
Edward Snowden, Whistle-Blower - Anechoic
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/opinion/edward-snowden-whistle-blower.html
======
pvnick
That was such a refreshing article. I've been saying it for a while now, I'm
hopeful that we're going to see some very positive reforms in 2014 or 2015, as
well as an eventual hero's welcome for Snowden. It takes a while for such a
massive shift in public opinion, but it's inevitable. The reason it's taking
so long is just a knowledge gab with the people that aren't as well-informed
and don't know the magnitude of the abuses. As people learn the full scope of
what's been revealed they tend to be (for the most part) outraged. I look
forward to a couple decades from now, when I can tell my kids about how us
folks who were paying attention were all vindicated when the NSA reforms were
enacted and Snowden was given a full pardon.

~~~
tokenadult
You've made friendly comments about my comments here on HN before, so I'll
make a friendly comment here about yours. I have noticed that you consistently
view Snowden as a hero, but I respectfully disagree. It would take more
electrons than the margins of one HN comment could contain (and more time than
I have with my work responsibilities today) to explain how I think Edward
Snowden could have revealed the same key facts more responsibly, but even
though I largely agree that it's good for the public to know more about what
NSA was doing and how NSA was characterizing what it was doing to Congress, I
don't think Snowden engaged in responsible disclosure ("whistle-blowing"). I
think Snowden over the last year has been just as sincerely but ultimately
mistakenly misguided as Kim Philby[1] was in the 1960s. Snowden appears to
think that he has made the world and his native country a better place on a
net basis, and he may even be right about what will happen to his native
country as a result of his disclosures, but I think he is mistaken about what
the overall course of his actions has done for the world as a whole. That's
all I have time to say about this at the moment, but I want to put that out
there as an American who has lived under real tyranny[2] before and has
observed how tyranny is overcome by people power.

[1]
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24803131](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24803131)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5985720](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5985720)

~~~
pvnick
I appreciate your nuanced opinion, which I've tried to fully understand as
you've posted about it in the past. It stands in contrast to my admittedly
hardline position. I _do_ uncompromisingly see Snowden as a hero. While you
consider America's actions in the context of other governments such as Russia
and China and how they spy on their citizens, I want America to lead the way,
to be role model so to speak for the rest of the world. When America treats
people well, it benefits everyone; conversely, when America acts
hypocritically, when we spy on or torture innocents, every despot on the
planet sees that and can say "Well America does it," and have firm ground to
stand on. That's why we need people like Snowden, to keep the American
government in line, because historically that's how we have world peace. And
also, to be a little more selfish, because I live here.

~~~
dreamfactory
> every despot on the planet sees that and can say "Well America does it," and
> have firm ground to stand on. That's why we need people like Snowden, to
> keep the American government in line...

Whether styled as a despot or not, when it comes to the exercise and
maintenance of power, nobody is ever saying anything remotely like 'well
America does it' \- it's just irrelevant. It's never a moral question, but one
of what power can be assumed (both at home and abroad). That's the interesting
thing about Snowden - he just acted and took the upper hand. (And even more so
that he further consolidated by maintaining it, despite huge efforts to bring
him down a peg or two.)

------
umanwizard
I find it pleasantly surprising -- almost unbelievable, in fact -- that a
highly sought-after fugitive accused of treason and practically certain to be
found guilty of serious crimes is so widely supported by the public and the
media.

Has there ever been another person whom the executive has done everything in
its power to paint as a dangerous enemy of the state, whose approval rating
was several points higher than the President's and several _times_ higher than
that of Congress? Or is this a never-before-seen situation?

The inverted totalitarianism[1] we live in can seem almost invincible, but
this to me is a big glimmer of hope that some people at least are still
unwilling to swallow the (two-)party line.

I hope this leads to some real change, but then again, I can't exactly hold my
breath.

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism)

~~~
ewoodrich
An NBC/WSJ poll from late July [1] (the most recent poll I found that assessed
general favorability of both President Obama and Edward Snowden, lists Snowden
with a favorability of 11%, 37% behind Obama's number at that point in time.

A Harvard poll of millennials [2] (defined as 18-29) show that 22% consider
him a "traitor", 22% consider him a patriot, and the remainder are "not sure".

Of course, polls which pose questions about approval of his release of
documents may differ substantially, but then again, so do polls about specific
actions the President has taken. I don't know where the data for your
assertion comes from.

