Statement from Edward Snowden in Moscow(wikileaks.org)
wikileaks.org
Statement from Edward Snowden in Moscow
http://wikileaks.org/Statement-from-Edward-Snowden-in.html?snow
487 comments
[Note: I'm an American; hi NSA!]
Lose that and we join a race to the freedom-bottom the US founders would be shocked to learn we have undertaken.
> I'd really like to see Wikileaks devoting more of its time, energy, and
> fund-raising into breaking news about government-operated surveillance
> programs in the last two countries where Edward Snowden has been located
Lose that and we join a race to the freedom-bottom the US founders would be shocked to learn we have undertaken.
Finally a meaningful statement. I couldn't agree more. However I think that one part of this involves recognizing that the Federal Government is not the US. We as people need to actually use the freedoms we have to build a society that people will want to emulate.
Somewhere along the way we stopped doing that.
Somewhere along the way we stopped doing that.
tokenadult, that is a loaded expectation that Wikileaks is disempowered from fulfilling, since they simply publish what is received after anonymizing and verifying where possible.
In fact, back in 2009, Assange told me personally he was surprised not to have received more information from China.
In fact, back in 2009, Assange told me personally he was surprised not to have received more information from China.
Have they published the leak of Ecuador's surveillance system plans yet? [1]
Admittedly the documents keep getting pulled but apparently they are available on DocumentCloud still.
But I just checked the Ecuador page at WikiLeaks [2] and have yet to see anything. Maybe they just need more time to authenticate the contents? Although then again, Ecuador itself seems to have authenticated it [3].
On that note, Ecuador's page at WikiLeaks seems pretty sparse after 2009 or so. I guess there have been any major secrecy scandals since then in Ecuador?
[1] http://thedesk.matthewkeys.net/2013/06/28/scribd-removes-buz... [2] http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Ecuador [3] http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/ecuador-defends-domestic-s...
Admittedly the documents keep getting pulled but apparently they are available on DocumentCloud still.
But I just checked the Ecuador page at WikiLeaks [2] and have yet to see anything. Maybe they just need more time to authenticate the contents? Although then again, Ecuador itself seems to have authenticated it [3].
On that note, Ecuador's page at WikiLeaks seems pretty sparse after 2009 or so. I guess there have been any major secrecy scandals since then in Ecuador?
[1] http://thedesk.matthewkeys.net/2013/06/28/scribd-removes-buz... [2] http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Ecuador [3] http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/ecuador-defends-domestic-s...
Why would he be surprised? For all this talk of the jeopardy Snowden is in, we forget that in China a policeman can send you to prison without trial, and that executions are so common they send round mobile vans to perform them.
Both countries especially CHINA has a bad reputation on communication regulation (network shutdown on some occasions) and censorship. There is no need for WikiLeaks to break anything new here.
US government has been riding a high horse and teaching everybody about internet freedom, and now they are caught pants down. That's a lot of more worthy of news than exposing already known bad guys.
I find it deeply troubling that majority voices in USA are now accusing Snowden / WikiLeaks of damaging USA reputation or things like that.
US government has been riding a high horse and teaching everybody about internet freedom, and now they are caught pants down. That's a lot of more worthy of news than exposing already known bad guys.
I find it deeply troubling that majority voices in USA are now accusing Snowden / WikiLeaks of damaging USA reputation or things like that.
For all its flaws, the US is still far ahead of China and Russia on these issues.
The recent rhetoric has presents the US as the worst offender of all when in practice it's probably better than anyone else who has the power to do these things (including the UK).
What if you take the US position at face value? There is oversight, and there are real and serious threats from terrorism and cyberattacks.
Is it good to have a massive secret signals collection apparatus? No.
Is it necessary? We don't know and nobody is even discussing that because we're all too busy bashing the US.
The recent rhetoric has presents the US as the worst offender of all when in practice it's probably better than anyone else who has the power to do these things (including the UK).
What if you take the US position at face value? There is oversight, and there are real and serious threats from terrorism and cyberattacks.
Is it good to have a massive secret signals collection apparatus? No.
Is it necessary? We don't know and nobody is even discussing that because we're all too busy bashing the US.
[deleted]
Wikileaks is generally reactionary, i.e., they rely upon others to bring them leaks which they publish. The organization steadfastly denies going out to acquire the information themselves.
Wikileaks has released documents from governments around the world, and at different times the leaks have caused scandals in almost every country out there. You may have heard more about leaks that affect United States because of the news you read.
You have heard more about leaks that affect United States because of the news you read.
Many (not all, but many) of my leads to breaking news on surveillance and data-collection programs come from Hacker News, which includes worldwide participation, so it is a bit surprising that there is so much news about the United States here. Other news aggregation services I rely on (including the wall posts of my literate, diverse, worldwide group of Facebook friends) indeed include more news about other countries than HN sometimes does.
What are the best sources we can readily link to today about surveillance and data-collection practices in China and in Russia?
AFTER EDIT TO RESPOND TO REPLY BELOW: I already know Chinese, as a review of quite recent comments of mine here on Hacker News would make abundantly clear. My Russian is rusty, as I haven't kept it up through daily use since the early 1980s, but I have read the Russian press (of the communist era) in the original Russian, and I still take care to be aware of the Russian official and Russian popular perspectives on world news.
Many (not all, but many) of my leads to breaking news on surveillance and data-collection programs come from Hacker News, which includes worldwide participation, so it is a bit surprising that there is so much news about the United States here. Other news aggregation services I rely on (including the wall posts of my literate, diverse, worldwide group of Facebook friends) indeed include more news about other countries than HN sometimes does.
What are the best sources we can readily link to today about surveillance and data-collection practices in China and in Russia?
AFTER EDIT TO RESPOND TO REPLY BELOW: I already know Chinese, as a review of quite recent comments of mine here on Hacker News would make abundantly clear. My Russian is rusty, as I haven't kept it up through daily use since the early 1980s, but I have read the Russian press (of the communist era) in the original Russian, and I still take care to be aware of the Russian official and Russian popular perspectives on world news.
I can't really tell you what news to follow, maybe I've just been more interested in Wikileaks over the years. If you really are interested Wikipedia has a good summary of their leaks, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Leaks
In any case Wikileaks is opportunistic, they rely on leaks wherever they may originate.
In any case Wikileaks is opportunistic, they rely on leaks wherever they may originate.
I suppose the overbearing influence of the San Francisco startup scene doesn't really have that much of an effect on the general HN readership...
> Hacker News, which includes worldwide participation, so it is a bit surprising that there is so much news about the United States here.
HN is extremely americanocentric.
HN is extremely americanocentric.
It's amusing that you think HN isn't overwhelmingly US-focused.
First, you'll want to try learning Chinese or Russian.
First, you'll want to try learning Chinese or Russian.
>I'd really like to see Wikileaks devoting more of its time, energy,
>and fund-raising into breaking news about government-operated
>surveillance programs in the last two countries where Edward
>Snowden has been located, namely China and Russia.
That's the thing that's so jarring about the U.S policy. Their private ideology, or whatever guides their actions, is quite obviously contradictory to their publicly espoused beliefs. The Russian and Chinese government are at least pretty direct about their ideology and intentions.
Well I do hate to say it but we've always had an "us or them" mentality to the rest of the world. I mean we were so isolationist that we were willing to watch Europe burn from afar rather than do anything. There's no telling what would have happened without Pearl Harbor; the U.S. may never have joined the war against Germany at all, in fact.
You'll notice that much of the furor has come from the idea that the NSA might be watching what Americans are doing. For everything else there was effectively a big giant "Of course they were bugging $FOO, that's their job".
Obviously Europe doesn't feel the same way (and didn't with ECHELON)...
You'll notice that much of the furor has come from the idea that the NSA might be watching what Americans are doing. For everything else there was effectively a big giant "Of course they were bugging $FOO, that's their job".
Obviously Europe doesn't feel the same way (and didn't with ECHELON)...
> There's no telling what would have happened without Pearl Harbor; the U.S. may never have joined the war against Germany at all, in fact.
The US would have joined the war. By 1940, the US was practically involved in the war, just without men. German U-Boats were sinking American convoys, and American ships were destroying German U-Boats.
It was only a matter of time before the US would have joined the war, Pearl Harbor or not. FDR was prepared to fight it without the approval of Congress.
The US entry into the First World War was primarily to be a participant in the peace negotiations, so Wilson could present his 14 points, create the League of Nations and ensure American dominance in world politics (something the USA has refrained from participating in prior to the First World War, despite its economical power).
The Second World War pretty much started with American involvement, but it was not until Pearl Harbor that the USA could finally - publicly - commit its entire arsenal. But regardless, you would have found a way to join the war. Japan just did you a favour.
The US would have joined the war. By 1940, the US was practically involved in the war, just without men. German U-Boats were sinking American convoys, and American ships were destroying German U-Boats.
It was only a matter of time before the US would have joined the war, Pearl Harbor or not. FDR was prepared to fight it without the approval of Congress.
The US entry into the First World War was primarily to be a participant in the peace negotiations, so Wilson could present his 14 points, create the League of Nations and ensure American dominance in world politics (something the USA has refrained from participating in prior to the First World War, despite its economical power).
The Second World War pretty much started with American involvement, but it was not until Pearl Harbor that the USA could finally - publicly - commit its entire arsenal. But regardless, you would have found a way to join the war. Japan just did you a favour.
Isolationist? Maybe. Neutrality was, I think, the motivation (historically).
Neutrality was the excuse, and a natural side-effect of isolationist principles.
Perhaps. It was arguably baked in to the Constitution though, and adhered to in spirit, if not in deed.
"Well I do hate to say it but we've always had an "us or them" mentality to the rest of the world. I mean we were so isolationist that we were willing to watch Europe burn from afar rather than do anything. There's no telling what would have happened without Pearl Harbor; the U.S. may never have joined the war against Germany at all, in fact."
The rich would have made more money selling arms to both sides. (In fact some did.)
The rich would have made more money selling arms to both sides. (In fact some did.)
You might have read this already. mebbe not.
"wall Street and the Rise of Hitler"
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0945001533
You can probably find it as a pdf someplace too, as it is a pretty old book. Read it and try to see the difference between the US industrialists and German industrialists in the dock at Nueremburg. Same sh*t, different piles imho.
"wall Street and the Rise of Hitler"
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0945001533
You can probably find it as a pdf someplace too, as it is a pretty old book. Read it and try to see the difference between the US industrialists and German industrialists in the dock at Nueremburg. Same sh*t, different piles imho.
The rich and their employees both.
> Obviously Europe doesn't feel the same way (and didn't with ECHELON)...
Their people or their governments? Their people disagree with this, as we do. Their governments have long appeared to be cooperating, even if they drop their monocles into their drinks every time something like this comes out.
Their people or their governments? Their people disagree with this, as we do. Their governments have long appeared to be cooperating, even if they drop their monocles into their drinks every time something like this comes out.
Parts of the governments certainly don't like it. But I don't have enough experience with parliamentary (or European) politics to be able to tell how much that actually matters.
But I would presume that even parliamentary government must bow to public outcry in some form.
But I would presume that even parliamentary government must bow to public outcry in some form.
> I mean we were so isolationist that we were willing to watch Europe burn from afar rather than do anything. There's no telling what would have happened without Pearl Harbor; the U.S. may never have joined the war against Germany at all, in fact.
Yes, and? Did Europe intervene in the American Civil War, or in any of the multitude of conflicts in the Americas, East Asia, or Africa over the past 200 years? Even the rest of Europe abandoned Austria and Czechoslovakia to the Germans before Poland fell. Going to war is a huge commitment, and doing it purely for the benefit of a continent that has spent the last several centuries hell-bent on destroying itself sounds like a really bad idea.
The worst part is, when the US government does see a situation that calls for military intervention, like Vietnam or Iraq, that gets criticized as well.
Yes, and? Did Europe intervene in the American Civil War, or in any of the multitude of conflicts in the Americas, East Asia, or Africa over the past 200 years? Even the rest of Europe abandoned Austria and Czechoslovakia to the Germans before Poland fell. Going to war is a huge commitment, and doing it purely for the benefit of a continent that has spent the last several centuries hell-bent on destroying itself sounds like a really bad idea.
