> 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.