Snowden on Secrecy
He doesn't provide a convincing explanation of why he only leaked US secrets, and not those of America's enemies. However, it is possible to sever that question -- the one that suggests he is guilty of treason -- from the basic argument that constitutional freedom requires occasional unauthorized leaks. Especially where the government is engaged in unconstitutional behavior, sometimes (he argues) bringing the matter before the public is the only hope for correction.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Again, I'd have more sympathy for that argument had he not immediately fled to the arms of America's enemies.
What? You wanted him to stay around for his treason conviction?
I'm no fan of Snowden, but you will perhaps acknowledge that we wouldn't know about this absent his revelations. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/secret-us-spy-court-approved-every-surveillance-request-in-2015/
And remember, NSLs prohibit the recipient from revealing to the target that he's being watched.
What price safety? What price liberty?
Yes, I expect him to stick around for his trial. After all, if the people truly feel that what he did was necessary, they would acquit him. But now we'll never know. Because he fled to the arms of Tsar Putin who used him as a propaganda tool.
But see, I have this old fashioned notion that if you make an oath, you keep it. And if you can't keep it in good conscience because you feel that doing so would allow an injustice to continue, then you break it, but you face the consequences for doing so. You don't go hide under the skirts of dictators and claim some kind of moral high ground.
"...if the people truly feel that what he did was necessary, they would acquit him." Absent jury nullification (or maybe changing his name to Hillary Clinton), the undeniable fact that he leaked secrets convicts him, and I don't doubt that's how the jury instructions would read. I'm not sure that "necessary" constitutes a legitimate affirmative defense, but feel free to correct me.
I'm not trying to make excuses for him, or arguments for his "acquittal." However, that he ran rather than face his almost certain conviction does not necessarily invalidate or nullify the information that his actions have revealed. And of which we, that is, We the People, would still be ignorant.
I see them as separate issues, is all.
I think it's possible to sever the questions. Is he a traitor? Maybe so! Did he do us a significant service? Yes, indeed.
We'll worry about the first question if he ever appears for trial. Right now, we need to worry about what we're going to do about the second question. Assuming, that is, that our institutions of self-governance still work well enough for us to do anything at all.
I saw an item (was it here?) that mused that wikileaks is a Russian intel operation. As is Snowden and Assange.
Snowden, at least, very likely is. Which adds to the treason claim, but doesn't undercut the "Hey, our government has been screwing us" claim.
The fact that he revealed information that the public should know does not change the fact that he is a moral coward.
The fact that he revealed information that the public should know does not change the fact that he is a moral coward.
And a felonious traitor, until he comes back and makes his case for civil disobedience. This part is necessary: even if he were convicted, his civil disobedience position at least would become plausible.
Eric Hines
"After all, if the people truly feel that what he did was necessary, they would acquit him."
Yea, after all, it worked out for Lois Lerner and the victims of SWATTing political persecution in various states.
Most spies and leakers in the US are idiots, sort of like retards that get turned into suicide bombers in the ME, those with mental or various other illnesses are easy to take control over, such as that trans male female military person.
Snowden breaks that mold by actually demonstrating some self survival and initiative, surprisingly. If foreign powers had him as a turned spy, they really should have kept him here. He'd be a better asset than the other idiots the Left has under their wing here, at least.
Post a Comment