Snowden didn't go to senators or congresspersons with top secret classified documents to try to responsibly get the public to understand that the head of the NSA lied under oath. He fucking handed them over to journalists to pour through and decide for themselves. They aren't capable of understanding what should be released and in many cases released information they shouldn't have, like the joint collaboration with Canadian embassies for radio monitoring. That stuff shouldn't have gone public.
Yes our democracies have a right to know in a broad sense what our governments should be doing, but we shouldn't allow one random person to do so without first trying to go through government channels to try to fix it with people our people have entrusted to safeguard our national security.
The outcome of what Snowden did was good in some ways, but the manner in which he did it was not and shouldn't be advocated for or encouraged.
Plus, if he wanted, he could have always set up a complex insurance scheme so that if he died the documents came out.
Given what he knew of what happened to people who "work against" the US, do you really think the Bradley/Chelsea Manning option was one he wanted to risk?
I don't think our government is full of corrupt, evil and hateful people trying to kill as many people as they can.
Instead, I think it's full of hard working, well meaning people who succumb to the same pressures and tunnel vision that we all do. And sometimes, those people, under pressure from us, the populace, make them try to find solutions that may inch towards tyranny without us knowing it.
Snowden is an idealist, but he needed to show that same populace what our desire for safety was leading to.
I don't believe the guy should be deified, but I don't think he actually matters other than as a part of history and someone who showed us a mirror.
And I don't think you should dump on the fact that he handed them to journalists.
They literally are one of our government's greatest resources in keeping it honest. Not because it's an inherently noble profession, but specifically because our freedom of the press allowed them to have incentives in routing out corruption, whether that's money or fame, etc.
(it's purely a question to know why not, not a provocation)
Yes people should take a personal stand sometimes, but they shouldn't start there. I understand that previous NSA whistleblowers were gutted, and that was stupid of the NSA because that secret was getting out at some point, but in either case talking to a senator is way, way, way better than talking to a random journalist. There are plenty of reasons not to talk to journalists, not the least of which is that they're often spies. Bringing all the material to Hong Kong was also reckless, though it is possible he took countermeasures to stop himself from giving up the password if he got tortured at the border.
What Snowden did was just shine a light into a world that had been growing ever more powerful and yet darker and less transparent while still operating under the letter of the law.
I think that there is a need for a fundamental distrust of government in these cases, and as a Republican, it makes me insanely sad that my party has been on the wrong side of this issue for so long.
So yeah, WaPo should own up to the inconsistency (even if that's just too attribute it to being contributed to by a dynamic and different set of voices).