9 ms·

Snowden didn’t just expose national wiretapping. He also exposed international spying capabilities that endangered our people and our allies. If he had not cros

Snowden didn’t just expose national wiretapping. He also exposed international spying capabilities that endangered our people and our allies. If he had not crossed that second line, he’d just be a legitimate whistleblower, but he decided to actively harm the U.S. intelligence community and they will never allow a pardon. I’d lay odds if he ever steps foot in an unprotected setting, a slip on a banana peel and a fatal head injury wouldn’t shock me. He’s a traitor. I’m as liberal as it gets and even I think he went too far.

pravda 6y ago
Nah. He's a hero.
LatteLazy 6y ago
He couldn't expose one without the other could he?
- cloverich 6y ago
  I remember him specifically saying he thought spying on allies was wrong, and even a key component of his decision. Whether you agree this is the deciding point for crime / not crime, it is certainly a division between blowing whistle on domestic spying and everything else.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    I think that from a purely technical point of view there isn't a division here: if the NSA has gained access to basically everything (mobile networks, ISPs, landlines, OSs etc) and they're using the access to hoover up all the private data of citizens then logically our allies and enemies know they are also being targeted don't they? Why would the NSA be using God Mode domestically but restricting itself abroad? So Snowden even revealed everything or nothing. He couldn't only spill half the beans!
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  Why not? 99% of the things Greenwald et al published from his leaks were perfectly legal, and that was just a small subset of the total documents Snowden leaked. Why not just expose the illegal phone metadata program? If he had done that, he would easily qualify as a whistleblower.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    Exposing the phone meta data program would expose it both domestically and internationally. That exposure would limit the US ability to keep doing it internationally and open him to exactly the critism made above. The issue here is that none of these programs care about national boundaries (or citizenship etc). So exposing domestic surveillance exposed it internationally as well. There was no way to avoid that. So criticism of it seems unfair to me... Also, 99% of the programs he exposed were Illegal. Some have been legalised after the fact, others semi legalised. SCOTUS has refused to rule on any of it, so the ultimate compatibility with the constitution remains unclear...
    - lern_too_spel 6y ago
      > Also, 99% of the programs he exposed were Illegal. The only US program he leaked that was illegal was the phone metadata collection. The vast majority of programs he leaked involved surveillance on foreign targets outside the US. > SCOTUS has refused to rule on any of it None of it has made it to SCOTUS due to the vast majority being completely legal, so SCOTUS hasn't even had a chance to refuse to rule on any of it. The only program that could have gone to SCOTUS was phone metadata collection, but the government already shut that down, so they aren't going to waste time challenging its legality.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
jbay808 6y ago
International spying on your allies, including corporate espionage against countries like Germany. That angered your allies much more than it endangered them. Whistleblowers like Snowden are the mechanism that keeps that spying from happening in the first place. Edit -- And yes, this harmed America by undermining the trust that those countries had in it. But to be clear, it wasn't Snowden's disclosure that broke that trust, it was the spying. It's hubris to think that if not for Snowden it would never have been discovered, and the longer it went on, the more harm that would have been done between America and its allies when it eventually got found out. So by revealing it early, Snowden really minimized the damage, rather than causing it.
- tw04 6y ago
  I feel like people forget that leading up to the Iraq war, France and Germany were aligned with Russia and very much against US interests. They were a frenemy at best. I'm not saying it's right - we were in the wrong on Iraq and that was obvious before it started. But just like the US has had a HARD turn towards fascism, there's nothing stopping that from occurring to our allies as well. I'd argue it's dereliction of duty if you aren't spying on your allies, they're spying on us. What you DO with the information gathered, in my opinion, is what determines whether you're violating your ally's trust.
  - jbay808 6y ago
    I'm curious about what interpretation of events leads you to the conclusion that, say, France was aligned against US interests? What about Canada? Edit: And it's one thing (not necessarily a great thing) if you and your allies are knowingly and willingly exchanging intelligence about suspicious activities you pick up in each other's countries to tip off law enforcement. Exfiltrating corporate industrial and technological secrets is a different matter and there's no way an allied government would be OK with that happening, even as an under-the-table arrangement.
    - redis_mlc 6y ago
      It was reported that before the Iraq war, Germany and France advisors told Saddam Hussein that the US would not possibly invade. They were acting as soothsayers in support of arms sales. (This is kind of expected, since EU members were/are too cowardly to even engage in Bosnia, a country of 4 million people, so cannot conceive of the military will of the US.) What's less well-known is that a single US "envoy" flew to Iraq to broker/demand a last-minute surrender deal, but the Iraqis wouldn't accept a thuggish level of statesmanship (protocol), so declined to talk to him. There were also attempts by Iraq, the Arab community and the UN at various times to broker a peace, but none of those parties had the authority and decisiveness to speak on behalf of Hussein essentially. (ie. talk is cheap.) If you remember Baghdad Bob, then you know that developing countries are very prideful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf
sb057 6y ago
>He also exposed international spying capabilities that endangered our people and our allies. Really, like what?
- WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
  There is a part of the leaks that talks about how the US was spying on a new terrorist group... which made it more difficult to spy on them and ended up becoming what became ISIS. Snowden didn't expose it but the newspaper he coordinated with (the guardian) ended up not correctly redacting that portion. I don't have an opinion on whether this is a bad thing or a good thing.
mcculley 6y ago
Opinions differ on this. We should have a very public trial and put all of the evidence out there for a jury to evaluate. We have a duty to history.
blindm 6y ago
> but he decided to actively harm the U.S. intelligence community and they will never allow a pardon This notion of 'harm' is bandied about all the time. If anything, he improved their capabilities, since now they are bolstered against insider threats going forward.
b1476 6y ago
Didn’t he give the information to journalists to make the decision about what needs to be redacted? Can you provide a source for the information that he endangered peoples lives?
cirno 6y ago
> I’m as liberal as it gets and even I think he went too far. Apparently you're not because I couldn't disagree more.
- yupyup54133 6y ago
  I was just going to say the same thing.

pravda 6y ago

Nah. He's a hero.

