Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Snowden: Hero or Villain?
The reverberating headline, it seems, is “Without Snowden, there would be no Freedom Act.” Snowden leaked all of the stuff about the phone records that created the public outrage. This ultimately applied the appropriate level of political pressure to put a stop to much of the things we all seem to find objectionable about the NSAs domestic spying activities. Thus, Snowden is a hero, and a deal should be struck to allow him to come home.
That seems to be a fine line of reasoning. But I can’t get past one simple thing: what Snowden did was illegal, and as near as I am aware, remains illegal. I’m not convinced he should be stood up before a firing squad, but shouldn’t he face some consequences? Maybe his two-year exile to Russia is enough? What do you say?
Published in Domestic Policy, Law
If you’re having trouble with editors changing your words, you ought to take a look at how this author got them to pay attention:
https://youtu.be/ssbCmfCMh34?t=3m4s
It’s the segment from about 3:00 to 6:30. If you don’t understand Russian, be sure you turn on English subtitles if they aren’t turned on for you automatically.
(This is the best episode I’ve seen so far in the 12-part series, but it wouldn’t work if you start with episode 8.)
You’re right on both counts. Few of us when staring death in the face would walk willingly into the arms of our Federal Government no matter how correct our actions may have been.
Actually, I didn’t.
I said this idea:
is counter to the rule of law. And I stated that you can’t have a system that excuses crimes because individuals decided they were more correct than the law or that they understand right from wrong better than the law. That puts the individual above the law. This is not a controversial statement, and I doubt you actually disagree with it.
Treason is always wrong if you have means to improve the system and effect positive change short of treason.
Civil disobedience can be moral and necessary, but for it to be an act of heroism and seen as aimed at making the system better, the person defying the law has to remain in the system and face the consequences of the system he still wishes to be preserved. Otherwise, that person should be looking to overthrow the system.
Does the American government need to be overthrown, Jaimie.
I don’t have beliefs about Snowden’s status (least of all my heart, I’d prefer it keep pumping rather than stopping to think about it ;-) ). I only know there is apparently no evidence that Snowden has given classified info specifically to China/Russia. I’d rather operate from that rather than make an assumption that he has and draw conclusions.
Of course China/Russia would be interested in the files, no argument from me there. It sounds like Snowden is reasonably proficient in encryption tools and methods so it’s definitely possible that China/Russia have the files and yet it does them no good.
Like most of us, he is neither all one thing nor all the other.
I am grateful that he exposed what can only be called a tyrannical government engaged in mass violations of the 4th ammendment.
I am sad he chose to house himself in China and Russia.
I am horrified that many of our elected representatives seem to think that ‘liberty’ is an antiquated concept. Equally horrified that many here seem to agree with them.
He’s not a hero or a villain. Snowden is an idiot. My husband and I watched some of Citizen 4 when we got HBO free for a couple of months. We had to turn it off we were laughing so hard at Snowden. He acted like he was bringing the 10 Commandments down from Mt Sinai, and so did everyone else in that docu-comedy. But barring the minor details, anyone remotely familiar with the NSA/intelligence gathering knew how the government collected data. People are acting like this was “kept” from the American people, but the basic principles were accessible to any citizen. The what he revealed is the problem. He intentionally stole and released classified information. He’s guilty of treason at a minimum. The data he revealed likely caused the deaths of service members, so I hope they eventually pin that on him. He probably knew that the public wasn’t aware of how the government collected data, but that’s different from claiming the government kept it from the public.
Yes, it’s entirely possible Eric Snowden is smarter than all of the computer experts of both the Chinese and Russian governments. Gosh, if only we’d known that and put him in charge of US cyber security, we’d be impervious!
Everything in this paragraph is unreasonable when you’re involved in a discussion with arguments, which have certain requirements like proof. It’s not at all unreasonable to ask for evidence of any particular point.
Actually I did think about each of those and I think they do apply.
I’ll grant you that it’s possible China/Russia have discovered flaws in encryption algorithms that are currently unknown but that again is an assumption. My point was that Snowden appears to have the knowledge and skill necessary to secure the data at a high level, which yes, can be secure against massive adversaries.
Little bit hero whole lotta villian in my opinion. That said, I am for striking a deal to get him home to find out what else he’s let out of the bag or left in the bag. I don’t think making a deal with Snowden sets a bad precedent because there are a bunch more Walkers and Pollards doing decades of time than there are of the Snowden kind where money or foreign control or greed or a combination thereof kept them in action whereas a degree of naiveté and do-good-erism seemed to be motivate Snowden.
I think that entertaining the thought that Snowden may be part of a classic Russian disinformation and espionage campaign is not out of the question. Snowden perpetuates the fact that he is a hero. Those that believe that narrative in the States demand that more documents be released and certain NSA programs be shut down. Snowden can give direction to supporters to which programs should be exposed and which should be suppressed. The question becomes how beneficial is this to the Russians?
There is of course the question of, is Snowden using his computer skills on behalf of his hosts?
