I don't know why people think that "I think Edward Snowden did the right thing" is incompatible with "Edward Snowden should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law." If I run a stop sign to the hospital because my child has a serious injury, I did the right thing (as long as I did it safely), but I still expect to get a ticket for the violation. The reason that Snowden is being called a "hero" in some corners is because of the likely penalties for his actions, penalties that ensure that people don't blog about every piece of classified information that they find distasteful.
Amnesty International really puts itself in a weird position by using the words "hunt down"... the US has simply made written requests of countries under existing treaties, requests which have been ignored by Hong Kong without immediate consequence. "Hunt down" implies something Seal Team Six-style.
Because falling on your sword, while noble and makes for great story-telling, is unnecessary. Requiring whistleblowers to fall on their own swords discourages whistleblowing, which as a society we've in the past explicitly spelled out as desirable behavior.
tl;dr: If you punish desirable behavior, desirable behavior won't happen.
Whistleblowing is a desirable behavior only in certain situations, and the distinction between whistleblowing and espionage is one that is made on a case-by-case basis and open to reasonable debate in many cases. Snowden seems to be really treading quite heavily in this grey area with his disclosures of US cyberattacks on Chinese targets.
Unless you're making the case that classified information shouldn't exist at all, in which case espionage can't exist, and the White House would be Tweeting military strategy before it was executed.
The distinction between whistleblowing and espionage is pretty clear. Espionage is done covertly for the benefit of a foreign power. Whistleblowing is done overtly and for the benefit of the public. You would have to be using a pretty stretched definition of "espionage" (like the one the US government uses) to think it has anything to do with whistleblowing.
Cut-and-dried espionage isn't a grey area. It's "for the benefit of the public" which can be hard to assess. If a government employee leaked the details of the Osama Bin Laden raid and it subsequently failed, would that be for the benefit of the public? What about leaking the plans of the Union Army during the Civil War? In each case, the answer is not obvious -- the reason that leaking classified information is such a serious crime is that there are extreme, permanent costs to making the "wrong" decision.
> If a government employee leaked the details of the Osama Bin Laden raid and it subsequently failed, would that be for the benefit of the public? What about leaking the plans of the Union Army during the Civil War?
Those things aren't being done to the public. Cripes, man.
Something doesn't have to be done to an individual directly for that action to strongly influence that person's life. The Union victory in the Civil War, to this day, influences the average American's life much more than PRISM. All actions with wide-ranging lasting consequences are "done to the public."
Attacks against civilian infrastructure, like hospitals.
"any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." -- John Donne ( http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Meditation_XVII )
If someone does something in your name and with your money that you would be ashamed to do yourself, how is that not an attack on you? Honest question.
Unless you're making the case that classified information shouldn't exist at all, in which case espionage can't exist, and the White House would be Tweeting military strategy before it was executed.
Yes, and? What difference would there be? The civilians in some third world village would have time to run to the hills, and the US would still get to drop their bombs and use their drones, and weapons and arms manufacturers would still get to supply them. They make just as much money wether they blow up empty space or people, after all.
Sure, it would stem the flow of convenient terrorists which provide the pretext for the fireworks, but you could have undercover operatives do that, and since those also have to get paid by tax payers, it would be a net win -- even more money would be magically generated and trickle down to everybody, yay! We would all move from rich to mega rich, so yes, I would want to make that case, absolutely.
Do you think that it would have been good for a "whistleblower" to send information about the invasion of Normandy to the Axis leadership? Classified information is necessary when dealing with a hostile force that keeps classified information of its own. It's a lot easier to claim that "Information X should be public" than it is to make a blanket claim that "All information should be public."
Do you think that it would have been good for a "whistleblower" to send information about the invasion of Normandy to the Axis leadership?
That's kind of the point. When was the last time that actually applied? Cold war, at most.
When was the last time military action by the US meant anything other than pounding peasants into (further) submission? The strategy is outlined, it's for full spectrum dominance. Not defense, conquest. For that reason I think a more apt comparison would be to compare it to someone who gave out secrets about axis operations.
> When was the last time military action by the US meant anything other than pounding peasants into (further) submission?
As recently as 1991 or thereabouts.
I would count 2001 myself to dislodge Al Qaeda but I might understand why you wouldn't.
And before 1991, a U.S. warship escorting merchant traffic was almost destroyed by a mine placed into international waters by a fairly advanced Mideast nation, so it's not as rare as you seem to think.
^ Explain a stunt like that in presence of an actual, credible threat. I'll wait.
