If you think he wrote this on his own, then you're naive.
I'm not challenging the intellectual capacity of Snowden, but there is an army of supporters, including a well known publicist, that have been trying to turn Snowden into the latest cause celebre.
You think the presidents write their State of the Union speeches on their own? It's only fair that the country that has a literal army of supporters, speechwriters, publicists, and lawyers, is matched by at least one well-known publicist.
I think he has done something very important for everyone but really don't know about the smarts involved.
In hindsight, just wondering if running around the world is any better than giving yourself up to the local police. Given the media spotlight he is under, I doubt if there would have been a repeat of what they did with Manning. He might have got more support too.
I mean if you are passionate enough about your beliefs to throw your life away why not face the consequences head on. Sort of like a King or Gandhi. I realize what an unfair thing it is to say, but it would seem that sitting in some South American country or Russia, without knowing anyone and constantly looking over your shoulder would be equivalent to sitting in a cell in the US.
It is really quite hard to think of a reason why the US Ambassador to Russia would "[ask] her to relay to Mr Snowden that the US Government does not categorise Mr Snowden as a whistleblower and that he has broken United States law".
The fact that he has been charged with a crime is a pretty good indication that the USG thinks he has broken the law.
If you carry out Wikileak's line of thinking here, then anyone in any country who has been charged with a crime, no matter how severe or small, brutal or kind, should have the right to seek asylum from another country and that no state should interfere with that right.
Also, they continue to make the false claim that he has been made "stateless", which shows a purposeful ignorance of how laws actually work.
He has been made de facto stateless. At this point actual legality is irrelevant. His right to asylum is real as well as his status as whistleblower; that the US recognizes neither is not grounds for rejecting either statement.
Anyone who has their passport revoked is de facto stateless? That's nonsensical. Your passport is not your citizenship, and the U.S. would be happy to have Snowden back within its borders.
Suppose North Korea charged and revoked the passport of one of its upper-level citizens for the same crime as Snowden. Would you not call that person de facto stateless, since their only option is to stay in the international terminal of the airport they're in, or be treated unfairly by their home country?
Says the Guardian[0]: "Tany Lokshina has confirmed that the US embassy called her before the meeting to ask her to pass on to Snowden the message that he was not a whistleblower."
So forget about Wikileaks. It's either Human Rights Watch's Tany Lokshina lying, or the US Ambassador.
These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless.
Are people really not bothered at the irony in this sentence? Russia, as a country that stands against abuse of the powerless by the powerful?
If the posthumous prosecution of Sergei L. Magnitsky, the lawyer who was jailed as he tried to expose a huge government tax fraud and died four years ago in a Russian prison after being denied proper medical care, seemed surreal from the moment the authorities announced it, the verdict and sentencing on Thursday did not disappoint.
By all accounts, it was Russia’s first trial of a dead man, and in the tiny third-floor courtroom of the Tverskoi District Court, it took the judge, Igor B. Alisov, more than an hour and a half to read his decision pronouncing Mr. Magnitsky guilty of tax evasion.
It doesn't matter if it is hypocritical of an American like me to point this out, when it goes on in my country/government as well - but I find it willfully ignorant to label the Russian government as a defender of human rights like this.
I agree. I am personally very supportive of what Snowden has done and I want him to remain free (the torture that has been inflicted on Bradley Manning is totally unconscionable). But at the same time, I do recognize that there is always danger in playing realpolitik ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend", in this case), at any level.
> Are people really not bothered at the irony in this sentence? Russia, as a country that stands against abuse of the powerless by the powerful?
I'm more bothered by your sentence. Russia and China are undoubtedly worse offenders than the US when it comes to human rights (well, at least historically, in this day and age the US seems to be racing to catch up). However, this alone is never a valid reason to discount their criticisms of US actions.
I know you're referring to Snowden's inclusion of Russia on that list, but in this case, they (and maybe China) are the only ones who can stand up against America. Clearly Ecuador fell with a single phone call.
I don't think it's hypocritical for you to point this out, but it simply should not detract from the rest of his statement. Russia has not handed him over---the least he can do is not bite the hand shielding him. I, for one, am glad that people aren't bothered by it.
I see a large difference in not biting the hand that feeds you and labeling that country as "stand[ing] against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless".
It turns his crusade from one which is anti-pervasive-surveillance to anti-US-government.
His crusade from the beginning has been anti-surveillance in the US. Nobody doubts that Russia and China are doing the same---it's simply what's expected (unfortunately). From the beginning, his stated goal was simply to end this practice in America.
As for his first statement, I simply don't read too much into it. My only take-away was "thanks for not turning me over". He's an expert on how the NSA is conducting surveillance---not on which countries are authorities on human rights.
> From the beginning, his stated goal was simply to end this
practice in America.
I don't think this was true, otherwise I would feel unconditional support for him. He has released leaks about US spying on external targets and aims to flee to countries which have very poor relationships with the US. This muddies the waters considerably. Personally I think it weakens his message, and this disappoints me.
> He has released leaks about US spying on external targets and aims to flee to countries which have very poor relationships with the US
I see what you mean, but I guess this is a personal opinion. I personally think it has had a positive net effect. Specifically, prior to this, hawks in the US were beating war drums after the news about Chinese cyberattacks. I feel they've gone silent lately.
America has also always sat on the morality high-horse. I love this country, but it's still always fun to see the big guy get taken down a peg.
I would rather he come home so that he can undergo the normal civilian legal process he claims to want involved in the law enforcement activities the U.S. government seeks to undertake.
I don't want that. I want him to continue leaking this information. From all accounts, this is the tip of the iceberg we've heard so far. Snowden might have no intention of telling us about the extent of everything, but I at least want to hear everything unfold. The US court systems are not a place to get justice and enlighten the public. They're a place to pay huge legal fees to hopefully not end up dead or in a cell, especially in a case such as Sowdens'. One of his main goals for leaking all this is that the public had no idea of our laws because they were created in secret courts. He's supposed to now trust lady justice to reveal the truth?
> I want him to continue leaking this information.
Hasn't he repeatedly said that it's already all leaked? His friends on the outside would be able to hold the threat of that against the U.S. government, especially if he were mistreated in prison.
> One of his main goals for leaking all this is that the public had no idea of our laws because they were created in secret courts.
The public may have no idea of the laws, but it's not because they come from secret courts. The law itself has given the executive the power being used here. Metadata collection itself is legal (for decades), and so is collection of foreign surveillance (again, for decades).
The only difference now is that the extra controls added to the modern equivalents of ECHELON, Carnivore, etc. have convinced the FISC that they comply with the public law where previous versions did not, but the FISC did not create any law by themselves.
I think you far overestimate the give-a-shit of the public at large to things like this. The public is accustomed from years of wiretaps, pen registers, cell phone tower searches, TV shows, subpoenas, and the fact that the NSA and CIA have existed for and been doing stuff like this for decades into assuming that there is some way for government investigators to get their hands on exactly this kind of data.
Just look at the arraignment for Aaron Hernandez. Why should people be shocked that the government can get your Facebook likes given what they were able to find about the murder of Lloyd within only a week.
At this point Snowden is only hurting his cause by making the story about himself and not about how the government has surveillance ability that is different in scale, if not actually in kind. The longer he drifts in with organizations that the public you're referring to feel are threats and enemies, the less likely it is that the same public will trust the message he's trying to convey.
