Slashdot Mirror


Snowden Publishes "A Manifesto For the Truth"

wjcofkc writes "In the turbulent wake of the international uproar spurred by his leaked documents, Mr. Snowden published a letter over the weekend in Der Spiegel titled, "A Manifesto for the Truth". In the letter, Mr. Snowden reflects on the consequences of the information released so far, and their effect on exposing the extent and obscenity of international and domestic surveillance, while continuing to call out the NSA and GCHQ as the worst offenders. He further discusses how the debate should move forward, the intimidation of journalists, and the criminalization of the truth saying, 'Citizens have to fight suppression of information on matters of vital public importance. To tell the truth is not a crime.'"

18 of 398 comments (clear)

  1. Well that wasn't very long by korbulon · · Score: 5, Funny

    More like a minifesto.

  2. Capitalism. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Capitalism promotes selfishness.

    Selfishness promotes control.

    Control of information is a type of control.

    Control of the government is another type of control.

    So powerful people will control both.

    And so the modern role of signals intelligence: to watch you, to separate the majority who are of no consequence, from the minority who run a serious risk of making a difference.

    The solution is a scaling back of capitalism. And not a replacement with Soviet state capitalism, either, even though their surveillance had nothing on modern UKUSA.

    1. Re:Capitalism. by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem in the US is that the debate is controlled by idiots... and calling them idiots is being nice.

      Every debate we have in the US right now becomes a false dilemma. "Scaling back" capitalism, or doing anything that falls in the middle ground between socialism and capitalism, simply gets a person labeled a "communist" or worse. So we can't have debates.

      Our last two presidential cycles should have included debates about corporate power but they didn't. This is because we have a certain group of people controlling the agenda.

    2. Re:Capitalism. by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are no debates in the US, at least not in public. A debate is by definition a battle of wits between two (or more) people where one presents a theory, the other(s) present counter arguments and during debate and discussion the parties approach each other with the goal that, in the end, a consensus can be achieved, or at least a modus vivendi, a formulation that both can somehow agree with or at least accept as a common ground.

      That is exactly what is NOT wanted in a "debate" in the US, especially when it comes to political discussions. Quite the opposite, political debates are painstakingly looking for the minimal differences the two parties might have to uphold the illusion that they don't in fact agree on every halfway important topic, trying to shift the focus on point- and meaningless side topics that we "may" disagree at because, frankly, nobody gives a shit about them. A standard issue political "debate" in the US would be kinda dull since only the first one to speak gets to speak, with the second one not able to add anything but "well, I agree" to the fold.

      That's no two party system, that's a one party system with two slightly diverging wings.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. It's a shame by darrellg1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that this will go to waste. No mainstream media in the US will report this, and if they do, it will be spun into a negative light. Now we got posters on here, the Guardian, and other sites that are obvious shills or just plain dumb.

  4. Yes it is by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To tell the truth is not a crime.

    Yes, it is. You may have some moral justification, but it can still be a crime. In the US, telling the truth about intelligence techniques to real and potential enemies is a crime, even if you also tell the public. Snowden broke the law, and is now a criminal evading law enforcement, but he satisfied his own conscience.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    1. Re:Yes it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To tell the truth is not a crime.

      Yes, it is. You may have some moral justification, but it can still be a crime. In the US, telling the truth about intelligence techniques to real and potential enemies is a crime, even if you also tell the public. Snowden broke the law, and is now a criminal evading law enforcement, but he satisfied his own conscience.

      Interesting view. You do realize that in this case, 'potential enemies' refers to the entire population of the US?
      One might ponder the aims of such a government.

    2. Re:Yes it is by fox171171 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To tell the truth is not a crime.

      Yes, it is. You may have some moral justification, but it can still be a crime. In the US, telling the truth about intelligence techniques to real and potential enemies is a crime, even if you also tell the public. Snowden broke the law, and is now a criminal evading law enforcement, but he satisfied his own conscience.

      Why is it that truth about a crime is a bigger crime than the original crime itself?

    3. Re:Yes it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The US government has a ombudsman program that allows people to "blow the whistle" on programs or individuals that abuse their power. It can be done without the need for the full blown espionage and having to take up residence in a long time adversarial country and take a job working for the foreign government.

