4 ms·

> He's a patriot Daniel Ellsberg is a patriot. Edward Snowden crossed the line a long time ago when he fled to China to reveal more than domestic surveillance

by vbtemp 13y ago

> He's a patriot Daniel Ellsberg is a patriot. Edward Snowden crossed the line a long time ago when he fled to China to reveal more than domestic surveillance but foreign intelligence activities. I'm probably just as indignant as you are about the domestic surveillance, but the activities of Snowden started out as patriotism, but very quickly crossed into defection. tldr - champions of human rights don't flee to china & russia. Those places are where defecting spies go.

tomp 13y ago
They barely have any other choice than to choose a non-US-friendly country that cannot be bullied into extraditing them.
danbruc 13y ago
Edward Snowden crossed the line a long time ago when [...] [he] reveal[ed] more than domestic surveillance but foreign intelligence activities. Foreign intelligence activities are not necessarily legal and I am pretty sure quite a few of the revealed NSA foreign intelligence activities are illegal. This whole US-citizens-vs-foreign-country-citizens-thing really pisses my off - people are people no matter where they live. Spying at them without suspicion is illegal. And even if it would not be illegal it would still be wrong.
mbenjaminsmith 13y ago
Wikipedia: "Ellsberg also shared the documents with New York Times correspondent Neil Sheehan under a pledge of confidentiality. Sheehan broke his promise to Ellsberg, and built a scoop around what he'd received both directly from Ellsberg and from contacts at IPS." No, Ellsberg got duped. He also went into hiding afterwards (although briefly). He never deliberately put it all on the line. Snowden made this information public and shortly thereafter admitted to it -- knowing full well that it would end his life as he knew it. That's the act of a patriot.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Get trolled much? HK isn't exactly the seat of the Chinese politburo. The fact that the guy needs to go to avail himself of un-friendly-ish hospitality such as flights through Moscow and Cuba ought to tell you something about nature of our government's conduct; or at least Ed Snowden's opinion of it. I can't fault him for expecting the worst. It underscores the need for nations to maintain their sovereignty and independence from the US. It ought to be possible to travel in the world against the wishes of any one country, or cartel of allies. >I'm probably just as indignant as you are about the domestic surveillance No, you aren't. Snowden hasn't (doesn't appear to have) revealed conduct that other governments were unaware of. Most of these thing have been leaked before. He's merely outed that conduct publicly, at a time when the press was under attack from the DOJ. If it weren't for that fact, and or maybe his flight from the US, I suspect we may not even still be talking about any of this. tl;dr Don't be trollbait.
- vbtemp 13y ago
  I actually do appreciate this response. I think it well encapsulates the gist of the debate of what's going on here on HN. There's a great irony going on that I think few people here are appreciating. Snowden "blew the whistle" on illegal and unethical government programs and surveillance. This is a noble deed for a citizen. There is little disagreement there. And he make these revelations precisely because governments shouldn't do illegal and unethical things. And then it turns out he's seeking refuse in places that have (less sophisticated, but) much more violent and brutal intelligence and police arms. Not to mention countries that have completely rigged elections (Venezuela, Russia) or no elections at all (Cuba, HK to some extent), and countries in which journalists are routinely murdered (Russia) or forbidden (Cuba). So now I'm confused to what his point is? (I need to flee from a country that spies on its citizens.... to a country that terrorizes its people, but hey, as long as it's not me it's cool.) What is your point? (Nevermind the thousands of political prisoners etc in these countries, at least they are a place for US whistleblowers to seek refuge)? Why couldn't he have gone straight to Iceland, Norway, Switzerland... any number of countries for which extradition to US may be difficult but at least have nominal respect for human rights. Perhaps it's also asking too much, but - IMO - if he really wanted to make a statement with full moral authority he could have just pulled a Socrates and stood trial here in the US. tldr - while sitting comfortably in his seaside villa in Cuba or Venezuela, I'll regain respect for Snowden when he criticizes his host country as vocally and forcefully as he criticizes the US intelligence apparatus, but I think he's too much of a hypocrite/coward to do that.
  - Cushman 13y ago
    I'm having trouble following. Can you complete this argument for me: 1. Edward Snowden has revealed unethical behavior by his home state. 2. Edward Snowden has fled to a foreign state that itself does unethical things. 3. ????
    - vbtemp 13y ago
      3. Edward Snowden doesn't really care about government behaving ethically or respecting human rights (as evidenced by accepting largess of such countries). 4. Edward Snowden has crossed the line from being a wistleblower and activist, to basically being little better than a defecting spy. He should not be praised the way he is around here.
grey-area 13y ago
I don't agree with you, but have given you an upvote as the downvoting was not justified. I wish people wouldn't use downvotes just because they disagree with a post or think it is false - it stifles discussion and leads to the tyranny of a loud majority, not to the debate on these issues which is so sorely needed. BTW here's why I disagree - apart from the widespread domestic surveillance already admitted the NSA has used dragnet foreign surveillance from other five eyes nations like the UK to spy on American communications with no suspicion of wrongdoing, and has attempted dragnet surveillance in other nations like China (text messages). All of those things deserve debate - even on foreign surveillance the NSA should not have a free hand IMHO - they're supposed to target enemies of the US, not engage in blanket surveillance - that's a dangerous and massive expansion of their powers and in the hands of a president like Nixon would be truly terrifying. It also undermines the position of the US in the world and allows nations like China to indulge in cyberattacks with absolutely no moral high ground for the US. Re where Snowdon goes, I think that has far more to do with pragmatism that his wish-list of most desired countries - from his own words I think he would have preferred to stay in the US and fight this if he felt he'd be given a fair trial, but that has been made impossible by the calls of traitor from the current administration (what they mean of course is traitor to the NSA and administration, not to the country, but those two are confounded). The alternative interpretation of his actions is that a champion of human rights has been obliged to flee the US and seek refuge with enemies of the US, because he risks imprisonment without bail, torture and indefinite detention at home (all of those have been used in the war on terror in the last decade). It is quite credible that he wouldn't be allowed to state his case or argue his defence as Ellsberg did, and in fact Ellsberg agrees with him on that, and the treatment of Manning justifies his fears. So maybe champions of human rights do now flee the US?
- vbtemp 13y ago
  I do appreciate your response. Thanks. On your first point, I barely disagree with you at all. The second point is where I feel like no one is paying much attention: For me personally, the irony of criticizing the US on unethical activities from the patronage of countries that routinely and violently trample the human rights of their citizens completely destroys and legitimacy of the broader point he's trying to make. And your third point is also disturbing and true. I don't disagree. Edit: BTW, my above post all day long has been hovering between +5 upvotes to -5 votes. It's the wildest ride I've seen on an HN thread ever :)
darkarmani 13y ago
> tldr - champions of human rights don't flee to china & russia. Those places are where defecting spies go. Why wouldn't he go to a country that is less likely to release him back to the US? Of course he has to go to an country that has conflict with the US.

