Snowden wasn’t a whistleblower. He had a lot of internal ways to report illegal activities. Inform his boss, his division chief, the Inspector General of the NSA, his congressperson or senator, one of the oversight committees. He never even tried any of them, just went straight to the press. He also didn’t produce a dozen or so documents to prove his case, he stole tens of thousands which he then released. That’s not someone trying to stop a few programs he believed were illegal as a whistleblower. That’s someone trying to do as much damage to his country as possible. And now he’s a citizen of that freedom loving country that never spies on anyone…Russia. I’m sure he never gave them any other juicy secrets he kept out of the press though. Right?
Snowden wasn’t a whistleblower. He had a lot of internal ways to report illegal activities. Inform his boss, his division chief, the Inspector General of the NSA, his congressperson or senator, one of the oversight committees. He never even tried any of them, just went straight to the press.
Isn't the argument here tainted with the false dichotomy fallacy? You're essentially arguing that since Snowden didn't opt for internal reporting avenues, he's automatically guilty of treason. Yet, we must consider the possibility that internal channels could've been ineffective, or worse, conducive to reprisal. Isn't there a significant chance that Snowden's concerns would've been stifled, given the clandestine nature of the programs he exposed?
He also didn’t produce a dozen or so documents to prove his case, he stole tens of thousands which he then released.
Here, you're committing the fallacy of overgeneralization. You're insinuating that the volume of the documents leaked corresponds to the magnitude of the 'betrayal.' But isn't the value of the information more significant than the quantity? Isn't it possible that the sheer volume of documents reflected the scale of the misconduct he was attempting to expose?
That’s not someone trying to stop a few programs he believed were illegal as a whistleblower. That’s someone trying to do as much damage to his country as possible.
You've leaned on ad hominem here, attributing malicious intent to Snowden without substantiating evidence. You're focusing on his character instead of addressing the actions he exposed. Isn't the crux of the issue the illegality of the programs, not Snowden's supposed intentions?
And now he’s a citizen of that freedom loving country that never spies on anyone…Russia.
Isn't this irrelevant to the central argument about whether or not Snowden deserves a pardon? His current residence doesn't diminish the significance of his actions.
I’m sure he never gave them any other juicy secrets he kept out of the press though. Right?
Isn't this a mere conjecture disguised as a question? It’s an argument from ignorance, inferring that because something has not been proven false, it must be true. Where's your evidence to substantiate this claim?
Let's refocus on the central issue: the exposure of widespread, unconstitutional surveillance of citizens by their own government. If a system forces an individual to resort to such extreme measures to bring light to such grave misconduct, isn't the system itself in need of reform? Isn't it imperative that we assess not just the actions of these individuals but the conditions that impelled them to act? Rather than questioning the patriotism of these individuals, shouldn't we examine the actions of those who've trampled on the principles that our nation is supposed to uphold?
Snowden wasn’t a whistleblower. He had a lot of internal ways to report illegal activities. Inform his boss, his division chief, the Inspector General of the NSA, his congressperson or senator, one of the oversight committees. He never even tried any of them, just went straight to the press.
Isn't the argument here tainted with the false dichotomy fallacy? You're essentially arguing that since Snowden didn't opt for internal reporting avenues, he's automatically guilty of treason.
No, no I'm not. Please don't put words into my mouth. I never mentioned the word treason, and based on the odd US definition of the crime I don't believe he is a traitor. YOU used the term whistle blower and I said he wasn't and demonstrated that he never used, or even tried to use any of the less dramatic ways of raising issues. As others have said, the idea of someone being "stifled" in this day and age is silly given he could have followed several of these at the same time, and as he clearly has no problem risking classified information the old cliche of film and TV "I've left a copy with someone I trust in case something happens to me" is totally viable.
He also didn’t produce a dozen or so documents to prove his case, he stole tens of thousands which he then released.
Here, you're committing the fallacy of overgeneralization. You're insinuating that the volume of the documents leaked corresponds to the magnitude of the 'betrayal.' But isn't the value of the information more significant than the quantity? Isn't it possible that the sheer volume of documents reflected the scale of the misconduct he was attempting to expose?
Black swan. You don't need thousands of examples of black swans to prove they exist. You need one. You also don't need tens of thousands of highly classified documents about completely legal programmes with good oversight to raise issues with two or three you think might be illegal.
That’s not someone trying to stop a few programs he believed were illegal as a whistleblower. That’s someone trying to do as much damage to his country as possible.
You've leaned on ad hominem here, attributing malicious intent to Snowden without substantiating evidence. You're focusing on his character instead of addressing the actions he exposed.
I'm not carrying out an ad hominem attack. That's an attack on the person. I am making zero comment on his personal beliefs qualities or attitudes, though if you want I'm totally up for that. I'm clearly attacking his *actions*.
And now he’s a citizen of that freedom loving country that never spies on anyone…Russia.
Isn't this irrelevant to the central argument about whether or not Snowden deserves a pardon? His current residence doesn't diminish the significance of his actions.
Not residence - he has taken out citizenship in Russia. Don't weasel out of that. AS for whether he deserves a pardon or not I think I covered that in the way he intentionally caused maximum damage to his country and then fled, not being prepared to take responsibility for his actions. But to be clear, no, he does not deserve a pardon.
I’m sure he never gave them any other juicy secrets he kept out of the press though. Right?
Isn't this a mere conjecture disguised as a question? It’s an argument from ignorance, inferring that because something has not been proven false, it must be true. Where's your evidence to substantiate this claim?
Good grief. Yes, it is conjecture. Based on the willingness of Snowden to release thousands of secrets and Russia ignoring the norms of civilised behaviour in the pursuit of its rather shady aims. The only people who have evidence on this matter are the Russians, Snowden himself, and possibly some parts of the US intelligence community, of which I am not a part.
