Ancient Rumors about RAND Dismissed

There are two old rumors about RAND that I think anyone who cares already knows are not true, but just in case, and because sometimes publishing on a blog can have long term archival uses, lets go over them.

1. I always liked the rumor that there was a tunnel under RAND to make it possible to get things or people in and out without being seen.  Presumably this tunnel would have gone to the promenade somewhere, but not necessarily.  This would have been the old buildings which no longer exist of course.  I dont think this tunnel ever existed.  There was, or rather, is, an underground river that passes underneath RAND or the general area and empties into the ocean.  Or so I was told by Facilities.

2. There is a belief that Dr. Henry Kissinger worked at RAND.  I don't think so.  It would have made sense for him to have occasion to visit now and then for a seminar or a meeting.  He was, after all, a senior academic in the national security apparatus.  It is even possible that he was briefly a consultant, although I dont know that for sure.  However, I dont think he was ever an employee the way some people believe.

Trump Dives Off Deep End with Obama Wiretap Accusations

draft

[Updated 3/4/2017 Nothing is really understood about this matter at this point in time.  But I can correct one mistake in the following post.  It would be legal for Trump to talk about a classified investigation because the POTUS has the power to declassify such an investigation at any time. Therefore, in and of itself, these tweets are unlikely to be an impeachable offense for that reason.]

Trump has accused Obama of being a Richard Nixon and tapping his office. See the article at the Guardian here.

I think I know what this might be about, but it comes down to Trump either being a nut case or that he does not understand national security issues at all, or that he does not understand the difference between the Watergate Plumbers and the FBI acting with a warrant. You pick. Either of the three though means that he should be impeached and I am tired of waiting.

I suspect, and here I am speculating again, that when the FBI/CIA came to realize that Russia was working to destroy free elections in America through disinformation and fake news, and when the issue of contacts between Trump and Russia became a matter of national security, that it would be logical to listen in. After all, the Russians certainly were listening to everything Trump said on his cell phone or any other phone, you can be quite sure. So my guess is that the FBI got a warrant to listen in and see what they picked up. Does Trump not know the difference between the Nixon Plumbers and a national security investigation with a warrant? Probably not, he isnt too smart, he has no aptitude for these things, and he has no experience. He may also be a clinical narcissist and sociopath, at least that is what the available evidence suggests.

This also suggests that he has just leaked/disclosed information about an ongoing investigation which is, I think, a felony.

As posted on Facebook.

On Getting A Security Clearance

A colleague of mine from the old days who, to my amazement, occasionally reads my blog, wanted to make very sure that I knew that there was no way I could ever get a security clearance, not even SECRET.

This disturbed me for reasons that I will explain below, and so I researched the topic to the extent that one can on the Internet, and I am happy to say that he is probably wrong, at least for the reasons that he thought. He might however be right for other reasons and this I will describe below.

You may not consider it interesting to wonder who can and can not get a clearance but I do, even though I have no particular expectation or desire to handle or know classified information. I am, you see, a *fan* of the world of intelligence, I have very little desire to be *in* it. It is a difficult world to be in for reasons we will only touch on here. I much prefer to *speculate* about national security matters than to actually *know* for sure what is going on. Speculation is fun, but actual knowledge implies a very serious responsibility. And the more you are involved the more it will affect your life. 

But if I am to ever work in place like the RAND Corporation again, which is doubtful, one needs to get at least a SECRET clearance, even though you are unlikely to handle SECRET material, and that is how the issue came up. The reasons for this are several, but it is not because one will necessarily be handling SECRET material. In fact, when I worked at RAND in my youth I only once handled SECRET material and that occasion could have been easily avoided. Trust me, it was no big deal. The primary reason for needing a clearance is because you are required to be around people and facility that does or may handle such material, and you need to be able to be in those areas without having an escort by your side at all times. 

So lets get our cards on the table. Some people at RAND thought I did a lot of drugs when I went into computer animation and visual effects. I did not. But I certainly was around quite a few people who did drugs, and I suffered from an undiagnosed disorder which made me appear to the uninitiated as though I was on drugs, i.e. I had severe ADHD which was not being treated. I am not going to go over this in great detail, frankly it bores me, most people already have their minds made up, and most people are not capable of understanding the issues anyway.

But what drugs I did do were minor, and stopped as soon as I got decent medical care, which did not happen in LA, only in NY. IMHO, there is no decent medical care in S. California.

