created by damndirtyape on 31/01/2025 at 13:44 UTC*
119 upvotes, 48 top-level comments (showing 25)
Edward Snowden has been in the news recently. The Senate Intelligence Committee is conducting hearings to review the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to be the Director of National Intelligence. In these hearings, there have been some intense exchanges regarding Edward Snowden.
Gabbard acknowledged that Snowden's actions were illegal, and she committed to preventing any such leaks in the future. However, she declined to call him a traitor after multiple Democratic senators demanded that she do so. Some Democratic senators seemed to feel that her sympathy for Snowden should disqualify her for the role.
In light of these hearings, it leads one to wonder, what are the Democratic views towards Edward Snowden and the mass surveillance program that he revealed? Is there widespread agreement among Democrats that Snowden is a traitor? Does the Democratic Party broadly support the surveillance programs?
Edward Snowden says that he was inspired to leak the information after watching James Clapper deny the existence of these surveillance programs. How do Democrats feel about previous attempts to hide the existence of these programs?
The Democratic members of the Senate Intelligence Committee seemed to have strong negative feelings towards Snowden. Is this a bias of the Senate Intelligence Committee? Or, is this a feeling that Democrats hold generally?
What is the Democratic position on mass surveillance programs? Is this view consistent with their views in previous decades? Or, have the views of the party changed from what they were during the George W. Bush administration?
Comment by AutoModerator at 31/01/2025 at 13:44 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
A reminder for everyone[1]. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
1: https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/
Violators will be fed to the bear.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2: /message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion
Comment by realitydysfunction20 at 31/01/2025 at 13:55 UTC
270 upvotes, 28 direct replies
Edward Snowden did a great thing by exposing the mass surveillance.
He then tarnished himself by becoming a russian sympathizer.
I understand the nuance of the situation. It still is not a good look.
Comment by sunshine_is_hot at 31/01/2025 at 14:26 UTC
51 upvotes, 3 direct replies
The situation isn’t nearly as black and white as you make it out to be.
Snowden called out some fairly worrying government surveillance programs. Completely unrelated to that, he literally sold out US intelligence to Russia.
You can praise him for the whistleblowing he did and criticize him for being a traitor, and both things are true.
Comment by BluesSuedeClues at 31/01/2025 at 14:51 UTC
7 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I don't see any concordance among members of the Democratic Party regarding Edward Snowden's actions. In general, I think most Americans believe we have a right to know if our government is accessing our communications without warrants. There seems to be some divide between people who think he heroically exposed that truth, and people who believe the threat his revelations posed to national security outweigh his altruism.
I'm very curious how the government would have gone about prosecuting him if he had stayed in the US. Reality Winner did something very similar (in that they were both civilian contractors who leaked classified material, but not in the scale of the leaks), and only served 5 years. I can't think of any other equivalent situations, but the messy, hyper-aggressive and compromised way the government went after Ross Ulbricht (for his Silk Road website and a bunch of other antics, like murder for hire, etc.), could be a clear justification for why Snowden fled the country.
Snowden's situation in Russia, having become a citizen, probably looks a great deal worse to most Americans since the invasion of Ukraine, then it did 4-5 years ago. I can't help but wonder if Snowden would have gone somewhere else, if he had known Putin would start that war, and Russia would become an international pariah state.
Comment by blu13god at 31/01/2025 at 14:07 UTC*
38 upvotes, 6 direct replies
We should support the surveillance information Snowden provided, but we have a proper path and protections for whistleblowers and he did not go through those channels and he just downloaded the files for distribution to whatever journalist he saw fit.
The head of national intelligence should not be telling their employees it’s okay to leak any secret publicly when they decide it’s wrong. It should be a federal judge determining whether an action is constitutional or not an employee.
What people don’t remember about the Snowden leaks was yes he exposed untapped unconstitutional surveillance but he also leaked our Russian and Chinese spies and our full military capabilities doing tremendous damage and putting those lives at risk. The house committee found 13 high risk cases unrelated to the surveillance system and related to China and Russia.
From the Snowden investigation
“The Committee further found no evidence that Snowden attempted to communicate concerns about the legality or morality of intelligence activities to any officials, senior or otherwise, during his time at either CIA or NSA. As a legal matter, during his time with NSA, Edward Snowden did not use whistleblower procedures under either law or regulation to raise his objections to U.S. intelligence activities, and thus, is not considered a whistleblower under current law”.
