4 ms·

I wish he hadn't come forward. There was no real reason for him to release his name or tell his story yet. This is going to distract us all from the real issu

I wish he hadn't come forward. There was no real reason for him to release his name or tell his story yet. This is going to distract us all from the real issues at hand.

mpyne 13y ago
Indeed, Politico had ran a story about how Snowden himself essentially came to save Obama's day, or at least grant him a short reprieve. I guarantee you by the time attention shifts to Obama again he'll have some better defense and counter-attack for the media narrative prepared (though it will remain to be seen how effective it ends up, I don't see how the extra time can be worse for him).
notatoad 13y ago
I imagine he did so out of fear for his life. If the government had learned who he was before he announced it publicly, he would have been disappeared before anybody heard anything. being a public figure means that whatever happens to him will also be public.
- Kylekramer 13y ago
  I know people like to accuse the media of having ADHD, but do you really think that people would just forget that the leak had to come from somewhere?
  - beat 13y ago
    Well, it had to come from somewhere. But if that leak happened to be getting waterboarded by our freedom-loving allies in Khazakstan rather than a face and a name, it'd be easier to, um, keep quiet.
    - Kylekramer 13y ago
      That is kind of my point. We know his name, but we always knew there was a person behind it. Snowdon could be captured and sent to some undisclosed location (or killed or your favorite theory, after all it isn't like we expect to hear from him in the public), or an anonymous whistleblower could have been captured and sent to some undisclosed location (or killed or your favorite theory). Having a name out there doesn't change the equation much while distracting from the contents of the leak.
  - andyjohnson0 13y ago
    I think @notatoad meant to write "he would have been disappeared". The implication is that being known to the media means that any retribution by the US government will be visible. Whereas, if he'd remained anonymous, he could have been assassinated or rendered without anyone knowing.
    - notatoad 13y ago
      fixed, thanks.
  - ryanmolden 13y ago
    No, but do you imagine they would have discovered his name or have been aware if a strange accident had befallen him had he not put himself in the spotlight? To not imagine most of the character assassination occurring is related directly to the NSA seems odd, that is the kit of clandestine services worldwide. I saw an article with Booze saying he only made 122k a year, so basically appearing to try and make him appear to be an exaggerator or liar in something relatively inconsequential to the whole affair. Nice move, hopefully he has hard proof contradicting that, since otherwise people start questioning what else he exaggerated/lied about, which is precisely what they are angling for with publishing such unrelated bits of trivia.
    - bbatchelder 13y ago
      It should be easy enough to corroborate - tax returns, W-2 and/or 1099s, paystubs, even bank statements showing cash flows if not direct deposits.
pekk 13y ago
Glory. The man has already been canonized and deified. For some people that is irresistible. Alternatively, if he is really smart, this would be excellent chaff to throw up in front of espionage and come up smelling like roses
Homunculiheaded 13y ago
I believe part of the thinking was: the leaker will be found eventually, who do you want to start the story about the leaker? If some government agency were to unveil Snowden's identity they could cast him in whatever light they chose from the very first image (who looks like a defender of freedom in a mugshot?) Look what happened to Bradley Manning, the first public image of him was his chat confession and a huge amount of deeply personal details that really had nothing to do with the leak.

I wish he hadn't come forward. There was no real reason for him to release his name or tell his story yet. This is going to distract us all from the real issues at hand.

mpyne 13y ago

Indeed, Politico had ran a story about how Snowden himself essentially came to save Obama's day, or at least grant him a short reprieve. I guarantee you by the time attention shifts to Obama again he'll have some better defense and counter-attack for the media narrative prepared (though it will remain to be seen how effective it ends up, I don't see how the extra time can be worse for him).

notatoad 13y ago

I imagine he did so out of fear for his life. If the government had learned who he was before he announced it publicly, he would have been disappeared before anybody heard anything. being a public figure means that whatever happens to him will also be public.

Kylekramer 13y ago
I know people like to accuse the media of having ADHD, but do you really think that people would just forget that the leak had to come from somewhere?
- beat 13y ago
  Well, it had to come from somewhere. But if that leak happened to be getting waterboarded by our freedom-loving allies in Khazakstan rather than a face and a name, it'd be easier to, um, keep quiet.
  - Kylekramer 13y ago
    That is kind of my point. We know his name, but we always knew there was a person behind it. Snowdon could be captured and sent to some undisclosed location (or killed or your favorite theory, after all it isn't like we expect to hear from him in the public), or an anonymous whistleblower could have been captured and sent to some undisclosed location (or killed or your favorite theory). Having a name out there doesn't change the equation much while distracting from the contents of the leak.
- andyjohnson0 13y ago
  I think @notatoad meant to write "he would have been disappeared". The implication is that being known to the media means that any retribution by the US government will be visible. Whereas, if he'd remained anonymous, he could have been assassinated or rendered without anyone knowing.
  - notatoad 13y ago
    fixed, thanks.
- ryanmolden 13y ago
  No, but do you imagine they would have discovered his name or have been aware if a strange accident had befallen him had he not put himself in the spotlight? To not imagine most of the character assassination occurring is related directly to the NSA seems odd, that is the kit of clandestine services worldwide. I saw an article with Booze saying he only made 122k a year, so basically appearing to try and make him appear to be an exaggerator or liar in something relatively inconsequential to the whole affair. Nice move, hopefully he has hard proof contradicting that, since otherwise people start questioning what else he exaggerated/lied about, which is precisely what they are angling for with publishing such unrelated bits of trivia.
  - bbatchelder 13y ago
    It should be easy enough to corroborate - tax returns, W-2 and/or 1099s, paystubs, even bank statements showing cash flows if not direct deposits.

pekk 13y ago

Glory. The man has already been canonized and deified. For some people that is irresistible. Alternatively, if he is really smart, this would be excellent chaff to throw up in front of espionage and come up smelling like roses

Homunculiheaded 13y ago

I believe part of the thinking was: the leaker will be found eventually, who do you want to start the story about the leaker? If some government agency were to unveil Snowden's identity they could cast him in whatever light they chose from the very first image (who looks like a defender of freedom in a mugshot?) Look what happened to Bradley Manning, the first public image of him was his chat confession and a huge amount of deeply personal details that really had nothing to do with the leak.