Support NeoGAF

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

Releasing classified info shouldn't be something done on a lark.

...and it wasn't

 

[Suikoguy]

1. WP exposes PRISM using Snowden info. Article eventually gets them the Pullitzer.
3. WP says today Snowden shouldn't be pardoned because exposing PRISM was of no public interest.

You really don't see any issue here?

Did you read the thread, or the original WaPost article. Apparently not.

Where did they say the bolded.

Here is the link again:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...04d448-7c2e-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html

Where did they say the bolded.

Glenn is a fucking hack, you can't take anything he says without double checking it.

 

[xevis]

If you are going to go through the effort of stealing government secrets, committing treason, and betraying your employer you should at least have some sort of groundbreaking info to release.

The existence and extent of the largest known covert surveillance program isn't groundbreaking enough?!?

His releases were mostly non-events and info that everyone knew was probably there, even if it wasn't known explicitly.

Only fringe conspiracy theorists could claim having such prior "knowledge".

 

[adamsappel]

His releases were mostly non-events and info that everyone knew was probably there, even if it wasn't known explicitly.

It wasn't until after Snowden that "the government is spying on us!" wasn't considered tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy nonsense.

 

[SomedayTheFire]

Assange is a massive scumbag.

This guy is just a regular scumbag.

If you are going to go through the effort of stealing government secrets, committing treason, and betraying your employer you should at least have some sort of groundbreaking info to release.

His releases were mostly non-events and info that everyone knew was probably there, even if it wasn't known explicitly.

This is honestly one of the strangest and saddest posts I've read on GAF.

 

[antonz]

I always find it so fascinating how hard people are pushing Obama to pardon him. The same Obama that has cracked down on whistle blowers harder than basically every other President before him.

Obama is not going to bat for Snowden.

 

[Kinyou]

Who in the government actually faced consequences for this program? It's weird to me how Snowden should face justice while the people responsible get off scot free.

 

[SodiumBenzoate]

Its almost as if this is a false dichotomy! I dislike snowden for the same reasons that the post claims. He revealed legit US operations that did not violate constitutional protections, did so by deception, hid in Russia

Hold the fuck up. He is not HIDING in Russia. he is STUCK in Russia because the US revoked his passport. He wanted to go to Latin America.

I'm sick of this propagandistic lie that everyone just accepts as fact because it makes the story sound better for the US and worse for Snowden/Russia/Putin.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

The existence and extent of the largest known covert surveillance program isn't groundbreaking enough?!?

Only fringe conspiracy theorists could claim having such prior "knowledge".

Not to mention, expecting something to be probably true, and having the evidence that proves it, is very different. Downplaying the role of evidence reeks of anti-intellectualism.

Did you read the thread, or the original WaPost article. Apparently not.

Where did they say the bolded.

Here is the link again:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...dc7_story.html

Where did they say the bolded.

Glenn is a fucking hack, you can't take anything he says without double checking it.

Uh, I read the WP article and Greenwald does not misrepresent it. The WP article is full of horseshit, including the "oh he should do like other whistleblowers and go to jail for his beliefs" (like seriously? fuck you WP) and not-so-subtly insinuates that he's supportive of Putin by being stuck in Russia against his will. And yes, to your question, they do say this:

The complication is that Mr. Snowden did more than that. He also pilfered, and leaked, information about a separate overseas NSA Internet-monitoring program, PRISM, that was both clearly legal and not clearly threatening to privacy. [...] What higher cause did that serve?

It's funny that this opinion piece downplays the importance and sketchiness of Prism when WP itself won a Pulitzer prize and even bragged about it:

The Post’s coverage of NSA shattered the secrecy of a clandestine government program called PRISM, exposed the NSA’s repeated violations of its own privacy rules and more, bringing to light a discussion about the sometimes uneasy balance between individual privacy and national security.

Again, the WP can get fucked.

Edit:

I always find it so fascinating how hard people are pushing Obama to pardon him. The same Obama that has cracked down on whistle blowers harder than basically every other President before him.

Obama is not going to bat for Snowden.

True, and that is probably the most significant blow against Obama's legacy. Very disappointing in an otherwise great US president.

Hold the fuck up. He is not HIDING in Russia. he is STUCK in Russia because the US revoked his passport. He wanted to go to Latin America.