LatteLazy 6y ago

He couldn't expose one without the other could he?

cloverich 6y ago
I remember him specifically saying he thought spying on allies was wrong, and even a key component of his decision. Whether you agree this is the deciding point for crime / not crime, it is certainly a division between blowing whistle on domestic spying and everything else.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  I think that from a purely technical point of view there isn't a division here: if the NSA has gained access to basically everything (mobile networks, ISPs, landlines, OSs etc) and they're using the access to hoover up all the private data of citizens then logically our allies and enemies know they are also being targeted don't they? Why would the NSA be using God Mode domestically but restricting itself abroad? So Snowden even revealed everything or nothing. He couldn't only spill half the beans!
lern_too_spel 6y ago
Why not? 99% of the things Greenwald et al published from his leaks were perfectly legal, and that was just a small subset of the total documents Snowden leaked. Why not just expose the illegal phone metadata program? If he had done that, he would easily qualify as a whistleblower.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  Exposing the phone meta data program would expose it both domestically and internationally. That exposure would limit the US ability to keep doing it internationally and open him to exactly the critism made above. The issue here is that none of these programs care about national boundaries (or citizenship etc). So exposing domestic surveillance exposed it internationally as well. There was no way to avoid that. So criticism of it seems unfair to me... Also, 99% of the programs he exposed were Illegal. Some have been legalised after the fact, others semi legalised. SCOTUS has refused to rule on any of it, so the ultimate compatibility with the constitution remains unclear...
  - lern_too_spel 6y ago
    > Also, 99% of the programs he exposed were Illegal. The only US program he leaked that was illegal was the phone metadata collection. The vast majority of programs he leaked involved surveillance on foreign targets outside the US. > SCOTUS has refused to rule on any of it None of it has made it to SCOTUS due to the vast majority being completely legal, so SCOTUS hasn't even had a chance to refuse to rule on any of it. The only program that could have gone to SCOTUS was phone metadata collection, but the government already shut that down, so they aren't going to waste time challenging its legality.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

jbay808 6y ago

International spying on your allies, including corporate espionage against countries like Germany. That angered your allies much more than it endangered them. Whistleblowers like Snowden are the mechanism that keeps that spying from happening in the first place. Edit -- And yes, this harmed America by undermining the trust that those countries had in it. But to be clear, it wasn't Snowden's disclosure that broke that trust, it was the spying. It's hubris to think that if not for Snowden it would never have been discovered, and the longer it went on, the more harm that would have been done between America and its allies when it eventually got found out. So by revealing it early, Snowden really minimized the damage, rather than causing it.

tw04 6y ago
I feel like people forget that leading up to the Iraq war, France and Germany were aligned with Russia and very much against US interests. They were a frenemy at best. I'm not saying it's right - we were in the wrong on Iraq and that was obvious before it started. But just like the US has had a HARD turn towards fascism, there's nothing stopping that from occurring to our allies as well. I'd argue it's dereliction of duty if you aren't spying on your allies, they're spying on us. What you DO with the information gathered, in my opinion, is what determines whether you're violating your ally's trust.
- jbay808 6y ago
  I'm curious about what interpretation of events leads you to the conclusion that, say, France was aligned against US interests? What about Canada? Edit: And it's one thing (not necessarily a great thing) if you and your allies are knowingly and willingly exchanging intelligence about suspicious activities you pick up in each other's countries to tip off law enforcement. Exfiltrating corporate industrial and technological secrets is a different matter and there's no way an allied government would be OK with that happening, even as an under-the-table arrangement.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    It was reported that before the Iraq war, Germany and France advisors told Saddam Hussein that the US would not possibly invade. They were acting as soothsayers in support of arms sales. (This is kind of expected, since EU members were/are too cowardly to even engage in Bosnia, a country of 4 million people, so cannot conceive of the military will of the US.) What's less well-known is that a single US "envoy" flew to Iraq to broker/demand a last-minute surrender deal, but the Iraqis wouldn't accept a thuggish level of statesmanship (protocol), so declined to talk to him. There were also attempts by Iraq, the Arab community and the UN at various times to broker a peace, but none of those parties had the authority and decisiveness to speak on behalf of Hussein essentially. (ie. talk is cheap.) If you remember Baghdad Bob, then you know that developing countries are very prideful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf

sb057 6y ago

>He also exposed international spying capabilities that endangered our people and our allies. Really, like what?

WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
There is a part of the leaks that talks about how the US was spying on a new terrorist group... which made it more difficult to spy on them and ended up becoming what became ISIS. Snowden didn't expose it but the newspaper he coordinated with (the guardian) ended up not correctly redacting that portion. I don't have an opinion on whether this is a bad thing or a good thing.

mcculley 6y ago

Opinions differ on this. We should have a very public trial and put all of the evidence out there for a jury to evaluate. We have a duty to history.

blindm 6y ago

> but he decided to actively harm the U.S. intelligence community and they will never allow a pardon This notion of 'harm' is bandied about all the time. If anything, he improved their capabilities, since now they are bolstered against insider threats going forward.

b1476 6y ago

Didn’t he give the information to journalists to make the decision about what needs to be redacted? Can you provide a source for the information that he endangered peoples lives?

cirno 6y ago

> I’m as liberal as it gets and even I think he went too far. Apparently you're not because I couldn't disagree more.

yupyup54133 6y ago
I was just going to say the same thing.