8 ms·

I think it's a shame how mainstream media suggests that Snowden is a "coward" for not "coming home to face his charges." It's clear that he released confidentia

I think it's a shame how mainstream media suggests that Snowden is a "coward" for not "coming home to face his charges." It's clear that he released confidential docs to reporters and this would be incredibly easy to prove in court, thereby landing him in prison for the rest of his life. I don't know any sane person that would surrender to this type of treatment, considering that he wouldn't be able to defend his actions legally. Stay on the run, Ed. Thank you for releasing this information so that the American public has some idea of the degree to which we are electronically surveilled on a daily basis.

3327 11y ago
Releasing sensitive information concerning international information collection under the premises of releasing "domestic spying". He said he would only release domestic related information? What happened. Not true. Wake up people he was the best Russian sleeper agent to date. You can Run ED but you can't hide.
kajecounterhack 11y ago
Agreed, did you see https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snow... > If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers -- not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions. Ridiculous. They literally don't know what "whistleblower" means. "Go to prison because you deserve it in our clearly unjust system" ...the gall.
- travjones 11y ago
  Exactly! I did see the response to the petition and thought the exact same thing. The government is pretty much saying, "We know what you did was just. But you broke the law, so come back to suffer in federal prison." "In the land of the free and the home of the brave..." Haha. Ed Snowden is brave and we are freer as Americans knowing what the government is capable of when it comes to electronic surveillance.
  - sonoffett 11y ago
    Are we ? The mass Internet surveillance by the u.s. gov was known well before snowden [1], albeit the specific actors were not. Post snowden I've seen public outcry lead to a destabilization of NSA meanwhile private corporations are collecting more data than ever--is this really freer? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
    - travjones 11y ago
      Awesome point. When I used the term "freer" I was suggesting that we were freer because even laypeople now KNOW about electronic surveillance practices. But I'm not sure we are actually "free" in any sense of the word, we just know we are constantly being watched. The reality is complicated and unfortunate. Words like "free" or "freedom" will sadly never be appropriate.
    - throwawayaway 11y ago
      Room 641A was passed off as anomaly, a one off. It was also questioned and all too easily dismissed. The magnitude of room 641a, a 'once off' and the snowden leaks are totally different. Clapper and Alexander lying to congressional hearings too. There's no comparison. > private corporations are collecting more data than ever This has always been inevitable, if at some point the amount of data about ANYTHING decreases I'll surprised. The 'freedom' that emerged from the snowden leaks was the ability to discuss and mitigate the implications of these facts without being dismissed as a crank.
  - tajen 11y ago
    I hope in case he were captured and faced a trial, it would give a sentiment of urgency for pro-Snowden people to demomstrate together in a sufficiently massive way. It probably wouldn't lessen the judgement, just show that there's controversy.
- franciscogarcia 11y ago
  They know what whistleblower means, they just don't agree with it. Being on power and being transparent are simply not compatible on this day and age. Unless you are dutch, pretty much the exception to the rule
- thomasahle 11y ago
  Not just prison, the "Espionage Act of 1917", which is he charged with, has death penalty as a possible punishment. And it is pretty clear that he is guilty of this law. Not much room for whistleblowers in a wartime law.
  - travjones 11y ago
    Good point. I assumed prison was the most likely outcome if he came back, but you're right, it is possible that he could receive the death penalty. Granted, I doubt the government would use the death penalty to prevent him from going down as a "martyr."
    - enlightenedfool 11y ago
      People (in fact only a small section) quickly forget "martyr"s and the government could take a bet on that with confidence.
  - eli 11y ago
    The US has promised not to seek the death penalty if he returns to face trial.