And before 1991, a U.S. warship escorting merchant traffic was almost destroyed by a mine placed into international waters by a fairly advanced Mideast nation, so it's not as rare as you seem to think.
Anything else? I mean, don't get me wrong. I know it's bully 101 to consider even being looked at the wrong way as an attack, while considering anything defense as long as they are the ones doing it. I also know bullies don't like it when people have sharp bones on which their fists get hurt. But other than that...
You said it yourself; "full spectrum dominance". Why should any military fight another military on even odds if they can bring overwhelming force? Iraq certainly had a military composed of persons other than peasants, otherwise it wouldn't have been in Kuwait!
> Meanwhile, the US just shoots down an civilian airliner and refuses to even say sorry
But the U.S. did pay reparations. The U.S. should apologize, certainly. But what does that have to do with "wars not involving conquest", which is what I thought you were talking about?
Either way I don't see why you're having to resort to personal attacks.
Why should any military fight another military on even odds if they can bring overwhelming force?
If you defend yourself, the strength of the attacker doesn't matter as much as if they actually are an attacker. You have to defend yourself either way, and yes, of course you use anything you can to your advantage.
But what does that have to do with "wars not involving conquest", which is what I thought you were talking about?
As much as running over a sea mine? If such an incident is an argument for anything, how much bigger a military apparatus would Iran be entitled to just based on that plane being shot down?
Iraq certainly had a military composed of persons other than peasants, otherwise it wouldn't have been in Kuwait!
Well, I meant peasants in relation to the US, not to their neighbours.
"Nobody" had a problem when Saddam gassed Kurds while he was an ally -- neither with him being a dictator. It was when he disobeyed that he suddenly was this grave threat to everyone and the whole region. That's what I consider bully logic. It wasn't about peace or innocent life, it was about obedience, and even more innocent lifes were ended just to make that point. Twice, because the first time they somehow turned around after defeating Saddam, like saving a dessert for later.
Either way I don't see why you're having to resort to personal attacks.
I did not intend to call you personally a bully, sorry for not making that more clear. And please don't think I believe most nations don't engage in the same hipocrisy and selective indignation, calling a pin prick suffered a holocaust, and a holocaust dished out a pin prick. But the US is currently very good at it, state of the art if you will. That even this might be offensive to some Americans I would have to accept. Those are the choices violence forces on us, once there has been abuse that has not been acknowledged and cleared up, you can't be friends with the abuser without insulting the abused, and vice versa.
Whether a certain action would be more like giving out Allied secrets or more like giving out Axis secrets is a matter of opinion and perspective -- by going public, a whistleblower forces his or her own interpretation of the situation onto the entire population.
Yeah, he's such a nasty agressor. Best put him away for espionage, before he can brutalize everyone even more. And to think we even defend that guy! Stockholm Syndrome much, right?
Even then, it's not like actual "bad guys only" are needed, only the public perception in enough people that they exist. There are many avenues to explore here, think big? You kinda have to; it's a trillion dollar industry, it doesn't take no for an answer.
But who decides whether you are whistleblower or a spy? And that case could easily be made on Snowden if he shared certain information to select people and not the public (not saying he did, mind you, just demonstrating how easy it would be to cross that line).
And do not mistake prosecution with guilt.
On one hand, I'm glad he shared what he did, but I also fear what could happen should we blindly believe everything we are told, whether the person telling us is a member of the government, or a member of the government in a foreign country.
But who decides whether you are whistleblower or a spy?
Those who look at the issue and arrive at a conclusion.
If you let someone else make that decision for you: if you're unable to make it yourself, how would you confirm they made the right decision on your behalf? And if you are able, why not cut out the middleman?
I didn't mean so philosophically. I meant more practically. Unless you are suggesting a malicious spy leaking secrets to the enemy should only be treated like a whistleblower, which I seriously doubt is the case.
> If you let someone else make that decision for you...
Keeping this in context (being prosecuted or fleeing), that's what everyone is doing right now: allowing someone else to make that decision. Information being shared is only what interested parties want being shared (Snowden and the Governments).
If Snowden was tried by a jury of his peers, would he be found guilty or innocent? Would he be a whistleblower or a spy?
And yes, I'm ignoring things like would he get a fair trial and all that jazz. I just see what Snowden is doing as a very effective way to play the part of a spy. Sell X information secretly and share Y information publicly. Not suggesting that is what he is doing mind you. I'm just thinking out loud.
> if you're unable to make it yourself, how would you confirm they made the right decision on your behalf?