The point is, none of this keeps one from getting a security clearance today. You have to not be doing illegal drugs today, and for several years. And there may be a judgment call here on the part of the investigators about certain aspects of your use at the time. However, there is nothing there that makes me particularly concerned. I used drugs to medicate a medical condition, when it was properly diagnosed and treated, all illegal drugs went away.

But there are other judgment calls that could interfere and I want to mention them to you today.

What they are really looking for with the basic security clearance is a somewhat boring individual who fits in with the system and feels that the system is pretty darn good. If you do not file taxes because you are impoverished, that may not be you. If you think your doctors are only concerned about themselves and money and that the medical system is fundamentally screwed up, that may not be you. If you think that the poor are treated badly in this country and that the legal system and government is designed to exalt the rich and disenfranchise the poor, and that there is gross state-enforced inequality of opportunity, that may not be you.

But the law and regulations on security clearances are not explicit on these points. And theoretically one should not be denied a security clearance for holding a belief that is outside some conservative belief system.

So, am I eligible for a security clearance? Without doubt, I *think* I am. But it is certainly *possible* I could be denied one. It is possible *anyone* could be denied one. And then one would have to appeal.

What would happen if I was suddenly exposed to a classified program that obviously violated the rights of Americans, or violated the law, or was outside the system designed to approve such projects? The answer is that I would work within the system to get such a project changed or terminated. I would not do an unauthorized disclosure under any circumstances. If it were not possible to correct the situation, then I would resign from the project and find something else to do. I think that it is very unlikely that I would ever have to deal with such an issue, however.

To the extent that one can figure out such things by what is published online, I believe that I am eligible for a security clearance.

Besides with the disaster that is or was Ed Snowden, I would think that the whole security clearance system would be up for reconsideration and that they would be much better off with people like me. Just my opinion.

For what that is worth.

FOIA FBI Background Check on Anna Rosenberg

In recent years there has been a variety of issues that involve security background checks and the questions people have about what information is kept on them. But the examples used of government files are not representative because they are usually of people who are very involved in a variety of non-trivial, non-subtle and controversial areas.

A classic example of that in today's news is the FOIA request by Laura Poitras who has been detained by Homeland Security whenever she has entered or left the country and received various “no fly” judgments on attempting to board an aircraft. I am sure that her file is quite interesting and I am also sure that when we see it, it will be the kind of unusual or controversial file that I am referring to above. Why? Because, as Ms. Poitras knows very well, she is under suspicion for and is certainly a collaborator in what is probably the single most damaging and extraordinary intelligence disaster in the history of this country, possibly any country. So of course she is being investigated, and of course the file will contain intelligence information as well as information that is part of various criminal investigations that have not yet completed (and for which charges have not (yet) been filed).

But what does a normal file look like, one that is of a serious and senior professional who has worked for the government, worked for private industry and knows many people, some of whom are or were presidents of the United States, and some of whom were certainly controversial in one way or another, in this case because they were heavily involved in the labor movement of the 1930s.

I happened to come across an online version of the FBI background check file on Anna Rosenberg who was a labor relations consultant before and after WW 2.  She was attacked by the House UnAmerican Activities Committee during the McCarthy period when she was nominated for a government post. She served on a variety of government committees that involved labor relations particularly as it involved the war effort. She worked directly for Pres. Roosevelt at various times.

I think that her FBI file is well worth glancing act to see what is involved, the kinds of questions they asked, the things they noted that caused them concern, etc.

True, this is about a person from another era, a post WW 2 era, but I suspect it has things in common with similar activities today (e.g. extended background checks on people nominated for government service or who require a security clearance). The Internet makes this process easier, but by no means does it do all the work that needs to be done.

So if you are interested in such things, take a fast look at this. It can be found at

https://archive.org/details/foia_Rosenberg_Anna_M.-HQ-1

Michael Morell on Ed Snowden's Motives

I am not trying to convince anybody.  Everyone I know has already made up their mind about Ed Snowden and related matters.  This post is only for those who are probably cynical or worse about Mr. Snowden's motives.  If you are not, if you believe he is a saint, then move on, this is not for you.

The first comments I have found on the probable damage of the Snowden disclosures, what it will cost now and in the future, how he did it and why he did it are in an excerpt from a book by Michael Morell, former deputy director of the CIA and a member of the President's commission to analyze what happened and make recommendations.