    - danenania 11y ago
      Oh well if they promised then I'm sure there's absolutely nothing to worry about.
      - eli 11y ago
        The crimes he's charged with are actually not eligible for the death sentence and the Attorney General promised not to seek the death penalty even if future additional charges do make that possible. Not really sure what else you want.
        danenania 11y ago
        US government officials have been caught lying countless times when it comes to "national security" issues. What gives this particular promise any credibility? Is this "promise" legally binding? What about the next Attorney General? Or the next one? Even if he isn't executed, he could be physically and psychologically tortured. I'm not sure if you know much about the US prison system, but this is a common and officially sanctioned practice. Many people would consider a lifetime of torture to be a worse punishment than execution.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  There have been plenty of abuses that came to light without the person who exposed them going to jail. There have even been NSA whistleblowers that stayed in the US and didn't get prosecuted (see e.g. William Binney, who has called Snowden a traitor http://www.businessinsider.com/william-binney-and-snowden-traitor-debate-2015-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/william-binney-and-snowden-tr...).
  - fossuser 11y ago
    A little disingenuous considering in that linked article Binney states that it was more the publishing of certain content he disagreed with and not Snowden's actions. It looks like he still strongly supports what Snowden did. I also think Binney's case is a bit different - when you don't leak the actual documents the intelligence agencies can (and do) just lie. If not an outright lie it'll be a carefully stated misleading truth ('not in this program'). Snowden's leak is a bigger deal to the intelligence agencies because he has the actual documents and they don't know what he took which makes it hard to influence the story (since it's easier to be definitively caught). Putting Binney in prison would have likely attracted more attention than not. John Kerry and other people requesting Snowden to come to the US to stand trial are ignoring that what he did isn't a question of whether it was legal (it wasn't), but if it was right. You won't win a trial on principle when it's the law that's the problem.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      >A little disingenuous considering in that linked article Binney states that it was more the publishing of certain content he disagreed with and not Snowden's actions. That was a direct result of Snowden's actions. I don't see the argument that his exposing the US spying on other countries is "right", and deserves a pardon. If he had only leaked local surveillance, I'd have a weaker case. >You won't win a trial on principle when it's the law that's the problem. If the problem was that he disagreed with the law, in the US, the way to change laws you disagree with is through the political process. Not by breaking them then demanding a pardon.
      - 11y ago
- trhway 11y ago
  >> If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions. basically the government (caught red handed in violation of fundamental rights of the people) insists how civil disobedience must be done where is the main point of civil disobedience is ...? In particular interesting how they're trying to insist that civil disobedience can't be without martyrdom, and thus implicitly they try to scare people away from civil disobedience. Nice. >Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions. right now he is suffering from consequences of his actions - he sacrificed his good life in the US.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  As I posted in the HN thread about the petition, it's worth noting that Snowden has already been in effective exile for longer than Martin Luther King, Jr spent in jail over his entire life. What are the odds that Snowden is facing the same order of magnitude of punishment, were he to return home? This is not to diminish the work of Dr. King but to say that the tactics he employed and decisions he made were made in a dramatically different context, where the way he could stay most involved and get the most done was to spend some time in jail. Snowden has stayed more involved from abroad than he would have been able to from where they'd have thrown him.
eli 11y ago
I think this is something reasonable people can disagree about. The rule of law should apply to everyone equally. I get that Ed Snowden is a likable guy and the documents he released may even have been a force of positive change in the world, but that doesn't necessarily absolve him of having to face trial. You can't go easy on him just because you agree with his politics. Our whistleblowing laws are woefully inadequate, but I think it's generally a good thing that random government contractors aren't allowed to unilaterally declassify national security programs because they personally don't agree with them. It's easy to imagine examples where this would lead to a very bad situation.
- interactive_guy 11y ago
  This seems to completely invalidate even the idea of justly disobeying unjust laws. The rule of law as a principle has utility in political philosophy, but saying there can be no exception is arguing for a complete embrace of authoritarianism. And if there's no way for laws to be challenged, then all civil disobedience is illegitimate. I like Hobbes as much as the next guy, but as a society we seem to have moved beyond his idea that the government can do whatever it wants to sustain itself, because it's better than no government. This is not a personal attack, but this argument often infuriates me, because it's similar to people arguing that MLK was a troublemaker, and that the civil rights movement was just "agitators" who refused to play by the rules, even though the game was rigged to destroy them. Why can't people just always obey authority, no matter how wrong, destructive, inhuman, or immoral it may be, amirite?
- tracker1 11y ago
  While he shouldn't be absolved... he shouldn't be charged with war crimes or espionage in this case. There are many other things he could be charged with allowing for a reasonable defense.
  - eli 11y ago
    War crimes? That seems like a stretch. He's charged with theft of gov't property, unauthorized communication of national defense information, and willful disclosure of classified intelligence. You can view the charging document here: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-vs-edward-j-snowden-criminal-complaint/496/ http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-vs-edwar... What is the more appropriate charge you think should have been levied instead?
t0mk 11y ago
I don't follow much but I haven't noticed Snowden being shamed in media in Europe. US media call him a coward for exposing how much effort their government puts into breaking citizens' privacy, and then GTFOing from the country? That's not a stand one can come to while having brain in the head. To have media so much aligned with government witch-hunting seems borderline Russian.
Panino 11y ago
Ad-hominem attacks usually say more about the sender than the receiver. "Coward" in particular has historically been most often employed against conscientious objectors and others who don't want to kill strangers in someone else's war, thus risking their reputations, employment, and freedom. The people making this attack today are appealing to those who grew up with conscription (forced violent labor) who mostly either think it's normal or lack the courage to speak out. And the people/media repeating it either enthusiastically or uncritically are announcing their own positions. So ad-hominem attacks can actually be quite illuminating, though not in the way the attacker intended.
danenania 11y ago
What I wonder is where the line is for people who automatically defer to government authority in these situations. How bad do the transgressions have to be before a whistleblower is justified in coming forward through any means necessary? For many, spying on billions of innocent people in direct violation of the country's constitution isn't sufficient, so what would be? What if Snowden had instead revealed proof of plans to carry out genocide or stage a military coup? Would he still be a traitor? Would he still be expected to "face the music" and go to jail? Where's the line?
- irishcoffee 11y ago
  > "...in direct violation of the country's constitution..." I'm too lazy to try and verify this myself. You seem to have information on how to verify this. Can you point me in at least a vague general direction so I can read up more on it?
  - danenania 11y ago
    Sure, here you go: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=4th+amendment https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e...
    - irishcoffee 11y ago
      This didn't answer my question. > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." What was violated here? Break it down for me.

