In First American TV Interview, Snowden Talks Accountability and Patriotism 389
mspohr (589790) points out NBC News's interview with Edward Snowden, the first time Snowden has talked with an American television reporter. It's a wide-ranging conversation, in which Snowden emphasizes his ongoing belief that he did the right thing to release the many documents that he did, even at the cost of his ability to travel. Snowden told NBC's Brian Williams "he had tried to go through channels before leaking documents to journalists, repeatedly raising objections inside the NSA, in writing, to its widespread use of surveillance. But he said he was told, "more or less, in bureaucratic language, 'You should stop asking questions.'" Two U.S. officials confirmed Wednesday that Snowden sent at least one email to the NSA's office of general counsel raising policy and legal questions." Perhaps paving the way to eventual repatriation, Snowden also indicated that he would be willing to accept a "short period" behind bars. But, he said, the U.S. should "reform the Espionage Act to distinguish between people who sell secrets to foreign governments for their own gain and people who return information to public hands for the purpose of serving the public interest," and to include contractors as well as government employees.
Re:Repatriation, yeah right. (Score:5, Informative)
Are you high? He was trained and employed as a spy *by the US CIA*. He is not admitting to espionage, he's saying that whenever the NSA paints him as a hacker and a low-level IT guy, the NSA is lying. And the CIA has now confirmed that the government has known all along that it's telling lies about who Snowden really is.
Re:But he did do it for his own gain (Score:5, Informative)
Anonymous whistleblowers tend to have no credibility whatsoever. That's why he didn't hide his identity.
Re:How does one determine the difference... (Score:5, Informative)
The last person to out an operative was Scooter Libby. His sentence was commuted so that he served no jail time.
Are you really that misinformed, or are you just trying to deceive?
... it was a guy in the State Department, not the White House, who told the reporter her name. And Armitage never got any grief during the witch hunt.
The person who disclosed Valerie Plame's name was Richard Armitage, not Libby. Libby's legal trouble revolved around how cooperative he was during one round of questioning, and his prosecution had nothing whatsoever to do with her name getting out. Because
Of course, Armitage was NOT the last person to "out" an operative. Just a few days ago, the White House stupidly disclosed the name of the top CIA official in Kabul. You know, a guy actually out dealing with dangerous ground, rather than occupying a desk in Virginia like Plame was.
Re:How does one determine the difference... (Score:2, Informative)
I'm pretty fucking sick of people saying things like this. Why does anyone believe things like it?
To even joke about it shows a flippant disregard for the rule of law. Not only do you think there is no rule of law, but you don't even care if there is -- you're simply accepting it as fait accompli. You're practically pushing it along. If people think it's funny to think that nobody cares about him getting a trial, then why should anyone involved with actually getting people like him fair trials be the only people to care about it? If nobody cares about the rule of law, then why should anyone care about the rule of law?
Joking like this isn't funny, it's basically abdicating any civic and personal responsibility you have. It's disgusting. Every single person that makes a drone joke or whatever about Snowden is a fucking retard and ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Edward Snowden returning to the USA to face trial would be one of the most public things that has ever happened in the history of the world.
Re:How does one determine the difference... (Score:4, Informative)
Would you make the same statement if you replaced "jury duty" with "paying your taxes". I would, but most seem to think it is some kind of legal obligation-nay necessity- that you do whatever you can to avoid paying them. Why would me not dodging jury duty as much as possible not fall in the same category?
Re:How does one determine the difference... (Score:5, Informative)
Are you talking about the country with over a million people in jail due to plea bargaining?