3 ms·

In the country he was transiting through en-route to his final destination in South America, before POTUS deliberately and specifically revoked his passport aft

In the country he was transiting through en-route to his final destination in South America, before POTUS deliberately and specifically revoked his passport after ensuring Snowden had landed at his layover airport, in order to construct and disseminate the false narrative you're currently regurgitating.

oyashirochama 2y ago
He did break the law and all, means to an end isn't a good path unfortnately when you have no power. There were options to take to whistle blow the surveillance of citizens and it's illegal under NSA's own policy that they ignored illegally, and there's a technically independent section/organization for leaking these issues to OCA. Though I'm not sure if it was around in Snowden's time, it could literally have been made due to his concerns ironically.
- simoncion 2y ago
  > There were options to take to whistle blow the surveillance of citizens... You should read Snowden's statements on the official channels he attempted to use, and those he disregarded. You should also go read up on what Daniel Ellsberg thought of Snowden's chances for getting a fair trial after publicly blowing the whistle on the long-running violation of federal domestic spying law. [0] [0] In the mid-1970's, FedGov treated whistleblowers who released classified information very, very poorly. These days (and back in the mid 2000's), FedGov fucking crucifies such people behind closed doors.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    He never attempted to use official channels. > “As a legal matter, during his time with NSA, Edward Snowden did not use whistleblower procedures under either law or regulation to raise his objections to U.S. intelligence activities, and thus, is not considered a whistleblower under current law.” (p. 18) https://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=743 https://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?Docu... You should give these docs a skim, I'd be curious what your thoughts are. I used to sympathize with Snowden (and Assange) until I read into what actually went down.
    - simoncion 2y ago
      > He never attempted to use official channels. From [0], which links to a now-paywalled Vanity Fair article: > The N.S.A. at this point not only knows I raised complaints, but that there is evidence that I made my concerns known to the N.S.A.’s lawyers, because I did some of it through e-mail. I directly challenge the N.S.A. to deny that I contacted N.S.A. oversight and compliance bodies directly via e-mail and that I specifically expressed concerns about their suspect interpretation of the law, and I welcome members of Congress to request a written answer to this question [from the N.S.A.]. IIRC, Federal government contractors received approximately zero real protections under whistleblower law back in 2014. When Daniel Ellsberg is publicly saying that Snowden did things the right way, and that had Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers in 2014, he would have done it in much the same way Snowden did, you should strongly consider the possibility that the official channels that went disused were ignored for very good reasons. > I used to sympathize with ...Assange... If you're talking about Wikileaks, then the objective of Wikileaks was to spread secrets that were verified to be reasonably genuine (and generally harmless to human life if revealed) as far and wide as possible. Wikileaks' mission meant that it just wouldn't be using Federal whistleblower channels for its reporting. [0] <https://www.techdirt.com/2014/04/08/snowden-says-nsa-is-lying-when-it-claims-he-didnt-raise-concerns-through-proper-channels/ https://www.techdirt.com/2014/04/08/snowden-says-nsa-is-lyin...>
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
        Why do you take Snowden at his word yet ignore a bipartisan intel committee investigation? Have you even skimmed the docs? I'm disappointed in myself for engaging in these fruitless discussions time and again.
        anonym29 2y ago
        You're expecting Americans to trust members of congress, and not only members of congress, but specifically the ones who specialize in keeping secrets, many of which were secrets that are now known to have violated the constitution, federal law, and international law? For real? What's the steel-man version of your position here, "members of Congress are generally competent, trustworthy, honest people who rarely lie"? Are we talking about two different Snowdens and two different governments or something? Are you a federal government employee or contractor who's economic livelihood depends on towing the party line and white knighting for the NSA, an agency that flagrantly violated federal law to illegally surveil domestic communications between American citizens, an act that was specifically and explicitly forbidden of them from their very inception, and remains that way (legally) today? Are you trying to sway public opinion such that the perpetrators of this treason will continue to not face criminal prosecution for their crimes against the citizens of this country within their lifetimes?
simoncion 2y ago
In hindsight, given what happened to Julian Assange, it turns out to have been a very lucky thing for Snowden that the US State Department revoked his passport before he was able to actually arrive in Ecuador. While the State Department stranding him in Russia means that chronically uniformed folks will forever call the guy names like "Russian plant", at least he's very unlikely to ever be extradited.
- anonym29 2y ago
  Fair point. The US Federal Government certainly hasn't had any moral qualms with shadowy assassination plots, to say nothing of blatantly covering up illegal, geneva-convention-violating murders conducted by US Federal Government employees in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.

