Significantly longer than Snowden is willing to stay in a US prison for his beliefs. Especially while he has classified security intel to trade away and compromise my safety for the benefit of his freedom.
What a hero!
Too late to edit:
That’s really the crux of it. There’s no “But he was for our FREEDOM!” angle that’s going to include “And that’s why he had to give the Chinese security intel on our foreign programs”. Which he did. And those programs had NOTHING to do with me and my precious phone call metadata. The guy crossed the line when he started wheeling and dealing with other nations and selling my security as an American for his freedom as a traitor. “Hero” is a word with zero application to the little coward.
Intelligence employees aren’t covered under the Whistleblower’s Protection Enhancement Act.
We don’t know that he gave the Chinese anything. That is a talking point used to detract from the substance of his disclosures. Also please note, there is a difference between Hong Kong and China.
You mean aside from the Chinese media running stories on it? :rolleyes:
From the LA Times:
How is it possibly a distraction to talk about what Snowden did while discussing what Snowden did? I’m not using “He’s an egotistical jerk!” as my argument. I’m calling him a traitor for his disclosures to foreign powers, not because I don’t want him dating my sister.
Will you marry me?
Please elaborate.
I meant anything that could really compromise our security. The above does give some context to our complaints about Chinese hacking, eh?
Reminds me that we’re also going after a US general, James Cartwright, for revealing the US’s role in the stuxnet virus…
Seems to me Snowden is a sort of Rorsach test for the authoritarians among us.
There’s a specific law that covers intelligence community employees: Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act - Wikipedia
Not specifically about Snowden, it is an interesting koan, kinda like “if the tree falls in the forest and there’s no one there to hear it” (or, if you’re more of a scientific bent, what if a quantum event was supposed to happen, but no one observed it). And that is, if everyone involved strictly observes the US secrecy laws, how is a wrongdoing by the US intelligence industry, on small or big scale, ever going to be exposed?
The whole focus on Snowden and what his character and motivations are, in any case, are a sideshow promoted by the government and media to distract us from the actual substance here. The fact that it seems like it’s a bigger point of public discussion whether or not Snowden is a narcissist vs proof that the government is abusing the secret carte blanche powers we gave it post 9/11 is pathetic and shows why our government can tread all over us at will.
Ah ok. Well I imagine Snowden didn’t have much faith in that route given the fact that Thomas Drake tried to go through the proper channels to bring attention to waste on the Trailblazer Project and was charged under the espionage act for his trouble.
Seems to me its a Rorschach test to differentiate people who understand the law, and folks who want to handwave it away. The guy broke the law. He did so willfully, in full knowledge of what he was doing (since, you know, he fled and all). He did so in a manner that was clearly treasonous, since, again, he stole EXTRA stuff he could use to bargain with other countries to stay out of the authorities hands.
The thing is, as others have mentioned, there were other paths he could have taken. I’m pretty sure that he could have gone to a sympathetic senator or congresscritter with his evidence and made the case that this needed to be exposed…that is, if he was really only interested in protecting Us, The People from the Evil Government. But he didn’t do that. He decided to do this in perhaps the most egregious way possible.
If he’s caught, he’s going down. Hard. And I feel very little sympathy for the man, since to me this seems more motivated by ego than by altruism. MMV of course, as the OP clearly shows.
No, it doesn’t. I’m glad we know some of the things Manning and Snowden have disclosed. But an important part of civil disobedience is taking your punishment. It’s how you demonstrate the courage of your convictions, show that the system’s priorities are wrong, and it establishes the difference between saying “this law is wrong” and “this law doesn’t apply to me personally.” If MLK had demonstrated in Birmingham and then fled to Cuba instead of going to jail, his cause would have been right but people wouldn’t have had much respect for him and it would’ve weakened his cause. People like King and Mandela took their lumps and plenty of them died for their convictions.
I don’t know if anything he said compromises U.S. security because I’m not in a position to evaluate that (and neither are you). He did give away some pretty significant information, and it wasn’t related to his original objections regarding domestic spying. Announcing that the U.S. spies on other countries and giving away some of the details on what it did certainly can’t have been good for U.S. security, and I fail to see what is has to do with his stated grievances.
That doesn’t make a lot of sense. The focus in his character is happening because it’s easier to understand and yell about than the complicated security issues. And the fleeing is exciting, I guess. Although I also wonder if the press is focused on this issue because they didn’t do all that much work in covering these matters between September 11th and the present.
He’s a nerdy government clerk who broke up with a model/pole dancer.
I’m assuming he was laying the groundwork for an insanity plea.
AFAIK, Snowden has only given documents to the Guardian and the Washington Post – that is, only to respectable press organizations. Those organizations then decided, with Snowden’s help, what to release to the public. I’ve seen no evidence that he’s provided NSA documents to foreign governments, and certainly no evidence he’s “trying to hold the US hostage by threatening to release more security secrets.”
Why does it matter that he fled to China? Do you have a cite that he gave or sold classified security documents to foreign governments?
I’m starting to think you’re talking about a different Snowden. Alleging something to the Chinese press without documentation (as your previous links say) does not equate to selling our security for his freedom.
Eh, I think most objecting to how he did what he did don’t really care about the how. I think when it comes down to it, they care that he did full stop.
Want to bet a dollar that the government won’t drop the charges against Snowden?
The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act protects people who are passing information on to the proper enforcement agencies - Congress or the Department of Justice. Drake was giving classified information to a newspaper reporter. Snowden would have been better off if he had learned from Drake’s example.