6 ms·

He revealed unlawful surveillance years prior to and of the same gravity as Snowden, but only one became a celebrity. I would love to know the reason for that.

kstrauser 2y ago
I say this without intending to denigrate Snowden at all: Klein's situation was less messy. Snowden had a top secret clearance and vowed to safeguard all the secrets he came across. Klein was just a regular guy doing regular work for a regular company when he saw something strange. That doesn't mean I think Snowden was wrong, just that there's a ton of room for people to say "I agree with him but he shouldn't have done that because he swore not to". Klein didn't have those obligations.
- marxisttemp 2y ago
  Likewise, Manning got pardoned when her release was clearly messier and less targeted than Snowden’s. There isn’t much logic to these things. To be clear, all 3 are personal heroes of mine.
  - psunavy03 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - booleandilemma 2y ago
      What do you think would have happened to Snowden had he stayed on American soil?
      - adastra22 2y ago
        Treason has the death penalty.
      - orthecreedence 2y ago
        He would have had a fair trial which would ultimately result in the dismantling of the entire US surveillance apparatus and would usher in the birth of the internet the forefathers intended.
    - anonym29 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - ifyoubuildit 2y ago
      Can you really not think of any (charitable) reasons?
    - CamperBob2 2y ago
      If Snowden was such a hero, why did he take Russian citizenship What choice did he have? Do you think he'd receive a fair trial if he came back to the US? and not oppose the invasion of Ukraine? Did he actively support it? I hadn't heard that. Major bummer, if so. Otherwise, he didn't oppose it for the same reason very few other Russians opposed it. I'm sure the reason will occur to you if you think hard enough.
      - lern_too_spel 2y ago
        > What choice did he have? Do you think he'd receive a fair trial if he came back to the US? Of course he would. We're in a thread about Mark Klein, who was treated fairly by the law.
      - ajross 2y ago
        Upthread, we have: > Thank goodness he [was more willing to betray his position for moral reasons] than the "I was just following orders" crowd. We know from WW2 that "I was just following orders" is not a legitimate excuse to help facilitate grave atrocities, Which dilutes to this when challenged: > he didn't oppose [the invation of Ukraine] for the same reason very few other Russians opposed it. Those perspectives both can't be correct! If he was willing to face jail and expulsion for opposing US crimes, and to be celebrated for that, surely the same logic should hold for Russian crimes, no? Snowden is complicated for sure. I think it's not unreasonable to ask why these decisions were different and to at least ask what differences he might have in loyalties and personal aims might lead to them.
        adastra22 2y ago
        He has never expressed himself to be anything other than a patriotic American. Why would he be putting his life on the line for a country that he does not identify with? People who do that ti support just cause like Ukraine have my respect. But I wouldn’t expect if of anyone.
        ajross 2y ago
        > Why would he be putting his life on the line for a country that he does not identify with? Edward Joseph Snowden is literally a Russian citizen!
    - perching_aix 2y ago
      In a parallel universe there must be a world where those choices of his serve as a reminder that the world, and the people within it, are not nearly as simple and convenient as narratives and principles would suggest. Let's think it through. Say you're pretty passionately pissed off about what you directly observe (in this case spying), so you go full hero and do what he did. Then consequences come and the only lifeline you're given is... Russian. You tasted the reality for a bit there, that was rough, but luckily you're safe and out. But wait, now you're being compelled into becoming an asset. And no lifelines are around anymore. Suddenly you realize that the reality of the stronger dog fucking never disappeared, and that choice you made was much more grave than you thought, and there's no real going back. And it doesn't matter if this is what actually happened to Snowden, what matters is that this is a very reasonable possibility. People are not fairy tales, and especially not perfectly consistent in their thoughts and beliefs. Not spatially, not temporally. He may have at some point thought that doing the noble thing was his choice, but wouldn't now. He may have been swayed in other ways since, and now takes both stances at the same time, regardless how contradictory they are. The real lie here is treating people larger than life. One can appreciate a result without subscribing to everything the person ever did or does, or labelling them one way or another.
