this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2024
37 points (69.1% liked)

Out of the loop

10983 readers
37 users here now

A community that helps people stay up to date with things going on.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Whether or not you think that information should be out there, protecting national security secrets was quite literally his job. Penalties for mishandling national security information are pretty clear, especially when you've been put into a position of trust. He then flees to one of America's biggest enemies on the international stage. And do we really think that protection came without a price?

Honestly I have real mixed feelings about Snowden. I do think Americans had a right to know about the domestic spying activities even if they weren't entirely surprising (details had been leaked previously but we did not know the degree to which those efforts had been ramped up). But he openly and knowingly violated the law. He can't have expected that to come without consequences. And he can't fall back on principles if he's not willing to face those consequences.

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Sure, he risked his life and safety to get the information out,. That makes him a hero.

As for breaking the law, he did his duty as a human and thats more important than upholding injustice.

No one should have to “face the consequences” of authoritarians.

[–] johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Who exactly are you referring to as an authoritarian? The Obama administration?

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The US government as a whole.

[–] johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That sure seems like stretching the definition of that word to the point where it's meaningless.

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You think applying authoritarianism to a government as a whole is stretching the definition to being meaningless?

Alrighty then.

[–] johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

No, I think applying it to governments which do not meet the definition of authoritarian makes it meaningless, particularly when there are real authoritarian governments that you can easily contrast to (like for example the one in the country Snowden fled to).