Do you want him to do that before he has completed leaking all the information the American electorate needs to be an informed body politic, or after he has completed the leaks and provided American citizens all of the information he believes they need to know before he is potentially forever silenced?
He said it's already all leaked. After all, that's what Greenwald mentioned after Putin mentioned the requirement that Snowden knock it off when the topic of Russian asylum was first broached. The delay now is up to news outlets to maximize the news value, not Snowden himself.
Only two countries directly: Germany, which clearly has a superior human rights record than the U.S, and Brazil, which can certainly be argued to have a better record.
Edit: Perhaps "Ranking", or current policy is a better phrase than "Record", but in any case, the Nazis were a very long time ago, there aren't even that many WWII veterans alive anymore, much-less in power.
"Germany, which clearly has a superior human rights record than the U.S"
I think I just pissed my pants. Pardon my rudeness, but West Germany was forced to improve their human rights record by imposition from the Allied countries. East Germany continued to have a crap HR record.
Only in the recent record does Germany have a solid HR stance.
Getting older often involves forgetting to update the age at which people would not have experienced things directly. Of course, it makes sense when those people are 15-18, but...jeez.
His crusade from the beginning has been anti-surveillance
in the US.
Yup. What a lot of people in the US Government forget is that a lot of other countries look to us for guidance for what is and is not acceptable. Now every country in the world that was previously criticized for building a surveillance state can now point at the US and say "Why does it matter what I'm doing, they are already doing it and doing so on a much greater scale". Is that really the legacy this country wants to have?
In this case they /are/ standing against this particular human rights violation.
Part of the whole point is that known human rights violators and authoritarian governments are acting better than the US on this, the supposed bastion of freedom and democracy in the world.
He specifically refer to his single case, not the whole history of human rights of those nations.
"It has threatened with sanctions countries who would stand up for my human rights and the UN asylum system. It has even taken the unprecedented step of ordering military allies to ground a Latin American president’s plane in search for a political refugee. These dangerous escalations represent a threat not just to the dignity of Latin America, but to the basic rights shared by every person, every nation, to live free from persecution, and to seek and enjoy asylum.
Yet even in the face of this historically disproportionate aggression, countries around the world have offered support and asylum. These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless."
It turns his crusade from one which is
anti-pervasive-surveillance to anti-US-government.
... but pro US-Constitution and pro-human-rights.
Unfortunately, the US has not been through enough governments for most citizens to discern the government and a nation of people. In countries, where the regime in charge has changed several times, the citizens are far more keenly aware that a government only represents the interests of the people, when the interests of the people are also the interests of those in power in the government.
You've got to see the irony in taking asylum in a country where the kinds of spying he blew the whistle on in the first place are brazenly displayed on public television:
I totally agree that it is ironic. I just don't think it should detract from his main point, and personally, I'm bothered by how many people are trying to shift the focus to that. In the beginning, Snowden stated he didn't want the news to be focused on him (see how that's turned out) but instead focus on the NSA. I'm sure he wants it to be focused on Russia's human rights abuses even less (there's plenty of coverage on that independent of him).
> In the beginning, Snowden stated he didn't want the news to be focused on him (see how that's turned out) but instead focus on the NSA.
People keep talking about what Snowden said, but why do they not look at what he did?
If he really wanted to be out of the news it would be easy. Just ask Thomas Drake.
Instead he's turned himself into a longtailed human interest story, despite his protestations to the contrary. If he's smart enough to act as a network structural hacker then surely he's smart enough to recall what types of stories drive the most media coverage in the U.S.
His job in this was to get the evidence out there, let civil rights groups use it to carry on the fight, and to get himself back out of the media spotlight. Instead he's and WikiLeaks are sucking up all the oxygen from the EFF and ACLU.
You're not only making a claim that he might be tortured but that any interaction that he would have with the US criminal justice system would inevitably result in torture. That's just ridiculous. Yes, in the decade after 9/11 a number of people were subjected to interrogation techniques that many people (including myself) would consider torture. However, this happened under a legal theory that would not apply in Snowden's case (it is impossible to consider him an enemy combatant) and is no longer in use. There is no reason to believe that someone who goes through the Federal civilian criminal justice system will be inevitably subject to torture.
His first stop in the US justice system would almost certainly be solitary confinement, which is widely held to be a form of torture. I suppose he might not be thrown into solitary; he might be kept with other prisoners who have been told that he is a CIA assassin sent to kill them:
I think most people don't think it's torture simply because they don't really know what it's like, haven't experienced it, can't readily imagine why it would be painful, etc.
Considering that the First Congress authorized the death penalty for crimes like counterfeiting, and punishments like the pillory were still in use in the U.S. until well into the 1800's, no, I don't think the founders would have understood solitary confinement to be "cruel and unusual." The rack, drawing and quartering, flaying, etc, that's what the 8th amendment refers to.
I seem to recall you making a surprisingly originalist comment about the US Constitution before, as well. Do you really think the meaning of "cruel and unusual" doesn't evolve as we learn more over centuries? All kinds of things now regarded as indisputably abusive were taken for granted in the past (child abuse, to name one—or flogging for that matter). Solitary confinement seems like just this sort of thing, although one that is still somewhat early on the curve.
Even if you're one of those "living Constitution" people, at the very least terms like "cruel and unusual" must be defined relative to the broadly accepted social mores of the time. And treating solitary confinement as torture isn't just early on the curve, its something only a tiny minority of hyperliberals would consider to be true. I don't think the Constitution should be at the leading edge of social thought. It should lag behind until ideas are so clearly accepted as to be "obvious." Otherwise, it becomes a tool for peddling minority social viewpoints, which undermines its legitimacy in other regards. We're already feeling the effects of that today.
That all seems reasonable, though "living Constitution" sounds a bit silly to my ear—if that's used by advocates they should find a better name. On the other hand, the originalist thing seems flat-out dumb if it tries to deny that interpretations of past texts are always filtered through the present. One might as well exhume the authors and look for clues in their remains.
But never mind that—I'm more curious about this:
Otherwise, it becomes a tool for peddling minority social viewpoints, which undermines its legitimacy in other regards. We're already feeling the effects of that today.
> On the other hand, the originalist thing seems flat-out dumb if it tries to deny that interpretations of past texts are always filtered through the present.
There is nothing all that silly about it. It simply interprets the Constitution in the way you would a contract--based on what the parties intended the document to mean at the time of the agreement.
> What minority social viewpoints and what effects?
The death penalty would be a good example. Right now, support for the death penalty is around 60% among the American public. If a Supreme Court came along and found that "the living Constitution" meant that the death penalty was unconstitutional, despite the death penalty being common at the time of the founding and also supported by a majority of the public, that would undermine peoples' faith in the Constitution and the Supreme Court as an actual common agreed-upon framework as opposed to just another political tool.
Sometimes the Supreme Court has to spend that political capital, to bootstrap social change, but even when the decision is "right" in retrospect, it has an injurious effect on the institution itself. E.g. it becomes a lot easier for conservatives to dismiss the Supreme Court's opinion on something like giving Guantanamo prisoners habeas corpus rights when they can point to something like Roe v. Wade as evidence of the Court's political nature. It isn't just conservatives, of course. The Court lost enormous credibility among liberals in the 1920's and 1930's when it found all sorts of "economic rights" in the due process clause to strike down FDR's popular policies.