The worst part is, when the US government does see a situation that calls for military intervention, like Vietnam or Iraq, that gets criticized as well.
Your comment betrays a lack of knowledge of politics of the time, where 'the time' is mid-19th C, 1930s, or 2000s. And of the current time - how the hell did Iraq call for that kind of military intervention?
Whining about Europe 'not intervening' in the 1860s completely misses the massive changes going on in Europe at the time - it's not like Europe was sitting around peacefully not doing anything in particular like the US was at the start of each World War. Only a few years after the US civil war finished, Germany came into existence and successfully invaded Paris, for example.
Even the rest of Europe abandoned Austria and Czechoslovakia to the Germans before Poland fell
Nice. In one breath you chide Europe for always being at war, in the next you chide them for not going to war enough.
Did Europe intervene ... in any of the multitude of conflicts in the Americas, East Asia, or Africa over the past 200 years
Yes, Europe did - the death of colonialism happend after WWII, considerably nearer to us than 200 years ago. The UK fought an open war against a South American nation only 30 years ago. The French still regularly intervene in Africa. The French fought in Vietnam up until Dien Bien Phu Falls in 1954, only 20 years before the US bugged out of there.
Hell, the UK fought against the Japanese in WWII, which again is much closer to our time than 200 years ago.
And the Russians - still a European country - intervened all over the place. Afghanistan throughout the 80s, for example. Immense amounts of material aid to North Vietnam. So on and so forth.
Good old American Exceptionalism. No-one else ever does anything, it's always up to the 'world cop' (who happens to be very selective about what he's policing). You've got a really simplistic view of European political history - I encourage you to read up a lot more on it (if nothing else, it's really quite interesting).
Whining about Europe 'not intervening' in the 1860s completely misses the massive changes going on in Europe at the time - it's not like Europe was sitting around peacefully not doing anything in particular like the US was at the start of each World War. Only a few years after the US civil war finished, Germany came into existence and successfully invaded Paris, for example.
Even the rest of Europe abandoned Austria and Czechoslovakia to the Germans before Poland fell
Nice. In one breath you chide Europe for always being at war, in the next you chide them for not going to war enough.
Did Europe intervene ... in any of the multitude of conflicts in the Americas, East Asia, or Africa over the past 200 years
Yes, Europe did - the death of colonialism happend after WWII, considerably nearer to us than 200 years ago. The UK fought an open war against a South American nation only 30 years ago. The French still regularly intervene in Africa. The French fought in Vietnam up until Dien Bien Phu Falls in 1954, only 20 years before the US bugged out of there.
Hell, the UK fought against the Japanese in WWII, which again is much closer to our time than 200 years ago.
And the Russians - still a European country - intervened all over the place. Afghanistan throughout the 80s, for example. Immense amounts of material aid to North Vietnam. So on and so forth.
Good old American Exceptionalism. No-one else ever does anything, it's always up to the 'world cop' (who happens to be very selective about what he's policing). You've got a really simplistic view of European political history - I encourage you to read up a lot more on it (if nothing else, it's really quite interesting).
> Whining about Europe 'not intervening' in the 1860s completely misses the massive changes going on in Europe at the time - it's not like Europe was sitting around peacefully not doing anything in particular like the US was at the start of each World War. Only a few years after the US civil war finished, Germany came into existence and successfully invaded Paris, for example.
And when Germany manages to do that for the third time in 80 years, it's America's fault for not intervening?
Look, all I'm trying to do is refute the idea that it's somehow the responsibility of the US to step in and intervene whenever a war breaks out somewhere in the world. Germany invading Poland and France wasn't relevant enough to American interests to justify sending men across the Atlantic to die. It just seemed like business as usual. You can call that isolationism but it's not like any of the European powers stuck their neck out when it wasn't in their interests.
And when Germany manages to do that for the third time in 80 years, it's America's fault for not intervening?
Look, all I'm trying to do is refute the idea that it's somehow the responsibility of the US to step in and intervene whenever a war breaks out somewhere in the world. Germany invading Poland and France wasn't relevant enough to American interests to justify sending men across the Atlantic to die. It just seemed like business as usual. You can call that isolationism but it's not like any of the European powers stuck their neck out when it wasn't in their interests.
Again you fail to understand what was going on at the time, falling back on pop-culture memes. France and the UK were both hastily remilitarising and were buying time. Everyone knew war was coming, but the UK and the French needed more time to prepare, and it wasn't just the US that was suffering from economic depression in the 30s. They knew for 20 years that there would be another war - Marshal Foch said of the Treaty of Versailles "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years". He was only two months out.
I mean, come on. You have just said that Iraq was a war that 'called for intervention', but you say the same is not true of the Nazis? This is despite nearly 10 years of a steady exodus of Jews from Germany to the US and other countries? It's not like no-one knew that the Nazis were oppressive, it's just the depth that they would eventually get to that was unknown.
You can call that isolationism but it's not like any of the European powers stuck their neck out when it wasn't in their interests.
I never said the US should be faulted for isolationism, though it is odd you cheer both their early isolationism and their later interventionism. I said that you were mischaracterising what was going on and engaging in double-standards.
For example, given that the French were intervening this year in Mali, as 'France' and not part of the UN, how does this stack up against your claim of "Europeans don't intervene in Africa and haven't for 200 years"? Where are the US ground troops intervening in Africa? The US navy, along with European ones, are intervening against the Somali pirates, but that's to protect shipping, it's not to help the people. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some, but I'm unaware of any.
Look, all I'm trying to do is refute the idea that it's somehow the responsibility of the US to step in and intervene whenever a war breaks out somewhere in the world.
The US bills itself as the 'world cop', which was exactly its rationale for invading Iraq. It's natural for people to expect it to live up to its own rhetoric.
I mean, come on. You have just said that Iraq was a war that 'called for intervention', but you say the same is not true of the Nazis? This is despite nearly 10 years of a steady exodus of Jews from Germany to the US and other countries? It's not like no-one knew that the Nazis were oppressive, it's just the depth that they would eventually get to that was unknown.
You can call that isolationism but it's not like any of the European powers stuck their neck out when it wasn't in their interests.
I never said the US should be faulted for isolationism, though it is odd you cheer both their early isolationism and their later interventionism. I said that you were mischaracterising what was going on and engaging in double-standards.
For example, given that the French were intervening this year in Mali, as 'France' and not part of the UN, how does this stack up against your claim of "Europeans don't intervene in Africa and haven't for 200 years"? Where are the US ground troops intervening in Africa? The US navy, along with European ones, are intervening against the Somali pirates, but that's to protect shipping, it's not to help the people. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some, but I'm unaware of any.
Look, all I'm trying to do is refute the idea that it's somehow the responsibility of the US to step in and intervene whenever a war breaks out somewhere in the world.
The US bills itself as the 'world cop', which was exactly its rationale for invading Iraq. It's natural for people to expect it to live up to its own rhetoric.
> Again you fail to understand what was going on at the time, falling back on pop-culture memes.
Stop posturing--these remarks add nothing to the discussion.
> France and the UK were both hastily remilitarising and were buying time. Everyone knew war was coming, but the UK and the French needed more time to prepare, and it wasn't just the US that was suffering from economic depression in the 30s. They knew for 20 years that there would be another war - Marshal Foch said of the Treaty of Versailles "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years". He was only two months out.
I don't see how that's anywhere at odds with what I'm saying, which is that Europe tended to have these wars from time to time and the US was justifiably reluctant to intervene.
> You have just said that Iraq was a war that 'called for intervention'
I said that's how the US government saw it at the time.
> but you say the same is not true of the Nazis?
> ...
> though it is odd you cheer both their early isolationism and their later interventionism
I did no such thing--I said it's hypocritical to criticize America for both isolationism and for interventionism. Please read what I actually wrote and make an honest attempt to comprehend it.
> The US bills itself as the 'world cop'
In 1939 they did that?
My whole point, which you have arrogantly refused to comprehend, has been to justify the initial American non-intervention in WWII, and in WWII the US never billed itself as any such thing.
I can offer no defense of American interventionism. I think it's consistently been a mistake. But if you're going to go around arguing that the US should have been interventionists in World War II, then you have to accept what it looks like when the US pursues a foreign policy of interventionism. Most people don't like how that turns out. Most people would prefer if the US would mind its own business and not get involved in wars overseas, but if they hold that position, it's hypocritical of them to criticize the US for not directly joining the Second World War before they had a good reason to.
Stop posturing--these remarks add nothing to the discussion.
> France and the UK were both hastily remilitarising and were buying time. Everyone knew war was coming, but the UK and the French needed more time to prepare, and it wasn't just the US that was suffering from economic depression in the 30s. They knew for 20 years that there would be another war - Marshal Foch said of the Treaty of Versailles "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years". He was only two months out.
I don't see how that's anywhere at odds with what I'm saying, which is that Europe tended to have these wars from time to time and the US was justifiably reluctant to intervene.
> You have just said that Iraq was a war that 'called for intervention'
I said that's how the US government saw it at the time.
> but you say the same is not true of the Nazis?
> ...
> though it is odd you cheer both their early isolationism and their later interventionism
I did no such thing--I said it's hypocritical to criticize America for both isolationism and for interventionism. Please read what I actually wrote and make an honest attempt to comprehend it.
> The US bills itself as the 'world cop'
In 1939 they did that?
My whole point, which you have arrogantly refused to comprehend, has been to justify the initial American non-intervention in WWII, and in WWII the US never billed itself as any such thing.
I can offer no defense of American interventionism. I think it's consistently been a mistake. But if you're going to go around arguing that the US should have been interventionists in World War II, then you have to accept what it looks like when the US pursues a foreign policy of interventionism. Most people don't like how that turns out. Most people would prefer if the US would mind its own business and not get involved in wars overseas, but if they hold that position, it's hypocritical of them to criticize the US for not directly joining the Second World War before they had a good reason to.
> Did Europe intervene in the American Civil War
No.
> or in any of the multitude of conflicts in the Americas
Yes, particular one that overlapped the American Civil War in time and neighbored it geographically. [1] Perhaps less in the Americas then elsewhere (particularly when the US wasn't tied up in its own civil war) due to the US's proclamation of regional hegemony (the Monroe Doctrine) and desire not get into a fight over that.
> East Asia
Again, yes, quite regularly.
> or Africa over the past 200 years
There, too.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_intervention_in_Mexico
No.
> or in any of the multitude of conflicts in the Americas
Yes, particular one that overlapped the American Civil War in time and neighbored it geographically. [1] Perhaps less in the Americas then elsewhere (particularly when the US wasn't tied up in its own civil war) due to the US's proclamation of regional hegemony (the Monroe Doctrine) and desire not get into a fight over that.
> East Asia
Again, yes, quite regularly.
> or Africa over the past 200 years
There, too.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_intervention_in_Mexico
> Yes, and? Did Europe intervene in the American Civil War, or in any of the multitude of conflicts in the Americas, East Asia, or Africa over the past 200 years? Even the rest of Europe abandoned Austria and Czechoslovakia to the Germans before Poland fell.
The 19th century's balance of power was essentially established by intervening in other countries so as to not plunge the entire continent into war. During the Spring of Nations in 1848, Austria, Prussia and France intervened in several smaller European countries (as well as internally) to crush uprisings.
During the American Civil War, there were a couple of wars in Europe, which were much more interesting to Europeans, as these were part of the German and Italian unification wars. Besides, the USA was nowhere as powerful during the 1860s as Europe was in the 1910s, so the comparison is not really useful.
Remember, states don't have friends, they have interests. Why would the Europeans intervene in a civil war of yours? But besides that, the Europeans did intervene in several conflicts around the world, particularly in places where they had interests. Such as the Latin American independence wars (as well as other wars in Latin America), African revolts (remember the 19th century was the scramble for Africa) and East Asia wars that threatened their trading ports (such as the Boer War).
The 19th century's balance of power was essentially established by intervening in other countries so as to not plunge the entire continent into war. During the Spring of Nations in 1848, Austria, Prussia and France intervened in several smaller European countries (as well as internally) to crush uprisings.