by vbtemp 13y ago

tomp 13y ago

They barely have any other choice than to choose a non-US-friendly country that cannot be bullied into extraditing them.

danbruc 13y ago

Edward Snowden crossed the line a long time ago when [...] [he] reveal[ed] more than domestic surveillance but foreign intelligence activities. Foreign intelligence activities are not necessarily legal and I am pretty sure quite a few of the revealed NSA foreign intelligence activities are illegal. This whole US-citizens-vs-foreign-country-citizens-thing really pisses my off - people are people no matter where they live. Spying at them without suspicion is illegal. And even if it would not be illegal it would still be wrong.

mbenjaminsmith 13y ago

Wikipedia: "Ellsberg also shared the documents with New York Times correspondent Neil Sheehan under a pledge of confidentiality. Sheehan broke his promise to Ellsberg, and built a scoop around what he'd received both directly from Ellsberg and from contacts at IPS." No, Ellsberg got duped. He also went into hiding afterwards (although briefly). He never deliberately put it all on the line. Snowden made this information public and shortly thereafter admitted to it -- knowing full well that it would end his life as he knew it. That's the act of a patriot.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

Get trolled much? HK isn't exactly the seat of the Chinese politburo. The fact that the guy needs to go to avail himself of un-friendly-ish hospitality such as flights through Moscow and Cuba ought to tell you something about nature of our government's conduct; or at least Ed Snowden's opinion of it. I can't fault him for expecting the worst. It underscores the need for nations to maintain their sovereignty and independence from the US. It ought to be possible to travel in the world against the wishes of any one country, or cartel of allies. >I'm probably just as indignant as you are about the domestic surveillance No, you aren't. Snowden hasn't (doesn't appear to have) revealed conduct that other governments were unaware of. Most of these thing have been leaked before. He's merely outed that conduct publicly, at a time when the press was under attack from the DOJ. If it weren't for that fact, and or maybe his flight from the US, I suspect we may not even still be talking about any of this. tl;dr Don't be trollbait.

