[flagged]
"Snowden made the right call when he fled the U.S."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/daniel-ellsberg-nsa-...
"Many people compare Edward Snowden to me unfavorably for leaving the country and seeking asylum, rather than facing trial as I did. I don’t agree."
Also, Snowden was trapped in Russia by the U.S. government while in transit to South America, enabling the smear that he went into the arms of the Russians.
And further from Ellsberg:
"I went underground with my wife, Patricia, for 13 days. My purpose (quite like Snowden’s in flying to Hong Kong) was to elude surveillance while I was arranging — with the crucial help of a number of others, still unknown to the FBI — to distribute the Pentagon Papers sequentially to 17 other newspapers, in the face of two more injunctions. The last three days of that period was in defiance of an arrest order: I was, like Snowden now, a 'fugitive from justice.'"
The preceding comment may be wrong, but it has to be rebutted on its merits.
I can’t imagine how that isn’t relevant here.
Again: you can believe that doesn't matter. I don't care, fine, people can disagree. But you can't say "Ellsberg thinks Snowden was justified" refutes the original argument. It is perfectly coherent, reasonable even, to assert that Ellsberg has some moral authority about the ethics of whistleblowing, and also that authority isn't transferrable to leakers Ellsberg favors.
Surely Ellsberg's own comments on Snowden v. Ellsberg and consequences are worth seeing in a thread on that very subject.
Of course Ellsberg isn't the final word and I'm confident no one here thinks that. I assume it's okay by you if discussion continues rather than wait forever for "history" to tell us what to think.
Your view of Snowden is fairly well-known round these parts. If you're concerned about Ellsberg's name having outsized influence on the subject, it seems more in keeping with the spirit of HN for you to tell us why he's wrong in this op-ed rather than roll eyes at the idea of hearing Ellsberg's own response to Snowden v. Ellsberg.
A wonderful thing about history is that it's never really finished: No presumptuous authority can tie a ribbon on a topic and close it.
Snowden fled to Hong Kong first, then from there to Moscow. He was certainly never "in transit" to anywhere else, nor was any of this under the control (even indirectly) of the US government. He fled to nations which he knew would not extradite him.
It's likely true that he had other destinations in mind. Nonetheless he couldn't get it arranged, and he ended up in Moscow because Putin viewed him as useful and extended an offer of residence that China was apparently not willing to make.
Let's not spin here. Snowden isn't a Russian stooge (though obviously his freedom to speak freely about his host country is extremely limited), but let's not treat with conspiracy theories about this being America's Plan All Along.
One may believe that Snowden's location at the time the U.S. revoked his passport was chance, but it's obvious that it was then used over and over to smear him as a Russian stooge. And we can see this smearing continues to this day.
"Obviously his freedom to speak freely about his host country is extremely limited"
Do you think the Russian government would prefer that he not say things like this?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/29/edward-snowd...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/world/europe/edward-snowd...
So the American Plan To Trap Snowden In Russia For Propaganda Purposes comes down to.... revoking a passport for a wanted criminal, something we do hundreds of times ever month or whatever? Not much of a conspiracy.
That's not how that works. If Ecuador was willing to grant asylum, Ecuador could easily have arranged transportation or issued their own passport. They still could, today! They didn't, and won't. Obviously you can spin that part too as part of a nefarious American Plan. But... Ecuador didn't want him either. It's as simple as that.
And he's in Russia, equally simply, because Russia was willing (frankly eager) to antagonize US influence and interests.
(FWIW: your last example of Snowden's seeming independence from Russian interference is a half decade stale. Please. What does he think of the shooting war his host country started?)
Just don't spin this. Snowden broke US laws, fled the country, and ended up being hosted by an enemy. No more complexity need exist.
Joe Biden (then vice president) told the president of Ecuador by phone that relations between the U.S. and his country would "strongly deteriorate" if Snowden was given sanctuary there.
So sure, at that point "Ecuador didn't want him either."
I really don't care whether or not the U.S. planned for Snowden to be in Russia the moment they revoked the passport. The point is that he was trapped there by the actions of the U.S., and this was then used endlessly to insinuate all kinds of things about his motives and distract attention from the substance of the leaks.