At this moment in history, faith in the Constitution and the Supreme Court is at historical lows on both sides, as a result of decades of liberal Courts using the bench as an instrument for social change on issues where there was no clear-cut consensus. Now, I happen to agree with those specific social issues, but that doesn't change the fact that this change came at high cost to the Court itself.
Originalism has a major advantage, and it is that when the Court isn't constantly finding new things in the Constitution, it can speak with far more authority on issues that were part of the original intent of the founders.
> There is nothing all that silly about it. It simply interprets the Constitution in the way you would a contract--based on what the parties intended the document to mean at the time of the agreement.
For contracts relating to small situations that would make sense, but for a piece of writing that is meant to apply to a whole country written by a few old men centuries ago is that really the most prudent choice?
We know so much more than they did -- e.g. science now tells us that we can actually quantify pain (both physical and emotional) with remarkable accuracy [1]. With the understanding and new knowledge that has become available in recent time it's likely that the founders would have had a totally different take on things, so I see slow and small nitpicky rectifications on minor points to be misguided in numerous respects since for all one knows founders' approach to several issues would have been altogether different if they had access to the abundant new findings and data that has only become available recently.
I'll give you an example: before I started getting into John Rawls writings, some contemporary philosophy (a lot of Sam Harris stuff), some writings on determinism, I was a libertarian. It was my access to new knowledge that informed my world view with a new and more scientifically rigorous take on things.
I had a longer reply, but somehow I don't think you're listening if the New Yorker is hyperliberal. Obviously solitary is not unusual, the questions are whether it's cruel, and whether it prevents recidivism and enables employment upon release.
> somehow I don't think you're listening if the New Yorker is hyperliberal.
I didn't say the New Yorker is hyperliberal. I said that the idea that solitary confinement is torture is hyperliberal (literally, "more liberal" than the liberal mainstream viewpoint).
> and whether it prevents recidivism and enables employment upon release.
That's absolutely irrelevant to Constitutionality. Something can be a stupid, ineffective, policy and yet be Constitutional.
> I didn't say the New Yorker is hyperliberal. I said that the idea that solitary confinement is torture is hyperliberal
Your exact words were, "only a tiny minority of hyperliberals would consider to be true". Since I had linked to the New Yorker which explores the issue in depth and gives significant credence to the idea, your aspersion quite apparently included the New Yorker. To say that it didn't is either revisionist, or you weren't clear with what you originally wrote. The New Yorker is a mainstream liberal publication.
> That's absolutely irrelevant to Constitutionality.
Agreed, but you also ignored the question about cruelty. I brought up those other points to make it clear that I'm not hyperliberal, not even necessarily liberal. I think it's good for our economy if ex-cons are able to work.
I believe the New Yorker and J. Law & Policy articles make a strong case for cruelty.
Hell, even I would agree that prolonged solitary confinement probably counts as torture. That is the kind of thing that really should be reserved for those who simply cannot safely be around anyone.
However, if it were possible to do this without the subsequent mental trauma that would follow then that might be a different story. E.g. virtual social interaction (with other prisoners/guards) might be feasible, we certainly seem to get a lot of people who wall themselves away from others IRL so that they can play their online video games.
But even with that I don't see how that would be a more resource-efficient way to handle the task of rehabilitation where possible and humane segregation from society for the rest.
I think we have to figure that at some point almost any 'stick' in a carrot/stick system can, with overuse, become more dangerous to mental health than useful as a behavior modifier.
That said, solitary confinement over long periods of time is definitely torture. There's a stronger psychological component to this form of torture, and it often causes irreparable psychological damage as has been the case for several individuals who were subject to solitary confinement.
Why are you talking about Guantanamo, but linking to a picture from Abu Ghraib, while linking to a post where I clearly point out that when I talk about Guantanamo, I'm not talking about Abu Ghraib?
The effect is to deteriorate the mind. If people end up having panic attacks afterwards clearly it has caused them damage.
Whether it's widely held by the masses to be torture is of no importance because they have just as little knowledge as yourself.
Educate yourself in what psychiatrists, the United Nations, and Human Rights groups have been saying for a long time before stepping forth onto your soap box to call this "absurd."
>this happened under a legal theory that would not apply in Snowden's case
how can he be sure that there isn't other legal theory secretly approved by secret court that would allow to subject him to simulated death (or something even more devilish) without leaving any evidence on his body? After all Snowden had security clearance, had friends in these agencies, heard stories, so he do knows better what is waiting for him...
>(it is impossible to consider him an enemy combatant)
why? isn't it is just an at-will designation by the executive branch without any roots in domestic or international law? And even if not enemy combatant, "enemy of the US" or "enemy of freedom" would work fine as well and would qualify him for "enhanced interrogation techniques 2.0 freedom deluxe edition" (nice movie "Dictator" btw)
i don't say that these words didn't exist before. If you read the link you submitted, the first 2 paragraphs clearly state that "enemy combatant" notion used in the US after 9/11 is different from typical meaning of enemy combatant that existed before.
The "enemy combatant" as it is used in the US means people in the US custody who is outside of the US jurisdiction and have at the will of the executive branch been denied Geneva convention (which covers _everybody_, not just uniformed combatants - everybody else is also entitled to protected POW status until put into domestic justice system of the country possessing the custody)
Such "enemy combatant" notion don't have basis in the US law as well as in international law.
"...an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
Likewise, from the very same two paragraphs you reference you would find that the Bush-definition of enemy combatant describes an "unlawful combatant" who has no right to POW status under Geneva or the LOAC.
That doesn't mean that such civilian combatants have no rights whatsoever, but they are far limited compared to what Geneva provides for uniformed forces, and there is indeed precedent in international (and U.S.) law. For instance, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld was argued to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, which ruled (among other things) "... repudiating the U.S. government's unilateral assertion of executive authority to suspend the constitutional protections of individual liberty of a U.S. citizen. The Court recognized the power of the government to detain unlawful combatants, but ruled that detainees must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge.". Congress tried to clarify in 2006 with the "Military Commissions Act of 2006" which does indeed contain a definition of an unlawful enemy combatant (one not reliant solely on the will of the executive). Likewise, several Supreme Court rulings have further eroded the position taken by Bush regarding the legal rights afforded to unlawful combatants held in Gitmo and other places.
And going back to the subject here (of whether the executive can unilaterally declare Snowden to be an 'enemy combatant' and send him to Gitmo): "On 18 December 2003, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the Bush Administration lacked the authority to detain a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil as an "illegal enemy combatant" without clear congressional authorization (per 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)); it consequently ordered the government to release Padilla from military custody within thirty days." (Padilla was a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil).
But, that case ended up being thrown out on a technicality. When it was re-argued in the right court, they "ordered the Bush administration to either charge Padilla or release him.". They relied for that ruling on the Supreme Court ruling I'd just mentioned.
So no, Snowden should be perfectly safe from treatment as any kind of weird unlawful combatant should he return. In fact the term 'enemy combatant' was dropped in 2009 coincident to a certain regime change in the U.S.