3327 11y ago

Releasing sensitive information concerning international information collection under the premises of releasing "domestic spying". He said he would only release domestic related information? What happened. Not true. Wake up people he was the best Russian sleeper agent to date. You can Run ED but you can't hide.

kajecounterhack 11y ago

Agreed, did you see https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snow... > If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers -- not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions. Ridiculous. They literally don't know what "whistleblower" means. "Go to prison because you deserve it in our clearly unjust system" ...the gall.

travjones 11y ago
Exactly! I did see the response to the petition and thought the exact same thing. The government is pretty much saying, "We know what you did was just. But you broke the law, so come back to suffer in federal prison." "In the land of the free and the home of the brave..." Haha. Ed Snowden is brave and we are freer as Americans knowing what the government is capable of when it comes to electronic surveillance.
- sonoffett 11y ago
  Are we ? The mass Internet surveillance by the u.s. gov was known well before snowden [1], albeit the specific actors were not. Post snowden I've seen public outcry lead to a destabilization of NSA meanwhile private corporations are collecting more data than ever--is this really freer? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
  - travjones 11y ago
    Awesome point. When I used the term "freer" I was suggesting that we were freer because even laypeople now KNOW about electronic surveillance practices. But I'm not sure we are actually "free" in any sense of the word, we just know we are constantly being watched. The reality is complicated and unfortunate. Words like "free" or "freedom" will sadly never be appropriate.
  - throwawayaway 11y ago
    Room 641A was passed off as anomaly, a one off. It was also questioned and all too easily dismissed. The magnitude of room 641a, a 'once off' and the snowden leaks are totally different. Clapper and Alexander lying to congressional hearings too. There's no comparison. > private corporations are collecting more data than ever This has always been inevitable, if at some point the amount of data about ANYTHING decreases I'll surprised. The 'freedom' that emerged from the snowden leaks was the ability to discuss and mitigate the implications of these facts without being dismissed as a crank.
- tajen 11y ago
  I hope in case he were captured and faced a trial, it would give a sentiment of urgency for pro-Snowden people to demomstrate together in a sufficiently massive way. It probably wouldn't lessen the judgement, just show that there's controversy.
franciscogarcia 11y ago
They know what whistleblower means, they just don't agree with it. Being on power and being transparent are simply not compatible on this day and age. Unless you are dutch, pretty much the exception to the rule
thomasahle 11y ago
Not just prison, the "Espionage Act of 1917", which is he charged with, has death penalty as a possible punishment. And it is pretty clear that he is guilty of this law. Not much room for whistleblowers in a wartime law.
- travjones 11y ago
  Good point. I assumed prison was the most likely outcome if he came back, but you're right, it is possible that he could receive the death penalty. Granted, I doubt the government would use the death penalty to prevent him from going down as a "martyr."
  - enlightenedfool 11y ago
    People (in fact only a small section) quickly forget "martyr"s and the government could take a bet on that with confidence.
- eli 11y ago
  The US has promised not to seek the death penalty if he returns to face trial.
  - danenania 11y ago
    Oh well if they promised then I'm sure there's absolutely nothing to worry about.
    - eli 11y ago
      The crimes he's charged with are actually not eligible for the death sentence and the Attorney General promised not to seek the death penalty even if future additional charges do make that possible. Not really sure what else you want.
      - danenania 11y ago
        US government officials have been caught lying countless times when it comes to "national security" issues. What gives this particular promise any credibility? Is this "promise" legally binding? What about the next Attorney General? Or the next one? Even if he isn't executed, he could be physically and psychologically tortured. I'm not sure if you know much about the US prison system, but this is a common and officially sanctioned practice. Many people would consider a lifetime of torture to be a worse punishment than execution.
ikeboy 11y ago
There have been plenty of abuses that came to light without the person who exposed them going to jail. There have even been NSA whistleblowers that stayed in the US and didn't get prosecuted (see e.g. William Binney, who has called Snowden a traitor http://www.businessinsider.com/william-binney-and-snowden-traitor-debate-2015-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/william-binney-and-snowden-tr...).
- fossuser 11y ago
  A little disingenuous considering in that linked article Binney states that it was more the publishing of certain content he disagreed with and not Snowden's actions. It looks like he still strongly supports what Snowden did. I also think Binney's case is a bit different - when you don't leak the actual documents the intelligence agencies can (and do) just lie. If not an outright lie it'll be a carefully stated misleading truth ('not in this program'). Snowden's leak is a bigger deal to the intelligence agencies because he has the actual documents and they don't know what he took which makes it hard to influence the story (since it's easier to be definitively caught). Putting Binney in prison would have likely attracted more attention than not. John Kerry and other people requesting Snowden to come to the US to stand trial are ignoring that what he did isn't a question of whether it was legal (it wasn't), but if it was right. You won't win a trial on principle when it's the law that's the problem.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    >A little disingenuous considering in that linked article Binney states that it was more the publishing of certain content he disagreed with and not Snowden's actions. That was a direct result of Snowden's actions. I don't see the argument that his exposing the US spying on other countries is "right", and deserves a pardon. If he had only leaked local surveillance, I'd have a weaker case. >You won't win a trial on principle when it's the law that's the problem. If the problem was that he disagreed with the law, in the US, the way to change laws you disagree with is through the political process. Not by breaking them then demanding a pardon.
    - 11y ago
trhway 11y ago
>> If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions. basically the government (caught red handed in violation of fundamental rights of the people) insists how civil disobedience must be done where is the main point of civil disobedience is ...? In particular interesting how they're trying to insist that civil disobedience can't be without martyrdom, and thus implicitly they try to scare people away from civil disobedience. Nice. >Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions. right now he is suffering from consequences of his actions - he sacrificed his good life in the US.
dllthomas 11y ago
As I posted in the HN thread about the petition, it's worth noting that Snowden has already been in effective exile for longer than Martin Luther King, Jr spent in jail over his entire life. What are the odds that Snowden is facing the same order of magnitude of punishment, were he to return home? This is not to diminish the work of Dr. King but to say that the tactics he employed and decisions he made were made in a dramatically different context, where the way he could stay most involved and get the most done was to spend some time in jail. Snowden has stayed more involved from abroad than he would have been able to from where they'd have thrown him.

