12 ms·

I think the administration badly, badly mishandled Snowden and Assange, and allowed Russia to coopt them by isolating and threatening them. If they had treated

I think the administration badly, badly mishandled Snowden and Assange, and allowed Russia to coopt them by isolating and threatening them. If they had treated them as whistleblowers and journalists (even if they had nefarious motivations), they could have kept them in "the west" instead of driving them into the arms of Russia. I don't believe that Assange was a Russian agent at the beginning but he was surely one by the time of the 2016 election. There's a reason we have laws around a free speech and a free press-- they make the country stronger, even if they make it harder to govern.

not_a_cop75 7y ago
An agent? No. But friendly towards those friendly to him? Who in the world doesn't do that? After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
- EpicEng 7y ago
  Seems like a difference without a distinction, and I'm not even sure it's correct. If he's acting in the interest of Russia, he's a Russian agent.
  - mLuby 7y ago
    The distinction is responsibility. If he were operating under orders from Russia, Russia bears ultimate responsibility for his actions. If they have no control over him and his actions merely benefit them, he bears responsibility for his own actions.
  - not_a_cop75 7y ago
    Going by that standard, 95% of all Russian peasant farmers are "Russian Agents" and that's pure ridiculousness from any angle.
    - EpicEng 7y ago
      >Going by that standard, 95% of all Russian peasant farmers are "Russian Agents" and that's pure ridiculousness from any angle. Oh please, you're the one being ridiculous. I think we all know there's a line between farming for the good of civilization and actively working to push an agenda. C'mon.
      - not_a_cop75 7y ago
        I suppose that all the South African farmers that moved to Russia to avoid getting killed over politics by savages are also Russian Agents. https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/land-expropriation-russia-sa-white-farmers/ https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/land-expropriation-russ...
        EpicEng 7y ago
        If the subsequently worked at the behest of the Russian goverment to push their agenda, yes. Honestly are you even reading what I'm typing?
        not_a_cop75 7y ago
        Well, then I suppose it was indeed a PR stunt for the Russians to accept South African farmers, and they are according to your logic indeed Russian Agents! That is assuming a PR campaign pushes an agenda, and I would argue it does.
        EpicEng 7y ago
        There is a difference between and unwitting pawn, especially in a circumstance like that, and someone who acts with full knowledge as to what they're doing. I don't understand why this is difficult.
        not_a_cop75 7y ago
        It's never an either/or. you're presenting a false dilemma.
- roywiggins 7y ago
  I don't know about friendly. If you're wanted at home, and living in a foreign country at the pleasure of the local regime, there's going to be hard limits on what you're allowed to do without consequence.
- JKCalhoun 7y ago
  > But friendly towards those friendly to him? Who in the world doesn't do that? I feel you underestimate people's intelligence — assuming that everyone can be played with a simple overture of friendliness.
SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
>I think the administration badly, badly mishandled [whistleblowers] Yes, but by design. Other than passing lip service towards transparency. The fact is Obama admin actively sought to silence them. I know this isn’t popular because HN won’t want to hear anything bad about Obama, but it’s a fact. In the seven years of Obama's presidency, the administration launched a record number of cases against those who revealed what the government wanted kept secret. Under Obama, eight whistleblowers have been prosecuted under the World War I-era Espionage Act, more than under all other presidents combined. Sources abound; pick your favorite.
- chiefalchemist 7y ago
  Yeah. Never post any facts about the BHO admin on HN or you'll be down-voted. It's amazing how many people have been sucked into the smooth and confident talk (and the complete lack then of media fueled outrage). Too many people's confirmation bais forces them to forget that actions speak louder than words. If DJT did even half of the questionable things BHO did there would be blood in the streets. Point that out? Down vote!!! God bless George Orwell. The guy nailed it.
  - rosser 7y ago
    To be clear, I downvoted both your and your parent's comments, not for saying disparaging things about Obama, his record, his hawkishness (many of which criticisms I quite eagree with), or anything otherwise negative about him, but rather for saying that HN is a place where that stuff is wrongthink. Disagreement isn't persecution.
    - chiefalchemist 7y ago
      So you downvoted _my_ experience? -Time and again? On NH? Because my experience is "wrong"? Oh. I see. I wish had a reply for that but I can't even get my head wrapped around the irony and the absurdity.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
knightofmars 7y ago
When those tasked with enforcing the rules take a punitive approach as the default, loss of a potential asset is the most likely outcome.
MiroF 7y ago
To the contrary, I think the fact that you think both Snowden and Assange are Russian agents demonstrates that the administrations response was actually quite effective.
- baron_harkonnen 7y ago
  I was going to say exactly this. It's amazing how many Americans honestly think it's clear that Snowden is a "bad guy" because he's close to the Russians. Likewise Assange was pushed into a position that made him very unlikable to the US center-left (he could have probably played his hand a bit better). So mainstream American's are distrustful of both and pretty much everyone hates Assange.
  - wannabcodr 7y ago
    If you examine what Ed Snowden leaked, it’s clear he was trying to do significant damage to the NSA. Much or most of what he stole and was leaked was unrelated to domestic surveillance. Much of it revealed our overseas activity. It’s difficult to see how any of it was to the benefit of Western interests.
    - stjohnswarts 7y ago
      He wasn't "just trying to damage the NSA", he was trying to get the truth out about surveillance, the fact that the NSA was damaged was tangential and they shouldn't have been spying on US citizens. The NSA and other gov police entities were basically breaking half the dictates and the entire spirit of the US Constitution.
      - slg 7y ago
        What are the motives for leaking information regarding our actions on foreign soil against foreign citizens? I was a big fan of Snowden until he started doing that. That isn't whistleblowing against Constitutional violations and seemed to indicate a shift in his objectives. It now appears that he is just against US spying at large, which is a perfectly acceptable political opinion to have, but it doesn't justify whistleblowing in a lot of people's minds.
