DoJ to Snowden: Hope your 15 minutes were worth it, pal

[garbon]

That doesnt really answer the question, since leaking and what you do after that are two different things

The problem isn't just what he has said publicly, but also what he hasn't said but knows, and what information he has on his person (including laptops).  By running he's declared to the world that he doesn't plan to go back to the US and his passport is worthless.  That puts him at the mercy of the government of wherever he is.

And by staying home he would have been at the mercy of the US government. Running seems a much more sensible strategy.

He wasn't at the mercy of anything if he'd not decided to become boy wonder.

[The Minsky Moment]

Method #1 go to a member of whatever congressional or senate (or both) committee has some related oversight responsibility so that they can follow up .

Not realistic.

What is unrealistic about that?  Clearly there are sympathetic ears in Congress

If no legitimate process can adress his concern, then the ACLU cannot do anything or spread any information either.

Don't understand.  Once the ACLU has the info, they could issue a press release.

He did that. He went to Washington Post first. Only when they did not break the news the day they said they would did he go to the Guardian.

So b/c the WashPo took some extra time to vet the information, he decided to dump them for an outlet with less punctilious editorial control?
If the Guardian hasdn't jumped to his tune, where would have gone next: Granma?

And where does the flee to China piece fit in here?

[The Minsky Moment]

I see.  Snowden was forced to give 4 lap tops to the Chinese because the US media didnt publish fast enough.

Again with the 4 laptops? What is the source for that claim?

The Guardian.
So you correct to question its bona fides.

[Admiral Yi]

You're not referring to the article Seedy posted on page 4, are you Joan?

[The Minsky Moment]

This article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-profile

As he pulled a small black suitcase and carried a selection of laptop bags over his shoulders, no one would have paid much attention to Ed Snowden as he arrived at Hong Kong International Airport. But Snowden was not your average tourist or businessman. In all, he was carrying four computers that enabled him to gain access to some of the US government's most highly-classified secrets

[Iormlund]

And what is the difference between a spy and a whistleblower in your opinion?

Intent and action.

Judging by the comments on Languish it seems to me the difference between both is the second spends the rest of his life in prison.

I don't know (or care) if Snowden was spy from the start. But the reaction here certainly makes desertion the only way out, even for a bona fide whistleblower.

[The Minsky Moment]

Act like Ellsberg --> whistleblower
Act like Oswald --> spy

[frunk]

Judging by the comments on Languish it seems to me the difference between both is the second spends the rest of his life in prison.

I don't know (or care) if Snowden was spy from the start. But the reaction here certainly makes desertion the only way out, even for a bona fide whistleblower.

If you are a whistleblower presumably you are doing it to correct some injustice in your country.  What do you think is the proper choice when it comes down to a question of whether to face prosecution for what you feel is right or potentially betraying secrets to foreign powers?

[Syt]

I think that Snowden was well intentioned, and maybe also hoping to be a hero of the people for uncovering all the data collection schemes. How he went on releasing that information, though ...

I'm a bit surprised at the lack of outrage about the data collection itself, both in the U.S. and the UK. I guess a lot of people are indifferent because the internet and electronic communications don't feel "real", unlike a bug in your phone, a camera in front of your house or someone opening your letters.

[Syt]

Also, why is it always the UK that seems to go over the top all the time? Security cameras everywhere? Splendid! Enforce laws that no one can say anything offensive in public? Hooray! Monitor most of the internet traffic? Grandiose idea!

[OttoVonBismarck]

I find it very strange that a great advocate of freedom is choosing to use a string of quasi-democratic thug states or outright totalitarian states to make his bid for freedom (China-->Russia-->Cuba-->Venezuela (maybe)-->Ecuador. All of those States have history of suppressing free speech to a degree vastly worse than the United States, in fact a place like Russia where the rule of law means nothing is a pretty dangerous stopover for Snowden. Putin's inclination is to do whatever he can to hurt the United States, but if we were to offer some sort of pot of honey in exchange for Snowden, Putin could easily order him given to us with no real concern for what Russian law says. He's actually probably in the most danger right now as long as he's in Russia, because in China the government was less likely to go strong arm.

