Its sad, and telling, that the majority of people in this country still believe that he's a traitor, should be punished, and that the govt is right and should be allowed to abuse power.
People actually believe that someone revealing information about crimes is more guilty than the criminals. Hypocricy at its finest.
Putin wont gift. Putin might trade. When Snowden gets delivered people are going to ask what did Mr. Trump gave in return. It would raise many eyebrows.
Not to mention once Snowden is in USA there will be far more attention to him and his issues in media and public. I will not be surprised of ACLU gets to raise 10X more money because of this event.
All good for liberty but bad to Washington's hatemongers.
Not to mention once Snowden is in USA there will be far more attention to him and his issues in media and public.
If Snowden is brought to the USA, you won't see or hear from him ever again. He'll be whisked quietly to Gitmo without any public announcement.
Does Obama have the option of restoring Snowden's passport just before the inauguration? He could frame it as "I hope he makes the right decision and comes home", and then Snowden silently makes it to Ecuadorian territory.
An interesting comment from a French general: he thinks the best thing that can happen to NATO is actually the US pulling out of NATO. This would preserve the benefits of NATO (interoperability between all western armies) but would force Europeans to take their own defense seriously instead of relying on the US.
Interesting. Also, the EU has been quietly trying to build an army, this would let them leapfrog all the political potholes of doing so and just assimilate NATO as the new EU army.
I would personally see it as a desirable outcome. I think Trump should disband NATO Snowden or not. European nations have for long freeloaded off US taxpayer's money fueling the Military Industrial Complex over an artificial threat of weakened Russia all while badmouthing USA and its capitalistic system.
True enough. But what does this have to do with GP's comment?
I took his point to be simply that, if Putin wants to boost Trump politically, and strengthen the connection between their administrations, then handing over Snowden might make sense. GP was just pointing out this possibility, not endorsing it.
If that was all he had done, it would be easier to support him. Unfortunately he went a little further than that, into territory that arguably is a national security issue.
Arguably, yes. I'd like to hear a real argument, other than "leaking stuff might make us less safe." The leaks are public, so it shouldn't be too hard to find specific instances where people were harmed.
Not necessarily. Human assets can be lost or they can be compromised, methods can be compromised, humint and other intelligence can be set back years so that what goes on in adversarial and even friendly governments is a black box to us (which is not good, given our heft.) so, unless other governments thinking and methods become transparent, this exposure is a real risk.
Unfortunately he went a little further than that, into territory that arguably is a national security issue.
Correct. When the illegal, unaccountable, and extrajudicial surveillance powers documented by Snowden are turned on our elected representatives, which they inevitably will be, the concept of "national security" will be well and truly lost.
That's the real threat, the one that nobody ever talks about.
I agree with you and don't follow the arguments against this – Snowden represents a bargaining chip in Russian international relations, by definition by being "wanted" makes Snowden an asset in the hands of Russia – this isn't a moral thing, beyond the calculus of how Russia's image is affected...
I don't think Trump caters to the libertarian crowd. I can already see him sparkling cables in front of an electric chair on TV while he announces Snowden being returned to the US.
OT - It would be nice to add what section of the paper this comes from to the HN title, in this case Opinion. People see the headline and the website and may assume that this is a New York Times article approved by the NYT Editors.
It's an op-ed from an editor at the paper responsible for breaking Snowden's story (The Guardian), and it's sitting on the front page of NYT as we speak – what more do you want?
It's ironic to me that they make their op-ed pieces subject to their paywall. You'd think they'd want their opinion pieces shared as widely as possible.
He's either "protected" in Russia or dead. I seriously doubt he could return to the US without suffering some horrible traumatic body-and-evidence-destroying "accident" ...
Honest question - do you truly think that could happen? I've no doubt certain individuals would like it to, but would the people in power allow it?
I personally suspect at this stage, his death would turn him into a martyr and the last thing the individuals operating these illegal surveillance programs want is more attention back on what they are doing.
I don't know how he could really do much more damage at this point. What would killing him achieve. And also can't they get him in Russia too? I mean in a country like that with all the mafia, etc. A few million would go a long way. I wonder how much Russia is protecting him from a CIA hit. In Russia he's much more of a threat as Putin's useful idiot than he would be on American soil. I am not saying he's a useful idiot, I am saying he's a useful idiot to Putin and that's why Putin has given him protection. Also I don't think that you hand over a chip like Snowden without serious concessions from the US. But could happen under Trump.
