5 ms·

I admire Snowden's sacrifice, but the US can't pardon him. Doing so would signify weakness and encourage subversive behaviour. Traditionalist countries – China,

I admire Snowden's sacrifice, but the US can't pardon him. Doing so would signify weakness and encourage subversive behaviour. Traditionalist countries – China, Russia, Iran – are especially perceptive to status signaling. No doubt they would exploit the event to foster Anti-American sentiments. Also, we don't know the info Russian Intelligence got out of his asylum in Moscow. Side note: I hope GMT Games releases an expansion for Twlight Struggle: 1989 ~ 2015. Despite the fall of the USSR, the proxy war has never stopped. I'd love to re-enact the past 25 years. Snowden flees to Moscow would be a Red Event, 2 ops: "US reveals their hand of cards this turn. Remove up to a total of 2 US Influence from one or more countries to Western Europe". EDIT: to clarify, I do want the US to grant him pardon.

eru 10y ago
The proxy war might have never stopped, but what stopped was people taking Russia serious as _the_ second power on the globe. They lost that top spot.
hollander 10y ago
This is so much letting other people or countries decide what you should do. The Land of the Free should make its own decisions, no matter what China or Russia finds. In my opinion, Snowden did something really patriotic, but you may have another definition of what patriotic means. Even if Russia forced information out of him, against his will, that should not block a pardon. Then it's even more important that he tells the US what he told them.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- wtbob 10y ago
  > In my opinion, Snowden did something really patriotic He ignored the legal process for raising his concerns. He ignored the inspectors general. He stole information he had no legitimate need to access and fled to adversary states. He caused exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States.
  - ionised 10y ago
    The legal process in this situation is broken to its core.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    You mean the "legal process" that other whistleblowers have come forward and said is useless and more interested in shooting messengers than righting wrongs?[1] You mean the adversary state that is the only thing keeping Snowden from rotting in a military prison to never see the light of day again? How do you think that would have played out had he went somewhere "friendly" to the USA? The "damage" that was done to the "national security" of the united states is more damage to the pride of those caught in illegal behavior than bona fide harm to America. It was a revealing to people that their government has been lying to them, loudly and repeatedly, something which is strictly positive. [1]: https://theintercept.com/2016/05/23/vindication-for-edward-snowden-from-a-new-player-in-nsa-whistleblowing-saga/ https://theintercept.com/2016/05/23/vindication-for-edward-s...
  - Fordrus 10y ago
    Okay, I am not an expert, but I have read several UNSYMPATHETIC accounts of Snowdon's actions that specifically and categorically contradict what you say here when you assert that "He ignored the legal process for raising his concerns." Last I checked, the consensus was that he raised concerns repeatedly within his chain of command and then attempted to go over it, so much so that there was a process begun to review his actions for discipline/reduced security clearance. He did not ignore the legal process for raising his concerned- the legal process for raising his concerns FAILED, and, as widely acknowledged by those who should have had oversight (but did not effectively have it until post-Snowden) after his leaks, those concerns should havs been taken seriously by that review process, but were not. Furthermore, you must understand this: the damage that Edward Snowden caused to the United States was no more and no less than desperately necessary chemotherapy, because the NSA had grown CANCEROUS, and I'm absolutely not convinced it has been cured totally, though I'd be happy to see information otherwise.
    - zeveb 10y ago
      > Last I checked, the consensus was that he raised concerns repeatedly within his chain of command Yes, and he ignored that everyone qualified to determine the legality of the programmes he objected to determined that they were, in fact, legal. > He did not ignore the legal process for raising his concerned- the legal process for raising his concerns FAILED No, it succeeded. Nothing he revealed was in fact illegal or unconstitutional. Neither the law nor the Constitution mandates all good things, nor bans all bad things. 'I don't like it' is unsufficient proof of illegality.
Jahava 10y ago
At some point I have to draw a line between the information that he leaked regarding questionable (and, ultimately, illegal) domestic US spying programs and the sizable remainder of the corpus detailing US tools, techniques, and strategy employed against foreign nations. The former is undoubtedly potentially patriotic, while the latter is a legitimate and legal function of the NSA and likely damaged its intelligence mission on a number of fronts (and is, ultimately, treasonous). I have to ask myself: could he have leaked the former without the latter? In all available information, I have not seen a compelling reason to think that the two bodies of data were inseparable. A heroic Snowden with the best of intentions absolutely needed to invest the time and care into either not collecting the body of non-US data in the first place or, failing that, purging it from the body that he released to the world. For me, his failure to do either inexorably poisons any heroic fallout with the treasonous side effects. One step further: why did he neglect to do something as simple and important? I find the heroic Snowden to be a hard sell, since it seems like he was at best grossly irresponsible and, more likely, motivated by something other than patriotism.
- harryh 10y ago
  Undoubtedly and potentially are two adverbs you rarely see next to each other.
- justinpombrio 10y ago
  > and the sizable remainder of the corpus detailing US tools, techniques, and strategy employed against foreign nations. Could you provide a reference to these? I've heard this referred to before, but still don't know what he did that could have done actual harm. EDIT: Unless that harm is simply other nations thinking that the US isn't spying on them, and then learning that they really, really are?
  - dTal 10y ago
    I think it's government propaganda. The only foreign espionage stuff I remember hearing about was this[1], which turned out to be a false flag leak[2] (!!!). [1]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-uk-s-secret-mid-east-internet-surveillance-base-is-revealed-in-edward-snowden-leaks-8781082.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-uk-s... [2]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-government-independent-military-base https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-gov...
dllthomas 10y ago
> Doing so would signify weakness Maybe. Ideally it could be spun as a sort of "costly signalling". > and encourage subversive behaviour. Not any and all subversive behavior; subversive behavior of the form "I have deep ethical concerns about what is being done secretly here, so I am making it public." I want people feeling comfortable coming forward in that situation even if I ultimately disagree with their concerns. Threat of such is an important check on abuse of secrecy.

