Or instead of pushing him to do whatever it takes to protect his own life which ultimately is a human reflex, the US Gov could have said: ok we acknowledge there is a problem with the data we gather, with the policies we enacted and with the way we informed the people, come back home we won't charge you for espionnage and we will listen to you to improve how we could protect the US without compromising privacy.
When did we decide that the national security programs of the United States should give a damn what a random 30 year old contractor thinks about them? This is risible. Who voted for Edward Snowden?
What he has done is not confined to "whistleblowing", if indeed any of it is. He apparently stole massive amounts of classified information, much of it on programs that by any reasonable definition are legitimate, albeit potentially embarrassing. He's now flying around from one U.S. strategic competitor to another, apparently unconcerned that what he stole could end up in the hands of those who do not wish the U.S. well. Feel free to describe him as being a hero to the world or whatever, but his protestations to have done all of this for love of country are starting to ring quite hollow.
...but his protestations to have done all of this for love of country are starting to ring quite hollow.
Why, because he doesn't behave in a way that comports with your definitions of love of country?
IMO, the truest patriot is one who cares enough about his country to call out its faults. That he doesn't want to be "Gitmo-ed" or suffer "extraordinary rendition" to a place where they "interrogate" you by shoving a broken beer bottle up your ass is pretty orthogonal to patriotism, if you ask me.
No, because going to Hong Kong, then Russia, then Ecuador with a few laptops full of classified information is not something a serious person does if they're interested in the welfare of the United States.
And seriously: It would have been completely illegal to send Snowden to Gitmo or any other nation. If you're worried that the President is willing to do things that are blatantly and obviously illegal and unconstitutional, as opposed to in the gray areas of national security, and that no one in the Congress or the judiciary could or would do anything about it, then hey, get that impeachment petition going. But really this is all just hn hyperventilation.
If Snowden thought he was a true whistleblower, he should have followed the law, which describes exactly how he should have communicated his concerns. If that had failed, go to Congress and testify. But sneaking off to HK with (apparently) a bunch of unrelated information was not a "brave" or "patriotic" thing to do.
Out of curiosity, is there any classified information he could have turned over (intentionally or otherwise) to the Russians that would make you reconsider the wisdom of his decisions?
What if one of those laptops has the names of undercover agents on it? I'm not saying it does, I'm just trying to understand the scope of your argument.
Well, OK, then. Snowden is rightfully a hero to your ideology. But I think anyone who's read history can argue that the institutions that currently "run the world" are among the most beneficial to mankind ever to emerge. They're not perfect, but we should think twice before tearing them down.
Oh absolutely they are the best so far, but they still aren't nearly good enough that we should just accept them and wait for their downfall or transition to come "naturally;" we must takes steps to ensure that the change occurs, not just wish it so.
Fair. But who voted for anyone running the NSA? When did we decide that the national security programs of the United States should operate without the consent of the governed?
65 million people voted less than a year ago for the guy who could order the NSA to stop or modify any of these programs immediately. Say what you like about the current occupant of the Oval Office, but he's not a rigid ideologue: Democratic voices and the resulting political forces can get him to move, and if by some chance they can't, there's a Congressional election in a year and a Presidential in three.
I understand that, and I want to jump on board the 'our representatives should have control' train and believe that we're voting for people in power to make these decisions, but I just don't think it's realistic. The President and Congress are simply limited by the finite amount of time they have, and it's about time that we realize that the size of the United States as a population and as a governing body has outgrown the framework designed just a few centuries ago.
Sure, we could expect that someone from the NSA would brief the President or congress on the happenings of surveillance. It seems like a huge priority. But I lean towards Hanlon's Razor and thus towards believing that there are multiple layers of people between the people who make these decisions and the President--layers of people who are balancing their job security (after all, who would hire someone fired from the NSA for overstepping the 4th amendment) and their job description (after all, who do we blame when terrorist attack?). It's simply the stupidity of the system rather that malicious individuals within it.
All that might be true, but nothing is stopping President Obama from ending any of these programs he's reading about in the New York Times with a phone call, followed by an executive order.
Maybe other programs would wiggle their way through the bureaucracy without his notice, but the fact that he hasn't made a big show of publicly terminating these particular programs suggests that he is responsive to the concerns of the public. Unfortunately the concerns of the public don't appear to line up with yours at the moment.
And to get back to my point, they don't line up with Snowden's either. Which is too bad for Snowden, but it doesn't give him the right to do whatever he wants with the classified information he was trusted and paid to protect.
This would be a terrible move for the US as it sets the example that leaking classified information is okay. Whether you believe what he did was right or wrong, he needs to face the consequences of his actions.
