Travelling to "China"[1], Russia, Cuba and Venezuela is not the way to get the average American on your side.
Revealing secrets about how the US government is spying on enemies, rather than simply about how the US government is spying on its citizens is not the way to get the average American on your side.
I can't say I admire what this man has done or how he has done it (aside from bringing domestic spying into the public eye, which I do think was a genuine public service).
[1] Or rather what will be perceived as "China" by many Americans.
Armchair analysis. How about looking at his real alternatives? One was virtually 24 hour /day locked up in a sunless, concrete room the other going to Venezuela or Cuba to have a somewhat normal life. Hasn't he suffered enough, given what he gave up for the leaks? Must he burn alive too to please you?
Yes, that sounds like a good assessment. The same applies to Assange I think.
Personally I don't like this approach. I think it's better to try to improve the system from within. The US and the West is still the world's bastion of freedom and rights, regardless of the way things are portrayed on HN.
I don't think its an effective way of working, and if you have to flee to Russia, Cuba or Venezuela then it seems like the ends have lost sight of the means, but good luck to him.
I think the existence of large-scale, widespread business relations with China indicates that they are not considered an enemy. One would at least expect an embargo of some kind on an enemy (like the embargo on Iran).
This may come as news to you, but hacking is not an act of war. If it were, then the US has already committed an act of war against Iran with Stuxnet (which actually caused physical damage to equipment there), as well as having committed acts of war against the USSR on several occasions. Similarly, industrial espionage is not an act of war; again, the US does this all the time, even to our allies.
If he'd stood up for US citizens rather than US enemies he could have remained in the US and fought his corner in the courts and the press.
He would be convicted, he clearly violated the law. An unjust law perhaps, but a law nonetheless. He swore not to give Top Secret to anyone without a security clearance and he obviously did.
It's possible that one of the room service delivery people was a Chinese agent and made Snowden an offer he couldn't refuse: "USA has issued an arrest warrant....we may have to arrest you...but...what do you have for us? "
> It's possible that one of the room service delivery people was a Chinese agent and made Snowden an offer he couldn't refuse: "USA has issued an arrest warrant....we may have to arrest you...but...what do you have for us? "
The constitution is pretty clear on the definition of treason:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
We are not at war with any country right now (at least in the sense that Congress has not declared war), Snowden is not participating in armed attacks on this country, and China is not our enemy in any meaningful sense of the word.
China is an enemy? When last I checked, there was no embargo on Chinese goods, no risk to US planes flying over China (nor Chinese planes flying over the US), no risk to US vessels in Chinese waters (at least from the Chinese government), no risk to our satellites from the Chinese army, etc. By comparison, look at Iran or North Korea -- there are embargoes, swords rattling, occasion bullets flying, and so forth.
Even if we consider China an enemy, that's not "standing up for an enemy," that's telling China that one of their universities is being spied on. Not a big surprise, and little damage done.
And I very much doubt that was done to aid our "enemy," but to help galvanize Snowden's status in the eyes of the Chinese people, which would in turn weigh on the government's decision whether or not to cooperate with the USA's extradition request.
What if he doesn't have a (super detailed and perfect) plan, and nobody out there can protect him, except the 300 million (if not 7 billion) people he did this for? What if this not a script written on our behalf, but real life?
Because that's exactly what I am thinking, you may call him a fool or a criminal, but until you can show me evidence of any selfish motives, he did this for us, and our grandchildren to boot, wether you see that now or not. Sure, it's not the same as taking a bullet for a bus full of kids, he "just" leaked classified things and ran way; but if I assume he truly believed that was the right thing to do, maybe not the smartest and safest way to lead a long life, but the right thing to do, then I have to admire his guts, and as I said, unless there is a sudden twist in all this, I am already indebted to him.
He's on the run from rather sinister people, too, who think nothing of killing thousands, or putting people in prison for life, just to make a point about dominance, while hiding behind human pyramids, deniability, limited liability and sophistry. If the public turns their back on him, he might be toast and that's that; which would be heartbreaking and flat out wrong to me.
Surprised the cab to the airport didn't "break down" (or blow up) or he didn't get mugged on his way to the airport. My guess is that Chinese agents were keeping the CIA and Western ones at bay, since that ultimately is Chinese territory. I never for a minute believe that he was in hidden location, otherwise NSA and CIA should be disbanded.
While not ideal, Cuba is probably his best choice considering that China and Russia would not take /support him openly. The Chinese agents most likely cloned his drives one way or another and the Russians might do the same if there's a layover. It's really simple:
"Wanna go to Cuba?
Yes?
Fine, then do what Igor says."
> Surprised the cab to the airport didn't "break down" (or blow up) or he didn't get mugged on his way to the airport.
He's in no danger of being assassinated. There wouldn't be any point.
Killing him to "make an example of him" doesn't make sense. Killing him with plausible deniability wouldn't send a message and killing him openly would just would just make the CIA look bad.
However the US government can, publicly and openly, make his life very difficult.
Revealing secrets about how the US government is spying on enemies, rather than simply about how the US government is spying on its citizens is not the way to get the average American on your side.
I can't say I admire what this man has done or how he has done it (aside from bringing domestic spying into the public eye, which I do think was a genuine public service).
[1] Or rather what will be perceived as "China" by many Americans.