>Likewise, from the very same two paragraphs you reference you would find that the Bush-definition of enemy combatant describes an "unlawful combatant" who has no right to POW status under Geneva or the LOAC.
no. Under Geneva, "unlawful combatants", like everybody else, are to be treated like protected POW until transferred to criminal or military justice system (lawful combatants are protected from such transfer). The "enemy combatant" status in the US is "unlawful combatant to whom both are intentionally and systematically denied - transfer to criminal or military justice system as well as POW status". That isn't "unlawful combatant" of Geneva, it is a violation of Geneva.
>they "ordered the Bush administration to either charge Padilla or release him.".
exactly.
> In fact the term 'enemy combatant' was dropped in 2009 coincident to a certain regime change in the U.S.
words change. People are still being held in Gitmo in violation of Geneva.
> how can he be sure that there isn't other legal theory secretly approved by secret court that would allow to subject him to simulated death (or something even more devilish) without leaving any evidence on his body?
Because there is no such "secret court?" As a civilian Snowden cannot be tried in a military tribunal, and the only "secret court" that exists is FISC which is only empowered to grant warrants.
As a practical matter, people a lot more disliked by the state than Edward Snowden get tried in regular U.S. District Courts.
woowwwwowoww... now the wording is very critical, the real deal is other way around - they have used torture techniques that (too) many people would consider interrogation.
And even with that in mind, there's no actual right of the government to 'torture' military servicemembers accused of crimes either.
For that reason once the trial judge determined that Manning should not have been held under Prevention of Injury Status after the psychiatrist deemed that he was not actually a suicide risk, she ended up reducing whatever his eventual sentence happens to be due to the fault of the military in that case.
Mind, he's still kind of stupid for 'joking' about killing himself with his soldier/Marine guards (who are not trained psychiatrists and are therefore trained to take no chances).
But even Manning being in the military wouldn't completely excuse his treatment in his first stages of pre-trial confinement.
It's not the same thing. Venezuela underwent serious internal conflict, and has to constantly fight US sponsored propaganda and activism. As disrespectful as it seems, the state of Venezuela has a perfectly good reason to spy on international phone conversation between two people who would like to overthrow the regime, and who US cheers on to do so, hoping gain more influence. It doesn't mean that the state of Venezuela spies on all of its citizens.
I upvoted you, but understand that people are thinking with their gut (Stephen Colbert "Truthiness"-style) on this issue. We as a community seem to be embracing "no surveillance ever" over "spy on our enemies". I'm not sure I can disagree with it, but it's definitely not for the most noble/informed reasons.
> You've got to see the irony in taking asylum in a country where the kinds of spying he blew the whistle on in the first place are brazenly displayed on public television
Screw irony. It seems people stop thinking when they find irony in a situation.
Does Snowden have better options? No. So he has no choice but accepting asylum in a non-free country, no matter how ironic it might result.
People want to weigh the argument by weighing the person. I believe we call this 'ad hominem'.
The guy did something that had massive fallout and would really like to be able to live at least some form of a life. Sure, the countries offering asylum have pretty crappy human rights records and actually contribute a large number of asylum applicants to the USA. However, working in Venezuela or Bolivia, even if nowhere near the standard of living to which he may have become accustomed in Hawai'i, is better than sitting in a cell for years without trial and demonized and forgotten by the state.
I see a massive difference between leaking capabilities and personalities. The former lets us evaluate policies against the rule of law. The second can be treasonous or harmful on an individual level.
He didn't help Iran build The Bomb. He didn't even give anyone the ability to replicate the NSA's capabilities or detect interception of data in transit or at rest. He merely confirmed what many suspected and revealed what few knew (or cared about).
I never said that it does. I was responding to this line in the parent comment:
"I know you're referring to Snowden's inclusion of Russia on that list, but in this case, they (and maybe China) are the only ones who can stand up against America. Clearly Ecuador fell with a single phone call."
> However, this alone is never a valid reason to discount their criticisms of US actions.
No, but it's a valid reason to discount Snowden's positive characterization of those criticisms. It can be the case that both things are true: 1) Russia is correct in criticizing American action, regardless of its own actions; 2) Snowden is wrong to chalk it up to Russia's "standing up against the abuse of the powerless" instead of political grandstanding and deflection.
I think he's 'siding' with anyone that will let him rent an apartment and live like a human being. I'm sure he'd prefer France, but they need to offer and he needs to get out of Russia.
Since he has taken the US to task, it looks like anywhere in the 'liberal West' will probably just lob him back to the US to face whatever the authorities can cook up for him. His point isn't any less valid because he wants to avoid that.
Is there a country in the liberal West that has offered him asylum? If not, how are they "the least of evils", since they will hand him over to the U.S. to be tortured?
The liberal West where laws are enforced by teams of soldiers that conduct armed invasions of civilian homes, threatening bystander's lives, killing their pets, destroying property, and never being held accountable for any of it? The US may be better than Russia when it comes to human rights, but that is not really a strong statement.
Snowden has sided with the West. If the government were never embarrassed by its bad behavior, we would keep losing our rights until eventually there was nothing left but tyranny hiding behind a constitutional facade. It would not help anyone for Snowden to return to the USA at this point. He will never have access to classified information again, and in all likelihood he would find himself in solitary confinement until the end of his life.
You're implying US is a better country when it comes to human rights, but I don't see US defending his human rights. In fact, it's breaking many international laws trying to get him.
Also, I have to wonder what would've happened if there was any other weaker Russian president in place. I never liked Putin, but seeing how so many "democratic" countries were so quick to follow US' commands, and break international laws for US, just sickened me.
There's a difference between a partner and an ally, and a master. You can still stand up to your allies or partners at any time, if you disagree with their actions.
I don't think anyone ever coded gunboat diplomacy into law.
(You seem obsessed with laws, as if they possess value and worth in and of themselves, when really they are a very high latency sidechannel of society and power)
It's political opportunism in this case, there was neither an upside nor a downside to capitulating with US demands, but Putin could at least make the US look like inept hypocrites. Of all the human rights abuses that occur in Russia how can you think that Putin decided this was one that needed to be held to a higher standard?
As a Russian, this statement really rustled my jimmies. I hope US catches Snowden, and he rots in prison for the rest of his life. Though he still would be better off than Magnitsky.
Are you serious? You think it would set a good precedent that the guy who blew the whistle on the world wide spying going on ends up rotting in jail? That helps us how exactly?
As a Russian you would understand that the price Russians would charge for not handing Snowden's ass to Americans would be high. "Either praise our human rights or go for a fair trial without prolonged pre-trial unusual and cruel punishment" - an offer one can hardly refuse.
As a Russian, I'm proud of good things my government does (including Snowden's case) and ashamed of bad things it does (those things are offtopic in this discussion though).
It sounds like they're getting to him already. He's the next Philip Agee and the US government couldn't be happier about that. You say you're against warrantless domestic spying? You must be a commie traitor!
The only way Snowden can win now is to come home and let himself become a martyr.
"The only way Snowden can win now is to come home and let himself become a martyr."
Even then, I'm not sure he "wins". People have a very, very short attention span. He'd be forgotten before the sentencing was handed down, most likely. From a legal point of view, the case is pretty simple: did you release documents you swore not to release? Yes? Penalty is X years in prison. I don't see much martyrdom there. He won't be killed, he won't be tortured (he may be in solitary, which may be for his own safety more than anything else, whether he's a suicide risk or at risk of being murdered in prison -- just my opinion), so there isn't much to be get all that enraged about (beyond what he's already leaked).