During the American Civil War, there were a couple of wars in Europe, which were much more interesting to Europeans, as these were part of the German and Italian unification wars. Besides, the USA was nowhere as powerful during the 1860s as Europe was in the 1910s, so the comparison is not really useful.
Remember, states don't have friends, they have interests. Why would the Europeans intervene in a civil war of yours? But besides that, the Europeans did intervene in several conflicts around the world, particularly in places where they had interests. Such as the Latin American independence wars (as well as other wars in Latin America), African revolts (remember the 19th century was the scramble for Africa) and East Asia wars that threatened their trading ports (such as the Boer War).
> Remember, states don't have friends, they have interests. Why would the Europeans intervene in a civil war of yours?
Which was my point--why would Americans intervene in a war of yours?
Which was my point--why would Americans intervene in a war of yours?
I think you deeply over value the USA military initiatives, and under values one's of other countries.
How do you mean?
The UK was very close to intervening in the American Civil War.
Do read up more on the history of both wars as 'seeing a situation' was a pretty simple-minded opinion there. It took much much more than a call for justice to move the military gears. There were always political or economic agendas hidden under any wars and that makes one reason for criticism. I don't even want to get started on other reasons.
> There were always political or economic agendas hidden under any wars
Which is why the US was reluctant to get involved in the World Wars. You can't have it both ways.
Which is why the US was reluctant to get involved in the World Wars. You can't have it both ways.
Interestingly, there have been multiple speculations on US's involvement in WW2:
One is the good democratic fight versus the bad facists. US were hampered by the isolationist views held by quite a number of senators at the time, hence there was no direct involvement until after Pearl Harbour attack, which resulted in an almost uniform senatorial agreement on declaration of war.
Another is that US could have kept maintaining the profit stream from arms-dealing to both sides (Germany still imported American arms prior to 1941 or so, if I'm not mistaken) but got unwillingly dragged into the war.
Yet another more cynical view is that after the huge Axis loss at USSR, US just saw the opportunity to join in and mope up what's left of the Axis since winners get to dictate the terms. The Pearl Harbour event was a surprising but timely excuse.
One is the good democratic fight versus the bad facists. US were hampered by the isolationist views held by quite a number of senators at the time, hence there was no direct involvement until after Pearl Harbour attack, which resulted in an almost uniform senatorial agreement on declaration of war.
Another is that US could have kept maintaining the profit stream from arms-dealing to both sides (Germany still imported American arms prior to 1941 or so, if I'm not mistaken) but got unwillingly dragged into the war.
Yet another more cynical view is that after the huge Axis loss at USSR, US just saw the opportunity to join in and mope up what's left of the Axis since winners get to dictate the terms. The Pearl Harbour event was a surprising but timely excuse.
> Yet another more cynical view is that after the huge Axis loss at USSR
"huge Axis losses" in the USSR didn't start happening until 1943 though. Even the Nazi defeat at Stalingrad wasn't until the end of 1942.
So that view is not merely cynical, it's also simply inaccurate.
"huge Axis losses" in the USSR didn't start happening until 1943 though. Even the Nazi defeat at Stalingrad wasn't until the end of 1942.
So that view is not merely cynical, it's also simply inaccurate.
I beg to differ.
Operation Barbarossa was the one turning point of the USSR invasion. Stalingrad was merely the consequence IMO as Barbarossa had led to German army being both weakened and stretched too far out. They simply could not compare to the Soviet war machine's recover-ability and production.
Of course Pearl Harbour was what got the US directly involved and nuking Japan out in the end, but I hold the speculation that without Pearl Harbour, US would still declare war to either Germany or Japan anyway because of several reasons below: 1) US businesses were being harmed by the Axis, i.e. Germans attacking cargo ships meant to supply arms to Britain. Sooner or later the piled up losses would justify the entry in front of Congress.
2) The Japanese was expanding fast in Asia and they would not stop just short of US territorial waters, plus the imposed embargo had been pissing the Japanese off anyway. A clash was inevitable.
3) Letting USSR being the major player and eventual winner meant letting communism spread throughout Europe. There had to be a sizable participation from the Capitalist group in the war and the rest of the Western bloc was too tattered to muster that up.
Of course Pearl Harbour was what got the US directly involved and nuking Japan out in the end, but I hold the speculation that without Pearl Harbour, US would still declare war to either Germany or Japan anyway because of several reasons below: 1) US businesses were being harmed by the Axis, i.e. Germans attacking cargo ships meant to supply arms to Britain. Sooner or later the piled up losses would justify the entry in front of Congress.
2) The Japanese was expanding fast in Asia and they would not stop just short of US territorial waters, plus the imposed embargo had been pissing the Japanese off anyway. A clash was inevitable.
3) Letting USSR being the major player and eventual winner meant letting communism spread throughout Europe. There had to be a sizable participation from the Capitalist group in the war and the rest of the Western bloc was too tattered to muster that up.
In 1941, it probably didn't seem obvious that Russia would prevail. The cynical, hegemonic move for capitalism certainly wouldn't have been to ally with the Soviets, but rather to let both totalitarian regimes fight each other to exhaustion and sweep up the remains of both.
Hypothetically, a win for either Axis or Eastern bloc would spell disaster for capitalism. That practically guarantee that US would join in the fray, one way or another, indirectly or directly. Pearl Harbour helped alot with the decision making, as other members pointed out in this thread and the general consensus on America's participation in WW2.
Well, truth be told. Every war can practically be explained by economics. And even if that wasn't the prevailing argument, without economics as a backup argument, the war would be hard to justify. Denmark's entry into the Thirty Years' War had little to do with protecting Protestants' freedoms, but rather to secure more money for Denmark.
I agree, partly with that, yet I'd add more factors onto the equation. Let's say that 2003's Iraq was evident from an economic standpoint. On the contrary, the Vietnam war did not seem to net much profits from the get go. However, when you factor in the world affairs at the time, then it started to make sense.
> Did Europe intervene in the American Civil War,
Thankfully not, as the upper class in Britain at least tended to favour the Confederacy.
> East Asia
There's few parts of the world you could list that is a worse example of places Europe haven't intervened.
European powers were either one of the major sides or a supporting power in most wars in East Asia for a substantial part of the last couple of centuries.
You do realize the US "inherited" the Vietnam war with the associated campaigns in Laos and Cambodia from France, do you not?
That the US fought with the British, French and Russian empires against China in the Opium wars?
Now, arguably those are not good arguments for continued intervention. On the contrary. While I think there were some very good reasons why the US ought to have intervened in World War II earlier, I also wish the US had learned more lessons from some of the wars mentioned above (and a lot of other foolish wars the European colonial powers were involved in).
Instead the US seems to have seen the way the waning colonial powers acted as a recipe for how it needed to behave as its own power grew, with - for anyone paying attention to the outcomes of the colonial wars - predictably horrible outcomes.
> Even the rest of Europe abandoned Austria and Czechoslovakia to the Germans before Poland fell
It's easy to look back and regret those. But the politics around them, and the patchy history of Europe, made them politically "tricky". The Austrian "Anschluss" happened on the background of the German Austria's previous attempts to merge with Germany, which was denied it by treaty, including the Treaty of Versailles. In 1938 Austria was under a semi-fascist dictatorship, and there was then pressure for a referendum on the issue (with extensive support and threats from Hitler). Facing lack of support from Mussolini who had previously protected them against Hitler, the Austrian government accepted a large number of nazis into government, who then used their positions to prepare and conduct a coup against the austro-fascists supported by threats of force on the basis of allegations of plans to rig the referendum. It was then the Austrian nazi government that handed control over to Germany in a manner designed to effectively be a request from the Austrian state for the Germans to enter Austria. They then carried out a vote to legitimise the takeover.
The combination of events made it politically extremely hard for outsiders to do much more than complain. Europe should go to war because a government asked for military support from a neighbour following allegations that the previous dictator may have tried to prevent the will of the people, in the face of widespread public support for the nazis? In retrospect, probably. But without the knowledge of what Hitler went on to do, it was squabbling between two authoritarian governments over control of an artificially created country with a history of wanting to merge, where the new dictator likely had as much or maybe even more support than the old dictator.
In the case of Czechoslovakia similarly, the state was an artifical creation from parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, that included a substantially ethnically German population in certain areas (Germans made up 23% of the population of Czechoslovakia) that had genuine grievances of oppression against the elite of the country, and the government also purposefully moved parts of the German population to the West, making it even easier to make excuses.
So Hitler was similarly able to play the role of someone who at least plausibly wanted to "liberate" the German population, and present the whole thing as "rectifying" a situation that was only 20 years old and an outcome of a previous war when the will of the people in question had been largely ignored when the borders were drawn up, and so got Sudetenland. When Hitler went into the rest of Czechoslovakia, he got the support of Slovakia, and both Hungary and Poland used the opportunity to annex area - he was not the only agressor, and support for going to war over Czechoslovakia when even the government over a substantial part of the twenty year old country took part in the aggression against the rest and supported the German invasion was not an appealing proposition.
While there were certainly fears and lots of people who had concerns about it, Hitler played people up against each other, and was dealing with governments who all had gotten their hands dirty in drawing up fairly arbitrary borders without the involvement of the affected people and/or through wars within the last few decades. Combine that with a strong degree of denial - nobody wanted to rush into a new war - and a lot of admiration for what Hitler had achieved domestically in Germany, coupled with a grudging acceptance that perhaps giving these people what they seemed to want might not be such a bad idea if it resolved some of the remaining tensions created by the Treaty of Versailles.
In retrospect, of course, that was stupid. But then in retrospect it was stupid to not intervene when Hitler remilitarised areas Germany was not allowed to militarise and in a whole host of other situations leading up to the war.
But the cases of Czechoslovakia and Austria were still substantially different than the case of Poland, both because they came first, but also because they were clouded in politics and could be "explained away" as something other than naked aggression. By the time of the invasion of Poland, though, there was no denying that Hitlers ambitions did not stop at "liberating" German speaking groups in weird little newly created states, and with the rapid fall of further states
Thankfully not, as the upper class in Britain at least tended to favour the Confederacy.
> East Asia
There's few parts of the world you could list that is a worse example of places Europe haven't intervened.
European powers were either one of the major sides or a supporting power in most wars in East Asia for a substantial part of the last couple of centuries.
You do realize the US "inherited" the Vietnam war with the associated campaigns in Laos and Cambodia from France, do you not?
That the US fought with the British, French and Russian empires against China in the Opium wars?
Now, arguably those are not good arguments for continued intervention. On the contrary. While I think there were some very good reasons why the US ought to have intervened in World War II earlier, I also wish the US had learned more lessons from some of the wars mentioned above (and a lot of other foolish wars the European colonial powers were involved in).
Instead the US seems to have seen the way the waning colonial powers acted as a recipe for how it needed to behave as its own power grew, with - for anyone paying attention to the outcomes of the colonial wars - predictably horrible outcomes.
> Even the rest of Europe abandoned Austria and Czechoslovakia to the Germans before Poland fell
It's easy to look back and regret those. But the politics around them, and the patchy history of Europe, made them politically "tricky". The Austrian "Anschluss" happened on the background of the German Austria's previous attempts to merge with Germany, which was denied it by treaty, including the Treaty of Versailles. In 1938 Austria was under a semi-fascist dictatorship, and there was then pressure for a referendum on the issue (with extensive support and threats from Hitler). Facing lack of support from Mussolini who had previously protected them against Hitler, the Austrian government accepted a large number of nazis into government, who then used their positions to prepare and conduct a coup against the austro-fascists supported by threats of force on the basis of allegations of plans to rig the referendum. It was then the Austrian nazi government that handed control over to Germany in a manner designed to effectively be a request from the Austrian state for the Germans to enter Austria. They then carried out a vote to legitimise the takeover.
The combination of events made it politically extremely hard for outsiders to do much more than complain. Europe should go to war because a government asked for military support from a neighbour following allegations that the previous dictator may have tried to prevent the will of the people, in the face of widespread public support for the nazis? In retrospect, probably. But without the knowledge of what Hitler went on to do, it was squabbling between two authoritarian governments over control of an artificially created country with a history of wanting to merge, where the new dictator likely had as much or maybe even more support than the old dictator.