[1]
[http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today...](http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/130724-July-
NBC-WSJ-poll.pdf)

[2] [http://iop.harvard.edu/blog/iop-releases-new-fall-
poll-5-key...](http://iop.harvard.edu/blog/iop-releases-new-fall-poll-5-key-
findings-and-trends-millennial-viewpoints)

~~~
Zigurd
Those numbers ring true. You just have to serve on a jury to learn how much
deference the average person gives to people in positions of authority.

Even the tech industry, which is losing tens of billions due to loss of trust,
is glacially slow to act, or even announce measures against surveillance,
because a real defense against the NSA also means users will be able to hide
information from law enforcement, and they will have to decide to slaughter
other sacred cows of the data security business.

------
r0h1n
Absolutely! I especially loved this part:

>> "His leaks revealed that James Clapper Jr., the director of national
intelligence, lied to Congress when testifying in March that the N.S.A. was
not collecting data on millions of Americans. ( _There has been no discussion
of punishment for that lie._ )"

~~~
sbt
As a foreigner, this is probably the most astounding. After all the commotion
in the 90s with Bill Clinton lying about the Monica Lewinsky affair, the
double standard is striking. From the outside it seems as if Clapper is simply
above the law.

~~~
er35826
Clapper was also in the unfortunate position of being legally required to lie:
Refusing the respond, or deferring his response to a closed session, would
have been evidence enough that such a program existed.

Anything other than a simple, direct denial would have been 'leaking'
information about the possibility of such a program existing, which is
expressly against the law as well.

~~~
trunnell
Hmm, I think that confuses the point.

The NSA programs are either constitutional or not. Wyden was essentially
asking, Is this program constitutional? Does it collect data on US persons
without a warrant?

Clapper swore an oath to the Constitution, so he should always be able to
answer that question truthfully. "Yes, this program is constitutional. No, it
doesn't collect data on US persons."

The fact that he couldn't say that is the issue.

Secrecy is not some magic sauce that makes a program constitutional. Secrecy
doesn't free a program from legal scrutiny.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The NSA programs are either constitutional or not.

The idea that constitutionality, or any other question of legal
interpretation, is a matter of objective fact which has a clear, crisp, true
or false answer is, while a comforting illusion, not at all even remotely
true.

~~~
blueprint
Whether or not warrants were obtained for their activities, is, however, an
objectively verifiable boolean fact.

~~~
mpyne
Sure, but that doesn't help you either, as there are many other precedents
besides NSA programs for situations where the government can compel a search
_without_ a warrant. This is permitted by that pesky little word
"unreasonable" in the Fourth Amendment.

------
detcader
For the occurrence of this editorial we can chiefly thank Laura Poitras and
Glenn Greenwald, for presenting Snowden's documents and handling the
journalism carefully and with great influential power. Lesser journalists
wouldn't have known what to do, or who to consult to figure out what to do,
how to word and interpret things precise enough, and one bad step could have
led to disaster, whether in terms of the story, or of Snowden's/their own
safety. People can point out potential imperfections in their methods, but
today they have this editorial (on top of everything else, including the
federal judge rulings) to show for themselves.

They convinced the "Paper of Record," one with a history of party-blind fealty
to power, to put out something like this. What has any of us done?

------
Rogerh91
The New York Times, which has stood up countless times for freedom of speech
and constitutional principles (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan regarding free
reporting of civil rights violations without fear of libel, and New York Times
Co. v. United States regarding the free dissemination of the classified
Pentagon Papers) has once again, delivered a masterclass in defense of Edward
Snowden.

I know some of you may have doubts as to the ties between the media and the
government, but the historical record does indicate that the New York Times
has had a flagship role in challenging government abuse on many levels. I
don't see why it would not have a similar role in this debate.

~~~
dredmorbius
The _Times_ has certainly had its bright moments, but it's also had its dark
ones, and its performance and actions over the past decade haven't been
particularly upstanding.

I _do_ applaud the editorial. Enough that I'll add my "but it's been a while
coming" in a separate sentence. But it's been a while coming.

Remember that it was _The Times 's_ own prior record which prompted Snowden to
reach out instead to Laura Poitras, and independent, and Glen Greenwald of
_The Guardian_.

------
ajays
On the surface, I welcome this editorial. About time.

But the NYT has deep connections to the USG, so I'm wondering where this
editorial is coming from. It could be a trial balloon on the part of the
administration to test the public's appetite for a reduced sentence for
Snowden.

