Edward Snowden in Hindsight (opens in new tab)

Snowden defected to China, then Russia. He is neither a hero nor a patriot in my book. While the programs he identified may have been bad for democracy and America, it was not his place to blow the whistle, and he went about it in such a shady, criminal way that I can never forgive him.

Snowden is likely facing much more scrutiny in Russia, a totalitarian regime he became stranded in.

He gave up a very comfortable life once and landed in a far much less comfortable one. Blaming him for not risking his life again, and now likely also his SO and child(ren), comes across as naive or at least reductive.

I simply see both acts as completely divorced from each other i.e.: revealing the spying and being silent post Ukrainian invasion. First is an act of bravery, second an act of cowardice and well, those are the choices he made and they aren't in contradiction of each other. He was brave once and now he's not, and the truly important thing is what he revealed more so than our opinion of his character.

> During his time in Russia, we have seen the whistleblower system work effectively here at home. The details of Trump’s Ukraine call, and the subsequent freezing of security aid seems rather relevant today. More impressively so, this same whistleblower system Snowden criticized worked against a sitting president having no capacity for restraint.

It's just laughable to believe that "the system works" because certain leaks and whistleblowing was permitted in order to harm Donald Trump. Makes me wonder if the author even knows there is such a thing as "the intelligence community" with its own autonomy, imperatives, and loyalties which are not necessarily in lockstep with every sitting POTUS.

It's actually a bit distressing to see that after everything which has happened after the past several decades, someone could still come to the conclusion that Snowden would have been treated the same as Mr. X.

For potential whistleblowers: there are legal avenues to expose wrongdoing.

http://whistlebloweraid.org offers free representation to those navigating the process, founded by a (legal) NSA whistleblower.

Edward Snowden is the last person we should ask to speak out against Russia. Almost every other Russia-resident who might speak out against the invasion could, the next day, show up in Madrid, Berlin, Mexico City—wherever in The West—and expect to receive political asylum.

But if Snowden steps foot into Western-aligned soil then he’s just kicked off a slow, inexorable ride via extradition to American prison. As such, Snowden is more incentivized to stay silent than anyone else I can think of.

An unfortunate and extremely ironic side effect of standing up for freedom against a mostly-free state is that he is forever trapped in a very-not-free despotic state. This is his punishment. Why this blogger feels he has the right to demand Snowden sacrifice himself again with likely worse consequences is inexplicable to me.

It's easy to ask for Snowden to be more vocal against the Russian government when you are not a) in Russia, b) treated as a terrorist by your country and c) in the constant fear of Russia dropping their support for you. The man just became a father, cut him some slack, he lost everything once.

For us this means taking what Snowden has to say about the Russian government with a bucket of salt.

>> Snowden has chosen the path of silent compliance with Russian law, and in doing so traded in the same free speech he has so hypocritically called America to task for over the years. One cannot act the part of hero and claim to have convictions, only to then run away from every form of accountability.

A big part of freedom of speech is the freedom no to do so. I'm not going to fault someone for going silent. I will fault them for being publicly active and not speaking out but I would never criticize someone for withdrawing from public life, nor would I read anything into that withdrawal. Sometimes people just want to move on. There is no obligation to explain such actions... at least not until you come back.

This is like saying that somebody who devoted half their life doing charity work should be shamed for not doing the same with the other half. Not even taking into account what we know about the situation he has put himself in by becoming an exile, and much more importantly, what we don't know.

I am appalled and disgusted by this thoughtless post.

Why does he have to have a public position on Russia/Ukraine? We defer to him for his expertise on and experience in surveillance technology, not international politics.

What he did years ago was brave. It's not hard to understand why he just wants to live as normally as possible now.

Zdziarski does great work, but his conservatism sometimes seems to get the better of him.

> Ideals are meaningless without sacrifice.

He sacrificed his life in Hawaii with his then-girlfriend. He didn't know that she would want to follow him. He didn't know if he would have a home again, and where it would be, but he was going in exile (and has remained so).

The OP writes with the implicit assumption that patriotism is a moral good and that America also is something to defend in and of itself (moreso than any other country).

Some people (myself included) would argue that nationality should (ideally) be of little importance and patriotism misguided affection. We might suggest that mercy and liberty for any individual, no matter their nationality, is at the crux of it of more value than feelings of nationalism.

The story of Nathan Hale gives us a glimpse of exactly why this sort of patriotism is problematic when we read about the British officer tearing up the letters he wrote before his execution, why do this to a fellow man sentenced to death if not misguided nationalism over common humanity.

The problem with the kind of patriotism America seems to demand is that it allows for mercy & kindness to it's own, at the expense of others.

From the point of view of a global humanitarian rather than a blind American patriot, Snowden's leaks make a lot of sense. It's the lens you have grown up with, OP, which colours everything you've said here. As someone from (not America), many of us appreciate that the cover was pulled back, it made us all look to our own democratic governments and ask the hard questions.

In hindsight Snowden has deftly negotiated the line between bravery and stupidity. I very much hope he keeps his mouth firmly shut about Ukraine and spends the rest of his life with his family.

This is fairly transparent slander, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone has a “company” relative.

Anyone living in Russia with the level of international profile Snowden has, isn’t speaking out, so I don’t think pragmatism makes you a coward.