The time would probably be taken to put together some evidence, figure out exactly what was leaked, and how. I'm sure there are many, many things he'd get charged with, so there's a lot of research to get done, and since it's sensitive information, there needs to be a lot of care taken to figure out what was accessed and just as importantly what wasn't accessed.
By then, Kim Kardashian will be working on a divorce or another baby ("South", anyone?), Aaron Hernandez will be up for appeal or something and the public won't will care much about this.
"Solitary confinement is considered to be a form of psychological torture when the period of confinement is longer than a few weeks or is continued indefinitely. Negative psychological effects have been documented, leading one judge in a 2001 suit to rule that 'Solitary confinement units are virtual incubators of psychoses—seeding illness in otherwise healthy inmates and exacerbating illness in those already suffering from mental infirmities.'"
Prisoners commit suicide all the time; the wardens keep stats so they can brag about how hideous they are. That's been true everywhere, forever. The innovation we've seen in the USA with solitary confinement, which is intended to break those who effectively oppose prison management when placed in the general population, is that the tax-paying public is actually dumb enough to believe it's about preventing suicides. If one really cared to prevent the myriad of societal pathologies that stem from our shameful prison system, the best way to do that would be to release those whose imprisonment causes those problems.
There's no evidence that solitary confinement is being actually used to prevent suicide/harm in these political cases, and a great deal of evidence that it is simply punitive. For Manning, the prison psychiatrist repeatedly stated he was at no risk of suicide and tried, unsuccessfully, to have him taken off the naked sleep deprivation routine that he was on.
"Americans have a short attention span, care more about Kim Kardashian's baby than their liberty" Isn't going to be an effective argument with patriotic Americans.
Chemical lobotomy is always an option, somewhere in jail something happens - no one would know for sure. He wouldn't speak against the corrupt and perverted establishment and he wouldn't die.
I think it is better option to be pain in the ass and be always there like a sore spot distracting the government.
Playing the martyr card hasn't worked for Manning. The US general public still doesn't care. Snowden would be sacrificing himself for literally nothing. The best thing he can do is keep all this in the news as long as possible.
Yeah this is how one actually participates in the public discourse, when one's opponents operate from cozy sinecures of secrecy and corruption. It's different than what we "learned" in junior high civics class, which assumed that "good people" exist, and that they naturally rise to positions of authority in a secret bureaucracy.
Manning was not a good candidate for martyrdom anyways. His case had obvious ulterior motives, he didn't turn himself in (but did brag about it), made the barest of attempts to go to the media, leaked way, way more than was necessary, what he did leak wasn't even as bad as things like Abu Ghraib or the Mahmudiyah rape/killings in Iraq (which came out via normal whistleblower channels, btw), leaked things in a way to put Afghani informants and sympathizers at bodily risk, I could probably go on.
I mean, there's a reason Snowden sought to differentiate his methods from Manning's, even if he had the same overall goal.
Why would anyone be bothered? I believe this whole ordeal has shown no western country takes human rights seriously. We've known for a good while about Guantanamo, shady extraditions (from US allies), Israel's complete disregard for basic human rights on the West Bank... This isn't just western countries though, no country whatsoever seems to care about human rights unless it gives them a political edge.
What Russia is doing with their anti-gay laws for example, is similar to what western countries have done to privacy, all in the name of an abstract idea like terrorism/protect the children/drugs.
Just because Snowden is against human rights violations it does not make him exempt of having to dance with the devil. Being a complete rebel, even in a world where it's obviously ruled by fake morals, is not a wise thing to do, specially when your life is at stake.
I believe this whole ordeal has shown no western country takes human rights seriously.
Spot on. Given this situation, as some of the still relatively empowered, IMHO we in the technology community therefore have a moral obligation to do what we can to support any potential remedies to the situation.
Funny: when I read the article, it struck me that a person seeking asylum elsewhere for revealing secret spying by his country, then being hunted by his country as a criminal sounds like something you would hear from some totalitarian country (yes, even Russia), but not America.
I guess I am more concerned about what's happening to our country now than with litigating the human rights history of tangentially involved nations.
I am more bothered no European country stood up to offer him asylum. Granted its laughable to think the US would be safe haven for someone from the EU, but it needs to start somewhere.
As I posted before, dreamers of one world government only need to see what is happening to here to understand the folly of that ideal.
No single European country can risk starting a conflict with the US and the European Union as a whole is not yet homogeneous enough to take this kind of decisions. Delaying the trade agreement was pretty much the extent of what it can do right now.
Situational democracy. Democracy that is more democratic for select few and rest have to suffer injustices and rights transgressions of quasi-orwellian - in Russia and US. Somewhat like equality of proletariat - where some are more equal than others.
Now hopefully Russia will do the right thing and at least let him leave the damn airport. There are a number of routes from Russia to Venezuela that don't cross over Western European or US airspace -- can't VZ just send a private plane with a military escort over there and bring him back?
It's not Russia that doesn't let him leave the airport, it's the US by revoking his passport in a clear violation of human rights.
No country on the planet can just let him pass the border without violating it's own laws. This is exactly why revoking his passport is such a disgusting move that violates all common decency.
If there was ever one specific moment in history in which the US changed from a flawed democracy to a totalitarian state, it's the moment they took Snowden's passport.
But why not violate its own laws? Countries make and break their own laws all the time? Cops drive through red lights by flicking on their lights for a minute, surely a country can wave him onto a plane without checking his papers.
Snowden doesn't need a passport to leave Russia or enter Venezuela if he claims refugee status and requests asylum. The 1951 Refugee Convention allows a person seeking refuge to travel without a passport due to the possibility that the asylum seeker could be persecuted if identified by a document they're carrying. E.g. If your name is John Smith and your country is killing everyone named John Smith, you may not want to carry your passport with you.
That doesn't really answer the question. There has to be some incentive to justify the expense. Politically Venezuela has a lot to gain by offering asylum and almost nothing to gain (and plenty to lose) by actually giving Snowden asylum.
That's not to say I think they are being insincere. However there is no reason for them to go out of their way to get Snowden into their country.
That was my first thought too, but let's not kid ourselves as to Russia's motives. The longer Snowden is stranded, the worse USG looks and the more Russia gets to tease out and align the countries that aren't entirely in the pocket of USG.
The US Govt illegal activity couldn't have been exposed by a nicer guy. He's self-less and motivated by altruistic goals that serves everyone's interest but the US Govt's (and other Govt's they can influence).
It certainly helps our cause that he's both intelligent and articulate.
The fact that the US Govt can continue operating at full will irrespective of legal and constitutional boundaries shows just how much power and influence they already have.
It is now the government that is terrorizing the populace by displaying such a common disregard for laws it is enforcing. That is an act of an illegitimate government that uses illegal and immoral tactics to control general populace.
The Human Rights Watch representative...had received a call from the US Ambassador to Russia, who asked her to relay to Mr Snowden that the US Government does not categorise Mr Snowden as a whistleblower and that he has broken United States law.
That's just...hilarious, and absurd. What purpose does that call serve; what goal is it working toward? Is it some sort of legal requirement? Can we just do without the inane posturing, for once?
