4 ms·

The argument I've been exposed to - which could be full of misinformation so please correct me - goes like this: Snowden could have just been a whistleblower.

The argument I've been exposed to - which could be full of misinformation so please correct me - goes like this: Snowden could have just been a whistleblower. But in addition to revealing all the info about the NSA's spying tactics, he traded additional info to various nation-states in order to secure his personal safe passage. Thereby putting USA operatives abroad at risk in order to protect himself. The stupid part is that I don't know if that is actually the case, but I wasn't able to counter this argument when I heard it.

tptacek 11y ago
Trading additional information to other countries to avoid standing trial in the US would be a grave offense. I don't think that's what he did.
Synaesthesia 11y ago
That's not true (that he traded info for safe passage). He was a classic whistleblower, he took his information to the New York Times and the Washington Post first.
LargeWu 11y ago
No, in fact the interview addresses this specifically: "The home of Thomas Drake, a senior executive at the NSA, was searched, his passport was cancelled and he lived under the threat of 35 years imprisonment for four years, prosecuted under the Espionage Act. He lost his job, his pension and spent everything he owned on his defense lawyer. Today he works at an Apple store in Maryland and has been able to establish that the only person, who was investigated and prosecuted, after trying to talk to his superiors about the mass surveillance, was himself." The whistleblower laws in place a) wouldn't have applied to him, since he was a contractor, and b) are a trap anyway, since whistleblowers end up getting prosecuted, regardless of the laws. Snowden's only other possible course of action was to do nothing.
- caskance 11y ago
  He could have limited the scope of his leaks, or stayed in the US to face trial and persecution. Either would be more admirable than what he has done.
  - facetube 11y ago
    He coordinated with the New York Times and The Washington Post and The Guardian specifically to review, redact, and limit the scope of his leaks. The releases from the press were redacted. To argue that he did not limit the scope of his leaks with intent is to deny reality.
    - caskance 11y ago
      From the press to the public, yes, but insufficiently. From him to the press, which is where the barrier of classifiedity was actually breached, there was no discretion at all.
      - facetube 11y ago
        And intentionally so – this allowed the press to review the information in context and present the information as accurately as possible to the public. The NSA abandoned the rule of law a long time ago when it chose to spy on Americans' phone calls and then lie to Congress about doing so; it should come as no surprise that people are willing to break the law in return to expose those facts.
        caskance 11y ago
        Nobody's surprised here. I know why he did what he did. I just disagree.
  - fineman 11y ago
    Why would anyone be retarded enough to intentionally stick around to be subjected to what they've proved isn't justice?
fineman 11y ago
Obvious lie is obvious. Also, if we did put his back to a wall it'd be our fault.

tptacek 11y ago

Trading additional information to other countries to avoid standing trial in the US would be a grave offense. I don't think that's what he did.

Synaesthesia 11y ago

That's not true (that he traded info for safe passage). He was a classic whistleblower, he took his information to the New York Times and the Washington Post first.

LargeWu 11y ago

No, in fact the interview addresses this specifically: "The home of Thomas Drake, a senior executive at the NSA, was searched, his passport was cancelled and he lived under the threat of 35 years imprisonment for four years, prosecuted under the Espionage Act. He lost his job, his pension and spent everything he owned on his defense lawyer. Today he works at an Apple store in Maryland and has been able to establish that the only person, who was investigated and prosecuted, after trying to talk to his superiors about the mass surveillance, was himself." The whistleblower laws in place a) wouldn't have applied to him, since he was a contractor, and b) are a trap anyway, since whistleblowers end up getting prosecuted, regardless of the laws. Snowden's only other possible course of action was to do nothing.

caskance 11y ago
He could have limited the scope of his leaks, or stayed in the US to face trial and persecution. Either would be more admirable than what he has done.
- facetube 11y ago
  He coordinated with the New York Times and The Washington Post and The Guardian specifically to review, redact, and limit the scope of his leaks. The releases from the press were redacted. To argue that he did not limit the scope of his leaks with intent is to deny reality.
  - caskance 11y ago
    From the press to the public, yes, but insufficiently. From him to the press, which is where the barrier of classifiedity was actually breached, there was no discretion at all.
    - facetube 11y ago
      And intentionally so – this allowed the press to review the information in context and present the information as accurately as possible to the public. The NSA abandoned the rule of law a long time ago when it chose to spy on Americans' phone calls and then lie to Congress about doing so; it should come as no surprise that people are willing to break the law in return to expose those facts.
      - caskance 11y ago
        Nobody's surprised here. I know why he did what he did. I just disagree.
- fineman 11y ago
  Why would anyone be retarded enough to intentionally stick around to be subjected to what they've proved isn't justice?

fineman 11y ago

Obvious lie is obvious. Also, if we did put his back to a wall it'd be our fault.