Do you want to apply the same logic here?
Even with all the problems with the US justice system, I'm pretty sure most citizens actually prefer for it to work the way it does currently, rather than not at all.
And I'd rather see Snowden face the music than defect to the Russian intelligence services. There is no way he can refuse cooperation with them. I'm not even entirely convinced that Russia had no role in his actions prior to his defection, or that he really intended to go some place else.
This is a terrible defense for forcing down the planes of people taking political asylum. The choice is not between disrespecting asylum or not having any justice system whatsoever, and it is ridiculous to suggest so.
> And I'd rather see Snowden face the music than defect to the Russian intelligence services
Ah yes, the classic strategy of defecting to Russian intelligence services by leaving Russia to go to Bolivia.
Snowden said he wanted to go to Bolivia... There is no proof he actually intended to go there or that the Russians wouldn't be waiting to work with him there.
Regardless of Snowden's original intentions, he has no power to refuse cooperation with Russian intelligence services. At the very least, he has been trotted out for propaganda reasons like a trained pony. So in essence, yes, he ultimately defected by not standing trial.
And other nations disagree with. Is this not the same as in the Belarusian situation?
> he has no power to refuse cooperation with Russian intelligence services
I don't think it is true that Snowden has no leverage whatsoever. Moreover, what is the evidence? What is the evidence that he is being trotted out for propaganda reasons? What is the evidence he has leaked all this information to the FSB?
And I remember that fake Q&A session with Putin were Snowden asked a question about surveillance of their own people and Putin basically said that the Russian state would never ever do such a horrible thing. It's almost funny.
> There is no way he can refuse cooperation with them.
There's always a way. They were already in great position just having him there. And regarding the latter, there must be very serious investigation following Snowden's actions and if what you say is true, it's extremely hard to believe the investigation has found nothing about it. But it seems so.
Oh yes, sure Snowden could refuse. And the Russian intelligence services will, out of the goodness of their hearts, just stop asking.
Any connections between Russia and Snowden may have been investigated, but the results would not have been made public. That can wait until a trial, at the very least. But again, Snowden didn't stand trial, he defected to Russia...
That is one BS answer. Where did you see that the choice is between what the US have and "not at all".
>"And I'd rather see Snowden face the music than defect to the Russian intelligence services."
Nobody cares what you'd rather see. He did something that he believes was a right thing to do (many other people believe the same). He does not owe it to anyone to give himself up to rot the rest of his life in prison.
And no, for me it is no legitimate choice to selectively ignore laws if they don't suit someone. In a democracy there are well defined systems, which are of course imperfect, to adjudicate and modify those laws. Manning went through that system, and despite all the outrage at her treatment, she got out quite well. Much better than what Snowden might face if he irks Putin...
And that's the choices they make ( assuming they are in position to make it at all). I am not going to judge either.
>"she got out quite well..."
You do not know what she would do given a choice. Also she's been sentenced to 35 years. The only reason she's out is that Obama had commuted her sentence. Otherwise the life for her will be over.
She wouldn't have gotten the pardon if she didn't have some legitimate claim to being a whistleblower.
Of course, a sentence of 35 years sounded ridiculous in her case, but there are legitimate ways to change those laws or ameliorate the consequences. And there is also an argument why disclosure of secrets should carry hefty prison terms, as it can result in casualties. Probably even did, in her case.
I'm not saying she is a terrible person or even that she deserved to be in prison for seven years. I'm just stating that her actions were clearly illegal and had a lot of unambigiously negative consequences. Same thing for Snowden, though he lost a lot of my sympathy by defecting to an enemy state...
There are issues with the US justice system, but it is a far cry from anything in Belarus or Russia. And if there is to be any secrecy around national security - most believe there should be - then there must also be consequences for breaking this secrecy, regardless of the justification.
Which means that either you have to review you thoughts and change them, or you are fine with killing journalists and any other dissidents (who obviously "broke the law, with quite serious consequences for their country and individual soldiers"). You just can't bet on two sides of a coin.
