[anonym29]

In the country he was transiting through en-route to his final destination in South America, before POTUS deliberately and specifically revoked his passport after ensuring Snowden had landed at his layover airport, in order to construct and disseminate the false narrative you're currently regurgitating.

[simoncion]

In hindsight, given what happened to Julian Assange, it turns out to have been a very lucky thing for Snowden that the US State Department revoked his passport before he was able to actually arrive in Ecuador.

While the State Department stranding him in Russia means that chronically uniformed folks will forever call the guy names like "Russian plant", at least he's very unlikely to ever be extradited.

[anonym29]

Fair point. The US Federal Government certainly hasn't had any moral qualms with shadowy assassination plots, to say nothing of blatantly covering up illegal, geneva-convention-violating murders conducted by US Federal Government employees in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.

[oyashirochama]

He did break the law and all, means to an end isn't a good path unfortnately when you have no power. There were options to take to whistle blow the surveillance of citizens and it's illegal under NSA's own policy that they ignored illegally, and there's a technically independent section/organization for leaking these issues to OCA. Though I'm not sure if it was around in Snowden's time, it could literally have been made due to his concerns ironically.

[simoncion]

> There were options to take to whistle blow the surveillance of citizens...

You should read Snowden's statements on the official channels he attempted to use, and those he disregarded. You should also go read up on what Daniel Ellsberg thought of Snowden's chances for getting a fair trial after publicly blowing the whistle on the long-running violation of federal domestic spying law. [0]

[0] In the mid-1970's, FedGov treated whistleblowers who released classified information very, very poorly. These days (and back in the mid 2000's), FedGov fucking crucifies such people behind closed doors.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

He never attempted to use official channels.

> “As a legal matter, during his time with NSA, Edward Snowden did not use whistleblower procedures under either law or regulation to raise his objections to U.S. intelligence activities, and thus, is not considered a whistleblower under current law.” (p. 18)

https://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?Docu...

You should give these docs a skim, I'd be curious what your thoughts are. I used to sympathize with Snowden (and Assange) until I read into what actually went down.

[simoncion]

> He never attempted to use official channels.

From [0], which links to a now-paywalled Vanity Fair article:

> The N.S.A. at this point not only knows I raised complaints, but that there is evidence that I made my concerns known to the N.S.A.’s lawyers, because I did some of it through e-mail. I directly challenge the N.S.A. to deny that I contacted N.S.A. oversight and compliance bodies directly via e-mail and that I specifically expressed concerns about their suspect interpretation of the law, and I welcome members of Congress to request a written answer to this question [from the N.S.A.].

IIRC, Federal government contractors received approximately zero real protections under whistleblower law back in 2014.

When Daniel Ellsberg is publicly saying that Snowden did things the right way, and that had Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers in 2014, he would have done it in much the same way Snowden did, you should strongly consider the possibility that the official channels that went disused were ignored for very good reasons.

> I used to sympathize with ...Assange...

If you're talking about Wikileaks, then the objective of Wikileaks was to spread secrets that were verified to be reasonably genuine (and generally harmless to human life if revealed) as far and wide as possible. Wikileaks' mission meant that it just wouldn't be using Federal whistleblower channels for its reporting.

[0] <https://www.techdirt.com/2014/04/08/snowden-says-nsa-is-lyin...>

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Why do you take Snowden at his word yet ignore a bipartisan intel committee investigation? Have you even skimmed the docs? I'm disappointed in myself for engaging in these fruitless discussions time and again.

[anonym29]

You're expecting Americans to trust members of congress, and not only members of congress, but specifically the ones who specialize in keeping secrets, many of which were secrets that are now known to have violated the constitution, federal law, and international law? For real?

What's the steel-man version of your position here, "members of Congress are generally competent, trustworthy, honest people who rarely lie"?

Are we talking about two different Snowdens and two different governments or something?

Are you a federal government employee or contractor who's economic livelihood depends on towing the party line and white knighting for the NSA, an agency that flagrantly violated federal law to illegally surveil domestic communications between American citizens, an act that was specifically and explicitly forbidden of them from their very inception, and remains that way (legally) today?

Are you trying to sway public opinion such that the perpetrators of this treason will continue to not face criminal prosecution for their crimes against the citizens of this country within their lifetimes?

[simoncion]

> Have you even skimmed the docs?

Yup.

Any committee that will leave entirely unpunished being lied to, directly, in person, by the fellow in charge of the biggest agency the committee is supposed to be overseeing isn't worth a damn.

Any committee that won't raise a big public stink about that agency's lawyers lying to the US Supreme Court? Same thing.

It's entirely possible to be both bipartisan and a Congressional committee but still be largely worthless to the public.

> Why do you take Snowden at his word yet ignore a bipartisan intel committee...

Snowden risked his ass (and is currently living in exile) to alert the public about long-running, major violations of Federal law. The most we get out of the absolute best member of that committee is "Man. The American public would be fucking incensed if they heard some of the things that we've been told in our chambers. Someone should really do something about this.".

And yeah, I'm aware that that report was written by a scratch committee assembled in the House and is organizationally unrelated to the permanent Senate intelligence oversight committee on which Wyden and company sit. In a crisis situation, these folks absolutely carry the same water, regardless of where they are on the org chart. One only need look at the retroactive immunity granted to the telcos for their long-standing, obvious violation of Federal law caused by their participation in NSA's then-very-illegal wiretap program to understand that.