Perhaps it is because Russia is the only country with intelligence services capable of doing something like that… you know, like they did with Assange.
Speaking of Assange, did you know that the emails that Assange leaked to the world at a very convenient time for Trump had been edited by Russian intelligence? They made very subtle changes to the documents before turning them over to Wikileaks.
Why are you so quick to assume that America would disappear him, but so slow to accept that Russia might have been doing something nefarious there? You want to talk epistemology? Why do you not question this assumption that the United States most definitely would have (successfully) captured him for a kangaroo court trial and executed him unless he went to Russia?
But you have not read my comment, once again. I said, “If it was his plan to have a nice apartment in Moscow all along, then why should we believe anything in the documents that he revealed?” But in the very next sentence, I also said, “No, it is much better to believe that he was a naïve coward, and that is what I believe.” Those sentences, when read together, indicate that I do believe that the documents are genuine.
Just for the record, when I ask, “Why not Iran?” or “Why not North Korea?” or “Why should we trust anything in the documents?” these are rhetorical questions and should not be interpreted as meaning, “He should have gone to Iran or Korea.” or “We shouldn’t believe anything in the documents.”
Note also that I said, “Everything that he has said since would be a lot more credible that way.” Notice the word “since.” This is because I cannot trust anything that he says while he is in Russia, because he is under the power of Putin for as long as he is in Russia. Do you notice that he has not said anything critical of Russia since he got there?
What personal cost? He is living pretty well in Russia, from what I understand.
I also would have fled. I am not suggesting that he should have allowed himself to be arrested and executed by the US (and I do not understand why everyone seems to assume that I am saying such a thing). Of course I would have fled, but as I have said all along, I would have fled to Europe and tried my luck there. Frankly, I think that the assumption that all the countries in Europe are simply America’s puppets and would have simply handed him over at their first opportunity is quite disrespectful to many of the countries in Europe.
Also, I would rather die than be made a puppet for a fascist dictator like Putin.
I neither assume the US would have disappeared him nor do I refuse the possibility that Russia may have been involved.
I just disagree with you that fleeing to Russia makes his actions more or less ‘heroic’. I don’t think it factors either way.
Again I don’t have particular views either way on that. Although I will say that past history inclines me to the view that when the US really wants someone, western European powers have great difficulty saying no for perfectly understandable reasons. It’s hard to say no to someone who is supposedly your greatest ally, the leader of the free world, a beacon of justice and democracy and also happens to have the largest armed forces, economy and nuclear arsenal in the world.
It’s embarrassing to have to tell them, “We think your justice system is fundamentally flawed, your love of the death penalty is barbaric and your prison system involves conditions that would make even Daily Mail readers say ‘I say, that’s a bit harsh’.”
I’ll grant you Germany might have declined to extradite him if he was going to face the death penalty. Short of that, they’d deport him happily.
Likewise the UK, with the difference that the UK is currently happy to extradite even where the US declines to give assurances that the death penalty won’t be applied. At least so long as the people being extradited are sufficiently ‘jihadi’ so maybe Snowden would have been different.
But again, I don’t think my views are particularly relevant. It’s Snowden’s view which is relevant. He clearly felt Russia was his best bet.
Now if you want to speculate that that’s because he was working for the Russians and that that makes his disclosures suspect, go ahead.
But I don’t accept that deciding to flee to Russia constitutes some sort of moral failing which in and of itself justifies doubt about the documents.
Doubt in the documents is a good thing for all sorts of reasons but I don’t agree that that is one of them.
No, I read it. As set out above, I disagree with your premise that a plan to flee the consequences of his actions makes his exposures less credible.
I was trying (evidently not very successfully) to highlight the difficulty with your stated stance that his plans themselves somehow lessen his credibility.
OK, granting that you meant them as rhetorical questions, what rhetorical effect did you mean to achieve with them?
All I can see is you suggesting that these would also be dictatorships to which he could have fled instead but decided against. Without more what are we, your audience supposed to take from that?
And that would seem perfectly sensible. Why wouldn’t you question and test what he says? But presumably you’d do that in respect of anything anyone says.
Consider the circumstances in which they are speaking, the likelihood that the person knows what they are talking about, whether what they say is backed up by other sources, whether you have reasonable confidence in those sources, etc. etc.
In exactly the same that one would consider how to view the statements of, say, whoever the latest White House spokesperson is or the UK’s chief medical officer or, well, anyone…
I struggle with what I took to be your stance that fleeing to Russia in itself negates everything he did before regardless of his motives at the time.
If all you are in fact saying is that you doubt everything Snowden has to say now he is in Russia and aren’t comfortable with people calling him a hero because you have doubts about his motives given his later actions, well fine. In that case, I’ll chalk it up to misunderstanding and apologise for taking up your time.
Either way this is all rather OT. I’m happy to carry on chatting if you want to spin it off into a new topic but otherwise I think we’d better leave it for folks who want to talk about MAGA-folk stealing laptops.
The rhetorical effect that I was going for was essentially, “Russia is a horrible, horrible place to go for somebody whose claim to fame is exposing a government for spying on its own people.” I understand that it is absurd to suggest that he could have gone to Iran or North Korea instead, but I was trying to make the point that it is also kind of absurd that he ended up going to Russia, a country with an even worse human rights record than the US. I probably should have phrased it as, “Russia, Iran, North Korea…what’s the difference?” (I do still think that Russia is the only country that could have recruited him in such a way, and that would make me wonder about whether the documents were altered, but I doubt that this is the case.) I will say that, of the three countries listed, Russia is my least favorite, but that is a matter of personal preference I suppose.
Yes, this is more or less what I originally wanted to say. If I could add to this sentiment, I would just say that I so very much wanted Snowden to be a hero and I was so very much disappointed that his initial heroic act was so marred by where he ended up (and I do so want to believe that it was naivety or real (rather than imagined) necessity that brought him there, though I cannot shake these lingering questions). I realize that this isn’t entirely fair to Snowden, especially since most of my reasons for feeling so strongly about the Putin regime are due to things that happened later, but it really casts a pall over what would otherwise be the story of a great whistleblower.
Please do not apologise for taking up my time. I have been having this exact same argument in my own head for a long time, and it helps me sort out my own thoughts by putting them into writing in an argument.
You are right about going off topic, though. I am sorry to all of the other people who had to scroll through this. Let us leave this topic alone until there is some new major development in the case. And let’s get back to making fun of MAGA idiots whose capers make Snowden look like Jason Bourne by comparison.
Just thought I’d maybe, probably irritatingly, reiterate that she isn’t being charged with stealing a laptop and trying to sell it to the Russians. Maybe “FBI charges woman who allegedly stole Pelosi laptop to send it to Russian intelligence” might be a better way to go with the headline until someone besides her ex claims she did. Just sayin…
Well, if you want to get really technical, the FBI investigates and arrests and then prosecutors charge…
At least they didn’t go with a clickbait headline like, “This woman tried to do WHAT with Pelosi’s laptop?!” or “Democrats HATE her because of her one weird trick for profiting off her participation in the Capitol insurrection.”