I'm sick of this propagandistic lie that everyone just accepts as fact because "fuck Putin, right?".

Yes, it's BS. Every single time they mention him being in Russia they have to name-drop Putin, too. Classic word association/propaganda tactic. Reminds me of the time where pundits would name-drop 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence repeatedly (while being careful to not explicitly say 9/11 was caused by Iraq/Iraqis), to the point where later surveys revealed many Americans believed Iraq was involved in 9/11...

 

[demon]

Where is the discourse?

Dumb question.

You can't be the surveillance Rosa Parks without facing the consequences.

Interesting analogy.

If you are going to go through the effort of stealing government secrets, committing treason, and betraying your employer you should at least have some sort of groundbreaking info to release.

His releases were mostly non-events and info that everyone knew was probably there, even if it wasn't known explicitly.

This is not grounded is reality.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Did you read the thread, or the original WaPost article. Apparently not.

Where did they say the bolded.

Here is the link again:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...04d448-7c2e-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html

Where did they say the bolded.

Glenn is a fucking hack, you can't take anything he says without double checking it.

The Washington Post article says:

[Defenders argue] rather, that Mr. Snowden’s noble purposes, and the policy changes his “whistle-blowing” prompted, justified his actions. Specifically, he made the documents public through journalists, including reporters working for The Post, enabling the American public to learn for the first time [about domestic metadata collection]. The program was a stretch, if not an outright violation, of federal surveillance law, and posed risks to privacy. Congress and the president eventually responded with corrective legislation. It’s fair to say we owe these necessary reforms to Mr. Snowden.

The language like "owe", "enabling the American public", etc suggests they feel the metadata disclosures are a "public service". Now, as a point of contrast, they argue:

The complication is that Mr. Snowden did more than that. He also pilfered, and leaked, information about a separate overseas NSA Internet-monitoring program, PRISM, that was both clearly legal and not clearly threatening to privacy.

It is common in rhetoric to concede a small point in order to bolster your objectivity and reliability when making a broader point. This use of contrast is pretty standard, and it is generally assumed to imply some level of negation between the points.

I think it would be reasonable to conclude that the WaPo article is advancing the argument that disclosing domestic metadata collection was a public service, while disclosing PRISM was not, even if the article does not use the words "public service".

The person you're quoting omits the rest of the article (that Snowden shouldn't be pardoned owing to what they allege are harms caused by his disclosures, and other points that don't rest on whether exposing PRISM was a public service)--so I think it is reasonable to say that the poster and Greenwald are simplifying their argument, maybe even to the point of mischaracterizing it, but the bolded quote you thought was Greenwald's mischaracterization strikes me as a fair read of the article.

 

[Jebusman]

Can someone explain to me the thought process behind chastising a man for not following a process that was specifically designed to make sure that people like him could never effectively use the process?

Because that's all I ever got out of all of this. Being a contracted worker meant Snowden had no real path to properly blow the lid on all this. His pleas would fall on deaf ears because the people he is reporting this to are the very people trying to hide it's existence.

It almost feels like a different flavor of arguing against people protesting because they're not doing it in the right way, or the "legal" way to protest.

 

[andrerobot]

His releases were mostly non-events and info that everyone knew was probably there, even if it wasn't known explicitly.

 

[Phantast2k]

Dumb question.


Interesting analogy.

What's dumb about it? I'm not following US media religiously, but I don't really notice the topic being brought up a lot these days, at least not in the publications I follow (and not of gaf). The discussion has more or less died down, the public opinion of him is largely negative as pointed out on the previous page. That's the reputation you'll get for sitting in Putin's lap. Associating with asswipes like Assange and Greenwald doesn't help either.
I'm sure the situation would have been different, had he faced trial in US.

 

[Krejlooc]

I'm sure the situation would have been different, had he faced trial in US.

Yeah, he would have been destroyed in a kangaroo court.

I don't think public opinion on Snowden is largely negative. I think public opinion on Snowden is largely apathetic. I doubt I could find more than a handful of people who know what the fuck Prism is if I went and polled random people in my city. The public flat out doesn't care. Which is depressing.

 

[Sweeney Tom]

Edward Snowden continues to be a hero

 

[Morrigan Stark]

That's the reputation you'll get for sitting in Putin's lap.

