7 ms·

It's actually not an issue at all if, like John Oliver, you just care about making a point on a comedy program and don't care about being at all accurate. Snowd

It's actually not an issue at all if, like John Oliver, you just care about making a point on a comedy program and don't care about being at all accurate. Snowden is a whistleblower who went far beyond the scope of responsible whistle blowing. That's why he is correctly seen as both a traitor and a hero.

Alupis 11y ago
> went far beyond the scope of responsible whistle blowing Care to elaborate? Or just make snide comments without any factual content. By definition, Snowden is a Whistle-Blower.[1][2][3][4] Fact checks of Snowden's claims have largely been found to be very accurate.[5][6] [1] http://whistleblower.org/what-whistleblower http://whistleblower.org/what-whistleblower [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower [3] http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/Enforcement/whistleblowers.htm http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/Enforcement/whistleblowers.htm [4] http://www.whistleblowers.gov/ http://www.whistleblowers.gov/ [5] http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/09/edward-snowden/fact-checking-john-olivers-interview-edward-snowde/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/09/... [6] http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/06/edward_snowden_fact_checking_which_surveillance_claims_were_right.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/0...
- tptacek 11y ago
  Nobody is arguing that Snowden disclosed things that were false. The argument is that not everything he disclosed was in the public interest.
  - Alupis 11y ago
    I find it difficult to hold that argument to any light. Yes, US foreign relations were damaged as part of the release - but how can anyone claim it's OK to subvert US companies efforts to do business in good faith with foreign customers? Or to wire-tap our closest allies? What about the fallout in pursuit of Snowden where US government officials technically invaded the sovereign nation of Bolivia (the Bolivian President's plane)? Bringing it home, how is it OK to wire-tap our own elected officials? Or the entire city of Salt Lake? Parallel construction which put people in prison without a fair trail? Purposefully weakening or subverting security protections for every citizen? Yes, it stung. However it was necessary, and absolutely in the public's best interest. These surveillance programs are very much out of control and scope. There is no sane argument to the contrary.
    - caskance 11y ago
      You can make anything sound nice if you couch it in vague enough terms. Spying on other countries is in fact, the entire point of the NSA. Domestic surveillance is not, and it was right to expose that. However, that does not excuse the things he inappropriately leaked any more than the NSA's lawful data collection excuses their unlawful programs.
      - Alupis 11y ago
        What was inappropriately leaked? You are making the argument that Snowden should have done nothing, when in fact that is the least moral thing to do in that situation. The US is not some how "weaker" because of Snowden - it's weaker because of it's flagrant disrespect to all other nations in the world, especially our allies.
        caskance 11y ago
        Information about foreign surveillance programs and details of NSA methods. I never made such an argument. In fact, I have repeatedly stated what I think he should have done - reveal information about some obviously unconstitutional domestic surveillance - there's obviously no shortage of choices there. Whether the US is weaker or stronger does not have anything to do with the question of whether Snowden broke the law. It might affect the judgment about whether he was justified in breaking the law, but that's something for the judge to decide during sentencing, or the president to decide when pardoning him. It's not an excuse for refusing to stand trial.
fineman 11y ago
Try putting systems in place to enable whistleblowing at an earlier level. You're punishing Snowden for your government not working.
- caskance 11y ago
  In fact, nobody is punishing him. He chose to flee the country to escape consequences for his actions.
  - Alupis 11y ago
    Consequences were going to be a secret military trial where the death penalty was on the table. He has stated many times he will come back and stand trial, so long as it's a fair public trial in civilian courts (because he was/is a civilian). The US Gov't is unwilling to provide this more fair trial.
    - caskance 11y ago
      I think you're confusing Snowden with Manning. Snowden is not in the military and is not subject to UCMJ. Perhaps what you meant is that some evidence, being classified, would not be released to the public? That does go against what Snowden asked for, but there's nothing military about that. It's also IMO an unreasonable demand unless the information in question is a subset of what he already leaked, which is unlikely.
      - fineman 11y ago
        Nope, the death penalty is definitely on the table based on the charges we've heard bandied about. And the issue isn't that some evidence is classified, but that all evidence Snowden would want to present is classified. Even his motivation is based on works that are claimed to be classified.
        caskance 11y ago
        I didn't say capital punishment was or wasn't on the table. I said it wasn't a military trial. Those are two completely orthogonal issues. If Snowden can't present a single piece of evidence in his defense that isn't classified, I don't think he's got much of a case. Last I checked, the constitution isn't classified.