Edit: apparently there is some dispute as to whether this conversation actually took place.
Look, I understand that government spying through technology is an issue that belongs here. Every time Snowden eats a sandwich is not. There are a million places you can discuss this that are not here. Can we please stick to technology and hacking?
Hmm, what he said about the grounded plane made me wonder: What if he (or a supporter) falsely tipped off US authorities that he was on that plane to see whether he could travel to South America securely, or if the US would somehow intercept the plane?
More likely a commercial concern. The airline would incur a tremendous cost if its flight were grounded by US authorities and its customers are probably expressing worry about that possibility. They changed their route to assuage these fears.
Is there any question whether the USA military would have stopped the plane if they had really believed Snowden was on it? Why would they care more about international law than the Fourth Amendment?
In semi-related news that I can't post because I get the hacker news "please slow down" warning -- hacker takes over website of VZ daily El Nacional and warns govt not to give asylum to Snowden or face leaks of corruption/bribery/etc
Yeah, whatever one thought of this prankster before, he's certainly jumped the shark now. Does he think this action is somehow different from anything the "Anonymous" he reviles has ever done? Whatever happened to a letter to the editor?
In all seriousness, is there even a single HN commenter who doesn't support/worship this guy? Is the diversity of thought that nonexistent on this subject? I'm just sorta curious and ask the question sincerely.
I don't support him. I think it's wildly hypocritical of him to run to China and Russia because he's so opposed to government spying. I also think that the NSA spying is less troubling that the other numerous abuses of the Obama administration, including using the IRS to repress political speech.
Phew - I agree. Just making sure I'm not completely insane here, and frankly the hero worship of him is really starting to creep me out. I worry that too many people blindly see this as getting back at THE MAN without giving enough consideration to many other aspects of the ordeal.
I think his actions while on the run are just pathetic. He's such a weasel, like a guy who sucker punches someone on the street then takes off. The to align himself with these other countries who in the grand scheme of things are far worse actors than the US takes some serious balls. I still get the sense that 90% of the reason he decided to pull this off was for selfish reasons, that he wanted the notoriety.
EDIT - I suspect numerous downvotes will confirm the consensus
It IS getting back at the MAN, as well as the man's partners(including all the big corporations). He lets them/the man lie, and then exposes them/him.(I'm not saying corporations LOVE to cooperate with the government. It is however unacceptable to give them direct backdoors(see microsoft case).)
I don't think the weasel simile is appropriate in this case. I don't think aligning himself with countries of questionable loyalty to his ideals is an inherently bad thing either - 1)It creates a sort of dichotomy, and increases the contrast between what the US portrays itself to be, and what it actually is(due to it using the same exact methods commie governments use) 2) Those are the only ones that will give him asylum, as the US is, after all, a G6 country. 3) It buys him more time(see 2.) to make decisions.
But you have to look at the other side of this issue - not for a second has the U.S. played this game without dirty tricks.
I didn't downvote you, however, I do think you watch US based media too much, judging from the rather overly simple argument. If not, then my apologies.
How are those countries "far worse actors" except for you not living in one of them and therefore having a significant bias? Did any of these countries invade a country as big as Iraq based on plain manipulations? Can any country come even near in the number of dictators it supported?
Just as a minuscule example of US foreign policies, have you ever heard about this:
"Now in his second term, President Obama insists that his counterterrorism policies differ markedly from Bush's. However, there are far more similarities than differences with regards to: non-battlefield targeted killings (an estimated 50 under Bush, and 387 under Obama); indefinite detention of suspected terrorists (approved by both through executive orders); broad surveillance authorities (as former NSA and CIA director Michael Hayden admitted on Sunday, 'NSA is actually empowered to do more things than I was empowered to do under President Bush's special authorization')"
If you think the IRS issue and the NSA are mutually exclusive then you aren't paying close enough attention. They are just different tools in the same workshop.
As for the 'hypocrisy' would you feel the same if a Chinese national ran to the US seeking asylum after broadcasting to the world that the Chinese were hacking our hospitals and universities just because they could?
I didn't say they were mutually exclusive, I said one bothered me more than the other. You're right that there is a pattern of abuse of the citizenry coming from this administration, but don't think that abuse is as accepted or as systemic in the USA compared to the Russian or Chinese regimes.
Thus the hypocrisy - China and Russia have brutal, repressive governments that do not have moral equivalency with the USA. That said, I don't think the scenario you pose is analogous. If Snowden flew to China and revealed we were spying on China, that would be regular old treason.
If a Chinese national came to America to reveal to the world how China was spying on its own people (what good would that do as this information would be censored out within China?), he would be going to a less repressive land from where he left. Thus, no hypocrisy.
> If a Chinese national came to America ... he would be going to a less repressive land from where he left. Thus, no hypocrisy.
So, it's wrong to blow the whistle on the least-repressive land in the world without submitting to draconian punishment? Let's say the US disappeared from the world (closed its borders entirely, took off in a giant spaceship, etc)... Does this mean that whistleblowers in Russia must accept punishment for their message to be valid?
>I think it's wildly hypocritical of him to run to China and Russia because he's so opposed to government spying.
What a stupid complaint. He's opposed to his country spying, so he blows the whistle on them. Now what is he to do? Stay and become the next Manning, locked away in torture and forgotten about? He obviously has to go, so where? It has to be somewhere that can stand up to the US which, as we've just seen, isn't very fucking many places. Russia and China are pretty much the only realistic options here.
But no, he shouldn't be practical. He should be more concerned that some dumbass on the internet might call him a fucking hypocrite.
We're on the verge of losing the some very key values the internet provides here. We have to take our heroes as we can get them. Snowden has his flaws, but compared to the beast he's fighting it's clear who's worse.
I'm not worried about this troll, I'm worried about people seeing their post, seeing no one slap it down and assume it's not a dangerous opinion to have.
Someone who hasn't seen any comments opposed to Snowden, hasn't been reading HN. Especially-prolific names like "rayiner" (as well as others) have been all over this one. These questions aren't "dangerous", they're braindead.
The Snowden drama is all that's keeping this relevant. The public tends to be like a sleeping person. If you tell them the house is on fire, the first they will do is try to get rid of you because you are a nuance. If you persist they will give up on trying to be rid of you and try to find out why you won't stop and attack that instead, unless it appears harder to be rid of than you are.
You can't just call everything you disagree with "trolling". This is exactly the lack of diversity of thought OP was asking about. Now we're not even allowed to question the Snowden-worship?
It's probably a mistake to take this one seriously, but here goes. OP claimed to have seen only "Snowden-worship" on HN. That claim is so at odds with reality as to be trolling. I'll admit that most comments approve of Snowden, but the proportion is probably something like 3-2. If you have a genuine criticism of Snowden or HN or any particular comment, let's hear it. But to whine about "diversity of thought", as if we can't actually read all the hundreds of Snowden-critical comments on HN, is pathetic. Please don't be pathetic.
Whomever is speech writing these statements (or editing them) is doing a great job. Not only does Snowden make the US out to be a corrupt and despotic nation, willing to subvert its own laws and principles to shut one person up, it manages to position the US' character below that of countries run by South American dictators and ex-KGB colonels.
It is my sincere hope that this event ends the political careers of a number of US politicians, and engages enough voters to disrupt the status quo.
