Truly amazing and inspiring. I was worried that Snowden's father was going to continue, through his attorney, to try and dissuade his terrified son from persisting in his convictions; thus, I was preparing to be disappointed in his father's loyalty. Instead, I was greeted with a well-thought-out letter of encouragement to who I'm sure is a very scared 30-year-old. My spirits have been lifted. Thank you, Lon Snowden, for making the right decision.
It is absolutely great to hear these comparisons made and the support of his father. I'm very glad the father went through an attorney in this situation, instead of the possibility of some ludicrous claim (like interfering in an open investigation, or some other charge that I know the FBI has done to break people[0]) if he supported him directly.
Laws make things legal or illegal. They don't make things right or wrong. The Declaration of Independence was illegal, and the men who signed it were wanted dead or alive, but it was the right thing to do.
The assumption is that Britain regarded it as illegal in the same way that the USA would regard it as illegal if, say, the state of Texas was to declare independence today. That said, it's apparently a hot area of debate among people who study law:
Texas is the only state that joined by treaty as an independent county, so it seems reasonable that Texas could maybe repudiate that treaty and leave. I think the example would have been better if they had picked one of the other 49 states, which were created from US territories and were part of the US before they were states. Clearly it is not legal for them to leave; there was even a big war fought to decide that question.
On the other hand apparently the Supreme Court disagrees with me [1], and only 33% of people polled think that Texas can secede [2].
This is not what I have read before about the US constitution. It was very clear at the time the constitution was ratified by the States that they would keep their sovereignty and therefore have a right to secede. Why would it be otherwise, in a country that fought for its independence in the first place?
It's not because there was the Civil War that the Civil War outcome was Lawful. The Southern States had the right to secede and that right was not recognized by Lincoln.
The claimef violations of self evident "truths" in the declaration of independence include the right to commit genocide of the native population:
"
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."
Britain wasn't allowing the colonies to expand westward, and the Patriots were pissed.
Absolutely. Was struck with the same sentiment. Felt a bit happy that I am highly certain it's the kind of letter my dad would send were I in a similar situation.
Unfortunately I think much of this story is going to be forgotten quickly when the hunt for Snowden is over. I think the media is covering this so much just because right now it is a big cat and mouse game. When that is over and another more exciting soundbite comes up...that's that.
This type of spying has been known and approved and even published in the mainstream press since at least 06 and it hasnt bothered the majority of the public until now. Therefore I think the current uproar is just excitement related to the chase and the press will forget and fall back in line to more "if it leads it bleeds" content soon enough.
European governments certainly have not known for very long about their diplomats being spied upon. That story, in my opinion, could really have some legs.
It's possible to love somebody without being proud of them.
For example, if your son was a drug addict who was in and out of jail and did nothing with his life. You would probably not be proud of him - but you could still love him dearly.
Some of the comments on the linked article are ridiculous. To paraphrase some, many seem to be blindly trusting Obama with all this data (I'm sure they'd be asking for his pardon under Bush), while others believe this ``meta data" are just call histories that couldn't possibly be abused.
It makes me wonder if Snowden thinks his sacrifice was worth it.
Mark Twain observed it best when he parodied the fickleness of the lynching mob in Huckleberry Finn.
> It makes me wonder if Snowden thinks his sacrifice was worth it.
I've always enjoyed Israel Regardie's metaphor that society is like a candle. Only a tiny fraction, the wick, needs to be lit to say that the whole thing is enlightened.
You can't change everything, and not all at once. But even a little bit of light can do a whole lot.
I've never heard that quote before, but I'm going to use it often from here on out.
Thank you for sharing that.
It made me think of a quote by Theodore Roosevelt.
"Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
Success isn't always measured by accomplishing the goals you set out to do, but instead in the journey and experience. I think the USA needs this experience and only time will tell if this falls into the failure category.
Your quote reminds me of another from Theodore Roosevelt and one of my personal favourites, which has come to be known as 'The Man in the Arena'[1]. Not sure which TR quote came first, but one likely influenced the other by the look of it.
The real reaction of the American public isn't the talking that happens now. Or the next month. Or the next year.
