Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Ethical questions » Snookered whistleblower

Snookered whistleblower

It could be the pain that makes me delight in the travails of those I consider to be politically misguided, or it could just be my perverse sense of humor but I am just loving the fact that would be hero of the left Edward Snowden has manged to snooker himself and to be stuck in the Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport.  Don’t we all just love the fact that without a valid passport he is unable to travel to a country that will offer him asylum, assuming that he can find one that is willing to accept him.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday Mr Snowden was welcome to stay if he stopped leaking US intelligence reports.

“If he (Snowden) wants to remain here there is one condition: he should stop his work aimed at inflicting damage on our American partners, no matter how strange this may sound coming from me,” Mr Putin told reporters.

After learning of that condition, a Kremlin spokesman said Mr Snowden had withdrawn his request. “He abandoned his intention and his request to receive the chance of staying in Russia,” Mr Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, told reporters.

Ecuador, the first place Mr Snowden applied for asylum, had earlier voiced relief at the possibility of Russia taking him.

“My opinion is that the (asylum) request to the Russian government could definitely resolve Mr Snowden’s situation,” President Rafael Correa said. The Moscow dead end could raise pressure on Ecuador, which has hesitated in the face of possible economic sanctions from the US.


There is more than a touch  of irony to Snowden’s situation, firstly he set out to betray his country, and break the oaths that he made when he took up the profession of intelligence analysis and then , despite being very clearly in love with all sorts of convoluted conspiracy theories he has been unable to chart a course of action for himself that would have seen him in a place of safety before he outed himself as the source of the damaging leaks. It looks very much like the the folly of the fanatic who believes his own propaganda and I for one shall continue to enjoy the tale of his despair, especially if it is accompanied by the wailing of the Uber left about is martyrdom to the “whistleblowwer” cause.

The just reward for treachery and treason is pain and despair and I for one look forward to Snowden  either spending a very  long time trapped in the Sheremetyevo airport as the world quickly forgets him or him finally deciding that facing up to the consequences of his actions and being welcomed into the comforts of a US federal prison. Either way he has thrown away his liberty for nothing of consequence.

Cheers Comrades.

Biggest Loser Caffe Latte Shake


  1. Tony says:

    My, how times have changed ?
    The last fifty odd years, we had “trench-coats” from both countries, have no hesitation in their attempts to steal each other’s secrets ? Now, they both band together to collectively abhor the practice ?
    How ironic ?

    To continue the irony, what is the difference here, between this situation and the attempts to molecularly disassemble Assange for the same thing ?

    Obviously, Snowden thought the information he was privvy to, was so terrible, that he judged that he rest of the world should know about it. That is the fine line isn’t it ? Reminds me of that Wil Smith movie, “Enemy of the State” ?

    Question for everybody ?

    Who watches the watchers ?

  2. Richard Ryan says:

    I reckon Bob Carr is an American agent, the moral of the story, Bob does not eat meat pies, nor drives a car,”who watches Bob Carr”?

  3. Richard Ryan says:

    AND he wears a blue tie.

  4. Tel says:

    Oath breaker? You want to perhaps provide details of which oath exactly Snowden is breaking here, because I think you are just making stuff up.

    Most of the military swear only one oath, which is to defend and uphold the US Constitution. Come to think of it, Obama swore the same oath himself.

    I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

    I would say Snowden is upholding his oath in good faith, while a lot of others are not. Since the US Constitution is the only document that gives the Federal government any power whatsoever, you would think they would be a bit more careful to colour inside the lines.

  5. Iain Hall says:

    in the UK they have the “official secrets act” and I would be very surprised if there is not an equivalent in the USA, and as a contractor I also expect that Snowden would have had to sign a non disclosure agreement as a condition of his employment. Either or both are an “oath” or a promise of behaviour that is binding in law.
    Further lets not forget that there is nothing illegal in keeping and matching call transaction data, it has several times been challenged in the US courts and found to be valid with out a specific warrant.

  6. Tel says:

    If there was such an act in the USA, it would be coming from Congress, and all of those guys are sworn to uphold the US Constitution as well, indeed they have no power to act outside said Constitution. Thus, an oath to the Constitution itself always takes precedence.

    Further lets not forget that there is nothing illegal in keeping and matching call transaction data, it has several times been challenged in the US courts and found to be valid with out a specific warrant.

    In which case I would guess there’s no problem in the US citizens knowing what their government is doing then is there? I mean, people with nothing to hide have nothing to worry about. Isn’t that how the saying goes?

  7. Tel says:

    Sorry, I said it wrong, they have not sworn an oath merely to “uphold” the Constitution, they swore to “support and defend the Constitution” which is more stringent since standing passively by while you know someone else is doing something unconstitutional might still be considered to be “upholding” the Constitution, but in order to actually “support and defend the Constitution” requires that you actively prevent other people from undermining it.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: