# What is the argument against Snowden **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 7, 2013, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-snowden/673306 "2013-11-07T03:52:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-snowden/673306/61 "2013-11-07T23:21:18Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Why does “But they did it first!” justify someone else doing it, if the ideal is that no one should be doing it at all? Because the law you support is a shit law. The government should not have the power to declare its own criminal activity taboo. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-snowden/673306/62 "2013-11-08T00:16:22Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Um, the last 15 years of politics in America? Have you been following the news at all? That’s one helluva cite! 😃 Well, I was really just kidding about the cite. You made a statement that’s impossible to prove, and that I, frank don’t believe. I think there are enough Congresscritters with integrity that claims of corruption (or whatever) are just a cop out ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-snowden/673306/63 "2013-11-08T17:18:09Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Eh. That’s just an excuse for not trying. Your Congresscritter or Senator has access to someone who sits on the relevant oversight committee. If you don’t make the slightest effort to work this thru regular channels, then you get no sympathy from me. YMMV, as it obviously does. John, do you _really_ think that had Snowden taken his data to his local Congresscritter, that we would know about it? The info would have been buried and Snowden sent to prison. End of story. Taking that route was not a viable option if his goal was to let the public know about the NSA’s malfeasance. > [@Miller](#): > > Or, hell, let’s talk Rosa Parks herself. By your logic, if Parks had said, “Screw this bus shit, I’m moving to Cali,” that fact alone would invalidate her complaints about the injustice of segregation, simply because she didn’t allow herself to be persecuted by them. The real reason that the Rosa Parks analogy fails is that Parks got the issue the attention it deserved by doing what she did. With Snowden, had he stayed in the US, the public would still be in the dark about it. The only way for the public to be properly outraged was to release the info to a press that isn’t subject to the stifling pressure of the US government. Or are you (Smapti) saying that now that the data is released, Snowden should come back home and take what’s coming to him? What the hell would be the point of that? There’s no benefit to anyone from that. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-snowden/673306/64 "2013-11-08T17:22:25Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Why does “But they did it first!” justify someone else doing it, if the ideal is that no one should be doing it at all? Who said anything about “first?” I’m asking you why i should ignore a crime against myself, simply because the person who told me about it committed a crime against someone else? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Controvert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dec6dc/32.png) [@The\_Controvert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Controvert)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-snowden/673306/65 "2013-11-08T18:12:38Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Why? Or perhaps more pertinently, why should I care? Why should I prioritize Snowden’s breach of trust with the government over my government’s breach of trust with me? I get the sense that you won’t be convinced with words. Until we can trace it to a preventable terrorist attack that gravely harms you personally, it’s a futile exercise. But, just out of curiosity – how would you feel towards Snowden if there were an attack on you or your loved ones and it is demonstrated to have been entirely preventable had Snowden not leaked? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-snowden/673306/66 "2013-11-08T18:20:54Z")
> [@The\_Controvert](#): > > I get the sense that you won’t be convinced with words. Until we can trace it to a preventable terrorist attack that gravely harms you personally, it’s a futile exercise. But, just out of curiosity – how would you feel towards Snowden if there were an attack on you or your loved ones and it is demonstrated to have been entirely preventable had Snowden not leaked? This is uncomfortably Bush-ian. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-snowden/673306/67 "2013-11-08T18:22:13Z")
> [@The\_Controvert](#): > > I get the sense that you won’t be convinced with words. Until we can trace it to a preventable terrorist attack that gravely harms you personally, it’s a futile exercise. But, just out of curiosity – how would you feel towards Snowden if there were an attack on you or your loved ones and it is demonstrated to have been entirely preventable had Snowden not leaked? Out of curiosity, how would you feel about your mother if you found out she was a cannibal? ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-snowden/673306/68 "2013-11-08T18:44:17Z")
It’s only OK to leak information that supports the government’s goals and narratives, not the opposite. Besides, the Obama administration is always preaching transparency. They would’ve gotten around to informing us eventually. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-snowden/673306/69 "2013-11-08T19:26:58Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > Or are you (Smapti) saying that now that the data is released, Snowden should come back home and take what’s coming to him? What the hell would be the point of that? There’s no benefit to anyone from that. He’s a criminal and a fugitive from justice. He has a moral obligation to present himself for judgment by a jury of his peers. > [@Miller](#): > > I’m asking you why i should ignore a crime against myself, simply because the person who told me about it committed a crime against someone else? I never said that it should be ignored. If crimes were committed by the NSA (which I’m not convinced of), then they should be investigated appropriately. Conversely - why should you ignore a crime against the state, just because the person who committed it told you about a crime against you? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-snowden/673306/70 "2013-11-08T19:44:33Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > He’s a criminal and a fugitive from justice. If we’re insisting that all we want is an impartial court proceeding, shouldn’t the word “criminal” be replaced with the word “suspect?” He hasn’t been convicted of anything. > [@](#): > > I never said that it should be ignored. If crimes were committed by the NSA (which I’m not convinced of), then they should be investigated appropriately. There are two concerns here: one is that the NSA was doing a lot of things the public was in the dark about but had a right to know, and in fact the entire system of oversight was not working. Congress still hasn’t done anything about it but the public seems to agree that this was inappropriate, and so do some very close U.S. allies. So there’s that. The second concern is that this behavior was illegal. That’s more complicated given the very broad laws that have been implemented since September 11th. My view as a non-legal scholar is that the agency did go past the boundaries of its supposed mission (economic spying is not a national security issue). Whether Congress cares about that remains to be seen. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-snowden/673306/71 "2013-11-08T19:49:42Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > I never said that it should be ignored. Really? You didn’t say: > [@](#): > > But the first law is the one he violated, and his concerns about the second are irrelevant to the fact thereof. Because I’m pretty sure that was you. > [@](#): > > If crimes were committed by the NSA (which I’m not convinced of), then they should be investigated appropriately. Which would never have happened, if Snowden hadn’t broken the law himself. > [@](#): > > Conversely - why should you ignore a crime against the state, just because the person who committed it told you about a crime against you? I don’t think his crime should be ignored, mostly on the principle that our elected officials shouldn’t get to pick and choose when our laws apply and when they don’t - which is the root of my support for Snowden’s actions in the first place. But that’s purely a matter of how our system of justice functions. I have no personal investment in seeing Snowden punished. Why should I? His crime did not harm me in anyway (in fact, I’d argue that I’ve profited from it), and the people it did harm, were chiefly harmed in that they are less able to commit further crimes of their own. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Controvert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dec6dc/32.png) [@The\_Controvert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Controvert)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-snowden/673306/72 "2013-11-08T20:24:48Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Out of curiosity, how would you feel about your mother if you found out she was a cannibal? I’d be fine with it, because I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with cannibalism, taken by itself. What does this have to do with anything? Going back to my hypothetical, I feel it is a valid answer to “What is the argument against Snowden”. In my opinion, Snowden harmed US national security by leaking. We could see a string of terrorist attacks and wouldn’t it be apt if the next internet meme is a picture of each attack with the label “Thanks, Snowden”. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-snowden/673306/73 "2013-11-08T20:28:07Z")
> [@The\_Controvert](#): > > I’d be fine with it, because I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with cannibalism, taken by itself. What does this have to do with anything? Well, you certainly went in a different direction with that than I expected. > [@](#): > > Going back to my hypothetical, I feel it is a valid answer to “What is the argument against Snowden”. In my opinion, Snowden harmed US national security by leaking. > > We could see a string of terrorist attacks and wouldn’t it be apt if the next internet meme is a picture of each attack with the label “Thanks, Snowden”. My original point was that I thought that was about as likely as your mom being a cannibal, but after how you opened this post, I’m not sure that example works for me as well as I thought it would. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-snowden/673306/74 "2013-11-08T20:31:43Z")
> [@The\_Controvert](#): > > We could see a string of terrorist attacks Pull the other one. Many of these disclosures have nothing at all to do with counterterrorism. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-snowden/673306/75 "2013-11-08T20:32:05Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Really? You didn’t say… > > Because I’m pretty sure that was you. Obviously, now that the facts are public, it would be naïve to ignore them. That doesn’t make the act of breaking the law to expose those acts to the public any less illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-snowden/673306/76 "2013-11-08T20:33:01Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Obviously, now that the facts are public, it would be naïve to ignore them. That doesn’t make the act of breaking the law to expose those acts to the public any less illegal. And if there were no other way for those facts to be brought to light, except through breaking the law, how should that reflect on the law breaker? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Controvert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dec6dc/32.png) [@The\_Controvert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Controvert)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-snowden/673306/77 "2013-11-08T20:42:29Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > My original point was that I thought that was about as likely as your mom being a cannibal, but after how you opened this post, I’m not sure that example works for me as well as I thought it would. Don’t fight the hypothetical. I’m still waiting to hear how you would feel towards Snowden if there were a gravely serious attack on you and all of your loved ones and it is demonstrated to have been entirely preventable had Snowden not decided to leak. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-snowden/673306/78 "2013-11-08T20:44:38Z")
> [@The\_Controvert](#): > > I’m still waiting to hear how you would feel towards Snowden if there were a gravely serious attack on you and all of your loved ones and it is demonstrated to have been entirely preventable had Snowden not decided to leak. How would this even happen? He didn’t disclose the names of the software the NSA uses or the names of operatives or technical details of how the government taps phones. He disclosed the existence of bulk data collection and leaders of friendly nations! ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-snowden/673306/79 "2013-11-08T20:48:56Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Pull the other one. Many of these disclosures have nothing at all to do with counterterrorism. _Many_? What exceptions are there? Bulk data collection, spying on world leaders, and handing out drug tips to every backwater police force in the country has nothing to do with terrorism. If you suspect someone is a terrorist, you get a warrant and go hog-wild with the spy games. The problem here isn’t spying on terrorists. It’s spying on _literally_ everyone else. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-snowden/673306/80 "2013-11-08T21:00:28Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > _Many_? What exceptions are there? I figured it’d be easier to say “many” instead of arguing about each and every individual program. I can understand the usefulness of, say, the phone records stuff as one piece of the puzzle - that’s been Constitutional for decades - but most of this is just overreach, abuse, and elected officials giving agencies whatever they ask for because the agencies say it’ll turn a 99.9999% of no terrorist attacks into a 99.99999% chance of no terrorist attacks, and hey, _you_ don’t want to be the guy who didn’t give them the tools they needed to stop a terrorist attack, do you? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-snowden/673306.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-snowden/673306.md?page=5)