slg 7y ago
I think you do Snowden a disservice when you lump him in with Assange. Snowden you can easily argue is a whisleblower. You can't argue that with Assange since he doesn't have first hand knowledge of what he is leaking and instead actively recruits people to feed him information to leak. He also seemingly encourages people to commit crimes to get more information for him. Snowden did that all himself. In addition, Assange does not have the high bar that information must meet in order to warrant a leak. He instead leaks everything that he has that fits his political goals. A whistleblower needs to be more precise and targeted with what they disclose. Snowden gave his documents to journalists to sift through, judge, redact, and publish. Assange just throws everything up on his website. Lastly, like multiple people in these comments mentioned, there is the question of their relationship to Russia. Knowingly or not, Assange has clearly been used as a tool of Russian Intelligence. Snowden being compromised is more of a conspiracy theory at this point with little (but some) real world evidence.
- wallace_f 7y ago
  You are right that Snowden deserves special recognition, but not at the expense of Assange.
- madengr 7y ago
  Snowden also leaked everything he had. It certainly was not targeted.
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    He leaked it all to journalists he trusted to make decisions about how, when, and what to publish. It's not quite the same.
  - wolco 7y ago
    Everything was 100% vetted through two respected journalist. They decided what to leak and when and what to protect. Very well done by any standard.
    - monocasa 7y ago
9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
This sounds awfully similar how Western governments singled out the so called communists. If you don't support war and actively protest against in the Middle East does not make you an agent for isis or Muslim brotherhood. If he was an agent the Muller investigation would have revealed it. It doesn't say so in the paper that is public, I actually read the whole thing. You're an agent if you get orders from Kremlin, people's interests align often with different people, hence the world and politics is complicated.
stjohnswarts 7y ago
Yeah it would have been an opportunity for Obama to shine but alas he didn't. Just the mediocre, status quo President that we elected. In retrospect, I'll take him any time over our current Mango Mussolini.
- bsimpson 7y ago
  People spend so much time patting themselves on the back for electing the First Black President - who was witty, looked leader-ly on TV, and wore a (D) behind his name - that they totally let him off the hook for so many abhorrent policies, like mass surveillance, drone assassinations, and the way he mistreated the biggest whistleblower of our time. It's so disappointing how few people seem to have complex thoughts about our political system/politicians, and it shows in the ever-decreasing quality of those things as time advances. Bandwagons are dangerous, and it seems we only have bandwagons left.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - goobynight 7y ago
    Obama is the equivalent of a SWE candidate that only studies Leetcode and interviewing tactics. People thought everything else (e.g. the substance of the job) would be on the level of his oratory skills, but it turned out he was just some guy that knew how to get votes.
make3 7y ago
I believe he is a hero and did the right thing, but I think there is no way the US could do anything but try to put in prison someone who illegally made state secrets public. That would have set the precedent that anyone with secret bad looking intelligence about the US would be safe to come out with it. Turns out I'm sure that there is a lot of intelligence that looks quite bad for the US.
- godelski 7y ago
  There are in fact whistleblower laws. The big question at hand is how it was handled. Snowden claimed to go to his superiors first, which checks off an important box. So the question is if he did that or not. I believe he was also supposed to attempt to report to Congress before he can legally go to the media. It's definitely a gray area and if you believe it is right probably depends on how much you trust the government and moral factors.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - make3 7y ago
    I believe he did the right thing, I probably should have made that more clear. I also understand why the government still can't possibly treat him in anyways but as a traitor
    - godelski 7y ago
      I think he did the right thing too (though maybe not the best way, but that's a completely different argument). But I don't think you have to treat him as a traitor. We're a society that values democracy. A branch that is over reaching should be realed in. We've done this is the past. I think the framers very much understood that democracy is always a balancing act. One that must be continually fought for. I think anyone who really has looked into democracy clearly see this. I think we've just lost sight of that (I'm talking about a lot more than Snowden though)
GuB-42 7y ago
I think the administration screwed up massively in more ways than one. - They conducted illegal, and most likely ineffective surveillance. I mean, if they have as huge watchlists as it is claimed, they can't reasonably watch very closely. - A subcontractor named Snowden, managed to leak a lot of secret stuff. And while it is the most memorable instance, it is not the first serious leak. - They failed at damage control. The couldn't cover up, discredit, etc... While there is a debate on whether Snowden is a hero or a traitor, no one seem to question the truth of the leaks themselves. - They couldn't catch Snowden, or found a way to get him to come back home. He is now with the Russians. Being a believer in the Hanlon's razor, my hypothesis is that the NSA has become a bloated administration. Focused more on their budget and jobs than national security. Massive surveillance is just a way to keep them busy. Snowden's leaks and their aftermath actually tell two things: the extent of surveillance, and incompetence.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > And while it is the most memorable instance, it is not the first serious leak. This is a key bit. Snowden was able to basically walk immensely sensitive data out the front door, and we may only know about that because he told us. How much stuff makes the same journey into the hands of intelligence agencies instead of journalists?
- empath75 7y ago
  They also completely failed to detect and stop russia’s election interference and if they can’t do that why do we even have an NSA?
luxuryballs 7y ago
Hold up, where did you get the idea that Assange has at any time worked for “the Russians”? It seems like he’s stuck to his guns and his convictions on Wikileaks without any misstep. There was never any indication that he had a change in loyalties or that the quality of Wikileak’s content had changed, was there?