~~~
gavinlynch
Without making a judgement call on the virtue of his of actions: I consider
myself very skeptical of the notion that this administration, which has
cracked down on whistle-blowers/leakers as much (or more) than any other, is
about to offer anything other than the "full weight of Justice" on Snowden.

I enjoyed Philip Bump's piece from the Atlantic about this: "Why Does CBS Keep
Asking Its Ridiculous Amnesty Question About Snowden?"

[http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/12/why-does-cbs-keep-
as...](http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/12/why-does-cbs-keep-asking-its-
completely-wrong-amnesty-question-about-snowden/356431/)

What can Snowden promise them, anyway, that they would make this deal? The
toothpaste is out of the tube.

~~~
davidw
> What can Snowden promise them, anyway, that they would make this deal? The
> toothpaste is out of the tube.

My understanding is that he has actually been quite a bit more judicious than
Manning about what he has released, putting out stuff that clearly shows what
the NSA is doing wrong. I get the impression that he does have more material
that could go out but he doesn't feel really needs to be public, as a
bargaining chip.

~~~
ceejayoz
> My understanding is that he has actually been quite a bit more judicious
> than Manning about what he has released, putting out stuff that clearly
> shows what the NSA is doing wrong. I get the impression that he does have
> more material that could go out but he doesn't feel really needs to be
> public, as a bargaining chip.

I believe he's claimed to have gotten rid of all materials prior to going to
Russia. They're in the hands of the team of journalists distributed around the
world.

~~~
tripzilch
> I believe he's claimed to have gotten rid of all materials prior to going to
> Russia.

This was in response to the question about this data accidentally falling into
wrong hands. He said he was very confident that nothing was stolen copied or
accessed during his stay in Hong Kong, and that he completely wiped his
harddisk before going to Russia.

This doesn't mean that this data does not exist, anywhere, as a bargaining
chip. Just that it is not present with him, on a physical storage medium in
Russia.

------
Theodores
I know that the U.S.A. is the greatest country on earth and utterly amazing in
every possible way imaginable, however, the majority of the world's population
do not live in the U.S.A.

In the U.K. we like America, we even have a 'special relationship' (according
to our politicians, the fact is that no American politicians see it that way
or mention the fact). However, do most people in the U.K. want to visit or
live in the U.S.A.? No! Further into Europe I really doubt that the average
French person would want to up sticks and move to the U.S.A.

If fleets of B-52's carpet bombed Europe with free U.S. passports, visas and
one-way tickets to 'the land of the free, home of the brave' I very much doubt
that there would be that much of a scramble to pick them up, hop on a plane
and rush to the U.S.A. Sure, some would go, but even then, after a year or two
they would want to return.

It has been a while since I have heard anything about floods of refugees
wanting to leave Russia, so life there can't be all that bad.

What's to say that Snowden isn't actually enjoying life in Russia? His C.V. is
rather impeccable and I doubt he will be struggling for work. He is almost
certainly not without his female admirers too. He might just get used to
knowing that the U.S.A. is off limits. He might also be able to be relaxed
about personal security. He knows that if anything happens to him then it is
pretty bad news for Uncle Sam even if it is a lone nutter that does the deed.

Okay his asylum status runs out in less than a year but how much does he
really value a U.S. passport? Or for charges to be dropped against him? It is
not that big a deal. Uncle Sam has no leverage here even if Americans don't
see it that way.

~~~
tokenadult
Immigration to the United States has always been as you say in the matter that
many people who arrive here leave after a while. I used to have visions of
nineteenth-century ships arriving full of immigrants to the United States, and
then traveling empty back to Europe to pick up more immigrants, but the
historical data actually show that about one-third of all persons who
immigrated to the United States in the era of unrestricted immigration
eventually migrated back to Europe. But they were changed after living here.
Much of what makes Europe very livable these days results from returned would-
be Americans promoting the democratization of Europe. (Much of the rest of
what makes Europe very livable these days results from the United States
rescuing Europe from central European tyranny twice during the world wars, and
following the second rescue with the Marshall Plan and the Bretton-Woods
agreement.)

So of course some people like to stay in the country where they grew up, where
they are able to speak the language and are familiar with the cuisine and
climate and where their childhood friends live. Nonetheless, the United States
is second to no country in the world in its net gain of immigrants from
various countries all over the world. Many, many, many people want to
immigrate to the United States.[1] Russia is surrounded by wretchedly poor,
badly governed countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Union, and many
people leave those countries to go to Russia.[2] But Russia does not gain
population through immigration to large degree, because many people who were
born in Russia are glad to leave Russia (and they populate whole neighborhoods
near where I live).

