4 ms·

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 m

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.

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.