4 ms·

So the argument against him is that he isn't Socrates? He just wanted to get the truth out there and then beyond that minimize the damage to himself and his fam

by _yb2s 3y ago

So the argument against him is that he isn't Socrates? He just wanted to get the truth out there and then beyond that minimize the damage to himself and his family, when he could/should have voluntarily become a full fledged martyr, for no extra benefit to anyone?

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
He could have followed legal whistleblower channels or went to Congress but chose not to.
- mcv 3y ago
  Those channels didn't work. I believe Thomas Drake used them and accomplished nothing.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    Could you please cite where Thomas Drake used them? From my quick research it appears he went to the press.
    - mcv 3y ago
      I don't have sources at hand. I think I read a long time ago that he did use those channels, but I could certainly be wrong. I'm certain about having read knowledgeable claims that those channels didn't work, but if that wasn't about Thomas Drake, then I forgot the context.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        Rereading, I think you're right. I should read up on this case more, never had heard of it.
- digisign 3y ago
  He did and was told to shut up. And how did it work out for the folks who pressed on?
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/snowden_report_highlights.pdf https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/snowden_report_... > “The Committee further found no evidence that Snowden attempted to communicate concerns about the legality or morality of intelligence activities to any officials, senior or otherwise, during his time at either CIA or NSA.”
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  I personally think this is ridiculous. It's not one person doing something bad, it's an entire powerful organization that pays for the livelihood of the people who work those whistleblower channels. I have a hard time believing congress didn't authorize it in the first place. I am probably uninformed, but it seems reasonable and likely that prism is authorized directly by the patriot act. Congress told us they were going to do it, and they did it. There are no good answers.
hayst4ck 3y ago
There are two facts you have to reconcile with: 1. Snowden materially damaged the US government. 2. Snowden swore an oath of allegiance to the entity who most desires to damage the US government. I cannot blame someone for having trouble finding the nuance and having trouble reconciling that. My personal opinion is likely closer to the idea that Snowden was a ethical person who wanted to do good, and he was handled as an asset by people who knew how to manipulate a desire to do good to achieve goals like chaos and distrust. That is a casual opinion, not informed by facts or significant research.
- myrmidon 3y ago
  Strongly disagree on (1) being a fact: Snowden basically exposed the rot in a branch of government. You argue that this made the "tree" weaker; I would counter that this actually gave an opportunity to fix and heal things (which was mostly squandered). All that was damaged or lost was the pristine public image (which was a delusion in the first place and Snowden exposing it doesn't make him culpable). I also dont get the whole "Snowden was a cleverly manipulated asset" attitude: Where is the evidence for that? This is exactly the kind of overcomplicated but soothing conjecture that conspiracies thrive on; Snowden put out concise and sensible descriptions of his motivations actions and timeline-- what makes you discard all that and suspect some grey eminence instead?
  - shapefrog 3y ago
    > Snowden basically exposed the rot in a branch of government. What we have learnt from the Snowden leaks as evidence by "what has changed" is that it wasnt a branch of government that is a problem, but the entire country its laws, its values and its people.
  - hayst4ck 3y ago
    I will concede that where you put your point of origin determines how you measure the damage. What I won't concede is that if you measure relative power between Russia and the US, Snowden's actions reduced US power and increased Russian power. Not in a values sense, but in a realpolitik sense. I think he planted a seed in our rot which will eventually destroy us. I think that seed is in the form of a warning to people of good faith and good conscience that the government is not the place for them. I think it is probably most correct to say that we are damaging ourselves in response to Snowden's actions. > Where is the evidence for that? I am pretty convinced wikileaks is/was/or became part of the Russian intelligence apparatus. Assange's second hand girl accompanying him to Russia is a tragic coincidence. Ultimately this all comes down to trust. Who should I trust and why? I am amenable to your answer, but cautious of imparting trust to Snowden himself.

by _yb2s 3y ago

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

He could have followed legal whistleblower channels or went to Congress but chose not to.

mcv 3y ago
Those channels didn't work. I believe Thomas Drake used them and accomplished nothing.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  Could you please cite where Thomas Drake used them? From my quick research it appears he went to the press.
  - mcv 3y ago
    I don't have sources at hand. I think I read a long time ago that he did use those channels, but I could certainly be wrong. I'm certain about having read knowledgeable claims that those channels didn't work, but if that wasn't about Thomas Drake, then I forgot the context.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
      Rereading, I think you're right. I should read up on this case more, never had heard of it.
digisign 3y ago
He did and was told to shut up. And how did it work out for the folks who pressed on?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/snowden_report_highlights.pdf https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/snowden_report_... > “The Committee further found no evidence that Snowden attempted to communicate concerns about the legality or morality of intelligence activities to any officials, senior or otherwise, during his time at either CIA or NSA.”
hayst4ck 3y ago
I personally think this is ridiculous. It's not one person doing something bad, it's an entire powerful organization that pays for the livelihood of the people who work those whistleblower channels. I have a hard time believing congress didn't authorize it in the first place. I am probably uninformed, but it seems reasonable and likely that prism is authorized directly by the patriot act. Congress told us they were going to do it, and they did it. There are no good answers.

hayst4ck 3y ago

There are two facts you have to reconcile with: 1. Snowden materially damaged the US government. 2. Snowden swore an oath of allegiance to the entity who most desires to damage the US government. I cannot blame someone for having trouble finding the nuance and having trouble reconciling that. My personal opinion is likely closer to the idea that Snowden was a ethical person who wanted to do good, and he was handled as an asset by people who knew how to manipulate a desire to do good to achieve goals like chaos and distrust. That is a casual opinion, not informed by facts or significant research.

myrmidon 3y ago
Strongly disagree on (1) being a fact: Snowden basically exposed the rot in a branch of government. You argue that this made the "tree" weaker; I would counter that this actually gave an opportunity to fix and heal things (which was mostly squandered). All that was damaged or lost was the pristine public image (which was a delusion in the first place and Snowden exposing it doesn't make him culpable). I also dont get the whole "Snowden was a cleverly manipulated asset" attitude: Where is the evidence for that? This is exactly the kind of overcomplicated but soothing conjecture that conspiracies thrive on; Snowden put out concise and sensible descriptions of his motivations actions and timeline-- what makes you discard all that and suspect some grey eminence instead?
- shapefrog 3y ago
  > Snowden basically exposed the rot in a branch of government. What we have learnt from the Snowden leaks as evidence by "what has changed" is that it wasnt a branch of government that is a problem, but the entire country its laws, its values and its people.
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  I will concede that where you put your point of origin determines how you measure the damage. What I won't concede is that if you measure relative power between Russia and the US, Snowden's actions reduced US power and increased Russian power. Not in a values sense, but in a realpolitik sense. I think he planted a seed in our rot which will eventually destroy us. I think that seed is in the form of a warning to people of good faith and good conscience that the government is not the place for them. I think it is probably most correct to say that we are damaging ourselves in response to Snowden's actions. > Where is the evidence for that? I am pretty convinced wikileaks is/was/or became part of the Russian intelligence apparatus. Assange's second hand girl accompanying him to Russia is a tragic coincidence. Ultimately this all comes down to trust. Who should I trust and why? I am amenable to your answer, but cautious of imparting trust to Snowden himself.