3 ms·

The author's argument boils down to: 1. Snowden didn't come back to the US, so he must be a traitor (rather than a non-idiot who knew exactly what had happened

The author's argument boils down to: 1. Snowden didn't come back to the US, so he must be a traitor (rather than a non-idiot who knew exactly what had happened to Chelsea Manning). 2. Putin allowed him to come when the passport had been cancelled, so Snowden must have agreed to sell Russia state secrets. This feels very much like a deep state smear job, especially given the weirdly adulatory photo of Obama.

blueprint 10y ago
Yes, and the blatant and frequent language and tone stating as if it's a foregone conclusion that his actions constituted crimes while providing such insubstantial arguments. It's almost insulting.
skwirl 10y ago
The author didn't say or imply either of those things.
asveikau 10y ago
But as the article points out, Putin is not a warm, fuzzy, lovingly altruistic person. He wouldn't do favors if he didn't get something in return. I always assumed it was more PR reasons, rather than anything Snowden knows. How can the US accuse the Russian Federation of human rights abuses or lack of individual freedoms if they have a walking, talking example of a citizen who cannot go home to the US but lives free in Russia? It's farcical, as Putin's Russia is less free than the US, but it does shut down debate. And in a slight change of topic, I have been really shocked in the last 6 months how willing ordinary Americans are to defend Putin in political discussion. Something is working over there.
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  > And in a slight change of topic, I have been really shocked in the last 6 months how willing ordinary Americans are to defend Putin in political discussion. Something is working over there. Stefan Molyneux just did a video on McCarthy's attempt to root out Russian infiltration, that you might find interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wljpYZ8wejA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wljpYZ8wejA I don't have anything against Putin; he seems like an effective leader, though Russia has different values than the US. Though, the history makes for a good conspiracy story: Maybe McCarthy's spies are still there!
  - asveikau 10y ago
    > I don't have anything against Putin; he seems like an effective leader, I suppose those journalists died of natural causes, then. As for your initial topic, you will find no defense of McCarthyism from me. It is wrong in a free society to talk about "rooting out" political ideas or equate them with treason, espionage, support of a particular government, etc. My problem with a lot of cold war rhetoric is: if someone is a Marxist, Trotskyist, etc. and you oppose that - so what? In a politically free society there ought to be open debate and let ideas stand or fall on their own. But I guess in those times a lot of people felt differently.
- glenra 10y ago
  > Putin is not a warm, fuzzy, lovingly altruistic person. He wouldn't do favors if he didn't get something in return. Right, all he really needs in return is that it embarrasses the US. Heck, for the last 22 years the US has been letting Cuban defectors come to the US and gain residency (whether or not they have valuable state secrets to trade) simply because it makes us look good and makes Cuba look bad.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  Putin built a pretty good PR image over here that appeals to certain segments. The Russians aren't a bunch of idiots. They have a need to be players on the global stage, but cannot compete on military hardware. So they fight for perception and impressions, which is more effective than bombs anyway. I've even heard laudatory comments about Putin's attempts to curb violence in Syria! (After propping up Assad for years) Meanwhile, we've had a series of presidents that either couldn't put a sentence together (Bush 2) or couldn't make a timely decision (Obama).
  - asveikau 10y ago
    Say whatever you want about Bush 2 or Obama. They both step down when term limits say so and I never heard anyone accuse them of murdering their political opponents. Neither is true of Putin.

blueprint 10y ago

Yes, and the blatant and frequent language and tone stating as if it's a foregone conclusion that his actions constituted crimes while providing such insubstantial arguments. It's almost insulting.

skwirl 10y ago

The author didn't say or imply either of those things.

asveikau 10y ago

But as the article points out, Putin is not a warm, fuzzy, lovingly altruistic person. He wouldn't do favors if he didn't get something in return. I always assumed it was more PR reasons, rather than anything Snowden knows. How can the US accuse the Russian Federation of human rights abuses or lack of individual freedoms if they have a walking, talking example of a citizen who cannot go home to the US but lives free in Russia? It's farcical, as Putin's Russia is less free than the US, but it does shut down debate. And in a slight change of topic, I have been really shocked in the last 6 months how willing ordinary Americans are to defend Putin in political discussion. Something is working over there.

MichaelBurge 10y ago
> And in a slight change of topic, I have been really shocked in the last 6 months how willing ordinary Americans are to defend Putin in political discussion. Something is working over there. Stefan Molyneux just did a video on McCarthy's attempt to root out Russian infiltration, that you might find interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wljpYZ8wejA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wljpYZ8wejA I don't have anything against Putin; he seems like an effective leader, though Russia has different values than the US. Though, the history makes for a good conspiracy story: Maybe McCarthy's spies are still there!
- asveikau 10y ago
  > I don't have anything against Putin; he seems like an effective leader, I suppose those journalists died of natural causes, then. As for your initial topic, you will find no defense of McCarthyism from me. It is wrong in a free society to talk about "rooting out" political ideas or equate them with treason, espionage, support of a particular government, etc. My problem with a lot of cold war rhetoric is: if someone is a Marxist, Trotskyist, etc. and you oppose that - so what? In a politically free society there ought to be open debate and let ideas stand or fall on their own. But I guess in those times a lot of people felt differently.
glenra 10y ago
> Putin is not a warm, fuzzy, lovingly altruistic person. He wouldn't do favors if he didn't get something in return. Right, all he really needs in return is that it embarrasses the US. Heck, for the last 22 years the US has been letting Cuban defectors come to the US and gain residency (whether or not they have valuable state secrets to trade) simply because it makes us look good and makes Cuba look bad.
Spooky23 10y ago
Putin built a pretty good PR image over here that appeals to certain segments. The Russians aren't a bunch of idiots. They have a need to be players on the global stage, but cannot compete on military hardware. So they fight for perception and impressions, which is more effective than bombs anyway. I've even heard laudatory comments about Putin's attempts to curb violence in Syria! (After propping up Assad for years) Meanwhile, we've had a series of presidents that either couldn't put a sentence together (Bush 2) or couldn't make a timely decision (Obama).
- asveikau 10y ago
  Say whatever you want about Bush 2 or Obama. They both step down when term limits say so and I never heard anyone accuse them of murdering their political opponents. Neither is true of Putin.