7 ms·

I don’t understand. He’s absolutely guilty of violating the US government and probably a handful of laws. I will respect him forever for doing that. But I compl

I don’t understand. He’s absolutely guilty of violating the US government and probably a handful of laws. I will respect him forever for doing that. But I completely agree that any trial he’d participate in is A) not going to be fair, because why would you trust the government on an issue like this, and B) not really necessary, because he didn’t do anything wrong, even if it was illegal. The only reason to NOT flee is if the government didn’t care about whistleblowers and has amazing protections for them, even in the context of national security. Does it? Maybe you think what he did was morally wrong. Who fucking cares, what the government was and is hiding is even more morally wrong.

ShinyLeftPad 12d ago
For some people what Snowden did was the right thing. But settling in that particular country, makes it seem like he didn't do it from pureness of his heart. Maybe it was accidental but optics is optics. He took the easy way out that is best for him individually, which is understandable but undermined future debate on the question
- mitxela 12d ago
  Where else would he go? Not many countries don't extradite you to the US for that. US enemies are your only options, and that fact is solely the fault of the US.
  - ShinyLeftPad 12d ago
    Nepal UAE Belarus Mongolia Vietnam Laos Montenegro Indonesia
    - marsmaps 12d ago
      the same indonesia in which the us government helped organise mass killings of hundreds of thousands of alleged left-wing political activists and voters? [0] [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/the-indonesia-documents-and-the-us-agenda/543534/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/th... 'What the United States Did in Indonesia', The Atlantic
- modo_mario 12d ago
  >But settling in that particular country, makes it seem like he didn't do it from pureness of his heart. It was not the original intent from what i understand. But also, what country could protect him from the US other than Russia or China and wouldn't hand him over?
  - ShinyLeftPad 12d ago
    > But also, what country could protect him from the US other than Russia or China and wouldn't hand him over? As i wrote he probably took the easiest way out for himself. We are in agreement. I just say what's better for himself is not necessarily better for the debate/cause. I don't know how that is controversial.
- sensanaty 12d ago
  > But settling in that particular country, makes it seem like he didn't do it from pureness of his heart. Maybe it was accidental but optics is optics. Who the fuck cares if it's not from "pureness of his heart"? Why are we holding him to an infinitely higher standard than the bastards in the US gov't who were doing all the spying that Snowden uncovered?
  - ShinyLeftPad 12d ago
    Because if we hold them to the same standard, in the eyes of the public neither is better than the other, then there is much less interest in the whole debate on this question. guy leaks secret info about how US agencies surveil Americans and the world. in public's eye what they do is bad or illegal and what he did is at least illegal. it's a draw at best because many Americans consider national security important. If he faces prosecution after leaking = guy fights authorities for good cause, has high ground, and it is a pretty controversial bipartisan case. but he runs to a country that literally benefits from his report and then supports him by offering asylum (which it rarely does) and permanent residency and citizenship (even more rare) = support for him is less popular and more partisan
    - fsflover 12d ago
      > he runs to a country that literally benefits from his report He didn't, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49782465 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49782465

ShinyLeftPad 12d ago

For some people what Snowden did was the right thing. But settling in that particular country, makes it seem like he didn't do it from pureness of his heart. Maybe it was accidental but optics is optics. He took the easy way out that is best for him individually, which is understandable but undermined future debate on the question

mitxela 12d ago
Where else would he go? Not many countries don't extradite you to the US for that. US enemies are your only options, and that fact is solely the fault of the US.
- ShinyLeftPad 12d ago
  Nepal UAE Belarus Mongolia Vietnam Laos Montenegro Indonesia
  - marsmaps 12d ago
    the same indonesia in which the us government helped organise mass killings of hundreds of thousands of alleged left-wing political activists and voters? [0] [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/the-indonesia-documents-and-the-us-agenda/543534/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/th... 'What the United States Did in Indonesia', The Atlantic
modo_mario 12d ago
>But settling in that particular country, makes it seem like he didn't do it from pureness of his heart. It was not the original intent from what i understand. But also, what country could protect him from the US other than Russia or China and wouldn't hand him over?
- ShinyLeftPad 12d ago
  > But also, what country could protect him from the US other than Russia or China and wouldn't hand him over? As i wrote he probably took the easiest way out for himself. We are in agreement. I just say what's better for himself is not necessarily better for the debate/cause. I don't know how that is controversial.
sensanaty 12d ago
> But settling in that particular country, makes it seem like he didn't do it from pureness of his heart. Maybe it was accidental but optics is optics. Who the fuck cares if it's not from "pureness of his heart"? Why are we holding him to an infinitely higher standard than the bastards in the US gov't who were doing all the spying that Snowden uncovered?
- ShinyLeftPad 12d ago
  Because if we hold them to the same standard, in the eyes of the public neither is better than the other, then there is much less interest in the whole debate on this question. guy leaks secret info about how US agencies surveil Americans and the world. in public's eye what they do is bad or illegal and what he did is at least illegal. it's a draw at best because many Americans consider national security important. If he faces prosecution after leaking = guy fights authorities for good cause, has high ground, and it is a pretty controversial bipartisan case. but he runs to a country that literally benefits from his report and then supports him by offering asylum (which it rarely does) and permanent residency and citizenship (even more rare) = support for him is less popular and more partisan
  - fsflover 12d ago
    > he runs to a country that literally benefits from his report He didn't, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49782465 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49782465