7 ms·

Well part of it is pretty simple. He stole, as in removed classified information without permission from a secure facility and disseminated millions of pages of

Well part of it is pretty simple. He stole, as in removed classified information without permission from a secure facility and disseminated millions of pages of classified information to non-approved parties (everyone in the world). If it were legal to remove classified information without permission, because you felt entitled to, then that could be a legal defense. But it's clearly not, so he sought political asylum in Russia. If however, there was a directive from the President or office of legal counsel to shut down the program and if NSA had kept it running, him exposing an illegal program could be a legal defense - had he gone through the appropriate channels. But there was nothing illegal about it at the time. So he committed the crime, not NSA...

MichaelApproved 11y ago
To add to your comment, he took an enormous amount of data. It was sweeping and pretty indiscriminate. And he gave it to the media. Some of what he took and shared could be legitimately argued as whistle blowing but there's lots of other classified data about legitimate programs that was taken as well.
- FreakyT 11y ago
  I think this is the key issue that really muddies the Snowden issue. I completely agree with Snowden's leaking of the domestic spying program information, but he also leaked a lot of information not related to that. Foreign spying is basically what the NSA is supposed to do.
  - mcv 11y ago
    Did he also leak information about spying on enemies? Or only about spying on allies?
    - FreakyT 11y ago
      Both, and that's the key issue. Here's an example: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1266875/exclusive-us-hacked-pacnet-asia-pacific-fibre-optic-network-operator http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1266875/exclusive...
- jellicle 11y ago
  Can you give an example?
  - slantedview 11y ago
    He cannot, because any sensitive data that is not in the public's interest, to be made public, has not been.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      >The American government conducted a major intelligence offensive against China, with targets including the Chinese government and networking company Huawei, according to documents from former NSA worker Edward Snowden that have been viewed by SPIEGEL and the New York Times http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nsa-spied-on-chinese-government-and-networking-firm-huawei-a-960199.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nsa-spied-on-chine... >Research by SPIEGEL reporters in Berlin and Washington, talks with intelligence officials and the evaluation of internal documents of the US' National Security Agency and other information, most of which comes from the archive of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, lead to the conclusion that the US diplomatic mission in the German capital has not merely been promoting German-American friendship. On the contrary, it is a nest of espionage. From the roof of the embassy, a special unit of the CIA and NSA can apparently monitor a large part of cellphone communication in the government quarter. And there is evidence that agents based at Pariser Platz recently targeted the cellphone that Merkel uses the most. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/cover-story-how-nsa-spied-on-merkel-cell-phone-from-berlin-embassy-a-930205.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/cover-story-how-... Well, I suppose it's in China's and Germany's interests, but doing things like that that benefit another country at the expense of your own is generally called treason.
      - lostlogin 11y ago
        It's sort of amazing that treason is a still a charge that can be levelled. Seeing the word outside the context of a 18th century history (or earlier) still catches me, and with Snowden it's hardly recent news.
- tux1968 11y ago
  Isn't the more important point whether or not he exposed serious corruption and illegal activity? We forgive the police breaking the law, in order to enforce it, all the time.. the classic example of speeding to catch a speeder. It seems disingenuous to focus on the collateral damage of his action and ignore the main target. We forgive our military their collateral damage all the time as an unfortunate side effect of pursuing a noble mission. Shouldn't he be afforded the same?
  - danso 11y ago
    > Isn't the more important point whether or not he exposed serious corruption and illegal activity? We forgive the police breaking the law, in order to enforce it, all the time.. the classic example of speeding to catch a speeder. But...that's not breaking the law. When speeding is done as part of the police officer's job, it is not breaking the law. In contrast, when a police officer speeds while not carrying out their duty, that is indeed breaking the law. The Pulitzer Prize for Public Service in 2013 was awarded to an investigation that uncovered illegally speeding cops: http://www.pulitzer.org/winners/7180 http://www.pulitzer.org/winners/7180
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      >But...that's not breaking the law. When speeding is done as part of the police officer's job, it is not breaking the law. What about the FBI running a honey pot where they continue to allow children to be abused? Technically legal, but is it really something we should tolerate?
    - sangnoir 11y ago