I'm not aware of any of these South American countries that he mentioned being run by dictators. In fact, as far as I am aware, all South American countries are democracies. There are no "South American dictators".
The perception presented by the US press/propaganda is that these are "paper democracies" [1], in the sense that an election was held but the implication is that the outcome of that election was pre-ordained such that the person "elected" is really just a dictator wearing the mantle of democracy to give their position a bit more legitimacy.
The unintended consequence of that propaganda effort is that many of the same sorts of innuendo can be applied to the US election process, so in a way they make themselves appear less legitimate than they might hope for.
Regardless of the reality of the situation, Snowden (or his speech writers), have incorporated (or perhaps co-opted) this theme to position the US (in the eyes of US residents/citizens) as being the inferior form of government or country relative to countries that they have been told are, or are implied to be, "paper democracies" [1]
I approve of that rhetoric because it has a chance of waking some people out of their "but it protects us from terrorism" slumber to realize that some prices are too high to pay and maybe this has gone too far and its time to change. And its clear that the incumbents are lining up on the side of supporting the NSA (I'm thinking of people like Senator Feinstein here) so they are the people we need to replace. We'll see how effective it is.
And yes, there is the counter argument about "but this is just what the enemies of the US want, us to voluntarily neuter our own intelligence services so that they can get back to doing their evil deeds." which, were this a foreign policy forum, we would be going back and forth on the limits of sovereignty vs the rights of the citizenry.
[1] I came across the term "paper democracies" in a book about the Iran Contra affair as a description of countries with elections whose outcome was rigged.
> The perception presented by the US press/propaganda is that these are "paper democracies" [1], in the sense that an election was held but the implication is that the outcome of that election was pre-ordained
That's nonsense, though. Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Brazil, and Argentina all have powerful, organized opposition parties, which have real differences with the current government and a real chance of winning elections — in a way that the US really doesn't — and also substantial restraints on the power of the executive, in a way that the US, again, no longer does.
Venezuela is the only member of this list that even conceivably approximates a "paper democracy", due to the current lack of limits on executive power, and in their case it's more because the opposition parties are pathetically corrupt than because they're illegal — but those opposition parties still govern several of the states of Venezuela.
You're about 30 years behind the times in your knowledge of Latin America. The "paper democracies" (what a shit term -- the author clearly heard the term "paper tiger" and tried an alteration that makes no sense) term might have been accurate at the time of the Iran Contra Affair, but that was 1986.
Yes. Also anything Russian means totalitarian, oppressed, wrong, bad, Rambo, Vodka, Bears, etc. As a recently naturalized US Citizen I can not begin to describe how much better and dualistically simple everything looks though the RedWhite&Blue glasses.
I see! All security apparatuses exist to serve security interests of their states, except KGB, which is the devils manifestation organization, dedicated purely to bringing suffering to mankind and killing kittens. If you know anyone who has touched KGB, you're probably already dead from polonium poisoning.
Thanks for that link, even though I think your quote is a bit out of context. I read it to say that in 2010 governments were a lot better than the 'bad old days' but still had a ways to go. What was your take on it?
My take from The Economist article, in what corresponds to your first post, is that there are (almost) no latin american countries run by dictators. The article then goes on to describe the political problems of Latin America. You might have confused those political problems with having dictatorships.
Fair enough. For what its worth I personally don't hold much of an opinion one way or the other. As I said in original comment this perception originates in story bias. I love the Economist and they do a pretty good job of putting the facts in there but having read it now three times, two of them critically, I still come away with the impression that they are "damning with faint praise" these governments.
I regularly read reader comments on NYTimes regarding NSA/Snowden affair, and this is the first time that vast majority of highest-rated comments there are negative toward Snowden. Previously, the majority was overwhelmingly pro-Snowden. Very curious.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/13/world/europe/snowden-russi...
Anyone asking him to come back and face trial under the current conditions is either naïve or a fool. However, I think that he should at least put conditions on the table under which he would return to the US to face trial.
The most important condition would be strict adherence to the 8th amendment, which means no possibility of solitary confinement or other cruel and unusual punishment and reasonable bail, so he is afforded the same rights that Daniel Ellsberg was after leaking the Pentagon papers.
The other required condition would be changing the jurisdiction in which charges are brought back to where they should have been filed, which is Hawaii, not Virginia. Cherry-picking a jurisdiction where many of those that will be on the jury may work in the IC community or have close ties to the IC community is not justice. In fact, it is a perversion of it.
Lastly, (and I know this would never happen), but I would love to see a Frost v. Nixon type debate involving Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden, Barack Obama, Gen. Keith Alexander and James Clapper live on national TV unrehearsed.
You're falling into the trap that you're calling out other people for falling into.
> The most important condition would be strict adherence to the 8th amendment
This is supposed to be a condition of USG existing in the first place, so the only thing it could give is more empty promises.
> In fact, it is a perversion of it [justice]
Once again, if USG was bound by anything, it would already not be perverting justice in every other trial.
At this point to Snowden, USG is just an angry beast to be avoided at all costs. More power to him for working to unmask the extent of its colonization of the world while he's still in limbo. But at this point, he can never return to the soft prison with free speech, and has to deal with being in the rest of the world without it. The only thing we can wish for him is to be able to resume a nice life next to a beach somewhere.
I would have a lot more regard for what Snowden is claiming about United States government actions if he would come back here to the United States and stand trial. More and more of what is being said in his statements to the press (which plainly are receiving editing help, at least, from Wikileaks) are not making sense in the overall context of how different countries behave in the community of nations.
When all the smoke is cleared away from Snowden's allegations, and there have been congressional investigations into the data-gathering and surveillance practices of United States government agencies and private companies, most Americans will still be quite supportive of their federal government (in the usual complaining United States way) and tens of millions of people around the world will still desire to settle in the United States.
To date, I am persuaded that United States government programs related to foreign intelligence need more effective oversight--not least because they hire snafus like Snowden. I am also persuaded that most countries with governments subject to the discipline of a free press and free and fair elections largely are willing to cooperate with the United States in the kind of programs the NSA intends to run, because there are genuine threats from terrorist plotters in those countries.
I'd be glad to see NSA programs reviewed by Congress, and possibly curtailed in their operation to ensure their lawfulness. I'd also be glad to see Edward Snowden go on trial according to United States law to weigh his actions against any defenses he may be able to assert at trial. I've lived elsewhere twice for long stays in my adult life, and after talking to people from around the world about this, I'm still glad to be living in the United States at the moment, and still mostly glad that the United States system of rule by law operates as it does.
>I would have a lot more regard for what Snowden is claiming about United States government actions if he would come back here to the United States and stand trial.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 180 times, i guess Snowden feels that even a couple times of such simulated death experience would be too much - look at how Manning looks - like a ghost (and i suppose Manning had it clearly explained to him that if he mentions anything else that was done to him beyond solitary confinement - it will be repeated in double amount)
note: while there is incomparable difference between Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's actions and Snowden's, there isn't much difference from the POV of the ones who have and would be "handling" the former and the latter - between terrorism and high treason, high treason have been punished by the powers to be equally or even more harsher.
But that's not the point at all. Would it be legal for the military to waterboard Bradley Manning? I have no idea. Twenty years ago, the answer would be clearly "no".