If you can't see that, how can you ever defend democracy?
But you probably don't ever need to, because the US system is already quite trustworthy (despite a lot of faults) and on average does quite well.
I believe in the necessary secrecy of some state organisations - but only if they are trustworthy and play by the rules set by the democratic institutions.
And Snowden showed that they don't do this and cannot really be trusted. And he tried the proper way to report and it did not worked.
So he became: a whistleblower
And a hunted man by the law breaking agencies whose cimes he unveiled.
So why is your conclusion, there should be only consequences for him?
And it is not clear that Snowden tried "the proper way". He says so, but he doesn't want to prove that in court. Instead he defects to an enemy state and cooperates with their intelligence services. And yes, he did defect and cooperate, the only question is what exactly he did (and still does) and how much of all of this was his intention.
The crimes Snowden committed, if any (it's not clear he could even be convicted), are absolutely legitimate. Publishing secrets you were sworn to keep secret has to be punishable. If someone decides to break those laws, out of ethical considerations, they must also face the consequences.
He doesn't want to have to prove something in a secret court, by powers who are clear about their stance, because he exposed them?
How evil.
" If someone decides to break those laws, out of ethical considerations, they must also face the consequences. "
But not if the "crimes" were necessary, to unveil the larger crimes.
Oh and he did face the consequences - he has o live on the run, outside of US reach. That only leaves Russia and co.
"Instead he defects to an enemy state and cooperates with their intelligence services."
And where is a slight proof, that he did do that, beyound releasing the info to everyone?
He is not stupid - once on the hook, he would always remain on the hook of the FSB.
Unfortunately, the crimes Snowden revealed may well not have seen the light of day without him, which suggests we don't have enough whistleblowers. And beyond that - even the bits of PRISM, XKeyscore and whatnot that were legal are simply not authorized by a democratically elected government; you cannot claim electoral legitimacy while keeping essential parts of your program not only secret, but even publicly paying lipservice to principles in opposition to your very own secret programs. To the extent various US administrations participated in creating these programs they thus necessarily acted without a democratic mandate; after all, they lied about it in public. That's not democracy; that's conspiracy.
Had the programs been discussed at least in general terms, or the quandaries of trading which freedoms exactly for security been acknowledged by the US government, you could make the argument that the technical details must remain secret, but the principal was supported by the electorate. But as is; the whole thing - up to and including the participating judiciary - is no more legitimate than any other stolen election won by lies, propaganda, and misdirection - the kind of principles the US clearly rejects (e.g. https://www.usaid.gov/democracy/supporting-free-and-fair-ele...).
I mean: I completely agree that likely snowden is a criminal. There's little reason to assume otherwise. However, that's kind of besides the point, isn't it? Much, much more important than any one criminal is the responsibility a government, especially one that claims to uphold the ideals of democracy to actually protect its subjects as it claims to. For a sense of scale - consider the fact that governments routinely accept the legality of war, despite the fact that it's essentially akin to accepting mass murder. And I'm not trying to make the case that extreme pacificm is the way to go; but rather the opposite - if we acknowledge that even some of the most serious of crimes are potentially acceptable in the defense of proper governance, then clearly, clearly mere whistleblowing should be a no-brainer, even if that means overriding normal laws.
So the question isn't whether Snowden is criminal, it's why is he criminal? I'd say the party at fault here is the democratically elected US government, not Snowden. The law on this matter is wrong, and should be fixed.
Manning actually faced a trial, and the system even granted her some leniency. Snowden might have found leniency too, but he probably gave that up by defecting to an enemy state.
An enemy state that routinely commits worse crimes against its citizens, than the US has even been accused of. But in Russia, protection of Whistleblowers isn't even a subject worth talking about...
I don't see anything wrong with interfering with the travel of fugitives from justice. Even if there are doubts about the "justice" getting applied here, just ignoring the US justice system is probably not the right way to go either.