Assassinating someone on Russian soil is a great way to start a war. You seem to be assuming that it could be covered up successfully. History proves otherwise; all too often, the truth comes out eventually. And if he were assassinated, the party responsible would be fairly obvious early on, because there's only one country that would have the motivation to finance that operation.
Putin gives him protection because it lets him thumb his nose at the US.
Killing somebody on foreign soil opens you up to a whole can of worms that killing on your own soil doesn't, so regardless of whether or not he is being actively protected there is significant passive protection just by being there.
So are we to assume that the CIA wants Snowden dead, but they can't get a chance to kill him in Russia? I found that hard to believe. Maybe, there is some kind of commitment to the FSB (don't kill in the US, we won't go on a killing spree in Russian soil kind of deal), but even that I find it hard to believe. I also find very hard to believe the claim the the FSB somehow protects him.
>So are we to assume that the CIA wants Snowden dead, but they can't get a chance to kill him in Russia?
Not so much can't get a chance as the price would be too high. He's under Russian protection. That protection is political far more than tactical. The CIA could probably pick him up in less than an hour if they knew they could do it without pissing off the Russians. It's the "pissing off the Russians" part that's stopping them, not the logistics.
It isn't just pissing off the Russians, its pissing off everybody. When you perform an act on foreign soil you open yourself up to scrutiny from everyone. The USA is already largely considered a warmonger state
As for whether the CIA would want Snowden dead - I presume it would only have been useful to them pre-leak, and I doubt murder would have been on the cards then anyway. I don't see retribution as being particularly high on the CIA's list of priorities, and the political entities in the US that are keeping Snowden relevant wouldn't appear to gain anything from his death.
The US Govt kills people on foreign soil often, even in countries that we're not at war with. If we hear about it happening in Pakistan, where does it happen that we don't hear about? Also, you're assuming that the US Govt is rational and doesn't want an excuse to go to war with Russia or anyone else.
First, let's accept the conceit (for now) that nation-states have both the desire and the capability to do this.
In that context, it's very easy to imagine ways to frame the death such that it would prevent him from seeming a martyr. Died in a car accident, strangled during auto-erotic asphyxiation, shot in a drug deal gone bad, depression-related suicide, etc. The right context could be used to discredit him further, in addition to silencing any potential impact by giving speeches or serving as a public figure for a privacy-focused organization in the future (for example).
Of course, you could then respond that it would still spawn conspiracy theories, but the doubt planted would certainly blunt the kind of wide-spread movement (or public outrage) that might otherwise sprout from a bald-faced assassination. Realistically, conspiracy theories will pop up in any situation in which Snowden doesn't die of old age at 95, so this isn't much of a dissuading factor for our hypothetical villains.
We know that state-sponsored assassination is possible, based on the basically-obvious case of Litvinenko. Crucially, we can also never know of any attempt which was successfully reframed, which makes it impossible to determine whether or not these "accidents" exist; there are many, many deaths which have been nominated as candidates, but no conclusive evidence of those that I'm aware of.
So, rather than "would the people in power allow it", I think the following 3 questions are more pertinent:
1 - Are nation-states competent enough to plausibly disguise the attempt?
2 - Which nation-states conduct this kind of behavior?
3 - Who in the intersection of Q1 and Q2 cares enough about Snowden to do it?
I think the public has a short attention span. What if Snowden disappeared without a trace? He wouldn't be a martyr - intelligent people might assume that he's dead, and everyone else would be worried about the current distraction in media and entertainment.
Why on earth would the US government bother doing this and what 'evidence' is there to destroy? This weirdly popular idea that Snowden (or Assange, etc) are the targets of active, persistent USG plots to murder them doesn't make much sense. What could the US gain by this, for the hassle?
Assange perpetuates these ideas for publicity. Snowden likely fears for his safety (rightfully so; Trump's CIA pick has said he wants Snowden dead), but seems to be much less hysterical about hitmen and death.
Odd that, say, Daniel Ellsberg has lived to be 85 and has not been hit by a ninja CIA bus. No NSA anvil has fallen on James Bramford (age 70). And there are dozens of others you can think of. There's next to no evidence the US government operates in the way you assume with respect to such people. Why does Snowden suddenly get his own squad of assassins?
