I don’t seriously expect him to denounce China while in their power [or while staying silent in a terminal in Moscow, or any other such thing]. But I don’t seriously hold it against him that he has not, either. That’s part of my point; his failure to do so (to a level where we have heard it) is not a good argument that he is a bad guy.
Well now you’re just nitpicking, XT. 
(This is getting silly, Indistinguishable. I assume you’ve never accepted protection from China or Russia or Venezuela, so there’s no conflict.)
Circumstances didn’t force Snowden’s silence. Snowden made a series of choices and concluded that silence in return for protection was what he wanted. I can have pity for the guy because he obviously did not expect some of these things to happen, but he did make his choices.
He’s never going to be in a position to speak freely. That’s what happens when you rely on dictators for protection. If he speaks out against the governments in other countries, they’ll kick him out or turn him over to someone else for extradition. When the U.S. conducts spying he’s opposed to, he can speak out and hightail it out of there. When Venezuela or Russia violates the rights of their citizens, he’ll be saying a whole lot of nothing because that’s in his best interests.
I know you don’t think you’re being evil, but I’m telling you, straight up, you’re being evil.
There’s no conflict in my accepting protection from anyone while simultaneously believing they do things I am against, if I fail to actually endorse the things they do that I am against.
In addition to receiving protection from the U.S. government, I furthermore actually donate money once a year to keep the U.S. government afloat. Yet, for all that, there are a number of things the U.S. government does which I am morally against and would not want to be considered as endorsing. And so I decline to state my endorsement for those things.
By Thoreau’s lights, I am perhaps nonetheless undischargeably complicit, and the sins of the U.S. government are to some extent sins of mine. Yet it is at such a level of dilution that few consider me a bad person, even while they may have reasons to denounce the U.S. government.
Snowden has given even less support to the Chinese government and their spying than I have to the U.S. government and its offenses. Snowden has given to the Chinese government only the level of support that any tourist gives to the Chinese government; he has existed within its legal borders for a time, and relied on it to prevent physical harm of undesired capture from coming to him. Hell, I’ve done the same with some fucked up countries whose actions I do not all endorse but which I had to pass through on my goal to getting good Facebook photos.
Is it hypocritical for a person to even so much as visit a country that engages in practices one wishes it would refrain from?
Until Snowden says “The Chinese and their spying are fine by me”, or takes actions to in any way actually help the Chinese in their spying, or is even asked to answer a question about the Chinese spying, the fact that he has not loudly denounced them despite having set foot in their country during his exile is not upsetting to me.
Saying Snowden “fled to China” is a bit disingenuous. He traveled to Hong Kong, and had this to say about it (from here):
And he’s right: HK is quite different from other Chinese cities in terms of its politics. If you care about where he fled to, and are judging him accordingly, it seems important to make this distinction.
And what’s wrong with self-preservation? You can be a bank robber and want to preserve yourself, and you can be a hero and want to preserve yourself. I see absolutely no contradiction, here. All I see is your insistence on having Snowden following a particular course of action that you happen to like particularly. Nobody’s under any obligation to follow MLK’s way of doing things in a particular situation. Generally speaking, it’s sheer idiocy to do so.
I don’t believe in Godwinizing, so let’s take the German “White Rose” (which happened to be non-violent too). Do you think that the fact they acted clandestinely and tried to evade arrest made their action any less heroic or that it made them less principled? Would you have advised them to act openly? It’s not just for the easy reference that I’m picking a Nazi-related example. You might take your “how to act” lessons from the civil rights movement, I have some reasons to take mine from WWII.
And again, trying to avoid arrest is perfectly legitimate and doesn’t make you less principled, or less heroic. As I already wrote, that’s what pretty much what every single person we consider heroic tried to do.
Again, I’m not stating Snowden is a hero, because I don’t really care about his status. But I do believe he did something highly useful and that benefited the people (or should have, at least). And trying to subsquently avoid life in prison certainly shouldn’t be held against him. That’s just the sensible and human thing to do.
By the way, I don’t even care whether he gave away intelligence to Chinese or whoever, because, again, that’s small potatoes by comparison with the government betraying the people, which is what I think happened here. I have extremely strong feelings about what the US government did. We just can’t let democtratic societies’ leadership spiraling out of control like that. With that in mind, you’ll have a very hard time having me condemn the guy who disclosed informations that should never have been kept hidden from the people. Whoever did that provided a major service to his nation. Even if he turns out to be a traitor and a baby rapist to boot.
And it’s not like your national heroes, for instance, had a tendency to, say, be hanged publicly by the British as a demonstration of moral fortitude or had no human failing. Frankly, as a previous poster say (and he took much flak for it), it’s just insane to demand what you do from Snowden. As this poster wrote, you wouldn’t ask that from anybody else, 99,9% of the time. What on Earth makes you believe that Snowden should be held to those super-extra strict moral standards?
He may not have “intended [his flight] as a vote of confidence in Chinese human rights”, but he sure as hell embraced the relationship China and Russia have with the US as a shelter to keep him from serving any US justice. A relationship which frosty in part due to the terrible civil rights records of both China and Russia.
