3 ms·

I personally agree that the guy was naive and had no idea what he was doing, seeing as most of the news coverage is not actually substantiated by the source doc

I personally agree that the guy was naive and had no idea what he was doing, seeing as most of the news coverage is not actually substantiated by the source documents when you look through it all. That would be a valid criticism. However, unsubstantiated claims of being an asset is pointless to use as an argument, there is no evidence and it does not help the discussion even if you really do believe it.

toss1 9y ago
Not at all unsubstantiated. The very title of the 2nd article I linked specifies that Russians have admitted that he is an asset, and there were FSB people cooperating with him. From the article: "In a remarkable interview this week, Franz Klintsevich, a senior Russian security official, explained the case matter-of-factly: “Let’s be frank. Snowden did share intelligence. This is what security services do. If there’s a possibility to get information, they will get it.” With this, Klintsevich simply said what all intelligence professionals already knew – that Snowden is a collaborator with the FSB. That he really had no choice in the matter once he set foot in Russia does not change the facts." Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg. And, again, I used to think Snowdon was great, but I've since read a lot more data which has changed my mind.
- willstrafach 9y ago
  I changed my mind as well after reading through the source material itself. I am not defending the leak. Once again, there is no evidence he is an “asset” or collaborator. Maybe there will be actual public evidence in the future, but at the moment it is not useful as an argument as nobody will believe it without hard evidence. Vague quotes from officials do not meet that standard.
  - toss1 9y ago
    Perhaps we're using the term "asset" differently. As I'm using it, it could be a wide range of intentions, including: * a willing ideological traitor, * a paid agent, * a double agent, * a person cooperating semi-willingly to get out of a jam, * a compromised person unwillingly cooperating, * a dupe or 'useful idiot". The only thing in common is that they have people on the other side successfully working to make some of their actions work for that side and not ours. I do not believe that we'll ever have specific detailed classified evidence revealed to us, at least withing the next 75 years. However, we can take a clue from the people inside the intelligence agencies who have seen the evidence, and they unanimously classify Snowdon as a full-on traitor. I;m not sure I go that far, but he's at least a step above useful idiot. This can be judged just by Snowdon's own a public activity since his taking up residence in Russia (Manning, and Reality Winner, OTOH, are probably mere dupes). edit: & thanks for the tips.

toss1 9y ago

Not at all unsubstantiated. The very title of the 2nd article I linked specifies that Russians have admitted that he is an asset, and there were FSB people cooperating with him. From the article: "In a remarkable interview this week, Franz Klintsevich, a senior Russian security official, explained the case matter-of-factly: “Let’s be frank. Snowden did share intelligence. This is what security services do. If there’s a possibility to get information, they will get it.” With this, Klintsevich simply said what all intelligence professionals already knew – that Snowden is a collaborator with the FSB. That he really had no choice in the matter once he set foot in Russia does not change the facts." Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg. And, again, I used to think Snowdon was great, but I've since read a lot more data which has changed my mind.

willstrafach 9y ago
I changed my mind as well after reading through the source material itself. I am not defending the leak. Once again, there is no evidence he is an “asset” or collaborator. Maybe there will be actual public evidence in the future, but at the moment it is not useful as an argument as nobody will believe it without hard evidence. Vague quotes from officials do not meet that standard.
- toss1 9y ago
  Perhaps we're using the term "asset" differently. As I'm using it, it could be a wide range of intentions, including: * a willing ideological traitor, * a paid agent, * a double agent, * a person cooperating semi-willingly to get out of a jam, * a compromised person unwillingly cooperating, * a dupe or 'useful idiot". The only thing in common is that they have people on the other side successfully working to make some of their actions work for that side and not ours. I do not believe that we'll ever have specific detailed classified evidence revealed to us, at least withing the next 75 years. However, we can take a clue from the people inside the intelligence agencies who have seen the evidence, and they unanimously classify Snowdon as a full-on traitor. I;m not sure I go that far, but he's at least a step above useful idiot. This can be judged just by Snowdon's own a public activity since his taking up residence in Russia (Manning, and Reality Winner, OTOH, are probably mere dupes). edit: & thanks for the tips.