Hacker News Reader

Comment by dvt | Hacker News Reader

A bit hypocritical of Snowden to criticize the USA while holed up in Russia. But maybe I'm a bit partial considering the USSR destroyed every semblance of culture and national identity in my home country, causing generations of corruption and trauma, and ultimately emboldening my family to move to the States--abandoning lifelong friends and family--where a much better life was possible.

But please, keep lecturing us on how the US is "problematic." It's highly indicative that someone hasn't lived even a remotely hard life (nor traveled extensively, at least not without a US passport) when their criticism of the US is so paper thin. We get it: US imperialism bad, CIA evil, etc. But boy am I happy (not to mention proud) to be an American.

View on HN

He's holed up in Russia because the United States stranded him there.

He was in Hong Kong for the original reporting. When his identity was revealed the United States charged him under the Espionage Act, & revoked his passport. He was flying to Argentina through countries that didn't have extradition agreements with the United States. When he got off in Russia, his passport was confiscated as it was no-longer valid & he spent over a month in the Moscow airport, unable to leave or go anywhere else.

Ecuador, not Argentina.

Thank you for the correction.

You're missing a rather interesting step in his adventures: staying at the RU Consulate for several days in Hong Kong. And then he ends up "stuck" in Moscow. Surely a coincidence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/report-snowden-stayed-a...

I'm sure the US government would have greeted Snowden with open arms & a red carpet...straight to Gitmo...held without charges for years

I'm guessing he'd rather be in the USA, if it meant he weren't thrown in a prison cell and possibly executed for treason.

Anyway, what a cynical point of view. Yes, we tend to treat our own citizens here moderately well compared to a totalitarian state (real high bar there). And that's great, but when it comes to international relations, it seems foreigners or even some citizens abroad are viewed as obstacles, at best. This is not a great way to conduct foreign policy. First of all, it's morally wrong, for the same reason you don't want a country doing these things to its own citizens. But if that is unconvincing, then at least an appeal to self-interest: should we ever find ourselves not in the position as #1 superpower, our past actions will likely come back to haunt us.

In real terms, where else is the man supposed to seek refuge? Only a handful of nations can manage to resist American influence. Powerful, yet friendly nations, almost always bend to pressure from the US Government.

Edit: I’d also like to add that only a handful of nations have intelligence agencies of their own that are capable of preventing some black ops extraction or assassination. I doubt the government of Ecuador or Switzerland is up to the challenge.

Also Keep in mind that the United States did not ask for permission to raid Bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan, a state with nuclear weapons.

What options really there is? China? Cuba? Iran? North Korea?

Yeah, knowing how the government treats political prisoners, going back to what would clearly not be a reasonable trial is something that anyone would do in the situation.

Taking Russian sins out on a man stuck there because he's wanted is an odd take.

This is a clear case of the "ad hominem" fallacy.

You are saying his argument is wrong because of who he is.

Just because he is doing something odd (holed up in Russia) doesn't mean he is wrong.

It's not so clear, in that this fallacy seems to be more accurately what's happening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Yes, that is more concise.

FTA "This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack."

I believe most judgements share some common edges with some fallacious logical forms, and yet retain some validity. Your argument, for example, has some commonality with what I would call the "fallacy" fallacy, in which one finds an insignificant echo of a fallacy in another's view and dismisses the entirety of what they have to say.

You invented a meaningless term called a fallacy fallacy and then committed exactly that. /Chef's kiss/

Reread the first sentence very carefully. The second sentence defines (i.e. gives a "meaning" to) the term.

I think pointing to someone's motivations is not ad hominem.

It is if it makes someone reject the argument.

This is identical to saying "Climate change doesn't exist because Al Gore flies in airplanes," or "Ralph Nader cannot be a critic of capitalism because he made a million dollars of his books."

Motivations have nothing to do with it, that is exactly what an ad hominem attack is. If you reject the argument because of the person's motivations, you are calling an argument false without evaluating the argument itself. That is broken reasoning, which is why the term "fallacy" exists.

You're acting like people are rational, and they aren't.

Thanks for demonstrating.

You're welcome.

Classic Red Herring logical fallacy. What's happening in Russia is in no way relevant to the arguments about government murder and the dissolution of the purported "rule of law" in the USA presented in the piece. This is a distractionary tactic used to prevent discussion about the real issues presented in the writing. Shame.

It _is_ hypocritical of him, of course, but despite the hypocrisy he does have lessons for us and his hypocrisy does not negate the substance of the lessons.

He's also between a rock and a hard pace. So I don't blame him too much. What I will say, is that if you choose to be a whistleblower, as honorable and moral that can be, you should be aware of and assume the consequences. That's the deal. It's not nice and the world should be a better place, but it isn't and that's the way it works.

That said, he, and Truman are right in that bureaucracy transforms and metastasizes and becomes something other than its original intent and inertia takes over and becomes what some deride as "the deep state" which has been a concern at least since Jefferson.

Maybe we should have hard sunsets on most ACTs of congress and if the function is important enough they can raise a new organization, but not one simply taking over, but one growing anew with new management, personnel and regulation.

Is it hypocritical? No. Inconsistent? (This is the difference between an act of commission and an lie of omission) Yes, but potentially only temporary. Would Snowden speak out against Russia if the US dropped charges and let him come home? Who can say?

> if the US dropped charges

Well, I guess he's just trapped by the practical problems created by his peculiar combination of personal morality and cowardice.

If you claim whistle-blowing is justified by the exposed crimes and then run, whoever owns wherever you end up now owns you. If they happen to be worse... eh, you made your choice, now live with it.

