16 ms·

Then wouldn't it have been better for the intelligence community if he hadn't had to flee the US for self-preservation? If we had better whistle-blower protecti

Then wouldn't it have been better for the intelligence community if he hadn't had to flee the US for self-preservation? If we had better whistle-blower protections Russia would never have entered the picture.

slg 10y ago
Yes, which is exactly why the report harps on the fact that he did leave and got stuck flying between the US's two biggest political rivals. The NSA didn't put Snowden in that position, he put himself in it. Staying in the US would have certainly involved personal sacrifices from Snowden and he may not trust he would receive a fair trial. However that is why whistle blowers are celebrated. They but themselves at risk for the greater good. And you can't just say the ends justify the means for Snowden potentially giving up information to the Russians because that is the exact logic people inside the NSA use for this type of mass surveillance in the first place. Two core attributes of civil disobedience are about establishing a moral or ethical high ground and then facing the repercussions that come from your actions. Snowden appears to have failed on both of those accounts.
- lawnchair_larry 10y ago
  The thought that someone is obligated to forfeit their freedom and even entertain the risk of spending a day in prison because of another party's abuse doesn't even begin to make sense, so that is a load of crap.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  The NSA didn't put Snowden in that position, he put himself in it. Actually it was the Obama administration that put him in that position, by revoking his passport. Two core attributes of civil disobedience are about establishing a moral or ethical high ground and then facing the repercussions that come from your actions. This is just empty posturing. For one thing, Snowden already is accepting significant repercussions for his actions (in ways that I don't think I need to detail for you; but which most likely are far greater than repercussions you've faced, or likely ever will face for taking a principled stand). For another, taking responsibility for your actions doesn't mean you are required to throw yourself under a bus and accept whatever unjust persecutions† the system is waiting to throw at you. And when that system becomes sufficiently corrupt and unaccountable, not only do you have a right, you have moral duty to escape and defy that system -- and continue your struggle -- to whatever extent possible. †BTW, by "unjust persecution" I don't mean a lengthy jail sentence; I mean the very high probability that he would be tortured, the way Chelsea Manning is being tortured right now, as we speak -- as her way of accepting the very same "repercussions" that you, from the safety of your keyboard, are asking Snowden to accept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solitary_confinement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solitary_confinement
  - slg 10y ago
    First off, you can't blame Obama when Snowden was in China before any of his leaks became public. He could have been anywhere in the world at the time of the leaks, but he chose Hong Kong. Secondly, I like how you are the one accusing me of posturing and then say that Snowden has received harsher repercussions than anything I have experienced, talk about posturing. I didn't make the same decisions as Snowden. I know that most of us wouldn't make the same decisions in his situation. That is why the system exists how it does as countless people allow it to happen. Like I said, that is why we champion whistle blowers. They do something uncommon and difficult. But that choice also involves facing their accusers. Going to jail is often part of it for anyone practicing civil disobedience. It was part of the missions for everyone from MLK Jr to Gandhi. Yes, it is a lot to ask of Snowden to compare him to people like that, but once again no one put Snowden in that position but Snowden.
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      Hmm - your point seems to come down to: "He put chose to put himself in that position. Therefore, he should accept whatever wildly unjust persecution the system will surely hit him with the moment they get their hands on him. And therewith, further promote the chilling deterrent effect against anyone who might contemplate taking a similar, principled stand." You can hold that position if you want. But I just don't buy it.

slg 10y ago

Yes, which is exactly why the report harps on the fact that he did leave and got stuck flying between the US's two biggest political rivals. The NSA didn't put Snowden in that position, he put himself in it. Staying in the US would have certainly involved personal sacrifices from Snowden and he may not trust he would receive a fair trial. However that is why whistle blowers are celebrated. They but themselves at risk for the greater good. And you can't just say the ends justify the means for Snowden potentially giving up information to the Russians because that is the exact logic people inside the NSA use for this type of mass surveillance in the first place. Two core attributes of civil disobedience are about establishing a moral or ethical high ground and then facing the repercussions that come from your actions. Snowden appears to have failed on both of those accounts.

lawnchair_larry 10y ago
The thought that someone is obligated to forfeit their freedom and even entertain the risk of spending a day in prison because of another party's abuse doesn't even begin to make sense, so that is a load of crap.
kafkaesq 10y ago
The NSA didn't put Snowden in that position, he put himself in it. Actually it was the Obama administration that put him in that position, by revoking his passport. Two core attributes of civil disobedience are about establishing a moral or ethical high ground and then facing the repercussions that come from your actions. This is just empty posturing. For one thing, Snowden already is accepting significant repercussions for his actions (in ways that I don't think I need to detail for you; but which most likely are far greater than repercussions you've faced, or likely ever will face for taking a principled stand). For another, taking responsibility for your actions doesn't mean you are required to throw yourself under a bus and accept whatever unjust persecutions† the system is waiting to throw at you. And when that system becomes sufficiently corrupt and unaccountable, not only do you have a right, you have moral duty to escape and defy that system -- and continue your struggle -- to whatever extent possible. †BTW, by "unjust persecution" I don't mean a lengthy jail sentence; I mean the very high probability that he would be tortured, the way Chelsea Manning is being tortured right now, as we speak -- as her way of accepting the very same "repercussions" that you, from the safety of your keyboard, are asking Snowden to accept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solitary_confinement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solitary_confinement
- slg 10y ago
  First off, you can't blame Obama when Snowden was in China before any of his leaks became public. He could have been anywhere in the world at the time of the leaks, but he chose Hong Kong. Secondly, I like how you are the one accusing me of posturing and then say that Snowden has received harsher repercussions than anything I have experienced, talk about posturing. I didn't make the same decisions as Snowden. I know that most of us wouldn't make the same decisions in his situation. That is why the system exists how it does as countless people allow it to happen. Like I said, that is why we champion whistle blowers. They do something uncommon and difficult. But that choice also involves facing their accusers. Going to jail is often part of it for anyone practicing civil disobedience. It was part of the missions for everyone from MLK Jr to Gandhi. Yes, it is a lot to ask of Snowden to compare him to people like that, but once again no one put Snowden in that position but Snowden.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    Hmm - your point seems to come down to: "He put chose to put himself in that position. Therefore, he should accept whatever wildly unjust persecution the system will surely hit him with the moment they get their hands on him. And therewith, further promote the chilling deterrent effect against anyone who might contemplate taking a similar, principled stand." You can hold that position if you want. But I just don't buy it.