      > that's not breaking the law. When speeding is done as part of the police officer's job, it is not breaking the law. By definition, whistleblowing is disclosing information that shouldn't be disclosed.This is why there needs to be whistleblower protection: so that the "illegal" action is no longer considered illegal but a civic duty. > The Pulitzer Prize for Public Service in 2013 was awarded to an investigation that... Funny you should mention that, in 2014, the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service was awarded to journalists who worked with material illegally provided by Edward Snowden: http://www.pulitzer.org/winners/7200 http://www.pulitzer.org/winners/7200
- kafkaesq 11y ago
  And he gave it to the media. That makes it sound like he dumped it indiscriminately. Which is very misleading.
striking 11y ago
I think he did try the "appropriate channels" but nothing happened.
- nocman 11y ago
  That's the first time I've ever heard that. You got a source for that claim? (I'm not suggesting I've researched it, I just have heard a fair amount about the whole thing, and I've just never heard that he tried "appropriate channels").
  - striking 11y ago
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/03/07/snowden-i-raised-nsa-concerns-internally-over-10-times-before-going-rogue/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/03/07... > Edward Snowden said he repeatedly tried to go through official channels to raise concerns about government snooping programs but that his warnings fell on the deaf ears > In testimony to the European Parliament released Friday morning, Snowden wrote that he reported policy or legal issues related to spying programs to more than 10 officials, but as a contractor he had no legal avenue to pursue further whistleblowing ("appropriate channels" was a quote from the previous comment I was replying to)
    - thomasahle 11y ago
      NSA eventually confirmed it as well http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-snowden-interview/paper-trail-nsa-releases-email-snowden-sent-agency-officials-n117086 http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-snowden-interview/pape...
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        The screenshot there is not about surveillance. Is there a fuller version somewhere? Also, the article says >The official said that Snowden had asked a question, but had not “raised concerns” about the NSA’s practices.
alexandercrohde 11y ago
That's a bit of an oversimplification of the comparison. The right to bear arms is in part a check against tyranny (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...), in that if the citizens are armed a corrupt government may have to be stopped by force. So from a historical perspective there is a clear acknowledgment that a corrupt government's laws may need to be broken to fix a corrupt government. The initial comment is wise to point out digression in thought from the founding fathers and our current attitude toward government.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
aagha 11y ago
There's a Catch-22 situation if I ever heard one
spangry 11y ago
Some of what you say is true, but highly misleading (and the 'appropriate channels' issue is still an open question in my opinion). Although Snowden accepted political asylum in Russia, he had little choice at the time. The US government revoked his passport while he was in an international "no man's land" (i.e. the international side of Russian customs), effectively making him stateless. He had originally planned to transit through Russia on to Cuba, and thereafter Ecuador or Venezuela. By cancelling his passport, the US government effectively trapped him in Moscow. Heck, he couldn't have even have gotten himself illegally smuggled out. The US government forced the Bolivian president's plane, on its way back from Moscow to Bolivia, to land in Austria, where it was searched. Just on the mere suspicion that Snowden was on board. Forcing down the plane of the head of a sovereign nation and subjecting them to a search in a foreign jurisdiction sounds pretty damn illegal to me. Actually, it sounds like an act of war. But I suppose that doesn't matter when your country spends more on its military than the next 19 countries combined. Also worth noting that the crimes Snowden has been charged with are two counts of violating the Espionage Act, a law passed just after the US entered WWI. Its original intent is clearly to punish people who endangered military operations during a time of total war. Given this intended purpose, it's a near certainty Snowden would be found guilty if he ever came back to the US to 'face the music': Professor at American University Washington College of Law and national security law expert Stephen Vladeck has said that the law “lacks the hallmarks of a carefully and precisely defined statutory restriction on speech.” Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said, “basically any information the whistleblower or source would want to bring up at trial to show that they are not guilty of violating the Espionage Act the jury would never hear. It’s almost a certainty that because the law is so broadly written that they would be convicted no matter what.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917#Criticis...
- themartorana 11y ago
  Wish I could up vote this twice. Forcing down the plane of a foreign head of state is all but kidnapping - how this got so little press is insane.
- csandreasen 11y ago
kafkaesq 11y ago
But it's clearly not, so he sought political asylum in Russia. No, that's not what happened. Go back and read the basic chronology of what happened to him after leaving HK, please.
drjesusphd 11y ago
I think your argument was best summarized by doki_pen below: > Many Americans believe in following the law no matter what.
mcv 11y ago
It's worth noting that there were no appropriate channels, though. People who tried those in order to address illegal NSA programs either got ignored or had their life ruined (see Thomas Drake). Snowden took the only possible course of action to address this. That the only remaining channel was illegal, is part of the problem.