Prediction, as someone who has practiced immigration law in the United States:
if the United States had open immigration again as it did until about the
1870s, it would gain a substantial percentage of population by immigration,
even if some people who arrive return to their countries of birth. Usually
people all over the world become more interested in living in America after
hearing from other people who have lived in America, on a net basis.

[1] [http://www.gallup.com/poll/161435/100-million-worldwide-
drea...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/161435/100-million-worldwide-dream-
life.aspx)

[2]
[http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/232...](http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/232-million-
people-left-their-countries-for-new-ones-where-did-they-go/279741/)

AFTER EDIT: Ah, yes, the expected downvote again. Anyway, you are welcome to
explain your disagreement, as I won't mind hearing a differing opinion from
someone else here. That's something I learned in American culture: feel free
to disagree, then hear someone out about why they disagree.

~~~
bausson
I did not downvote, but I can explain some of the reasons:

> Much of what makes Europe very livable these days results from returned
> would-be Americans promoting the democratization of Europe.

First time I ever heard this argument, so without solid arguments, I will
continue believing that democratization in Europe is the expected result of
the Age of Enligthement[1].

> Much of the rest of what makes Europe very livable these days results from
> the United States rescuing Europe from central European tyranny twice during
> the world wars

Well, this is a cute one, but work in Europe was mostly done by the Soviet
Union and Britain in WW2, US just dealing the last blow to an already moribund
opponent. (That is, for Europe, the US actions in others operative theaters at
the time was huge, but we are talking about Europe here). US was quite late in
WWI too, but I have no idea who would have won without them. They sure helped,
but your comment make it look like a single country saving the day.

> and following the second rescue with the Marshall Plan and the Bretton-Woods
> agreement.

Marshall plan sure helped Europe economically, but saying it was pure goodwill
instead of a political move isn't fair, it being devised by a military give
some hints on the 'real' objectives[2]. I won't complain about that, since
american supremacy was way more tolerable than USSR (Or so I was told, but
winners write history, right?). I don't know enough about Bretton-Woods
agreement effect to comment on it, so I will abstain.

Last point:

> Many, many, many people want to immigrate to the United States.

Yup, Hollywood did a nice job selling the american dream. Though that is
changing, US/USSR is going from 'good guys/bad guys' to 'bad guys west/bad
guys east' pretty quickly these days.

* [1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment)

* [2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Criticism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Criticism)

~~~
ameister14
I don't want to turn this into a continuous argument, but I studied WWI a lot
so kinda wanted to comment on that.

As far as WWI goes, the reason Americans think that we saved the day is
because about the time we sent several million troops over, Russia had
surrendered and the Germans diverted their veteran soldiers from the Eastern
to the Western front. Further, we think it's important that we prevented the
continued unregulated use of u-boat warfare, which had been crippling the UK.

As for WW2, it's probably because the USSR was the bad guys so we couldn't
acknowledge their success.

------
dstarin
The Snowdens -- fyi

[http://www.snowden-warfield.com/](http://www.snowden-warfield.com/)

More recently --

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FQ_CfWIVXA](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FQ_CfWIVXA)

It is perhaps the most famous picture of World War II. Then Captain; now
Marine General Larry Snowden is the oldest surviving officer from the
Pacific's fiercest battle.

"Second half of my platoon, I'm already over that ridge," said Snowden.

The Flag hasn’t been raised yet in this picture, when it was; Snowden says it
wasn’t as romantic then as it is now.

"I've read many accounts that says, when the flag went up the troops all over
the island stood up and cheered. No way. Not where I was, you stood up you
were a dead marine."

At 92, Snowden fought in three wars, he was wounded twice.

At Iwo Jima he held dying marines in his arms.

"I had a son just a year and half old, back in the states. And I had the
momentary flash about what it would mean to me if somebody was telling me that
my son is dead. I went to Los Angeles to..."

General Snowden still keeps a hectic travel schedule, speaking on freedom and
veterans. He say you can’t have one without the other.

"Veterans are what brought us to freedom. Veterans are the ones who keep us
free. Veterans are still fighting over seas, in people they don't know, in
lands they don't know."

As America celebrates its independence with bar B cues, picnics, and
fireworks, Snowden's wish is that parents share the reason America is free
with their children.

