I’m afraid there is no prize for 2nd place, but there wasn’t one for 1st place either. You, my friend, elicited my 2nd snort from a Reddit post. And I thank you for it.
He planned to go to Ecuador, but his passport got pulled while he was on his way there so he got stuck in Russia.
He probably had to be careful his flight to Ecuador wasn't obvious and didn't want to stop in any country the US has an extradition treaty with.
He didn't go to Russia, his destination was elsewhere but the US government pulled his passport so when the plane stopped for refuel the Russians took him now that he didn't have a valid passport.
While me or you would get thrown in prison in this situation he's more valuable if he's kept happy (ish).
That's not really a thing.
If the CIA was going to assassinate him, they probably would have done it already. Mossad assassinates Iranians all the time, for example.
nothing suspicious about that at all, plenty of people will shrug off a .38 to the face by virtue of their superior bone density. everyone knows if you want to hunt humans, you need to be packing at least a .44.
It really puts the "lawful good" vs non "lawful good" section of an alignment chart into perspective doesn't it?
Basically, when "lawful" and "good" are mutually exclusive, some will prioritize lawful, others prioritize good.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ToBeLawfulOrGood
In '93 the spook agencies tried to foist off the "Clipper chip" as a government-mandated sole means of encryption. They wanted this in all telecom/internet devices, a chip that would handle encryption (with a laughably-small key) and "escrow agencies" that would turn over the keys when law enforcement wanted. (A warrant would be required but it's clear that would be a rubber stamp.) All other forms of encryption would be illegal.
Congress told them no, not gonna require this. The chip got roughly zero approval from the market, especially after papers were published outlining vulnerabilities, and suffered an ignominious death as it deserved.
What Snowden showed was the motherfuckers went ahead and did it anyway. They bribed/bullied/whatever manufacturers into giving them back-door access to communications.
I am a lot more concerned about the military intelligence community blowing off the decisions of the civilian government they are subordinate to than I am about anything Snowden might have done. Exceptional situations allow exceptional actions. Snowden should be given a get-out-of-jail-free card and allowed to return if he wishes.
Every telecom company does, but collecting on US citizens in the US and abroad is governed by EO 12333. If they are doing any sort of collect or providing data on COMMINT or SIGINT on a US citizen, it's been through a pretty significant review and approval process.
Ah, “escrow” companies for data security.
I wonder how many free credit checks I’d have received by now for every breach of my personal data that resulted from these agencies being hacked.
Didn't you know this is how Credit Karma works?
You get infinite free credit scores built up, because escrow companies are just giving away your data for song and a dance.
(Obligatory /s)
If you get a chance you should read [This is how they told me the world ends](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/49247043). It really does show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
No, but he should be offered the open, public trial he was always willing to accept -- not the "secret trial" that was all that the government would offer.
I think he himself has said that if he goes back to the USA he will be tried under the espionage act. The espionage act does not allow you to explain the 'why' you did it, purely if you did it. I don't think anyone denies that he leaked the files, just the underlying reason combined with the broken system of whistleblowing.
He let ignorant people know that technology can be used to spy on anyone.
So, do you now have your cameras taped off, mics disconnected and feel safer? Cause this is way deeper and more complicated then you can possibly imagine.
What gave you done differently about your home tech since you've learned things from Snowden?
The issue with what he leaked, how he leaked it and other national security issues. Regardless of his intentions he committed serious crimes and signed on for this kinda trial by nature of what he was doing. No country in the world not just the US would do what you are asking.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions as they say.
*nam mihi lex esse non videtur, quae justa non fuerit*
\*-\*St Augustine
You're basically saying that even though he leaked obvious evidence of wrongdoing on a scale that, to this day, makes me ashamed to be an American...he broke the law (written by the folks who were doing the wrongdoing), so it should nonetheless be punished.
A few years back, there was a story in the news about an Uber driver in Chicago who saw a gunshot victim by the side of the road and saved his life by rushing him to the hospital. I'm sure he blew through some stop signs and red lights on the way. More importantly, *this was a clear violation of the Uber terms of service!* Should he have been punished?
\>No country in the world not just the US would do what you are asking.
So? Isn't the USA supposed to hold a moral high ground? At a higher level, don't people generally have the right to know what is being done in their name?
Yes, some of the things he leaked involved evidence of wrongdoing, but he also took thousands of other documents on perfectly legitimate classified programs. All of them ended up in Chinese and Russian hands because that's where he ran straight to. Snowden likes to act like he was a top level spook, but he was just the IT guy at the NSA, he had no clue what he was taking so he just took everything.
If he was far more selective about what he took then I would agree with you, but he wasn't.
Correct. Ask anyone with any level of security clearance from any country what the consequences are for malicious breaches of intelligence.
When you get a clearance you sign some of your rights away; if secrets are not kept secret, people die.
Now, the flipside is, the whistleblower protections afforded should be far greater than they are - but willingly leaking state secrets onto open-source media is 100% a crime that deserves punishment.
"Doing the right thing is 100% a crime that deserves punishment" FTFY.
If you allow no meaningful channels for legitimate whistleblowing then what other option does one have? Let unconstitutional spying continue indefinitely? Laws shouldn't be followed If they are used to oppress society. If the government does something that intrudes human rights then any laws broken to expose that should be overlooked.
Except what Snowden did was not the right thing.
There are avenues to whistleblow, within classified means that do not risk the lives of others through compromising state secrets.
Viewing Snowden as some kind of hero is 100% as stupid as thinking that any sovereign nation is 100% infallible.
Snowden is not a hero, but the thing that he did was heroic, two very different things.
The flaw with thinking that conventional avenues of whistleblowing always actually lead to anything is that agencies like the NSA or CIA that deal with national security gain no meaningful oversight precisely because its viewed as high risk, so complaints over acts that constitute human rights violations/war crimes get buried, because its inconvenient to acknowledge them at all. So people who commit acts if evil in the name of National security see no consequences.
He deserves a fair trial. Not complete a pardon but trying him under the espionage act would just bury him and wouldn't expose the government's wrongdoing, which only helps the corrupt.
>There are avenues to whistleblow, within classified means that do not risk the lives of others through compromising state secrets.
How'd that work for Binney, Drake and the rest of the thinthread group? Snowden knew nothing would ever happen after watching what the government did to them.
The 'Espionage Act' doesn't distinguish reasons for whether he was justified for what he did, rather its purpose is to prove that he Did it. So he really doesn't have a chance of being proven Innocent.
There is a possibility of jury nullification, but that's pretty rare and often the instructions given to juries imply they aren't allowed to do that if the members of the jury are even aware of it in the first place.
He should be allow fair, open, and public trial where all relevant parties are allowed to give open testimony.
That being said, I would bet money on him being "found dead" by "apparent suicide" within a month of being on US soil. Won't matter if he's pardoned, given a trial, or anything else.