eru 10y ago

The proxy war might have never stopped, but what stopped was people taking Russia serious as _the_ second power on the globe. They lost that top spot.

hollander 10y ago

This is so much letting other people or countries decide what you should do. The Land of the Free should make its own decisions, no matter what China or Russia finds. In my opinion, Snowden did something really patriotic, but you may have another definition of what patriotic means. Even if Russia forced information out of him, against his will, that should not block a pardon. Then it's even more important that he tells the US what he told them.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
wtbob 10y ago
> In my opinion, Snowden did something really patriotic He ignored the legal process for raising his concerns. He ignored the inspectors general. He stole information he had no legitimate need to access and fled to adversary states. He caused exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States.
- ionised 10y ago
  The legal process in this situation is broken to its core.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  You mean the "legal process" that other whistleblowers have come forward and said is useless and more interested in shooting messengers than righting wrongs?[1] You mean the adversary state that is the only thing keeping Snowden from rotting in a military prison to never see the light of day again? How do you think that would have played out had he went somewhere "friendly" to the USA? The "damage" that was done to the "national security" of the united states is more damage to the pride of those caught in illegal behavior than bona fide harm to America. It was a revealing to people that their government has been lying to them, loudly and repeatedly, something which is strictly positive. [1]: https://theintercept.com/2016/05/23/vindication-for-edward-snowden-from-a-new-player-in-nsa-whistleblowing-saga/ https://theintercept.com/2016/05/23/vindication-for-edward-s...
- Fordrus 10y ago
  Okay, I am not an expert, but I have read several UNSYMPATHETIC accounts of Snowdon's actions that specifically and categorically contradict what you say here when you assert that "He ignored the legal process for raising his concerns." Last I checked, the consensus was that he raised concerns repeatedly within his chain of command and then attempted to go over it, so much so that there was a process begun to review his actions for discipline/reduced security clearance. He did not ignore the legal process for raising his concerned- the legal process for raising his concerns FAILED, and, as widely acknowledged by those who should have had oversight (but did not effectively have it until post-Snowden) after his leaks, those concerns should havs been taken seriously by that review process, but were not. Furthermore, you must understand this: the damage that Edward Snowden caused to the United States was no more and no less than desperately necessary chemotherapy, because the NSA had grown CANCEROUS, and I'm absolutely not convinced it has been cured totally, though I'd be happy to see information otherwise.
  - zeveb 10y ago
    > Last I checked, the consensus was that he raised concerns repeatedly within his chain of command Yes, and he ignored that everyone qualified to determine the legality of the programmes he objected to determined that they were, in fact, legal. > He did not ignore the legal process for raising his concerned- the legal process for raising his concerns FAILED No, it succeeded. Nothing he revealed was in fact illegal or unconstitutional. Neither the law nor the Constitution mandates all good things, nor bans all bad things. 'I don't like it' is unsufficient proof of illegality.

Jahava 10y ago

At some point I have to draw a line between the information that he leaked regarding questionable (and, ultimately, illegal) domestic US spying programs and the sizable remainder of the corpus detailing US tools, techniques, and strategy employed against foreign nations. The former is undoubtedly potentially patriotic, while the latter is a legitimate and legal function of the NSA and likely damaged its intelligence mission on a number of fronts (and is, ultimately, treasonous). I have to ask myself: could he have leaked the former without the latter? In all available information, I have not seen a compelling reason to think that the two bodies of data were inseparable. A heroic Snowden with the best of intentions absolutely needed to invest the time and care into either not collecting the body of non-US data in the first place or, failing that, purging it from the body that he released to the world. For me, his failure to do either inexorably poisons any heroic fallout with the treasonous side effects. One step further: why did he neglect to do something as simple and important? I find the heroic Snowden to be a hard sell, since it seems like he was at best grossly irresponsible and, more likely, motivated by something other than patriotism.

harryh 10y ago
Undoubtedly and potentially are two adverbs you rarely see next to each other.
justinpombrio 10y ago
> and the sizable remainder of the corpus detailing US tools, techniques, and strategy employed against foreign nations. Could you provide a reference to these? I've heard this referred to before, but still don't know what he did that could have done actual harm. EDIT: Unless that harm is simply other nations thinking that the US isn't spying on them, and then learning that they really, really are?
- dTal 10y ago
  I think it's government propaganda. The only foreign espionage stuff I remember hearing about was this[1], which turned out to be a false flag leak[2] (!!!). [1]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-uk-s-secret-mid-east-internet-surveillance-base-is-revealed-in-edward-snowden-leaks-8781082.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-uk-s... [2]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-government-independent-military-base https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-gov...

dllthomas 10y ago

> Doing so would signify weakness Maybe. Ideally it could be spun as a sort of "costly signalling". > and encourage subversive behaviour. Not any and all subversive behavior; subversive behavior of the form "I have deep ethical concerns about what is being done secretly here, so I am making it public." I want people feeling comfortable coming forward in that situation even if I ultimately disagree with their concerns. Threat of such is an important check on abuse of secrecy.