Thread: Edward Snowden and his stay in Russia

Originally Posted by Ramil

Once a traitor - always a traitor.

That is a nice saying, however, I insist it should work both ways. That is the citizens do not betray the state and the state does not betray the citizens. And we all know the latter is rarely (if not never) a case. Therefore, I think the personal views should outweigh the oath to a state. Also, consider the fact that the oath is usually solemnly intended to be given to "the peoples" or any other decent notion, but in reality it is ALWAYS excercised by the limited number of criminals.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

the state does not betray the citizens

You know my views. State IS a crime. Snowden had the choice when entering the NSA. He could refuse. I still disapprove.

Originally Posted by Ramil

You know my views. State IS a crime.

I know your views and, as you know, I disagree with thew (partially). I think a state is a lawful entity, but the law could either be legitimate or illegitimate depending on the personal views of the people. Hence, in my opinion, the personal views are of a higher priority than the law and the state. Obviously, that is why a state would work hard to shape the personal views of its citizens in its own favour. And that is why betraying the state (a group of criminals that is) is a bad-bad crime in the eyes of the statesmen. And that is why they shape the public opinion to convince us that being a traitor is bad.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Snowden had the choice when entering the NSA. He could refuse. I still disapprove.

I am pretty sure he had different intentions when he had sworn the allegiance to the NSA...

Originally Posted by Crocodile

the personal views are of a higher priority than the law and the state

State is a legalized form of violence. Someone's personal views may contradict the other's and that's where the state brings up the law (a formalized set of someone else's personal views) and brings violence upon the one whose personal views contradict the views of the majority. Since the state is a legal entity and it has a law that prohibited Snowden to disclose the information he was entrusted with, Snowden's guilty! Thinking otherwise would question the personal views of the majority which is called law.
This all is schizophrenia, of course, but you insist, that the state is a rational thing.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I am pretty sure he had different intentions when he had sworn the allegiance to the NSA...

To serve and protect the people of the United States? Heh, actually his actions endangered some of his colleagues who also happenned to be the citizens of the United States.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Since the state is a legal entity and it has a law that prohibited Snowden to disclose the information he was entrusted with, Snowden's guilty!

Absolutely! He is guilty of treason and the legalized form of violence could come upon him any time they could physically pass through another kind of the legalized form of violence without a violence being imposed upon them in a very legal way. But, personally, Snowden has my approval of being a traitor under the specific circumstances as being delivered to us by the media (which might, by the way, be all lie). Having said that, I personally think Snowden's actions were not mature and I would not do that if I were him. He believed that by exposing the simple fact that the statesmen are criminal he would do his people a favour and that, I think, is childish. At the best, these criminals would be replaced by another criminals who are just looking for a chance to take over the power. The consequences of those actions to the ordinary people who just want to live their lives are either bad or nothing.

Originally Posted by Ramil

State is a legalized form of violence. Someone's personal views may contradict the other's and that's where the state brings up the law (a formalized set of someone else's personal views) and brings violence upon the one whose personal views contradict the views of the majority. Since the state is a legal entity and it has a law that prohibited Snowden to disclose the information he was entrusted with, Snowden's guilty! Thinking otherwise would question the personal views of the majority which is called law.
This all is schizophrenia, of course, but you insist, that the state is a rational thing.



To serve and protect the people of the United States? Heh, actually his actions endangered some of his colleagues who also happenned to be the citizens of the United States.

I really don't understand how you can defend this disgusting programme!

This is 1984 x 1984 ! The USA has turned into a menace to the freedom of the world, and has to be stopped. (Note to the NSA and GCHQ: Just expressing feelings not stating any intentions.)

Snowden believed that the USA was good initially, it once was, pretty decent and it has some good aspects to it. Then he dawned on him that it's become rather evil, particularly from the perspective of non-Americans or poor Americans.

It's out of control with the invasions, bases everywhere and now spying on everyone! He couldn't live with his conscience and took action. I think he's brave!


If it was discovered that Russia had some evil plans or activities against its own citizens, or the world, I would applaud anyone who disclosed it. I doubt they've got anything that evil though.

Snowden did the decent and moral thing. I don't care if that technically makes him a traitor.

It is MORALLY WRONG to follow the orders of a corrupt and invalid state.

An example which is a bit dubious, but applies: Remember those border guards who shot a few people who tried to cross the border between East/West Germany? It was just regular guys doing their military service. As I understand it, most of them had a half-hearted belief in the ideology and that the state was justified. They may have thought that the people who were shot were a danger, they were spies or something. And some of the border crossers probably were. Either way, they were following orders and they probably didn't even shoot with the intention of killing.

But in united Germany they were prosecuted and sentenced to prison.
The relevance is that they WERE held responsible for their actions during a (supposedly) corrupt regime.

In retrospect, the expectation on them was that they should have refused top shoot and taken the consequences, or they should have refused military service in the first place. I never heard anyone complain that the trials against these people were wrong.

As for what you said about states: States are good if they are not fascist and not oppressive, imo....