[flagged]
You should refrain from holding strong opinions on a subject that you did not bother to put even a bit of effort to understand.
Snowden did not run to Russia, he was on his way from Hong Kong to Ecuador and was in the international transit zone of Moscow's airport as part of a layover flight when the U.S. cancelled his passport leaving him stuck in the airport for over a month. During that time Snowden applied for asylum in several countries including Bolivia, Brazil, Austria, India, etc etc... the U.S. placed a great deal of diplomatic pressure on every single country he applied to to refuse his request and finally Russia gave him what was at the time intended to be temporary asylum so he could leave the airport and pursue asylum elsewhere. That temporary asylum is now a residency permit.
Snowden has stated he would be willing to return the U.S. to face trial if said trial would be open and transparent as well as present a public interest defense. The charge against him for violating the Espionage Act allows substantial portions of the trial to be conducted in secret, precludes the possibility of using a public interest defense, and places a great deal of restrictions on a defendant to properly argue their case.
Daniel Ellsberg, another whistleblower who was charged under the Espionage Act for releasing the Pentagon Papers has fully supported the actions of Edward Snowden has made it clear that he would have acted in the same manner given the circumstances.
Ellsberg was very fortunate that the prosecution acted with such brazen and open recklessness against him in the illegal gathering of evidence that it led the judge to dismiss all charges against him, otherwise Ellsberg would have faced 115 years in prison for what he did.
To OP's point though, much of what Snowden took was not shared publicly, but was handed over to the Russian government. So something is not adding up when he says he is only in Russia for self-preservation when he could have had a long and successful career in the US if he had just (actually) raised his ethical complaints and just quit his job.
You're gonna have to show some evidence of that if you don't want to look like a tool.
According to: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hpsci_snowden_r...
> Since Snowden’s arrival in Moscow, he has had, and continues to have, contact with Russian intelligence services., and in June 2016, the deputy chairman of the Russian parliament’s defense and security committee asserted that “Snowden did share intelligence” with his government.'
> Over the past three years, the Intelligence Community and the Department of Defense (DoD) have carried out separate reviews—with differing methodologies—of the contents of all 1.5 million documents Snowden removed. It is not clear which of the documents Snowden removed are in the hands of a foreign government.
The US govt is assuming they have it all
> Out of an abundance of caution, DoD therefore reviewed all 1.5 million documents to determine the maximum extent of the possible damage.
So why would anyone claim he did so unless they had something to gain or are just sharing an opinion?
Most of this information was not given to the journalists. It could be he was bluffing about what kind of access he had (was very likely). But he claimed to have much more information than he showed the journalists in Hong Kong.
FWIW (obviously taken with a grain of salt) - the intelligence community themselves at least believed and acted as if he took a bunch of classified documents with him - despite not believing him that he actually had lists of undercover assets and stations: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33125068
He ran. Don't blame the US for trying to detain him.
> Snowden has stated he would be willing to return the U.S. to face trial if said trial would be open and transparent as well as present a public interest defense.
Why does he deserve special treatment?
> Daniel Ellsberg[...]has fully supported the actions of Edward Snowden
Daniel Ellsberg gets to decide what the law is?
First, a fair trial is not "special treatment". Second, because every U.S. citizen is protected by the Bill of Rights. There was a non-zero chance that had Snowden not fled the country he'd be quietly moved to Gitmo and never heard from again.
I may be reading this wrong, but, it sounds like you're not in favor of the actions Snowden took. I couldn't disagree more. He tried to raise the illegal operation he was a part of to the higher-ups, through the chain-of-command, and he was ignored. The public deserves to know that the U.S. Government was blantly breaking the law and spying on everyone, everywhere, all the time.
Snowden was basically locked in Russia by the United States -- the U.S. wanted to pin him as a scary Russian-affiliated actor. And they did.
Maybe that should give you reservations about which country is the "MOST historically abusive surveillance state."