MichaelApproved 11y ago

To add to your comment, he took an enormous amount of data. It was sweeping and pretty indiscriminate. And he gave it to the media. Some of what he took and shared could be legitimately argued as whistle blowing but there's lots of other classified data about legitimate programs that was taken as well.

FreakyT 11y ago
I think this is the key issue that really muddies the Snowden issue. I completely agree with Snowden's leaking of the domestic spying program information, but he also leaked a lot of information not related to that. Foreign spying is basically what the NSA is supposed to do.
- mcv 11y ago
  Did he also leak information about spying on enemies? Or only about spying on allies?
  - FreakyT 11y ago
    Both, and that's the key issue. Here's an example: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1266875/exclusive-us-hacked-pacnet-asia-pacific-fibre-optic-network-operator http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1266875/exclusive...
jellicle 11y ago
Can you give an example?
- slantedview 11y ago
  He cannot, because any sensitive data that is not in the public's interest, to be made public, has not been.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    >The American government conducted a major intelligence offensive against China, with targets including the Chinese government and networking company Huawei, according to documents from former NSA worker Edward Snowden that have been viewed by SPIEGEL and the New York Times http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nsa-spied-on-chinese-government-and-networking-firm-huawei-a-960199.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nsa-spied-on-chine... >Research by SPIEGEL reporters in Berlin and Washington, talks with intelligence officials and the evaluation of internal documents of the US' National Security Agency and other information, most of which comes from the archive of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, lead to the conclusion that the US diplomatic mission in the German capital has not merely been promoting German-American friendship. On the contrary, it is a nest of espionage. From the roof of the embassy, a special unit of the CIA and NSA can apparently monitor a large part of cellphone communication in the government quarter. And there is evidence that agents based at Pariser Platz recently targeted the cellphone that Merkel uses the most. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/cover-story-how-nsa-spied-on-merkel-cell-phone-from-berlin-embassy-a-930205.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/cover-story-how-... Well, I suppose it's in China's and Germany's interests, but doing things like that that benefit another country at the expense of your own is generally called treason.
    - lostlogin 11y ago
      It's sort of amazing that treason is a still a charge that can be levelled. Seeing the word outside the context of a 18th century history (or earlier) still catches me, and with Snowden it's hardly recent news.
tux1968 11y ago
Isn't the more important point whether or not he exposed serious corruption and illegal activity? We forgive the police breaking the law, in order to enforce it, all the time.. the classic example of speeding to catch a speeder. It seems disingenuous to focus on the collateral damage of his action and ignore the main target. We forgive our military their collateral damage all the time as an unfortunate side effect of pursuing a noble mission. Shouldn't he be afforded the same?
- danso 11y ago
  > Isn't the more important point whether or not he exposed serious corruption and illegal activity? We forgive the police breaking the law, in order to enforce it, all the time.. the classic example of speeding to catch a speeder. But...that's not breaking the law. When speeding is done as part of the police officer's job, it is not breaking the law. In contrast, when a police officer speeds while not carrying out their duty, that is indeed breaking the law. The Pulitzer Prize for Public Service in 2013 was awarded to an investigation that uncovered illegally speeding cops: http://www.pulitzer.org/winners/7180 http://www.pulitzer.org/winners/7180
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    >But...that's not breaking the law. When speeding is done as part of the police officer's job, it is not breaking the law. What about the FBI running a honey pot where they continue to allow children to be abused? Technically legal, but is it really something we should tolerate?
  - sangnoir 11y ago
    > that's not breaking the law. When speeding is done as part of the police officer's job, it is not breaking the law. By definition, whistleblowing is disclosing information that shouldn't be disclosed.This is why there needs to be whistleblower protection: so that the "illegal" action is no longer considered illegal but a civic duty. > The Pulitzer Prize for Public Service in 2013 was awarded to an investigation that... Funny you should mention that, in 2014, the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service was awarded to journalists who worked with material illegally provided by Edward Snowden: http://www.pulitzer.org/winners/7200 http://www.pulitzer.org/winners/7200
kafkaesq 11y ago
And he gave it to the media. That makes it sound like he dumped it indiscriminately. Which is very misleading.