Alupis 11y ago

> went far beyond the scope of responsible whistle blowing Care to elaborate? Or just make snide comments without any factual content. By definition, Snowden is a Whistle-Blower.[1][2][3][4] Fact checks of Snowden's claims have largely been found to be very accurate.[5][6] [1] http://whistleblower.org/what-whistleblower http://whistleblower.org/what-whistleblower [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower [3] http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/Enforcement/whistleblowers.htm http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/Enforcement/whistleblowers.htm [4] http://www.whistleblowers.gov/ http://www.whistleblowers.gov/ [5] http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/09/edward-snowden/fact-checking-john-olivers-interview-edward-snowde/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/09/... [6] http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/06/edward_snowden_fact_checking_which_surveillance_claims_were_right.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/0...

tptacek 11y ago
Nobody is arguing that Snowden disclosed things that were false. The argument is that not everything he disclosed was in the public interest.
- Alupis 11y ago
  I find it difficult to hold that argument to any light. Yes, US foreign relations were damaged as part of the release - but how can anyone claim it's OK to subvert US companies efforts to do business in good faith with foreign customers? Or to wire-tap our closest allies? What about the fallout in pursuit of Snowden where US government officials technically invaded the sovereign nation of Bolivia (the Bolivian President's plane)? Bringing it home, how is it OK to wire-tap our own elected officials? Or the entire city of Salt Lake? Parallel construction which put people in prison without a fair trail? Purposefully weakening or subverting security protections for every citizen? Yes, it stung. However it was necessary, and absolutely in the public's best interest. These surveillance programs are very much out of control and scope. There is no sane argument to the contrary.
  - caskance 11y ago
    You can make anything sound nice if you couch it in vague enough terms. Spying on other countries is in fact, the entire point of the NSA. Domestic surveillance is not, and it was right to expose that. However, that does not excuse the things he inappropriately leaked any more than the NSA's lawful data collection excuses their unlawful programs.
    - Alupis 11y ago
      What was inappropriately leaked? You are making the argument that Snowden should have done nothing, when in fact that is the least moral thing to do in that situation. The US is not some how "weaker" because of Snowden - it's weaker because of it's flagrant disrespect to all other nations in the world, especially our allies.
      - caskance 11y ago
        Information about foreign surveillance programs and details of NSA methods. I never made such an argument. In fact, I have repeatedly stated what I think he should have done - reveal information about some obviously unconstitutional domestic surveillance - there's obviously no shortage of choices there. Whether the US is weaker or stronger does not have anything to do with the question of whether Snowden broke the law. It might affect the judgment about whether he was justified in breaking the law, but that's something for the judge to decide during sentencing, or the president to decide when pardoning him. It's not an excuse for refusing to stand trial.

fineman 11y ago

Try putting systems in place to enable whistleblowing at an earlier level. You're punishing Snowden for your government not working.

caskance 11y ago
In fact, nobody is punishing him. He chose to flee the country to escape consequences for his actions.
- Alupis 11y ago
  Consequences were going to be a secret military trial where the death penalty was on the table. He has stated many times he will come back and stand trial, so long as it's a fair public trial in civilian courts (because he was/is a civilian). The US Gov't is unwilling to provide this more fair trial.
  - caskance 11y ago
    I think you're confusing Snowden with Manning. Snowden is not in the military and is not subject to UCMJ. Perhaps what you meant is that some evidence, being classified, would not be released to the public? That does go against what Snowden asked for, but there's nothing military about that. It's also IMO an unreasonable demand unless the information in question is a subset of what he already leaked, which is unlikely.
    - fineman 11y ago
      Nope, the death penalty is definitely on the table based on the charges we've heard bandied about. And the issue isn't that some evidence is classified, but that all evidence Snowden would want to present is classified. Even his motivation is based on works that are claimed to be classified.
      - caskance 11y ago
        I didn't say capital punishment was or wasn't on the table. I said it wasn't a military trial. Those are two completely orthogonal issues. If Snowden can't present a single piece of evidence in his defense that isn't classified, I don't think he's got much of a case. Last I checked, the constitution isn't classified.