I highly recommend that anyone interested in this topic should read the entire excerpt as it will go over some background concerning the recommendations made.

http://cryptome.org/2015/05/snowden-morell.pdf

I further think we should all read the entire report which was made public, and whose link can be found here. I have not read it yet.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2013-12-12_rg_final_report.pdf

Michael Morell's book on Amazon.com is at

http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-War-Time-Terrorism-From/dp/1455585661

I also found interesting the discussion on the responsibility of the media in interpreting the releases, and their cavalier, irresponsible and simply wrong presentation of the facts. None of this is too surprising, the media is famously stupid about intelligence matters. I thought it was entertaining that he would include Glenn Greenwald in the list of journalists, because Mr. Greenwald is anything but a disinterested journalist.

I also appreciated his discussion of the theory that Ed Snowden thinks very highly of himself and felt that his genius had not been acknowledged by the CIA and NSA. I sympathize with that as I also feel very highly of myself and feel that my genius has not been acknowledged by the CIA and NSA as well. I hope that they come to their senses and acknowledge my genius before it is too late. Anything might happen and this time it will be all their fault.

This is the discussion about Ed Snowden's motives. If you are a Snowden lover, so convinced of your righteous indignation and of Saint Snowden's innocence, it will make hard reading and I recommend not reading it.  What would the point be of just annoying people?

Ok so I will hopefully avoid this topic as much as possible in the future.  Its no fun having strong opinions that cut you off from your friends, but that is what we have here.

Update on Secret Aerospace Projects May 2015

Perhaps now is the time.  Perhaps now they are ready to have the esoteric knowledge revealed.  The truth behind the rumors of the various secret aerospace projects discussed on the internet.

But are they worthy of this knowledge?

Probably not, so we will only discuss a few of the more obvious ones.  The really interesting ones about the CIA reverse engineering the alien anti-gravity drive will be held for another day.

Now students, prepare to be enlightened but first a little philosophy.

These are no mere secret aerospace projects produced at hideous cost and hidden out of a desire to thwart the enemies of freedom and justice!  No!  These projects demonstrate our national will and character. They are more than mere airplanes, they are nothing less than flying metaphors.

But first let us build a little anticipation by reviewing basic principles:

1. A black project is generally not outed unless it is no longer necessary to keep it secret or, on occasion, when there is an explicit decision to make something public as part of an elaborate and foolish hope that doing so will put our enemies off their stride for some imaginary reason, in other words, when there is real (perceived) value in making it public. 2. Most black projects are technology demonstrators that do not become production vehicles, or if they do, not as secret programs.   3. Usually it is the case that if they do not want you to see something, then you won't.  But sometimes operational necessity or safety issues throw a wrench into that and it is possible for a knowledgeable observer to see things that they really should not see.  This is particularly true for large, loud things that fly in the air.   4. The fact that a black project is announced does not mean it is totally obsolete and will no longer be used. The U2, SR 71 and B2 are examples of formerly secret projects made public yet still in use.

That said, I think that there are three black programs that we can be certain exist and are likely to become public eventually.  Two of which are technology demonstrators and one that is probably in limited production, and they are (a) two different prototypes of the new bomber, (b) something that involves a repurposed Valkyrie XB70 as some sort of mothership for a project probably cancelled, and (c) a limited production flying wing similar to the B2 in shape, but probably for tactical reconnaissance although we don't really know.

First, we know that there are demonstrators / prototypes of the next generation bomber, whatever they are calling it these days. We believe there are two competing vehicles, possibly one of each or possibly several of each. These prototypes will probably only become visible when the details of this new plane become known as its prototypes will no longer need to be kept secret, so that suggests within 5 years or so, possibly less. 

Second, there had been sightings of a modified XB 70 Valkyrie bomber on several occasions. You can not miss a Valkyrie in flight, it is unmistakable. When the first reports started coming in by puzzled observers, the more aerospace-knowledgeable who heard these reports knew exactly what airplane they were talking about.   There has only been one airplane built that looks anything like this.  Since the last Valkyrie is in a museum this is some other vehicle repurposed for another reason. The word on the street is that it was used as mothership for a prototype earth orbital vehicle that was not living up to expectations and was canceled. This seems plausible to me.   So I feel confident that something about these sightings exists and is, or was, a technology demonstrator of some sort, but less confident about when or if they will ever talk about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie

 When people described what they saw it was clear that it was related to a Valkyrie.  Nothing else looks like this.