oyashirochama 2y ago

He did break the law and all, means to an end isn't a good path unfortnately when you have no power. There were options to take to whistle blow the surveillance of citizens and it's illegal under NSA's own policy that they ignored illegally, and there's a technically independent section/organization for leaking these issues to OCA. Though I'm not sure if it was around in Snowden's time, it could literally have been made due to his concerns ironically.

simoncion 2y ago
> There were options to take to whistle blow the surveillance of citizens... You should read Snowden's statements on the official channels he attempted to use, and those he disregarded. You should also go read up on what Daniel Ellsberg thought of Snowden's chances for getting a fair trial after publicly blowing the whistle on the long-running violation of federal domestic spying law. [0] [0] In the mid-1970's, FedGov treated whistleblowers who released classified information very, very poorly. These days (and back in the mid 2000's), FedGov fucking crucifies such people behind closed doors.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  He never attempted to use official channels. > “As a legal matter, during his time with NSA, Edward Snowden did not use whistleblower procedures under either law or regulation to raise his objections to U.S. intelligence activities, and thus, is not considered a whistleblower under current law.” (p. 18) https://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=743 https://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?Docu... You should give these docs a skim, I'd be curious what your thoughts are. I used to sympathize with Snowden (and Assange) until I read into what actually went down.
  - simoncion 2y ago
    > He never attempted to use official channels. From [0], which links to a now-paywalled Vanity Fair article: > The N.S.A. at this point not only knows I raised complaints, but that there is evidence that I made my concerns known to the N.S.A.’s lawyers, because I did some of it through e-mail. I directly challenge the N.S.A. to deny that I contacted N.S.A. oversight and compliance bodies directly via e-mail and that I specifically expressed concerns about their suspect interpretation of the law, and I welcome members of Congress to request a written answer to this question [from the N.S.A.]. IIRC, Federal government contractors received approximately zero real protections under whistleblower law back in 2014. When Daniel Ellsberg is publicly saying that Snowden did things the right way, and that had Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers in 2014, he would have done it in much the same way Snowden did, you should strongly consider the possibility that the official channels that went disused were ignored for very good reasons. > I used to sympathize with ...Assange... If you're talking about Wikileaks, then the objective of Wikileaks was to spread secrets that were verified to be reasonably genuine (and generally harmless to human life if revealed) as far and wide as possible. Wikileaks' mission meant that it just wouldn't be using Federal whistleblower channels for its reporting. [0] <https://www.techdirt.com/2014/04/08/snowden-says-nsa-is-lying-when-it-claims-he-didnt-raise-concerns-through-proper-channels/ https://www.techdirt.com/2014/04/08/snowden-says-nsa-is-lyin...>
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
      Why do you take Snowden at his word yet ignore a bipartisan intel committee investigation? Have you even skimmed the docs? I'm disappointed in myself for engaging in these fruitless discussions time and again.
      - anonym29 2y ago
        You're expecting Americans to trust members of congress, and not only members of congress, but specifically the ones who specialize in keeping secrets, many of which were secrets that are now known to have violated the constitution, federal law, and international law? For real? What's the steel-man version of your position here, "members of Congress are generally competent, trustworthy, honest people who rarely lie"? Are we talking about two different Snowdens and two different governments or something? Are you a federal government employee or contractor who's economic livelihood depends on towing the party line and white knighting for the NSA, an agency that flagrantly violated federal law to illegally surveil domestic communications between American citizens, an act that was specifically and explicitly forbidden of them from their very inception, and remains that way (legally) today? Are you trying to sway public opinion such that the perpetrators of this treason will continue to not face criminal prosecution for their crimes against the citizens of this country within their lifetimes?

simoncion 2y ago

In hindsight, given what happened to Julian Assange, it turns out to have been a very lucky thing for Snowden that the US State Department revoked his passport before he was able to actually arrive in Ecuador. While the State Department stranding him in Russia means that chronically uniformed folks will forever call the guy names like "Russian plant", at least he's very unlikely to ever be extradited.

anonym29 2y ago
Fair point. The US Federal Government certainly hasn't had any moral qualms with shadowy assassination plots, to say nothing of blatantly covering up illegal, geneva-convention-violating murders conducted by US Federal Government employees in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.