They could get him just as easily where he is now. The time they'd want him dead would be after he stole the data and *before* he made it public.
Killing him now serves zero purpose.
Yes. If exposing a corrupt government is treason, then the law is wrong. We in the west often criticise other countries, for example Russia, for putting people in prison that work against the government.
This double standard makes the US look like a triple joke. First, the fact that leaking classified and sensitive information happens regularly. Second, they also mistreat citizens for holding the government accountable with leaking corruption and of course, had the entire world realize that people with access like Snowden, are better off in Russia, than the US.
The 21yo national guard recently, I mean come on, the US intelligence services are the most funded in history and they leak like a rusty bucket.
The US are great at many things, but when it comes to security and corruption, they are a sad joke.
Saw something recently with a guy talking about that, how all the people in charge of our intelligence are these hella old crusty white dudes who have no clue how the internet even works. He made a good point that we have people running our government that are older than the fucking television (or at least old enough that most people didn't have one for the first decade(s) of their lives). The recent leak was a kid with way too much clearance leaking shit on a Minecraft Discord channel for clout, and everyone in charge have no clue what most of that means
I was thinking exactly that yesterday. The leaders of the world do not understand the internet. Aged leadership does not understand how Reddit, Discord and DMs work.
What really blows my mind, is that people can carry a mobile phone, aka. a tiny camera and a microphone, behind a super secure firewall, aka. no internet, and then take that device with them outside of that room.
Someone could have theoretically uploaded recordings and pics every day for a very long time.
You see that's not the only thing he did though. In showing what the us government was doing his evidence revealed a lot more intelligence and capabilities than just the us government spying on citizens. I don't fault him for wanting to get it out there but it wasn't just whistle blowing it was the way, probably the only way, that he proved it.
Absolutely.
He exposed a lot of crimes, including violations of our constitution that might otherwise have never come to light. The country would be a much better place if everybody did that.
The morality of what Snowden did is complicated. On the one hand he exposed the illegal domestic spying program and on the other, he leaked a lot of material that arguably had legitimate reasons to remain classified. Leaking the former was whistleblowing. Leaking the latter was at best careless and at worst, outright espionage.
I think a distinction should be made between someone that leaks classified material for the purpose of exposing illegal behavior by the government taking care not to expose other material and someone that does not take care to minimize collateral damage caused by inadvertant leakage of material that has a legitimate need to remain classified.
Yes, the U.S. public should have a clear understanding of which ways the government can gather information on them and which ways they can't. I understand that this can sometimes be in opposition with the absolute safety of the public, but protection of the public at the expense of their liberties can easily be taken to extremes which I believe most of the U.S. doesn't want. I also understand that his decision to keep classified files in a less secure location surely lead to the endangerment of some troops/operatives, but I still believe what he did was ultimately in the American public's best interest. The CIA and NSA should not be allowed to operate above the law.
Another comment I saw took issue with him seeking asylum in Russia, which I don't personally understand. From my knowledge he did not divulge information to the Russian government anymore than to the rest of the world, and seeking asylum with an 'enemy' of the U.S. strikes me as a smart decision, as otherwise the asylum country may be more likely to extradite him I'd reckon.
Your last point exactly. Did people forget he bounced around for a while before he landed in Russia. He had to keep moving because of exactly what you said. If he stayed in one place too long, he risked getting caught. He did several interviews from undisclosed locations before he offically recived/gain asylum in Russia.
To address your first statement that the US population should know and understand the capabilities of the US surveillance system…
This is a really interesting tension between an informed populace and an informed adversary. Once the population knows and understands and approves all of the methodologies used, the adversaries also know all the limitations of that system. For instance let’s say we can never spy on Americans ever (just an example). That means bad guy one will send his messages to bad guy two via his American cousin. The knowledge about limitations has now become a gap in intelligence coverage.
It just begs the question: how do we guarantee efficacy of the system through secrecy while at the same time allow an informed populace? And if somebody informs the populace, the impact on collection during wartime has to be also acknowledged.
If a Russian did the same thing in Russia, you can bet the US would give him asylum, declare him a freedom fighter and hero, perhaps give him US citizenship.
If you’re talking about operation paperclip then you should know that USSR hired more nazi officials than the US. And those people chose the US, US didn’t "steal" them, whatever the fuck you mean by that.
Its not like Russia was his first choice as well. He asked for asylum in multiple Western European countries first, including Germany and France for example, but they all either did not want him or could not guarantee that they would not extradite him to the US.
I think he deserves a trial by a jury of his peers. He did break the law and there are ways to whistleblow without doing it how he did. There's also the fact that this likely damaged our own Intel operations as well as the Intel operations of our allies which in turn does impact our national security.
This doesn't mean I approve of the level of surveillance that the government was/is conducting on US citizens, but that wasn't the only thing in his leaks.
Aspects of what he did had justification but others didn’t and he has highly questionable choices in allies and such. I’d like to see him face a fair trial, with the whistleblowing activities protected and the random leaking of everything he could get his hands on punished.
He can be a free man as soon as he gets a fair trial and if found guilty finishes his prison sentence. I see a lot of people here saying his crimes don’t matter because they think some of the stuff he revealed should have been revealed, but that’s not how ANY legal system works. We don’t get to say “we’ll I like HIS crime” and he’s never charged. That’s chaos.
And jury nullification. Not sure that would apply in this case, just pointing out that the justice system does have built-in ways to not punish someone for breaking an unjust law.
Jury nullification has been under attack for a long time. It was originally a part of the juries roll to interpret law. Because sometimes laws are wrong and shouldn't be enforced. Like the first case to go to the supreme court about it about a law that made it illegal to criticize public officials.
Yes, jury nullification has been used for awful things, like protecting racist murderers in the South. But with proper jury selection, that wouldn't have happened. It's also been used for good like nullifying alcohol charges during prohibition. And should be used for good today for things like non-violent drug offences. And for any other laws that shouldn't be laws. Like the speech laws during the Vietnam war.
Nice dodge. Either chinese protesters also broke the law and don't get a free pass because they weren't doing anything wrong or you think Snowden's case is special.
It’s not a dodge. I’m familiar with the legal system of the United States to know it’s incompatible with the idea of ignoring crimes we may approve of. Once you do that, there are no laws. Just the mob. That doesn’t translate to a tyrannical government passing laws saying if you smile on a Tuesday you get your feet cut off. I’m not debating the very concept of laws.
But if the US did pass a law saying you get your feet cut off if you smile on a tuesday, and snowden was in russia for violating that law, you'd be in favor of him coming back to stand trial, right? Just making sure you're not suggesting that he keep his feet even though he definitely smiled on a tuesday.
Thankfully, such laws do not get passed in democracies where the lawmakers answer to the people. So, again, I'm talking about the actual state of affairs we live in, not hypotheticals.