Third, there have been sightings of a flying wing that (a) is not the B2, (b) is big enough such that it is manned and talking to various control towers, (c) been seen flying in groups of three which suggests that it is not a technology demonstrator and is in limited production. That means it pretty much has to be a black aerospace project of some sort. 

For the best writeup of the sightings, see

http://deepbluehorizon.blogspot.com/2014/03/mystery-aircraft-photographed-over.html
and
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/so-what-were-those-secret-flying-wing-aircraft-spotted-1555124270

There are many theories out there for what this is but I am just going to jump to the one that makes the most sense to me.

In the 1980s, when “stealth” was being pioneered, there was a perceived need for a variety of airplanes based on that technology. One mission was for strategic bombing, and that became the B2. One mission was for a stealth fighter and that became the F-22 and F-35. One mission was for a variety of stealth UAVs some of which have been announced and others are in development. There was also a need for a tactical ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) vehicle that could linger unseen above a battlefield for many hours and deliver real time information on the battle taking place below. This vehicle would be very valuable for any military operation on the ground whether regular US Army, Marines, or special forces. It would have a multitude of uses if it was stealthy enough that the enemy would not realize it was there. We know that there are several UAVs in development to serve this role. But there were also some rather well known, quirky 1980s technology projects along this line that were canceled and nothing seemed to come of them. 

One particular project, a technology demonstration, was called Tacit Blue and it was made public a decade after it took place in the mid 1990s.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Tacit_Blue

So many people suspect that in the 1980s they canceled the technology demonstrator and went black to develop a stealth tactical ISR airplane.   This airplane would have started flying in the 1990s. Because of when it was developed it would be manned. Because of what it was to be used for there would have been a significant advantage to keep it as secret as possible. The best situation is that the opponent does not even realize the airplane exists so they are not looking for it.

If I am correct, it would have become operational in the mid 1990s and therefore have been in service for 20 years. It is being supplanted by other vehicles now in development which we know are in development. Furthermore, it has been used on many occasions and is therefore likely to be known about by our various opponents such that there is less need to keep it secret. Even if they know it exists, that does not make it trivial to detect and shoot down.

So that is my guess for what is flying out there as a production black aerospace project and which is likely to be announced in the next few years.   Beyond this, we can be fairly sure there were other secret technology demonstrators such as, for example, tests of exotic propulsion technology.  But there is no particular evidence that suggests any of these are about to be made public, or even that they were particularly successful although of course it is the nature of these things that we do not know.

We will see what happens.

Of course what is important about these things beyond a purely techno-archaeological viewpoint is how these devices are used to implement policy and what those policies are.   But that is a whole other kettle of fish.

There.  I hope you are happy now.

Why I am Not Working for the NSA

Many friends wonder, what with my strange beliefs about intelligence and national defense, that I am not working for that center of evil itself, the NSA. Why not go to work for the great oppressor of freedom that even now examines each individuals internet pornography use and deduces whether or not they are having kinky sex with women in order to inform the local Gestapo and have them beat in the doors to seize the miscreant and hang them in their cell?

But it is not out of a misguided sense of privacy rights that I am not working for the NSA.  The real reason is that I could not figure out how to apply.  

Applying for the NSA requires applying through the Internet, a bold new paradigm. Just applying for the NSA through the Internet requires hours of your time, and requires a reasonable understanding of our nation's civil service structure. And the NSA internal job classifications. 

The potential candidate for national security work is presented with a series of questions that to those of us filled with patriotism but outside the beltway will find completely baffling. What job classification was your dog when your dog applied for TS clearance? What job classification was your mother-in-law when she was denied SCI tickets? Did you or did you not visit NMIC in the basement of the pentagon when you were 23 years old with Dr. Stockton Gaines? What did you hope to gain from that stunt for your communist masters?

And then, forget about uploading a resume. Resumes are old fashioned here, son, put your old fashioned ideas away and get ready for some rocket science. Instead you must type in your resume and experience and education in carefully prepared html forms. What was the name of your 6^th grade Science teacher? If we contacted Mrs. Winkler, as you allege, what would she say about you and your commitment to the American Way? When you heard about the assassination of Kennedy, were you (a) happy, (b) distressed, (c) thinking only about the cute girl two rows up and to the left?