Beijing didn't want a confrontation with the U.S., but they also sure as hell didn't want to do anything to violate the integrity of Hong Kong's independent government (which they would have been pressured to do in order to bypass the lengthy legal extradition process in Hong Kong.) That's why the story that "handlers" from Beijing arranged it so that Snowden was basically told "it's time to leave, now" makes sense. But in Russia there aren't such concerns, if someone bribes Putin well enough he'll gladly turn Snowden over.

I also continually find it strange when countries like Ecuador, which have limited press freedoms and various human rights abuses, blast us in the international press for things that they would do without hesitation.

[Agelastus]

I think that Snowden was well intentioned, and maybe also hoping to be a hero of the people for uncovering all the data collection schemes. How he went on releasing that information, though ...

I'm a bit surprised at the lack of outrage about the data collection itself, both in the U.S. and the UK. I guess a lot of people are indifferent because the internet and electronic communications don't feel "real", unlike a bug in your phone, a camera in front of your house or someone opening your letters.

Several decades of terrorist bombs tends to desensitise you to certain things.

[The Brain]

I find it very strange that a great advocate of freedom is choosing to use a string of quasi-democratic thug states or outright totalitarian states to make his bid for freedom (China-->Russia-->Cuba-->Venezuela (maybe)-->Ecuador. All of those States have history of suppressing free speech to a degree vastly worse than the United States, in fact a place like Russia where the rule of law means nothing is a pretty dangerous stopover for Snowden. Putin's inclination is to do whatever he can to hurt the United States, but if we were to offer some sort of pot of honey in exchange for Snowden, Putin could easily order him given to us with no real concern for what Russian law says. He's actually probably in the most danger right now as long as he's in Russia, because in China the government was less likely to go strong arm.

Beijing didn't want a confrontation with the U.S., but they also sure as hell didn't want to do anything to violate the integrity of Hong Kong's independent government (which they would have been pressured to do in order to bypass the lengthy legal extradition process in Hong Kong.) That's why the story that "handlers" from Beijing arranged it so that Snowden was basically told "it's time to leave, now" makes sense. But in Russia there aren't such concerns, if someone bribes Putin well enough he'll gladly turn Snowden over.

I also continually find it strange when countries like Ecuador, which have limited press freedoms and various human rights abuses, blast us in the international press for things that they would do without hesitation.

Those states didn't break the trust of bondage.

[citizen k]

I think that Snowden was well intentioned, and maybe also hoping to be a hero of the people for uncovering all the data collection schemes. How he went on releasing that information, though ...

I'm a bit surprised at the lack of outrage about the data collection itself, both in the U.S. and the UK. I guess a lot of people are indifferent because the internet and electronic communications don't feel "real", unlike a bug in your phone, a camera in front of your house or someone opening your letters.

http://news.yahoo.com/pelosis-defense-nsa-surveillance-draws-boos-183845402.html;_ylt=AloyLmQ324wzgk_GbJUo1xHsYcp_;_ylu=X3oDMTIyMGNrMGI1BG1pdANIQ01PTCBvbiBhcnRpY2xlIHJpZ2h0IHJhaWwEcGtnA2lkLTMzNjU4MDgEcG9zAzEEc2VjA2hjbQR2ZXIDNg--;_ylg=X3oDMTBhYWM1a2sxBGxhbmcDZW4tVVM-;_ylv=3

[Iormlund]

I think that Snowden was well intentioned, and maybe also hoping to be a hero of the people for uncovering all the data collection schemes. How he went on releasing that information, though ...

I'm a bit surprised at the lack of outrage about the data collection itself, both in the U.S. and the UK. I guess a lot of people are indifferent because the internet and electronic communications don't feel "real", unlike a bug in your phone, a camera in front of your house or someone opening your letters.

Several decades of terrorist bombs tends to desensitise you to certain things.

What a load of crap. The UK and the US are not the only places to have experienced terrorism.

You guys are just hysterical. Osama won the WoT.