In the case of Czechoslovakia similarly, the state was an artifical creation from parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, that included a substantially ethnically German population in certain areas (Germans made up 23% of the population of Czechoslovakia) that had genuine grievances of oppression against the elite of the country, and the government also purposefully moved parts of the German population to the West, making it even easier to make excuses.
So Hitler was similarly able to play the role of someone who at least plausibly wanted to "liberate" the German population, and present the whole thing as "rectifying" a situation that was only 20 years old and an outcome of a previous war when the will of the people in question had been largely ignored when the borders were drawn up, and so got Sudetenland. When Hitler went into the rest of Czechoslovakia, he got the support of Slovakia, and both Hungary and Poland used the opportunity to annex area - he was not the only agressor, and support for going to war over Czechoslovakia when even the government over a substantial part of the twenty year old country took part in the aggression against the rest and supported the German invasion was not an appealing proposition.
While there were certainly fears and lots of people who had concerns about it, Hitler played people up against each other, and was dealing with governments who all had gotten their hands dirty in drawing up fairly arbitrary borders without the involvement of the affected people and/or through wars within the last few decades. Combine that with a strong degree of denial - nobody wanted to rush into a new war - and a lot of admiration for what Hitler had achieved domestically in Germany, coupled with a grudging acceptance that perhaps giving these people what they seemed to want might not be such a bad idea if it resolved some of the remaining tensions created by the Treaty of Versailles.
In retrospect, of course, that was stupid. But then in retrospect it was stupid to not intervene when Hitler remilitarised areas Germany was not allowed to militarise and in a whole host of other situations leading up to the war.
But the cases of Czechoslovakia and Austria were still substantially different than the case of Poland, both because they came first, but also because they were clouded in politics and could be "explained away" as something other than naked aggression. By the time of the invasion of Poland, though, there was no denying that Hitlers ambitions did not stop at "liberating" German speaking groups in weird little newly created states, and with the rapid fall of further states
"Thankfully not, as the upper class in Britain at least tended to favour the Confederacy"
Sidebar to a sidebar, but it went a little deeper than that. The British industrialists tended to favor the South -- and supplied weapons to the Confederacy in the lead up to the war -- because they depended on Southern cotton imports. Their industrial interests were heavily tied up with the South's.
There was actually a very real possibility that Britain would have gone further, and a lot of internal political pressure for it to do so.
Sidebar to a sidebar, but it went a little deeper than that. The British industrialists tended to favor the South -- and supplied weapons to the Confederacy in the lead up to the war -- because they depended on Southern cotton imports. Their industrial interests were heavily tied up with the South's.
There was actually a very real possibility that Britain would have gone further, and a lot of internal political pressure for it to do so.
> Did Europe intervene in the American Civil War, or in any of the multitude of conflicts in the Americas, East Asia, or Africa over the past 200 years?
Yes they did. Both Vietnam and Iraq are leftovers from European interventions.
Yes they did. Both Vietnam and Iraq are leftovers from European interventions.
Not directly but UK ship yards built blockade runners for the south.
You may have to offer a bit more here... Pressure != Wheeling and dealing. I think what President Obama meant by wheeling and dealing is that the U.S. will not "give up" anything for Snowden.
You're assuming that the oversight in the US is a complete sham. So far we have only Snowden's word on that - not documentary proof. In China and Russia, there is mo oversight at all.
One thing that's interesting, at least about the domestic surveillance portions, is that people of both major political ideologies seem equally outraged.
As for spying on non-Americans...we have decades of propaganda ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H movies that make that cool and desirable.
As for spying on non-Americans...we have decades of propaganda ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H movies that make that cool and desirable.
Don't worry about SORM-2 in Russia that much. AFAIK it doesn't really work, because it is an ad-hock system and it is primarily developed for certification purposes. It is probably a joke, compared to PRISM.
Russia tapping Runet isn't exactly going to qualify as news.
>> "AFTER EDIT: Good catch by the readers who noticed the non-American English in the Wikileaks press release here (mentioned in other comments in this thread). The press release kindly submitted here is plainly not Edward Snowden's verbatim words, but more self-publicizing from Wikileaks."
Is it not possible he dictated it and WikiLeaks typed it and published it? Or someone at WikiLeaks checked for typos using a British-English spell checker and corrected a few US-English spellings?
Is it not possible he dictated it and WikiLeaks typed it and published it? Or someone at WikiLeaks checked for typos using a British-English spell checker and corrected a few US-English spellings?
The OP is nit-picking.
At the end of the day, it only matters if a person puts their name behind a statement or not.
At the end of the day, it only matters if a person puts their name behind a statement or not.
That's a fair point, but how can we verify that Snowden actually endorsed this statement or not? How does Wikileaks have access to him while no other media outlets do?
First of all, for an organization whose sole existence is to provide journalistic integrity, I would be very surprised if Wikileaks isn't being honest about this. Secondly, he was actually accompanied by Wikileaks associations on his flights to Moscow. So they're likely sitting right next to him, wherever he is.
They were pretty damn "honest" about getting him safely to Ecuador, weren't they? >_<
Lets be frank here, Snowden is in this situation because he's a dumbass, and he shouldn't have trusted his well being to Wikileaks either. Wikileaks couldn't have saved Bradley Manning, nor do they have the manpower to make Snowden safe.
Snowden leaked information without any plan B. He gave up all of his friends and family and decided to try and live in a strange (US-allied) country while he hid from the long arm of the law... while publicly thumbing his nose. Booz Allen didn't even know he was in Hong Kong when he revealed himself to the world as the NSA leaker. He was still on NSA (related) payroll and was fired after the fact.
Instead of taking advantage of that time to hide, he taunted an entire nation. And the dumbass newspaper reporters let him do it too, without any regard for his safety. Without trying to consult him, or without thinking of the consequences.
After all, coming out with the story was more important than this guy's safety.
This guy has no friends left, and has trapped himself in an even worse country where they openly persecute people like him. Lets see what happens now...
Lets be frank here, Snowden is in this situation because he's a dumbass, and he shouldn't have trusted his well being to Wikileaks either. Wikileaks couldn't have saved Bradley Manning, nor do they have the manpower to make Snowden safe.
Snowden leaked information without any plan B. He gave up all of his friends and family and decided to try and live in a strange (US-allied) country while he hid from the long arm of the law... while publicly thumbing his nose. Booz Allen didn't even know he was in Hong Kong when he revealed himself to the world as the NSA leaker. He was still on NSA (related) payroll and was fired after the fact.
Instead of taking advantage of that time to hide, he taunted an entire nation. And the dumbass newspaper reporters let him do it too, without any regard for his safety. Without trying to consult him, or without thinking of the consequences.
After all, coming out with the story was more important than this guy's safety.
This guy has no friends left, and has trapped himself in an even worse country where they openly persecute people like him. Lets see what happens now...
You could try hooking up with him and asking. It's not like he's going anywhere soon by the looks of it.
A friend of mine was stranded in the same part of the moscow airport, (en route from Armenia back to the US) but she did not see Snowden, so it may not be so easy to find him.
Perhaps more importantly, none of the many media there have been able to find him so exactly where he is is an open question. Not too many places to hide in an airport.
Not a bad idea in general, but Wikileaks is resource constrained (remember, they are being actively investigated by the FBI/DoD and have a banking blockade going against them), and it's not unreasonable for them to focus (at least right now) on the jurisdiction primarily responsible for what happens to Gmail, Android, Cisco IOS, Apple iOS, Facebook, and AWS.
I'd like to see both Snowden and Assange in prison, but we can't always have what we want, unfortunately.
Why do you hate freedom?
I'm of the apparent internet minority (read: most Americans still don't know or care about PRISM/who this guy is) who doesn't care if the government looks at my porn history. None of this stuff matters at all and the fact that anyone was surprised by PRISM's existence is nothing but foolish, in my opinion.
With greater technology comes inevitable supervision over such things, and it isn't in the name of reading about your browsing habits unless you enjoy children being abused or bombing buildings. The only shame is the lack of transparency about the surveillance, but again, this whole thing should have been completely obvious to just about anyone. Snowden is a traitor and a coward for leaking the obvious (while running off to hide instead of facing the demons he accuses so arrogantly) and Assange is a horrible person for a bunch of other reasons.
With greater technology comes inevitable supervision over such things, and it isn't in the name of reading about your browsing habits unless you enjoy children being abused or bombing buildings. The only shame is the lack of transparency about the surveillance, but again, this whole thing should have been completely obvious to just about anyone. Snowden is a traitor and a coward for leaking the obvious (while running off to hide instead of facing the demons he accuses so arrogantly) and Assange is a horrible person for a bunch of other reasons.
The simple fact that they are viewing ('metadata' about) my browsing/email/phone calls/IRC/Facebook/Twitter/whatever isn't actually the thing I care about.
Its the fact that if I happen to spend private time doing/thinking/talking about anything someone in the government finds objectionable with anybody someone in the government finds objectionable, I will get flagged and investigated.
Seriously, I couldn't care less if facebook employees read my posts, they have no power to hurt my life. Gmail employees laughing over my email? go for it. Mozilla employees discovering my personal fetish for modget donkey porn? meh.
But the government? I am now dependent on nobody in the governmental apparatus finding my private opinions and speech objectionable or questionable, now or ever in the future.
Fuck that. Either they stop doing that, or I stop expressing my private opinions to other people.
Society loses if the second one occurs on a massive scale. we have entered a really bad place.
Its the fact that if I happen to spend private time doing/thinking/talking about anything someone in the government finds objectionable with anybody someone in the government finds objectionable, I will get flagged and investigated.
Seriously, I couldn't care less if facebook employees read my posts, they have no power to hurt my life. Gmail employees laughing over my email? go for it. Mozilla employees discovering my personal fetish for modget donkey porn? meh.
But the government? I am now dependent on nobody in the governmental apparatus finding my private opinions and speech objectionable or questionable, now or ever in the future.
Fuck that. Either they stop doing that, or I stop expressing my private opinions to other people.
Society loses if the second one occurs on a massive scale. we have entered a really bad place.
All true except that you are greatly underestimating the risk of private companies collecting data that ends up affecting your life.
Start by thinking of FICO scores or credit histories. Similar concepts can be applied to eligibility for all kinds of 'privately' provided parts of society - job screenings, auto insurance.
Imagine vacation rentals where the owner can screen people out based on political affiliation... the are any number of ways in which private institutions can quietly 'hurt your life' using all this personal data.
Start by thinking of FICO scores or credit histories. Similar concepts can be applied to eligibility for all kinds of 'privately' provided parts of society - job screenings, auto insurance.
Imagine vacation rentals where the owner can screen people out based on political affiliation... the are any number of ways in which private institutions can quietly 'hurt your life' using all this personal data.
Yep, absolutely.
I was somewhat understating concerns about private companies there to avoid diluting the conversation too much, but I totally agree.
Hell, anyone could put their hands up to blackmail me over my midget donkey fetish, it doesn't have to be the government - but it does reach a particularly nasty level when it is government policy.
I was somewhat understating concerns about private companies there to avoid diluting the conversation too much, but I totally agree.
Hell, anyone could put their hands up to blackmail me over my midget donkey fetish, it doesn't have to be the government - but it does reach a particularly nasty level when it is government policy.
A midget donkey fetish is nothing to be ashamed of.
Seriously this. And if people don't think prism has already been used to stalk people with dissident viewpoints in America they might have missed a few years of news about targeting 3rd parties, the tea party, the occupy movement, etc.
> Snowden is a traitor <...> for leaking the obvious
This is doublethink. It's either obvious, or he's traitor for leaking it. It can't be both.
This is doublethink. It's either obvious, or he's traitor for leaking it. It can't be both.
> None of this stuff matters at all and the fact that anyone was surprised by PRISM's existence is nothing but foolish, in my opinion.
I think that is a mistaken position to be in. It assumes a couple of things -- that people who disagree with the program do so because they are doing hidden illegal things and now those would come to light.