Or maybe you've just taken U.S. propaganda hook, line and sinker.
You are playing into exactly the narrative the Western intelligence community is trying to propagate by saying he is somehow blameworthy for not wanting to spend the rest of his life in jail (and no, Snowden would not get pardoned like Manning was, the leaks are too great, the ire is too great).
If these are the standards you hold for someone to be a legitimate whistleblower, …good luck. I think you are being overly influenced by national sentiment.
Spare me the hand-wringing. The only thing Snowden actually accomplished was a one-way ticket to Eastern Bloc griftsville. Thank you for proving my point for me.
So no, I don't care, because until THAT is an issue which is addressed, the rest of the arguments on the subject are moot. I don't think anyone should have any of that information, but there's no point in giving a shit if people are going to refuse to be logically consistent.
I'd say that's also a huge problem, it doesn't have to be either/or. The thing is, FB or Google don't employ people with guns and can't throw you in prison. The vast majority of people also wouldn't expect the US government to be reading their private messages illegally and without a warrant.
They SELL YOUR INFORMATION to people with guns who can throw you in prison AND they gather far more of it than the people with the guns.
However I do agree that becoming stuck in an abusive state certainly raises questions over allegiances, and to maintain full credibility, whistleblowers certainly need to avoid the appearance of defection or the apparent hypocrisy of gaining protection from even worse governments.
Any future whistleblowers highly sought-after by USGOV will certainly taken note of this.
Once he was stuck there he applied for asylum and ultimately citizenship. But it wasn't his original plan.
Courts are not perfect because they are made of human beings but what is a better alternative? The alternative that you are implying is that courts and laws are only for people you don't like and since you like (or agree with) Julian Assange it's not necessary.
If a company like Chevron could influence a court with a private prosecutor to put a journalist on house arrest for a year, how on earth could a whistleblower expect a fair trial when all they have to say is "national security" and he disappears in a dark hole for the rest of his life.
> Donziger is married and has a son.[17] The family lives in a two-bedroom apartment on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.[17][49]
Your assertion is also a bit larger than one case- you say the entire legal system is a joke.
Additionally, my point was to give an example of how easily the legal system can be flaunted for the benefit of some corp, with little recourse. Why should anyone expect the rules to be followed for a fail trial when the full weight of the federal gov's spy apparatus is behind the charges?
The legal system is one court case? If anything it supports that the US court system is not perfect, which is true. How does Donzinger's case affect Snowden's?
Because his right to a fair trial has already been violated.
The level of willful ignorance of history is truly appalling.
Anyways, 'omg that would never happen' to 'omg so long ago, hurrdurr' - you're not arguing in good faith. later.
Devil's advocate: I'd be nervous answering those questions publicly when they are close to undoubtedly classified topics. Were there also closed door hearings?
Jesus christ. Of course his lawyers would be using ever legal avenue, they’re his defense team.
You should familiarize yourself with the charges: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-julian-assa...
> Of course his lawyers would be using ever legal avenue
Yes, but don't call it a "treatment". More like, "using the rights afforded to him".
Yes, which confirms his crime is saying he would look up an md5 hash on a public website.
Breach of whatever, but apparently anything goes if you're mad enough at the heretic.
Anyone not an enemy of the US would hand him back to the US, so his options were limited.
And regardless, the data Snowden leaked are important. Even if Russia caused it to be leaked, it's still useful to us. Now if only we could do something about it.
This was coming from a low level IT guy who joined during the Obama administration. He had no particular attachment to the Bush Era programs.
But as he explained it, Snowden's story of how he got the documents makes no actual sense and that other assets were involved (he may have not known Russian involvement at the time).
And now that we know more about the state of Russian intelligence, it was probably always the plan to have him lay low in South America indefinitely. But Russia realized things were getting pretty botched and just extracted him directly.
Contrast that with your message from a vested interest that it's "a lie." You'll need a lot more than that to be convincing.
Snowden joined the CIA in 2006.