This happens all the time though. I trust my doctor with my health and my children's health. They explain things, but I still have to trust them. Sure, it's not exactly the same thing, but I feel it's close enough. Basically, I can't know everything about everything. At some point, I have to trust others. Maybe that's too much down the rabbit hole, though. =)
Not having the information is one thing, but provided you had the information and are able to mentally process it, you absolutely are "entitled" as anyone to make such decisions. All nations (worth a damn) derive their legitimacy from the people, people just like you. If you can't do it, you can't expect anyone else to.
That's very general and maybe not very helpful here, but I still wanted to make the point, because I think it's very tragic that we are so eager to hand off our opinions to "experts". I can accept teachers, so that ideally when they're done with me, I'm an "expert", too. But I don't trust those who would just remain as experts hovering in some vague place above you. From what I learned about life so far, those are all hacks.
And if these things are too complicated for regular citizens to understand, then they need to be made less complicated, or we need better citizens. Democracy in an industrialized world is no trivial task.
Basically, I can't know everything about everything. At some point, I have to trust others.
Yes, of course. But you still use indicators for that, yes? If you visited a new doctor, and you heard loud screams, you would slip out again. If a friend recommends a dentist and you're currently looking for a good one, you'll give the recommended one a try first, that sort of thing. I've seen doctors do shit (to others) that made me not EVER trust one blindly. I am usually lucky with mine, but I do pay attention to them, I do second-guess them, I measure up their character, how peaceful and concentrated they are, versus just loud and constantly on the move, etc. At the end of the day, nobody but my own immune system, family and friends truly care about my well-being, to the point they'd loose sleep over it.
> Not having the information is one thing, but provided you had the information and are able to mentally process it, you absolutely are "entitled" as anyone to make such decisions.
I completely agree. And I agree with this as well:
> I think it's very tragic that we are so eager to hand off our opinions to "experts".
But I think it's important to understand that whether you think Snowden is a whistleblower or a traitor, you are making that decision in part based on "experts." You are trusting people who haven't proven themselves to be untrustworthy.
We don't know everything (or maybe we do, it's difficult to say). Sure, we can say "Hey, he told us these things that were true." But I also don't have any reason to trust him outright. So, on one hand, I have valid reasons to distrust the government, but I also have valid reasons to distrust Snowden.
So on one hand, I want to believe he's told the entire story, and is being completely truthful. But on the other hand, on multiple levels he's demonstrated his untrustworthiness.
For what it's worth, I haven't decided Snowden is "a good guy". (I'm not 100% sure of anything in life other than "something exists", and so far I don't even know what "exists" means) But I consider it likely enough that I wouldn't feel good about anything but a very, public trial, where everybody moves reaaal slow and I can see their hands at all times. [which is silly of me to say, because I'm not even an US citizen, but that's how I think and feel about this, doubly so if I were one :P]
All those people, even officials who are already yelling traitor and espionage? Restrain those first, show them their place, before you ask Snowden to come into their reach.
Some guy who leaked slides is on the run, while the man with kill lists resides in the White house; there is so much wrong with that picture. Maybe Snowden should get a trial, but not one presided over by a bunch of hardened criminals who just happen to have the law on their side because they can't keep their fingers off it.
You look at the issue, and then you make the decision to either tell your government to pursue him or tell your government to back off. Everyone gets to finish the sentence "I think the government should..." as they choose.
Well then any good person would want the government to pursue him to be tried, so he could be found innocent by his peers and allowed to come home. But then a lot of people don't want to see that happen, and would rather see him exiled.
Of course, if he's guilty of some greater crime, I'd always want to see him punished. For me, it's simple.
But it's really not. It's not as simple as saying you want the government to pursue him or not, especially now when the information is still coming in.
Regardless, this is deviating from my original question, and I think you are missing the point.
Coming to the correct conclusion about whether he is a whistleblower or a spy is not something that is easy to do from your armchair, reading reports on the internet from sources who have their own agendas.
In order to really make the determination, you need to have lots of evidence presented to you, hear each side present their case as to why the facts support their position, and have each side answer tough questions about things they are leaving out of their side of the story.
Oh, and it's also very easy to make conclusions from the armchair about how others arrive at their conclusions. It's not like there is no context or continuity at all here, either. It doesn't matter even if Snowden exists; power and transparency are supposed to flow one way, anyone who refuses to play along is to be made an example of. If that's not an old hat to you by now, a repeat of a repeat of a repeat, I just don't know what to tell you.
You are making the leap to assume there will be punishment (probably a fair assumption, but an assumption nonetheless). He isn't yet being forced to fall on his sword. The US hasn't sentenced him to death or life in prison. The US is simply trying to bring him back to face his charges.