"You do what you want to do. The high cost of freedom is just that, a very
high cost."

Larry Snowden, one of the reasons we are celebrating our freedom.

Snowden served in the military for 37 years. After leaving the military he
served as trade negotiator with Japan.

------
joelrunyon
I'm young, so excuse my naiveté, but I can't remember another time (in my
lifetime) that the gov't & press have been in such a standoff with a stark
contrast of opinion.

It seems news these days is mostly feeding people's opinions back to them
("here's what you had to say on twitter") and taking pot shots at the other
sides of the spectrum on lots of surface level points that quite frankly -
neither side is going to shift anytime soon.

That said, if nothing else, it seems the quality of news post-snowden has
picked up a little & it seems the press is finally starting to do their job in
informing the public rather than just appeasing it (or maybe I'm just paying
attention more).

~~~
visakanv
As a general rule, I think the press doesn't push itself very hard- it largely
does whatever it has to do to sell papers (or equivalent).

Here's what I think: Intelligent commentary on difficult issues emerges into
popular consciousness whenever the difficult issues are serious enough that
the intelligent, thoughtful folk are forced to have conversations with the
general masses. In this simplistic sense, major issues "shake up"
sociopolitical reality.

I know this sounds a little elitist. I don't consider myself to be one of the
"intelligent, thoughtful folk". I'm a veritable moron. But whenever these
shakeups happen, there's an increased demand for intelligent commentary, and
the press moves to fulfill that demand.

That's my theory. I could be totally wrong; would love to hear input/criticism
from others on this.

------
crusso
Imagine a society where those in charge, all the way up to the President, were
just as afraid of prosecution and life sentences for violating the
law/Constitution as peons at the bottom like Snowden.

~~~
lukeschlather
That probably means the judiciary is just as corrupt as the executive and
legislative branches, so it's not so much a matter of whether or not they're
violating the law, as how much they and their political opponents are paying
the judges.

Several failed Latin American democracies come to mind as concrete examples.

~~~
crusso
No political model succeeds in the face of unaddressed corruption.

------
hpvic03
While I agree with the overall sentiment of this editorial, I think one thing
is very wonky. It says that Snowden provided "enormous value" and "has done
his country a great service."

But if you agree with these statements then how could a successful resolution
include a "please bargain" and punishment, even if it is "substantially
reduced"?

The whole idea of being a whistleblower is that you get immunity. If you agree
that Snowden is a de facto whistleblower then punishment and prison time
shouldn't even be on the table.

------
seanieb
Obama appears not to have had a clear picture of the issues back in August
when he delivered a speech solidifying his administrations views on the issue.
The president suggested that if Mr. Snowden had wanted to avoid criminal
charges he could have simply told his superiors about the abuses.

However, whistle blower protections do not apply to contractors, only to
intelligence employees, rendering its protections useless to Mr. Snowden. And
the New York Times Editorial board agrees:

>"In retrospect, Mr. Snowden was clearly justified in believing that the only
way to blow the whistle on this kind of intelligence-gathering was to expose
it to the public and let the resulting furor do the work his superiors would
not."

------
Fuxy
I doubt Snowden would be gullible enough to bite.

The truth is it will take years before any offer the US government would give
will be truly sincere and not just an attempt to get him back into the country
so they can do with him what they please.

Then again leaking info was risky so he might.

------
lettergram
I honestly think the Libertarian party (or perhaps independent) could play up
the fact he would pardon Snowden during the 2016 election process and sway a
few percentage of votes his/her way.

------
mdesq
Even if Snowden was granted clemency, ten bucks says that if he returns to the
US, he'll be found mysteriously dead of a car crash or "suicide" within 18
months.

------
Rogerh91
"In my estimation, there has not been in American history a more important
leak than Edward Snowden's release of NSA material – and that definitely
includes the Pentagon Papers 40 years ago."-Pentagon Papers Whistle-Blower
Daniel Ellsberg

------
swalsh
I have a legal question, perhaps someone here would be more educated enough to
answer. Which part of our "systems of checks and balances" is supposed to
balance the system in this instance. The president seems uninterested in
changing anything, congress seems uninterested (and incapable) of doing
anything, and the supreme court can only knock things down. It would seem to
me like there is a large amount of people who want an action taken, both to
change the system, and to pardon snowdon. Is the answer really only to wait
until the next election cycle?