In a more uncouth context, it's the kind of argument that would lead to one being deemed a "bootlicker", but we can stick with an apophasis to such for now.
Snowden was trapped in Russia by the Russian government. If you think the Russian government cares about Snowden's travel documents, I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
"Edward Snowden is 'under the care of the Russian authorities' and can’t leave Moscow’s international airport without their consent, Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa told The Associated Press Sunday...."
> Analysts familiar with the workings of the Ecuadorean government said Correa’s claims that the decision was entirely Russia’s appeared to be at least partly disingenuous. They said they believed Correa’s administration at first intended to host Snowden, then started back-tracking this week when the possible consequences became clearer.
Nonetheless, thank you for the reminder. It's a fair point.
He very clearly did not. He thought PRISM was the most important program in his leaks, and he demanded that WaPo publish the slides immediately. Instead, as anybody who works on Internet technology could tell you after reading the slides, PRISM was a nothingburger — a simple ingestion pipeline integration with the FBI's Data Intercept Technology Unit, which handles electronic wiretap integration with Internet companies. The ingested data came from targeted Section 702 data requests for the accounts of specific foreigners living outside the US, which is completely legal.
Snowden, being the high school dropout SharePoint admin he is, thought the PRISM slides showed the NSA could read anything on these Internet companies' servers, which is hilariously wrong.
Ellsberg was by all accounts a genius, and he had the credentials to show it, including membership in the ultra-exclusive Harvard Society of Fellows.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/12/16/an-nsa...?
"Sharepoint administrator" was a tiny part of his role. But please, do explain how the data from "specific foreigners living outside the US" was segregated during ingestion by the "nothingburger" pipeline.
It didn't have to be. That was the only data that existed in the Section 702 wiretaps. The government cannot use Section 702 requests to ask a company for a wiretap of an American's account.
> "a genius among geniuses."
LOL. Probably a quote from the Lotus Notes server admin. Remember, this is the guy who repeatedly failed an analyst test before finally passing it by looking up the answers on the SharePoint server. This is a guy who failed an open-book test on Section 702, so no wonder he misinterpreted the documents he leaked so badly. https://www.thedailybeast.com/either-edward-snowden-is-lying... has some choice quotes from an analyst.
Snowden was by all accounts a SharePoint administrator. He released a wide array of stuff, probably got a few agents of the US killed, and in all probability traded more information for his current accommodation.
That doesn't make it right, it just means he can empathize. MLK, in his Letter form a Birmingham Jail addressed this very clearly:
"I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."
Disobeying a law and accepting a penalty is to protest the unjust character of a law. Disobeying and fleeing means disregarding the law altogether. Not only is that wrong, it's also going to greatly diminish whatever goal you had in mind with your protest in the eyes of others.
Just because you're willingly disobeying regardless of consequences doesn't mean you're supposed to make it trivially easy for them.
Lots of other examples. Freedom riders were killed for defying Jim Crow. While they didn’t wake up with a desire to be murdered, that was a consideration and their martyrdom was part of the movement.
Near guaranteed freedom in Russia or an unjust likely life imprisonment in one of the worst prisons in America?
You don’t have to make a martyr of yourself as a whistleblower.
It’s easy to sacrifice oneself when it’s only theoretical and you’re safe at home behind a screen.
You have to be a citizen of somewhere if you want to live in most places on the Earth.
Why should he accept to be judged by the criminals he exposed?
He initially wanted to go to a different state, for your information, because he knew there would be people who would use his refuge in Russia to question his loyalty.
The good news is that Americans on the street are overwhelmingly on his side and against the corrupt and unaccountable cabal running the country.
Tbh it's the rhetorical equivalent of the game of "two for flinching", and just as juvenile.
Trying to make this more about the perceived moral character of the leakers instead of the information that they leaked completely misses the point.
That's because Russia doesn't extradite its citizens. While Russia doesn't have an extradition treaty with the USA - it has extradition treaties with some other US allied countries. So he'll be safe from extradition even after Putin is gone.