not_a_cop75 7y ago

An agent? No. But friendly towards those friendly to him? Who in the world doesn't do that? After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

EpicEng 7y ago
Seems like a difference without a distinction, and I'm not even sure it's correct. If he's acting in the interest of Russia, he's a Russian agent.
- mLuby 7y ago
  The distinction is responsibility. If he were operating under orders from Russia, Russia bears ultimate responsibility for his actions. If they have no control over him and his actions merely benefit them, he bears responsibility for his own actions.
- not_a_cop75 7y ago
  Going by that standard, 95% of all Russian peasant farmers are "Russian Agents" and that's pure ridiculousness from any angle.
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    >Going by that standard, 95% of all Russian peasant farmers are "Russian Agents" and that's pure ridiculousness from any angle. Oh please, you're the one being ridiculous. I think we all know there's a line between farming for the good of civilization and actively working to push an agenda. C'mon.
    - not_a_cop75 7y ago
      I suppose that all the South African farmers that moved to Russia to avoid getting killed over politics by savages are also Russian Agents. https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/land-expropriation-russia-sa-white-farmers/ https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/land-expropriation-russ...
      - EpicEng 7y ago
        If the subsequently worked at the behest of the Russian goverment to push their agenda, yes. Honestly are you even reading what I'm typing?
        not_a_cop75 7y ago
        Well, then I suppose it was indeed a PR stunt for the Russians to accept South African farmers, and they are according to your logic indeed Russian Agents! That is assuming a PR campaign pushes an agenda, and I would argue it does.
        EpicEng 7y ago
        There is a difference between and unwitting pawn, especially in a circumstance like that, and someone who acts with full knowledge as to what they're doing. I don't understand why this is difficult.
        not_a_cop75 7y ago
        It's never an either/or. you're presenting a false dilemma.
roywiggins 7y ago
I don't know about friendly. If you're wanted at home, and living in a foreign country at the pleasure of the local regime, there's going to be hard limits on what you're allowed to do without consequence.
JKCalhoun 7y ago
> But friendly towards those friendly to him? Who in the world doesn't do that? I feel you underestimate people's intelligence — assuming that everyone can be played with a simple overture of friendliness.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago

>I think the administration badly, badly mishandled [whistleblowers] Yes, but by design. Other than passing lip service towards transparency. The fact is Obama admin actively sought to silence them. I know this isn’t popular because HN won’t want to hear anything bad about Obama, but it’s a fact. In the seven years of Obama's presidency, the administration launched a record number of cases against those who revealed what the government wanted kept secret. Under Obama, eight whistleblowers have been prosecuted under the World War I-era Espionage Act, more than under all other presidents combined. Sources abound; pick your favorite.

chiefalchemist 7y ago
Yeah. Never post any facts about the BHO admin on HN or you'll be down-voted. It's amazing how many people have been sucked into the smooth and confident talk (and the complete lack then of media fueled outrage). Too many people's confirmation bais forces them to forget that actions speak louder than words. If DJT did even half of the questionable things BHO did there would be blood in the streets. Point that out? Down vote!!! God bless George Orwell. The guy nailed it.
- rosser 7y ago
  To be clear, I downvoted both your and your parent's comments, not for saying disparaging things about Obama, his record, his hawkishness (many of which criticisms I quite eagree with), or anything otherwise negative about him, but rather for saying that HN is a place where that stuff is wrongthink. Disagreement isn't persecution.
  - chiefalchemist 7y ago
    So you downvoted _my_ experience? -Time and again? On NH? Because my experience is "wrong"? Oh. I see. I wish had a reply for that but I can't even get my head wrapped around the irony and the absurdity.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

knightofmars 7y ago

When those tasked with enforcing the rules take a punitive approach as the default, loss of a potential asset is the most likely outcome.

MiroF 7y ago

To the contrary, I think the fact that you think both Snowden and Assange are Russian agents demonstrates that the administrations response was actually quite effective.

baron_harkonnen 7y ago
I was going to say exactly this. It's amazing how many Americans honestly think it's clear that Snowden is a "bad guy" because he's close to the Russians. Likewise Assange was pushed into a position that made him very unlikable to the US center-left (he could have probably played his hand a bit better). So mainstream American's are distrustful of both and pretty much everyone hates Assange.
- wannabcodr 7y ago
  If you examine what Ed Snowden leaked, it’s clear he was trying to do significant damage to the NSA. Much or most of what he stole and was leaked was unrelated to domestic surveillance. Much of it revealed our overseas activity. It’s difficult to see how any of it was to the benefit of Western interests.
  - stjohnswarts 7y ago
    He wasn't "just trying to damage the NSA", he was trying to get the truth out about surveillance, the fact that the NSA was damaged was tangential and they shouldn't have been spying on US citizens. The NSA and other gov police entities were basically breaking half the dictates and the entire spirit of the US Constitution.
    - slg 7y ago
      What are the motives for leaking information regarding our actions on foreign soil against foreign citizens? I was a big fan of Snowden until he started doing that. That isn't whistleblowing against Constitutional violations and seemed to indicate a shift in his objectives. It now appears that he is just against US spying at large, which is a perfectly acceptable political opinion to have, but it doesn't justify whistleblowing in a lot of people's minds.

slg 7y ago

I think you do Snowden a disservice when you lump him in with Assange. Snowden you can easily argue is a whisleblower. You can't argue that with Assange since he doesn't have first hand knowledge of what he is leaking and instead actively recruits people to feed him information to leak. He also seemingly encourages people to commit crimes to get more information for him. Snowden did that all himself. In addition, Assange does not have the high bar that information must meet in order to warrant a leak. He instead leaks everything that he has that fits his political goals. A whistleblower needs to be more precise and targeted with what they disclose. Snowden gave his documents to journalists to sift through, judge, redact, and publish. Assange just throws everything up on his website. Lastly, like multiple people in these comments mentioned, there is the question of their relationship to Russia. Knowingly or not, Assange has clearly been used as a tool of Russian Intelligence. Snowden being compromised is more of a conspiracy theory at this point with little (but some) real world evidence.

