Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America’s Open Wound

edwardsnowden.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 349 posts

Re: America’s Open Wound

#301

Post by LunaSea »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #281
emptyparadise wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snowden is stuck in a lose-lose position. Do you choose to go behind bars or do you embrace the hypocrisy in the hope that you can still do some good? This is the interpretation I choose to believe, until I see any proof to the contrary. Ultimately his whistle-blowing was a good thing.

He would have had whistleblower protection had he gone to Congress with his findings. It could have been win-win

You're very naive if you think this would have worked.

Look at what happens to other whistleblowers destiny.

Re: America’s Open Wound

#302

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

LunaSea wrote: post #301
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He would have had whistleblower protection had he gone to Congress with his findings. It could have been win-win

You're very naive if you think this would have worked. Look at what happens to other whistleblowers destiny.

I've worked in defense and I've worked in intelligence collection in the service before that. We might disagree but I don't think I'm naive on this topic.

Whistleblower protections are set up in such a way as to protect the whistleblower. This means you don't hear about a majority of whistleblowers.

We can agree to disagree since we are ultimately arguing a hypothetical (what would have happened) but I think Snowden should have at least tried to go that route.

Re: America’s Open Wound

#303

Post by idontpost »

dang wrote: post #300
idontpost wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Get your head out the fantasy world of utopia and see the real world Oh, the irony is delicious, you delusional fascist.

We've banned this account for repeatedly and egregiously breaking the site guidelines. That's not allowed here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Yeah, the bloodthirsty fascists are fine, everyone else is rude for calling them out.

Re: America’s Open Wound

#304

Post by meragrin_ »

daemoens wrote: post #292
meragrin_ wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the red was intentional. They knew exactly what they were doing. Biden was the speaker and not the building. They put red behind him with full knowledge the broadcast would be a tight shot on him from directly in front. It was fully intentional.

Do you honestly believe Biden wanted to make himself look evil on purpose?

Evil, no. It was meant to evoke fear of his political opponents. They failed miserably at it.

Re: America’s Open Wound

#305

Post by dang »

idontpost wrote: post #303
dang wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've banned this account for repeatedly and egregiously breaking the site guidelines. That's not allowed here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Yeah, the bloodthirsty fascists are fine, everyone else is rude for calling them out.

I banned the other account* before I banned yours. But that doesn't and shouldn't matter; you've been badly abusing HN regardless of what anyone else has been doing. Pointing the finger at others is irrelevant.

* We don't necessarily reply when banning an account without much history on HN—it depends on a number of things, like whether they appear to be a spammer, whether we've banned them in the past, and so on.

Re: America’s Open Wound

#306

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

softcactus wrote: post #296
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you read the intelligence report that the NPR article references? It's good. It even says Snowden had whistleblower protection but never tried to use it. Nobody he worked with remembers him bringing it up. Etc. Had he gone to Congress he would be considered a whistleblower. That report is what made me do a 180 on Snowden fyi Pdf warning: https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt891/CRPT-114hrpt891.pd...

Just finished reading through the whole thing. I am curious which part changed your opinion on him? I'll go through my thoughts: 1. I don't think whistleblower protection would have applied anyways since what the government was doing was technically legal. 2. Snowden seems like an asshole and a nightmare to work with, but I don't think that should factor in to the credibility of any arguments he makes which are backe…

I thought that he had no protections and only leaked what supported his claims. I learned that not only did he not pursue proper channels, he leaked a lot more than required. I have no more good faith left for him. Between this report, and working in the same industry, I no longer believe anything that he says. Whatever good might have come out of this is overshadowed by the harm that he caused.

Re: America’s Open Wound

#307

Post by softcactus »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #306
softcactus wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just finished reading through the whole thing. I am curious which part changed your opinion on him? I'll go through my thoughts: 1. I don't think whistleblower protection would have applied anyways since what the government was doing was technically legal. 2. Snowden seems like an asshole and a nightmare to work with, but I don't think that should factor in to the credibility of any arguments he makes which are backe…

I thought that he had no protections and only leaked what supported his claims. I learned that not only did he not pursue proper channels, he leaked a lot more than required. I have no more good faith left for him. Between this report, and working in the same industry, I no longer believe anything that he says. Whatever good might have come out of this is overshadowed by the harm that he caused.

That's a fair assessment. I don't think I have enough information to determine either way.

Re: America’s Open Wound

#308

Post by eternalban »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #297
eternalban wrote: post #286

Truman's letter to Washington Post, 1963, a month after JFK's assassination, in full: -- begin quote -- The Washington Post (December 22, 1963) "Limit CIA Role To Intelligence" by Harry S Truman INDEPENDENCE, MO., Dec. 21 — I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency—CIA. At least, I would like to submit here the original reason why I thought i…

This just prompts more questions, he lauds Allen Dulles: > Allen Welsh Dulles (/ˈdʌləs/, /ˈdʌlɪs/; April 7, 1893 – January 29, 1969) was the first civilian Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), and its longest-serving director to date. As head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the early Cold War, he oversaw the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, the Lockheed U-2 aircraft progra…

There are two general critical approaches to a spook agency (thank you Elizabeth I):

One is that they are fundamentally evil prone, by very nature of the task. This is your take. It's a plebe take. (I'm a plebe so no offense intended! /g)

The other is that the power elite in a society typically reach an understanding on how things are done. And CIA basically is breaking that understanding, via undisclosed 'scope creep' lol. That is Truman's criticism. He wants the deadly tools of state under strict control of constitutional regime, not some Yale schoolboy network of ancient families.

Re: America’s Open Wound

#309

Post by LunaSea »

anon291 wrote: post #88
mmcdermott wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't immediately clear to me that you could run a modern state without some sort of intelligence apparatus. If anything, Israel is a case study of intelligence being a great equalizer for smaller states. That doesn't excuse abuses or allow for their overreaches, which very much need to be addressed.

I agree. I'm not advocating for doing without. Just replacing

Could you detail how that new setup would look like?

Re: America’s Open Wound

#310

Post by knodi123 »

_jal wrote: post #247
knodi123 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We shouldn't listen to any whistleblower unless they are willing to martyr themselves? That seems like an unfair standard.

Don't put words in my mouth. I listen to everything he says, there's a lot to learn. And nowhere am I suggesting he martyr himself. Here's a hint, if you're having difficulty: I'm mostly just describing his plight. I'm not approving of the NSA, FBI, Russia, or anyone else. I do admire him in many respects. I'm just not terribly sympathetic. For as much time as he spent on the immediate escape, it seems like he spent…

> Don't put words in my mouth. ... nowhere am I suggesting he martyr himself.

I'm not tryin to put words in your mouth. Perhaps think more about the ideas that the words coming out of your mouth convey? You said "If you claim whistle-blowing is justified by the exposed crimes and then run".

Sounds like you think he ought not to have run. Even though the president literally discussed applying the death penalty to him. That's why I thought you were suggesting he ought to have martyred himself.

> For as much time as he spent on the immediate escape, it seems like he spent none on, "...and then what?"

Jesus christ, you described yourself as unsympathetic, and I guess I can't disagree. But "aspiring man of international mystery"? Don't put words in his mouth. If the things he says about his motivations are true, your mischaracterization is grossly offensive.

Post reply on HN