Congrats on being a victim of propaganda.

Associating with asswipes like Assange and Greenwald doesn't help either.

How is he associating with either? Snowden criticized Assange, and Greenwald... wrote about him?

Jesus fucking christ, critical thinking truly is dead...

 

[Puck Beaverton]

I always find it so fascinating how hard people are pushing Obama to pardon him. The same Obama that has cracked down on whistle blowers harder than basically every other President before him.

Obama is not going to bat for Snowden.

People believe he's a good guy.

 

[BrassDragon]

Wait, they're arguing that revealing PRISM wasn't a service to the public?

I'm pretty sure most tech companies implicated in the leak started putting out transparency reports, revised policies, internal reviews and legal objections against the government rifling through their customers' data.

Considering a lot of business leaders were apparently just as surprised by the program as the rest of us, to say nothing of allied foreign leaders taking a hard look at data streams through US infrastructure, I fail to see how this wasn't in the public interest to reveal?

 

[Suikoguy]

The Washington Post article says:


The language like "owe", "enabling the American public", etc suggests they feel the metadata disclosures are a "public service". Now, as a point of contrast, they argue:


It is common in rhetoric to concede a small point in order to bolster your objectivity and reliability when making a broader point. This use of contrast is pretty standard, and it is generally assumed to imply some level of negation between the points.

I think it would be reasonable to conclude that the WaPo article is advancing the argument that disclosing domestic metadata collection was a public service, while disclosing PRISM was not, even if the article does not use the words "public service".

The person you're quoting omits the rest of the article (that Snowden shouldn't be pardoned owing to what they allege are harms caused by his disclosures, and other points that don't rest on whether exposing PRISM was a public service)--so I think it is reasonable to say that the poster and Greenwald are simplifying their argument, maybe even to the point of mischaracterizing it, but the bolded quote you thought was Greenwald's mischaracterization strikes me as a fair read of the article.

I'll concede it could be interpreted and simplified in that way, however, that's the problem. There is a great deal of nuance required to dissect the events that transpired with Snowden.

I don't know of a country on this earth that would pardon, or not try in court, someone who leaks information regarding foreign intelligence operations.

But, that's not all that happened.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

Not to mention, expecting something to be probably true, and having the evidence that proves it, is very different. Downplaying the role of evidence reeks of anti-intellectualism.


Uh, I read the WP article and Greenwald does not misrepresent it. The WP article is full of horseshit, including the "oh he should do like other whistleblowers and go to jail for his beliefs" (like seriously? fuck you WP) and not-so-subtly insinuates that he's supportive of Putin by being stuck in Russia against his will. And yes, to your question, they do say this:


It's funny that this opinion piece downplays the importance and sketchiness of Prism when WP itself won a Pulitzer prize and even bragged about it:

Again, the WP can get fucked.

Edit:

True, and that is probably the most significant blow against Obama's legacy. Very disappointing in an otherwise great US president.


Yes, it's BS. Every single time they mention him being in Russia they have to name-drop Putin, too. Classic word association/propaganda tactic. Reminds me of the time where pundits would name-drop 9/11 in Iraq in the same sentence repeatedly (while being careful to not explicitly say 9/11 was caused by Iraq/Iraqis), to the point where later surveys revealed many Americans believed Iraq was involved in 9/11...

Fucking ridiculous.

This is also where I remind everybody that Obama tried to cover up the CIA torture program.

 

[Phantast2k]

Yeah, he would have been destroyed in a kangaroo court.

I don't think public opinion on Snowden is largely negative. I think public opinion on Snowden is largely apathetic. I doubt I could find more than a handful of people who know what the fuck Prism is if I went and polled random people in my city. The public flat out doesn't care. Which is depressing.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...en-unpopular-at-home-a-hero-abroad-poll-finds

For his efforts, about 64 percent of Americans familiar with Snowden hold a negative opinion of him, according to KRC Research poll results shared with U.S. News. Thirty-six percent hold a positive opinion, with just 8 percent holding a very positive opinion.

The survey was commissioned by the American Civil Liberties Union, which provides legal representation to Snowden, who received asylum in Russia after the U.S. canceled his passport.