Manning has looked like a ghost at the best of times, just look at his Wikipedia article with his 2009 picture in the Hollister shirt and compare to the recent photos of him being escorted to/from the trial going on now at Ft. Meade.
What specific pictures have you seen where he looks injured?
As long as that trial takes place in Hawaii, instead of Virginia and the US respects the 8th amendment (no cruel and unusual punishment or excessive bail), then I agree. Everyone crying for him to stand trial in the US needs to acknowledge that the game is rigged against him as it currently stands.
Bringing these kinds of charges in Virginia is like filing a patent suit in East Texas.
Are you serious? What do you think is the first that that will happen once he comes back to the US? There's no way this guy will get a fair trial. I don't blame him at all for seeking asylum.
granting asylum to Snowden will just influence relations between US and Russia,and is not done to be coherent with previous standings of the country on the topic of human rights,almost always different.Russia and others clearly try to challenge the rest of the world to increase their power in times of crisis, how nice,the sooner world leaders realize that the internet is an early glimpse at the future of society and start researching and doing things together the sooner things will improve,for everyone.
Every individual has the particular interest to live in a healthy society,and not to have his possibilities limited by his country of birth if you ask me.
It's very odd both that the US government would use Human Rights Watch to convey messages (which are essentially threats or warnings) to Mr. Snowden, and that Human Rights Watch would feel the need to agree to convey messages of that nature on behalf of the state apparatus that is targeting Mr. Snowden.
It was also odd when I earlier read that Human Rights Watch was the only agency which received an invitation from Mr. Snowden which felt the need to release the message in advance to the media, including the time and place of the meeting.
To see the problem with these events, consider it in any other situation where a political prisoner who is in hiding, let's say a North Korean, is meeting with representatives from human rights agencies. How would it be perceived if one of those human rights agencies announced the location in advance and took the opportunity to deliver a personal threatening message they had privately received during a personal conversation with Kim Jong-un.
consider it in any other situation where a political prisoner who is in hiding
Mr. Correa has pointed to the case of two brothers, William and Roberto Isaias, who ran a bank at the center of a huge Ecuadorean financial scandal in the 1990s. They were convicted in absentia of financial wrongdoing in an Ecuadorean court. They now live in the United States, but repeated requests for extradition have been unsuccessful.
And Venezuela has demanded the extradition of Luis Posada Carriles, a former C.I.A. operative accused here of masterminding the bombing of a Cuban airliner that killed 73 people in the 1970s. He escaped from a Venezuelan prison in the 1980s and went to live in the United States.
“The first thing you need to do to have the moral standing to ask for the extradition of this youth Snowden, whose only act is to reveal the crimes that you committed, is to turn over Luis Posada Carriles, who you are protecting,” Mr. Maduro said this month.
Wikileaks is using him as a meat puppet and now he is totally fucked, whatever shred of credibility he had is lost by praising Russia for their dedication to human rights. I suppose you can defend their record but you will be fighting uphill.
I would have revised this sentence to say: "I, acting under the authority of the Executive branch of my government, had the capability..."
The Constitution exists for the protection of citizens against the overreaching of their government, not for the protection of citizens against their fellow citizens.
The question is whether it has any teeth left with regard to unreasonble search and seizure performed by the government (or its agents, like Mr. Snowden).
The fact that the US doesn't recognize Snowden as a whistleblower doesn't prove persecution or anything at all. He broke the law. He and others may not like it or agree and they don't have to but its still clear he broke the law. What has Snowden told us that we didn't alreay know since 2006? He gave us classified documents and the names and operations of classified programs. Programs we already knew about but just didn't know the name of or how they worked. Hell, even with what he did give us we still don't actually know how they work. But we sure as hell always knew our calls and Internet activity were being monitored.
I'm not a fan of what the NSA is doing but I don't think Snowden is even remotely close to a hero either. Did you know you can take that position? That there's a difference between ones position on NSA spying and whether Snowden is a whistleblower? I'm of the opinion that Snowden and the NSA are criminals.
I wonder why he can't travel to Latin America. Is it just the issue of not being able to transit through Western Europe or U.S. airports and the lack of direct air connection? Why Mr. Assange does not arrange a private jet flight for him? Moscow to Caracas is under 10K km so it should not be a problem. Even if that's expensive (maybe $200-250K), a few months of living in Sheremetyevo will eat up as much money, or more.
> The Human Rights Watch representative used this opportunity to tell Mr Snowden that on her way to the airport she had received a call from the US Ambassador to Russia, who asked her to relay to Mr Snowden that the US Government does not categorise Mr Snowden as a whistleblower and that he has broken United States law.
Am I the only one who found this whole statement pretty odd?
Let's see. A "whistleblower" is a term for someone who blows a whistle. This is generally meant to indicate someone who is making some kind of loud noise to report a crime; someone (maybe a cop, maybe just someone who is a victim of a crime) trying to get attention that a crime has been committed.
Now, when reporting a crime, do you generally expect the perpetrator of that crime to be the appropriate person to determine whether or not a crime has been committed, and thus whether or not labeling the person a "whistleblower" is appropriate?
The whole idea of whistleblower laws that don't protect someone from reporting to the public about crimes committed by the administration is laughable. What the hell is the point of any kind of whistleblower laws or protection if you can't actually blow the whistle on your bosses?
But the whole idea of government is that one group of individuals should be the "top level" of authority, creating, enforcing, and interpreting its own laws, reserving the authority to keep certain types of secrets (and, of course, reserving the authority to determine which types of secrets qualify), etc.
Um, no. The whole idea of democracy is that there is no "top level" of authority.
In the US system, there are representatives of the people, passing laws. There is a single executive, also a representative of the people, implementing said laws. And there are the courts, interpreting said laws when there are disagreements over them.
But the whole point of representative democracy is that the people ultimately get to decide who is doing this, so that a runaway government cannot be a single "top level" of authority that creates, enforces, and interprets its own laws. The whole point is that the people are the highest authority, and the government serves at their will.
But if the government hides substantial information from the people, a democracy cannot effectively function. The people need to know what the government is doing. There are good reasons for limited amounts of secrecy, for particularly sensitive information or for privacy purposes. But keeping vast amounts of information on things that affect everyone, outside of a wartime environment, is anti-democratic.
This type of secrecy, this type of executive action which is seen as being unquestionable by even elected representatives, let alone the people, is turning the government from a representative democracy to an oligarchy.
> The whole idea of democracy is that there is no "top level" of authority.
Not true in any practical sense. If the government physically does something to me (like surveils me, arrests me, evicts me, etc.) I don't get to vote my way out of it. They are the top level of authority in any meaningful sense.
You appear to be confusing individual authority with collective authority. Of course you, personally, cannot get out of being arrested; if anyone could get out of being arrested by voting or saying that they are a member of the populace and thus are the ultimate authority, that would be pretty silly.
But rather, the people, collectively, are supposed to be the top level of authority. If the people want to vote out the current administration, they can. If they want to change the laws, they can vote for representatives who will do so. If they want to change the constitution, they can call a constitutional convention. Now sure, no individual can do this alone; they have to get a substantial fraction of the populace to do it along with them.
However, there are several factors that work against this. One major one is secrecy. If what the government is doing is hidden, then they cannot provide oversight (nor can their elected representatives, or the courts).
reply