4 ms·

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

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.
    - Cushman 13y ago
      Okay, and even if I grant that enormous equivocation, it has what to do with #1?
    - krapp 13y ago
      At the very least, some people should apply a bit more critical thinking.
- bobwaycott 13y ago
  > 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. Well, there is the recent statement from Birgitta Jónsdóttir that asylum in Iceland would be a difficult achievement. Beyond that, you seem to be having difficulty understanding (and passing judgment on) Snowden choosing to act in a way that you wouldn't. This is hardly a judgment against Snowden. He's not necessarily making moves to maintain a good PR story. One might be justified in the assumption that he is making necessary and strategic choices. > 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. That's a curious judgment of 'full moral authority'. Humans are an imperfect creature. Full moral authority is not derived from actions alone, but also from the intentions behind those actions. Who knows, perhaps Snowden will pull a Socrates when he has completed his current mission of strategically releasing information until his cache is exhausted.

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.
  - Cushman 13y ago
    Okay, and even if I grant that enormous equivocation, it has what to do with #1?
  - krapp 13y ago
    At the very least, some people should apply a bit more critical thinking.
bobwaycott 13y ago
> 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. Well, there is the recent statement from Birgitta Jónsdóttir that asylum in Iceland would be a difficult achievement. Beyond that, you seem to be having difficulty understanding (and passing judgment on) Snowden choosing to act in a way that you wouldn't. This is hardly a judgment against Snowden. He's not necessarily making moves to maintain a good PR story. One might be justified in the assumption that he is making necessary and strategic choices. > 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. That's a curious judgment of 'full moral authority'. Humans are an imperfect creature. Full moral authority is not derived from actions alone, but also from the intentions behind those actions. Who knows, perhaps Snowden will pull a Socrates when he has completed his current mission of strategically releasing information until his cache is exhausted.