America's Secrets Spread by Two Men

It’s like closing the stable door after the oxen have escaped. The “oxen,” in this case, are hundreds of thousands of documents and secret information which escaped from the control of U.S. intelligence. The trial of Bradley Manning and the hunt for Edward Snowden (whose father was contacted yesterday by the FBI to try to “redeem” his son) are delayed measures; the damage has already been done. Bradley Manning gave up everything he had in hand to WikiLeaks, including information which compromised agents, covert operations and confidential communications between embassies and the State Department. Edward Snowden revealed the existence of an entire electronic system for monitoring information to the international public. Without going into details and without expressing an opinion on the procedures themselves (something this newspaper has already done on other occasions), these cases certainly represent two huge flaws in American intelligence: It was two “nobodies” who discovered them.

Manning was a normal soldier, devoid of great responsibility, and Snowden was a computer technician who was not even directly under the National Security Agency (NSA), but an employee of a private company that was subcontracted to do part of the work. Two individuals totally outside the decision-making process opened an unprecedented diplomatic crisis. The most serious case in recent history was that of John Walker, a senior naval officer who spied on the naval command for secrets on behalf of the Soviets. He was arrested in 1985; giving him the death penalty was discussed (though not carried out). But at least it was a high-ranking officer. And the Soviets did a lot of work to recruit and cover him for 18 years. It was a completely different story. Behind Manning and Snowden, on the other hand, there was no training, no official access to secret documents, no large foreign secret service and enemy, no great cover. Behind the two recent cases of “whistle-blowing,” there were simply young men, almost boys, strong in their belief that they had to reveal great secrets to the world, in the name of the transparency which was promised by Obama but never actually obtained.

In the name of democracy, that the Internet can give the illusion of being truly universal. In the name of freedom, which is the basis of the American system, even if the latter must be defended by an army and by intelligence services. These are the “spies” of the 21st century. Behind them is only one big question: How was it possible that they had access to all that data? For Bradley Manning, the prosecution is asking for 136 years in prison, at least twice the length of his remaining life. He could spend the rest of his life in jail. If he is found guilty, his sentence should serve to discourage other future “Mannings.” The prosecution believes that “thanks to his training in the role of intelligence,” the soldier should have known what the consequences of his actions would be. Something else is missing here: anyone who could get his hands on a treasure trove of secret data of that caliber should not even know what the data is used for. The real mystery, if there is one, is the lack of responsibility (and related investigations) of his superiors.

Who allowed them to accumulate and send hundreds of thousands of documents? Bradley Manning, at least, was a military man, even if his responsibility was limited. For Snowden, it is not worth even having this discussion. He is a technician, a civilian, neither a secret agent nor a senior official of the NSA. And therefore, how was it possible that he was aware of the entire operation of a “secret” surveillance system to the point of being able to publish explanatory data sheets in PowerPoint? Without entering into the value of the information disclosed, the only real danger that the U.S. has to face from now on is understanding why its system is so easily penetrable. A major world power, engaged in a long war against terrorism and in serious military competition with China and Russia, can no longer afford to neglect this “detail.”