Being forced to seek asylum in Russia after multiple attempts to go elsewhere that were thwarted by the US (at the risk of major diplomatic incidents) makes you suspicious actually.

I mean it's like people completely forgot that the plane of a head of state was grounded by US allies in Europe because they suspected he might be smuggling Edward Snowden on board.

Edward Snowden has not been exiled in any non-misleading use of the term. He had many opportunities to return to the United States, and could do so today if his current hosts allowed it.

Yes, assuming he was willing to spend the rest of his life in a US prison, if not Khashoggied en-route.

Right, but that’s not definitionally distinct from an accused murderer who skips the country. No one would use the term “exiled” in that case, even if they believe the accusation unjust.

The only reason to use “exiled” is to imply that Snowden is in Russia (or at least outside of the US) by someone’s choice other than his own. That’s what’s misleading about it.

Are you kidding me? You honest to God would trust the US government if you were in his situation?

I would have used legal avenues afforded to whistleblowers.

> Contrary to his public claims that he notified numerous NSA officials about what he believed to be illegal intelligence collection, the Committee found no evidence that Snowden took any official effort to express concerns about U.S. intelligence activities - legal, moral, or otherwise - to any oversight officials within the U.S. government, despite numerous avenues for him to do so. Snowden was aware of these avenues. His only attempt to contact an NSA attorney revolved around a question about the legal precedence of executive orders, and his only contact to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Inspector General (IG) revolved around his disagreements with his managers about training and retention of information technology specialists.

> Despite Snowden's later public claim that he would have faced retribution for voicing concerns about intelligence activities, the Committee found that laws and regulations in effect at the time of Snowden's actions afforded him protection. The Committee routinely receives disclosures from IC contractors pursuant to the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 (IC WPA). If Snowden had been worried about possible retaliation for voicing concerns about NSA activities, he could have made a disclosure to the Committee. He did not.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hpsci_snowden_r...

I want evidence that this would actually work. Something like at least once comparable incident.

Tell me why I shouldn't. What evidence do you have that refutes their findings?

Are you kidding me? One of most powerful organizations in the world specialized on handling secrets and you want evidence?

They violate the US constitution and you expect them to hand out evidence?

There has been previous episodes of people (proved and documented) of people attempting to speak up and being silenced, imprisoned etc. Any person threatening to go to the press can be arrested for treason.

And if you look at similar organizations starting from 100 years ago you'll see the same patterns again and again: people who try to speak up are silenced in a way or another.

Yes, I want evidence. I'm open to any evidence that casts doubt on any of the claims in their report.

Otherwise, you are asserting that a bipartisan intelligence committee of elected officials are all lying.