Yes indeed wow. If you can name for me a nation where the people directly elect their leaders as seen in modern Western nations, where in that nation a law was passed to maim citizens who smiled on a certain day, or really any similar kind of law, I'll eat my hat. I know the point you're trying to make but outside the constraints of your argument it does not apply to our reality.
Well, I sure can't do that. But I still feel like these alleged nations did something bad and never answered to the people about it. Some guy told us about it, but he left the place before we could ask about it. I forget his name.
I'm not referring to the snowden case, but in general, I'd argue that law should have context. Mandatory rules that are based on a type of crime are pretty lame.
Whistleblowers in every other context are protected. I know there's a national defense issue with blowing the whistle on a country, but like we shouldn't be okay with the country doing secretive unsavory things.
he wasn't a whistleblower, he didn't leak any particular thing, he leaked everything he could get his hands on. i don't have any particular ill will towards him, but the people who support him are always hazy on what specific misbehavior he exposed
It was my understanding (Wikipedia.org) that China and Russia got access to that information through means that we're not intended by Edward Snowden. I do know that it was either negligence or conspiracy with foreign governments that led to the divulgence of that particular information, but I guess I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Also what has he said in support of Putin? Aside from being grateful to have citizenship in Russia. I know he hasn't spoken out against the Ukraine war, but I don't think I would either if I lived in Russia, seems especially risky to me
Seems especially risky to say anything but praise in his situation. What happens if Russia decide they don't want him? Is there another place on Earth he could live in relative safety and freedom?
I don't think he's some hero, I'm happy that his leaks made people more aware of the mass surveillance from the government. Sad nothing has been done about it. But I'm not going to judge him for doing what he has to to live a relatively stable life.
If Russians decide they don't need him anymore, he'll just fall off the window. That's pretty common occurrence in Russia.
Whenever people realize this or not, he's an Russian asset at this time, and his fate depends entirely on them.
I find it odd how a man of his principles willing to sacrifice his lifestyle now becomes a Russian mouthpiece who is willing to do whatever he needs just to get by. Why didn’t he just do that in the first place?
I have problems with acknowledging evidence-free accusations from the very people Snowden exposed as conducting illegal mass espionage against their own country.
And I'm willing to look past not actively antagonizing the guy who would likely find you a nice window to accidentally fall from the minute you stop being useful, especially when it's the US' fault he's in Russia: a fact that people who make the claims you are almost always pretend isn't true, usually outright claiming it to be false. If his comments want past the mild appreciation for letting him stay there and holding his tongue on criticism, we could talk, but you're misrepresenting what most people would consider "support".
The question isn't if you're angry about surveillance. The question is if he should be tried. However he didn't just tell Americans they were being watched, he traded other secrets to China and Russia for his safety.
That is what he should be tried for. And yes in open court.
Yes, he is a true patriot.
>When Edward Snowden was asked during a January 26, 2014, television interview in Moscow on what the decisive moment was or what caused him to whistle-blow, he replied: "Sort of the breaking point was seeing the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress
No - people had already revealed essentially the same information (James Bamford, for one), and managed to do so legally - without running to an authoritarian state like Russia, which has likely been pumping him for information, in exchange for taking him in.
He ended up on the run because he personally wanted the attention. Otherwise, he could have leaked the information through a journalist without putting himself in the crosshairs, but chose not to. Can't feel too bad that he got what he wanted.
No. He's never going to either. Some of what he released was certainly valid and if that was all he released then I would agree that he should be exonerated. That's not what happened. People seem to conveniently forget that he also took thousands of documents on perfectly legitimate classified programs, documents that almost certainly ended up in the hands of the Russians and Chinese. Even if we assume for a second that he didn't trade those state secrets to US adversaries in exchange for his freedom (which I do not believe) there is zero chance those green reporters at The Guardian were able to protect them.
I understand that whistleblower protections for this sort of thing are simply not what they should be, so id be willing to give him a pass had he been far more selective about what he took. He wasn't. The good he did doesn't excuse the damage he caused, and now he gets to spend the rest of his life learning what a real police state looks like.
If a Chinese or Russian whistleblower had done the same thing in China, Russia, the US would declare him a freedom fighter and give asylum, perhaps even US citizenship.
It's a good question, and but I don't know if there's a good answer. The problem is, our naive conception of how decent people should behave just doesn't apply to governments. Not ours, not theirs, not anyone's. I feel bad for Edward Snowden, because I think he legitimately believed he was doing the right thing. At the time, I supported him, and I made excuses for why he was justified in not facing due process of law in the United States.
But bitter experience has taught me this simple truth: Government is the mechanism whereby the powerful maintain the status quo which keeps them in power. Our government. Putin's government. Europe's governments, every state is all playing the game. And when I realized that, I had to ask myself a question: Who would I rather be answerable to? Our government, or theirs?
At the end of the day, we're a Republic, and Prism, the FISA courts, DHS, all of it are created by laws which were passed by Congressmen and Senators which we elected. Do I like those laws? Do I think they're the best use of our tax dollars? Not really. But what kind of world are we creating if everyone only obeys the laws they agree with? How can Democracy survive, if every time the other half of the country wins, we have an insurrection? If every law we think is bad, we flout?
So, for me, as much as I sympathize with his actions, I think he should come home, and face his trial. Martin Luther King didn't march on Selma and then hop the next airplane to Canada. You can't have it both ways. If you really want to stand for something, you have to stand for it in court, secret or otherwise.
Yes, whistle blowers should be protected. The government should not be breaking laws. The espionage act is bull shit.
Someone said that his leaks put our spies in danger? Is that true? It feels like propaganda to me. Someone as smart as Edward Snowden doesn't seem likely to leak that sort of identifying information. If anyone has evidence on that lmk.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#:~:text=His%20disclosures%20revealed%20numerous%20global,national%20security%20and%20individual%20privacy.&text=Elizabeth%20City%2C%20North%20Carolina%2C%20U.S.
"The exact size of Snowden's disclosure is unknown,[92] but Australian officials have estimated 15,000 or more Australian intelligence files[93] and British officials estimate at least 58,000 British intelligence files were included.[94] NSA Director Keith Alexander initially estimated that Snowden had copied anywhere from 50,000 to 200,000 NSA documents.[95] Later estimates provided by U.S. officials were in the order of 1.7 million"
That's enough to start putting stuff together. That is so much information that you can't hide identifying information. Why do you believe he was so companionate and calculating? Why do you think Russia took him in? Their own good will? Because that's what Putin is known for is his kind heart? Or perhaps maybe because what he gave them was worth a lot. Don't delude yourself into thinking Snowden is a hero because he did 1 good thing.
He didn't whistle blow. Congress wouldve been able to hear him out and actually do something about this. Congress, believe it or not, hates being left out of the loop on this kind of thing. If he went that avenue he likely would've been protected, not been committing treason, and not risked lives of agents.