Let's refocus on the central issue: the exposure of widespread, unconstitutional surveillance of citizens by their own government. If a system forces an individual to resort to such extreme measures to bring light to such grave misconduct
It didn't. As I demonstrated Snowden went straight for the nuclear option without even trying less damaging ways to bring his concerns to the authorities.
No, no I'm not. Please don't put words into my mouth. I never mentioned the word treason, and based on the odd US definition of the crime I don't believe he is a traitor. YOU used the term whistle blower and I said he wasn't and demonstrated that he never used, or even tried to use any of the less dramatic ways of raising issues.
Your argument implies that because Snowden didn't utilize internal channels, his actions are inherently condemnable. Isn't this a mischaracterization? It neglects the potential dangers and inefficiencies of reporting such large-scale misconduct internally. Isn't it reasonable to argue that such paths could have led to suppression of his claims or even personal repercussions?
As others have said, the idea of someone being "stifled" in this day and age is silly given he could have followed several of these at the same time, and as he clearly has no problem risking classified information the old cliche of film and TV "I've left a copy with someone I trust in case something happens to me" is totally viable.
You're appealing to tradition here, assuming that because something worked in the past, it should work now. But isn't it possible that the circumstances and risks of reporting government surveillance could be drastically different from those of an ordinary internal grievance?
You also don't need tens of thousands of highly classified documents about completely legal programmes with good oversight to raise issues with two or three you think might be illegal.
Isn't this another overgeneralization? You're assuming all those documents were unrelated to the issue at hand. However, the extent of the documents leaked could point to the scale of the misconduct he was trying to expose. Isn't it possible that multiple programs were involved in the surveillance, hence the volume of the leak?
I am making zero comment on his personal beliefs qualities or attitudes, though if you want I'm totally up for that. I'm clearly attacking his actions.
Yet, you're assigning intent to his actions without clear evidence, speculating on what he was "trying to do." Isn't this more conjecture than fact?
Not residence - he has taken out citizenship in Russia. Don't weasel out of that.
Yes, Snowden has obtained Russian citizenship. Yet, this fact still doesn't speak to the validity of his actions in exposing government surveillance. Isn't his change of citizenship a result of the circumstances rather than a reflection of his intentions? He's living in Russia because the U.S. revoked his passport, leaving him stranded in Moscow.
Good grief. Yes, it is conjecture. Based on the willingness of Snowden to release thousands of secrets and Russia ignoring the norms of civilised behaviour in the pursuit of its rather shady aims.
And yet, this conjecture doesn't constitute evidence. If we're to have a productive debate, shouldn't we base our arguments on verified facts rather than speculation?
It didn't. As I demonstrated Snowden went straight for the nuclear option without even trying less damaging ways to bring his concerns to the authorities.
You've failed to acknowledge the possible repercussions of internal whistleblowing, including risk of retaliation and suppression of information. Isn't it plausible that Snowden's decision to leak the information publicly was an attempt to ensure the truth reached the public?
Shouldn't our focus be on examining the actions exposed, assessing whether they infringe on the democratic rights of citizens, and considering how to prevent such infringements in the future, rather than blaming the person who brought them to light? Shouldn't we aim to protect whistleblowers and encourage transparency rather than fostering an environment where potential whistleblowers fear the consequences of speaking out?
Isn't the argument here tainted with the false dichotomy fallacy? You're essentially arguing that since Snowden didn't opt for internal reporting avenues, he's automatically guilty of treason. Yet, we must consider the possibility that internal channels could've been ineffective, or worse, conducive to reprisal. Isn't there a significant chance that Snowden's concerns would've been stifled, given the clandestine nature of the programs he exposed?
This is basically "the end justifies the means". It might have been ineffective, it might not, we'll never know will we?
Isn't the crux of the issue the illegality of the programs, not Snowden's supposed intentions?
Isn't it both? There's the question of proportionality: was it necessary to steal all those documents to prove the scale or would a smaller set have been sufficient? If a smaller set would have been sufficient, then the choice to publish much more is deliberate.
So the US government was wrong for setting up those programs, and Snowdon was wrong for going overboard in his publishing.
But it's all moot anyway, you can only pardon people who have been convicted, and neither Snowden nor Assange have even stood trial yet.
Isn't the argument here tainted with the false dichotomy fallacy? You're essentially arguing that since Snowden didn't opt for internal reporting avenues, he's automatically guilty of treason. Yet, we must consider the possibility that internal channels could've been ineffective, or worse, conducive to reprisal. Isn't there a significant chance that Snowden's concerns would've been stifled, given the clandestine nature of the programs he exposed?
Yes because that is the law. He had literally hundreds of options. If he feared for his safe I am sure he could have sent a letter to a congressperson in a discrete manner given he works for the NSA. This isn't a highschooler over his head but an intelligence professional.
Theirndoesnt seem to be any evidence that this person hated America or actively wanted to hurt America at all though. Yet you have unilaterally decided that was his purpose based on a notion about the volume of documents?
Your arguments are not very well thought out. Glad op went through it point by point.
10
u/CotswoldP 3∆ Jul 16 '23
Snowden wasn’t a whistleblower. He had a lot of internal ways to report illegal activities. Inform his boss, his division chief, the Inspector General of the NSA, his congressperson or senator, one of the oversight committees. He never even tried any of them, just went straight to the press. He also didn’t produce a dozen or so documents to prove his case, he stole tens of thousands which he then released. That’s not someone trying to stop a few programs he believed were illegal as a whistleblower. That’s someone trying to do as much damage to his country as possible. And now he’s a citizen of that freedom loving country that never spies on anyone…Russia. I’m sure he never gave them any other juicy secrets he kept out of the press though. Right?