4 ms·

Complete Speculation. Is there video evidence that he said this? But yes, even if true, lets hold proles to the word of the law, while writing new laws that de

Complete Speculation. Is there video evidence that he said this? But yes, even if true, lets hold proles to the word of the law, while writing new laws that demonize all whistleblowing and the exposing of corruption. I find it funny how we always get into the character attacks. Lets talk about the leaks. Bradley Manning -> Traitor Julian Assange -> Rapist Edward Snowden -> Spy(?)/Traitor/Ethical Person who knew about the abuses and attempted to follow through with uncovering them? You can call it by different names all you want, but ultimately we can either support the act, or demonize the individuals.

danso 13y ago
OK, if the accusation is false, then there's not much to talk about...it's just a smear. I was only speaking of the condition in which this accusation is true. If so, it does not mean that Snowden was wrong or that he is being nefarious. However, it's not just an ancillary demonization...at least for those of us who interpreted his story to be of someone who turned because of what he saw to be unjust practices. In otherwords, he's less of a whistleblower, more of a muckraker. Both are capable of bringing about needed reform
- danmaz74 13y ago
  "someone who turned because of what he saw to be unjust practices"... and then wanted to collect enough evidence about what he saw.
- tokenizer 13y ago
  I can understand where you're coming from. The definitions are outdated. With the government being able to request your confidential sources, and with the government being able to see all forms of electronic communication, my idea of a whistleblower is the following: "Anyone who peacefully and in good faith informs the public of government or corporate wrongdoing." You can definitely agree that Snowden did not violently do this, and we can debate whether or not he has done this in good faith, however, people should be innocent until proven guilty in a free society. So my opinion right now is that he is a whistleblower. If the government can prove that he is a spy or is subverting the government for nefarious purposes, then the actions they're committing would be justified, but as of now, they are not in the slightest.
- resu_nimda 13y ago
  So, what's the significance? Even if true, he can still be "someone who turned because of what he saw to be unjust practices," he just purposely went a bit deeper to get better evidence. Can you only be a whistleblower if the evidence serendipitously falls into your lap? Is it less ethical to make a conscious choice to pursue it further? Sure, you're not exactly acting in good faith toward your employer, but only because you believe they are not acting in good faith toward the American people. I suppose it could turn out that he had some personal axe to grind and got a bit delusional in putting together a conspiracy theory. This news could lend credence to that interpretation, but I find it less likely based on what we know.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  I don't care what anyone thinks of Snowden or of his motives. I care about the illegality he has revealed. Weigh it against the fact that there was vanishingly little chance for this information to have been revealed without breaking someone's rules.

danso 13y ago

OK, if the accusation is false, then there's not much to talk about...it's just a smear. I was only speaking of the condition in which this accusation is true. If so, it does not mean that Snowden was wrong or that he is being nefarious. However, it's not just an ancillary demonization...at least for those of us who interpreted his story to be of someone who turned because of what he saw to be unjust practices. In otherwords, he's less of a whistleblower, more of a muckraker. Both are capable of bringing about needed reform

danmaz74 13y ago
"someone who turned because of what he saw to be unjust practices"... and then wanted to collect enough evidence about what he saw.
tokenizer 13y ago
I can understand where you're coming from. The definitions are outdated. With the government being able to request your confidential sources, and with the government being able to see all forms of electronic communication, my idea of a whistleblower is the following: "Anyone who peacefully and in good faith informs the public of government or corporate wrongdoing." You can definitely agree that Snowden did not violently do this, and we can debate whether or not he has done this in good faith, however, people should be innocent until proven guilty in a free society. So my opinion right now is that he is a whistleblower. If the government can prove that he is a spy or is subverting the government for nefarious purposes, then the actions they're committing would be justified, but as of now, they are not in the slightest.
resu_nimda 13y ago
So, what's the significance? Even if true, he can still be "someone who turned because of what he saw to be unjust practices," he just purposely went a bit deeper to get better evidence. Can you only be a whistleblower if the evidence serendipitously falls into your lap? Is it less ethical to make a conscious choice to pursue it further? Sure, you're not exactly acting in good faith toward your employer, but only because you believe they are not acting in good faith toward the American people. I suppose it could turn out that he had some personal axe to grind and got a bit delusional in putting together a conspiracy theory. This news could lend credence to that interpretation, but I find it less likely based on what we know.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
I don't care what anyone thinks of Snowden or of his motives. I care about the illegality he has revealed. Weigh it against the fact that there was vanishingly little chance for this information to have been revealed without breaking someone's rules.