vbtemp 13y ago
I actually do appreciate this response. I think it well encapsulates the gist of the debate of what's going on here on HN. There's a great irony going on that I think few people here are appreciating. Snowden "blew the whistle" on illegal and unethical government programs and surveillance. This is a noble deed for a citizen. There is little disagreement there. And he make these revelations precisely because governments shouldn't do illegal and unethical things. And then it turns out he's seeking refuse in places that have (less sophisticated, but) much more violent and brutal intelligence and police arms. Not to mention countries that have completely rigged elections (Venezuela, Russia) or no elections at all (Cuba, HK to some extent), and countries in which journalists are routinely murdered (Russia) or forbidden (Cuba). So now I'm confused to what his point is? (I need to flee from a country that spies on its citizens.... to a country that terrorizes its people, but hey, as long as it's not me it's cool.) What is your point? (Nevermind the thousands of political prisoners etc in these countries, at least they are a place for US whistleblowers to seek refuge)? Why couldn't he have gone straight to Iceland, Norway, Switzerland... any number of countries for which extradition to US may be difficult but at least have nominal respect for human rights. Perhaps it's also asking too much, but - IMO - if he really wanted to make a statement with full moral authority he could have just pulled a Socrates and stood trial here in the US. tldr - while sitting comfortably in his seaside villa in Cuba or Venezuela, I'll regain respect for Snowden when he criticizes his host country as vocally and forcefully as he criticizes the US intelligence apparatus, but I think he's too much of a hypocrite/coward to do that.
- Cushman 13y ago
  I'm having trouble following. Can you complete this argument for me: 1. Edward Snowden has revealed unethical behavior by his home state. 2. Edward Snowden has fled to a foreign state that itself does unethical things. 3. ????
  - vbtemp 13y ago
    3. Edward Snowden doesn't really care about government behaving ethically or respecting human rights (as evidenced by accepting largess of such countries). 4. Edward Snowden has crossed the line from being a wistleblower and activist, to basically being little better than a defecting spy. He should not be praised the way he is around here.

grey-area 13y ago

I don't agree with you, but have given you an upvote as the downvoting was not justified. I wish people wouldn't use downvotes just because they disagree with a post or think it is false - it stifles discussion and leads to the tyranny of a loud majority, not to the debate on these issues which is so sorely needed. BTW here's why I disagree - apart from the widespread domestic surveillance already admitted the NSA has used dragnet foreign surveillance from other five eyes nations like the UK to spy on American communications with no suspicion of wrongdoing, and has attempted dragnet surveillance in other nations like China (text messages). All of those things deserve debate - even on foreign surveillance the NSA should not have a free hand IMHO - they're supposed to target enemies of the US, not engage in blanket surveillance - that's a dangerous and massive expansion of their powers and in the hands of a president like Nixon would be truly terrifying. It also undermines the position of the US in the world and allows nations like China to indulge in cyberattacks with absolutely no moral high ground for the US. Re where Snowdon goes, I think that has far more to do with pragmatism that his wish-list of most desired countries - from his own words I think he would have preferred to stay in the US and fight this if he felt he'd be given a fair trial, but that has been made impossible by the calls of traitor from the current administration (what they mean of course is traitor to the NSA and administration, not to the country, but those two are confounded). The alternative interpretation of his actions is that a champion of human rights has been obliged to flee the US and seek refuge with enemies of the US, because he risks imprisonment without bail, torture and indefinite detention at home (all of those have been used in the war on terror in the last decade). It is quite credible that he wouldn't be allowed to state his case or argue his defence as Ellsberg did, and in fact Ellsberg agrees with him on that, and the treatment of Manning justifies his fears. So maybe champions of human rights do now flee the US?

vbtemp 13y ago
I do appreciate your response. Thanks. On your first point, I barely disagree with you at all. The second point is where I feel like no one is paying much attention: For me personally, the irony of criticizing the US on unethical activities from the patronage of countries that routinely and violently trample the human rights of their citizens completely destroys and legitimacy of the broader point he's trying to make. And your third point is also disturbing and true. I don't disagree. Edit: BTW, my above post all day long has been hovering between +5 upvotes to -5 votes. It's the wildest ride I've seen on an HN thread ever :)

darkarmani 13y ago

> tldr - champions of human rights don't flee to china & russia. Those places are where defecting spies go. Why wouldn't he go to a country that is less likely to release him back to the US? Of course he has to go to an country that has conflict with the US.