Hacker News Reader

Comment by jccc | Hacker News Reader

Ellsberg disagrees with you:

"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.'"

View on HN

It doesn't matter that Ellsberg disagrees. That's not a rebuttal. The standard being proposed here is an objective one.

The preceding comment may be wrong, but it has to be rebutted on its merits.

I’m not rebutting Maciej, I’m noting that Ellsberg already did answer this exact point in detail in the Washington Post.

I can’t imagine how that isn’t relevant here.

He doesn't rebut the argument at all; he rebuts a subtly but significantly different argument that wasn't made here. The fact is that Ellsberg stayed and faced the consequences of his actions, and Snowden fled and later because a Russian citizen.

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.

I don't bring in Ellsberg for his moral authority or to rebut or refute anything, but because he is himself the subject of the comparison. He addressed this exact comparison in a Washington Post op-ed.

Surely Ellsberg's own comments on Snowden v. Ellsberg and consequences are worth seeing in a thread on that very subject.

Simplifying it for the sake of the thread, Ellsberg says that Snowden was justified in handling his situation differently from Ellsberg himself, because the circumstances were different. Reasonable people can disagree about whether Ellsberg is right, and Ellsberg is no more entitled to make that argument than anybody else is: Ellsberg isn't the judge of Ellsberg-ism (for lack of a better term), history is.

This doesn't simplify Ellsberg's argument but mischaracterizes it. He directly addresses the claim that his own and Snowden's actions were different, and offers specific, concrete examples of how they were in fact alike in important ways that go to the heart of the comparison.

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.

> Also, Snowden was trapped in Russia by the U.S. government while in transit to South America

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.

He was in transit to Ecuador, which was going to grant him asylum. The U.S. government revoked his passport, trapping him in the Moscow airport.

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...

> He was in transit to Ecuador, which was going to grant him asylum. The U.S. government revoked his passport, trapping him in the Moscow airport.

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.

Fidel Narvaez the Ecuadorian consul in London helped Snowden get out of Hong Kong to the Moscow airport on the way to Ecuador with the purpose of getting him asylum (which had previously been granted to Julian Assange).

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.

You're invoking an ethos argument (appeal to authority). Basically, it's only valid if you accept US law as supreme, which in the very act of leaking documents showing how legislators and executive agencies abused their positions actually invalidates the very rule of law you apparently are so willing to kowtow to.

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.

Don't kid yourself, by now, Russia is a full-on fascist dictatorship. They don't let him say stuff like this because they have rules about freedom of speech or something, the let him say stuff like this because it is more useful to them that he retains some kind of credibility. It makes it more effective when he later tweets antisemitic caricatures about American Jews fueling the war in Ukraine.

Ellsberg is a more gracious person than I am. No one forced Snowden to fly to Russia, he made the decision himself in full awareness of the risk that he might get stranded there.

Why does it matter that he flew to Russia? How does that effect the legitimacy or the illegitimacy of his leaks?

I'd rephrase - Ellsberg is a more thoughtful person than you.

Please don't cross into personal attack on HN. If another comment is wrong or you feel it is, it's enough to respectfully explain why. Either that or just chalk it up to the internet being wrong and move on.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Also, Snowden was trapped in Russia by the U.S. government

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.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36223342

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/edward-snowden-ecuado...

"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...."

From that article,

> 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.

It would have been very easy for Putin to call Correa's bluff if he wanted to. He did not.

Though Ellsberg was a smart guy, he wasn't a technologist; so he was probably less familiar with what Snowden leaked than Snowden was, which is saying a lot.

Can you explain what you mean by this? It sounds like you believe Mr. Snowden didn't understand what was leaked by Mr. Snowden?

Ellsberg was a strategic specialist who worked at RAND and various other high level postings. He had a wide view and understood what he was leaking and why. Ultimately his secrets were only secrets to regular people - the Soviets knew what was going on.

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.

> It sounds like you believe Mr. Snowden didn't understand what was leaked by Mr. Snowden?

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.

Funny you would use the word genius for Ellsberg, as you attempt to demean Snowden. Snowden was remembered by his colleagues as "a genius among geniuses."

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.

> But please, do explain how the data from "specific foreigners living outside the US" was segregated during ingestion by

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.

>Ellsberg disagrees with you:

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.

That's certainly a valid opinion to have.

"Willingness to accept the penalty" means you accept the possible consequences of your actions and choose to carry on anyway. It doesn't mean you're supposed to literally martyr yourself for the cause by literally walking yourself into jail so they can torture you.

That’s how civil disobedience works, man. Nelson Mandela wasn’t invited over for tea - they threw him in a hole.

Exactly. They threw him in a hole, he didn't throw himself into the hole to prove a point.

Just because you're willingly disobeying regardless of consequences doesn't mean you're supposed to make it trivially easy for them.

He was arrested for organizing black workers into a union. That was illegal and resulted in his trial and conviction. The consequence was part of the activism.

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.

"He was arrested" is not the same as him literally giving himself up and walking himself into jail to be punished for his actions. I have no doubt he knew it was a risk but they still had to actively oppress him for the consequences to materialize. If he became some kind of martyr, it's because they oppressed him for doing what everyone else knew was just.

I don't think Snowden leaked those things because he wanted to protest the Espionage Act of 1917. I think he wanted Americans to see the content of what he leaked.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com