"it isn't a matter of if Snowden was compromised but when"
Strong accusation. I suppose you have solid facts behind your claim? Or do you count the tweet as a fact for anything?? Because it is kind of vague ...
Strong accusation. I suppose you have solid facts behind your claim? Or do you count the tweet as a fact for anything?? Because it is kind of vague ...
It could also refer to, what he did NOT leaked.
" Who else could he need self-preservation from?"
To not land on a certain list, some people openly joked about wanting to put him on? I also do remember some remarks, how he did not leaked everything he had, so he had some backup(at his lawers/friends) to be leaked, in case he suddendly had a heart attack, car accident or simple explosion.
And in case he actually did give some information to russia out of desparation, why the harsh judgment
"but I don't think it can ever justify them"
without actually knowing what kind of information? Especially considering the good things he did revealing the treachery of the secret services?
I can see how you would get that impression if you only read the Tweet I highlighted, but Greenwald was responding to a conversation questioning if Snowden's disclosures were in fact whistleblowing. In context Greenwald is clearly referring to what was leaked and not what wasn't leaked.
>To not land on a certain list, some people openly joked about wanting to put him on? I also do remember some remarks, how he did not leaked everything he had, so he had some backup(at his lawers/friends) to be leaked, in case he suddendly had a heart attack, car accident or simple explosion.
This is intertwined with my previous comment. Beyond that, if Snowden was leaking things to gain favor with the US government or intelligence communities he would have to be leaking something that puts them in a positive light. I haven't seen really anything Snowden leaked that would counteract the negatives he leaked about the US intelligence community.
>And in case he actually did give some information to russia out of desparation, why the harsh judgment "but I don't think it can ever justify them" without actually knowing what kind of information? Especially considering the good things he did revealing the treachery of the secret services?
That isn't the way the law works. You can't do "good things" and use that as currency to payoff your crimes, especially if those "good things" appeared to have occurred before the most serious and potentially treasonous crimes even occurred (EDIT: I'm talking about cooperating with the Russians and not stealing the data in the first place which is a much lesser and pardonable crime in my opinion).
Hm, I read a bit of that conversation before, but didn't got that impression. I will read deeper into.
" to gain favor with the US government or intelligence communities he would have to be leaking something that puts them in a positive light."
Or ... he choosed not to leak some other dark secrets, he learned about. But still has them as a life insurance ...
"That isn't the way the law works."
Erm, first of all, I thought we were talking about your opinion on the matter and afaik, you are not the law. And secondly, yes you can indeed negate crimes, if you did something good ... if the "crimes" were the only way to do the good. That's the whole concept of whistleblowing - it is a crime to reveal secrets, if you agreed not to. But you are allowed if you show, that the persons you work for, were (at least partial) criminal in the first place. And this is what Snowden did.
And if he later after revealing, was left of no choice, than to go to the russians - because nobody in the US-Government said, "ah good, you showed the people the truth, now come home, we work things out for the better" - I could understand that, to give then the russians minor secrets, if forced to. What else could he have done? But this is only speculation and far from being a fact. And I don't think, the russians did pushed him in such a way, because of public opinion ...