies and partners.
“While our intelligence agencies will continue to gather information about the intentions of governments — as opposed to ordinary citizens — around the world, in the same way that the intelligence services of every other nation do, we will not apologize because our services may be more effective,” she said.
Ms. Rice’s request for help in May 2010 was recounted in an internal report by the security agency’s Special Source Operations division, which works with telecommunications companies on the American network.
A legal team was called in on May 22 to begin drawing up the paperwork for the four court orders, one for each of the four countries on the Security Council whose embassies and missions were apparently not yet under surveillance. A judge signed them on May 26.
The internal report showing that the N.S.A. obtains country-specific orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to eavesdrop on their diplomatic facilities may shed light on a murky document published in March by Der Spiegel. It showed that the court had issued an order authorizing spying on Germany on March 7, 2013, and listed several other countries whose orders were about to expire.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not authorize the court to issue orders for broad monitoring of specific countries. It does authorize orders of specific “foreign powers” operating on American soil, which expire after a year.

sábado, 12 de abril de 2014

Big Brother and its challengers: Snowden case, encore...

Journalists Who Broke News on N.S.A. Surveillance Return to the U.S.



The journalists had been threatened, cajoled and condemned by the British and American governments. Their work together had set off a hunt for their source and a debate on both sides of the Atlantic about government surveillance.
But they had never met — until Friday.
That was when Glenn Greenwald, the journalist, lawyer and civil liberties crusader, and Alan Rusbridger, the editor of The Guardian newspaper, finally shook hands after months of working remotely on articles based on material from the former National Security Agency contractor Edward J. Snowden. The two were in New York for the prestigious Polk Award presented to Mr. Greenwald and his colleagues, Laura Poitras and Ewen MacAskill, and the Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman, for national security reporting.
Mr. Greenwald and Ms. Poitras returned to the United States for the first time since their articles broke in June. They arrived at Kennedy Airport in New York from Berlin, where Mr. Greenwald had given a speech on Thursday and where Ms. Poitras lives and is making a documentary on surveillance.
Mr. Gellman, who revealed the Snowden findings alongside The Guardian, has lived in the United States since their publication beginning last June. But there were fears among Mr. Greenwald’s supporters that he and Ms. Poitras might be detained upon returning to the United States. Federal prosecutors have charged Mr. Snowden with violating the Espionage Act. He has been given asylum in Russia.
The crowd of journalists at the Polk ceremony at the Roosevelt Hotel in Manhattan cheered and applauded when it was announced that Mr. Greenwald and Ms. Poitras had cleared customs and were en route. They arrived just after 1 p.m., trailed by flashing cameras. With the ceremony already underway, Guardian editors, including Mr. Rusbridger, welcomed the two.
“I am finally really happy to see a table full of Guardian editors and journalists, whose role in this story is much more integral than the publicity generally recognizes,” Mr. Greenwald said, as he accepted the award for national security reporting.
It speaks to the increasingly wired and global news-gathering ecosystem that two of the journalists who collaborated on the complex and politically charged revelations from Mr. Snowden about global surveillance had never met. Ms. Poitras, Mr. Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill, a veteran Guardian reporter, flew to Hong Kong to meet with Mr. Snowden, someone they had only known via the Internet until they met in person at a hotel. Mr. Snowden identified himself by carrying a Rubik’s cube.
“New York, Rio, London, Berlin, Hong Kong at one point — it was just a very logistically, ethically complicated story,” Mr. Rusbridger said after the ceremony Friday. His colleagues, including the editor of Guardian U.S., Janine Gibson, her deputy, Stuart Millar, knew Mr. Greenwald well and had hired him to be a columnist the year before.
“It is much more complicated — being dispersed,” Mr. Rusbridger said. “It would have been much easier to all have been in one room — particularly a story of this nature where you assume that every conventional means of communication is suspect in some way.”
On another occasion The Guardian was forced to destroy computer equipment containing material from Mr. Snowden with power tools, under the observation of British government officials.
Despite a trouble-free entry into the United States, Mr. Greenwald and Ms. Poitras had traveled with a lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union, and a German journalist to document any unpleasant surprises. “The risks of subpoena are very real,” Ms. Poitras said. “We know there is a threat.”
The Guardian and The Washington Post are considered contenders for the Pulitzer Prizes, which will be announced on Monday.

sexta-feira, 28 de março de 2014

O dilema Snowden (interessa ao Brasil) - Robert A. Levy (Cato)