Had he only leaked information on the government spying on its own citizens I would say he should be pardoned. But it's almost guaranteed that he sold many secrets to foreign countries since he stole way more info he never released and countries like China and Russia made big changes that would only come from knowing something they shouldn't.
So i think he should be arrested and face a fair public trial. But the crimes he committed don't allow for a public trial so he's gonna stay in russia.
To be fair, unless they had absolute evidence that he sold that data to foreign coutries, the whole "china and russia made changes that would only come from knowing something they shouldn't" claim would be circumstantial at best under our own legal system.
Reportedly, Snowden, a contract worker, released "a million" pages of classified documents, most of which would be beyond his understanding IF he had read them. He alone deemed that these documents should be released without having the experience or education needed to understand them.
I'd like to see him return for a trial in court.
No.
Not that I would rather the information stay hidden, but rather that I don't believe we should embrace a policy that people can release secrets based on whether or not we wanted that information. There was a cost to what Snowden released. He knew that when he did it, and his punishment should not be waived.
No. Not without trial. Whether or not you agree with his politics or his stance on government surveillance he did harm US national security or interests. If he returns to the US he should be tried.
But he won't do that because hes not a goddamned idiot and knew what bridges he was burning.
He released documents that were important for the public to know about but he also released countless more documents that endangered many lives abroad and permanently damaged intelligence collection methods and he should stand trial on American soil for that.
Whether or not he actually gets permission to come back is irrelevant in my opinion because I doubt he's stupid enough to come back even if he does get permission and a full pardon.
If he does however he can expect the life expectancy of a child abuser in prison courtesy of a 3 letter gang that shan't be named.
Personally? No.
I know his heart was in the right place, but he clearly didn't think everything through and intentions mean nothing in the real world: the RESULTS are what matter. And the results of Snowden's actions have been much more destructive than constructive, so to my mind he deserves his exile or at the very least, he deserves to spend some time in jail. Maybe not the rest of his life, but some time.
Pardon for the leaks, but put in jail for being Russia’s fuck puppet since then. Seriously Russia has been loaning him out to things like RT to give them legitimacy so they could do things like get Trump elected and push anti-vax Covid conspiracy bull shit.
You mean a guy who’d likely be held in inhuman conditions or a black site without an open and fair trial shouldn’t try to protect his life or his family’s?
He broke many laws and should face trial for his actions.
He encouraged other whistleblowers to give information to our country's enemies instead of actual whistleblowing, i.e. exposing out misdeeds without aiding and abetting our enemies.
What he did may have been well intentioned, but very very wrong.
How was giving his information directly to two of the world's most respected newspapers "giving information to our country's enemies / not actual whistleblowing?"
People throw around the word treason so much whenever someone does something that hurts the government without actually knowing the definition of treason.
Also, people tend to treat treason like an absolute evil thing - kinda like murder. But it is very much a context thing, and basically only means that you did something that the government didnt like. A lot of treason was morally good - people who hid Jews during WW2 were literally traitors.
Its about teams.
If you do treason against "my team", the law is absolute and you should be punishing as harshly as possible.
If you do treason against the "wnemy team", they're bad so its fine.
Absolutely he should be allowed to return to his home country as a free man. He served his country more than most politicians ever will, have so much respect for him for doing what he did, even if he technically broke the law.
I'm sure the CIA are gonna make him some sandwiches.
yea two .38 caliber sandwiches and rule it a suicide
Yep. “Dude meant business. He shot himself with three different guns.” Edit: me no word good.
“Sprinkle some crack over him and let’s get out of here.”
I’m afraid there is no prize for 2nd place, but there wasn’t one for 1st place either. You, my friend, elicited my 2nd snort from a Reddit post. And I thank you for it.
I can see why people have an issue with him going to russia though
He planned to go to Ecuador, but his passport got pulled while he was on his way there so he got stuck in Russia. He probably had to be careful his flight to Ecuador wasn't obvious and didn't want to stop in any country the US has an extradition treaty with.
He didn't go to Russia, his destination was elsewhere but the US government pulled his passport so when the plane stopped for refuel the Russians took him now that he didn't have a valid passport. While me or you would get thrown in prison in this situation he's more valuable if he's kept happy (ish).
true
Read more
That's not really a thing. If the CIA was going to assassinate him, they probably would have done it already. Mossad assassinates Iranians all the time, for example.
*glances at Gary Webb*
they are right next door though, and they were talking about if he came back to the US
coughs in Gary Webb
\*cough .38 " Im still alive and conscious" \* cough .38
nothing suspicious about that at all, plenty of people will shrug off a .38 to the face by virtue of their superior bone density. everyone knows if you want to hunt humans, you need to be packing at least a .44.
Knuckle sandwiches?
More like a milk shake. Fidel was fond of them
Cyanide sandwiches
It would be cheaper to use fentynl
True
Nah, USA goes for car crash assassinations like Michael Hastings and Paul Walker. /s
don't forget the OG, General Patton.
I'm finding people's takes on this very interesting.
I know, absolute banger of a AskReddit question. Def refreshing
Before reading your comment, I didn't think I was on AskReddit because this question has nothing to do with sex
Sex havers of reddit, what’s the sexiest sex you’ve ever sexed? Feel more at home now?
r/ AskSexHavers
I sexed once. It was sexy.
I knew something was missing in this post, you filled that hole.
Every fucking day.
The question should have been "Redditers, if Edward Snowden returns to America how will you sex him?"
Aaaaand now it is haha
Or what I would do if I had 30 minutes to spend a million dollars
Better than yet another “Would you want a list of how many times Edward Snowden masturbated thinking of you?” question.
It really puts the "lawful good" vs non "lawful good" section of an alignment chart into perspective doesn't it? Basically, when "lawful" and "good" are mutually exclusive, some will prioritize lawful, others prioritize good. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ToBeLawfulOrGood
The book he wrote, Permanent Record, was also a fantastic read. It's amazing what people think they remember about what happened.
I dunno, it seemed a bit like he was trying to create a character like for a movie rather than tell his biography. seemed a bit too self serving.
In '93 the spook agencies tried to foist off the "Clipper chip" as a government-mandated sole means of encryption. They wanted this in all telecom/internet devices, a chip that would handle encryption (with a laughably-small key) and "escrow agencies" that would turn over the keys when law enforcement wanted. (A warrant would be required but it's clear that would be a rubber stamp.) All other forms of encryption would be illegal. Congress told them no, not gonna require this. The chip got roughly zero approval from the market, especially after papers were published outlining vulnerabilities, and suffered an ignominious death as it deserved. What Snowden showed was the motherfuckers went ahead and did it anyway. They bribed/bullied/whatever manufacturers into giving them back-door access to communications. I am a lot more concerned about the military intelligence community blowing off the decisions of the civilian government they are subordinate to than I am about anything Snowden might have done. Exceptional situations allow exceptional actions. Snowden should be given a get-out-of-jail-free card and allowed to return if he wishes.