The ACLU found this isn't the case

"The public flat out doesn't care": That's the point. You can't initiate societal change in US from (Putin's) Moscow....

Congrats on being a victim of propaganda.

What propaganda? I think it was in 2014 when he had a chance to question Putin on mass surveillance on Russian national TV. When given that chance he asked him a laughable, softball question and gave Putin a chance to shine. This is in a country where they jail you for liking sharing shit on FB. He's literally in Putin's lap.

Kremlin lakey Assange announced himself that he steered Snowden towards Russia. Google "assange snowden russia" for an RT link.

 

[d00d3n]

It is really sad and frankly embarrassing to see so many liberals turn on Snowden these days.

 

[Krejlooc]

"The public flat out doesn't care": That's the point. You can't initiate societal change in US from (Putin's) Moscow....

Nor could he initiate societal change in the US from a prison cell after he would have been railroaded and buried by the US government.

You seem to think that, would Snowden have originally gone to trial, it would have been this huge public affair and everyone would have been watching. If he wouldn't have fled, he would have been goddamn buried. Nobody would know about Snowden.

 

[majik13]

His releases were mostly non-events and info that everyone knew was probably there, even if it wasn't known explicitly.

Welp...

 

[ThisGuy]

Government Surveillance: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

Someone thought he was the founder of Wikileaks if I remember the video correctly.

Good video, thanks for sharing. Kind of upsetting to be honest. Because I am pretty sure the government has a photo album of my nudes.

I hope Michelle likes them.

 

[DragonSworne]

Well, believe it because I happen to be one of those people. You will excuse me if I don't hold the "rights" contained in an ancient document to be totally sacrosanct and inviolable.

We have laws that set procedures on how to change those rights stated by that ancient document.

Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they can ignored. If you want to get rid of privacy then get the document amended.

In the meantime, Snowden should be heralded as a hero and the likes of Bush should be in prison for a very long time.

 

[Krejlooc]

We have laws that set procedures on how to change those rights stated by that ancient document.

And how do you apply those laws and procedures to a surveillance system that makes even acknowledging it's existence treasonous?

 

[jchap]

Sorry but someone who signs on for a security clearance fully aware of all the repercussions of leaking information gets what they deserve when they leak. If someone without a clearance had uncovered the program it would be another story.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

"The public flat out doesn't care": That's the point. You can't initiate societal change in US from (Putin's) Moscow....

What Krejlooc said.

What propaganda? I think it was in 2014 when he had a chance to question Putin on mass surveillance on Russian national TV. When given that chance he asked him a laughable, softball question and gave Putin a chance to shine. This is in a country where they jail you for liking sharing shit on FB. He's literally in Putin's lap.

He was stuck in Russia against his will. And you blame him for not openly defying Putin, when you yourself comment on how authoritarian they are? Yeah fuck him for thinking about his own personal safety right? I mean he's still been pretty critical of Russia on Twitter and in interviews, but blaming him for not openly and directly defying Putin in person is laughable.

Kremlin lakey Assange announced himself that he steered Snowden towards Russia. Google "assange snowden russia" for an RT link.

LOL why would I give clicks to a propaganda outlet like RT?

Sorry but someone who signs on for a security clearance fully aware of all the repercussions of leaking information gets what they deserve when they leak.

...........

 

[DragonSworne]

And how do you apply those laws and procedures to a surveillance system that makes even acknowledging it's existence treasonous?

It should be dismantled and those responsible for it should be on trial since such a system is unconstitutional.

 

[Phantast2k]

Nor could he initiate societal change in the US from a prison cell after he would have been railroaded and buried by the US government.

Even if he was buried by the US gov, he could potentially still have a better chance to promote change. Look at Nelson Mandela, who spent almost 30 years in prison only to come out and transform South Africa. Instead he chose to run to US' most dangerous adversary.

/

What Krejlooc said.


He was stuck in Russia against his will. And you blame him for not openly defying Putin, when you yourself comment on how authoritarian they are? Yeah fuck him for thinking about his own personal safety right? I mean he's still been pretty critical of Russia on Twitter and in interviews, but blaming him for not openly and directly defying Putin in person is laughable.


LOL why would I give clicks to a propaganda outlet like RT?


...........

