Edward Snowden - granted Russian citizenship (p 4)

Snowden's actions were reckless, illegal and unwarranted. He should be jailed and then tried for criminal actions if he ever sets foot on American soil again.

The role of the whistle blower is to expose wrong doing - but in the context of top secret government action - whistle blowers must recognize that they do not have full knowledge about the impact of disclosing this secret information - and thus, a responsible course of action would be to expose this information to all members of congress cleared to view the information (some subset of which will almost certainly be receptive to taking responsible measures to curtail said action - even if motivated only by potential political gain).
Back in the real world …

if he’d done that , he’d have dithering, clueless congresspeople trying to work out their ‘angle’, whilst the NSA would have tracked him down as they dithered. The information would be suppressed, he would be thrown in jail sans key, and the US people would be none the wiser at the illegality and/or subterfuge of the mass trawling of their own citizens private lives and data.

Congress turned a blind eye on decades of overreach, Snowden sending the info to them would be… useless.

until you can come up with a different extremely high chance of success scenario where Snowden could pass on this information to US citizens, that doesn’t involve him being hung drawn and quartered due to the uselessness of others, then I’ll go with ‘snowden did the right thing, by doing it in the only way he could survive’

the ‘illegality’ started with the NSA programs, the ‘reckless’ came from the NSA finding they could do almost anything with zero oversight, and finally ‘unwarranted’ - yeah I’d say they probably obtained that information unwarranted…

with regard to the ‘foreign’ surveillance, then that’s generally fine and dandy, as everyone knows everyone else does it. It just usually involves a bit of chest thumping when the survielled finds out as a need for PR/looking tough.
 
Last edited:
This is naive. Why run the risk that they would turn everything he had on the NSA's programs over to the intelligence services and throw him in the slammer?
Exposing the information he had was going to incur massive personal risk - likely identical between exposing to media at large versus exposing to members of the congress on the appropriate committees.

Again - let me be emphatic on this point.

Snowden saw massive wrongdoing which he felt, if reported to his immediate supervisors or their immediate chain of command - would result in no action and his landing in jail. I get that.

What he obviously should have done in such circumstance - is to expose - by which I mean highlight - because everyone in this target audience would already have had access to this information but would not have know to look for it...

Expose this information to all members of congress on the appropriate intelligence/defense committees.

This would get the job done - exposing wrongdoing.

While preserving US interests.

The attendant risk would likely be the same as that for exposing all of this information to the world free press - but the collateral damage to US interests would have been much reduced.
===
For me, Snowden saw wrongdoing which he viscerally objected to.

Then, whether through naivety (unlikely) or simply because he wanted his name know by the public and wanted to be viewed as a hero - this later factor for me most likely - because he wanted to be viewed as a hero - Snowden endangered US interests not at all connected to the illegal activity he objected to and did so unnecessarily driven by self interest.

Snowden placed his own self-perceived societal adulation above any potential risk/adverse consequence of exposing the information he uncovered to the world at large - and obviously a lone individual of such low rank as himself would not be in position to adequately assess all repercussions.

Snowden is a criminal. End of.
 
Last edited:
Back in the real world …

if he’d done that , he’d have dithering, clueless congresspeople trying to work out their ‘angle’, whilst the NSA would have tracked him down as they dithered. The information would be suppressed, he would be thrown in jail sans key, and the US people would be none the wiser at the illegality and/or subterfuge of the mass trawling of their own citizens private lives and data.

Congress turned a blind eye on decades of overreach, Snowden sending the info to them would be… useless.

until you can come up with a different extremely high chance of success scenario where Snowden could pass on this information to US citizens, that doesn’t involve him being hung drawn and quartered due to the uselessness of others, then I’ll go with ‘snowden did the right thing, by doing it in the only way he could survive’

the ‘illegality’ started with the NSA programs, the ‘reckless’ came from the NSA finding they could do almost anything with zero oversight, and finally ‘unwarranted’ - yeah I’d say they probably obtained that information unwarranted…

with regard to the ‘foreign’ surveillance, then that’s generally fine and dandy, as everyone knows everyone else does it. It just usually involves a bit of chest thumping when the survielled finds out as a need for PR/looking tough.
If Snowden went to Congress first - having highlighted wrongdoing by the opposition party - there's virtually no chance that this wrongdoing would not be exposed forthwith.

If however, exposure of this information to appropriate members of Congress failed to achieve the desired outcome, Snowden's next step would be to expose information to the media at large - however, if I were Snowden, I'd very much want to screen the information I provided to the media- in some way - so that wrongdoing is exposed with minimal attendant impact on US intelligence personnel and US security interests.

Snowden did not proceed in the manner outlined above - at all.

He's a criminal as I've stated and needs to be jailed and then tried if he ever sets foot in US territory again. It strikes me that Snowden's actions were driven in equal measure by desire to highlight wrongdoing on the one hand, and dream of becoming a well-recognized public hero on the other.
===
JASR - to quote you your opening...
===
Back in the real world...