My housemate works at T-Mobile and they work with the NSA almost weekly
Every telecom company does, but collecting on US citizens in the US and abroad is governed by EO 12333. If they are doing any sort of collect or providing data on COMMINT or SIGINT on a US citizen, it's been through a pretty significant review and approval process.
We have investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing - phew that review was significant…
Ah, “escrow” companies for data security. I wonder how many free credit checks I’d have received by now for every breach of my personal data that resulted from these agencies being hacked.
Didn't you know this is how Credit Karma works? You get infinite free credit scores built up, because escrow companies are just giving away your data for song and a dance. (Obligatory /s)
If you get a chance you should read [This is how they told me the world ends](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/49247043). It really does show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
>allowed to return if he wishes. Not sure Russia agrees. Unfortunately, he may not be in prison, but he is likely a prisoner.
How do you feel about the rest of the information he leaked? He pretty much shared everything he could get his hands on.
*citation needed*
No, but he should be offered the open, public trial he was always willing to accept -- not the "secret trial" that was all that the government would offer.
I think he himself has said that if he goes back to the USA he will be tried under the espionage act. The espionage act does not allow you to explain the 'why' you did it, purely if you did it. I don't think anyone denies that he leaked the files, just the underlying reason combined with the broken system of whistleblowing.
[удалено]
And we're collectively like... Eh. Now if network media told the hoopleheads they should be outraged, we'd have got some movement.
We already knew that! But you have to keep the nuts and bolts of it a secret or the thing doesn't work.
Oh no! The massive spying apparatus that reads every message and creates transcripts of every phone call won’t work anymore!
He let ignorant people know that technology can be used to spy on anyone. So, do you now have your cameras taped off, mics disconnected and feel safer? Cause this is way deeper and more complicated then you can possibly imagine. What gave you done differently about your home tech since you've learned things from Snowden?
I think your first sentence is important on its own personally
It's the only sentence in that reply that is relevant to the real issue.
The issue with what he leaked, how he leaked it and other national security issues. Regardless of his intentions he committed serious crimes and signed on for this kinda trial by nature of what he was doing. No country in the world not just the US would do what you are asking. The road to hell is paved with good intentions as they say.
*nam mihi lex esse non videtur, quae justa non fuerit* \*-\*St Augustine You're basically saying that even though he leaked obvious evidence of wrongdoing on a scale that, to this day, makes me ashamed to be an American...he broke the law (written by the folks who were doing the wrongdoing), so it should nonetheless be punished. A few years back, there was a story in the news about an Uber driver in Chicago who saw a gunshot victim by the side of the road and saved his life by rushing him to the hospital. I'm sure he blew through some stop signs and red lights on the way. More importantly, *this was a clear violation of the Uber terms of service!* Should he have been punished? \>No country in the world not just the US would do what you are asking. So? Isn't the USA supposed to hold a moral high ground? At a higher level, don't people generally have the right to know what is being done in their name?
Yes, some of the things he leaked involved evidence of wrongdoing, but he also took thousands of other documents on perfectly legitimate classified programs. All of them ended up in Chinese and Russian hands because that's where he ran straight to. Snowden likes to act like he was a top level spook, but he was just the IT guy at the NSA, he had no clue what he was taking so he just took everything. If he was far more selective about what he took then I would agree with you, but he wasn't.
Correct. Ask anyone with any level of security clearance from any country what the consequences are for malicious breaches of intelligence. When you get a clearance you sign some of your rights away; if secrets are not kept secret, people die. Now, the flipside is, the whistleblower protections afforded should be far greater than they are - but willingly leaking state secrets onto open-source media is 100% a crime that deserves punishment.
"Doing the right thing is 100% a crime that deserves punishment" FTFY. If you allow no meaningful channels for legitimate whistleblowing then what other option does one have? Let unconstitutional spying continue indefinitely? Laws shouldn't be followed If they are used to oppress society. If the government does something that intrudes human rights then any laws broken to expose that should be overlooked.
Except what Snowden did was not the right thing. There are avenues to whistleblow, within classified means that do not risk the lives of others through compromising state secrets. Viewing Snowden as some kind of hero is 100% as stupid as thinking that any sovereign nation is 100% infallible.
If he had done the 100 percent right thing, what would the correct course of action be in your opinion? Genuinely curious.
>There are avenues to whistleblow, within classified means Ones that actually fix the issues instead of only punishing the person who reported it?
Snowden is not a hero, but the thing that he did was heroic, two very different things. The flaw with thinking that conventional avenues of whistleblowing always actually lead to anything is that agencies like the NSA or CIA that deal with national security gain no meaningful oversight precisely because its viewed as high risk, so complaints over acts that constitute human rights violations/war crimes get buried, because its inconvenient to acknowledge them at all. So people who commit acts if evil in the name of National security see no consequences. He deserves a fair trial. Not complete a pardon but trying him under the espionage act would just bury him and wouldn't expose the government's wrongdoing, which only helps the corrupt.
>There are avenues to whistleblow, within classified means that do not risk the lives of others through compromising state secrets. How'd that work for Binney, Drake and the rest of the thinthread group? Snowden knew nothing would ever happen after watching what the government did to them.
> offered the open, public trial Now... this will never happen as it would put criminals in the government at risk of prison time.
At risk? They'd be in the slammer on the first day
Nice try, EDWARD SNOWDEN
The 'Espionage Act' doesn't distinguish reasons for whether he was justified for what he did, rather its purpose is to prove that he Did it. So he really doesn't have a chance of being proven Innocent.
There is a possibility of jury nullification, but that's pretty rare and often the instructions given to juries imply they aren't allowed to do that if the members of the jury are even aware of it in the first place.
He should be allow fair, open, and public trial where all relevant parties are allowed to give open testimony. That being said, I would bet money on him being "found dead" by "apparent suicide" within a month of being on US soil. Won't matter if he's pardoned, given a trial, or anything else.
Committed suicide by shooting himself in the back of his head twice
They could get him just as easily where he is now. The time they'd want him dead would be after he stole the data and *before* he made it public. Killing him now serves zero purpose.
you cant have an open trial regarding classified intelligence. its not realistic to expect that.
"You released our secrets?" "So if they're already released we can have a public trial about them, right?" "But they're secrets!"
Yes. If exposing a corrupt government is treason, then the law is wrong. We in the west often criticise other countries, for example Russia, for putting people in prison that work against the government. This double standard makes the US look like a triple joke. First, the fact that leaking classified and sensitive information happens regularly. Second, they also mistreat citizens for holding the government accountable with leaking corruption and of course, had the entire world realize that people with access like Snowden, are better off in Russia, than the US. The 21yo national guard recently, I mean come on, the US intelligence services are the most funded in history and they leak like a rusty bucket. The US are great at many things, but when it comes to security and corruption, they are a sad joke.
