It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: paraphi
Snowden is a hypocrite.
He claims to extol free speech and openness, yet he chooses to live under the protection of Putin, who makes a mockery of free speech and is creating an opaque state with a controlled press. Snowden sits in Russia denouncing the US Government (and rightly so), but is dumb on any criticism of his hosts. If Snowden had any morals then he would denounce Russia and return to the US - regardless of the consequences.
History will see Snowden as a traitor to the people
I am not an American and I don't play teams or sides.
I am pro freedom pro truth and would like to do away with government eventually.
If Snowden was a real whistle blower he would have done a data dump.
Hanlon's Razor, while admittedly not a 100% foolproof system, suggests that you should not attribute to malice what can be adequately attributed to stupidity. There may have been outside factors to consider before he gave the rights up like, I don't know, being the most wanted person in America. If I was running from the American Government, I might not think through the ethical implications of my signing the rights of the data over that would have me locked up in prison for life. On the documentary he simply said his goal was to start up a conversation between the government and the people that the government didn't seem to want to have. That conversation, admittedly, can not happen because the American government is an idea that does not actually exist other than each of the representatives and workers who make it up, but it doesn't mean that the debate has not been started. I'm not going to say anything about the hindsight bias other than this sentence.
Has he even addressed the conflict of interest created by giving the rights to the documents to greenwald and that other skank?
Please point out the obvious, using as much explicit detail or sources as you can. Due to the fact that the documents proving that Snowden is a patsy or worse either don't exist or are deeply hidden away from the public eye, I will grant some leniency in regards to objectively "scientific" or "first-hand" sources. If you could also address the points I've made in this reply, that would be wonderful. I'd hate to think I was typing all of this for nothing.
I am not trying to start an argument, as I can't be bothered to point out the obvious to those who don't want to see it.