You, JASR, don't object to what Snowden has done. He's a "conscientious" actor and his deeds are warranted - in your opinion.

But, by extension - any "conscientious" actor whatsoever - for whatever reason - is free to go to the press and expose top secret government action to anyone at all.

Pretty soon, the United Kingdom - I guess this is where you live - has no State secrets - because, without penalty of law, anything the least bit objectionable conducted by MI6 (or other organizations) instantly lands in the news - conscientious objectors - by your logic - have every right to expose these actions.
 
Last edited:
Having highlighted wrong doing by the opposition party there's virtually no chance that this wrongdoing would not be exposed forthwith.

Had he taken this first step and for whatever reason it still failed, then, I'd begin to see some sort of sympathy with Snowden for exposing this to the media. However, I'd very much want to screen the information I provided - in some way - to the media at large - so that wrongdoing is exposed with minimal attendant impact on US intelligence personnel and US security interests.

Snowden did not proceed in the manner outlined above. He's a criminal as I've stated and needs to be tired and almost certainly jailed if he ever sets foot in US territory again.
===
JASR - to quote you your opening...

"Back in the real world..."

If you forgive Snowden of his deeds - which I adamantly protest as illegal - then how can you protect any state secret at all.

By extension - any "conscientious" actor whatsoever - for whatever personal reason - can go to the press to expose secret government action to anyone at all.

Pretty soon, the United Kingdom - I guess this is where you live - has no State secrets at all - because, without penalty of law, anything the least bit objectionable conducted by MI6 (or other organizations) instantly lands in the news.
The bit that snowden objected to wasn’t the mass surveillance per se, but the mass denial of the mass surveillance, the lying/manipulation to Congress when they softly queried (and were bound by other arcane laws from asking th0se types of questions, in a free society)

I think that is what drove snowden, the implausible denial and outright lying that this surveillance of US citizens was taking place. He felt it was wrong - which is naive, why wouldn’t you as a state, if you could - and then doubly felt it was wrong by the denial that it happens to the states own citizens.

To me personally, it was naive that anyone using phone/internet didn’t comprehend that they were having their data picked up. But for me I’ve had interest in the whole spying/computers since childhood (long ago).

so, it seems really odd that (sweeping statement) freedom loving rightwing antigovernment US citizens weren’t falling over themselves to praise snowden, lynch the NSA and call for Congress to act … for spying on them, for invading their privacy, for interfering in their lives… they did the opposite.
 
The bit that snowden objected to wasn’t the mass surveillance per se, but the mass denial of the mass surveillance, the lying/manipulation to Congress when they softly queried (and were bound by other arcane laws from asking th0se types of questions, in a free society)

I think that is what drove snowden, the implausible denial and outright lying that this surveillance of US citizens was taking place. He felt it was wrong - which is naive, why wouldn’t you as a state, if you could - and then doubly felt it was wrong by the denial that it happens to the states own citizens.

To me personally, it was naive that anyone using phone/internet didn’t comprehend that they were having their data picked up. But for me I’ve had interest in the whole spying/computers since childhood (long ago).

so, it seems really odd that (sweeping statement) freedom loving rightwing antigovernment US citizens weren’t falling over themselves to praise snowden, lynch the NSA and call for Congress to act … for spying on them, for invading their privacy, for interfering in their lives… they did the opposite.
Obama isn't a rightwing figure. Nor is Clinton. Both of whom wanted Snowden back on US soil if at all possible to face trial for treason.

Snowden's reckless behavior transcends party lines - except perhaps that those far to the left view his actions as warranted. Right wing politicians as well as most Democrats - so far as I can tell - view Snowden's actions as criminal.

I certainly do (centrist Democrat).
 
Obama isn't a rightwing figure. Nor is Clinton. Both of whom wanted Snowden back on US soil if at all possible to face trial for treason.

Snowden's reckless behavior transcends party lines - except perhaps that those far to the left view his actions as warranted. Right wing politicians as well as most Democrats - so far as I can tell - view Snowden's actions as criminal.

I certainly do (centrist Democrat).
I think you took my 'rightwing' the wrong way.
I'm implying it (along with many disparate stances) is rather odd, that they didn't come out and fully back Snowden for being a patriot fighting for freedom and less govt control of their private lives.

The rest of the US political spectra could jump either way, as you have - depending on where they stand on their beliefs on 'freedom', 'govt control' and breaking the law.

It is very surprising to a US outsider that the nation that proclaims to uphold freedom and an individuals rights, takes great offense at someone pointing out that their own govt takes them away and invades their privacy without warrant.

