3 ms·

> I have no trouble understanding people who put forward arguments that, despite his bravery, Snowden should be accountable for the totality of his actions, and

> I have no trouble understanding people who put forward arguments that, despite his bravery, Snowden should be accountable for the totality of his actions, and not just the ones that produced outcomes we're all pleased with. I have no problem with that either, as long as we don't forget the accountability of the other people involved. That would include those who initiated and furthered the unconstitutional NSA programs; those who kept them hidden even from Congress; those to whom Snowden gave the documents; and, to some extent, all the rest of us looking on, at whatever distance, and commenting (or not). > The whole thing, to me, seems like a giant clusterfuck animated more by egos and clique dynamics than by a coherent public policy goal. Any more than, say, the American Revolution? I suspect the creation of history is always a bit messy when it involves human beings.

tptacek 10y ago
It is just not the case that the state is obligated to withhold prosecution until everyone who could possibly be culpable is also charged. This is logic that is deployed constantly on HN --- most commonly in the form of "none of the banksters went to prison so why are we prosecuting XXX" --- and it's just not valid. No state works that way. I would be really happy to see NSA employees charged for (provable) abuse of laws governing their operations. I totally believe that a lot of what NSA has done has been abusive. I mean that in the sense of: I would feel better about our country if that happened. But the fact that it hasn't happened or even that it won't happen doesn't change my feelings about whether Snowden should be accountable for his actions.
- lolc 10y ago
  What would be a reasonable punishment for him, by your standards? And what would be a reasonable punishment for the Post staff, by your standards?
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Based solely on what I personally know, which is terribly incomplete, I wouldn't be alarmed by a felony conviction but no custodial sentence.
    - throwawaymaroon 10y ago
      When you spend as much time talking about felony convictions for those that Snowden unmasked instead of hemming and hawwing as you have all over this topic, I'll feel a lot less comfortable calling you a snivelling pro-establishment equivocator.
- ScottBurson 10y ago
  > It is just not the case that the state is obligated to withhold prosecution until everyone who could possibly be culpable is also charged. That's true, but it's not a license to scapegoat one person and let everyone else off scot-free. A legitimate attempt must be made to bring the other involved people to justice. You know as well as I do that no one besides Snowden will ever be prosecuted in this connection. Everybody already knows that James Clapper perjured himself before Congress, and he hasn't even been fired.
- harry8 10y ago
  The state is obligated to cease withholding prosecution of those who are 100% in their jurisdiction to prosecute right now. You'd love it if the powerful were brought to justice for breaking the law but you're largely unfussed by it brazenly being stifled. This has no influence on your belief of the necessity of going after the one who exposed them? This will result in it being less likely that we're going to find out about criminality by these people abusing their power. This gives the optics of the prosecutor's office being in support of the rampant, flagrant, totally illegal abuse of power. There is this idea about the rule of law and equality before it. Baying for the prosecution of the whistle blower while not tying it to the prosecution of all those utter crooks he exposed. It's straight up support of corruption. It's the same prosecutors' office deciding whether to prosecute both of these things it found out about simultaneously from the same source, isn't it? The rule of law and equality before it is a thing. Some find it worthwhile and have fought, died and killed for it. Supporting it in both theory and practice seems admirable to me. I have trouble in seeing a similarly admirable quality in what you've written here.

tptacek 10y ago

It is just not the case that the state is obligated to withhold prosecution until everyone who could possibly be culpable is also charged. This is logic that is deployed constantly on HN --- most commonly in the form of "none of the banksters went to prison so why are we prosecuting XXX" --- and it's just not valid. No state works that way. I would be really happy to see NSA employees charged for (provable) abuse of laws governing their operations. I totally believe that a lot of what NSA has done has been abusive. I mean that in the sense of: I would feel better about our country if that happened. But the fact that it hasn't happened or even that it won't happen doesn't change my feelings about whether Snowden should be accountable for his actions.

lolc 10y ago
What would be a reasonable punishment for him, by your standards? And what would be a reasonable punishment for the Post staff, by your standards?
- tptacek 10y ago
  Based solely on what I personally know, which is terribly incomplete, I wouldn't be alarmed by a felony conviction but no custodial sentence.
  - throwawaymaroon 10y ago
    When you spend as much time talking about felony convictions for those that Snowden unmasked instead of hemming and hawwing as you have all over this topic, I'll feel a lot less comfortable calling you a snivelling pro-establishment equivocator.
ScottBurson 10y ago
> It is just not the case that the state is obligated to withhold prosecution until everyone who could possibly be culpable is also charged. That's true, but it's not a license to scapegoat one person and let everyone else off scot-free. A legitimate attempt must be made to bring the other involved people to justice. You know as well as I do that no one besides Snowden will ever be prosecuted in this connection. Everybody already knows that James Clapper perjured himself before Congress, and he hasn't even been fired.
harry8 10y ago
The state is obligated to cease withholding prosecution of those who are 100% in their jurisdiction to prosecute right now. You'd love it if the powerful were brought to justice for breaking the law but you're largely unfussed by it brazenly being stifled. This has no influence on your belief of the necessity of going after the one who exposed them? This will result in it being less likely that we're going to find out about criminality by these people abusing their power. This gives the optics of the prosecutor's office being in support of the rampant, flagrant, totally illegal abuse of power. There is this idea about the rule of law and equality before it. Baying for the prosecution of the whistle blower while not tying it to the prosecution of all those utter crooks he exposed. It's straight up support of corruption. It's the same prosecutors' office deciding whether to prosecute both of these things it found out about simultaneously from the same source, isn't it? The rule of law and equality before it is a thing. Some find it worthwhile and have fought, died and killed for it. Supporting it in both theory and practice seems admirable to me. I have trouble in seeing a similarly admirable quality in what you've written here.