Another assumption is that the government makes no mistakes, is not malicious, can be trusted with such information, and now or in the future it will not misuse it.
This is all coming from the same entity that tortured people while talking about human right and freedom. I am not sure trusting it to "not do the wrong thing" this your history is a rational choice.
At this point trusting it with all this information is no better than trusting a toddler with a box of matches and a can of gasoline.
I think that is a mistaken position to be in. It assumes a couple of things -- that people who disagree with the program do so because they are doing hidden illegal things and now those would come to light.
Another assumption is that the government makes no mistakes, is not malicious, can be trusted with such information, and now or in the future it will not misuse it.
This is all coming from the same entity that tortured people while talking about human right and freedom. I am not sure trusting it to "not do the wrong thing" this your history is a rational choice.
At this point trusting it with all this information is no better than trusting a toddler with a box of matches and a can of gasoline.
You are missing the big picture. The issue is not with your own personal history, but with the power to have access to key people private life.
Let's imagine the presidential election, in the next 10 or 20 years, if the incumbent misuses the tools to find out that his/her pro-life opponent had an abortion (or in its close family), it could change the turn of the election.
You can apply the same kind of reasoning to any whistle-blower reporting corruption, pollution, or a toxic drug. It will become much easier to silence and blackmail them.
Democracy is funded in part on the equilibrium of powers, a dragnet collecting everyone's life, is breaking this fragile thing.
Let's imagine the presidential election, in the next 10 or 20 years, if the incumbent misuses the tools to find out that his/her pro-life opponent had an abortion (or in its close family), it could change the turn of the election.
You can apply the same kind of reasoning to any whistle-blower reporting corruption, pollution, or a toxic drug. It will become much easier to silence and blackmail them.
Democracy is funded in part on the equilibrium of powers, a dragnet collecting everyone's life, is breaking this fragile thing.
If you're comfortable sharing your browsing history with the government, feel free to email it to them at the frequency you prefer. However, I demand that they get a warrant from a non-secret court, so proper checks and balances can work, and their actions can be later scrutinized by the public and abuses can be tracked and punished if necessary.
> Snowden is a traitor and a coward for leaking the obvious
So he would have been much braver by never leading anything? That's a strange definition of coward. Besides the fact that if it was "obvious" like you say, then how is it a leak?
So he would have been much braver by never leading anything? That's a strange definition of coward. Besides the fact that if it was "obvious" like you say, then how is it a leak?
Let's hope for your sake that the government does not ever decide to criminalize the viewing of porn.
You would when you'd have any conflict with any branch of the government for any reason. It'd be too late by then.
Given that the Congress creates over 50 new federal crimes each year, and where you live, your local government probably also doesn't sit on its hands, are you completely sure you'd never want the government not to know absolutely everything about you? Really sure?
>>> Snowden is a traitor and a coward
I'd give you a traitor - he certainly violated the conditions of his employment and clearance, even if for an arguably good reason, but coward? I'd think it takes guts to take on the US government alone, knowing he'd probably spend rest of his life either hiding or in jail, or maybe eventually both. Would you dare to do the same? If you knew something is wrong and you know it - would you dare to do this, knowing your life will never be the same? It definitely not a behavior of a coward.
>>> while running off to hide instead of facing the demons he accuses so arrogantly
Getting away from an overwhelming force that has every reason to crush you and every possibility is not cowardice, it is a natural act of every human who values his life and liberty.
Given that the Congress creates over 50 new federal crimes each year, and where you live, your local government probably also doesn't sit on its hands, are you completely sure you'd never want the government not to know absolutely everything about you? Really sure?
>>> Snowden is a traitor and a coward
I'd give you a traitor - he certainly violated the conditions of his employment and clearance, even if for an arguably good reason, but coward? I'd think it takes guts to take on the US government alone, knowing he'd probably spend rest of his life either hiding or in jail, or maybe eventually both. Would you dare to do the same? If you knew something is wrong and you know it - would you dare to do this, knowing your life will never be the same? It definitely not a behavior of a coward.
>>> while running off to hide instead of facing the demons he accuses so arrogantly
Getting away from an overwhelming force that has every reason to crush you and every possibility is not cowardice, it is a natural act of every human who values his life and liberty.
You seem to think your porn history is the most interesting thing anyone will ever know about you.
I think that's kind of sad.
I think that's kind of sad.
I'm not really understanding what you're attempting to imply.
> I'm of the apparent internet minority (read: most Americans still don't know or care about PRISM/who this guy is) who doesn't care if the government looks at my porn history.
1. PRISM is an apparatus just waiting for another government to use it against the US. Who's to say that Russia, China, etc. haven't been using it to spy on Americans, too? I mean, it's clearly not that hard to get access. Yes - they might not look at your porn history, but perhaps they will use some useful political information against one of your leaders and fuck you up.
2. What would happen if the government was to have a good reason to misuse the information they were gathering. What would happen if a fascist party was to come into power?
3. Calling Assange a horrible person is small-minded. Don't make this about personalities; this is about individual freedom, the right to a transparent government, the constitution your country was founded upon, and human rights.
4. Rather a traitor to the government than a traitor to the principles that made the US what it once was. Unless you want mediocrity...
1. PRISM is an apparatus just waiting for another government to use it against the US. Who's to say that Russia, China, etc. haven't been using it to spy on Americans, too? I mean, it's clearly not that hard to get access. Yes - they might not look at your porn history, but perhaps they will use some useful political information against one of your leaders and fuck you up.
2. What would happen if the government was to have a good reason to misuse the information they were gathering. What would happen if a fascist party was to come into power?
3. Calling Assange a horrible person is small-minded. Don't make this about personalities; this is about individual freedom, the right to a transparent government, the constitution your country was founded upon, and human rights.
4. Rather a traitor to the government than a traitor to the principles that made the US what it once was. Unless you want mediocrity...
Ubiquitous surveillance can be used to control and coerce anyone, regardless of absence of criminal wrongdoing (though there are people who claim the average american commits three felonies a day now, because the USC is so overbroad).
It's not about "nothing to hide": when anyone can be blackmailed, including judges and lawmakers and law enforcement, the entire system of interlocking checks and balances breaks down.
http://pastebin.com/7SRmFpFH
The FBI threatened MLK Jr with exposing his extramarital affair (they'd discovered via surveillance) if he didn't give up his civil rights work.
You may not have anything to hide, but many do, for entirely legal reasons, and it is shameful of you to deny them their right to privacy.
If you truly have absolutely nothing to hide, it is quite unlikely you are doing very significant work to meaningfully improve the world.
It's not about "nothing to hide": when anyone can be blackmailed, including judges and lawmakers and law enforcement, the entire system of interlocking checks and balances breaks down.
http://pastebin.com/7SRmFpFH
The FBI threatened MLK Jr with exposing his extramarital affair (they'd discovered via surveillance) if he didn't give up his civil rights work.
You may not have anything to hide, but many do, for entirely legal reasons, and it is shameful of you to deny them their right to privacy.
If you truly have absolutely nothing to hide, it is quite unlikely you are doing very significant work to meaningfully improve the world.
Worse than threatening to expose MLK's private life, they wrote to him as if someone from his religious community found out about it and shamed him and suggested he kill himself.[1] So not just blackmail, but psyops.
As I wrote in another comment, it's not just surveillance for state purposes, it's also surveillance for the corporate interests of the state (pharmaceuticals, agribusiness/GMOs, oil lobby, etc.). What if the big 3 auto makers were so powerful that they tried to crush Tesla by subtly targeting its customers and employees with fake bad news (oh wait, maybe they're already doing it). I'm convinced that some of the spying on the EU was over agricultural policies such as their strong anti-GMO stance--US companies would love to have advance knowledge to maneuver around them. I'm not sure it's happening yet, then again, how would we know?
[1] http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/01/king-like-all-frauds-yo...
As I wrote in another comment, it's not just surveillance for state purposes, it's also surveillance for the corporate interests of the state (pharmaceuticals, agribusiness/GMOs, oil lobby, etc.). What if the big 3 auto makers were so powerful that they tried to crush Tesla by subtly targeting its customers and employees with fake bad news (oh wait, maybe they're already doing it). I'm convinced that some of the spying on the EU was over agricultural policies such as their strong anti-GMO stance--US companies would love to have advance knowledge to maneuver around them. I'm not sure it's happening yet, then again, how would we know?
[1] http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/01/king-like-all-frauds-yo...
I wrote this the other day, explaining how Obama confirming ubiquitous surveillance in the US (even if it only targets foreigners (which turned out to be a lie anyway)) is a bullet in the head of the US internet industry:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5962529
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5962529
It's not your porn history the government is interested in - that is, unless you run for public office one day, in which case they may suddenly become very interested in it.
Rather, what you should have an issue with is them having information about you that is deeply personal and private in nature. Have you or a significant other ever had to get an abortion? Have you ever had trouble maintaining an erection? Are you one of the 30% of women who cannot achieve an orgasm? Do you have any mental disorders, sexually-transmitted diseases, or genetic conditions? How large is your penis? Have you ever been attracted to someone of the same sex? Have you ever fantasized about child porn, fat porn, necrophilia, etc.? Have you ever attempted suicide?
Most importantly: do you believe that the government knowing all of this about you - and everyone else - makes you safer?
Rather, what you should have an issue with is them having information about you that is deeply personal and private in nature. Have you or a significant other ever had to get an abortion? Have you ever had trouble maintaining an erection? Are you one of the 30% of women who cannot achieve an orgasm? Do you have any mental disorders, sexually-transmitted diseases, or genetic conditions? How large is your penis? Have you ever been attracted to someone of the same sex? Have you ever fantasized about child porn, fat porn, necrophilia, etc.? Have you ever attempted suicide?
Most importantly: do you believe that the government knowing all of this about you - and everyone else - makes you safer?
You do realize "Why do you hate freedom" sounds just like something a mad neocon would say to justify some strange actions in a faraway land.
Gee, you completely missed that guy's joke.
Spoiler Alert: A mad neocon would probably want Snowden and Assange dead.
Why am I even taking the time to explain this?
Spoiler Alert: A mad neocon would probably want Snowden and Assange dead.
Why am I even taking the time to explain this?
[deleted]
he's a sheeple like most of america. most of america cares about xbox more than they care about the constitution.
While I (as an American) resent the implication, it is unfortunately very true.
I hear arguments daily on the subject of the new Xbox and M$'s latest privacy invasion, but most everyone has no clue who Ed Snowden is or what NSA/PRISM are all about.
I hear arguments daily on the subject of the new Xbox and M$'s latest privacy invasion, but most everyone has no clue who Ed Snowden is or what NSA/PRISM are all about.
Assange is an accused rapist. I'd like to see all rapists in prison.
I accuse you of being a pedo!
Please report yourself to the authorities. For the next 5 years I would like you to reflect on the logical flaw of the argument.
Please report yourself to the authorities. For the next 5 years I would like you to reflect on the logical flaw of the argument.
>I accuse you of being a pedo!
>Please report yourself to the authorities. I would like you to reflect the next 5 years on the logical flaw of the argument.
I realize you're being hyperbolic, but there's a big difference between some random person slinging around accusations on the internet, and a police force in a sovereign nation deciding that a criminal complaint lodged by one of its citizens warrants the arrest and questioning of a suspect in the case.
I realize you're being hyperbolic, but there's a big difference between some random person slinging around accusations on the internet, and a police force in a sovereign nation deciding that a criminal complaint lodged by one of its citizens warrants the arrest and questioning of a suspect in the case.
The problem is that Sweden has thousands, or tens of thousands outstanding rape cases, but has only pursued Assange with this level of detail. If they vigorously extradited every accused rapist who had fled Sweden, that would be highly respected, and Assange would have had far fewer sympathizers for holing up in an embassy.
> The problem is that Sweden has thousands, or tens of thousands outstanding rape cases
That phrasing makes it sound like these numbers come from your ass; feel free to correct my impression.
> but has only pursued Assange with this level of detail.
What level of detail? They happen to know exactly who their suspect is and exactly where he has run off to, and thus far what they've done is ask that he be returned.
