'Alarm' is not really the right word; the CIA and its lack of accountability is a problem, but it's not a new problem or a particularly recently-worsening problem. It's one of the bad things about America that needs to be fixed, but Snowden does not provide any new information here.
And honestly, while I agree with the gist of what he's saying here, I tend to view his more recent stuff with a bit of a suspicious eye; he has made a pretty big deal about the oaths he swore that he believed required him to reveal the extent of the illegal NSA spying at great personal cost. But now, he's a citizen of the Russian Federation, which is basically a rogue intelligence agency with a kleptocracy attached to it. Which means he's sworn an oath (as all naturalized citizens must) to protect and serve the interests of that nation, to uphold its laws, etc. Does he take that oath seriously? If not, why do they tolerate him?
I appreciate what he did back in 2013. But now that he's under the defacto control of the Russian FSB, I will take what he says with a grain of salt. Especially something like this, which is an opinion piece with no new information attached.
>But now that he's under the defacto control of the Russian FSB, I will take what he says with a grain of salt. Especially something like this, which is an opinion piece with no new information attached.
Unnecessary. American and Russia do not have an extradition treaty. There are Russians here that Russia would like extradited (if you weren't aware of this you need to expand your news sources) and there are Americans in Russia that America would like extradited (Snowden obviously). But they don't trade. Why? American doesn't want Snowden badly enough to give up anyone Russia wants. So the reason he's there is America is choosing to keep him there. Russia doesn't have to do anything at all and they get free criticism about America coming from a (in)famous American, again without having to lift a finger. It's win win for Russia. And win win for America, the American government can pretend Russia is evil and harboring a fugitive without having to lift a finger.
The only people losing here are predominantly Snowden, the American people, and arguably the Russian people.
> I will take what he says with a grain of salt. Especially something like this, which is an opinion piece with no new information attached.
What's the grain of salt, if all of the information he presented is already well-known?
> But now, he's a citizen of the Russian Federation
In fact he is not. Although he has applied.
> Does he take that oath seriously?
It's unknown. Do you have access to any special information on this subject?
> If not, why do they tolerate him?
Can you truly not think of any reasons Russia might tolerate his presence even if he were not to seriously and honestly swear to do whatever they say?
He is a living middle finger to the US. Russia benefits from him simply being there and staying in the public awareness. I'm sure loyalty to Putin would be nice, but I bet they'd gladly accept simply not actively working to undermine Russia while he's there.
> What's the grain of salt, if all of the information he presented is already well-known?
In this case, it's bit of suspicion about his motivations. And if he presents claims of new factual information in other communications, I would require more rigorous verification of their truth than I would if he was, say, in France taking advantage of some extradition loophole.
> In fact he is not. Although he has applied.
That appears to be correct. So I don't know if he has yet taken an oath of allegiance to the Russian Federation, though he has certainly announced his intention to.
> It's unknown. Do you have access to any special information on this subject?
Of course not; it's a rhetorical question that follows from his previous statements about his belief that the oath he took to the United States required him to do what he did, despite the personal cost.
> Can you truly not think of any reasons Russia might tolerate his presence even if he were not to seriously and honestly swear to do whatever they say?
Of course I can; there is a continuum of possibilities between "He is free to say whatever he wants but he only says bad things about Russia's adversaries for obvious practical reasons, in return for which his presence is tolerated" to "He is and has been for many years a paid FSB agent or asset and a true believer in the geopolitical agenda of the Russian Federation and everything he writes is crafted specifically by him and a FSB propaganda team to serve their goals of the moment". My personal opinion is that he lies somewhere much closer to the first than the second, but in the end we don't know. Thus, grain of salt.
As with any complicated situation, there are multiple conflicting interpretations that could be possible. Since we can't collapse the uncertainty, we must take the grain of salt.
I do generally trust Snowden, but I can't deny that Russia would likely do everything they could to leverage the information he has against the US. Has he given them NatSec secrets in return for asylum? Unlikely I think, but possible.
IMO, Russia is just keeping Snowden around as a general anti-US voice in the global conversation to air credible dirty laundry of their biggest rival. As an honest patriot, I welcome the tough criticism and aspire to fix the problems he highlights. But it's a fair concern that some of that is potentially embellished or selectively censored for Russian propoganda purposes.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting here? Snowden has definitely been pushed into a corner, which benefits multiple entities, but I'm not clear on which particular view of events you're talking about - can you elaborate?
And honestly, while I agree with the gist of what he's saying here, I tend to view his more recent stuff with a bit of a suspicious eye; he has made a pretty big deal about the oaths he swore that he believed required him to reveal the extent of the illegal NSA spying at great personal cost. But now, he's a citizen of the Russian Federation, which is basically a rogue intelligence agency with a kleptocracy attached to it. Which means he's sworn an oath (as all naturalized citizens must) to protect and serve the interests of that nation, to uphold its laws, etc. Does he take that oath seriously? If not, why do they tolerate him?
I appreciate what he did back in 2013. But now that he's under the defacto control of the Russian FSB, I will take what he says with a grain of salt. Especially something like this, which is an opinion piece with no new information attached.