striking 11y ago

I think he did try the "appropriate channels" but nothing happened.

nocman 11y ago
That's the first time I've ever heard that. You got a source for that claim? (I'm not suggesting I've researched it, I just have heard a fair amount about the whole thing, and I've just never heard that he tried "appropriate channels").
- striking 11y ago
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/03/07/snowden-i-raised-nsa-concerns-internally-over-10-times-before-going-rogue/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/03/07... > Edward Snowden said he repeatedly tried to go through official channels to raise concerns about government snooping programs but that his warnings fell on the deaf ears > In testimony to the European Parliament released Friday morning, Snowden wrote that he reported policy or legal issues related to spying programs to more than 10 officials, but as a contractor he had no legal avenue to pursue further whistleblowing ("appropriate channels" was a quote from the previous comment I was replying to)
  - thomasahle 11y ago
    NSA eventually confirmed it as well http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-snowden-interview/paper-trail-nsa-releases-email-snowden-sent-agency-officials-n117086 http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-snowden-interview/pape...
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      The screenshot there is not about surveillance. Is there a fuller version somewhere? Also, the article says >The official said that Snowden had asked a question, but had not “raised concerns” about the NSA’s practices.

alexandercrohde 11y ago

That's a bit of an oversimplification of the comparison. The right to bear arms is in part a check against tyranny (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...), in that if the citizens are armed a corrupt government may have to be stopped by force. So from a historical perspective there is a clear acknowledgment that a corrupt government's laws may need to be broken to fix a corrupt government. The initial comment is wise to point out digression in thought from the founding fathers and our current attitude toward government.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

aagha 11y ago

There's a Catch-22 situation if I ever heard one

spangry 11y ago

Some of what you say is true, but highly misleading (and the 'appropriate channels' issue is still an open question in my opinion). Although Snowden accepted political asylum in Russia, he had little choice at the time. The US government revoked his passport while he was in an international "no man's land" (i.e. the international side of Russian customs), effectively making him stateless. He had originally planned to transit through Russia on to Cuba, and thereafter Ecuador or Venezuela. By cancelling his passport, the US government effectively trapped him in Moscow. Heck, he couldn't have even have gotten himself illegally smuggled out. The US government forced the Bolivian president's plane, on its way back from Moscow to Bolivia, to land in Austria, where it was searched. Just on the mere suspicion that Snowden was on board. Forcing down the plane of the head of a sovereign nation and subjecting them to a search in a foreign jurisdiction sounds pretty damn illegal to me. Actually, it sounds like an act of war. But I suppose that doesn't matter when your country spends more on its military than the next 19 countries combined. Also worth noting that the crimes Snowden has been charged with are two counts of violating the Espionage Act, a law passed just after the US entered WWI. Its original intent is clearly to punish people who endangered military operations during a time of total war. Given this intended purpose, it's a near certainty Snowden would be found guilty if he ever came back to the US to 'face the music': Professor at American University Washington College of Law and national security law expert Stephen Vladeck has said that the law “lacks the hallmarks of a carefully and precisely defined statutory restriction on speech.” Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said, “basically any information the whistleblower or source would want to bring up at trial to show that they are not guilty of violating the Espionage Act the jury would never hear. It’s almost a certainty that because the law is so broadly written that they would be convicted no matter what.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917#Criticis...

themartorana 11y ago
Wish I could up vote this twice. Forcing down the plane of a foreign head of state is all but kidnapping - how this got so little press is insane.
csandreasen 11y ago

kafkaesq 11y ago

But it's clearly not, so he sought political asylum in Russia. No, that's not what happened. Go back and read the basic chronology of what happened to him after leaving HK, please.

drjesusphd 11y ago

I think your argument was best summarized by doki_pen below: > Many Americans believe in following the law no matter what.

mcv 11y ago

It's worth noting that there were no appropriate channels, though. People who tried those in order to address illegal NSA programs either got ignored or had their life ruined (see Thomas Drake). Snowden took the only possible course of action to address this. That the only remaining channel was illegal, is part of the problem.