He made his choice.

I think Snowden is a victim of (naive?) idealism. Idealism often has very short term focus and isn't very strategic. This led him into the trap of realpolitik where the notion of purity isn't a concern. So he saw the US engaging in bad things, in illegal activity --without taking into account how the rest of the world works and how much worse things outside can be. Sometimes whistleblowing can bring change for the good, but it's not a guarantee --in this case, "the powers that be" have too much vested in this organ and will seek to minimize this inconvenient problem he represents.

We shouldn't listen to any whistleblower unless they are willing to martyr themselves? That seems like an unfair standard.

Don't put words in my mouth. I listen to everything he says, there's a lot to learn. And nowhere am I suggesting he martyr himself.

Here's a hint, if you're having difficulty: I'm mostly just describing his plight. I'm not approving of the NSA, FBI, Russia, or anyone else. I do admire him in many respects.

I'm just not terribly sympathetic. For as much time as he spent on the immediate escape, it seems like he spent none on, "...and then what?" Kind of an important detail for an aspiring man of international mystery. Instead, he's turned himself into Putin's tchotchke, sitting on a shelf unless and until he somehow becomes situationally useful.

> Don't put words in my mouth. ... nowhere am I suggesting he martyr himself.

I'm not tryin to put words in your mouth. Perhaps think more about the ideas that the words coming out of your mouth convey? You said "If you claim whistle-blowing is justified by the exposed crimes and then run".

Sounds like you think he ought not to have run. Even though the president literally discussed applying the death penalty to him. That's why I thought you were suggesting he ought to have martyred himself.

> For as much time as he spent on the immediate escape, it seems like he spent none on, "...and then what?"

Jesus christ, you described yourself as unsympathetic, and I guess I can't disagree. But "aspiring man of international mystery"? Don't put words in his mouth. If the things he says about his motivations are true, your mischaracterization is grossly offensive.

> A bit hypocritical of Snowden to criticize the USA while holed up in Russia.

So you have no problem with the substance of the article, only with the author's place of residence?

The article itself references several instances of the CIA toppling governments and starting wars - those are not invalidated because Russia also did similar or and worse things. Plenty of people in the Middle East and Central America could justifiably feel the same about the CIA as you do about Russia.

> Plenty of people in the Middle East and Central America could justifiably feel the same about the CIA as you do about Russia.

(The USSR, not Russia.) It's pure fantasy to argue that the CIA, even given their sordid history, ever partook in anything even remotely comparable to the scale of the USSR's destructive regime[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_Sovie...

The US invasion of Iraq that the CIA helped start [1] resulted in about 200k civilian deaths [2]. I don't feel like tallying the deaths from all of CIA's projects (or deciding how to split responsibility between the CIA and the USA as a whole), and I'm inclined to agree that Russia did worse, even much worse, but not incomparably worse, as subjective as that term is.

Regardless, my statement holds - there are plenty of people that justifiably hate the CIA. It wouldn't surprise me if plenty of proud Americans hated it - it has dragged their country into unnecessary wars, and subverted their democracy. Why this desire to protect a rogue agency that seems hostile even to the US itself, just because Russia is bad?

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/09/usa.iraq2

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project

If the only thing that's wrong with his statement is where he is, then his statement is correct.

Snowden is bad because he's... in a bad country? Drivel!

That the US is better than the USSR is hardly a laurel worth resting on. The US has, from before it even existed, always been about the pursuit of better government--of a more perfect union.

There can be no improvement without criticism.

No. But there is a certain expectation of him while living in Russia.

Agreed, true patriotism is not mindless support of country but the boldness to criticize it

After seeing the ringer that Assange has been put through in spite of not being an American citizen at all, I can only imagine what they would put Snowden through. He would not get a fair trial. Everything that was brought to light would have been buried and forgotten.

None of the Epstein co-conspirators have gone to jail, many of which we know are powerful billionaires, royalty, and celebrities. We have actual evidence of the current president taking bribes while VP (vis-a-vis the Hunter Biden laptop), but there is not even a trace of controversy in the "news" about it.

But we know Snowden would go to jail and his life made a living hell were he not in one of the few countries with true independence from the claws of the American empire. I know why Russia gave him shelter, because the revelations make the U.S. look bad. But I'll be damned if we don't deserve to look bad for this insane, egregious, abuse of human rights that is completely averse to our legal and foundational principles.

Where else do you think he’ll be safe from US vengeance?

China.

Any country that is an enemy of the US, which unfortunately does mean that when he criticizes the US (a country he has not lived in for nearly a decade) you have to take it with a grain of salt.

> But boy am I happy (not to mention proud) to be an American.

So said every citizen of all domineering empires in the history of the world before they came crashing down.

Said another way: the best ever time to live in a society is during the early years/decades of the decadence/decline of a large empire.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

> A bit hypocritical of Snowden to criticize the USA while holed up in Russia.

Seeing how Julian Assange has been treated I think Snowden is acting wisely and I’m not going to hold it against him.

Please lead by example. And when the US crucifies you, you may ask Snowden to do the same and come back to the US.

I think your sacrifice would have a good chance of motivating him. Or depending on the exact outcome, mentally scarring him.

It's hard to think of someone with as much integrity and spine as Edward Snowden. He is one of the greatest Americans, period.

Enjoy feeling happy and proud.

The article must be assumed to simply be Russian propaganda as all information put out by Russia under Putin is either lies or twists on the truth to try to achieve Putin's goals. You cannot assume Edward Snowden freely wrote this article.

You put him there dipshit

Reply on news.ycombinator.com