I don't support him. I think it's wildly hypocritical of him to run to China and Russia because he's so opposed to government spying. I also think that the NSA spying is less troubling that the other numerous abuses of the Obama administration, including using the IRS to repress political speech.
>I think it's wildly hypocritical of him to run to China and Russia because he's so opposed to government spying.
What a stupid complaint. He's opposed to his country spying, so he blows the whistle on them. Now what is he to do? Stay and become the next Manning, locked away in torture and forgotten about? He obviously has to go, so where? It has to be somewhere that can stand up to the US which, as we've just seen, isn't very fucking many places. Russia and China are pretty much the only realistic options here.
But no, he shouldn't be practical. He should be more concerned that some dumbass on the internet might call him a fucking hypocrite.
Phew - I agree. Just making sure I'm not completely insane here, and frankly the hero worship of him is really starting to creep me out. I worry that too many people blindly see this as getting back at THE MAN without giving enough consideration to many other aspects of the ordeal.
I think his actions while on the run are just pathetic. He's such a weasel, like a guy who sucker punches someone on the street then takes off. The to align himself with these other countries who in the grand scheme of things are far worse actors than the US takes some serious balls. I still get the sense that 90% of the reason he decided to pull this off was for selfish reasons, that he wanted the notoriety.
EDIT - I suspect numerous downvotes will confirm the consensus
How are those countries "far worse actors" except for you not living in one of them and therefore having a significant bias? Did any of these countries invade a country as big as Iraq based on plain manipulations? Can any country come even near in the number of dictators it supported?
Just as a minuscule example of US foreign policies, have you ever heard about this:
"Now in his second term, President Obama insists that his counterterrorism policies differ markedly from Bush's. However, there are far more similarities than differences with regards to: non-battlefield targeted killings (an estimated 50 under Bush, and 387 under Obama); indefinite detention of suspected terrorists (approved by both through executive orders); broad surveillance authorities (as former NSA and CIA director Michael Hayden admitted on Sunday, 'NSA is actually empowered to do more things than I was empowered to do under President Bush's special authorization')"
It IS getting back at the MAN, as well as the man's partners(including all the big corporations). He lets them/the man lie, and then exposes them/him.(I'm not saying corporations LOVE to cooperate with the government. It is however unacceptable to give them direct backdoors(see microsoft case).)
I don't think the weasel simile is appropriate in this case. I don't think aligning himself with countries of questionable loyalty to his ideals is an inherently bad thing either - 1)It creates a sort of dichotomy, and increases the contrast between what the US portrays itself to be, and what it actually is(due to it using the same exact methods commie governments use) 2) Those are the only ones that will give him asylum, as the US is, after all, a G6 country. 3) It buys him more time(see 2.) to make decisions.
But you have to look at the other side of this issue - not for a second has the U.S. played this game without dirty tricks.
I didn't downvote you, however, I do think you watch US based media too much, judging from the rather overly simple argument. If not, then my apologies.
If you think the IRS issue and the NSA are mutually exclusive then you aren't paying close enough attention. They are just different tools in the same workshop.
As for the 'hypocrisy' would you feel the same if a Chinese national ran to the US seeking asylum after broadcasting to the world that the Chinese were hacking our hospitals and universities just because they could?
I didn't say they were mutually exclusive, I said one bothered me more than the other. You're right that there is a pattern of abuse of the citizenry coming from this administration, but don't think that abuse is as accepted or as systemic in the USA compared to the Russian or Chinese regimes.
Thus the hypocrisy - China and Russia have brutal, repressive governments that do not have moral equivalency with the USA. That said, I don't think the scenario you pose is analogous. If Snowden flew to China and revealed we were spying on China, that would be regular old treason.
If a Chinese national came to America to reveal to the world how China was spying on its own people (what good would that do as this information would be censored out within China?), he would be going to a less repressive land from where he left. Thus, no hypocrisy.
> If a Chinese national came to America ... he would be going to a less repressive land from where he left. Thus, no hypocrisy.
So, it's wrong to blow the whistle on the least-repressive land in the world without submitting to draconian punishment? Let's say the US disappeared from the world (closed its borders entirely, took off in a giant spaceship, etc)... Does this mean that whistleblowers in Russia must accept punishment for their message to be valid?
