Can we agree we are debating value judgements?

Because I do feel we are obligated, I don't feel its unjust, and I do feel its wrong to try and avoid it.
Yes it is value judgment, and I emphatically disagree.

Snowden revealed information about certain actions of US government, which US government wanted to hide. Some people believe there is nothing illegal or immoral about these actions, but even if you happen to agree, that information should be judged on its merits. Were Snowden the biggest coward and hypocrite in the world, it would not invalidate the information he revealed in any way. Nor would him heroically turning himself in would somehow validate it. There is absolutely no reason for him to "face the trial".
 
Can we agree we are debating value judgements?

Because I do feel we are obligated, I don't feel its unjust, and I do feel its wrong to try and avoid it.

You do feel people are obligated to face unjust consequences? Why?
 
Why shouldn't they want people to expose government wrongdoing? I mean, besides the obvious.

Snowden went beyond exposing gov't wrongdoing. Some of what he revealed affects US national security interests, insofar as it might help terrorist organizations avoid surveillance.

At the same time, he exposed NSA activity that is probably unconstitutional and definitely goes far beyond what they told their congressional overseers they were doing. What is more, the fact that he was able to get all this information, and reveal it to anyone, shows that the NSA is grotesquely mismanaged. He performed a public service by getting all that out on the table.

How to balance that out in terms of a policy toward Snowden is a tricky question. I can see why the gov't would not want to pardon him outright. I can also see the rank hypocrisy in taking a harsh, punitive stance.

Perhaps leaving him alone, and allowing him to take refuge in whatever country he chooses, is the wisest policy for the time being.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again: what the population finds important and what the NSA finds important are completely two different things - and that's a big reason why there is such a discontinuity between the two cultures.

Snowden supporters see his actions in the context of domestic surveillance, and since it is quite a controversial program, they see a "Snowden bargain" under this light. How could someone be prosecuted for raising awareness on something so important for so many people?

The intelligence and security community see everything else he disclosed as way more important. All the things that have absolutely nothing to do with domestic surveillance, but that Snowden happily and eagerly shared with the world.

For the citizens, the domestic surveillance is a first step toward a police state. For the NSA, it's just a mean to a end, a mission that was given to them by politicians even if it is ultimately foreign to many traditional practices of the organisation, and more importantly, something they would readily end if there is a genuine political will to do so.

On the other hand, the citizens don't see the importance and the value of all the things Snowden disclosed. For them it's an afterthought compared to the domestic surveillance scandal, while for the NSA, it is by far the most damaging stuff. Snowden created the biggest intelligence crisis in the history of the US. The damage he caused could be evaluated in the billions. This is not an exaggeration.

Snowden will NEVER be pardoned for the disclosure he made regarding the US foreign intelligence operations. NEVER. Some people may not understand why, but that's precisely because they see the problem with their citizen's eyes, and not the intelligence professionals. Had Snowden only disclose information about domestic surveillance, the situation would be far different. Unfortunately for everybody, he went far, far, far, far beyond that.

These so-called intelligence professionals are a bunch of bungling incompetents. They had powerpoint decks describing their code-breaking capabilities. How many spies secretly passed that on to foreign gov'ts?

After everything I have read about the history of US intelligence, I'm not exactly in awe of their professionalism. This debacle is just the latest chapter.
 
These so-called intelligence professionals are a bunch of bungling incompetents. They had powerpoint decks describing their code-breaking capabilities. How many spies secretly passed that on to foreign gov'ts?
I would say that the blunder wasn't to have powerpoints describing their capabilities (such things are useful - if only for training purpose), but instead to give such wide access to a contractor. To their defense, the access of sysadmins to business data is an issue that plague the IT world, not just the NSA. In any case, I don't see how this change anything to what I said. The existence of a vulnerability doesn't excuse someone from exploiting it.
 
I would say that the blunder wasn't to have powerpoints describing their capabilities (such things are useful - if only for training purpose), but instead to give such wide access to a contractor. To their defense, the access of sysadmins to business data is an issue that plague the IT world, not just the NSA. In any case, I don't see how this change anything to what I said. The existence of a vulnerability doesn't excuse someone from exploiting it.

Sure. If you leave a stack of $50 bills on the dashboard of an unlocked car in the parking lot of a shopping mall, that doesn't excuse someone who steals them. But you can be pretty sure someone will.
 
Still waiting for an explanation as to how this would have been done.

