3 ms·

> Why talk to a journalist instead of a judge? Because that is very dangerous and will usually not work. Forgive me, but to ask this question seems to me a ki

> Why talk to a journalist instead of a judge? Because that is very dangerous and will usually not work. Forgive me, but to ask this question seems to me a kind of frightening naivety. > Again, secrecy is a very important weapon in international relations. You seem to think it is more important that the US has power than that it wields that power justly. That's fine, but if you believe that, don't cloak your beliefs in the language of 'heroism' or 'responsibility'. When you align yourself with the ends of power at any cost, you will have lost that cause already.

mseebach 9y ago
But negotiating protection with the Russian government is a simple, safe, known-to-work strategy? Snowdon clearly isn't a neophyte who shies away from things because they are dangerous and difficult.
- jbreckmckye 9y ago
  So what's your explanation? That Snowden could have found a way to raise issues through legal channels, could have found a way to overcome internal traction against his whistleblowing, but instead chose to undertake a dangerous and clandestine international chase for the sake of excitement?
  - mseebach 9y ago
    Presumably, the scope of the scandal would have been much smaller. His immunity would almost certainly have been conditional on him abiding by this confidentiality agreement, then, probably, some investigators (the senate oversight committee perhaps?) would review his evidence and shut down the illegal bits, and that would be that.
    - jbreckmckye 9y ago
      > some investigators (the senate oversight committee perhaps?) would review his evidence and shut down the illegal bits, and that would be that. I think you are very optimistic about the way the United States and its various instruments handle complaints, respect the law and police themselves. I am not an optimist. I think most nations are more interested in their material goals than ideological integrity. I also think that model is more consistent with history than the other. After all - how would a government with such transparency and integrity let its armed forces fire on civilians to begin with?

mseebach 9y ago

But negotiating protection with the Russian government is a simple, safe, known-to-work strategy? Snowdon clearly isn't a neophyte who shies away from things because they are dangerous and difficult.

jbreckmckye 9y ago
So what's your explanation? That Snowden could have found a way to raise issues through legal channels, could have found a way to overcome internal traction against his whistleblowing, but instead chose to undertake a dangerous and clandestine international chase for the sake of excitement?
- mseebach 9y ago
  Presumably, the scope of the scandal would have been much smaller. His immunity would almost certainly have been conditional on him abiding by this confidentiality agreement, then, probably, some investigators (the senate oversight committee perhaps?) would review his evidence and shut down the illegal bits, and that would be that.
  - jbreckmckye 9y ago
    > some investigators (the senate oversight committee perhaps?) would review his evidence and shut down the illegal bits, and that would be that. I think you are very optimistic about the way the United States and its various instruments handle complaints, respect the law and police themselves. I am not an optimist. I think most nations are more interested in their material goals than ideological integrity. I also think that model is more consistent with history than the other. After all - how would a government with such transparency and integrity let its armed forces fire on civilians to begin with?