Hacker News Reader

Comment by tome | Hacker News Reader

Travelling to "China"[1], Russia, Cuba and Venezuela is not the way to get the average American on your side.

Revealing secrets about how the US government is spying on enemies, rather than simply about how the US government is spying on its citizens is not the way to get the average American on your side.

I can't say I admire what this man has done or how he has done it (aside from bringing domestic spying into the public eye, which I do think was a genuine public service).

[1] Or rather what will be perceived as "China" by many Americans.

View on HN

The alternatives are countries that have a simple extradition process to the US.

The alternative would be to stay in the US (or leave to be interviewed by Greenwald and return to the US) and actually fight for what he believes in.

This assumes we have a justice system. We don't.

We have a politically driven kangaroo court system.

I think that his answers[1] address that point:

> ... the US Government, just as they did with other whistleblowers, immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home...

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-n...

Armchair analysis. How about looking at his real alternatives? One was virtually 24 hour /day locked up in a sunless, concrete room the other going to Venezuela or Cuba to have a somewhat normal life. Hasn't he suffered enough, given what he gave up for the leaks? Must he burn alive too to please you?

He didn't have to leak anything. If he thought it was right to leak about domestic spying he certainly didn't have to leak about international spying.

If he'd stood up for US citizens rather than US enemies he could have remained in the US and fought his corner in the courts and the press.

I'm sorry, but you are out of your mind.

How so?

China is not an Enemy of the United States....

Then why do they have a massive campaign of cyber attacks on government/military targets throughout the US?

Source: I worked for an affiliated organization that was the victim of a large-scale, extremely sophisticated cyber attack from china.

I think the existence of large-scale, widespread business relations with China indicates that they are not considered an enemy. One would at least expect an embargo of some kind on an enemy (like the embargo on Iran).

This may come as news to you, but hacking is not an act of war. If it were, then the US has already committed an act of war against Iran with Stuxnet (which actually caused physical damage to equipment there), as well as having committed acts of war against the USSR on several occasions. Similarly, industrial espionage is not an act of war; again, the US does this all the time, even to our allies.

Maybe he's not aiming to only be a US patriot but also an internationalist. In my opinion he's a champion for everyone's rights.

Yes, that sounds like a good assessment. The same applies to Assange I think.

Personally I don't like this approach. I think it's better to try to improve the system from within. The US and the West is still the world's bastion of freedom and rights, regardless of the way things are portrayed on HN.

I don't think its an effective way of working, and if you have to flee to Russia, Cuba or Venezuela then it seems like the ends have lost sight of the means, but good luck to him.

Which US enemy did he stand up for?

China specifically, by providing examples of US hacking against Chinese targets.

China is an enemy? When last I checked, there was no embargo on Chinese goods, no risk to US planes flying over China (nor Chinese planes flying over the US), no risk to US vessels in Chinese waters (at least from the Chinese government), no risk to our satellites from the Chinese army, etc. By comparison, look at Iran or North Korea -- there are embargoes, swords rattling, occasion bullets flying, and so forth.

Even if we consider China an enemy, that's not "standing up for an enemy," that's telling China that one of their universities is being spied on. Not a big surprise, and little damage done.

And I very much doubt that was done to aid our "enemy," but to help galvanize Snowden's status in the eyes of the Chinese people, which would in turn weigh on the government's decision whether or not to cooperate with the USA's extradition request.

And it worked.

If he'd stood up for US citizens rather than US enemies he could have remained in the US and fought his corner in the courts and the press.

He would be convicted, he clearly violated the law. An unjust law perhaps, but a law nonetheless. He swore not to give Top Secret to anyone without a security clearance and he obviously did.

It's possible that one of the room service delivery people was a Chinese agent and made Snowden an offer he couldn't refuse: "USA has issued an arrest warrant....we may have to arrest you...but...what do you have for us? "

> It's possible that one of the room service delivery people was a Chinese agent and made Snowden an offer he couldn't refuse: "USA has issued an arrest warrant....we may have to arrest you...but...what do you have for us? "

So. Is that not treason, pure and simple?

The constitution is pretty clear on the definition of treason:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

We are not at war with any country right now (at least in the sense that Congress has not declared war), Snowden is not participating in armed attacks on this country, and China is not our enemy in any meaningful sense of the word.

Mr. Snowden apparently cares about people, not just americans. The fact that you count that as a negative is so american (and reprehensible).

He could have remained in the US yes, in prison for the rest of his life.

And that's only the more optimistic scenario.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com