Daniel Ellsberg: Snowden made the right call when he fled the U.S.

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Many people compare Edward Snowden to me unfavorably for leaving the country and seeking asylum, rather than facing trial as I did. I don’t agree. The country I stayed in was a different America, a long time ago.

After the New York Times had been enjoined from publishing the Pentagon Papers — on June 15, 1971, the first prior restraint on a newspaper in U.S. history — and I had given another copy to The Post (which would also be enjoined), I went underground with my wife, Patricia, for 13 days. My purpose (quite like Snowden’s in flying to Hong Kong) was to elude surveillance while I was arranging — with the crucial help of a number of others, still unknown to the FBI — to distribute the Pentagon Papers sequentially to 17 other newspapers, in the face of two more injunctions. The last three days of that period was in defiance of an arrest order: I was, like Snowden now, a “fugitive from justice.”

This is important:

Nothing worthwhile would be served, in my opinion, by Snowden voluntarily surrendering to U.S. authorities given the current state of the law.

And this:

Snowden believes that he has done nothing wrong. I agree wholeheartedly. More than 40 years after my unauthorized disclosure of the Pentagon Papers, such leaks remain the lifeblood of a free press and our republic. One lesson of the Pentagon Papers and Snowden’s leaks is simple: secrecy corrupts, just as power corrupts.

Daniel Ellsberg: NSA leaker Snowden made the right call - The Washington Post

So does anybody want to explain why Daniel Ellsberg, who supports Snowden, is a whistle-blower, and Snowden is a "traitor?" Or what they think Snowden being put in a hole like Bradley Manning would actually accomplish?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Ellsberg was also a yutz.

Wgaf what a mutt like that thinks?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ellsberg was also a yutz.

Wgaf what a mutt like that thinks?

Well this is really aimed at people who make a distinction between various whistle-blowers. As I understand it you don't like Ellsberg, Manning, or Snowden, so I don't think you can be called a hypocrite on the issue.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Ellsberg was also a yutz.

Wgaf what a mutt like that thinks?

Well this is really aimed at people who make a distinction between various whistle-blowers. As I understand it you don't like Ellsberg, Manning, or Snowden, so I don't think you can be called a hypocrite on the issue.

I am ok with whistleblowers.

I am not as ok with felons.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ellsberg was also a yutz.

Wgaf what a mutt like that thinks?

Well this is really aimed at people who make a distinction between various whistle-blowers. As I understand it you don't like Ellsberg, Manning, or Snowden, so I don't think you can be called a hypocrite on the issue.

I am ok with whistleblowers.

I am not as ok with felons.

And I think that bad laws ought to be broken. Not really the topic here though.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Well this is really aimed at people who make a distinction between various whistle-blowers. As I understand it you don't like Ellsberg, Manning, or Snowden, so I don't think you can be called a hypocrite on the issue.

I am ok with whistleblowers.

I am not as ok with felons.

And I think that bad laws ought to be broken. Not really the topic here though.

And if you engage in civil disobedience, such as by choosing which laws are bad and which ones you personally choose to violate, your choice comes with a justified risk of getting prosecuted.

And that is kind of the topic here.

The trio in issue made some choices -- all contrary to law.

And in at least two out of three cases, they deserve serious rebuke.

I will concede that this may not be as true for Ellsberg.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I am ok with whistleblowers.

I am not as ok with felons.

And I think that bad laws ought to be broken. Not really the topic here though.

And if you engage in civil disobedience, such as by choosing which laws are bad and which ones you personally choose to violate, your choice comes with a justified risk of getting prosecuted.

And that is kind of the topic here.

The trio in issue made some choices -- all contrary to law.

And in at least two out of three cases, they deserve serious rebuke.

I will concede that this may not be as true for Ellsberg.

It does come with that risk, but it shouldn't. Nor is it wrong to avoid that risk if at all possible.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

And I think that bad laws ought to be broken. Not really the topic here though.

And if you engage in civil disobedience, such as by choosing which laws are bad and which ones you personally choose to violate, your choice comes with a justified risk of getting prosecuted.

And that is kind of the topic here.

The trio in issue made some choices -- all contrary to law.

And in at least two out of three cases, they deserve serious rebuke.

I will concede that this may not be as true for Ellsberg.

It does come with that risk, but it shouldn't. Nor is it wrong to avoid that risk if at all possible.

It is spineless.

Assholes like Manning and Snowden are fine with SWEARING to keep State Secrets SECRET and the LAW requires them to do so. They just aren't all that fine with KEEPING their oaths or comporting their behavior with the law.

And it would be GREAT to drag that law breaking fuckwit Snowden back here (short of an illegal rendition of course) to face the music.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And if you engage in civil disobedience, such as by choosing which laws are bad and which ones you personally choose to violate, your choice comes with a justified risk of getting prosecuted.

And that is kind of the topic here.

The trio in issue made some choices -- all contrary to law.

And in at least two out of three cases, they deserve serious rebuke.

I will concede that this may not be as true for Ellsberg.

It does come with that risk, but it shouldn't. Nor is it wrong to avoid that risk if at all possible.

It is spineless.

Assholes like Manning and Snowden are fine with SWEARING to keep State Secrets SECRET and the LAW requires them to do so. They just aren't all that fine with KEEPING their oaths or comporting their behavior with the law.

And it would be GREAT to drag that law breaking fuckwit Snowden back here (short of an illegal rendition of course) to face the music.

Tanking your career and essentially your whole life to expose the truth is the opposite of spineless, in my opinion. Avoiding being put in a hole like Manning is just intelligent.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It does come with that risk, but it shouldn't. Nor is it wrong to avoid that risk if at all possible.

It is spineless.

Assholes like Manning and Snowden are fine with SWEARING to keep State Secrets SECRET and the LAW requires them to do so. They just aren't all that fine with KEEPING their oaths or comporting their behavior with the law.

And it would be GREAT to drag that law breaking fuckwit Snowden back here (short of an illegal rendition of course) to face the music.

Tanking your career and essentially your whole life to expose the truth is the opposite of spineless, in my opinion. Avoiding being put in a hole like Manning is just intelligent.

Tanking a career (speaking of poor old Snowden here) to get to be a media darling and an international "celebrity" is not much of a "sacrifice" for the sake of exposing an alleged truth.

Cry me a river.

And while I actually AGREE that Manning has not been getting the most fair process (by many accounts), I don't care all that much. If he ends up getting a fair trial as to the question of guilt, that shgould suffice.

My view, frankly, is **** that little bastard. But yeah. He does merit a fair trial.