Anyone who says so hasn’t been in those shoes!

I believe the reason Snowden isn't saying much is not because he can't find a VPN, but because the Russians can read his Twitter account and Substack and they know where he lives. Also, he has a family.

I mean, come on, how do you think it works? As long as he lives there, he's not free to criticize Russia. And what's the benefit? Many other people are doing that already.

I mean if you're Edward Snowden, you get to make one enemy. Yeah he could keep on playing hero and make more and more enemies until he is in jail, but aren't there people in the FSB or something better poised to play that role? Edward Snowden would just be a martyr for its own sake in this case.

It's interesting how often people who write from the comfort of their home in a country that has never oppressed them criticize someone for not wanting to die.

Absolutely nutty to me how many bloggers who (apparently) liked Snowden before have done a complete 180 after Russia attacked Ukraine. Look, basically nothing about Snowden's personal situation is changed, except that he probably has even less incentive to speak out.

Why now? It really comes off as an attempt to be seen as supporting $CURRENT_THING instead of a genuine ideological disagreement with Snowden.

As far as I know Snowden never said Russia was a hypocritical free country (mostly probably because he knows it is not free).

Sour grapes taste badly. Who would guess!

What a crock of shit. The poster is angry that Snowden doesn't stand up and question the dictatorship he has found himself stranded in? Would he/she rather Snowden put himself in more harms way to become a political pawn? Not only does ES have to fear the western empire's wrath for outing their unconstitutional crimes, but now has to fear his stock as a pawn to be brokered between two sociopathic nation states. I presume the author believes Julian Assange is remiss & 'at home' sitting quietly in Belmarsh, too.

TLDR: Clickbait shit-poster gains clicks. News @ 11.

Snowden doesn’t owe shit to anyone, much less that blogging wanker.

Honestly what does he expect Snowden to do? He went to Russia as very few places were safe from extradition, etc. If he joined in the social media slacktivism over Ukraine he'd be booted out. It would be different if he could actually do something about it, like his previous whistleblowing.

The military is the most popular entity in any country, (except when they are actively and publicly engaging in internal indiscriminate genocide). If you speak against it you'll be a very lone voice and you'll very soon find yourself socially isolated and without allies, which is exactly what happened to Snowden.

Even at the very extremes such as Abu Grahib the population attacked George W. not the military.

Snowden overestimated the potency of the material that he leaked, if the public didn't turn against the military for Abu Grahib then his material wouldn't have cut it either.

In order for whistleblowing to work and for the whistleblower to be safe and continue living a normal social life, it has to be political in nature, it has to be a hit to the reputation of a political or social leader who is already dancing around 50% or less approval rating and always in danger of falling off the cliff (like Nixon, Trump, Bill Clinton or given the current partisanship any future POTUS).

If you blew the whistle on Nixon then you had the whole left embrace you and protect you, if you blew the whistle on Bill Clinton affair, all of the sudden the right would love you.

Snowden managed to piss off both the left and the right so he had to escape to Russia, of course he won't repeat the same mistake again

I disagree with a decent number of things in this article.

>Yet for all the pontificating...today I rather see the pattern of a common deserter in Snowden, rather than the champion of free speech that some position him as

A person doesn't have to behave perfectly all the time - bravery and heroic acts remain so, despite imperfections of the person doing those acts. What Snowden did was undoubtedly brave and heroic, despite his opinion or lack thereof, of whatever issues of the day.

That's assuming I find fault with Snowden for remaining silent on the Ukraine issue - which I don't. How much does a person have to give and sacrifice, really? I don't blame Snowden for determining that he has given enough, and deciding to live a quiet life, outside the public sphere.

>During his time in Russia, we have seen the whistleblower system work effectively here at home. The details of Trump’s...

I'm not sure I agree with this statement either. While it is nice to see the whistle blown on obvious bad actions, I'm not convinced that it is an example of the system "working", but more an extension of the political division in our government, and how normal and essential government functions are weaponized for political ends. I have strong doubts that any whistleblowing would have happened under a more "establishment" president, with an equivalent level of misdeeds. Do you really think that Joe Biden's administration is that more ethical than Trump's?

>... certainly far less than the charges Snowden brought on himself or the freedoms he gave up by not using the right channels. Instead of following process, Snowden fled the country under the Obama administration, who was a teddy bear compared to Trump.

I can't tell if the author is naive or deliberately obtuse, but this is where the article lost all credibility for me. I don't see how Snowden could have faced a fair trial and while it was Donald Trump's admin that started the persecution of Julian Assange, I have no doubt that Obama's Justice Department (which was infamously and shamefully prosecutorial to whistleblowers) would have been even more severe to Edward Snowden. In hindsight, not only do Snowden's actions seem reasonable, but they also seem intelligent and resourceful and perhaps the only way to stay out of jail for decades.

>If I could reach him today, I would tell Snowden to come home and face the consequences of his actions, and set an example for his children of what patriotism and conviction really means. Ideals are meaningless without sacrifice.

This is very easy to say when you don't have to sacrifice anything. Especially when it seems to ignore any aspect of reality. At this point, I believe the article to be malicious because of how divorced from reality it appears to be.