>If they vigorously extradited every accused rapist who had fled Sweden, that would be highly respected, and Assange would have had far fewer sympathizers for holing up in an embassy.
What does this even mean? How many accused rapists flee Sweden every year? I have no idea, and I bet you don't either. Maybe Assange is the one guy who's fled the country in the last year and this is what they do. Maybe they do vigorously attempt to extradite every single accused rapist that flees abroad. Maybe the Swedish authorities are working harder on this case because it's high profile and they're trying to avoid a PR mess domestically.
You're assuming skulduggery where there's perfectly reasonable explanations, and - this is me guessing here, so if you can reasonably show me to be wrong, I'll happily admit that - you're pulling assertions from your ass to back that assumption up. Stop that.
That phrasing makes it sound like these numbers come from your ass; feel free to correct my impression.
> but has only pursued Assange with this level of detail.
What level of detail? They happen to know exactly who their suspect is and exactly where he has run off to, and thus far what they've done is ask that he be returned.
>If they vigorously extradited every accused rapist who had fled Sweden, that would be highly respected, and Assange would have had far fewer sympathizers for holing up in an embassy.
What does this even mean? How many accused rapists flee Sweden every year? I have no idea, and I bet you don't either. Maybe Assange is the one guy who's fled the country in the last year and this is what they do. Maybe they do vigorously attempt to extradite every single accused rapist that flees abroad. Maybe the Swedish authorities are working harder on this case because it's high profile and they're trying to avoid a PR mess domestically.
You're assuming skulduggery where there's perfectly reasonable explanations, and - this is me guessing here, so if you can reasonably show me to be wrong, I'll happily admit that - you're pulling assertions from your ass to back that assumption up. Stop that.
According to http://www.thelocal.se/19102/20090427/
Sweden has ~5k reported rape cases per year.
I don't know how many of these cases are closed per year, but I think it's fair to assume that not all of them are closed within year.
(I'm not arguing for/against the Assange case here.)
I don't know how many of these cases are closed per year, but I think it's fair to assume that not all of them are closed within year.
(I'm not arguing for/against the Assange case here.)
> Sweden has thousands, or tens of thousands outstanding rape cases
And just how many of the suspects in those cases go hiding in embassies to avoid a European arrest warrant?
And just how many of the suspects in those cases go hiding in embassies to avoid a European arrest warrant?
Keep beating that dead horse. Most reasonable people recognize that the changer are disturbingly high that the charges are trumped up, and to distract attention away from larger, more important issues.
That may be your opinion, but I see nothing to back up you r assertion that 'most reasonable people' believe the charges to be trumped up. Why bother trumping up charges through an intermediary instead of just issuing a warrant for Assange's arrest on espionage grounds?
That's a conspiracy theory, and not one that stands up to much scrutiny.
Really? I've heard the charges. He held one plaintiff with his body weight and had rough, condom-less sex and he had sex with other plaintiff while she was asleep. In both cases the sexual encounters were consentual. He was originally charged by plaintiff one to take an STD test, rather than jail.
Not to mention that the translation (and gravity ) of the crime is closer to "sexual misdemeanor"/"sexual misconduct" rather than "rape".
Not to mention that the translation (and gravity ) of the crime is closer to "sexual misdemeanor"/"sexual misconduct" rather than "rape".
Aside from your misleading assertion the encounters were "consensual" (you can't consent when asleep, and consenting on the condition that your partner wears a condom doesn't mean consenting to having sex without the condom) both seem like clear cut allegations of sexual assault to me. If you really think his alleged behavior is no big deal, well there's no civil way of saying this but that makes you an apologist for rape.
And that's without even getting into how little sense the conspiracy theory itself makes.
And that's without even getting into how little sense the conspiracy theory itself makes.
No, most reasonable people would like to see Assange stand trial and have the matter decided on its merits.
No-one apart from tinfoil hat loonies thinks the charges are trumped up.
No-one apart from tinfoil hat loonies thinks the charges are trumped up.
> Most reasonable people recognize that the changer are disturbingly high that the charges are trumped up, and to distract attention away from larger, more important issues.
There's a fairly high standard you have to meet to make a claim like that, and just stating that "most reasonable people recognize" your claims of an anti-Assange conspiracy don't suffice to carry the point.
There's a fairly high standard you have to meet to make a claim like that, and just stating that "most reasonable people recognize" your claims of an anti-Assange conspiracy don't suffice to carry the point.
Pedophilia is not a crime (at least in the US).
In all fairness accused is not convicted. If convicted, any and all rapists should be jailed. But there's a number of conspiracy theories around his charges and there's enough concern that his trail would be railroaded for all the wrong reasons. What happened to innocent until proven guilty anyway?
What happened to innocent until proven guilty anyway?
Doesn't mean you can run away and avoid facing trial. For example, in Australia, if you flee from a Breath test (drunk driving) without being tested, your punishment is guaranteed to be as bad or worse than as if you were caught drunk driving. Presumption of innocence is a right granted to you as part of a legal system. When you refuse to operate within that legal system... you can't pick and choose the bits you want to apply to you.
To me the case is so murky- I would have no trouble believing that Assange was completely set up, but at the same time from his behaviour I would have no trouble believing he was guilty either. But as long as he avoids facing a trial, you can't just say "we must assume he is innocent". That is a right granted to you as part of a process where you will face a courtroom at some point.
Doesn't mean you can run away and avoid facing trial. For example, in Australia, if you flee from a Breath test (drunk driving) without being tested, your punishment is guaranteed to be as bad or worse than as if you were caught drunk driving. Presumption of innocence is a right granted to you as part of a legal system. When you refuse to operate within that legal system... you can't pick and choose the bits you want to apply to you.
To me the case is so murky- I would have no trouble believing that Assange was completely set up, but at the same time from his behaviour I would have no trouble believing he was guilty either. But as long as he avoids facing a trial, you can't just say "we must assume he is innocent". That is a right granted to you as part of a process where you will face a courtroom at some point.
I'm inclined to think that he acted like a douche (that is perfectly fine to assume based purely on the parts of the explanations that he has not contested), and wasn't set up but faced two women that wanted to cause him embarrassment, and that the two women got caught up in between the prosecutor and the lawyer appointed for them who both have possible political motives:
They're both known for wanting to substantially tighten rape laws in Sweden, and the lawyer in question is a partner in a law firm that also includes a former Swedish minister of justice from the time Sweden was complicit in illegal CIA renditions - as revealed by Wikileaks. Rather than a conspiracy, they might just have decided he was a convenient person to make an example of, score some political points on, and as an extra bonus he was someone they don't like.
Note that the above is not mutually exclusive with him actually being guilty of a crime. He could perfectly well be guilty and a victim of an overzealous prosecutor.
I really don't want to make a judgement either way. I do think that there's something fishy about the way the case has been pursued, though, but I'm inclined to think that a Swedish prosecutor with ambitions is sufficient - there's no need to infer outside interference.
They're both known for wanting to substantially tighten rape laws in Sweden, and the lawyer in question is a partner in a law firm that also includes a former Swedish minister of justice from the time Sweden was complicit in illegal CIA renditions - as revealed by Wikileaks. Rather than a conspiracy, they might just have decided he was a convenient person to make an example of, score some political points on, and as an extra bonus he was someone they don't like.
Note that the above is not mutually exclusive with him actually being guilty of a crime. He could perfectly well be guilty and a victim of an overzealous prosecutor.
I really don't want to make a judgement either way. I do think that there's something fishy about the way the case has been pursued, though, but I'm inclined to think that a Swedish prosecutor with ambitions is sufficient - there's no need to infer outside interference.
Wanting to run from what seem likely to be kangaroo court proceedings doesn't imply guilt in my mind. Innocent until proven guilty isn't just a legal doctrine, it's also a philosophy that citizens of functioning democracies need to believe in fervently.
Presumption of innocence is not explicitly enshrined as a right in the US constitution. Rather, it's entered from other rights, like the 5th amendment. In the case of rape, many local US jurisdictions have weakened it in the interest of deterrence.
I never said he was guilty. I would like him to stand trial.
In all fairness, can we stop using the phrase "in all fairness"? In all fairness, it's just weasel words, and in all fairness the phrase reliably shows up several times in every Hacker News comment page.
Are you aware that neither victim alleges rape?
Is this where we start parsing what exactly a woman really means by 'rape'? "It's OK, she didn't say she was raped, she said he had non-consensual intercourse, clearly a different thing!"
No, it is where we note that neither of the women filed a complaint against Assange about anything at all. They showed up at a police station asking if they could compel an HIV test.
They were interviewed by a friend of one of the women, in violation of police procedure, and the police on that basis decided to start an investigation without a complaint from the women. An investigation the first prosecutor closed down because she claimed there was no case to answer at all.
One of the women have since consistently refused to sign the police interview protocols.
Now, this might happen if someone is raped. But as it stands, it is unclear to what extent the women even agree with the police transcripts, much less with the police's interpretation of what they said.
They were interviewed by a friend of one of the women, in violation of police procedure, and the police on that basis decided to start an investigation without a complaint from the women. An investigation the first prosecutor closed down because she claimed there was no case to answer at all.
One of the women have since consistently refused to sign the police interview protocols.
Now, this might happen if someone is raped. But as it stands, it is unclear to what extent the women even agree with the police transcripts, much less with the police's interpretation of what they said.
[deleted]
Accused rapist != rapist
Would you like to see all accused rapists in prison?
I sure wouldn't mind seeing every single one of them have to face a fair hearing before an impartial judge.
You know, the people supporting Julian Assange in this thread probably agree. The question is whether he would get such a fair hearing.
Given the recent history of CIA kidnappings and other shenanigans, there is reasonably doubt that this would be the case.
So there isn't actually a disagreement on morals or ethics - just a disagreement about empirical observations.
Given the recent history of CIA kidnappings and other shenanigans, there is reasonably doubt that this would be the case.
So there isn't actually a disagreement on morals or ethics - just a disagreement about empirical observations.
Snowden was in Hong Kong not China. There's a distinct difference.
I share your concerns, IMHO it would be awesome if we had ten Edward Snowdens from ten countries. But we don't so I don't think it's fair to put it against Wikileaks for not leaking something that was not given to them. Seems like they should be a receptacle not an institution that does investigative journalism.
Perhaps showing support for Snowden will help other content come out, but looking at the huge effort President Obama and Vice Clownshoes Biden have put together to get this guy into the brig, not fucking likely. They have done a good job of isolating Snowden and making future whistle-blowing less likely.
Perhaps showing support for Snowden will help other content come out, but looking at the huge effort President Obama and Vice Clownshoes Biden have put together to get this guy into the brig, not fucking likely. They have done a good job of isolating Snowden and making future whistle-blowing less likely.
So you offer some things Wikileaks could change, and then you offer some criticism of Snowden's statement.
Why exactly are we still talking about the messenger(s)? How is this productive?
The goal is to make the world better. Nitpicking about Snowden, his associates, his travel, his criminal behavior or lack thereof, Wikileaks, Assange, and all of this other stuff is completely orthogonal, soap-opera bullshit that has nothing to do with that goal.
We should be focusing now on how to a) spread the word about the constitutional abuses and systemic coverup being perpetrated by NSA and b) working toward building a legal environment wherein these types of circumstances are not only legally prohibited but also cannot be re-engineered in practice either.
Why exactly are we still talking about the messenger(s)? How is this productive?
The goal is to make the world better. Nitpicking about Snowden, his associates, his travel, his criminal behavior or lack thereof, Wikileaks, Assange, and all of this other stuff is completely orthogonal, soap-opera bullshit that has nothing to do with that goal.
We should be focusing now on how to a) spread the word about the constitutional abuses and systemic coverup being perpetrated by NSA and b) working toward building a legal environment wherein these types of circumstances are not only legally prohibited but also cannot be re-engineered in practice either.
The missile itself is not in chapter thirteen, but the chastening aftermath of its successful delivery.
about China, I think there are more worying things than governemnt-operated surveillance programs that have to be reveled.
People there know there is an extreme censorship and corruption.
IMO the higher government needs to take extreme measure against corruption.
People there know there is an extreme censorship and corruption.