The Snowden Conundrum

Recent disclosures by Edward Snowden have focused attention on National Security Agency collection of noncontent phone data — call dates, times, and phone numbers — covering virtually everyone. Proponents claim authorization under the business records provision (Section 215) of the Patriot Act. Opponents counter that Congress never envisioned a program of such massive scope; and, in any event, dragnet surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment.
In Smith v. Maryland (1979), the Supreme Court held that we have no privacy right in noncontent data gathered by telephone companies. But this past December, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon pointed out that Smith involved a “one-time, targeted request for data regarding an individual suspect in a criminal investigation.” By contrast, the NSA program is a “daily, all-encompassing, indiscriminate dump” of data from people not suspected of any wrongdoing. Moreover, wrote Judge Leon, the government “does not cite a single instance” in which the data “actually stopped an imminent attack.”
That conclusion contrasted sharply with a second December opinion from U.S. District Judge William Pauley. He wrote that the “effectiveness of bulk telephony metadata collection cannot be seriously disputed.” Not only did Judge Pauley dispute Judge Leon, but he also contradicted President Obama’s appointed panel of experts, who found that the NSA program “was not essential to preventing attacks.”
The Supreme Court will likely have the final word, but Snowden has sparked a long-overdue debate about secret programs not fully known even to members of Congress. Meanwhile, Americans need a few answers: What’s the actual scope of the surveillance? What can be done with the data? What triggers a further look at content? Who has access? What oversight procedures are in place? And what are the remedies for abuse? Thanks to Snowden, more transparency and legal constraints are imminent.
That’s why the New York Times editorialized that Snowden should be offered a plea bargain by which he could return and face substantially reduced punishment. The administration demurred, however. Instead, President Obama declared that Snowden should have informed higher-ups, and would have been protected by an executive order covering whistle-blowers. Yet the executive order applied to employees, not contractors; and Snowden contends that he did report to two superiors — who did nothing. Although the NSA denies Snowden’s claim, it rings true in light of agency insistence that metadata surveillance is not abusive.
The main argument against treating Snowden as a hero is that he may have disclosed crucial information to such bastions of liberty as Russia, China, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, or Cuba — countries where (according to Wikileaks) he applied for asylum. Snowden supporters offer two counterarguments:
First, they maintain that Snowden had no real choice regarding asylum in Russia, where he was trapped after the U.S. State Department revoked his passport. He would have preferred Iceland, which rejected his bid for citizenship. Snowden’s remaining options were unacceptable: keep quiet about the NSA’s snooping, stay here and be exposed to 30 years or more in prison, or go to an allied country and face extradition.
Second, in a September NPR interview, reporter Barton Gellman (a Snowden confidant) stated that Snowden “is exceptionally skilled at digital self-defense.” He taught courses on avoiding surveillance at the NSA and CIA. Gellman believes Snowden “rendered himself incapable of opening the [NSA database] while he was in Russia.” He no longer had the key to the encrypted data; and, more importantly, there was “nothing for the key to open any more.” Snowden buttressed that assertion in a letter to former U.S. Senator Gordon Humphrey (R-NH): “You may rest easy knowing that I cannot be coerced into revealing that information, even under torture.”
Therein lies the crux of the matter for some libertarians. Snowden deserves our enduring gratitude for uncovering government abuse at great personal risk. On the other hand, Mike Rogers (R-MI), chair of the House Intelligence Committee, alleges that Snowden probably had help from Russia and may have compromised vital national security interests, a charge that Snowden denies. Perhaps that suggests this outline for a deal: first, Snowden can come home if he will cooperate with investigators. Second, he will not be prosecuted for actions already disclosed to the public. But third, he can be held accountable for other actions, not yet disclosed, that amount to espionage — traditionally defined as transmitting national defense information with intent or reason to believe that it will be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of a foreign nation. And fourth, as constitutionally required, the government would have the burden of presenting evidence to a grand jury, obtaining an indictment, and prevailing in a criminal trial.
Robert A. Levy is chairman of the Cato Institute’s board of directors.

quinta-feira, 26 de dezembro de 2013

Edward Snowden: entre o Estado e o povo americano, escolheu este - entrevista ao Washington Post