Edit: Oh, and Obama and Clinton are no way 'left wing' by any stretch of the world's politics. They are only 'left wing' in the description of mainstream US politics. There is a whole range of politics that is 'left' of where they stand, and it doesn't start nor end at the dirty word , communism. Whereas on the US 'right wing' (and UK these days) there's only a few short steps to facism, or infact only 1 in the previous 4 years.

edit2: And you seem to believe that I have an issue with the surveillance. I do, but only in a 'bugger that's bad, but heyho it's life, and to think otherwise is naive'. I have a bigger issue in politicians lying or being lied to. Again maybe that's naive, but you've got to start believing in something somewhere, and to me, it starts at the top, in your case the President - and that was extremely woeful on the lying front recently. But it doesn't stop there, it goes all the way from Congress, to Senate, to States, to counties, to municipalities - lying seems to be allowed and unpunished these days :-(
 
Last edited:
Exposing the information he had was going to incur massive personal risk - likely identical between exposing to media at large versus exposing to members of the congress on the appropriate committees.

Again - let me be emphatic on this point.

Snowden saw massive wrongdoing which he felt, if reported to his immediate supervisors or their immediate chain of command - would result in no action and his landing in jail. I get that.

What he obviously should have done in such circumstance - is to expose - by which I mean highlight - because everyone in this target audience would already have had access to this information but would not have know to look for it...

Expose this information to all members of congress on the appropriate intelligence/defense committees.

This would get the job done - exposing wrongdoing.

While preserving US interests.

The attendant risk would likely be the same as that for exposing all of this information to the world free press - but the collateral damage to US interests would have been much reduced.
===
For me, Snowden saw wrongdoing which he viscerally objected to.

Then, whether through naivety (unlikely) or simply because he wanted his name know by the public and wanted to be viewed as a hero - this later factor for me most likely - because he wanted to be viewed as a hero - Snowden endangered US interests not at all connected to the illegal activity he objected to and did so unnecessarily driven by self interest.

Snowden placed his own self-perceived societal adulation above any potential risk/adverse consequence of exposing the information he uncovered to the world at large - and obviously a lone individual of such low rank as himself would not be in position to adequately assess all repercussions.

Snowden is a criminal. End of.

Perhaps the reason he didn't go to Congress was this (excerpt from Permanent Record):

To the question, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper replied, “No, sir,” and then added, “There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly.” That was a witting, bald-faced lie, of course, not just to Congress but to the American people. More than a few of the congresspeople to whom Clapper was testifying knew very well that what he was saying was untrue, yet they refused, or felt legally powerless, to call him out on it.
 
Perhaps the reason he didn't go to Congress was this (excerpt from Permanent Record):

To the question, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper replied, “No, sir,” and then added, “There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly.” That was a witting, bald-faced lie, of course, not just to Congress but to the American people. More than a few of the congresspeople to whom Clapper was testifying knew very well that what he was saying was untrue, yet they refused, or felt legally powerless, to call him out on it.
Snoden stole highly classified intelligence data - the free and widespread dissemination of which obviously harmed US interests. Snoden could have made his findings available to a select audience of US congress persons - who would review this information but keep it secret from adversaries. There's little doubt that appropriate follow up would occur.

And in the unlikely event that appropriate follow up didn't somehow occur - at that point, Snoden might have chosen to reveal the stolen data to a slightly broader/more receptive audience.

So why didn't Snoden expose his data only to US Congressmen?... Easy. Snoden wanted public fame - and cared more for fame than he did for any lives/legitimate US interests he compromised.
===
Snoden is a criminal - and should be brought to trial if ever he sets foot on American soil.
 
Exposing the information he had was going to incur massive personal risk - likely identical between exposing to media at large versus exposing to members of the congress on the appropriate committees.

Again - let me be emphatic on this point.

Snowden saw massive wrongdoing which he felt, if reported to his immediate supervisors or their immediate chain of command - would result in no action and his landing in jail. I get that.

What he obviously should have done in such circumstance - is to expose - by which I mean highlight - because everyone in this target audience would already have had access to this information but would not have know to look for it...

Expose this information to all members of congress on the appropriate intelligence/defense committees.

This would get the job done - exposing wrongdoing.

While preserving US interests.

The attendant risk would likely be the same as that for exposing all of this information to the world free press - but the collateral damage to US interests would have been much reduced.
===
For me, Snowden saw wrongdoing which he viscerally objected to.

Then, whether through naivety (unlikely) or simply because he wanted his name know by the public and wanted to be viewed as a hero - this later factor for me most likely - because he wanted to be viewed as a hero - Snowden endangered US interests not at all connected to the illegal activity he objected to and did so unnecessarily driven by self interest.

Snowden placed his own self-perceived societal adulation above any potential risk/adverse consequence of exposing the information he uncovered to the world at large - and obviously a lone individual of such low rank as himself would not be in position to adequately assess all repercussions.

Snowden is a criminal. End of.

How do you know to "expose this information to all members of congress on the appropriate intelligence/defense committees" would be a positive thing? It is more likely this would be held in a secret meeting with national security being cited, none the wiser knowing the result of said committee be locked away in a vault and ignored.

Both parties would have vested interest in this action.

Snowden did the right thing. End of.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.