And on and on it goes, from Elementary School, to Middle School, to High School, to college. What was your grade in differential equations? Why did you have to take it over? What does your failure to excel at diff eq say about your lack of ethical standards?

And finally, when you think it is over, it isn't over.

Pick your job classification? Slovenian linguist or Finno-Ugric semiotics, junior grade? Sino-Soviet relations as manifested by their choice of profanity or perhaps Korean synonyms? Its your choice, boy, but choose carefully because forever is your destiny affected.

And then, if you think you finished but you did not get a reply, that means you did not finish. Yes, you left some box unchecked, and after those hours of work they did not actually get that application which they would use to ignore you. You were never officially ignored. You did not even get that far.

And that is what happened.

I went through this process, somehow missed some box to check, and did not actually submit. Should I try again?  What's the point?   No one ever gets a job by applying through the Internet.

Maybe this is a way to weed out the weak and find only those who are truly worthy?

2014 Speculation about Mysterious Aircraft

As readers of this blog know, I am a student of the affairs of the intelligence community, in particular that part of the community that builds incredibly expensive, secret, limited edition devices of one sort or another. Previous posts have discussed whether the “mysterious booms” were evidence of a production vehicle flying and the conclusion of those posts was “maybe, but it isn't proven”. At least not from the evidence at hand.

That is where things have stood for a long time now. It was time for something new to happen and it has. There have been sightings of an unusual aircraft flying over Texas in recent months. The aircraft is an unknown flying wing, perhaps, and its a complicated story of just who saw what, who denied what, and then what was seen in the same flight path. But rather than go over old ground, I am just going to point you to a well-written, and very long, overly long, discussion of the evidence and possible theories.

The theory that I find the most appealing and possibly even plausible is that there was a secret plane built and used in production for 20 years and we kept it secret all that time. The reason we are starting to see it now is well, sort of a mystery.  It might be because they are using it so much what with all the crisis these days.  Or it might be that it is nearing the end of its life so there is less reason to keep it secret  (keeping an operational aircraft secret and yet using it is hideously expensive).  Or maybe it is being leaked now as a warning to those who do bad things that we have this capability.  Or maybe it is just coincidence.

This plane, so the theory goes, was the followon to various technologies being tested in the 1980s that were suddenly cancelled. When something like that happens it is a natural speculation that perhaps they were continued as a black program. One theory is that the plane was a manned, long duration, stealth, tactical reconnaissance vehicle that could penetrate enemy airspace and do a variety of things possibly in conjunction with the F117. Among other things it could loiter in enemy airspace and (for example) direct special forces missions happening below it, perhaps acting as eyes and ears for those missions.

Read the article at the link below.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/so-what-were-those-secret-flying-wing-aircraft-spotted-1555124270

My posts on mysterious booms can be found here:

<insert link>

Snowden and Ellsberg Compared

The following essay may have to be read with a “sarcasm alert”.

I am sorry, I just could not resist.  Back when Ed Snowden was newsworthy and before he disappeared off the media radar, I was hearing him compared to Dr. Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers' fame.  Now Danny Ellsberg used to smoke dope on the beach with a good friend of mine who was at RAND at the same time, so I feel a certain, close, personal relationship.   And even though Danny has publicly congratulated Snowden, as all truly committed lefties are required to do, I just had to write this post comparing the two people and events because ... well you will see.

None of this particularly addresses the issue of whether the various materials should have been leaked.  That is a topic for another day.

So I am now going to compare the two men in the areas of education, experience, knowledge in the domain, and so forth.   Lets see where it goes.  

1. Education.

Dr. Ellsberg was scholarship to Harvard in Economics where he was summa cum laude, went to Cambridge University on a Woodrow Wilson scholarship and completed his PhD in Economics at Harvard. Ed Snowden dropped out of Arundel High School in Maryland.