    - deciplex 2y ago
      Probably because the US empire had deteriorated enough by that point that revoking passports for exposing the blatant lies and crimes of our government was on the table by then. Of course, it's different these days. These days they'd just kill Snowden. And Mark Klein, for that matter.
      - hulitu 2y ago
        > These days they'd just kill Snowden. I thought they call it suicide. /s
- anonym29 2y ago
  Snowden also swore an oath to uphold the constitution, including the fourth amendment that the NSA was illegally violating (one NSA crime) and covering up (second NSA crime), including by lying to congress (third NSA crime), as well as to protect America from domestic enemies, like the kind of traitors who'd come up with a secret plan to violate the constitutional rights of the entire country and lie about it to congress. Thank goodness he took his oath more seriously than the "I was just following orders" crowd. We know from WW2 that "I was just following orders" is not a legitimate excuse to help facilitate grave atrocities, like all of those other NSA employees did every single day, in violation of their own oaths that they each swore.
  - kstrauser 2y ago
    You won't get any argument from me. I agree. And even in agreement, I still say that there's a much larger grey area in Snowden's case. We can and should discuss whether his actions were justified. I think they are. But I can at least appreciate that people who disagree have legitimate reasons to see it otherwise. Klein's case didn't come with all that other baggage.
    - anonym29 2y ago
      No argument from me with what you wrote, either, I just wanted to make sure I was doing my interpretation justice by sharing it - there's certainly no shortage of posters parroting the other side's talking points. It's interesting that Klein's tell-all didn't get as much attention despite being less legally fraught. It makes me wonder how much of the Snowden media frenzy was organic in the first place, and if not much, who was pulling the strings to draw attention to practices that our own government had an obvious interest in repressing and concealing discussion of.
      - jll29 2y ago
        Could be that Snowden took it to The Guardian, a foreign and international news outlet. The story how British intelligence folks showed up at the Guardian HQ and symbolically destroyed a hard drive, and the way Guardian management used their New York offices to work around restrictions in UK law to publish the story, that's quite a story itself, and of course journalists know how to get coverage and reach. Mark targeted the EFF, not a news outlet, in contrast. The EFF probably first and foremost had the legal pursuit in mind, not making a story big. The most shocking things of all for me was how ignorant ordinary people were and still are about both whistle blowers' disclosures and the subsequent pretend fixes by lawmakers. (Cynically, I'm inclined to add there might be more riots and demonstrations if you take Heinz ketchup away from people than theirlegitimate rights to privacy.)
- nabla9 2y ago
  Snowden explained it well. There were four other whistleblowers besides Snowden and Klein. (1) Russ Tice: USAF intelligence analyst (2) William Binney: NSA Technical Director. (3) Thomas Tamm: DOJ lawyer (4) Thomas A. Drake: senior executive at NSA Each of them was a senior position relative to Snowden and Klein and all these cases were shut down. What change Snowden had to do traditionally by the book whistleblow or tiny traditional leak. He made the conscious decision to take the information so that they could not shut him down, and make a scene from outside the US (Hong Kong) so that there would be time to talk to the press. Snowden made a political crime that was morally justified. It was not self serving. It turns out that Americans don't care but at least he made a splash.
tehwebguy 2y ago
Probably because one absconded half-successfully and became sort of stateless. That's a way more exciting story!