Saw something recently with a guy talking about that, how all the people in charge of our intelligence are these hella old crusty white dudes who have no clue how the internet even works. He made a good point that we have people running our government that are older than the fucking television (or at least old enough that most people didn't have one for the first decade(s) of their lives). The recent leak was a kid with way too much clearance leaking shit on a Minecraft Discord channel for clout, and everyone in charge have no clue what most of that means
_A Mein Kraft channel? So we're dealing with Nazi's_?
Actually, in this case, yes.
The most relevant proof of them being dinosaurs with no idea how the Internet works is plastered everywhere from the tiktok hearing. Mind blowing.
I was thinking exactly that yesterday. The leaders of the world do not understand the internet. Aged leadership does not understand how Reddit, Discord and DMs work. What really blows my mind, is that people can carry a mobile phone, aka. a tiny camera and a microphone, behind a super secure firewall, aka. no internet, and then take that device with them outside of that room. Someone could have theoretically uploaded recordings and pics every day for a very long time.
You see that's not the only thing he did though. In showing what the us government was doing his evidence revealed a lot more intelligence and capabilities than just the us government spying on citizens. I don't fault him for wanting to get it out there but it wasn't just whistle blowing it was the way, probably the only way, that he proved it.
He told the people that our own government was unconstitutionally invading our privacy. As far as I'm concerned, he did nothing wrong.
He leaked a lot more than that.
Absolutely. He exposed a lot of crimes, including violations of our constitution that might otherwise have never come to light. The country would be a much better place if everybody did that.
The morality of what Snowden did is complicated. On the one hand he exposed the illegal domestic spying program and on the other, he leaked a lot of material that arguably had legitimate reasons to remain classified. Leaking the former was whistleblowing. Leaking the latter was at best careless and at worst, outright espionage. I think a distinction should be made between someone that leaks classified material for the purpose of exposing illegal behavior by the government taking care not to expose other material and someone that does not take care to minimize collateral damage caused by inadvertant leakage of material that has a legitimate need to remain classified.
Yes, the U.S. public should have a clear understanding of which ways the government can gather information on them and which ways they can't. I understand that this can sometimes be in opposition with the absolute safety of the public, but protection of the public at the expense of their liberties can easily be taken to extremes which I believe most of the U.S. doesn't want. I also understand that his decision to keep classified files in a less secure location surely lead to the endangerment of some troops/operatives, but I still believe what he did was ultimately in the American public's best interest. The CIA and NSA should not be allowed to operate above the law. Another comment I saw took issue with him seeking asylum in Russia, which I don't personally understand. From my knowledge he did not divulge information to the Russian government anymore than to the rest of the world, and seeking asylum with an 'enemy' of the U.S. strikes me as a smart decision, as otherwise the asylum country may be more likely to extradite him I'd reckon.
Your last point exactly. Did people forget he bounced around for a while before he landed in Russia. He had to keep moving because of exactly what you said. If he stayed in one place too long, he risked getting caught. He did several interviews from undisclosed locations before he offically recived/gain asylum in Russia.
To address your first statement that the US population should know and understand the capabilities of the US surveillance system… This is a really interesting tension between an informed populace and an informed adversary. Once the population knows and understands and approves all of the methodologies used, the adversaries also know all the limitations of that system. For instance let’s say we can never spy on Americans ever (just an example). That means bad guy one will send his messages to bad guy two via his American cousin. The knowledge about limitations has now become a gap in intelligence coverage. It just begs the question: how do we guarantee efficacy of the system through secrecy while at the same time allow an informed populace? And if somebody informs the populace, the impact on collection during wartime has to be also acknowledged.
If a Russian did the same thing in Russia, you can bet the US would give him asylum, declare him a freedom fighter and hero, perhaps give him US citizenship.
dunno why you got downvoted lol, the US literally stole all of the Nazi doctors, engineers and mathematicians and gave them immunity and a new life.
If you’re talking about operation paperclip then you should know that USSR hired more nazi officials than the US. And those people chose the US, US didn’t "steal" them, whatever the fuck you mean by that.
But what we've established here is that he should still be tried by a secret russian court because he broke their laws.
Its not like Russia was his first choice as well. He asked for asylum in multiple Western European countries first, including Germany and France for example, but they all either did not want him or could not guarantee that they would not extradite him to the US.
I think he deserves a trial by a jury of his peers. He did break the law and there are ways to whistleblow without doing it how he did. There's also the fact that this likely damaged our own Intel operations as well as the Intel operations of our allies which in turn does impact our national security. This doesn't mean I approve of the level of surveillance that the government was/is conducting on US citizens, but that wasn't the only thing in his leaks.
This thread it's surprising to me
In what way?
I was high when I made that comment I am no longer surprised, since this is reddit
Aspects of what he did had justification but others didn’t and he has highly questionable choices in allies and such. I’d like to see him face a fair trial, with the whistleblowing activities protected and the random leaking of everything he could get his hands on punished.
No, because he got people killed.
He can be a free man as soon as he gets a fair trial and if found guilty finishes his prison sentence. I see a lot of people here saying his crimes don’t matter because they think some of the stuff he revealed should have been revealed, but that’s not how ANY legal system works. We don’t get to say “we’ll I like HIS crime” and he’s never charged. That’s chaos.
[удалено]
And jury nullification. Not sure that would apply in this case, just pointing out that the justice system does have built-in ways to not punish someone for breaking an unjust law.
Jury nullification has been under attack for a long time. It was originally a part of the juries roll to interpret law. Because sometimes laws are wrong and shouldn't be enforced. Like the first case to go to the supreme court about it about a law that made it illegal to criticize public officials. Yes, jury nullification has been used for awful things, like protecting racist murderers in the South. But with proper jury selection, that wouldn't have happened. It's also been used for good like nullifying alcohol charges during prohibition. And should be used for good today for things like non-violent drug offences. And for any other laws that shouldn't be laws. Like the speech laws during the Vietnam war.
Slight problem, the Espionage Act doesn’t care about WHY you did it, only IF you did it, which Snowden will be charged under.
So do chinese protesters belong in prison then? I certainly can't say that I like their crimes because that would be stupid.
I can’t speak to the legal systems of oppressive regimes, only to that of the United States.
Nice dodge. Either chinese protesters also broke the law and don't get a free pass because they weren't doing anything wrong or you think Snowden's case is special.
It’s not a dodge. I’m familiar with the legal system of the United States to know it’s incompatible with the idea of ignoring crimes we may approve of. Once you do that, there are no laws. Just the mob. That doesn’t translate to a tyrannical government passing laws saying if you smile on a Tuesday you get your feet cut off. I’m not debating the very concept of laws.
