Seeing as how he's stuck there with nowhere else to go except prison in the US, and owes what little freedom he has to them, I think it's fairly obvious and smart to not speak ill of your host, especially considering what they're capable of. I'm quite sure he would have a LOT to say about it were he not stuck there. Yes, we know, if it were you you'd be condemning them to their face.

> he's stuck there with nowhere else to go except prison in the US,

Meanwhile Chelsea Manning is walking the streets of the US as a free person. Why do people pretend that Snowden's only option was and is to live in Russia, a country that is diametrically opposed to everything he ostensibly stands for?

I suppose people "pretend" that because it appears to be the unfortunate truth! Where else is he supposed to go, exactly, as a fugitive with no passport?

Snowden ended up in Russia by accident. He was flying from Hong Kong to Ecuador, and his flight happened to be laid over in Moscow when the US government cancelled his passport. He spent a month and a half living in the airport before he gave up trying to leave Russia and asked for asylum.

If he could have gone anywhere else it seems likely he would have done so.

He chose to be out of the country when the story dropped. It was at least partially his decision to fly through Russia. He could have stayed in the US, faced the charges against him, argue his case in court, and tried to seek justice that way countless civil disobedients did before him.

Chelsea Manning got a presidential pardon - what was Snowden's option?

Snowden could have argued in court that what he did was not a crime or asked for leniency due to the importance of what he did as Manning had done. This eventually worked for Manning and she is now free. However he removed any chance of leniency by leaving the country before the story dropped. Therefore Snowden seems likely to live the rest of his life in exile under an authoritarian regime. It seems like his decision was wrong from both an ethical and practical perspective in comparison to what Manning did.

So his option was to roll the dice and hope it turned out like CM? Doesn't sound like that was the wrong choice - you are assuming he would have been pardoned.

Arguably even CM didn't get leniency (from the courts) - the president overrode the court.

> his decision was wrong from both an ethical

Why ethical?

Manning's "crime" was much more severe than Snowden initial "crime". Snowden was more targeted and has a much better case at being a true whistleblower. Manning dumped a bunch of unrelated documents, many of them having little public value. Snowden did a better job of limiting the scope to specific issues. That suggests he would receive better treatment from politicians and the legal system. However he fled the country which eliminated any chance of leniency.

I believe Snowden fleeing was unethical because facing the consequences of breaking the law is an important part of civil disobedience. To quote MLK: "Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for the law." Snowden didn't "willingly accept the penalty" for his actions. At least part of the reason MLK's Letter from Birmingham Jail was so powerful was because it was written from Birmingham Jail and not an apartment in Moscow. Snowden lost complete control of the ethical high ground because he chose exile over fighting this issue head on.

> That suggests he would

Perhaps Snowden disagrees. It's easy to say what he did wrong with no skin in the game.

Everyone also said it was obvious J Depp was going to lose his second case against Amber on the basis that American courts are harder to win in that the British court he already lost in. Look how that turned out.

> breaking the law is an important part of civil disobedience

Protesting unjust laws and whistleblowing are different things. A WB is still effective even when anonymous - this was not "civil disobedience", nor "break[ing] a law that conscience tells him is unjust" in the same sense as civil rights issues.

> To quote MLK

you could very easily quote any number of murdered civil rights leaders. Martyrdom isn't a very convincing argument.

> MLK's Letter from Birmingham Jail was so powerful was because it was written from Birmingham Jail

Nice that strategy worked out. Suggesting choosing any other strategy is unethical, or going to jail is some kind of "fight", is nonsense. Do you think the same ethos applies to protesting genocide, or does protesting government with long jail sentences have some kind of honour to it?

And many years of torture in solitary confinement.

He could have remained silent, but he used the opportunity of the run up to the war to spread Russian propaganda about US agencies and media to his 5 million twitter followers.

E.g. his tweet from not even 2 weeks before the invasion:

>There is nothing more grotesque than a media pushing for war.

https://mobile.twitter.com/snowden/status/149222362658580890...

Why would he blame western media and intel agencies for Putin invading Ukraine?

As long as he stays there, I will assume he might be under duress. Pardon him, then let's see.

Let's never do that. Because he doesn't deserve it.

Has social justice movement W also talked about the bad things in countries X, Y and Z that are worse than things T, U & V in the US?

Why should he? He’s not Jesus or the world police.

Because he denied it was going to happen and expressed skepticism at Western intel reports about the invasion. Then he was silent after the invasion.

A wiser choice under his circumstances. He knows the political climate in Russia.

If it's wiser for him to remain silent in the face of despicable actions by his host government, why isn't it also wiser for him to speak negatively about his host government's antagonists?

You can't really have it both ways. While I admire what Snowden did to expose abuses by the NSA, I also recognize that his credibility is severely tarnished by the physical location in which he currently resides.

Yes, he was wrong, can happen. It’s also unrelated to his claims about US agencies and US democracy.

Why must he be a saint? He did more than most will do their entire lives already.

Personally, the only people I believe are those who are always right. For instance, Kernighan and Ritchie talk about the 'register' keyword in C. All very well, but I heard that one day Brian Kernighan said he'd brew a pot of coffee and just forgot. I'm not sure I can trust him so I never use that keyword. Too risky.

Maybe if they would annotate who did which section. I bet Ritchie would never have done this.

I believe people who admit when they are wrong, instead of refusing to talk about their past errors in judgement.

Right. Fuck that register keyword.

>It’s also unrelated to his claims about US agencies and US democracy

Definitely related, he used the run up to the war to dunk on US agencies' predictions saying they were war mongering.

Not even two weeks before the war he tweeted: "There is nothing more grotesque than a media pushing for war."

Can you explain how US media pushed Putin to war in the run up to the war rather than just reporting very credible intel from US agencies? Which appears to be a crime in Snowden's eyes.

He talks about it here:

https://www.coindesk.com/video/recent-videos/edward-snowden-...

Sounds like he's bought into Russian propaganda...

"If you don't live in Russia you don't know the whole story"

No but there's enough Ukrainians in my life who don't appreciate their country being invaded and subjected to genocide...

>Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email [email protected] and we'll look at the data.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

He very vocally defended Russia while they were building up to the invasion and then became completely silent after they invaded. I wouldn't be surprised if Snowden doesn't actually have the password to his Twitter account and can only post Putin approved tweets.

A lot of people, including establishment "experts" didn't think Russia was going to invade and called US estimations war-mongering. Also it's probably not a good idea to antagonize the people holding you hostage, he's one hospital trip away from falling out a window.

Snowden is clearly trying to be as effective as he can in spreading his message, given his conditions. He's already sacrificed any semblance of a normal/comfortable life, saying he's full of shit just because he doesn't effectively commit suicide strikes me as disingenuous criticism by those who already want to see him dead.

Honestly the only legitimate criticism of Snowden I've read so far is that he may have handed over intelligence as part of his asylum bargain that got operatives killed. But, probably due to the nature of said operatives/operations and the agencies they may/may not have worked for, it's impossible to know from the outside how true that is. It's not like the intelligence community has a history of honesty with the general public, or won't lie to get what it wants. CIA/NSA/Military Intelligence Services seem to step way over the line every 10-20 years or so and some new scandal gets leaked, and we have a big debate over whether the leakers were traitors or patriots. This is just another wave in the signal unless we fundamentally reform the system.

"A lot of people, including establishment "experts" didn't think Russia was going to invade and called US estimations war-mongering."

And they were all proven definitively wrong, the only war mongerer is Putin, who just escalated his invasion of Ukraine by ordering a partial mobilization. If you think that the GRU doesn't have the password for Snowden's twitter then you are very gullible.