IMO the higher government needs to take extreme measure against corruption.
They already take extreme measure by regularly executing persons (including high ranked officials and bankers) that commited crimes such as fraud and corruption.
(Note: I am against the death penalty)
(Note: I am against the death penalty)
> That Wikileaks tells us much more about the United States federal government than about any of those other entities tells me something about Wikileaks
I don't find that's the case. Living in the US, it's not surprising that most of what you hear from WikiLeaks is about the US. Take a look at their homepage (http://wikileaks.org) for example, most featured stories are not about the US.
I don't find that's the case. Living in the US, it's not surprising that most of what you hear from WikiLeaks is about the US. Take a look at their homepage (http://wikileaks.org) for example, most featured stories are not about the US.
> People everywhere just wanna be free. We ought to be hearing a lot more about all the various governmental data-gathering and surveillance programs, everywhere in the world, and of course we should also be learning more about the actions of private business corporations to gather data on all of us. That Wikileaks tells us much more about the United States federal government than about any of those other entities tells me something about Wikileaks, and perhaps tells me something favorable about the United States.
While I agree that surveillance happens everywhere, USA is in unique position of power to do it, considering how much of internet traffic moves through US-based companies. That said, I also agree that the very fact of existence of outrage caused by PRISM is telling about the US citizens and government, people in Russia, for example, assume that tchekists from FSB are already watching every their step or at the very least able to do so.
While I agree that surveillance happens everywhere, USA is in unique position of power to do it, considering how much of internet traffic moves through US-based companies. That said, I also agree that the very fact of existence of outrage caused by PRISM is telling about the US citizens and government, people in Russia, for example, assume that tchekists from FSB are already watching every their step or at the very least able to do so.
> I'd really like to see Wikileaks devoting more of its time, energy, and fund-raising into breaking news about government-operated surveillance programs in the last two countries where Edward Snowden has been located, namely China and Russia.
I don't know about Russia, but in China it's pretty well known by everyone that the PRC is watching you; China doesn't claim to be a democratic republic either. It's not a secret or revelation to even people in the West. The only people who aren't really familiar with it in Western countries, are people who only stick to reading mainstream consumer news.
I don't know about Russia, but in China it's pretty well known by everyone that the PRC is watching you; China doesn't claim to be a democratic republic either. It's not a secret or revelation to even people in the West. The only people who aren't really familiar with it in Western countries, are people who only stick to reading mainstream consumer news.
As a former British possession (sort of), British English is normal in Hong Kong.
It's probably too late now, but I feel like it was a mistake not to release a public encryption key along with his initial effluence of records. I for one believe that this was written by Snowden, but it seems like an obvious use of some basic form of identity signing.
Edit: It now seems like there is some reasonable doubt that this notice was forged. I still remain confident this is no forgery, but the point I'd like to make is that there may in fact be an identity question -- and that is a problem with a technical solution that unfortunately seems not to have been leveraged.
Edit: It now seems like there is some reasonable doubt that this notice was forged. I still remain confident this is no forgery, but the point I'd like to make is that there may in fact be an identity question -- and that is a problem with a technical solution that unfortunately seems not to have been leveraged.
He used 'have' after United States of America, which is a Britishism. To Americans, 'United States of America' is singular and would use "has" in this particular sentence:
For decades the United States of America have been one of the strongest defenders of the human right to seek asylum.
Maybe I'm overanalyzing but I don't think this is a verbatim statement from Snowden.
For decades the United States of America have been one of the strongest defenders of the human right to seek asylum.
Maybe I'm overanalyzing but I don't think this is a verbatim statement from Snowden.
Maybe it was changed since you saw it, but the statement now reads:
"...the United States of America has been..."
Edit to add: The statement as quoted at http://boingboing.net/2013/07/01/snowden-asks-russia-for-asy... has the original version with "have" still in there.
Here's a screenshot from twitter of the original - https://twitter.com/ClaraJeffery/status/351833289000112128
"...the United States of America has been..."
Edit to add: The statement as quoted at http://boingboing.net/2013/07/01/snowden-asks-russia-for-asy... has the original version with "have" still in there.
Here's a screenshot from twitter of the original - https://twitter.com/ClaraJeffery/status/351833289000112128
Oh, they edited it in the last 8 minutes. I was copy pasting from the wikileaks post in my comment and still have a tab open where they used "have" instead.
So it was changed, and not flagged as being changed. Interesting...
Not that interesting. It's probably because they proofread and edit statements in a manner typical of any writing fitting of a professional appearance, and didn't want tinfoil hats with an anti-wikileaks agenda to take cheapshots based on the benign edits, when the substance was not materially affected.
I work with coders and developers from the U.K. They know what en_US is, and they know what en_GB is, and it's very obvious which is which.
So to claim that WikiLeaks would fixup all of Snowden's writings to conform to en_GB and then switch it right back to en_US after HN notices is rather surreal.
At best you could claim that Harrison herself simply transcribed Snowden's speech and that no one caught it until it was posted. But that still wouldn't explain what happened to some of the missing words that Snowden would have said. And that still wouldn't explain why WikiLeaks revised a statement so important without so much as a mention of proofreading corrections post-facto.
So to claim that WikiLeaks would fixup all of Snowden's writings to conform to en_GB and then switch it right back to en_US after HN notices is rather surreal.
At best you could claim that Harrison herself simply transcribed Snowden's speech and that no one caught it until it was posted. But that still wouldn't explain what happened to some of the missing words that Snowden would have said. And that still wouldn't explain why WikiLeaks revised a statement so important without so much as a mention of proofreading corrections post-facto.
If they "know" en_US and en_GB, then assuming the statement is not actually Snowden's but rather was written by a Brit, why did that Brit get it wrong? If making a mistake while falsifying a statement from Snowden is plausible, then why isn't making a mistake while editing or transcribing plausible?
I think you need to loosen your tinfoil.
I think you need to loosen your tinfoil.
It may very well be tinfoil. But right now the totality of the evidence points me to the idea that this isn't 100% Snowden's words. Forget about the grammar and punctuation; read the words.
Does that sound like the same person talking about civil liberties and how Obama didn't change enough for him, and being ready to stand up for what he believes in? Or does that sound more like a certain other ego at opposition to the U.S. government and especially its President?
Does that sound like the same person talking about civil liberties and how Obama didn't change enough for him, and being ready to stand up for what he believes in? Or does that sound more like a certain other ego at opposition to the U.S. government and especially its President?
It probably isn't all of his words, but so long as he stands behind his name on it, who cares?
The concern would be if wikileaks were completely fabricating this, but I see no evidence for that. (Nor any motivation.)
The concern would be if wikileaks were completely fabricating this, but I see no evidence for that. (Nor any motivation.)
> The concern would be if wikileaks were completely fabricating this, but I see no evidence for that.
I doubt they are fabricating it, but honestly they have Snowden in as much of a bind as the U.S. does now. They are his only source of support right now... what does he do if they take it away? He's in a web of very unequal relationships right now.
I doubt they are fabricating it, but honestly they have Snowden in as much of a bind as the U.S. does now. They are his only source of support right now... what does he do if they take it away? He's in a web of very unequal relationships right now.
It probably isn't all of his words, but so long as he stands behind his name on it, who cares?
This assumes he has other channels of communication. He probably stands behind it insofar as its consistent with everything I've heard from him so far, but neither of us has any way of knowing for the time being.
This assumes he has other channels of communication. He probably stands behind it insofar as its consistent with everything I've heard from him so far, but neither of us has any way of knowing for the time being.
No journalists edits direct quotes like htat - where a person's words or spelling (in a written quote) is idiomatic or incorrect, the practice is to put [sic] after the odd word(s) to signify that they're being reported as received.
If you want to preserve your credibility, it's better to either leave the mistakes in, or explain the context (eg 'this statement was a written record of a verbal statement; we apologize for an inaccuracy in our transcription of Mr. Snowden's recorded words').
If you want to preserve your credibility, it's better to either leave the mistakes in, or explain the context (eg 'this statement was a written record of a verbal statement; we apologize for an inaccuracy in our transcription of Mr. Snowden's recorded words').
So, it's probably fake [statement from Snowden].
EDIT: Why the downvotes? Do you have proof this is real? It seems awfully suspicious to change that when someone notices it and not mention anything.
EDIT2: Clarified what I think is (fully or partially) fake.
EDIT: Why the downvotes? Do you have proof this is real? It seems awfully suspicious to change that when someone notices it and not mention anything.
EDIT2: Clarified what I think is (fully or partially) fake.
A fake what? A fake statement by Wikileaks on their own site?
Also, bitching about downvotes tends to accelerate the rate at which one gets them. You've been here long enough to have noticed that.
Also, bitching about downvotes tends to accelerate the rate at which one gets them. You've been here long enough to have noticed that.
A fake statement from Edward Snowden.
In other words, Wikileaks is straight-up making shit up now? I don't think you'd have to look too hard to find grounds for accusing them of having a clear editorial bias, but outright fabrication?
So, I say it's fake because they silently edited things that might alert people to its legitimacy, and because they didn't offer any proof that it is really from him.
Others think it's real because it is on Wikileaks.
I see both sides of the argument, but I'm staying on my side for now.
Others think it's real because it is on Wikileaks.
I see both sides of the argument, but I'm staying on my side for now.
While it's not exactly evidence that they haven't fabricated this statement, I think the damage that would do to the organization and its reputation, were it to come out, is a pretty compelling reason to think it's not a fake.
The risk-adjusted return on making a fake Snowden statement just doesn't pass the sniff test for me.
YMMV.
The risk-adjusted return on making a fake Snowden statement just doesn't pass the sniff test for me.
YMMV.
The most likely scenario I see at this point is that the piece itself was mostly driven by WikiLeaks and Snowden gave approval to put his name to it. Perhaps he helped with some of the main points but it doesn't sound like him and it certainly didn't look like his writing. The 'political speechwriter' theory sounds the most reasonable to me at this point.
I'm not sure that going from "I love my country and want the people to know what the government is doing" to "FUCK THE US AND FUCK YOU OBAMA" (paraphrased!) is really the wisest course though. But what do I know?
I'm not sure that going from "I love my country and want the people to know what the government is doing" to "FUCK THE US AND FUCK YOU OBAMA" (paraphrased!) is really the wisest course though. But what do I know?
Why assume the entire organization is involved; it could be one person.
Suppose (for argument's sake) that Snowden were depressed or had got cold feet, and was uncommunicative or otherwise climbing down from his previous position; a supporter who thought he was simply undergoing a crisis of confidence might decide to draft a statement 'in the spirit of his actions.'
I'm not saying that this has happened here, but such things are not unprecedented. You don't need to believe that the entire organization is engaged in a deception, or even that the (imaginary) author of such a statement would consider it deceptive, but rather reflective of a 'deeper truth'.
Suppose (for argument's sake) that Snowden were depressed or had got cold feet, and was uncommunicative or otherwise climbing down from his previous position; a supporter who thought he was simply undergoing a crisis of confidence might decide to draft a statement 'in the spirit of his actions.'
I'm not saying that this has happened here, but such things are not unprecedented. You don't need to believe that the entire organization is engaged in a deception, or even that the (imaginary) author of such a statement would consider it deceptive, but rather reflective of a 'deeper truth'.
Well that's interesting...
Sarah Harrison, the Wikileaks advisor accompanying Snowden, is a UK citizen.
It's likely she had a hand in drafting this statement.
[deleted]
There you go, let's all get caught up in the endless distractions.
Maybe Snowden's words were run past an editor (as are most journalist's words) of British public-school extraction, who applied reflexively what he'd been taught?
This kind of over-parsing is typical of the kind of intensive derailing of Snowden's message that's been going on. ANYTHING to distract us from the Naked Exercise of Unlimited Power of Questionable Legality that's been uncovered.
Maybe Snowden's words were run past an editor (as are most journalist's words) of British public-school extraction, who applied reflexively what he'd been taught?
This kind of over-parsing is typical of the kind of intensive derailing of Snowden's message that's been going on. ANYTHING to distract us from the Naked Exercise of Unlimited Power of Questionable Legality that's been uncovered.
