5 ms·

It's disappointing to see you write this, codex. I thought you were a pretty smart guy. You seem sure that a trial in the US would be a mega-press event. You

It's disappointing to see you write this, codex. I thought you were a pretty smart guy. You seem sure that a trial in the US would be a mega-press event. You mean, like the Manning military trial? Are you reading the press coverage of Snowden? The TV press coverage? How do you think he would be portrayed by the US media? Surely you're not that naive. Indeed it might be better for the cause of domestic surveillance to have him tried in the US press and a federal court in Virginia, right outside Washington. Most Americans, the ones who get their news passively from TV or who do not watch the news much, would never even know what happened; his fate would be decided quickly and without fanfare, except announcement of the severe punishment he receives, to show that "leakers" are some sort of "insider threat": scare tactics (and maybe a high profile prosecution as part of some US Attorney's political aspirations to one day run for office). The more he evades this (expected) fate, the more he embarasses Washington, and the more otherwise ignorant Americans will learn who he is and what his principles are. His principles seem pretty clear so far: Do you want every packet that travels over the Internet to be clear text, captured and analyzed by governments? Or do you want reasonably secure communications, free from prying eyes, similar the US postal mail? Do you want the government to decide this for you, in secret? Snowdon thinks you should be entitled to decide for yourself. Your comment about the democratic ratings of other countries and getting help from authoritarian regimes if "it suits his interests" could easily be applied to the US government as well. They will deal with regimes as it suits their interests, regardless of the form of government of those regimes, so long as it suits their interests (e.g. oil). The government does what it has to do to acquire oil so you can run your car, applicances, devices, etc. And Snowden is doing what he has to do to enable his country (and maybe others) to debate the question of spying on what travels over the Internet.

codex 13y ago
It's possible the press would not portray his trial fairly, but the proceedings are public, and a trial would draw continued press, whereas if Snowden successfully seeks asylum, the story goes cold. I should elaborate on Snowden's choice of helper countries: is a national security risk to the United States. Here you have someone in possession of state secrets who needs help from a foreign government. That's the definition of compromised. What is he going to trade for protection? More classified information, of course--possibly much more sensitive information than the relatively harmless, widely known) programs like PRISM. He has national security information, and foreign governments want it. This information will eventually flow to the intelligence agencies of China and/or Russia.
- senjmccarthy 13y ago
  You seem to be making some assumptions. 1. You assume the story will go "cold" if he's living in another country. Why? How do you know this? 2. You assume he is seeking "protection". The reports say he sought none in HK. You assume he will seek some sort of physical protection in his destination country? What if he doesn't? 3. You surmise he has more "sensitive information" that other governments will want. What if he does not have such information? What if he's just a low level sysadmin who has an interest in Internet freedom and copied documents about controversial Internet spying and gave them to journalists for safe keeping? What about Greenwald, Poitras, the Guardian and the WaPo? Maybe they have copies? Assuming there is "sensitive information" in the docs Snowden copied, shouldn't the journalist be a "threat" too? He, with the help of journalists, is exposing arguably unconstitutional surveillance of Americans and also arguably illegal hacking activities by the US government. I guess it comes down to whether you see this as a "threat" or as a public service. Or maybe you see only the former as a public service and the later as a threat. But you can't just assume he is a threat because of "what he might do". Based on his actions and statements so far, we have no reason to believe he's intent on doing harm to his country. He thinks he's a whistleblower. He thinks he's disclosing criminal activity. And who has suffered from what he done so far? You? Me? Why should we be out to get him? The mainstream media may have a different view of things... but do they speak for you or me? Let's be honest, who do they really speak for? http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird and all that.

codex 13y ago

It's possible the press would not portray his trial fairly, but the proceedings are public, and a trial would draw continued press, whereas if Snowden successfully seeks asylum, the story goes cold. I should elaborate on Snowden's choice of helper countries: is a national security risk to the United States. Here you have someone in possession of state secrets who needs help from a foreign government. That's the definition of compromised. What is he going to trade for protection? More classified information, of course--possibly much more sensitive information than the relatively harmless, widely known) programs like PRISM. He has national security information, and foreign governments want it. This information will eventually flow to the intelligence agencies of China and/or Russia.

senjmccarthy 13y ago
You seem to be making some assumptions. 1. You assume the story will go "cold" if he's living in another country. Why? How do you know this? 2. You assume he is seeking "protection". The reports say he sought none in HK. You assume he will seek some sort of physical protection in his destination country? What if he doesn't? 3. You surmise he has more "sensitive information" that other governments will want. What if he does not have such information? What if he's just a low level sysadmin who has an interest in Internet freedom and copied documents about controversial Internet spying and gave them to journalists for safe keeping? What about Greenwald, Poitras, the Guardian and the WaPo? Maybe they have copies? Assuming there is "sensitive information" in the docs Snowden copied, shouldn't the journalist be a "threat" too? He, with the help of journalists, is exposing arguably unconstitutional surveillance of Americans and also arguably illegal hacking activities by the US government. I guess it comes down to whether you see this as a "threat" or as a public service. Or maybe you see only the former as a public service and the later as a threat. But you can't just assume he is a threat because of "what he might do". Based on his actions and statements so far, we have no reason to believe he's intent on doing harm to his country. He thinks he's a whistleblower. He thinks he's disclosing criminal activity. And who has suffered from what he done so far? You? Me? Why should we be out to get him? The mainstream media may have a different view of things... but do they speak for you or me? Let's be honest, who do they really speak for? http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird and all that.