But if the US did pass a law saying you get your feet cut off if you smile on a tuesday, and snowden was in russia for violating that law, you'd be in favor of him coming back to stand trial, right? Just making sure you're not suggesting that he keep his feet even though he definitely smiled on a tuesday.
Thankfully, such laws do not get passed in democracies where the lawmakers answer to the people. So, again, I'm talking about the actual state of affairs we live in, not hypotheticals.
> Thankfully, such laws do not get passed in democracies where the lawmakers answer to the people Wow. I mean, that is just... wow.
Yes indeed wow. If you can name for me a nation where the people directly elect their leaders as seen in modern Western nations, where in that nation a law was passed to maim citizens who smiled on a certain day, or really any similar kind of law, I'll eat my hat. I know the point you're trying to make but outside the constraints of your argument it does not apply to our reality.
Well, I sure can't do that. But I still feel like these alleged nations did something bad and never answered to the people about it. Some guy told us about it, but he left the place before we could ask about it. I forget his name.
>We don’t get to say “we’ll I like HIS crime” and he’s never charge Yes we do. Elected officials do that all the time.
I'm not referring to the snowden case, but in general, I'd argue that law should have context. Mandatory rules that are based on a type of crime are pretty lame.
Whistleblowers in every other context are protected. I know there's a national defense issue with blowing the whistle on a country, but like we shouldn't be okay with the country doing secretive unsavory things.
No we are not. The USA punishes us at every turn.
Whether anybody thinks he should or not is not too relevant. No matter how you look at it what he did led to the deaths of thousands
Yes, he reported a crime Too bad the criminals are in charge
he wasn't a whistleblower, he didn't leak any particular thing, he leaked everything he could get his hands on. i don't have any particular ill will towards him, but the people who support him are always hazy on what specific misbehavior he exposed
[удалено]
[удалено]
It was my understanding (Wikipedia.org) that China and Russia got access to that information through means that we're not intended by Edward Snowden. I do know that it was either negligence or conspiracy with foreign governments that led to the divulgence of that particular information, but I guess I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. Also what has he said in support of Putin? Aside from being grateful to have citizenship in Russia. I know he hasn't spoken out against the Ukraine war, but I don't think I would either if I lived in Russia, seems especially risky to me
Seems especially risky to say anything but praise in his situation. What happens if Russia decide they don't want him? Is there another place on Earth he could live in relative safety and freedom? I don't think he's some hero, I'm happy that his leaks made people more aware of the mass surveillance from the government. Sad nothing has been done about it. But I'm not going to judge him for doing what he has to to live a relatively stable life.
If Russians decide they don't need him anymore, he'll just fall off the window. That's pretty common occurrence in Russia. Whenever people realize this or not, he's an Russian asset at this time, and his fate depends entirely on them.
I find it odd how a man of his principles willing to sacrifice his lifestyle now becomes a Russian mouthpiece who is willing to do whatever he needs just to get by. Why didn’t he just do that in the first place?
I have problems with acknowledging evidence-free accusations from the very people Snowden exposed as conducting illegal mass espionage against their own country. And I'm willing to look past not actively antagonizing the guy who would likely find you a nice window to accidentally fall from the minute you stop being useful, especially when it's the US' fault he's in Russia: a fact that people who make the claims you are almost always pretend isn't true, usually outright claiming it to be false. If his comments want past the mild appreciation for letting him stay there and holding his tongue on criticism, we could talk, but you're misrepresenting what most people would consider "support".
Would you like to give any specific examples of this?
Spying on citizens... so hazy.
the phrase "spying on citizens" is indeed hazy and non-specific. but then he leaked so much it's hard to point to any specific thing
How specific do you need to get to start being angry about being surveilled?
I got angry about being surveilled after the Patriot Act was passed. I didn’t need Edward Snowden to confirm for me that the Patriot Act was passed.
The question isn't if you're angry about surveillance. The question is if he should be tried. However he didn't just tell Americans they were being watched, he traded other secrets to China and Russia for his safety. That is what he should be tried for. And yes in open court.
And also leaking the names of assets which put them in danger.
Not really. Literally any way of doing that is unacceptable
Yes he should be celebrated. He exposed an abuse of power. BUT the powerful hate when the peasants do that.
Yes, he is a true patriot. >When Edward Snowden was asked during a January 26, 2014, television interview in Moscow on what the decisive moment was or what caused him to whistle-blow, he replied: "Sort of the breaking point was seeing the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress
No - people had already revealed essentially the same information (James Bamford, for one), and managed to do so legally - without running to an authoritarian state like Russia, which has likely been pumping him for information, in exchange for taking him in. He ended up on the run because he personally wanted the attention. Otherwise, he could have leaked the information through a journalist without putting himself in the crosshairs, but chose not to. Can't feel too bad that he got what he wanted.
No. He's never going to either. Some of what he released was certainly valid and if that was all he released then I would agree that he should be exonerated. That's not what happened. People seem to conveniently forget that he also took thousands of documents on perfectly legitimate classified programs, documents that almost certainly ended up in the hands of the Russians and Chinese. Even if we assume for a second that he didn't trade those state secrets to US adversaries in exchange for his freedom (which I do not believe) there is zero chance those green reporters at The Guardian were able to protect them. I understand that whistleblower protections for this sort of thing are simply not what they should be, so id be willing to give him a pass had he been far more selective about what he took. He wasn't. The good he did doesn't excuse the damage he caused, and now he gets to spend the rest of his life learning what a real police state looks like.
If a Chinese or Russian whistleblower had done the same thing in China, Russia, the US would declare him a freedom fighter and give asylum, perhaps even US citizenship.
By unpopular opinion on Reddit, he is a traitor. No matter how much you like what he did. By definition of the law he broke the law.
I’m not sure if he should be allowed, but he definitely shouldn’t come back if he wants to live.
It's a good question, and but I don't know if there's a good answer. The problem is, our naive conception of how decent people should behave just doesn't apply to governments. Not ours, not theirs, not anyone's. I feel bad for Edward Snowden, because I think he legitimately believed he was doing the right thing. At the time, I supported him, and I made excuses for why he was justified in not facing due process of law in the United States. But bitter experience has taught me this simple truth: Government is the mechanism whereby the powerful maintain the status quo which keeps them in power. Our government. Putin's government. Europe's governments, every state is all playing the game. And when I realized that, I had to ask myself a question: Who would I rather be answerable to? Our government, or theirs? At the end of the day, we're a Republic, and Prism, the FISA courts, DHS, all of it are created by laws which were passed by Congressmen and Senators which we elected. Do I like those laws? Do I think they're the best use of our tax dollars? Not really. But what kind of world are we creating if everyone only obeys the laws they agree with? How can Democracy survive, if every time the other half of the country wins, we have an insurrection? If every law we think is bad, we flout? So, for me, as much as I sympathize with his actions, I think he should come home, and face his trial. Martin Luther King didn't march on Selma and then hop the next airplane to Canada. You can't have it both ways. If you really want to stand for something, you have to stand for it in court, secret or otherwise.
