Comment by grey-area | Hacker News Reader

Comment by grey-area | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I don't agree with you, but have given you an upvote as the downvoting was not justified. I wish people wouldn't use downvotes just because they disagree with a post or think it is false - it stifles discussion and leads to the tyranny of a loud majority, not to the debate on these issues which is so sorely needed.

BTW here's why I disagree - apart from the widespread domestic surveillance already admitted the NSA has used dragnet foreign surveillance from other five eyes nations like the UK to spy on American communications with no suspicion of wrongdoing, and has attempted dragnet surveillance in other nations like China (text messages). All of those things deserve debate - even on foreign surveillance the NSA should not have a free hand IMHO - they're supposed to target enemies of the US, not engage in blanket surveillance - that's a dangerous and massive expansion of their powers and in the hands of a president like Nixon would be truly terrifying. It also undermines the position of the US in the world and allows nations like China to indulge in cyberattacks with absolutely no moral high ground for the US.

Re where Snowdon goes, I think that has far more to do with pragmatism that his wish-list of most desired countries - from his own words I think he would have preferred to stay in the US and fight this if he felt he'd be given a fair trial, but that has been made impossible by the calls of traitor from the current administration (what they mean of course is traitor to the NSA and administration, not to the country, but those two are confounded).

The alternative interpretation of his actions is that a champion of human rights has been obliged to flee the US and seek refuge with enemies of the US, because he risks imprisonment without bail, torture and indefinite detention at home (all of those have been used in the war on terror in the last decade). It is quite credible that he wouldn't be allowed to state his case or argue his defence as Ellsberg did, and in fact Ellsberg agrees with him on that, and the treatment of Manning justifies his fears. So maybe champions of human rights do now flee the US?

I do appreciate your response. Thanks.

On your first point, I barely disagree with you at all.

The second point is where I feel like no one is paying much attention: For me personally, the irony of criticizing the US on unethical activities from the patronage of countries that routinely and violently trample the human rights of their citizens completely destroys and legitimacy of the broader point he's trying to make.

And your third point is also disturbing and true. I don't disagree.

Edit: BTW, my above post all day long has been hovering between +5 upvotes to -5 votes. It's the wildest ride I've seen on an HN thread ever :)

That's a fair criticism, and actually I doubt Snowden would disagree with you, though we don't really know his views at this point. What we do know is that he has little choice if he wishes to avoid being arrested in travel, rendered or becoming a stooge to a powerful enemy of the US like China or Russia. Ecuador may be his least-worst option, as HK was to avoid detention initially.

While it would be admirable to remain and try to fight the administration in spite of their policies on Manning and calls of traitor, I do understand his choice to try to remain free.

Can you clarify what you're saying here? That the existence of a massive unlawful surveillance state is not an issue because the sorts of tinpot dictatorships a person has to flee to to escape political reprisal by a massive unlawful surveillance state themselves have poor human rights records?

What does one have to do with the other?

> For me personally, the irony of criticizing the US on unethical activities from the patronage of countries that routinely and violently trample the human rights of their citizens completely destroys and legitimacy of the broader point he's trying to make.

Interesting. For me, it doesn't destroy credibility and legitimacy at all. Nor does it smell of defection. The irony, however, is what is most tangible. If we have, through the actions of our intelligence agencies, reached a point where American citizens must flee the country and take refuge in a traditionally maligned foreign power to effectively protect the Constitution and the People, it is a clarion call for the need to make a full stop, publicly work out these problems, and get ourselves back on the right track. If protecting constitutional and human rights requires one to flee a nation that champions those causes publicly, but prosecutes their defenders privately, we have a serious problem.

Two wrongs don't make a right. He can criticize the US all he wants. We all can. And we all can criticize whichever leaders we want for being assholes. It may be unfair but Snowden had no choice given the reaction of the US.

Don't look at it as separate points. You have to understand the situation as a whole and that if you prized the US and had been in his situation and didn't want to rot in jail forever, you'd have done the exact same.

EDIT: Or, you know what? Perhaps you're smarter than me. What would you have done different? It's easy to criticize but you'll have to come up with solutions. For the US, they could've just obeyed their own law and requested warrants wherever there was probable cause. But for Snowden? What could he have done different while preserving his own life?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com