Did you forget about Edward Snowden?
That's not going rogue, that was the most heroic and patriotic thing anyone in his shoes could possibly do.
Everything he revealed was already revealed years earlier, it's just no one really cared or was paying attention in 2000-2001.
But "cowardice" - that claim is just mind-boggling. What he did, even if you disagree with his motivations, required self sacrifice and bravery. Fleeing (what he believes to be) unjust laws that would punish him for his work is not at all cowardly.
While the State Department stranding him in Russia means that chronically uniformed folks will forever call the guy names like "Russian plant", at least he's very unlikely to ever be extradited.
You should read Snowden's statements on the official channels he attempted to use, and those he disregarded. You should also go read up on what Daniel Ellsberg thought of Snowden's chances for getting a fair trial after publicly blowing the whistle on the long-running violation of federal domestic spying law. [0]
[0] In the mid-1970's, FedGov treated whistleblowers who released classified information very, very poorly. These days (and back in the mid 2000's), FedGov fucking crucifies such people behind closed doors.
> “As a legal matter, during his time with NSA, Edward Snowden did not use whistleblower procedures under either law or regulation to raise his objections to U.S. intelligence activities, and thus, is not considered a whistleblower under current law.” (p. 18)
https://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?Docu...
You should give these docs a skim, I'd be curious what your thoughts are. I used to sympathize with Snowden (and Assange) until I read into what actually went down.
From [0], which links to a now-paywalled Vanity Fair article:
> The N.S.A. at this point not only knows I raised complaints, but that there is evidence that I made my concerns known to the N.S.A.’s lawyers, because I did some of it through e-mail. I directly challenge the N.S.A. to deny that I contacted N.S.A. oversight and compliance bodies directly via e-mail and that I specifically expressed concerns about their suspect interpretation of the law, and I welcome members of Congress to request a written answer to this question [from the N.S.A.].
IIRC, Federal government contractors received approximately zero real protections under whistleblower law back in 2014.
When Daniel Ellsberg is publicly saying that Snowden did things the right way, and that had Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers in 2014, he would have done it in much the same way Snowden did, you should strongly consider the possibility that the official channels that went disused were ignored for very good reasons.
> I used to sympathize with ...Assange...
If you're talking about Wikileaks, then the objective of Wikileaks was to spread secrets that were verified to be reasonably genuine (and generally harmless to human life if revealed) as far and wide as possible. Wikileaks' mission meant that it just wouldn't be using Federal whistleblower channels for its reporting.
[0] <https://www.techdirt.com/2014/04/08/snowden-says-nsa-is-lyin...>
What's the steel-man version of your position here, "members of Congress are generally competent, trustworthy, honest people who rarely lie"?
Are we talking about two different Snowdens and two different governments or something?
Are you a federal government employee or contractor who's economic livelihood depends on towing the party line and white knighting for the NSA, an agency that flagrantly violated federal law to illegally surveil domestic communications between American citizens, an act that was specifically and explicitly forbidden of them from their very inception, and remains that way (legally) today?
Are you trying to sway public opinion such that the perpetrators of this treason will continue to not face criminal prosecution for their crimes against the citizens of this country within their lifetimes?
Yup.
Any committee that will leave entirely unpunished being lied to, directly, in person, by the fellow in charge of the biggest agency the committee is supposed to be overseeing isn't worth a damn.
Any committee that won't raise a big public stink about that agency's lawyers lying to the US Supreme Court? Same thing.
It's entirely possible to be both bipartisan and a Congressional committee but still be largely worthless to the public.
> Why do you take Snowden at his word yet ignore a bipartisan intel committee...
Snowden risked his ass (and is currently living in exile) to alert the public about long-running, major violations of Federal law. The most we get out of the absolute best member of that committee is "Man. The American public would be fucking incensed if they heard some of the things that we've been told in our chambers. Someone should really do something about this.".
And yeah, I'm aware that that report was written by a scratch committee assembled in the House and is organizationally unrelated to the permanent Senate intelligence oversight committee on which Wyden and company sit. In a crisis situation, these folks absolutely carry the same water, regardless of where they are on the org chart. One only need look at the retroactive immunity granted to the telcos for their long-standing, obvious violation of Federal law caused by their participation in NSA's then-very-illegal wiretap program to understand that.
Character assassination is a tool that FedGov does not hesitate to use against people who cause it big trouble. And yes, putting "spin" on facts absolutely is character assassination. Snowden was a poor student. MLK cheated on his wife. So what? These facts have nothing to do with the ills and rot that these folks were exposing and leading us away from.
[0] You should also read up on how the Ellsberg case made it impossible for anyone facing an Espionage Act charge for leaking classified information to argue that their disclosure was justified. This is one big reason why Snowden's departure from the country was a very, very smart move.
1) It's not the 1970s anymore. Things have changed.
2) Ellsberg walked out on bail and was able to speak publicly about why he did what he did. Snowden would be denied bail and visitors because of "national security" concerns.
2) In a novel application of law, Ellsberg was not permitted to raise a "my disclosure was justified because of very significant interest" defense. [0]
3) Ellsberg only walked free because Nixon's agents were caught breaking into Ellsberg's psychologist's office to search for more character-assassination material, and the judge found this conduct to be unconscionable. Had Nixon NOT done this, #2 above would have ensured Ellsberg had no choice but to go to jail.
4) Given the existence of the NSA wiretap program that Snowden revealed, FedGov would not have the opportunity to make the same blunder Nixon did... because they have an extensive secret database (that "happens" to contain information about US citizens) that they can make secret searches against to find all sorts of blackmail material.
[0] This right here is the REALLY BIG thing. It's my understanding that Ellsberg was expecting to be able to at least argue that his actions were justified by very significant public interest. While having that right stripped away is pretty normal in this day and age, it absolutely was not back then.
> Character assassination is a tool that FedGov does not hesitate to use against people who cause it big trouble. And yes, putting "spin" on facts absolutely is character assassination. Snowden was a poor student. MLK cheated on his wife. So what? These facts have nothing to do with the ills and rot that these folks were exposing and leading us away from.