You’d be more convincing if your version of events had some basic resemblance to reality.
What’s your version? The government never said they were going to conduct these secret programs? Or did you think they were making it up? Or did you think no one would abuse such a program?
Guardian interview with him in September.
Treason during wartime, is that firing squad, or hanging?
~VOW
It wasn’t wartime. The US hasn’t been at war since WW2. It also wasn’t treason since his goal was to inform the American public, not any nebulous enemy.
If only he had stopped at that and not gone on to become a Russian stooge. That’s one hell of a way to protest government overreach, no? Go to a totalitarian regime with a load of classified material…
So instead of informing a specific enemy, he informed all of our enemies, and that somehow makes it less seditious?
Stooge ? How so ?
He asked for asylum and was granted it, on the basis that he believes a trial wouldn’t and really couldn’t be fair for Reasons. I find the arguments he put forward towards that notion in his interview with John Oliver persuasive, and others can disagree but regardless, besides his finding refuge there what has he done that’d qualify or that you’d characterize as stooge-like ? Like, I’m not aware that he kept any of the material he forwarded to journalists ; and even if he has there’s no indication he gave any to Russian intelligence, that there was any quid pro quo in his asylum grant and so on.
He didn’t inform anyone. He felt he hadn’t the right to decide what people should or shouldn’t know, sent his shit to prominent journalists and told them it was up to them what to do with it, how much to reveal etc…
If any specific bit of info materially helped anyone (and that’s not exactly proven - if you’re in the business of avoiding surveillance you’re a LOT more informed about surveillance techniques and technology than the average American citizen), that’s ultimately on whichever journalist decided that this information was OK to divulge explicitly and in details rather than under vague terms.
It wasn’t his right to decide what people should or shouldn’t know. That was his employer, the government’s role.
He decided he knew better than the government, that the law didn’t apply to him, and that compromising our national security (to say nothing of letting drug cartels, pedophiles, and slave traders know exactly how we’ve been tracking them) was unimportant.
That belief is factually wrong.
Unless there’s some magical filter that prevents Russian intelligence from reading the Guardian, then he gave everything he had to Russian intelligence.
Yeaaaah that’s authoritarian bullshit. Citizens are adults and Daddy doesn’t know best. And considering ultimately the government IS people, that assertion is all the more silly.
He factually did not.
Not really though.
His point is that for instance in order for the US government to prove what he did materially helped any enemy or screwed an operation they would have to disclose further secret information (which they won’t) so he would be faced with a prosecution saying “we have secret proof that he aided a secret enemy in a secret way, just trust us we do ; and also even if he knows what the secrets we’re talking about are he can’t prove us wrong without spilling secrets, aka what we’re accusing him of doing” (which isn’t anywhere near the vicinity of fair) ; and that in a wider sense the US government has a vested interest in discouraging whistleblowing or disclosing its indiscretions or breaches of law therefore can’t be relied on to render fair judgement due to conflict of interest. I don’t think either argument is without merit.
Again, the Russian intelligence presumably already had a pretty good idea of what the NSA was getting up to on account of doing the exact same shit themselves. The only way the Snowden revelations re:Carnivore for example help the KGB would be if he were to have revealed the exact code of Carnivore and exact specifics of the hardware running Carnivore etc… Which he didn’t, I don’t think.
Also the Guardian did not publish everything he had. Nobody’s published everything he had. And what he had that’s been published so far wasn’t anything particularly spicy for anybody in the wider paranoid crypto/privacy community - the worst you could accuse him of is confirming things that were strongly suspected already. Which is in part why a) it was a valid concern for Snowden to consider revealing this kind of thing to a wider, tech-illiterate public that has no idea how far reaching surveillance is or how much one can learn via seemingly innocent or opaque metadata and b) why the majority of the public still have no idea what it is he’s… actually revealed, because you have to be tech-savvy to really grok any of it and eyes just glaze over all around.
Which is why you’re left with inane, vague as shit accusations of “helping the enemies of the US !!!1” - how exactly ? to what extent ? In what ways ? You don’t know. I don’t know. Which makes the qualitative judgment of “what he did resulted in more harm than good” or how damaging his revelations ever were somewhat complicated ;).
The government is the people. And in our system of government, the people elect representatives who pass legislation on their behalf. And those legislators enacted laws that determine what government information is and isn’t classified.
Who the hell is Ed Snowden to decide that he exists outside and above the fundamental underpinnings of our democracy?
See above.
I’m gonna stop you there, because none of that is necessary to prove that he committed espionage by divulging government secrets. He has himself admitted to that. In a fair trial, he would, by his own admission, be found guilty. His asylum has nothing to do with a fair trial and everything to do with his not wanting to go to prison for the crimes he admits he committed.
Then his actions were completely unnecessary.
And the end result is that those people were convinced to believe that government is evil and can’t be trusted, and that we need a non-politician to drain the swamp. Edward Snowden is the reason Donald Trump is president.
Was it worth it?
What he did resulted in zero good, and a non-zero amount of bad.
Voters cannot make informed decisions or votes about the secret implications of secret treaties nor the secret usage of secret information collected via secret means to a secret extent.
Read for comprehension. His information was nothing (or very little) new to plugged-in cybersec people. His revelations were a bombshell for the largely tech illiterate public.
:rolleyes:
They should have thought about that when they voted for legislators who supported policies of secrecy.
Hindsight is 20/20.
I bet you weren’t very good at keeping secrets as a kid.
How am I, Joe Citizen, supposed to vote against something or vote against any politicians that support it, when no one told me it’s even a thing to consider.
Yes, Snowden caused National Security issues, but he also set the countdown to 1984 clock back a few years in the process.
Say what? All those dead, maimed, and PTSD sufferers are imaginary?
And here I thought our country has been at war since 2001.
My bad.
~VOW
How did it help our enemies for an American to inform other Americans that the American government was spying on each and every one of them? That’s the exact opposite of treason. Snowden exposed treason. And for that he’ll forever be in danger of retaliation from the Benedict Arnolds who control our intelligence agencies.
Hey, don’t blame me if your founding fathers and lawmakers outlined specific procedures for declaring war (and made them cumbersome enough that it wouldn’t be declared willy nilly) ; but then you guys have apparently decided it was just simpler and more conducive to peace to be able to send the boys in and blow shit up overnight without doing any of that stuff.
It’s treasonous to obey the laws and the Constitution? That’s a new definition to me.