It's that people like me, who are young and have decades of time we're going to put in to society - working on infrastructure, working in the military, working in civil service jobs, etc - have this information and have someone like that as a counter point to the obvious corruption happening in government.
I'd wager the biggest effect of Snowden - because anyone watching suspected much of this anyway - is going to be the legacy of someone who stood up and said something about it, screw the cost.
Rolemodels like that are important, especially amid a context of massive social and governmental breakdown.
Unfortunately, the fall of the Roman empire happened slowly and no one did anything about it. The point being, change wont happen, some, perhaps many will look to Snowden as a hero or roll model, but all he is is a sign post.
There were no rallies, no strikes, what did the populous do when they heard about it? Complained silently and some are probably annoyed that it's still being reported on.
That's a pretty depressing outlook, but it is hard to avoid looking at history as a sign of things to come. (I just started reading 'History of the Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire')
You're right, it is significant for generations to come. There's a big concern, though, that PRISM/etc allows mining a person's life history to filter out people of conscience, and ensure organizations filled with obedient worker bees. (They already do this, it will just be more effective by orders of magnitude.)
Donated to Ron Paul? Watched one too many Chomsky videos? Sorry, Booz Allen doesn't have a position for you at this time.
To quote (or paraphrase) a military commander: technology is a force multiplier.
What we're actually seeing is the cusp of a very important transition, where currently governments can afford to do all these kinds of things (and large corporations are quickly getting in on the game), but in 10-15 years, we'll be able to do it /at home/.
I think society will change - will have to change - with the massive distribution of computing power that's likely to occur. We're not even outside the realm of where a motivated citizen could build a cluster at home, scan through all the publicly available documents, and profile government (and related contractors) in the same way they're doing to the public.
It simply hasn't entered the public awareness yet that we're living in that age.
If you really freeze out everyone of conscience (and motivation), do you really think they'll just go "ho hum" and do nothing with their time? That they'd just accept being thrown to the side of major political affairs and take no follow up?
I think it's far more likely they'd reach out to technology, and take matters in to their own hands.
It's this access to technology that really scares the government, people in power, etc. They just have no idea how to constructively deal with the change.
I hope you're right. The obvious counterpoint is that off-the-shelf crypto has been available for 20 years, and effectively nobody uses it. Also, the government has a significant ace in the hole: they get to send in men with guns to tap corporate pipelines and issue gag orders. More home computing power isn't going to fix that.
I'm still optimistic in the long term. It's just a shame we've forgotten the lessons of history, and won't take action until there's real abuse, instead of being a smart enough culture to nip the problem in the bud.
> The obvious counterpoint is that off-the-shelf crypto has been available for 20 years, and effectively nobody uses it.
Sorry for the delay, I just saw your comment and wanted to respond to this:
The point isn't that /everyone/ can use it; it's that /anyone/ can use it.
Similarly, at the point that drones become easy to construct at home, it doesn't matter that it won't be everyone that has home-operated drones monitoring government actions - just that people who want to can.
While I would tend to dismiss comments on a more public forum like WP, I don't think comments disparaging Snowden are necessarily something to be worried about. Despite the fact some people appear to be completely inept with regard to wanton data collection and trust in the government, it's far worse that people be apathetic and uncaring toward the subject. Glass half full... at least people are talking about it.
They did an amazing job of describing him as a patriot - the references to Paul Revere and Thomas Paine were brilliant. I hope the U.S. government actually realizes what they've unleashed.
On an unrelated topic, how can the AP claim copyright to this?
On an unrelated topic, how can the AP claim copyright to this?
It's not unrelated, and after enjoying the read, this was definitely the worst thing to come out of it. Anyone posting something like this and attaching such 'boilerplate' either should have known better, wasn't paying attention and should rectify it, or has intentions that flat-out contradict the spirit of the content they're regurgitating, which would otherwise be presumably done in the public interest.
That may be true ... but when the AP lawyer sees copies of it elsewhere, the D&C's and DMCA Take-Down notices will fly.
Since the MPAA, RIAA and other media companies claim dramatic damages when people violate copyright, I like to think of false claims to copyright as fraud.
