4 ms·

Are you serious? I think you might be watching too much TV :-) Killing him would accomplish no objective that the government cares enough about at this point to

by Pyxl101 11y ago

Are you serious? I think you might be watching too much TV :-) Killing him would accomplish no objective that the government cares enough about at this point to risk the massive backlash that would occur. Sure, the government wants to punish him for the leak in order to deter future leaks, but that's jail time, a completely different ballpark than assassination. From the USG's perspective Snowden has done all the unlawful damage (in their eyes) he can do. There is no way the USG would assassinate a civilian citizen in that way. I could see them killing a person who has become an anti-US belligerent in a combat area, but approving even that will involve much legal review and wringing of hands.

scintill76 11y ago
Heh, maybe the only spy detail he'd have is to protect him, make sure he doesn't accidentally die or get killed by someone wanting to frame the US for it.
geomark 11y ago
I don't watch TV. Not much into movies either. My impression of what the USG routinely does to particularly bothersome people is based on a history of those kinds of people having convenient accidents. As long as it actually looks like an accident most Americans accept that it was and quickly forget about it. And the wet workers in secret government are good at staging accidents. I would say that kind of end would be a stronger deterrent to future leakers than any legal consequences.
- lsc 11y ago
  It's a common conspiracy theory, in part because it's a good one. It's very difficult to disprove, and it's easy enough to find troublemakers who have died in accidents. Accidents are, by their very nature, caused by unusual events... so it's easy to see a conspiracy where there isn't one. Of course, the flipside of that coin is that if the government was skillfully staging "accidents" it would be very difficult to prove. Personally, I think that snowden showed that we... well, our government isn't competent enough to pull that sort of thing off cleanly. Someone would let a powerpoint deck slip somewhere, and word would get out. but... like I said, it's a good conspiracy theory, 'cause it's so difficult to prove either way.
vacri 11y ago
Particularly when the horse has already bolted; the damage has been done. It's not like Snowden is publishing new documents.

by Pyxl101 11y ago

scintill76 11y ago

Heh, maybe the only spy detail he'd have is to protect him, make sure he doesn't accidentally die or get killed by someone wanting to frame the US for it.

geomark 11y ago

I don't watch TV. Not much into movies either. My impression of what the USG routinely does to particularly bothersome people is based on a history of those kinds of people having convenient accidents. As long as it actually looks like an accident most Americans accept that it was and quickly forget about it. And the wet workers in secret government are good at staging accidents. I would say that kind of end would be a stronger deterrent to future leakers than any legal consequences.

lsc 11y ago
It's a common conspiracy theory, in part because it's a good one. It's very difficult to disprove, and it's easy enough to find troublemakers who have died in accidents. Accidents are, by their very nature, caused by unusual events... so it's easy to see a conspiracy where there isn't one. Of course, the flipside of that coin is that if the government was skillfully staging "accidents" it would be very difficult to prove. Personally, I think that snowden showed that we... well, our government isn't competent enough to pull that sort of thing off cleanly. Someone would let a powerpoint deck slip somewhere, and word would get out. but... like I said, it's a good conspiracy theory, 'cause it's so difficult to prove either way.

vacri 11y ago

Particularly when the horse has already bolted; the damage has been done. It's not like Snowden is publishing new documents.