~~~
ethnt
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that cases like the ACLU v. NSA will be able
to strike down programs like this. But you're correct, unless Congress is
moved to do something about it (which, given their track record, seems
unlikely), we'll have to wait until the next election for a mentality shift.

------
infruset
When I saw the title, I thought he had died. It (the title) sounds oddly like
an obituary. Or is the title meant to reflect the change of perception (from
"traitor" to "whistle-blower")?

~~~
ryusage
I interpreted it as the latter, and I actually really like it. Since this
whole thing started, there's been a lot of debate about whether he's a patriot
or a traitor. Without even reading the article, I think that headline is the
clearest, boldest statement the NYT could make about where they fall on that
question.

------
zby
There is a worldwide action tomorrow - who is #WaitingForEd?
[https://joindiaspora.com/posts/3457714](https://joindiaspora.com/posts/3457714)
,
[https://www.facebook.com/events/1448773218676476](https://www.facebook.com/events/1448773218676476)

------
mrcactu5
_Why are we so surprised the NSA is spying on us? Why are we reacting now?_

Think about all the data we have voluntarily injected into the public sphere -
thru Google, Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr... Everybody is famous now. We are our
own papparazzi.

------
furyg3
I'm not sure that Obama will waste political capital on this.

If there were a decision to excuse his actions, it would be a pardon at the
end of his term...

~~~
Shivetya
Well he certainly would not do it before the 2014 elections and unless a rift
occurs within his party I do not expect it when he leaves office. The only
safe time would be right after the 2014 elections.

Yet why would he? Snowden caused him grief and this is a President who doesn't
seem to give one wit about public opinion. Oh sure they float trial balloons
but only to deflect.

I would prefer to see a major European country step forward and offer his
citizenship and protection. That or push through the UN a resolution
protecting people like him

------
notastartup
I just want to know, was Obama administration responsible for increased NSA
surveillance? or was this something set in motion by the Royal George Bush
Family Inc. and that can't be stopped? Seems like Obama is getting all the
shit for something his predecessor set in motion and now cannot be stopped.

It seems like there's forces even more elite and powerful than the president
that dictates what he can do and can't do and that he is largely a puppet with
strings being pulled by stakeholders that benefits most from totalitarian
power over it's peons.

Without Edward Snowden, this tyranny would've gone unnoticed for centuries. I
think he should run for President.

~~~
oleganza
What's the point of electing a president if for 5 years he doesn't know what
his government is doing?

~~~
lukeschlather
Knowing is only half the battle. Possibly even less than that.

------
fuckpig
If you post anti-Snowden comments around here, the mods shadow-ban you.

So instead I'll say this:

Whistle-blowing means you go up the chain of command FIRST and find someone
who can fix the problem.

What Snowden did was steal information, run to the enemies of this country and
reveal it under the guise of being a whistle-blower.

If we don't have a set of rules that we all consistently follow, there is no
expectation of honesty or justice... and all command structures fall apart.

When that happens, you have an absence of social order into which void will
fall the real tyrants.

Snowden is no hero. He should be returned to the United States to face trial
and if convicted, the traitor's penalty.

~~~
samstave
> __ _Whistle-blowing means you go up the chain of command FIRST and find
> someone who can fix the problem._ __

Have you not heard of Binney? Or any of the other WB 's in the past who did
just that and were silenced.

Also, your version is predicated on the assumption that the chain of command
is not already a corrupt path.

In the case of Snowden and the USG, it has now been proven beyond a doubt that
the NSA/USG is a completely corrupt criminal organization.

------
batgaijin
Jesus I would rather deal with the Reich than these face fucked flip flops

Also fuck Greenwald and Snowden; their actions show they have no problem
crowning themselves as new Robespierres

~~~
jnsaff2
I'm currently reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, the first part of
the book talks about the methods Hitler and others used to get to power. Trust
me, you'd take your statement back if you knew.

SA was in essence a gang of lowlifes that used murder, intimidation and terror
to get rid of opponents.

Hitler had amazing abilities to lie to everyone to get to the result he
wanted.

That said, one can not fail drawing up parallels with some of the aspects how
The Third Reich got to power and how the people running it operated with
what's going on in the world today.

[http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Third-Reich-
ebook/dp/B005Z57...](http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Third-Reich-
ebook/dp/B005Z57E18/)

~~~
batgaijin
Well the krauts had consistency going for them at least

The weak rule the weak the strong conquer the strange