“Snowden would later publicly claim that his ‘breaking point’—the final impetus for his unauthorized downloads and disclosures of troves of classified material—was March 2013 congressional testimony by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. . . .But only a few weeks after [he became engaged in a] conflict with NSA managers, on July 12, 2012—eight months before Director Clapper’s testimony—Snowden began the unauthorized mass downloading of information from NSA networks.”
Comment by JeffreyElonSkilling at 31/01/2025 at 14:37 UTC
17 upvotes, 4 direct replies
If Snowden would have stayed in America, leaked ONLY the info on mass surveillance (and not other unrelated, sensitive military/intelligence secrets), and said "this is wrong we have to stop it" then he would be a hero. He would also be a free man.
INSTEAD, he leaked a bunch of secrets to the likes of Glenn Greenwald and then ran away to Russia. His actions got Americans killed. He is an enemy of this country and no progressive should support him.
Comment by arcanepsyche at 31/01/2025 at 13:50 UTC
27 upvotes, 2 direct replies
This is an issue where I think there's a big gap between "democrat" and "progressive". Most progressives i know support Snowden.
Comment by RCA2CE at 31/01/2025 at 14:18 UTC
4 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I think when you're trying to pigeonhole positions or ideology you're going to find that the parties have whichever position is politically convenient for them in the moment.
It should be exceedingly evident that the actual one party system is rich people and the facade of a two-party system is to make it look like you've got some say in something.
Comment by Jen0BIous at 31/01/2025 at 20:40 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Interesting question, and probably not something that will be brought up in mainstream media discussions.
Comment by Ok_Cauliflower4898 at 01/02/2025 at 00:59 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
It wasn't just the surveillance leak--he collected data en mass then just leaked it all. Some of what he leaked put operatives' lives in danger. That's why a lot of people think he's a traitor.
Comment by MsAgentM at 31/01/2025 at 16:38 UTC
6 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I find it interesting that after that hearing, the questions you are concerned about are the views of the democrats and not the views of Tulsi. She had bold words supporting Snowden before but conveniently shed them at this hearing. Given the position she is moving to fill, that seems like the more important question here.
There are many Democrats on record condemning Snowden's actions. Whatever thr Democrats position maybe on mass surveillance, there is much more unity over the fact that they view Snowden as a traitor at most and his actions illegal at least.
Comment by Moccus at 31/01/2025 at 14:08 UTC
8 upvotes, 3 direct replies
I doubt most Democrats would go so far as to call him a traitor. Most would probably agree he committed espionage and should face the consequences for that.
Is there widespread agreement among Democrats that Snowden is a traitor? Does the Democratic Party broadly support the surveillance programs?
It's possible to simultaneously believe that he's a traitor for working with Russian intelligence and also that the surveillance programs were a bad thing. I personally think he could have explored more ways to get the information out to the public without risking the compromise of unrelated programs. He seems to have tried a few minimal things to raise the issue internally at the NSA and then jumped straight to fleeing the country with the data.
What is the Democratic position on mass surveillance programs?
Democrats are pretty much universally opposed to domestic mass surveillance programs.
Comment by guillermopaz13 at 31/01/2025 at 15:59 UTC
4 upvotes, 0 direct replies
This is more of a warhawk intelligence state vs not, than a dem vs. Rep argument.
I would say the newer guard who wants government transparency wants that pardon and discussion. Anyone around who was involved in the things being whistleblown, do not. Which is most of the older guard in congress
Comment by trash-juice at 31/01/2025 at 17:13 UTC
5 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Hes a preditor dressed as a lamb, hes done damage to our intel abroad as witnessed by our ppl disappearing afterwards, the rise of putin including tramp only happens after snowden
What happened to Five Eyes? That would have protected us from subversives and infiltrator’s from within but here we are, all this post anowden. You dont get what we have now without his treason
Where is he now? Well protected and treated as a turn coat ‘hero’ for the oligarchy.
Comment by 11bulletcatcher at 31/01/2025 at 14:20 UTC
6 upvotes, 2 direct replies
1. From a military perspective, US government generally speaking shouldn't allow his actions to normalize.
2. HOWEVER the NSA leaks were a patriotic act and should be pardoned. Everything after that, that's on him, but for that specific action, I don't care which party does it, pardon the dude, let him come home, and if there's other shit extenuating from that then that's on him to deal with.