    4. Re:Yes it is by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You do realize that in this case, 'potential enemies' refers to the entire population of the US?

      You may be surprised to find out that is not actually the case. A vast number of the US population demanded that we should give up some of our civil liberties in exchange for great security.

      I argued against the idea but the political environment immediately after the 9/11 attack demanded that the government do everything possible to protect its citizens no matter the cost in money or civil liberties.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    5. Re:Yes it is by canadian_right · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pretty much all foreign intelligence agencies already knew about what the NSA was up to; the USA government IS upset because Snowden informed the USA general public.

      What the NSA was and is doing wasn't a big secret among governments. Many of the governments now complaining about being spied on cooperated with the USA to gather and share much of this information. Yes, they might be pissed that the USA crossed a few lines here and there, but they knew the USA was spying on everyone.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    6. Re:Yes it is by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If Snowden had followed your advice, he would have been arrested immediately and then charged with treason, espionage and/or theft of classified data.

      Even his lawyer would have been gagged by secret courts under the Patriot act and nobody would have ever heard of any of this except as a little side note ("cranky former contractor in clinch with US government about handling of classified data").

  5. Re:in the U.S. by TWiTfan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    truth actually a crime, actually

    Only if it's truth that embarrasses the government and corporations that rule this country. You're free to tell all the benign truth you wish, citizen. You may also debate the merits of which of the two allowed parties is more worthy of your vote, that of Kang or that of Kodos.

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
  6. Re:in the U.S. by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I especially liked the part where they told him that he did it wrong, that telling the newspapers was bad.

    The correct course of action was to call the people in power and let them know they're spying on the population.

    --
    No sig today...
  7. Re:...and you lost! by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Declaration of Independence is a manifesto. It just wasn't titled as such.

    A manifesto simply explains the motivations and reasoning behind actions. It's a common trait of psychopaths and sociopaths, because they feel that their actions are completely logical, but the rest of society just needs a good explanation to wake up and rally to their cause.

    Snowden doesn't need to explain his motivation to recruit followers, as the public outrage over surveillance is already quite significant. This seems to be less of a manifesto, and more of a reflection.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  8. Re:how long by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How long? I want to know how long until Snowden is given a medal by congress. He deserves a Gold Medal, at least as much as a Walt Disney, or Roberto Clemente, or a Danny Thomas. Browse the list yourself - some of the people who have been awarded a Gold Medal may have sacrificed more, or done more than Snowden. But Edward stands head and shoulders over a mere sports figure, or a Hollywood icon.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Congressional_Gold_Medal_recipients

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  9. Re:why didnt Snowden use Wikileaks??? by TWiTfan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I knew everything he was saying before he said it.

    A lot of people did. But he offered the first undeniable PROOF.

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
  10. Re:why didnt Snowden use Wikileaks??? by deanklear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But the sad fact is, he's also betraying his country

    No, he's betraying the corrupt portion of his government that is secretly breaking the spirit and the letter of enumerated rights in the Constitution. When this practice is exercised in other nations, like in China, the US government and her sycophants celebrates speaking truth to power.

    Moral truths have a funny way of disappearing when it comes to criticizing your own nation, but that is the realm of pretend patriots who are more attached to the power of the hierarchy then they are to the claimed ideals written into our laws.

    As soon as someone starts talking about "betraying the nation/country/flag" it's fair to assume they want to stop talking about whatever the claimed injustice is. That's for two reasons, usually: an irrational attachment to the symbology of their nation (instead of a rational attachment to it's stated values), or because they are beneficiaries of the current status quo and they want to keep things as they are out of puerile self interest. And, as so often is the case, the injustice is so obvious that ad hominem attacks and pro-establishment propaganda that could make a fascist blush become the standard points attempting to cover the empty rhetoric. Bonus points for including a folksy cover of patriarchal finger wagging for "young men" who have "ruined" their lives by daring to claim the government is wrong. What a lovely American ideal that is.

    The sad fact is that if the American government does not value due process, freedom of speech, freedom of press, and the right to privacy, it has ceased to become worthy of patriotism. The best parts of American culture and the vast majority of people who still believe in those values are worthy of protection, not the cancerous, bought-and-paid-for, corrupted bureaucracy that is slowly depriving them of those rights. Irrational nationalism is a central pillar of fascism.