Snowden: Feds can't cover up leaks by 'murdering me'
news.cnet.com
news.cnet.com
In contrast, Bradley Manning: 1. Released a bunch of stuff that was mostly embarassing to US diplomats, but not really evidence of criminal actions 2. Didn't really have much of a plan 3. Didn't get a chance to demonstrate clearly that he wasn't just "acting out", releasing everything he had clearance to access.
Snowden comes across here as being principled, deliberate, and smart about what he released, who he released it to, and what his personal plans were not to get black-bagged.
And yes, much like when Aaron Schwatrz stories completely hijacked HN, I'm really looking forward to this story - which seems like it's increasingly becoming a non-story (or certainly blown waaaay out of proportion) as more facts come out - stops dominating HN.
I realize both of those terse statements probably aren't going to make me very popular around here.
1) Whistle blower calls attention to actions of their government.
2) Media instead focuses on the personal details of the whistle blower.
3) Whistle blower defends himself and tries to divert attention back on the actual material.
4) Whistle blower is considered "self-righteous and self aggrandizing" for defending himself from attacks that should have never been made in the first place.
Wonderful.
Snowden may well be a spy and we've made him into some kind of martyr/hero. His actions came out right around a major summit with China and he defected within their sphere of protection. Allows the chinese to paint us as the bad guy while appearing as a protector of free speech. Brilliant.
No one is talking about chinese industrial espionage now, which is arguably much more damaging to the US than reading people's yahoo email, particularly that of suspected terrorists. And this was most likely the point of the whole exercise.
The story needs to play out - let the facts unfold.
- We don't talk about this because it is not relevant?
- We don't talk about it because it takes focus away from the Chinese, who are the real villains here?
What exactly is your point?
Notice that almost all of the people who think that this issue is getting to much HN attention coincidentally also disagree with what he has done...
There always was, and will always be, other countries spying on you (and each other), but once the rights of the people are given up to the authority, it is very hard to take it back.
I hold the prospective that the freedom and prosperity of US are more or less based its foundation on its constitutions and the values it was founded on. It is very hard to agree that foreign espionage would be more damaging to the US as you described.
The more we know about avoiding it, etc, the better we are
not that your point of getting down to brass facts is unreasonable, but the hype is part of the story, and getting more people interested is maybe important in getting lawmakers to maybe pay attention)
This for someone without a Top Secret clearance... I'd be nervous too.
"Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American"
Although, I don't know what the laws are like in the States, but in Canada you can go to jail if you have security clearance and reveal information that if true would be classified. If the legal situation is similar in the US, he's pretty clearly guilty.
Now if he turns around and starts helping China with the information he has, then he will be pretty much done for.
From someone who is a lawyer:
“I do not believe it is treason,” said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. “There is nothing to suggest that his motivation was to assist our enemies or a foreign power.”
The gist of the article is that they would most likely prosecute him for espionage (which doesn't require him to be spying "for" anybody), and that the treason/traitor allegations by officials are for rhetorical effect (though they mention it isn't entirely impossible to charge him with treason using some very tortured logic).