5 ms·

|the things that Snowden leaks had disastrous real effects, I agree, this is undoubtedly true. I also firmly believe Snowden is a hero. Any highly illegal or

|the things that Snowden leaks had disastrous real effects, I agree, this is undoubtedly true. I also firmly believe Snowden is a hero. Any highly illegal or immoral activity of the US government (or any government for that matter) could be hidden under the same argument. We live in a democracy. It is impossible to change the government if we don't know what our government is doing in secret. Put succinctly, you advocate we shoot the messenger. Have you consider that it is the government who has placed the troops in harm's way by undertaking such outrageous, immoral, and illegal actions as opposed to the guy who merely told us about it.

readme 11y ago
Have you considered the idea that Snowden is working for the Russians? He is in Russia, you know. That's a bit... odd, yeah? What better post-cold war tactic than to weaken the capabilities of an organization that spies on Russia than by decreasing its public approval.
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  What other strong countries are there, that wouldn't give into US threats, that'd offer him a place to live worth living in? China? Just curious how the case of a true whistleblower would look different from a secret agent.
  - mpyne 11y ago
    China is actually a great example. They are today stronger than Russia, they are a target themselves of NSA spying, and like Russia they are resentful of the "U.S. led international order". So much as China thumbs its nose at the U.S. by pushing back against U.S. presence in the Western Pacific, they'd have every reason to host Snowden as a cause célèbre. That would certainly have involved less air travel for Snowden as well! But Wikileaks told Snowden to go to Russia, and in any event China told Snowden to leave. Why would China do that? Because Snowden wasn't their asset...
mpyne 11y ago
> Put succinctly, you advocate we shoot the messenger. That is not my claim, succinctly or otherwise. The fact that you believe my comment reduces to that claim means that you did not understand my comment. That may be my fault in making it unclear or your fault in not trying to read and understand what I was actually saying (instead of simply seeing what you thought I meant), but either way you're replying to something I didn't say. My comment was in response to someone who felt mentioning essentially that why are we even mad at Snowden, it's not like anything bad happened. You seem to agree with me that his actions did result in real negative consequences, so in that regard you agree with me about the only substantive thing I mentioned in my own reply. But to address what you brought up, let's say it's true that Snowden revealed government wrongdoing. I happen to be of the opinion that merely revealing government wrongdoing doesn't excuse every other possible wrong that may have been committed by a 'whistleblower'. Especially in cases like Snowden's where any "whistleblowing" portion of his leaks is dwarfed in magnitude by leaks that don't indicate any government wrongdoing at all, but still result in disastrous effects that you admit occurred as a result of his actions. Otherwise a spy would be able to leak whatever they wished by simply throwing a scrap to the media while they tunnel the real secrets to their political masters. And at this point we still can't prove Snowden did something like this: The secrets he revealed to the world via the media were all (but one) stolen while he worked at Dell, but before leaving the NSA he deliberately took a position at Booz-Allen Hamilton in order to take higher-level ("Tier 3") secrets. That Tier 3 was the source of the "NSA spying on these specific Chinese IPs" story soon after Snowden landed in Hong Kong, but those Tier 3 secrets have been revealed to no other journalists (or even angry Internet bloggers...). Why did Snowden need Tier 3 secrets if he wasn't going to give them to journalists? Who did he give them to, if not journalists?

readme 11y ago

Have you considered the idea that Snowden is working for the Russians? He is in Russia, you know. That's a bit... odd, yeah? What better post-cold war tactic than to weaken the capabilities of an organization that spies on Russia than by decreasing its public approval.

MichaelGG 11y ago
What other strong countries are there, that wouldn't give into US threats, that'd offer him a place to live worth living in? China? Just curious how the case of a true whistleblower would look different from a secret agent.
- mpyne 11y ago
  China is actually a great example. They are today stronger than Russia, they are a target themselves of NSA spying, and like Russia they are resentful of the "U.S. led international order". So much as China thumbs its nose at the U.S. by pushing back against U.S. presence in the Western Pacific, they'd have every reason to host Snowden as a cause célèbre. That would certainly have involved less air travel for Snowden as well! But Wikileaks told Snowden to go to Russia, and in any event China told Snowden to leave. Why would China do that? Because Snowden wasn't their asset...

mpyne 11y ago

> Put succinctly, you advocate we shoot the messenger. That is not my claim, succinctly or otherwise. The fact that you believe my comment reduces to that claim means that you did not understand my comment. That may be my fault in making it unclear or your fault in not trying to read and understand what I was actually saying (instead of simply seeing what you thought I meant), but either way you're replying to something I didn't say. My comment was in response to someone who felt mentioning essentially that why are we even mad at Snowden, it's not like anything bad happened. You seem to agree with me that his actions did result in real negative consequences, so in that regard you agree with me about the only substantive thing I mentioned in my own reply. But to address what you brought up, let's say it's true that Snowden revealed government wrongdoing. I happen to be of the opinion that merely revealing government wrongdoing doesn't excuse every other possible wrong that may have been committed by a 'whistleblower'. Especially in cases like Snowden's where any "whistleblowing" portion of his leaks is dwarfed in magnitude by leaks that don't indicate any government wrongdoing at all, but still result in disastrous effects that you admit occurred as a result of his actions. Otherwise a spy would be able to leak whatever they wished by simply throwing a scrap to the media while they tunnel the real secrets to their political masters. And at this point we still can't prove Snowden did something like this: The secrets he revealed to the world via the media were all (but one) stolen while he worked at Dell, but before leaving the NSA he deliberately took a position at Booz-Allen Hamilton in order to take higher-level ("Tier 3") secrets. That Tier 3 was the source of the "NSA spying on these specific Chinese IPs" story soon after Snowden landed in Hong Kong, but those Tier 3 secrets have been revealed to no other journalists (or even angry Internet bloggers...). Why did Snowden need Tier 3 secrets if he wasn't going to give them to journalists? Who did he give them to, if not journalists?