NSA to launch inquiry into whether whistleblower Snowden had China ties

The US’ National Security Agency (NSA) is set to investigate whether Edward Snowden, the man who unveiled its complex spying programme, had ties to Chinese state organs.

When Snowden, a private security contractor with experience working for the CIA, came forward earlier this week as the whistleblower responsible for making the world aware of PRISM, a top-secret NSA system that collects emails, documents, photos and other material for agents to review.

It was also alleged that much of that information came from major US tech companies including Facebook, Google and Microsoft, sparking a series of denials from the IT giants.

In order to conduct the probe, the security agency will have to use the very tools revealed by Snowden. According to Bloomberg, this will entail going through the whistleblower’s phone records and online communication to see whether he ever made contact with Chinese agents or if US agencies missed any signs that he might be a security risk.

“We need to ask a lot more questions about his motives, his connections, where he ended up, why he is there, how he is sustaining himself while he is there and is the Chinese government fully cooperating,” said Representative Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

The panel is apparently working on a “thorough scrub” of any possible ties Snowden might have had to China, Rogers said following a classified briefing with General Keith Alexander, head of the National Security Agency.

As well as a review of all of his available emails, text messages, online postings, telephone calls and other communications, the investigation will apparently include interviews with Snowden’s friends and family.

Investigators will also look for signs of sexual entrapment or blackmail, techniques they claim China and other countries regularly use to draw in US citizens.

While it might seem like this is a smear campaign on the part of the NSA, designed to discredit Snowden’s allegations, it’s more than likely a bid by the agency to cover any perceived shortfalls it might have had regarding the incident.

In fact Bloomberg’s sources within the agency said they were unaware of any evidence linking Snowden to China and the investigation was based on circumstantial evidence.

This circumstantial evidence includes Snowden’s decision to expose PRISM and flee to Hong Kong around the same time as US president Barack Obama was meeting with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping to discuss computer hacking. The leaks also apparently followed Chinese threats to expose US espionage systems.

“It seems unusual that he would be in China and asking for protection of the Chinese government and giving press conferences to the Chinese media,” Maryland Representative C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the intelligence panel, told reporters. “We’re going to investigate.”

Sources within the agency however said that Snowden could well be the idealistic whistleblower he claimed to be.

US prosecutors meanwhile have begun preparing charges against Snowden. Once the charges are filed, they will ask Hong Kong to detain the whistleblower for up to 60 days before making a formal extradition request.

FBI Director Robert Mueller has defended the decision to prosecute, claiming that Snowden’s revelations caused “significant harm to the nation.”

But Snowden’s revelations have also reignited a debate between the need to protect US citizens from the threat of terrorism and their rights civil liberties.

“It seems clear that the government’s activity exceeds the authority this Congress has provided, both in letter and in spirit,” said Michigan Representative John Conyers, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, who apparently intends to draw up draft legislation imposing limits and new oversight for the programmes.

Mueller however says the programmes are entirely legal. “The legality has been assured by the Department of Justice,” Mueller said in what Bloomberg reports are his first public comments on the disclosures. The FISA court “has ruled on these two programs, monitors these two programs and has assured the legality of the efforts undertaken in these two programmes.”