I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I do think they are worth asking.
Those files could’ve been delivered to a Senate or House oversight committee without sharing with the Chinese and the Russians. Or to a Judicial branch official.
And, while you can truthfully call it speculative that it was shared with other countries, let me ask you this: If you had that stuff on you, and the Chinese and Russians knew it, would you feel safe unless surrounded by armed security?
Agents and sources — lives — are in those files.
Spin,
The standards of proof that you are imposing on those who claim him to be a villain are overly stringent considering what is possible for a civilian to know. Just about any level of evidence that’s available openly is going to be able to be dismissed as speculation.
What I know is that the Deputy Director of the CIA has stated that Snowden represents the single greatest breach of intelligence in US history, and that the so-called domestic spying elements are a small fraction of what he turned over to the Chinese and Russians. (I know, I know, he WOULD say that, wouldn’t he). It’s possible some good can come out of his treachery, but it’s still treachery.
Something to consider is the very short timeline between the time that BAH hired him, and when he hopped the plane to Hong Kong- something like 6 months. That’s not the timeline of a conscientious whistleblower, that’s the timeline of a guy on a mission to penetrate security and extract the most information that he can before being caught. The only question in my mind is whether he was formally an agent of a foreign power or a freelancer.
There is nothing heroic about this guy.
You make the point, without citing sources, and it’s up to me to prove it for you? If I ask you for credible sources for your view, that means I’m asking you to be a research assistant. Got it.
Is it really beyond the pale to ask for you to provide sources for your opinions? Again, this is Ricochet, not Facebook.
Sharing with the blowhards in Congress or the crooks in the DOJ? Why would he want to take part in coverup and obstruction of justice?
I think the problem here is that there’s a lot of regulatory capture. The people most in power to do something about such programs generally support them and think they’re wholly constitutional.
Spin
“You make the point, without citing sources, and it’s up to me to prove it for you? If I ask you for credible sources for your view, that means I’m asking you to be a research assistant. Got it.
Is it really beyond the pale to ask for you to provide sources for your opinions? Again, this is Ricochet, not Facebook.”
Spin you said you want learn, go learn. Just because this isn’t Facebook doesn’t require me to spend time grabbing sources and offering them to you upon request. If what I were saying was something little known or truly obscure you may have a point. That’s not the case.
I’m not really asking for proof. In a New Yorker article I read today, the author said that there is no evidence that Snowden gave classified information to foreign governments. On this thread folks have said that Snowden carried information in to Russia, and gave it to the Russians and the Chinese. All I’m asking for is some credible source for this these statements, beyond “Oh come on, of course you know he gave that info to the Russians, are you naive?” And understand, I’m not saying he didn’t do that, I’m just asking for sources that inform the view that he did in fact do what the people say he did.
Ok. So you don’t actually have any source for your opinion, it’s just your opinion. You should have said so at the beginning.
I have in the past had entrusted to my safekeeping information on a similar level to that entrusted to Mr. Snowden. I attended, as he attended, briefings where the requirements for properly handling, and consequences for improperly handling, such data was made clear. At no point was I allowed to believe that keeping that information from unauthorized access was dependent on my judgement or my conscience.
If the choice is to be between throwing him a parade or stringing him up, I’ll buy the rope, I’ll tie the knot, and I’ll help hoist.
I’ll bet the reason you refuse to provide a link is because such a link doesn’t exist. But keep living in your fantasy world.
I’ll eat crow if you provide one, but I doubt you do.
Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constituion states:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Disclosing to the enemy the means and methods by which we collect information about them is by any reasonable definition, aiding them in their fight against us.
Snowden is a traitor. As such, he should be executed.
[Edited for CoC compliance]
Hi Karen. Re: “kept” from the American people.
Count me as one of those who was gobsmacked to find out the size and scope of the government’s data gathering. I do try to keep up. I assumed that my international calls might be scooped up in somebody’s database…but domestic?!?? Without a warrant specifically identifying me or the other party?!?!?! I hadn’t a clue. So, yeah, I feel it was “kept” from me. And the fact that such an activity, undertaken against Americans here at home, with nothing but what used to be known as a ‘general warrant’, is unconscionable.
Phew! [Edited for CoC]
Hi Klaatu
What about Disclosing to law abiding Americans the means and methods by which the government collects information about us? What is the reasonable definition of that?
I assumed that my international calls might be scooped up in somebody’s database…but domestic?!??
No one “scooped up” your calls, if by that you mean listened to them. As to the number you dialed and when, that is information belonging to the service provider, not you.
What about Disclosing to law abiding Americans the means and methods by which the government collects information about us? What is the reasonable definition of that?
If that provides aid and comfort to the enemy, the definition remains the same. Treason.
Right, but the service provider is required to share that information with the government. We’re not allowed to contract with telephone providers who will protect our privacy.
Right, but the service provider is required to share that information with the government. We’re not allowed to contract with telephone providers who will protect our privacy.
None of the service providers objected.