General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Bill Maher Blasts ‘Useless Obama Hacks without a Shred of Intellectual Honesty’ (NSA spying) [View all]thesquanderer
(12,026 posts)re: "I just thought Russia was slightly relevant because that is the country he has chosen to take refuge in"
Why is that relevant?
Also, as I understand, he didn't really "choose" to take refuge there... it's where he ended up while en route to someplace else. Though I guess you could say he "chose" to stay there once he was stuck there with few options and they permitted it, even though it had not been his intended destination. But your statement implies it was his goal to be there, whereas it was more that that's where he ended up by circumstance.
But anyway, let's turn it around, and say someone comes into an American embassy for protection from his own country. Is he not allowed to criticize his home country unless he also criticizes the U.S.? (There is surely plenty to criticize here.) Why is Snowden obligated to criticize Russia? And seriously, do you think it is wise for a man with few options to criticize his host? And do you really think any good would come out of it? I don't just mean for him, I mean for *anyone* including the Russian people? Even if you think it is hypocritical to call out the U.S. (who he has info on) without calling out Russia (who he presumably has little to no confidential info about), so what? It's not a crime to be a hypocrite, it doesn't make what he is saying less true or less valuable, and honestly, it would probably be kinda dumb for him to bite the hand that feeds him, and for no apparent good besides. What benefit is there to be had? So people like you won't call him names? Attacking him as a hypocrite is a simple ad hominem attack that does nothing to address or invalidate the issues he raised. Sometimes there can be a fine line between courage and stupidity. Personally, I see what he has done as brave; and I think criticizing his hosts would probably be stupid, besides being outside anything he probably has any unique knowledge of.
I did click the link you provided. Google was not mentioned anywhere on that page, but more to the point, Greenwald's defense is alluded to: his appraisal that the info could lead to violence (possibly causing an "uprising" or at least "a handful of deaths" . You may choose not to buy that explanation, but there it is.