I think your point is one that almost sounds deep, but actually isn't. Just because some people say not to read much into something big, doesn't mean that everything else (unrelated things) all now need to have stuff read into. Much the same as just because somebody uses the words "that's a good idea", maybe about the idea of watching a TV show for example, your immediate response doesn't have to be "A good idea? That's exactly what they said about killing Jews in 1940s Germany."
"Text of a July 2, 2013, letter to Edward Snowden from his father and
father’s attorney
Here is the text of the open letter Lon Snowden, along with his attorney,
Bruce Fein, wrote to NSA leaker Edward Snowden. The letter was provided
to The Associated Press."
The inclusion of Mr. Snowden's letter to the Associated Press's original title and introduction makes this a derivative work for which copyright protection is available[0].
Even without that (or if my understanding of a derivative work is incorrect) you are construing mechanical output of boilerplate CMS content as a specific intent to claim copyright, an assertion which lacks supporting evidence.
It's a matter of intent. Looking at a few other articles, it seems it's a stock copyright notice added to the end of every article with 'Associated Press' given as the author.
"Changing the facts?" - I don't follow. The data is there in front of you, nothing has been changed. Most likely article authors have no capacity to remove that statement from their posts and that it's just boilerplate CMS content.
We should not necessarily ascribe to malice what can be explained through lack of functionality.
That's so strange, the FM expressed displeasure towrads the actions of Portugal and France in quotes from the AP. I wonder if it was simply an excuse the pilot used to not make things more complicated at that point.
That could be a pretty smart play. Spread rumors that he's on a plane to see what the reaction would be. If he wasn't on the plane, he now knows that whatever plane he does get on, he can't fly over France.
Ok. That's odd, I thought Putin had made statements about wanting to protect him. If even Russia doesn't have his back I think it's time for an identity change.
Interesting that it was written by his father's lawyer on behalf of his father. Makes me wonder if this is the first contact his father has had with him since this whole thing began.
Imagine, if you will, a father who knows he needs to make a public statement, one that will be scrutinized by an entire world. A father wanting not only only convey his pride but also to help sway a country's opinion. Such a father might well turn to a legally-educated, historically-knowledgable third-party, one well-versed in writing convincing, lucid arguments, for guidance and oversight. I think I would.
This collaboration between the father and Fein is fitting since Bruce most certainly knows Glenn.
Bruce Fein and Glenn Greenwald both were both panelists on the West Coast Civil Liberties college tour last fall (http://www.yaliberty.org/tour/fall2012).
Everyone's different, and fathers vary, of course. But I certainly read significant emotion in the letter.
I have no doubt this ordeal has been excruciating on the elder Snowden, as he helplessly watches the international bartering for his son's life and freedom. What I find admirable, and where the emotion and strength lies, is that there isn't the slightest hint of wavering in the father's resolve--no pleading, no hand-wringing. An incredible gesture of thanks, loving commitment, and support.
I have little doubt it will impact Snowden in much the same way it did me.
Thanks for clarifying. That was the case. I shed a tear due to the incredible emotion conveyed in such a brilliant manner, and agree it is just a beautiful "I love you and am proud of you, son" type of letter... and historic, too. I was not sad or "sorry for myself."
Just in case English isn't your first language, "Feeling sorry for yourself" carries a derisive tone. When someone says, "Stop feeling sorry for yourself," it's basically like saying, "Stop whining, weakling!"
I have to assume that's not at all what you meant. I don't think you deserved to lose all your karma over a misunderstanding.
>We encourage you to engage us in regular exchanges of ideas or thoughts about approaches to curing or mitigating the hugely suboptimal political culture of the United States.
This is what I want. Snowden has not acted like he's doing these things for the greater good of the U.S.; on the contrary, he seems determined to demonise the government. I am in no doubt that the government has done some shady shit, but you must have a path forward. If Snowden were willing to engage in "approaches to curing or mitigating the hugely suboptimal political culture" then I would be more willing to be on his side.
You don't have to be a composer to be a critic. In other words, the talent and courage required to expose corruption may be different from the talent and courage required to fix it. Why should one person be expected to do everything?
Of course he's not expected to fix everything, but is it really fair that he leaks this information (which has, in my view, damaged the Government regardless of the legality of their schemes) and then he's not responsible for it any more? It seems, too, that he should be interested and involved in what actions are taken in the US to prevent such abuses of power from continuing or happening again in the future. Are these really unreasonable expectations of Snowden?