eli 11y ago

I think this is something reasonable people can disagree about. The rule of law should apply to everyone equally. I get that Ed Snowden is a likable guy and the documents he released may even have been a force of positive change in the world, but that doesn't necessarily absolve him of having to face trial. You can't go easy on him just because you agree with his politics. Our whistleblowing laws are woefully inadequate, but I think it's generally a good thing that random government contractors aren't allowed to unilaterally declassify national security programs because they personally don't agree with them. It's easy to imagine examples where this would lead to a very bad situation.

interactive_guy 11y ago
This seems to completely invalidate even the idea of justly disobeying unjust laws. The rule of law as a principle has utility in political philosophy, but saying there can be no exception is arguing for a complete embrace of authoritarianism. And if there's no way for laws to be challenged, then all civil disobedience is illegitimate. I like Hobbes as much as the next guy, but as a society we seem to have moved beyond his idea that the government can do whatever it wants to sustain itself, because it's better than no government. This is not a personal attack, but this argument often infuriates me, because it's similar to people arguing that MLK was a troublemaker, and that the civil rights movement was just "agitators" who refused to play by the rules, even though the game was rigged to destroy them. Why can't people just always obey authority, no matter how wrong, destructive, inhuman, or immoral it may be, amirite?
tracker1 11y ago
While he shouldn't be absolved... he shouldn't be charged with war crimes or espionage in this case. There are many other things he could be charged with allowing for a reasonable defense.
- eli 11y ago
  War crimes? That seems like a stretch. He's charged with theft of gov't property, unauthorized communication of national defense information, and willful disclosure of classified intelligence. You can view the charging document here: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-vs-edward-j-snowden-criminal-complaint/496/ http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-vs-edwar... What is the more appropriate charge you think should have been levied instead?

t0mk 11y ago

I don't follow much but I haven't noticed Snowden being shamed in media in Europe. US media call him a coward for exposing how much effort their government puts into breaking citizens' privacy, and then GTFOing from the country? That's not a stand one can come to while having brain in the head. To have media so much aligned with government witch-hunting seems borderline Russian.

Panino 11y ago

Ad-hominem attacks usually say more about the sender than the receiver. "Coward" in particular has historically been most often employed against conscientious objectors and others who don't want to kill strangers in someone else's war, thus risking their reputations, employment, and freedom. The people making this attack today are appealing to those who grew up with conscription (forced violent labor) who mostly either think it's normal or lack the courage to speak out. And the people/media repeating it either enthusiastically or uncritically are announcing their own positions. So ad-hominem attacks can actually be quite illuminating, though not in the way the attacker intended.

danenania 11y ago

What I wonder is where the line is for people who automatically defer to government authority in these situations. How bad do the transgressions have to be before a whistleblower is justified in coming forward through any means necessary? For many, spying on billions of innocent people in direct violation of the country's constitution isn't sufficient, so what would be? What if Snowden had instead revealed proof of plans to carry out genocide or stage a military coup? Would he still be a traitor? Would he still be expected to "face the music" and go to jail? Where's the line?

irishcoffee 11y ago
> "...in direct violation of the country's constitution..." I'm too lazy to try and verify this myself. You seem to have information on how to verify this. Can you point me in at least a vague general direction so I can read up more on it?
- danenania 11y ago
  Sure, here you go: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=4th+amendment https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e...
  - irishcoffee 11y ago
    This didn't answer my question. > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." What was violated here? Break it down for me.