wallace_f 7y ago
You are right that Snowden deserves special recognition, but not at the expense of Assange.
madengr 7y ago
Snowden also leaked everything he had. It certainly was not targeted.
- roywiggins 7y ago
  He leaked it all to journalists he trusted to make decisions about how, when, and what to publish. It's not quite the same.
- wolco 7y ago
  Everything was 100% vetted through two respected journalist. They decided what to leak and when and what to protect. Very well done by any standard.
  - monocasa 7y ago

9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago

This sounds awfully similar how Western governments singled out the so called communists. If you don't support war and actively protest against in the Middle East does not make you an agent for isis or Muslim brotherhood. If he was an agent the Muller investigation would have revealed it. It doesn't say so in the paper that is public, I actually read the whole thing. You're an agent if you get orders from Kremlin, people's interests align often with different people, hence the world and politics is complicated.

stjohnswarts 7y ago

Yeah it would have been an opportunity for Obama to shine but alas he didn't. Just the mediocre, status quo President that we elected. In retrospect, I'll take him any time over our current Mango Mussolini.

bsimpson 7y ago
People spend so much time patting themselves on the back for electing the First Black President - who was witty, looked leader-ly on TV, and wore a (D) behind his name - that they totally let him off the hook for so many abhorrent policies, like mass surveillance, drone assassinations, and the way he mistreated the biggest whistleblower of our time. It's so disappointing how few people seem to have complex thoughts about our political system/politicians, and it shows in the ever-decreasing quality of those things as time advances. Bandwagons are dangerous, and it seems we only have bandwagons left.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- goobynight 7y ago
  Obama is the equivalent of a SWE candidate that only studies Leetcode and interviewing tactics. People thought everything else (e.g. the substance of the job) would be on the level of his oratory skills, but it turned out he was just some guy that knew how to get votes.

make3 7y ago

I believe he is a hero and did the right thing, but I think there is no way the US could do anything but try to put in prison someone who illegally made state secrets public. That would have set the precedent that anyone with secret bad looking intelligence about the US would be safe to come out with it. Turns out I'm sure that there is a lot of intelligence that looks quite bad for the US.

godelski 7y ago
There are in fact whistleblower laws. The big question at hand is how it was handled. Snowden claimed to go to his superiors first, which checks off an important box. So the question is if he did that or not. I believe he was also supposed to attempt to report to Congress before he can legally go to the media. It's definitely a gray area and if you believe it is right probably depends on how much you trust the government and moral factors.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- make3 7y ago
  I believe he did the right thing, I probably should have made that more clear. I also understand why the government still can't possibly treat him in anyways but as a traitor
  - godelski 7y ago
    I think he did the right thing too (though maybe not the best way, but that's a completely different argument). But I don't think you have to treat him as a traitor. We're a society that values democracy. A branch that is over reaching should be realed in. We've done this is the past. I think the framers very much understood that democracy is always a balancing act. One that must be continually fought for. I think anyone who really has looked into democracy clearly see this. I think we've just lost sight of that (I'm talking about a lot more than Snowden though)

GuB-42 7y ago

I think the administration screwed up massively in more ways than one. - They conducted illegal, and most likely ineffective surveillance. I mean, if they have as huge watchlists as it is claimed, they can't reasonably watch very closely. - A subcontractor named Snowden, managed to leak a lot of secret stuff. And while it is the most memorable instance, it is not the first serious leak. - They failed at damage control. The couldn't cover up, discredit, etc... While there is a debate on whether Snowden is a hero or a traitor, no one seem to question the truth of the leaks themselves. - They couldn't catch Snowden, or found a way to get him to come back home. He is now with the Russians. Being a believer in the Hanlon's razor, my hypothesis is that the NSA has become a bloated administration. Focused more on their budget and jobs than national security. Massive surveillance is just a way to keep them busy. Snowden's leaks and their aftermath actually tell two things: the extent of surveillance, and incompetence.

ceejayoz 7y ago
> And while it is the most memorable instance, it is not the first serious leak. This is a key bit. Snowden was able to basically walk immensely sensitive data out the front door, and we may only know about that because he told us. How much stuff makes the same journey into the hands of intelligence agencies instead of journalists?
empath75 7y ago
They also completely failed to detect and stop russia’s election interference and if they can’t do that why do we even have an NSA?

luxuryballs 7y ago

Hold up, where did you get the idea that Assange has at any time worked for “the Russians”? It seems like he’s stuck to his guns and his convictions on Wikileaks without any misstep. There was never any indication that he had a change in loyalties or that the quality of Wikileak’s content had changed, was there?