A man of principles, given the choice between “Be arrested for my act of civil disobedience” and “Flee to a country which openly does the things which I condemn my own government for doing in secret,” would choose the former.
“exile” is flight from the U.S. government, not flight from justice, except insofar as the U.S. government is acting in a just manner, which, if you accept that the leak could have been morally acceptable in the first place [had he only stayed in the U.S.!], is not automatic. In Snowden’s eyes, the government’s attempt to punish him for this is not justice, as what he has done is not wrong in the first place.
I told you. He was unable to get to Iceland. The NSA monitors travel abroad, and he realized there was no way he could swing it to go to Iceland without arousing suspicion of the sort which would result in his not ending up in Iceland.
So what? Snowden has never endorsed Iceland’s spying. Snowden never endorsed anyone’s spying. Snowden’s opposition to countries spying on their citizens is the most well-known fact about him. Unfortunately, Snowden has not yet been successful in convincing all countries in the world to stop spying on their citizens. His incompetence at doing something that no one has been able to do does not make him immoral, or even have anything to do with his moral evaluation.
A man of the particular principles you are imposing.
A man of principles can have different principles. The unfortunate reality of the world is that every country sucks.
What convinces you that Snowden enjoys being in the countries he’s in? He surely would have much preferred to go to Canada or England or any number of other places with a culture and affluence similar to his upbringing.
Unfortunately, he is not able to go to Canada or England or any number of other places with a culture and affluence similar to his upbringing. He can go where he is now, or he can rot in a prison cell technically within the borders of the United States but not at all culturally a part of the United States we live in, a tiny jail fiefdom of its own [where he will also be openly spied on and denied freedom, that being the way prison works].
You are using as evidence against the man that he failed to make a choice which was not among the options available to him.
I don’t think I commented on his morality in the first place. I’ve talked about his consistency and his commitment to the principles he’s espousing.
I bet bank robbers believe very strongly that people who rob banks shouldn’t be put in jail. We’re talking about naked self-interest here, and I thought it was being asserted that he’s a principled guy.
And has he said anything against them? I’m pretty sure the answer is no, and we do know how he feels about those things.
I think you actually failed to complete this sentence without contradicting yourself. Dissidents object to what is happening in their own countries. That’s the whole point. They’re not endorsing the regime because they are speaking up against it. Snowden, who spoke up against violations of privacy and domestic spying in the U.S., is apparently willing to accept protection from Russia or China or Venezuela or Ecuador while declining to speak out about the same behavior in those countries. It’s pretty simple, and I assume that’s why these defenses are so contorted.
Which, as demonstrated above, is objectively false. He has committed a crime and he knows he that what he did was illegal.
So the NSA monitors flights to Iceland, but not to China?
Per your appraisal, Snowden apparently thinks the government of Iceland is morally superior to that of the US, which implies an endorsement of its domestic spying policies.
Or are you admitting that Snowden is a hypocrite and his only concern at the moment is protecting his own ass?
I doubt he’d even be in jail, depending on what he ended up doing. He certainly wouldn’t be in jail if he’d gone to a sympathetic senator or congresscritter with the information. He MIGHT not have gone to jail had he then taken it to the press, if the situation hadn’t been resolved or become public, especially had he done so in a way that used the presses ability to cover sources. But even if he had gone to jail, you are absolutely right…we’d be talking about the actual issues, instead of about Snowden. At least, that would be the focus. And I’m fairly sure the outrage meter would be pretty high for Snowden, especially here on the 'dope, if he HAD gone through channels and then been arrested, especially if he tried to take this first to our government representatives and only gone to the press as a last resort, instead of fleeing to other countries and using information as a bargaining chip to keep him out of the US’s hands.
One of the options available to him was “Not violating the Espionage Act”.
Do you honestly believe Snowden likes the fact that China spies on its own citizens? Honestly? Honestly?! Do you believe that if Snowden had the ability to choose between a world where China spied on its own citizens and world where China did not spy on its own citizens, Snowden would choose the former?
Snowden does not endorse China spying on its own citizens. This is not in any contradiction with Snowden’s physical location and and level of silence as a function of time, both of which have been highly influenced by factors outside of Snowden’s direct control which he surely would have preferred to have gone differently.
The options available to Snowden were not the options he considered ideal. That he chose a particular option from among them does not mean he would not have preferred others had they been available.
I’m not saying Snowden’s a hero, but the particular arguments you guys are advancing are… Aaagh!
Probably not. But it sounds like he’s chosen not to care because they have something to offer him. How heroic would you say that is?
[QUOTE=Indistinguishable]
Do you honestly believe Snowden likes the fact that China spies on its own citizens? Honestly? Honestly?! Do you believe that if Snowden had the ability to choose between a world where China spied on its own citizens and world where China did not spy on its own citizens, Snowden would choose the former?
[/QUOTE]
Who knows? The honest answer is we can but judge him by his actions…and his actions speak volumes about how fervent he is about the issue. Which is to say, not very.
Others were available to him. He made a really, really bad series of choices and now he’s tucked tail and is trying to do anything he can to save his own ass, including going to China and paying the price that entails. Hope he enjoys the stay. 
How heroic have I said Snowden is? I don’t use the concept of heroism very much. But the arguments people are advancing in favor of him being a bad guy are not good arguments.
Really? Because Eric Snowden is the same guy who voluntarily worked for the CIA and the NSA. Those are unusual choices for somebody who doesn’t endorse anyone’s spying.
A more accurate claim might be that there’s some spying Snowden endorses and some spying he does not.
And that the latter is a variable, depending on what Snowden might or might not need at the moment. If he’s fleeing from the US for violating the Espionage Act (or some other purely hypothetical situation), then any spying country in a storm is a safe spying country in a storm.
You are correct. I was simplifying. That might indeed be more accurate.
And you know what? There’s some spying I endorse and some spying I do not. And I wager the same is true of everyone in this thread.
I will say, the fact that Snowden worked for an organization which carried out some spying he felt was not good and wanted to tell the world about does not, to me, mean he endorsed that particular spying which he later, explicitly, anti-endorsed. It could mean he joined an agency he thought carried out only the kind of activities he did endorse, and then discovered it carried out other activities he did not endorse, and wanted to reduce those latter activities. Or it could mean he adopted from the start a tactic he thought would be effective for diminishing the kind of spying he did not like. Or it could mean any number of other things.
I really don’t understand the complaint that Snowden has not been vocal enough in denouncing Chinese spying. You know who else never summoned the press to denounce the Chinese spying on their citizens? Me. It’s not something I’ve ever done.
And you know who else has never done it? The vast majority of citizens of China, even those who are aware of and against such spying. That doesn’t make them bad people. Circumstances have forced their silence
Snowden wanted to help bring the U.S. spying to light. In return, he has done things which have not, to my knowledge, increased the amount of spying any other country has done. The fact that China spies on its citizens is not Snowden’s fault, and Snowden has made no attempt to preserve such spying.
Wait till Snowden’s in a position where he can speak freely before you start denouncing him for failing to say things… We haven’t actually had that opportunity yet. [I haven’t heard him express sympathy for the SFO crash victims either. In fact, has anyone heard anything from him anytime recently? I wonder why not. Is he doing alright?..]
[QUOTE=Indistinguishable]
I really don’t understand the complaint that Snowden has not been vocal enough in denouncing Chinese spying. You know who else never summoned the press to denounce the Chinese spying on their citizens? Me. It’s not something I’ve ever done.
[/QUOTE]
You probably never took sensitive, classified documents from the government and fled with them to China either. And most likely you never had a pole dancing stripper for a girlfriend, for that matter. I’m sure there are a lot of other similarities between you and Snowden otherwise, but the key characteristics seem to be missing to really do a comparison.
Well, the thing is, if you are going to attempt the take the high moral ground by denouncing the US government for doing what the NSA did, it’s a bit of a disconnect if you then flee to the Peoples Republic of China. It’s a bit like denouncing prostitution and then fleeing to a brothel.
His actions to date speak louder than all the handwaving words he might come up with to justify what he’s done so far. I’d say his case can only get worse at this point, but obviously YMMV, so you wait for his explanation of how he justifies what he’s done and juxtapose denouncing the NSA by going to China. Should be amusing if nothing else.
Here’s a question I don’t know the answer to: After the initial revelation and thus exile, how many interviews has Snowden given?
Interviews with Russian or Chinese intelligence organizations, or interviews with the press? If the former, who knows? Lots I suspect. Of the latter, none that I know of.
The latter is what I was asking. Basically, how many opportunities has Snowden had to say anything we would have heard (denunciations of the Chinese, or apologies, or what have you).
I suspected the answer was none, but wanted to confirm.
You seriously expect him to denounce China while in their power?? I mean, this is a guy who fled the US to avoid what we might do to him for breaking the law. What do you suppose the Chinese would do to him while in their power if he denounced them???