Comment by CivisSuburbianus at 31/01/2025 at 20:18 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I don’t think you will find many people in Congress from either party who would call Snowden a hero. On national security and defense issues, the two parties are generally in agreement- during the Bush administration, the PATRIOT Act was supported by every Republican and a wide majority of Democrats, so they haven’t really changed. It’s only progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans who tend to be critics of government surveillance as well as military intervention and aid to other countries.
Comment by shank1093 at 31/01/2025 at 20:32 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I think unanimously in a vacuum and without power, most advocates of Democracy itself would consider that an encroachment if personal privacy, and against our Constitution. To limit this to one or the other party to me is derivative of the real problem and question. Do those that currently hold office and power still feel this way. On both sides of the aisle...most republicans I know abhor surveillance and perceived over-regulation. Usually Dems on the outside of power, too, agree that surveillance us an affront to the American people when unwarranted and even preventative to the poor outcome of bad intelligence....
Comment by ChartIntelligent6320 at 01/02/2025 at 01:00 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
There are a lot of good points here in the comments I think it’s a contentious issue.
One perspective can be what’s the line to be a traitor?
If you’re doing a “good” thing and being a legitimate whistleblower then of course I would say not a traitor as you’re for the people. But, what if the government that’s supposed to be for the people wants to come after you for doing this? But, then… AH!HA! what if that person sought asylum in and aided China and Russia when perhaps they could have sought asylum in a different non extradition country while this is figured out?
It’s a lot for me to consider so I don’t have an opinion or just both a good/bad one
Comment by fractalfrenzy at 01/02/2025 at 03:08 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
To everyone saying Snowden is bad because he leaked more than the mass surveillance, which of these things do you think he shouldn't have leaked?
These revelations showed the NSA’s reach extended far beyond counterterrorism and exposed how deeply government agencies were intertwined with global surveillance, cyber warfare, and industrial espionage.
Comment by NegligentNincompoop at 02/02/2025 at 23:35 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Idk what others believe but generally I sympathize with Snowden but don't really respect Tulsi for her sudden and convenient change in views on literally everything. It's unfortunate Snowden is getting very close to the Russians but what else can we expect? I wouldn't trust what he says now but the reason he's in this position is because he tried to be a patriot and our government didn't like that very much.
Comment by kabooozie at 31/01/2025 at 14:18 UTC*
6 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Here’s the thing with Snowden. To bravely leak this information means coming to terms with the consequences. He had options.
He chose to go to the press, and instead of facing the consequences when he was caught and maybe getting vindication and a pardon down the line, he ~~went to Russia~~ fled instead.
We can assume he’s leaked damaging secrets to the Russians in exchange for protection. That makes him a traitor.
Edit: He also arguably shared more than he needed to in the original leak.
Comment by NoOnesKing at 31/01/2025 at 15:38 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I think Snowden did the right thing in exposing what he did. I would pardon him of that. Nevertheless I do not think he can or should be allowed to work in any field requiring a security clearance ever again.
Comment by WaltEnterprises at 31/01/2025 at 14:44 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I imagine they smear him as a "Russian agent" since he's a whistle blower on the corporate establishment that propagandizes the US voting population.
Comment by billpalto at 31/01/2025 at 14:44 UTC
4 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I have a simplistic view of it. In general, I hate it when the US government lies, and support whistleblowers who uncover the lie. I remember the Pentagon Papers, where what the government was telling us was a lie and they were exposed.
My simplistic take:
"We don't have any spies working in Russia" -- US government
"I know that isn't true, I worked with some of them" -- Snowden
So far so good, I can support the expose.
"And here are their names and addresses, and how they communicate, I gave all this to the Russians" -- Snowden
BAD.
Comment by Leather-Map-8138 at 31/01/2025 at 18:11 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I’m against everything Tulsi Gabbard says and does, due to continuing unrefuted allegations of deep Kremlin connections and loyalties. Moscow should not have that level of influence on our national security.
I remember her running in 2020 for President, as an extreme liberal far to the left of Harris, Biden, or Buttigieg. Apparently that was a hoax too. We don’t need double agents at the top of the food chain.