2. Prior Experience.

In 1959, Dr. Ellsberg became a strategic analyst at the RAND Corporation, and consultant to the Defense Department and the White House, specializing in problems of the command and control of nuclear weapons, nuclear war plans, and crisis decision-making. In 1961 he drafted the guidance from Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the operational plans for general nuclear war. He was a member of two of the three working groups reporting to the Executive Committee of the National Security Council (EXCOM) during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Ellsberg joined the Defense Department in 1964 as Special Assistant to Assistant Secretary of Defense (International Security Affairs) John McNaughton, working on the escalation of the war in Vietnam. He transferred to the State Department in 1965 to serve two years at the U.S. Embassy in Saigon. On return to the RAND Corporation in 1967, Ellsberg worked on the top secret McNamara study of U.S. decision-making in Vietnam, 1945-68, which later came to be known as the Pentagon Papers. Ed Snowden dropped out of high school to be a sysadmin for the CIA and later for the NSA through a contracting agency. The CIA identified Snowden as a security risk and terminated his involvement but failed to communicate that information to the NSA.

3. Depth of Knowledge in the Area

Dr. Ellsberg was a recognized member of the national security apparatus and co-author of the report in question. Ed Snowden simply vacuumed up everything he could get his hands on, including stealing security keys from other people, and dumped the material in the public domain. He has no credentials in any of the areas where he released material.

4. Role That They Played in Creating the Material

Dr. Ellsberg was one of the authors of the report that became known as the Pentagon Papers. Ed Snowden had no role whatsoever in the materials he copied without permission and released.

5. The Process By Which the Material Was Released

Ellsberg approach various members of congress to try and get them to both read and release in the Congressional Record the report (thus making it difficult to prosecute anyone). Whoever Ellsberg approached would not do it. Eventually he gave a copy to a NY Times reporter with the (supposed) intent that it not be published, more as background, I suppose. Well the NY Times decided to publish it. I dont know the truth of the matter, but I suspect hairs are / were being split on who could legally be prosecuted. Snowden fled the country before releasing anything and found someone who in my opinion is highly motivated to release material no matter how much it hurts this country, Greenwald. That Greenwald received the Pulitzer prize for this is a disgrace and lowers the credibility of the Pulitzer, IMHO. In any case, Snowden was no where near as clever or responsible as Ellsberg. He leaked everything and then fled to the most oppressive surveillance state on the planet. Many knowledgable people believe that he was working for Russian intelligence more or less all along. Dismiss that as paranoia if you will, that is what they believe, and the people who believe it have access to much more information than you or I do.

6. The Nature of the Material Released

Dr. Ellsberg released a report that was primarily about the history of the Vietnam war and the decision making that led to our involvement. Because the report had information from very secret sources it did compromise sources that were directly involved with this area and (supposedly) led to the death of many people (possibly a few hundred) of people who risked their lives to help us. Ed Snowden released information on a vast number of current operations and activities, activities for which he should not have had access, and released them indiscriminately. The full impact will not be known for years, but it is likely that the death toll will be huge. The impact on foreign policy and international relationships is far afield from what Snowden claimed he was interested in, which is to say domestic surveillance, will also be huge. In fact, very little of the Snowden material released pertains to domestic surveillance and no one could seriously take that as a motivation for his activities. In other words, Ellsberg's leaked information about the past in order to demonstrate that the POTUS was not completely honest with the American people. Snowden released information about the present, in a vast number of areas, completely unrelated to his announced motivation for the release.

7. Actions after the Release of the Material

Dr. Ellsberg stayed in the United States and said he would take responsibility for his actions. His trial was thrown out of court by the judge due to the famous misdeeds of the Nixon Administration and his Plumbers. Arguably this was one aspect of the Watergate scandal that led ultimately to Nixon's resignation. Snowden fled the country and, demonstrating his unique hypocrisy, took asylum in a country with the most oppressive internal surveillance in the world. He regularly states that he can not get a fair trial in the USA but I think his real concern is that he is likely to get a fair trial in the USA.

8. Other Service

Ellsberg had been ROTC to Harvard and spent two years in the USMC as an officer. Snowden has no service to his country other than as a consultant where he violated his oath.

So as you can see and, in summary, the two cases are very, very similar.

Actually, that was a lie.  The two cases are about as dissimilar as they could be.   So you can conclude at least that anyone who claims to you that they are similar is just an idiot.  From top to bottom, soup to nuts, materials released, credibility of the person who released them, impact on our country, and so forth and so on, they are completely and utterly different.   About the only thing you can say that they had in common is that they both involved the unauthorized release of highly classified material.

Of course, this discussion does not go into the more interesting question, about whether they were right to release the material they did.  My short answer to that question, which is of course of very little interest to the world, will be the subject of another post.