Death is a possibility, depending on what he is charged with, though given the nature of the case I'd personally doubt the government would pursue it. It is, however, within the realm of possibility, especially after he revealed the anti-Chinese hacking information.
It's not a leap, simply put. It's the only logical outcome if he is caught. The government has been extraordinarily clear what will happen to Snowden. When you have some of the most powerful politicians calling him a traitor, along with clear statements from the intelligence community on the matter, it's all beyond obvious.
"Prosecuted to the full extent of the law" cannot possibly mean anything but facing punishment. That's not really an assumption — it's right there in the thesis.
Snowden is, for all intents and purposes, protesting against the government and its laws. Why would he willfully return and subject himself to a system he considers unjust?
I know the scale is different, but logically, what you're saying would be the equivalent of the founding fathers turning themselves in to England instead of starting a revolution.
""Hunt down" implies something Seal Team Six-style."
Is it unreasonable to expect such a thing? Suppose Snowden beats the odds and makes it to Ecuador. Would you be surprised to hear that he was found dead in his apartment in a year or two? Would you be shocked to learn that the US government was involved?
Why should we trust the US government to follow the laws of Ecuador, Venezuela, or Cuba? Snowden runs a real risk of being covertly kidnapped without regard to the laws of whatever country he happens to be in. He runs a real risk of being killed by a drone strike. The US government has done all of the above in the recent past, to both citizens and foreigners, in various regions and countries.
Yes, because outside of the movies, the USA doesn't seem very good at that sort of thing. How would they seal team six someone out of Moscow, Ecuador or Hong Kong?
Right, because as we all know the USA has never covertly assassinated someone, nor kidnapped someone from a foreign country, nor deployed drones... I guess if we ignore all the times the US government has done this sort of thing, you might be right.
I think I am seeing the outline of a decent propaganda technique here. If you want to make anything seem infeasible, just write it into fiction.
Government assassinations? Won't happen because it happens in the movies. High end German automobile catches fire after hitting a tree at 80+mph? Doesn't happen because that is what happens in the movies (Remember the Michael Hastings conversation on HN a few days ago? Assertions that cars don't actually catch fire were running rampant.) Marry your highschool sweetheart and enjoy each others company for the rest of your lives? Won't happen, because that is what happens in the movies. Bad guy gets shot in the arm but keeps shooting a few more times at the good guy? Won't happen, because that is what happens in the movies. (Countless examples of this happening, though tell my mother this and she'll tell you Hollywood is making it up.)
They Seal-Team-Sixed Osama Bin Laden, and subsequently his corpse, out of a country on perennially high military alert. They couldn't do it in Moscow or Hong Kong without potentially starting a major war, but I could easily see them doing a targeted kill or extract from Ecuador. Seal Team Six's capabilities, as demonstrated in the OBL raid, are extremely high.
I don't think Snowden is going to make it out of Moscow as a free man, but if he does, the US will orchestrate political change in Ecuador and eventually get him that way. America is Ecuador's biggest and most important trading partner, and relations are usually friendlier-- the current President is an exception to the rule. The US also tolerates a little bit of Yankee-bashing from Latin America as political posturing, but this is different-- harboring Snowden is a serious issue for the Obama Administration.
Israel (a much tinier country with much less resources for this sort of thing) quite handily kidnapped Eichmann from Argentina in 1960. Why do you think that it would be so impossible for the US to do the same?
No, I don't think such a thing is unreasonable. What I think is unreasonable is Amnesty International using the words "hunt down" to refer to the United States filing criminal charges and making formal extradition requests.
"Besides filing charges against Snowden, the US authorities have revoked his passport – which Amnesty International said interferes with his rights to freedom of movement and to seek asylum elsewhere."
This to me seems a lot more like "hunt down" than "the US has simply made written requests of countries under existing treaties"
Of course you revoke the passport of someone who has fled the country to avoid criminal charges -- the passport's purpose is to certify that the US government is certifying your travels abroad, which it certainly will not do for Edward Snowden unless the destination is the United States. Passport revocation is garden variety practice even for white collar criminals out on bail.
> I don't know why people think that "I think Edward Snowden did the right thing" is incompatible with "Edward Snowden should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."
It's because the vast majority of people disbelieve in liberal democracy. They require heroes and villains in their news stories, and have difficulty acknowledging the existence of people outside of those categories; this is one of the biggest reasons why democracy is difficult.
Amnesty International really puts itself in a weird position by using the words "hunt down"... the US has simply made written requests of countries under existing treaties, requests which have been ignored by Hong Kong without immediate consequence. "Hunt down" implies something Seal Team Six-style.