WorldViews

Edward Snowden, American nationalist

Edward Snowden (Guardian/Glenn Greenwald/Laura Poitras)
Edward Snowden (Guardian/Glenn Greenwald/Laura Poitras)
"If I defected at all," former NSA contractor Edward Snowden told The Washington Post's Barton Gellman in an interview in Moscow, "I defected from the government to the public."
Snowden returned several times to this distinction, between the U.S. government and its public, to argue that if he had worked against the former, it was only in service of the latter and the higher ideals it represents. On its face, this is a reasonable position and certainly consistent with how Snowden has framed his decision to leak U.S. secrets to the world.
At a deeper level, though, Snowden's language and his description of his mission echo a worldview that is unique neither to him nor even to Americans. These ideas, that the government has strayed far enough from the public interest that it must be brought back into check, and more fundamentally that a person can and perhaps should be loyal to the nation over its government, is a worldview that in any other national context we would call nationalism.
Leaks of the NSA's surveillance programs by Snowden, which the Obama administration has at times portrayed as traitorous, were actually, in Snowden's telling, acts of patriotic loyalty -- something that he suggests administration officials can't see because they themselves have lost that sense of loyalty.
He said of his nondisclosure agreement with the NSA: "The oath of allegiance is not an oath of secrecy.... That is an oath to the Constitution. That is the oath that I kept that [NSA chief] Keith Alexander and [Director of National Intelligence] James Clapper did not."
For a nationalist, loyalty to the abstract ideal of the nation -- personified by "the people" or "the public," or in the U.S. context by the Constitution -- transcends all else. Snowden's worldview seems to fit this idea perfectly. In working against U.S. government programs, he seems to argue, he is both serving a higher fealty to the nation and helping its government to return to the path from which it's strayed.
“I am not trying to bring down the NSA, I am working to improve the NSA,” he told Gellman. “I am still working for the NSA right now. They are the only ones who don’t realize it.”
In the nationalist's worldview, when a government strays from its primary duty of serving the nation, it becomes not just justifiable but near compulsory to challenge that government on behalf of the nation. Working against the government, in this view, isn't an act of treachery, but is in fact the highest level of patriotism, for it demonstrates an allegiance to the nation itself and calls attention to the enemies within.
Nationalist movements like these are typically right-wing, such as in the streets and the social networks of contemporary China or in much of 1980s Latin America. But not always. The Egyptian protesters who toppled President Hosni Mubarak in February 2011, for example, could be called left-wing nationalists, having decried Mubarak for failing both liberal values and the national ideal of the Egyptian nation. So it would not be outlandish for Snowden to be both a left-leaning libertarian and a nationalist.
Snowden positions himself, in this interview, as working on behalf of the nation rather than on behalf of -- and, perhaps, in opposition to -- the government. This is a defining feature of many a nationalist movement, this idea that the government no longer truly represents the nation (used interchangeably in the United States with "the people") and must thus be challenged from the outside.
It's also potentially dangerous, as Snowden himself acknowledges when he admits he couldn't be sure if people would support his decisions. When one person can pick up the mantle of "the nation" to go outside or actively challenge democratic institutions, it risks undermining them. This doesn't mean that American democracy is going to collapse because Snowden broke protocol, of course. But it allows anyone to see actions against the government, against democratic institutions, as serving the nation; it allows anyone to see their beliefs and concerns as representing the greater interests of the country.
Snowden had an answer for this. “That whole question -- who elected you? -- inverts the model,” he said in the interview. “They elected me. The overseers.... [Congressman] Mike Rogers elected me when he kept these programs hidden.... The FISA court elected me when they decided to legislate from the bench on things that were far beyond the mandate of what that court was ever intended to do. The system failed comprehensively, and each level of oversight, each level of responsibility that should have addressed this, abdicated their responsibility.”
Nationalist movements have long used similar arguments: My actions against the state are compelled by the failures of the state to properly serve the nation. In far, far more extreme forms -- iterations so different from Snowden's case that I raise them only to illustrate the underlying ideological commonalities -- they've underpinned rebellions, or movements such as the 1930s Japanese military officers who would storm government offices with swords to protest their supposed failures to serve the higher national interests. Again, to be clear, Snowden has not gone anywhere near these lengths. But the parallels may help explain why some Americans, particularly those who serve in government, can seem so rankled by Snowden's claim to serve the national interest.
"No one has the right to usurp the constitutional system -- not the NSA in the name of 'national security,' and not Edward Snowden," Andrew Exum, who's worked in a defense-oriented think tank and previously in the Pentagon, wrote on Twitter in response to Snowden's interview. "History will remember Edward Snowden fondly because of the way he forced changes in the relationship between the state & its citizenry. But we can't have a country in which any Tom, Dick or Harry believes he can usurp the democratic system when he feels like it."
The question of who can claim to serve the nation is a particularly tricky one in this case because so much of the debate revolves around secret programs; Snowden had to first act against the government by releasing classified NSA documents before he could even begin to position those leaks as serving the nation.
On the one hand, as critics such as Exum note, we have a democratic system precisely to implement the national will. While Snowden's revelations have turned out to be generally popular among Americans, he didn't leak NSA secrets because he'd run a Gallup poll and determined that Americans would support him; he just decided that they probably would or should. And anybody could decide that. But, on the other hand, as Snowden's supporters would correctly note, Americans couldn't express a popular desire to rein in NSA bulk data collection because they didn't know it existed. It's a bit of a catch-22.
Snowden's nationalist flavor may be what makes him so polarizing, what makes him so admired by supporters and loathed by detractors. For Americans who share Snowden's view that he is acting on behalf of the nation, he's a nationalist hero -- and even if nobody calls him that, that's something that has always inspired great passion in people, particularly Americans.
But for Americans who disagree with this, who see Snowden as falsely claiming to represent the nation when he represents only his particular viewpoint, his actions are an insult and an ideological imposition. And that dichotomy speaks to the power and the danger of taking up the nationalist cause.