If he really had no confidence in the proper whistleblowing channels, then disclosing the domestic surveillance programs without talking about the NSA foreign activities would have been a start.
 
Still waiting for an explanation as to how this would have been done.

Select the actually important documents first. (He had no idea what he had before he started releasing it.)

Get a lawyer and prepare a press release.

Post those documents to a usenet provider and also wikileaks.

With the lawyer, hold a press conference, announce the leaks, and state that you are available for arrest at any convenient time.
 
Select the actually important documents first. (He had no idea what he had before he started releasing it.)

Get a lawyer and prepare a press release.

Post those documents to a usenet provider and also wikileaks.

With the lawyer, hold a press conference, announce the leaks, and state that you are available for arrest at any convenient time.

Before saying "Come and get me, coppers!" (federal prosecution and lengthy incarceration something to be devoutly not wished), some commentators think Snowden could have gone privately to members of Congress who have demonstrated an interest in privacy issues. But if he gave them information he'd still be liable for releasing secrets, and if he just said "I've got this stuff, do you want it?" the feds could arrest him before it even got released. Individual congresspersons aren't in a position to grant immunity.

I think Snowden's interest was in not becoming another Bradley Manning; he could have done a lot of things differently if he wanted to go to prison for life.
 
You do feel people are obligated to face unjust consequences? Why?

First, I feel his act is really against the NSA and his employer. Being fired and sued is possibly sufficient. But lets say that I am 100% behind going to trial.

It seems in the American culture, and the stance most here take, is that we have an amalgamated obligation that we balance. So, when Snowden fulfills the massive obligation to the American people, we feel it is just for one of his obligations, his former intelligence employer, to relent.

I share my belief with other cultures that the obligations are separate. And individual honor is made whole by both doing what is right, and fulfilling obligation.
 
Someone ended up making my point in a much better way than I could ever hope.

Why Snowden Won’t (and Shouldn’t) Get Clemency
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...y_the_nsa_leaker_hasn_t_proved_he.single.html

When I read that summary of the ease with which Snowden slid into the agency and did his worst, a question immediately pops into my mind:

How many spies did (and are doing) exactly the same thing, exploiting that chummy, asinine culture, but we don't know about it because they report in secret to their foreign paymasters instead of going public?
 
The main difference between an arrest and a detention is the degree of suspicion law enforcement has.
(The other is that a detention is short, and usually performed on site)
Yes, an arrest is a custodial situation. As you have just admitted, he wasn't arrested. He was detained while clearing customs.

Shouldn't your post have contained a retraction or correction to the original inaccurate claim?
 
Before saying "Come and get me, coppers!" (federal prosecution and lengthy incarceration something to be devoutly not wished), some commentators think Snowden could have gone privately to members of Congress who have demonstrated an interest in privacy issues. But if he gave them information he'd still be liable for releasing secrets, and if he just said "I've got this stuff, do you want it?" the feds could arrest him before it even got released. Individual congresspersons aren't in a position to grant immunity.

I think Snowden's interest was in not becoming another Bradley Manning; he could have done a lot of things differently if he wanted to go to prison for life.

Well, he will end up dead or in prison for life because of how he chose to act.

A good lawyer and a very limited disclosure would have resulted in a legal case, but one he would likely have beaten.
 
Yes, an arrest is a custodial situation. As you have just admitted, he wasn't arrested. He was detained while clearing customs. Shouldn't your post have contained a retraction or correction to the original inaccurate claim?
You Lie!!!! Argglbargl! He wasn't clearing customs, he was in transit! I expect a retraction and an apology! ;)
 
Picked this up on the Edward Snowden: Whistleblower or Criminal thread:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303595404579318884005698684

Jesselyn Radack: Why Edward Snowden Wouldn't Get a Fair Trial



While the controversy surrounding Edward Snowden's dissemination of National Security Agency information continues, members of Congress, journalists and advocacy groups keep repeating the same argument: Mr. Snowden should turn himself in, mount a solid defense and all will be righted at trial.

That's a fantasy. I served as legal adviser to two high-profile whistleblowers between 2010 and 2013, former NSA senior executive Thomas Drake and former CIA officer John Kiriakou, both charged with espionage. I also witnessed last year's court-martial of U.S. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning (now known as Chelsea Manning ), who faced charges of espionage and aiding the enemy. Here's a run-through, to the extent that I am allowed to offer, of how such a shadowy proceeding would unfold.
 

Back
Top Bottom