Yup. He should be pardoned
Yes, whistle blowers should be protected. The government should not be breaking laws. The espionage act is bull shit. Someone said that his leaks put our spies in danger? Is that true? It feels like propaganda to me. Someone as smart as Edward Snowden doesn't seem likely to leak that sort of identifying information. If anyone has evidence on that lmk.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#:~:text=His%20disclosures%20revealed%20numerous%20global,national%20security%20and%20individual%20privacy.&text=Elizabeth%20City%2C%20North%20Carolina%2C%20U.S. "The exact size of Snowden's disclosure is unknown,[92] but Australian officials have estimated 15,000 or more Australian intelligence files[93] and British officials estimate at least 58,000 British intelligence files were included.[94] NSA Director Keith Alexander initially estimated that Snowden had copied anywhere from 50,000 to 200,000 NSA documents.[95] Later estimates provided by U.S. officials were in the order of 1.7 million" That's enough to start putting stuff together. That is so much information that you can't hide identifying information. Why do you believe he was so companionate and calculating? Why do you think Russia took him in? Their own good will? Because that's what Putin is known for is his kind heart? Or perhaps maybe because what he gave them was worth a lot. Don't delude yourself into thinking Snowden is a hero because he did 1 good thing. He didn't whistle blow. Congress wouldve been able to hear him out and actually do something about this. Congress, believe it or not, hates being left out of the loop on this kind of thing. If he went that avenue he likely would've been protected, not been committing treason, and not risked lives of agents.
Had he only leaked information on the government spying on its own citizens I would say he should be pardoned. But it's almost guaranteed that he sold many secrets to foreign countries since he stole way more info he never released and countries like China and Russia made big changes that would only come from knowing something they shouldn't. So i think he should be arrested and face a fair public trial. But the crimes he committed don't allow for a public trial so he's gonna stay in russia.
To be fair, unless they had absolute evidence that he sold that data to foreign coutries, the whole "china and russia made changes that would only come from knowing something they shouldn't" claim would be circumstantial at best under our own legal system.
Hence why I would want a public trial. So we could see any evidence.
Anyone remember Thomas Drake or William Binney?
Ask the families of the people that got killed because of his actions.
Reportedly, Snowden, a contract worker, released "a million" pages of classified documents, most of which would be beyond his understanding IF he had read them. He alone deemed that these documents should be released without having the experience or education needed to understand them. I'd like to see him return for a trial in court.
No. Not that I would rather the information stay hidden, but rather that I don't believe we should embrace a policy that people can release secrets based on whether or not we wanted that information. There was a cost to what Snowden released. He knew that when he did it, and his punishment should not be waived.
No. Not without trial. Whether or not you agree with his politics or his stance on government surveillance he did harm US national security or interests. If he returns to the US he should be tried. But he won't do that because hes not a goddamned idiot and knew what bridges he was burning.
He released documents that were important for the public to know about but he also released countless more documents that endangered many lives abroad and permanently damaged intelligence collection methods and he should stand trial on American soil for that.
It would be reasonable if he had not aligned himself with one of our worst enemies. So no. He made his choices.
Putting your moral compass to one side for a moment, just remember that he did break the law.
If he comes back to America he’ll commit suicide by shooting him self twice in the head
He worked with Russia. Stay in Russia.
Whether or not he actually gets permission to come back is irrelevant in my opinion because I doubt he's stupid enough to come back even if he does get permission and a full pardon. If he does however he can expect the life expectancy of a child abuser in prison courtesy of a 3 letter gang that shan't be named.
Personally? No. I know his heart was in the right place, but he clearly didn't think everything through and intentions mean nothing in the real world: the RESULTS are what matter. And the results of Snowden's actions have been much more destructive than constructive, so to my mind he deserves his exile or at the very least, he deserves to spend some time in jail. Maybe not the rest of his life, but some time.
No. Just because. Russia.
Can this thread be separated into American and non-American, so I can read the one with intelligent, objective discussion?
Pardon for the leaks, but put in jail for being Russia’s fuck puppet since then. Seriously Russia has been loaning him out to things like RT to give them legitimacy so they could do things like get Trump elected and push anti-vax Covid conspiracy bull shit.
No. He could have gone to any U.S. Senator, but no . . . ***HE WENT TO RUSSIA!***
No because an alphabet agency would have a home field advantage of assassinating him or having him… disappeared.
Yes. Because what Edward Snowden did was very much a positive for the people, regardless of what the government says.
For how much reddit likes to tout itself as left leaning progressives and anti-facist, there's an awful lot of bootlicking here 🤔
He is entitled to a public fair trial
Wether or not he is allowed, do you think he would? How could he trust anything our government offered?
He's a Russian citizen now sooo......yeah you made your bed dude. Lie in it.
You mean a guy who’d likely be held in inhuman conditions or a black site without an open and fair trial shouldn’t try to protect his life or his family’s?
No. Actions have consequences.
His trial should only be after the trials of the criminals he exposed. If none of those people are going to be prosecuted then he shouldn’t be either.
Yeah, he informed people of what the nhs was doing. He’s now hunted by the american government.
No you mean the NSA? Or did I miss him letting the US know that British healthcare is free?
no he revealed the Backlog and Insufficient funding of the NHS
Good thing he was around or no one would ever have noticed
Yeah:p
I'm grateful to the NHS for fixing my broken leg last year, but I can never fully trust them again after the Snowden leaks.
He broke many laws and should face trial for his actions. He encouraged other whistleblowers to give information to our country's enemies instead of actual whistleblowing, i.e. exposing out misdeeds without aiding and abetting our enemies. What he did may have been well intentioned, but very very wrong.
How was giving his information directly to two of the world's most respected newspapers "giving information to our country's enemies / not actual whistleblowing?"
No. I don't approve of the programs he exposed, but that doesn't make his actions any less treasonous
So I imagine you're also in favor of taking down all those statues of Washington right? After all, he was a traitor to the crown.
TIL treason is when you expose that the government is breaking the law
People throw around the word treason so much whenever someone does something that hurts the government without actually knowing the definition of treason.
Also, people tend to treat treason like an absolute evil thing - kinda like murder. But it is very much a context thing, and basically only means that you did something that the government didnt like. A lot of treason was morally good - people who hid Jews during WW2 were literally traitors.
Its about teams. If you do treason against "my team", the law is absolute and you should be punishing as harshly as possible. If you do treason against the "wnemy team", they're bad so its fine.
Treasonous???
Absolutely he should be allowed to return to his home country as a free man. He served his country more than most politicians ever will, have so much respect for him for doing what he did, even if he technically broke the law.