I suppose it depends on which you consider more important: the government itself, or the ideals it ostensibly represents. One can easily come to the conclusion that the damage to the government is acceptable, if the damage is necessary to correct damage the government has done to the people.
I have no doubt that Snowden is interested in what actions are taken to prevent future abuses. Reading his statements after his identity was revealed, it's clear he left not because he doesn't care, but because he saw leaving the US as the best way to preserve his ability to contribute to his cause and remain safe.
In some ways - it breaks my heart. For a moment, I imagined myself in Lon Snowden's shoes and though I am not a parent; it took me some time to sink in the emotion. After reading this, I do miss my father.
How DARE he compare this to Omaha Beach, even obliquely! Many of the men in this picture, fighting one of the greatest land armies ever assembled (the Wehrmacht), died on this shore, never to return home: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Into_the_...
Snowden's obstacles are a revoked passport and the charges he faces upon his inevitable return to the United States.
Calm down, the letter speaks of paying homage to the sacrifice of Omaha Beach. As in, if we don't act now and stop the injustice, we aren't worthy. He's talking about you and me, not Edward.
Wow. I've seen some stupid things in my time but this really takes the cake. The constitution and bill of rights aren't that big of a deal. The US style of government isn't even that great so the "great minds" of the founding fathers didn't manage to produce a system of government even as nice as the land they rebelled against (e.g. at least 3rd party has some meaning in the UK system, even if the system is damaged by FPTP).
The bible, on the other hand, has inspired untold millions throughout the entire world, regardless of your stance on religion.
the united states of america is supposed to have a government for the people, by the people - like lincoln said in gettysburg, 1863. it is a republic. and that republic requires YOU to take care of it. EVERY SINGLE ONE of you citizens over there.
the constitution and bill of rights were never intended as paper to regulate every single aspect of your lives. quite the opposite. and here's the problem: most people just sit in front of the tv and bend over licking boots. or at least they forgot what your country is all about.
Someone explain to me the practical reason this letter needed to exist, besides page views. I am struggling to see why this couldn't be sent directly to Snowden, considering we know exactly where he is.
It's ironic that Snowden has no fear in blabbing about Top Secret information, and no fear in claiming the moral high ground, but is fearful and scared of getting apprehended at this point in time.
Sounds like his so-called fearlessness has worn off? Nah, he's just a troublemaker who is now on the run.
What do you mean "no fear" and "fearlessness?" Yes, he "blabbed" information, and yes he may claim the moral high ground, but he has clearly been quite afraid of what the government could do to him in the US. And with good reason, IMO.
I just don't get this argument, that he's a coward or a traitor for leaving. Are you required to martyr yourself for your cause to be worthy? He wanted to get this information out, and he also felt like he shouldn't have the rest of his life ruined for it (which is a reasonable prediction if he had stayed).
Ultimately, it doesn't really matter whether he was fearless or a troublemaker or anything else, this shouldn't be about him as a person.
He has already martyred himself.
The question is why? Why did he feel he had to attach his personality to the leak? It's actually become an immense distraction from the core issue: PRISM
Well Manning did things your way, and he was discovered and locked away, tortured. Maybe Snowden knew there was no way to hide that it was him that leaked the data.
Rather than just disappear (thereby letting the NSA control the story and write his motives), he chose to make the first move.
In my opinion, he couldn't have done it better.
> Why did he feel he had to attach his personality to the leak?
Don't be obtuse. He chose to speak out, and still the NSA managed to tar him as an enemy spy. Had he simply disappeared, he would have made their work even easier.
Because it's not possible to keep who you are secret from the US government indefinitely. Better to go out into the open before they have the chance to smear you as a terrorist.
The media would write articles about who they thought you were - a chinese spy, etc.
(I like troublemakers. Someone described as a "troublemaker" is typically someone who won't accept the status quo just because that's the expedient thing to do.)
Yea, he should have kept licking the jack boots like a good little nazi. He's clearly afraid of a country that has no problem assassinating US citizens, detaining people indefinitely, torturing people, etc.
