No, this:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/13/a_diplomatic_mystery

That article is very short and does not really explore the implications but it does give a reference for what I am talking about.

Like Count Chocula?

"I will not endeavor to understand why, it's only to point out a factual observation that you are mirroring those blogs you read, and they get their crap from the same wire as the "liberal" press. I'll let you in on a little secret, the press releases hardly ever reflect what goes over secured communications. I believe you would need specific clearances to know what's happening. I'm going on the assumption you don't"

The logical conclusion to this argument is that you need a security clearance to form an opinion on policy and that is hogwash. In fact many people without such a clearance, including academics and others, have good track records of getting issue after issue right when the people with the clearances were getting it all wrong.

That isn't actually true. The contractor protections were not as firm, but they apparently existed. (And from what I've read that has been addressed now.) And I'm pretty sure that would be a moot question if he had gone to Congress.

You are on much better ground when you discuss 2nd Amendment issues then on this one.

Contrast these two statements:

A) Someone somewhere in the city would like to harm you.

B) Your neighbor Bob plans to throw five Molotov cocktails now in his garage through several of your windows tonight at 2:00 AM and shoot your family as they come screaming out the door.

Do you think there is a useful difference in specificity there? Details matter. The claim that the terrorists "just knew already" is bullshit and a whitewash. Terrorist groups have changed their communication methods since Snowden's leaks and intelligence has been lost because of it.

If you live totally off the grid then I respect your position entirely. However, without knowing you, I can probably safely assume that this is not the case. It's probably highly likely that you rely on pollution-causing motor vehicles to deliver essential goods (food, clothing, construction materials, etc.) to maintain your life or at least your standard of living. If you benefit from motor vehicles in this way, then forswearing them is not a noble act. It's just pure hypocrisy.

He could have gone to Congress. Maybe you aren't aware of it, but under the US Constitution the Congress has special powers that are quite useful in situations like this.

Not if he had gone to Congress, no.

He stole ~ 1.7 million highly classified intelligence documents, fled the country, and started leaking them to whomever wanted a copy - at least as far as we have direct proof. He could have covertly done far worse. The description doesn't seem unreasonable.

I guess you don't count the fact that the US Federal government is spending billions of dollars to try to repair some of the damage from Snowden's theft and leaks as detrimental. You'll be helping to pay for that since you live in the US. No doubt GCHQ will be paying some bills as well.

There has certainly been other fallout from that, but apparently we can count on you to never go looking for it.

Unfortunately for your argument the intelligence business does not operate according to the prescriptions of technical information theory. Secondary and alternate sources of information are important as part of judging the reliability of other sources, adding context, and evaluating it. Those sorts of considerations don't really apply in trying to move bits from here to there, do they? You also seem to be committing the common fallacy of assuming that the Russians and Chinese already knew everything that Snowden took before he stole it without any proof of that, and probably because it whitewashes Snowden's crime.

That would be a very useful rumor to spread for a spy planning to engage in a scheme of political warfare. Truly a masterpiece.

Unfortunately it doesn't pass the smell test. Why bring all that extra equipment if you are fleeing?

I'm pretty sure I can correct false statements in the posts I respond to regardless of the framing of the story.

"This is where I'm going with the argument. It's one thing to say "we cannot take any direct action now"."

THAT actually sounds very weak to me. The implication I would take is that you feel you should be taking action, but you've been deterred (for now.)

My position is really much stronger. If there were a good reason to be involved then fine, WWIII, praise the Lord and pass the ammunition, I am down. I am one crazy mofo and I cannot be deterred when I choose to act.

But this? We have no vital interest to defend here, the only thing on the line for us is the prestige of the STUPID SOBs that started and continued the deliberate policy of antagonizing and encircling Russia.

Their personal prestige is on the line and deserves to take the hit. But that is not the same as our national prestige and we should be clarifying that line right now instead of trying to blur it.

But we are not doing that. Our government by its actions is making clear that it values these officials personal prestige more than it values many other things one might think would take precedence - including the well-being of our troops in Afghanistan. As I am sure you are aware, they have a bit of a supply chain problem, and Russia is being enormously helpful in regards to that. So far they have not withdrawn that help, but how much longer? What happens to our troops when both the southern and the northern route is cut? Is it not completely irresponsible to go around bear-baiting without at the very least getting our men out of Afghanistan first?

"As an example, we have NATO allies in the Baltics. Have we signaled anything to them other than "You are effed"?"

I think it's important to question WHY we've been violating our agreement with Russia and expanding NATO east before addressing that directly. This is a history of provocation that is part of the context here, and while it would be wonderful to have a time machine and just go back and avoid that error, the fact that we cannot do that should not be allowed to become an excuse to perpetuate the errors - to double down on bad bets. That's a road to ruin.

Now, we are here now, and yes we have NATO allies in the Baltics. And we have been sending both ships and planes into the area in the reports I have seen. Sounds like just enough to start a war but nowhere near enough to win one. And I think that's silly. I would advise taking a step back and asking whether or not there is any need to be worried about them, and I would have to say no. Russia has not threatened them, and seems highly unlikely to do so.

But then again bears ARE dangerous. Keep poking it and sooner or later you might well cause what you want to avoid.

Maybe you haven't noticed that Snowden leaked a LOT more material than just that. And that is assuming that the Russians don't have everything he had.

That is absolute bullshit on the face of it. As a minimum they have what is being published in every newspaper around the world, which isn't trivial, especially since they often pursue independent lines of stories. You wouldn't try to deny that would you? And that is assuming that they either don't have a source inside the papers that is a volunteer, a plant, or bought for a few million dollars. Who is vetting the people in the newspapers? I'm pretty sure they don't have Top Secret clearances. That also assumes that the Russians, Chinese, or the intelligence agencies of other nations haven't simply engaged in a break-in to steal the information. And that is all before you even get to the question of Snowden being disgruntled long before he stole the information and the possibility that he was actively working with the Russians or Chinese. Snowden was apparently lying for years before he stole that information, and his contacts with the Russians and Chinese in Hong Kong leave many questions. It was no surprise to the Russians when Snowden landed in Russia. Snowden or his handlers is engaged in a minor magic act, a little misdirection, a few documents pulled out of the hat with the right banter, and everyone in the audience is a true believer. He did make that rabbit appear from nowhere! He really is a true magician! He really did do it for us!

Meanwhile, today in Russia, Snowden asked Putin on TV:
Snowden: Do you spy like the US?
Putin: Of course not! That isn't legal in Russia. And we don't have the means of the rich West. And it is all tightly controlled by the government and courts.

There is a sucker born every minute.