kstrauser 2y ago

I say this without intending to denigrate Snowden at all: Klein's situation was less messy. Snowden had a top secret clearance and vowed to safeguard all the secrets he came across. Klein was just a regular guy doing regular work for a regular company when he saw something strange. That doesn't mean I think Snowden was wrong, just that there's a ton of room for people to say "I agree with him but he shouldn't have done that because he swore not to". Klein didn't have those obligations.

marxisttemp 2y ago
Likewise, Manning got pardoned when her release was clearly messier and less targeted than Snowden’s. There isn’t much logic to these things. To be clear, all 3 are personal heroes of mine.
- psunavy03 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - booleandilemma 2y ago
    What do you think would have happened to Snowden had he stayed on American soil?
    - adastra22 2y ago
      Treason has the death penalty.
    - orthecreedence 2y ago
      He would have had a fair trial which would ultimately result in the dismantling of the entire US surveillance apparatus and would usher in the birth of the internet the forefathers intended.
  - anonym29 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - ifyoubuildit 2y ago
    Can you really not think of any (charitable) reasons?
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    If Snowden was such a hero, why did he take Russian citizenship What choice did he have? Do you think he'd receive a fair trial if he came back to the US? and not oppose the invasion of Ukraine? Did he actively support it? I hadn't heard that. Major bummer, if so. Otherwise, he didn't oppose it for the same reason very few other Russians opposed it. I'm sure the reason will occur to you if you think hard enough.
    - lern_too_spel 2y ago
      > What choice did he have? Do you think he'd receive a fair trial if he came back to the US? Of course he would. We're in a thread about Mark Klein, who was treated fairly by the law.
    - ajross 2y ago
      Upthread, we have: > Thank goodness he [was more willing to betray his position for moral reasons] than the "I was just following orders" crowd. We know from WW2 that "I was just following orders" is not a legitimate excuse to help facilitate grave atrocities, Which dilutes to this when challenged: > he didn't oppose [the invation of Ukraine] for the same reason very few other Russians opposed it. Those perspectives both can't be correct! If he was willing to face jail and expulsion for opposing US crimes, and to be celebrated for that, surely the same logic should hold for Russian crimes, no? Snowden is complicated for sure. I think it's not unreasonable to ask why these decisions were different and to at least ask what differences he might have in loyalties and personal aims might lead to them.
      - adastra22 2y ago
        He has never expressed himself to be anything other than a patriotic American. Why would he be putting his life on the line for a country that he does not identify with? People who do that ti support just cause like Ukraine have my respect. But I wouldn’t expect if of anyone.
        ajross 2y ago
        > Why would he be putting his life on the line for a country that he does not identify with? Edward Joseph Snowden is literally a Russian citizen!
  - perching_aix 2y ago
    In a parallel universe there must be a world where those choices of his serve as a reminder that the world, and the people within it, are not nearly as simple and convenient as narratives and principles would suggest. Let's think it through. Say you're pretty passionately pissed off about what you directly observe (in this case spying), so you go full hero and do what he did. Then consequences come and the only lifeline you're given is... Russian. You tasted the reality for a bit there, that was rough, but luckily you're safe and out. But wait, now you're being compelled into becoming an asset. And no lifelines are around anymore. Suddenly you realize that the reality of the stronger dog fucking never disappeared, and that choice you made was much more grave than you thought, and there's no real going back. And it doesn't matter if this is what actually happened to Snowden, what matters is that this is a very reasonable possibility. People are not fairy tales, and especially not perfectly consistent in their thoughts and beliefs. Not spatially, not temporally. He may have at some point thought that doing the noble thing was his choice, but wouldn't now. He may have been swayed in other ways since, and now takes both stances at the same time, regardless how contradictory they are. The real lie here is treating people larger than life. One can appreciate a result without subscribing to everything the person ever did or does, or labelling them one way or another.
  - deciplex 2y ago
    Probably because the US empire had deteriorated enough by that point that revoking passports for exposing the blatant lies and crimes of our government was on the table by then. Of course, it's different these days. These days they'd just kill Snowden. And Mark Klein, for that matter.
    - hulitu 2y ago
      > These days they'd just kill Snowden. I thought they call it suicide. /s
anonym29 2y ago
Snowden also swore an oath to uphold the constitution, including the fourth amendment that the NSA was illegally violating (one NSA crime) and covering up (second NSA crime), including by lying to congress (third NSA crime), as well as to protect America from domestic enemies, like the kind of traitors who'd come up with a secret plan to violate the constitutional rights of the entire country and lie about it to congress. Thank goodness he took his oath more seriously than the "I was just following orders" crowd. We know from WW2 that "I was just following orders" is not a legitimate excuse to help facilitate grave atrocities, like all of those other NSA employees did every single day, in violation of their own oaths that they each swore.
- kstrauser 2y ago
  You won't get any argument from me. I agree. And even in agreement, I still say that there's a much larger grey area in Snowden's case. We can and should discuss whether his actions were justified. I think they are. But I can at least appreciate that people who disagree have legitimate reasons to see it otherwise. Klein's case didn't come with all that other baggage.
  - anonym29 2y ago
    No argument from me with what you wrote, either, I just wanted to make sure I was doing my interpretation justice by sharing it - there's certainly no shortage of posters parroting the other side's talking points. It's interesting that Klein's tell-all didn't get as much attention despite being less legally fraught. It makes me wonder how much of the Snowden media frenzy was organic in the first place, and if not much, who was pulling the strings to draw attention to practices that our own government had an obvious interest in repressing and concealing discussion of.
    - jll29 2y ago
      Could be that Snowden took it to The Guardian, a foreign and international news outlet. The story how British intelligence folks showed up at the Guardian HQ and symbolically destroyed a hard drive, and the way Guardian management used their New York offices to work around restrictions in UK law to publish the story, that's quite a story itself, and of course journalists know how to get coverage and reach. Mark targeted the EFF, not a news outlet, in contrast. The EFF probably first and foremost had the legal pursuit in mind, not making a story big. The most shocking things of all for me was how ignorant ordinary people were and still are about both whistle blowers' disclosures and the subsequent pretend fixes by lawmakers. (Cynically, I'm inclined to add there might be more riots and demonstrations if you take Heinz ketchup away from people than theirlegitimate rights to privacy.)
nabla9 2y ago
Snowden explained it well. There were four other whistleblowers besides Snowden and Klein. (1) Russ Tice: USAF intelligence analyst (2) William Binney: NSA Technical Director. (3) Thomas Tamm: DOJ lawyer (4) Thomas A. Drake: senior executive at NSA Each of them was a senior position relative to Snowden and Klein and all these cases were shut down. What change Snowden had to do traditionally by the book whistleblow or tiny traditional leak. He made the conscious decision to take the information so that they could not shut him down, and make a scene from outside the US (Hong Kong) so that there would be time to talk to the press. Snowden made a political crime that was morally justified. It was not self serving. It turns out that Americans don't care but at least he made a splash.

tehwebguy 2y ago

Probably because one absconded half-successfully and became sort of stateless. That's a way more exciting story!