1) -
2) Nothing would have happened to him. He's of great value to the Kremlin. The way he behaved there just goes to show what a colossal coward he is.
3) You really shouldn't. It's just what Assange said in an interview with the The Times. The RT link is just the first result when searching for it.

 

[Krejlooc]

Even if he was buried by the US gov, he could potentially still have a better chance to promote change.

No he wouldn't have. That's what being buried is. Literally nobody would have ever heard from him again, ever.

Look at Nelson Mandela

You mean a guy who wasn't buried by the US government?

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Even if he was buried by the US gov, he could potentially still have a better chance to promote change. Look at Nelson Mandela, who spent almost 30 years in prison only to come out and transform South Africa. Instead he chose to run to US' most dangerous adversary.

So Snowden should have sacrificed himself and stayed in prison for 30 years. And you portray "being stranded in" as "chose to run to".

Un-fucking-believable.

 

[Fallout-NL]

the ones who should be charged and punished/rehabilitated are the ones responsible for mass surveillance of everyone

Snowden single-handedly opened up American discourse on mass surveillance, with ripple effects that resulted in worldwide scrutiny of governmental surveillance efforts. These are incredibly important issues and I find it hard to believe that people think he's a traitor who deserves to be in jail for trying to blow the whistle on what was clearly a violation of our constitutional rights.

Exactly. The fuck is this bullshit?

 

[diablos991]

Even if he was buried by the US gov, he could potentially still have a better chance to promote change. Look at Nelson Mandela, who spent almost 30 years in prison only to come out and transform South Africa. Instead he chose to run to US' most dangerous adversary.

If I remember he tried to raise concern a couple times through appropriate channels and was shut down.

He has zero chance of bringing this to light and remaining part of the system.

 

[DragonSworne]

No he wouldn't have. That's what being buried is. Literally nobody would have ever heard from him again, ever.



You mean a guy who wasn't buried by the US government?

Going through the proper channels and whistling blowing on anything related to NSA or the Petagon is about the dumbest thing a person can do. It was recently revealed that the Petagon destroys the lives of whistleblowers. People really think we would know about PRISM or Snowden if he went through the proper channels? The guy would be dead or facing a lifetime in prison without even being charged a crime.

 

[Krejlooc]

2) Nothing would have happened to him. He's of great value to the Kremlin. The way he behaved there just goes to show what a colossal coward he is.

You really are naive.

 

[sphagnum]

Even if he was buried by the US gov, he could potentially still have a better chance to promote change. Look at Nelson Mandela, who spent almost 30 years in prison only to come out and transform South Africa. Instead he chose to run to US' most dangerous adversary.

I don't blame him for not wanting to suffer a living hell like Manning does.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

I'm honestly not too keen on him being pardoned for anything. Maybe I just have an entirely different view of what he actually did and the reasons he did them.

 

[aeolist]

I always find it so fascinating how hard people are pushing Obama to pardon him. The same Obama that has cracked down on whistle blowers harder than basically every other President before him.

Obama is not going to bat for Snowden.

the idea is to make the push now because obama can do more things like this without having to worry about political blowback, while both candidates for president have been unequivocal about their belief that he should go to prison (more likely trump would just order someone to assassinate him or something). plus the movie is coming out and it's back in the public eye.

it's not a good shot, but it's their only shot.

 

[Krejlooc]

the idea is to make the push now because obama can do more things like this without having to worry about political blowback, while both candidates for president have been unequivocal about their belief that he should go to prison (more likely trump would just order someone to assassinate him or something). plus the movie is coming out and it's back in the public eye.

it's not a good shot, but it's their only shot.

I don't think the Obama administration will pardon Snowden because they are ultimately complicit with PRISM.

 

[Princess Carl]

I'm honestly not too keen on him being pardoned for anything. Maybe I just have an entirely different view of what he actually did and the reasons he did them.

Boy thats a weird way of saying you're a bad person.

Exactly. The fuck is this bullshit?

It's a fucking disgrace that's what it is.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

I disagree. If nobody's being punished for the domestic spying revealed by this incident then there's absolutely no moral reason for Snowden to not be pardoned.

That being said, it's somewhat of a non-question. Obama's not going to do anything about it.

 

[Phantast2k]

No he wouldn't have. That's what being buried is. Literally nobody would have ever heard from him again, ever.