There’s really no way to gilt this turd and pretend that it doesn’t count that Snowden fled to China (yes, China – HK is under the Chinese umbrella) and then fled to Russia (anyone want to start saying Moscow doesn’t really count?), most likely giving his hosts a tasty buffet of US classified info along the way. Or that he obviously spoke with the Chinese media about classified US intel programs. And so we’re all supposed to laud what a great and noble hero this man is for jeopardizing US security and fleeing to hide under Putin and Xi Jinping’s skirts.
Well, until he starts hiding under Maduro’s skirt instead. Because Venezuela is a bastion of human and civil rights so there’s no way he’d ever compromise his beliefs by hiding there while Maduro flaunts his new toy.
Okay, I (uncharacteristically stridently) made a point before that the argument here against his heroism is a bad one–whether he actually is a hero or not. Indistinguishable has made (I think) substantially the same point, in a more rational and detailed fashion. I don’t know how much more can be said about that (but perhaps a lot more, who knows?).
I want to take it a step back. The OP’s conclusion is that Snowden is a hero. Before we can have a clear answer to that question, we need to know more clearly, what’s a hero? OP, what do you think a hero is, such that Snowden is that? Marley et all, what do you guys think a hero is, such that Snowden is not that?
Do we all agree on what a hero is in the first place? If so, we can progress from there. If not, we can figure out what we’re all trying to really say, which is another kind of progress.
I think I’ve already explained in enough detail why Snowden’s actions contravene the principles he says drove him to go public. And I also think he probably hurt his own cause by running. What he wound up doing was making this about him.
Not jumping on board with the latest ill-defined moral outrage isn’t evil.
Sure there is- although this made-up step endorsement step is a nice attempt at a buffer. Snowden’s claim is that the U.S.’ behavior was so outrageous that he could not remain silent about it. If another country agrees to protect him, he will remain silent about their failings just as he’s done while he is in Russia.
Among other things, no one needs Snowden to speak up about Russia or China. As far as I’m aware, Snowden doesn’t know anything about Russian or Chinese intelligence that the public doesn’t. He doesn’t actually have anything newsworthy to say. Snowden spoke about the U.S.'s behavior because he had access to information the public didn’t. That consideration does not apply in these other cases.
The people who have to live with the human rights violations of those governments or deal with the failures and Venezuela’s feints toward Stalinism might disagree with you. I forgot that these matters worked on a dibs system.
What harm is it to them that Snowden, having not said anything publicly after originally entering the news, has failed to call the press to speak about their governments (a topic he knows nothing more about than the general public already knows)? How does that make their oppression any worse?
I don’t remember saying he’s harmed anyone. I’ve said he’s showing no particular commitment to the principles that he says motivated him. What I’m seeing is that calling out the U.S. on its behavior is a moral imperative, but calling out Russia or China or Venezuela isn’t necessary because they can protect him from the U.S.
Calling out the U.S. was a moral imperative for him because he actually had information he could reveal; he could actually do something to bring awareness to an issue that was previously unknown to the public. He actually had something newsworthy to call out!
Calling out Russia or China or Venezuela in the same way is not possible. He doesn’t have any information to reveal about them. If he did, it seems to me most likely that he would feel compelled to share it in the same way.
How nice it is that his obligations keep matching up with his needs. If disclosing PRISM was worth a federal prison sentence, surely speaking up about the imprisonment of Lu Xiaobo or Ai Weiwei or the murder of journalists in Russia is worth a few words. Do you think a lot of civil rights leaders shares your view thta they don’t need as many voices as possible and there’s no need for people to speak out if someone else is already doing it?
It would have been nice if he had spoken up about regulatory capture of taxicab licensing agencies and the robber barons of the academic publishing industry while he was at it. I’d have liked to hear it. But he hasn’t yet had the opportunity. He hasn’t even had the chance to speak to his parents yet. He has been able to get up on the global stage one and only one time so far, and, naturally, he used that one opportunity to talk about the one piece of news he actually was in possession of to reveal. I’ll judge his next choice of what to say when he, you know, next gets a chance to choose something to say.
He has done interviews with at least three publications. Lately he has chosen to be silent.
This entire conversation is ludicrous. Snowden is more Polanski than Ellsberg in my opinion. If he was truly a hero and standing up for what he believes in, he would be here, facing the music and rallying support. Fleeing to China was a poke in the eye. its easier to get to Fiji or Australia from Hawaii. and I’m quite certain he could have made it to Iceland or anywhere else those first few days without being detained. Real life doesn’t star Kerry Washington and her wet work staff. There really isn’t that much intrigue, and a 29 year old IT guy is pretty expendable, NSA employee or not.
If it’s quite certain he could have made it to Iceland, why do you suppose he didn’t go to Iceland?
Better Dim Sum in Hong Kong.
I agree, this whole line of discussion is besides the point. Heroes don’t flee, Heroes stand up and face the music. It doesn’t matter where he fled to.