The Russians have said he's applying to 15 countries for asylum.

He's trying to gain public support and put pressure on the US government, while at the same time persuading countries to give him asylum. Releasing a statement will help him to do this.

If my life was in jeopardy and I had means to apply pressure in a way that would reduce the risk of getting tortured by the U.S., I would apply that pressure in any way possible.

"If I violated US law and I had means to apply pressure in a way that would reduce the risk of getting imprisoned and convicted in the US, I would apply that pressure in any way possible."

Works either way.

Is this sarcasm?

I'm just wondering why he released this.

Because his most powerful weapon is controlling the public discourse.

If he goes entirely silent then the government will step in to fill the void: "His girlfriend's a stripper, he's a hacker terrorist, his neighbors say he's weird, he might be a soviet spy, he did it all for the attention, he's not an American."

If he speaks out on a daily basis the news media will eventually grow tired of the story and move on leaving him to be a 3rd page story when he's arrested.

His best option right now is to stay in front of the news for as long as possible until some solution is worked out. In the meantime staying positive with the American people will do more good for his eventual trial.

To apply pressure on the US government regarding the revocation of his passport making it impossible for him to reach Ecuador or where ever, of course. He's stuck in Moscow due to his passport being revoked and Putin's basically told him that he's not welcome there. He's in a tight spot.

You'll notice he never once mentioned the documents or their contents in this message. He's not "making the story about himself" - he's using the media as a tool to apply pressure to the forces aligned against him in the hopes of securing his safety.

What pressure does a statement from the man himself apply to the US? I fail to see how this improves his situation one whit.

It's a plea for public support. By raising Obama's profile as an oppressor, he hopes to turn public sentiment against the sitting government.

As someone else said, remaining silent lets his opposition control the discourse. You can see this clearly in the frenzy of stories in the media about Snowden's stripper girlfriend and the "IS HE A COMMIE SPY?" headlines. Providing a counterbalance makes it harder for the government propaganda machine to sway public opinion against him and turn him into Just Another Terrorist.

I don't think it reads like a plea for public support, if it was intended as such then it isn't worded well. It reads like a bunch of other wikileaks press releases that are generally political statements about the importance of transparency. The problem is that if he wants public sympathy he needs to avoid coming across as having political motives and if he does want to make accusations then he must consider the possibility that they will backfire and cost him public support.

A 'counterbalance' can often instead be a distraction which is what I fear happened here.

Probably because he and Wikileaks have the entire world media asking them for a statement daily.

I, for one, was grateful for the update. Yes, I care about how Snowden is personally doing in Moscow.

We know he has been in Moscow for a long time! There isn't anything new here at all. As others have pointed out the statement used British phrases instead of american ones so it appears this was drafted by wikileaks instead of snowden, which isn't very reassuring.

Because, like anyone in that situation, he's trying to find a home. Unfortunately, for him to receive justice he needs to be in the spotlight because politicians won't make the right choice unless confronted by their constituents.

If he chose silence, he'd be infinitely detained, and would receive no justice.

Justice for Snowden is a lifetime in jail, according to basically every government in the world.

That's his fundamental problem, after all. If any of the countries he intends to flee to were to have someone leak the same kind of documents that Snowden leaked about the US, that person would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the laws of that country.

So when you talk about justice, I don't think you want Snowden to receive justice, because that's a small cell for the rest of his life, or worse.

Your reasoning presumes that countries of the world apply the same standard of 'justice' to foreign spies that they do to their own. Clearly this has proven to not be the true for China/HK and Russia.

I'm just pointing out the problem for any country of accepting Snowden. You're saying to your people, "It's okay to leak classified documents."

If I am reading that right you are saying that justice is defined by laws - rather than the law being derived from justice.

That seems right to me. Where there is no law (be that legal, moral, spiritual, etc), there can be no injustice.

diminoten seems to be talking specifically about legislation, not law in a broader sense.

Because history repeats itself, and you should learn from history.

Joan of Arc stood for France, in the Hundred Year's War. The story was not about her, it was about the country, the people. But yet, her narrative, the ideas she had, her martyrdom, etc all had a profound impact on the events of history, and lead the changing of the tides of the war.

A war is not fought on a martyr's backs. Sometimes, it takes 22 more years for the job to be finished. This doesn't mean putting someone up as an example isn't warranted, nor is it dilute or make the narrative of the people any less powerful.

How Snowden is treated sets a precedent for future U.S. dissidents of any kind. You might not care for or about him, but what happens to him sure as hell matters.

Because some people want to know what his status is so that they can support him.

The man is desperate for attention, but doesn't want to appear so. I guess.

How is releasing a single press release being "desperate for attention"?

A common theme among people who oppose Edward Snowden's is to criticize his character. Even within this thread people have resorted to name calling, dubbing him a "Drama Queen" and accuse him of seeking fame.

I suppose it's easier to attack a person than it is to attack the issues he stands for.

If he wasn't, he would have simply turned himself in and faced trial.

All his globe-trotting and statements just detract from the issues he's raised re: surveillance.

Unless he doesn't believe that he can get a fair and just trial. Given the history of those before him, I'd say that's a fair assumption.

I don't think it's all that fair of an assumption, and even so, he's only delaying the inevitable. He will be brought back and tried eventually.

Riiiight... He'll get fair trial and ride a unicorn over happiness mountain. All life is delaying the inevitable. Let's hope he doesn't end his in a dark cell.

Yeah, much like those Jewish people should have turned themselves to the Roman Inquisition.

Or to the Nazi. I'm sure those guys are pretty cool.

I've seen your opinion before. And you appear to lack the ability to give his situation enough brain power to develop a realistic reply. But feel free to continue to blather on like you understand what's happening. Maybe we'll get a laugh out of it on HN.

You guess. Good contribution there.

How is this "a lot about himself"? It's very short, he states his situation, and his position. He clearly says "Their purpose is to frighten, not me, but those who would come after me." and then talks about Bradley Manning and Thomas Drake.

It's just frustrating that yet another post on HN is about Snowden, and not the actual information he's released. Yet another news cycle is going to be wasted now on playing the, "Where in the World is Edward Snowden?" game, when in reality, the man doesn't matter.

His education, temperament and girlfriend don't matter but his political persecution surely does.

good point.