You mean a guy who wasn't buried by the US government?

Is Chelsea Manning completely buried? She is giving interviews for instance, or guess what? She's tweeting. I imagine the suicide attempt has more to do with her being transgender in prison.
Is Snowden better known to the American public? In relative terms of course, given the ~10 years between the two cases.
Either way, sitting in Moscow and having the traitor / spy label attached to him won't do jackshit to convince the US public. And if that wasn't his reasoning for stealing the files, what else was?

So Snowden should have sacrificed himself and stayed in prison for 30 years. And you portray "being stranded in" as "chose to run to".

Un-fucking-believable.

That's what heroes(tm) do though, don't they? Don't call him a hero then.

He chose to run to US' geopolitical adversaries, first China then Russia. This is not how you change the US public's perception. He changed round about nothing on that front.
He's had more success in changing the perception of US abroad, especially in Europe. Something that mostly serves said geopolitical adversaries.

To me it's clear that he's either a Russian agent / bought off by Russia or he's Kremlin's useful idiot who ended up where he is chance (& Wikileaks' influence), with the latter being a more realistic scenario at this point. In neither case did his actions achieve any lasting impact.

 

[Lime]

lol @ "Congress and the president eventually responded with corrective legislation" from the Washington Post. That's such a huge mischaracterization of the effects of Snowden's leaks.

Mass surveillance is still ongoing.

 

[xevis]

Sorry but someone who signs on for a security clearance fully aware of all the repercussions of leaking information gets what they deserve when they leak. If someone without a clearance had uncovered the program it would be another story.

The best chance the public has at finding out about systemic abuses of power is through the actions of whistleblowers. In the case of Snowden, it's pretty clear that he was acting in the public interest and the fact that the NSA's metadata collection program has since been shut down is testament to that. Yet you argue in favour of throwing the book at him? WTF kind of bone-headed opinion is that?

 

[Krejlooc]

Is Chelsea Manning completely buried? She is giving interviews for instance, or guess what? She's tweeting. I imagine the suicide attempt has more to do with her being transgender in prison.

Comparing Chelsea Manning, and the attention she gets in prison, to Edward Snowden is idiotic. Nobody talks about what Chelsea Manning leaked, nor does she tweet about that stuff. The conversation has shifted, what she is in jail for is not why she is discussed.

Is Snowden better known to the American public? In relative terms of course, given the ~10 years between the two cases.
Either way, sitting in Moscow and having the traitor / spy label attached to him won't do jackshit to convince the US public. And if that wasn't his reasoning for stealing the files, what else was?

But sitting in a prison in the US, labeled a traitor and spy, is going to do something?

That's what heroes(tm) do though, don't they? Don't call him a hero then.

No, you're describing a Martyr, not a hero.

He chose to run to US' geopolitical adversaries, first China then Russia. This is not how you change the US public's perception. He changed round about nothing on that front.
He's had more success in changing the perception of US abroad, especially in Europe. Something that mostly serves said geopolitical adversaries.

It serves the world, because the US spies on everybody.

To me it's clear that he's either a Russian agent / bought off by Russia or he's Kremlin's useful idiot who ended up where he is chance (& Wikileaks' influence), with the latter being a more realistic scenario at this point. In neither case did his actions achieve any lasting impact.

It's clear to me that you don't actually care about PRISM or what Snowden revealed at all, and only are after blood for the guy because he is "an enemy" according to the government that spies on you.

 

[Suikoguy]

The best chance the public has at finding out about systemic abuses of power is through the actions of whistleblowers. In the case of Snowden, it's pretty clear that he was acting in the public interest and the fact that the NSA's metadata collection program has since been shut down is testament to that. Yet you argue in favour of throwing the book at him? WTF kind of bone-headed opinion is that?

Public Interest in some of his leaks, not all of them.
That's why this case is complicated.

 

[Kinyou]

1) -
2) Nothing would have happened to him. He's of great value to the Kremlin. The way he behaved there just goes to show what a colossal coward he is.
3) You really shouldn't. It's just what Assange said in an interview with the The Times. The RT link is just the first result when searching for it.

Snowden is a coward now? I'm pretty sure a coward wouldn't have risked to become a whistleblower in the first place.