And strategically, assassinating Snowden is about the worst possible move for a US linked agency since (i) it makes them look bad, even to some of the people who think Chelsea Manning got off lightly and (ii) it makes Snowden's revelations interesting to a whole bunch of people that don't read Hacker News and think that articles about email monitoring sound incredibly dull.
You don't have to believe that every US chain of command in every theatre of operations has qualms about "disappearing" people suspected of quietly leaking secrets to think that causing an international incident over a public figure like Snowden, even if the assassins were guaranteed to succeed and not perish in a firefight with Russian cops called by an FSB security detail, isn't going to do them any good.
There've been several just in the last few years, Ellsberg was a genuine whistleblower, the NSA wanted to stop the publication of Bramford's work. On top of that there have been multiple genuine, grade A, real spies. They get caught, tried, convicted and imprisoned - they don't end up dying in car accidents or even accidentally falling on a pair of scissors in prison.
You're assuming he's released everything he has... and he didnt. He censored stuff, he left it up to news outlets to pull out newsworthy stuff and not share things likely to compromize national security... those things are out there still... and he has them, so yes, he still has damage he can do... i believe he has no interest in doing said damage, but the potential is there
The damage is already done. It's much more likely that every interested intelligence organization has already got their hands on everything he took (because that's their job) than 'US intelligence is plotting an assassination attempt' (not really their job).
Oh, please. Hard to feel pity for him, when whistleblowers face threat of being murdered here in Russia. And Snowden has the "threat" of due process. How awful.
As for "articulating an impact" that's both obvious, a big diplomatic incident between the US and the nations whose leaders it was targeting, and IRRELEVANT. Snowden was trusted with Top Secret information and it was his duty to protect it, whatever he thought the impact of leaking it would be notwithstanding.
Maybe you should do a modicum of research before deciding what is the truth, even in this post fact world. Pretty much everything written by the commenter who you replied to was wrong.
Punishment for treason is not necessarily death.
Snowden leaked the info to trusted news sources who then proceeded to decide what to publish.
Snowden was stuck in Russia at the airport en route to somewhere else when everything was getting grounded to find him. Russia took the chance to offer him asylum and as he had no other options he took it.
Leaking to "trusted news sources" is still leaking!
Further, my central claim, that Snowden leaked the details of legitimate foreign intelligence activities, is hard fact. Look at my response to 'abandonliberty'.
As for him just being stuck in Russia, he claims to have been en route to Ecuador by way of Cuba by way of Russia. All of these, mind you, part of the same anti-American bloc (which Venezuela is also a member of).
What do you imagine the alternate escape routes were? Do you think he could hide out in Wales? If you want to escape the clutches of the US, you must go somewhere that won't simply extradite you back to the US. Being in Russia, "stuck" or not isn't relevant to whether Snowden is a traitor.
I also don't see how Ecuador is part of an "anti-American bloc" given that they are a democratic state and literally use the US dollar as their official currency.
>I also don't see how Ecuador is part of an "anti-American bloc" given that they are a democratic state and literally use the US dollar as their official currency.
You should familiarize yourself more then, with Rafael Correa, Hugo Chavez, and their foreign policy and overseas allies.
I should have left that out. The real point was to address the claim that he "fled to our adversaries". There are realistically no neutral parties that he could have fled to.
I'll just concede on the Ecuadorian anti-Americanism. I don't think they're the worst but they are certainly not a dear friend.
The whole thing seems very cowardly. If Snowden truly thought he was acting in the best interests of his country, he could have:
1. Leaked only information about the NSA spying on Americans within the US.
2. Stayed within the US and faced the music.
Instead, he damaged America's ability to collect intelligence on foreign countries by revealing our capabilities, and then fled into the arms of our adversaries who have used him as a propaganda piece.
Our country exists with the freedom, prosperity, and influence we enjoy today because millions of men were willing to march to their deaths for it. Meanwhile, Snowden can't even face a jury of his peers for an act of civil disobedience? He must not think much of his cause.
This is a tired trope. Even if it's true that belief in a cause requires a willingness to die, that doesn't mean that it requires one to actually die. I don't see how Snowden staying around for a life or death sentence would have done anything useful for his cause. It's not "cowardly" to want to avoid life in a federal prison or death by lethal injection.
You're just spouting soundbytes. You restated the "fled into the arms of our adversaries" line nearly verbatim but ignore the fact that there's nowhere else to "flee" because any country not willing to extradite him to the US is de facto "anti-American". You say he damaged our ability to collect data but don't have any proof. Was it embarrassing to the nation? Sure. Is there proof that it actually harmed us? I'm not aware of any. You also call him a coward as if level of bravery is relevant to treason as opposed to a pure appeal to emotion over logic.
>You say he damaged our ability to collect data but don't have any proof.
The damage is very obvious. He revealed a bunch of mediums that the NSA had the capability to monitor. Any sophisticated actor that wants to avoid US intelligence is now avoiding those mediums.
My point is that he didn't have to flee. Instead he fled into the arms of those who stand to gain the most from his knowledge of our intelligence capabilities. Putin is not giving him asylum for free. I'm sure he's getting something out of it, if just the ability to use Snowden as as a propaganda piece and negotiating chip. It'd probably be hard to make a treason charge legally stick, but I believe it is what he is morally guilty of. There are plenty of things that he is plainly guilty of that carry equivalently harsh sentences.
You're right, he had nowhere else to flee but the enemies of the United States. But that doesn't change the fact that he fled, nor where he fled to. He did not have to flee. And yes, I think he's a coward for it.
The damage is so obvious that you can't cite a concrete example? Do you think other nations were actually unaware that we hack into computer systems and tap phone lines?
The idea that Snowden should have stayed in the US strikes me as petty and naive. If he's a coward for fleeing instead of spending life in prison then I suspect the vast, vast majority of the population are also cowards.
I doubt that Angela Merkel, or 35 other world leaders, knew we were listening to their phone calls. I doubt the EU knew that several of their offices were bugged by US intelligence. The same goes for the embassies of 38 countries that we had bugged. I doubt that Al Jazeera knew that we were monitoring their internal communications. Even though some people said it was possible that Dual_EC_DRBG was 'backdoored', RSA Security was still using it as its default for some products. Look at this list here: http://www.businessinsider.com/snowden-leaks-timeline-2016-9
All of these people who were successfully spied on before, and others in similar positions, are now surely much more careful and focused on securing their communications. Even if they had reason to suspect that America would try to spy on them, they probably didn't know that their countermeasures (if any) had failed. If they haven't since switched to much more secure communications methods, then they are stupid and should be prosecuted for criminal negligence with their own country's secrets.
How can you possibly expect concrete examples of information that we don't get? I'm sure there's some specific things that we know we don't know, but why would the United States advertise to the world which of their new countermeasures are and aren't working?
Merkel most certainly knew that we were trying to spy on her calls. After all, "Spying on foreigners is the raison d'etre of the NSA, CIA, et al." She might not have known we were successful, but she must have assumed we were trying and had a high probability of success. The alternative is that she's incompetent and so is her security staff. China and Russia are undoubtedly also doing their best to tap Merkel's phone. If it's "criminal negligence" for Merkel to use an unencrypted phone now, it was before as well.
Dual_EC_DRGB was known to be shady and risky and any nation's security agency relying on it before Snowden's leaks is beyond incompetent. The only people legitimately compromised by this would have been private citizens, largely American citizens, the same people you say Snowden's leaks should have been restricted to.
1. America has figured out how to listen to Merkel's phone calls.
2. Merkel finds out we listen to her phone calls.
3. Merkel stop using her phone for communications.
4. America bugs Merkel's house.
Or
1. US listens in on embassy.
2. Embassy finds out US is listening.
3. Embassy searches for and finds the bug.
4. US plants a new bug.
No one was shocked about the US spying except the most willfully naive. Any party capable of consistently detecting and thwarting US attempts at spying was doing so already and any party not capable of doing so is still not. It's not as if after the Snowden leaks the rest of the world suddenly realized the US engages in espionage. I'm sure that the US lost the ability to use a few bugs/taps/whatever. I'm also sure they had more and have planted more.
The core thrust of your argument is that awareness of the US successfully spying is sufficient to allow those being spied on to block future spying. I don't buy it because if they had the capability, those being spied on would have already blocked the previous spying.
People actually believe that someone revealing information about crimes is more guilty than the criminals. Hypocricy at its finest.