Or, perhaps it's only reasonable to be skeptical.
This has actually been a debated usage in American English:
http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/the-united-stat...
http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/the-united-stat...
That debate effectively ended in 1865.
In addition to the likelihood of this just being a matter of editing, I use British style punctuation with quotation marks even though I'm an American. I wonder, were I ever in a situation where the authenticity of my statements were hard to validate, if my punctuation style would be taken as evidence of forgery.
He probably called someone and read them the statement over the phone. That way he wouldn't have to risk exposing his laptop to the internet, assuming he even has a laptop or access to the internet.
Since it was a letter to Ecuador, it may have been poorly translated into English for posting.
[deleted]
This is a serious question: How could we trust that his private key had not been compromised at this point?
>Without any judicial order,
the administration now seeks to stop me exercising a
basic right. A right that belongs to everybody.
This is British writing style. Brits leave off the preposition "from" in these types of sentences; Americans put it in.
American English: "Administration now seeks to stop me from exercising a basic right."
British English: "Administration now seeks to stop me exercising a basic right."
I'm not a linguistics or grammar expert so I can't name the proper terms for all this. I've just observed in the past that this is a "Britishism" that differs from American style. It's interesting to see it here. Snowden wouldn't write like that. IMO, he needs to ditch Wikileaks because they've done nothing but harm him and seem to only be interested in advancing their agenda.
This is British writing style. Brits leave off the preposition "from" in these types of sentences; Americans put it in.
American English: "Administration now seeks to stop me from exercising a basic right."
British English: "Administration now seeks to stop me exercising a basic right."
I'm not a linguistics or grammar expert so I can't name the proper terms for all this. I've just observed in the past that this is a "Britishism" that differs from American style. It's interesting to see it here. Snowden wouldn't write like that. IMO, he needs to ditch Wikileaks because they've done nothing but harm him and seem to only be interested in advancing their agenda.
I think all this really says is he's working with a European editor. Which you'd kind of expect since Snowden is an IT guy, not a writer.
Hardly convincing. I am American, and frequently edit my writing to remove extraneous "from"s and "that"s which make it into my sentences as a product of spoken habit. I usually try to make my writing habits a bit tighter than my speaking habits.
Nice work Sherlock. Except I must say as a counter example that I am British and I flip-flop between using 'from' and not using 'from' in such sentences.
You might, but I've yet to read American writing that leaves out the 'from'. It certainly wouldn't ever occur to me to do that.
As an American who often adopts idioms and sentence structures from various things he reads, I will say (for me at least) that it depends entirely on how much, and what, you read :)
We probably couldn't, but I don't think there is any way to be 100% sure of the authorship of something, unless you are physically sitting next to the author.
So, trusting the authenticity of a document is a probability game. If he had signed it with a public key, then the probability of a fake would be less.
So, trusting the authenticity of a document is a probability game. If he had signed it with a public key, then the probability of a fake would be less.
He could have created the private key with a really strong pass-phrase.
[insert obligatory xkcd about rubber hose crypto-analysis here...]
Pass-phrases help mitigate the concerns for stolen private keys, but they do not provide assurances that things will not be signed or encrypted under duress. The best you can really do there is throw in more human element to increase the number of rubber hoses your enemy will need.
Pass-phrases help mitigate the concerns for stolen private keys, but they do not provide assurances that things will not be signed or encrypted under duress. The best you can really do there is throw in more human element to increase the number of rubber hoses your enemy will need.
I've never heard anybody in the UK say "have" when referring to USA. Looks like a standard typo.
Maybe we should ask for a photo of him holding a hand-written time-stamp.
I was actually just about to ask... how do we know Snowden had anything to do with this statement at all? It's not as if he's likely to publically challenge Wikileaks if they decide to make a sockpuppet out of him for their own ends.
It's almost as if he's deliberately provoking the most rabid response possible from the United States Government.
Regardless of what happens to him; he is writing himself into the pages of history.
His actions have opened the possibility of Western Europe defecting from the US led coalition that has dominated world affairs for the past 70 years. Which is not a result anyone could have predicted.
Regardless of what happens to him; he is writing himself into the pages of history.
His actions have opened the possibility of Western Europe defecting from the US led coalition that has dominated world affairs for the past 70 years. Which is not a result anyone could have predicted.
> His actions have opened the possibility of Western Europe defecting from the US led coalition that has dominated world affairs for the past 70 years. Which is not a result anyone could have predicted.
What changed compared to previous US spying scandals? (e.g. Echelon and the 2003 European council wiretaps from the US)
What changed compared to previous US spying scandals? (e.g. Echelon and the 2003 European council wiretaps from the US)
Your parents and grandparents are more likely to have read about this.
I don't think that will happen.
It probably won't; but the fact that there is a split in what was previously a rock solid relationship, and that Europe would be much better off if it could distance itself from a US led global financial system does mean that the possibility is there in a way that it was not a month ago.
The first leak in the dam doesn't look so threatening...
The first leak in the dam doesn't look so threatening...
Well it is not that simple. Relationship wasn't that rock solid. It was the appearance. And it was multifaceted.
There are economic ties, political, cultural, and military. It was always complicated with EU. Some countries are part of NATO, some aren't. EU doesn't have a military. So geo-politically it can't "project power" too much as a unified force. US and its NATO members know it.
If you read foreign affairs journal (they are stinktank propaganda often but they are read and acted on by many in power). You'd see articles about how EU is a geopolitical threat to US. It would eventually want to extract and use the same resources. It would want to eat the same bananas and dictate policy in parts of the world.
EU was and is a threat to US. If anything before those countries formed a stronger union, they were easier to manipulate as they could be played against each other. Like say offer Italy some trade rights to force France to change their stance or something like that.
Kosovo war for example was a good ol NATO show of force. USSR and then Russia was disabled in the gutter licking its wounds, EU was rising. It was time to bring in NATO to show the world who really rules Western Europe lest EU gets too cocky or gets some funny ideas.
Culturally, well we are friends. Americans love to trace their ancestry. Yes even 5 generations back and claim they are from Italy or France or what have you. They don't speak the language but sure as heck talk about how Italian they are. And so on. At least as far as culture and shared values. There is a closer relationship.
Anyway, I am just rambling without many references but just trying to say that it isn't that simple as "I thought we were friends and now look at what you guys did?"
There are economic ties, political, cultural, and military. It was always complicated with EU. Some countries are part of NATO, some aren't. EU doesn't have a military. So geo-politically it can't "project power" too much as a unified force. US and its NATO members know it.
If you read foreign affairs journal (they are stinktank propaganda often but they are read and acted on by many in power). You'd see articles about how EU is a geopolitical threat to US. It would eventually want to extract and use the same resources. It would want to eat the same bananas and dictate policy in parts of the world.
EU was and is a threat to US. If anything before those countries formed a stronger union, they were easier to manipulate as they could be played against each other. Like say offer Italy some trade rights to force France to change their stance or something like that.
Kosovo war for example was a good ol NATO show of force. USSR and then Russia was disabled in the gutter licking its wounds, EU was rising. It was time to bring in NATO to show the world who really rules Western Europe lest EU gets too cocky or gets some funny ideas.
Culturally, well we are friends. Americans love to trace their ancestry. Yes even 5 generations back and claim they are from Italy or France or what have you. They don't speak the language but sure as heck talk about how Italian they are. And so on. At least as far as culture and shared values. There is a closer relationship.
Anyway, I am just rambling without many references but just trying to say that it isn't that simple as "I thought we were friends and now look at what you guys did?"
The problem is that Europeans today feel as though they are under the US's economic bootheel. They see their leaders pushing austerity policies at the behest of US headquartered financial firms and they see their markets opened to the US and perceive that US markets are obstacle laden so far as their access is concerned.
These perceptions may be entirely factitious; but they are substantive in that they are shaping the political discourse sub rosa across the EU.
These perceptions may be entirely factitious; but they are substantive in that they are shaping the political discourse sub rosa across the EU.
Perhaps biased, being something of a Germanophile, but Germany could be the uniquely positioned party here.
If the UK loses its continental influence, the willingness of Euro-based business to respect the Pound (in trade, I mean - their acceptance, online or elsewhere, of the Pound as currency without first converting to Euro) may diminish. Further, London may fall out of the tech industry's graces as a good destination for regional headquarters.
In either case, the UK's loss is France/Germany's gain - likely moreso Germany's because they're already ahead by a bit.
Being an American, I know less than Jon Snow about how EU power works, but if the UK's losses mount and create a power vaccuum at/near the top, Germany and France are leading states even moreso than they were before. What that might amount to, I couldn't say.
If the UK loses its continental influence, the willingness of Euro-based business to respect the Pound (in trade, I mean - their acceptance, online or elsewhere, of the Pound as currency without first converting to Euro) may diminish. Further, London may fall out of the tech industry's graces as a good destination for regional headquarters.
In either case, the UK's loss is France/Germany's gain - likely moreso Germany's because they're already ahead by a bit.
Being an American, I know less than Jon Snow about how EU power works, but if the UK's losses mount and create a power vaccuum at/near the top, Germany and France are leading states even moreso than they were before. What that might amount to, I couldn't say.
Isn't Dublin the tech industry headquarters for Europe? The City is still the financial capital for a huge number of markets and I doubt this would be able to shift it.
>I doubt this would be able to shift it.
This is cheating on my part, but I agree and disagree.
a) Yes, it's unlikely any one event has the necessary inertia to shift a continent's finance capital from one city to another.
b) Everything starts somewhere. No single assassination is likely to start the largest global conflict in human history, yet Franz Ferdinand's assassination is credited with having "started" WWI. In reality, a number of necessary elements contributed, but human history is written in narrative fashion, and scene 1 of WWI begins with Franz, the way most people tell it. Similarly, the last ~40 years have been very interesting, currency-wise, I think, so, it may do to have an eye out for something big enough to light this powderkeg. Since so much of finance is based on trust, in one form or another, an event that dramatically reduces global trust in the dominant parties of the era would be one logically viable catalyst.
This is cheating on my part, but I agree and disagree.
a) Yes, it's unlikely any one event has the necessary inertia to shift a continent's finance capital from one city to another.
b) Everything starts somewhere. No single assassination is likely to start the largest global conflict in human history, yet Franz Ferdinand's assassination is credited with having "started" WWI. In reality, a number of necessary elements contributed, but human history is written in narrative fashion, and scene 1 of WWI begins with Franz, the way most people tell it. Similarly, the last ~40 years have been very interesting, currency-wise, I think, so, it may do to have an eye out for something big enough to light this powderkeg. Since so much of finance is based on trust, in one form or another, an event that dramatically reduces global trust in the dominant parties of the era would be one logically viable catalyst.
If anything, some Western European country (Germany the clearest candidate) might offer Snowden asylum. Unlikely though.
Germany might not be the best choice:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri
I don't understand. It seems Khalid was arrested (for having the same name as an al Qaeda trainer) while in Macedonia, then tortured by the CIA in Afghanistan. From the Wikipedia article, it seems Germany was not involved in the abduction.
the main problem was that german politicans refused to help him in a timely fashion. The german interior minister was informed about his abduction.
It occurs to me that there is a kind of deep hypocrisy for those who make the rules to claim that someone broke the rules. Rules require focus and diligence to apply, and they favor those that apply them regularly, vs those to whom they are applied.
I suspect that the Obama administration broke may of their own rules rushing through the a change in status that fast - a bureaucracy the size of the US doesn't process anything quickly without breaking the rules.
The Russians are clearly using Snowden as a pawn, probably because Russia is threatened by people like Snowden just as much as the US is. Snowden threatens those who make the rules, and then apply them fully to others and not at all to themselves and their cohorts.
For the third time in my life (the first two courtesy Bush Jr.) I'm deeply ashamed of my government.
I suspect that the Obama administration broke may of their own rules rushing through the a change in status that fast - a bureaucracy the size of the US doesn't process anything quickly without breaking the rules.
The Russians are clearly using Snowden as a pawn, probably because Russia is threatened by people like Snowden just as much as the US is. Snowden threatens those who make the rules, and then apply them fully to others and not at all to themselves and their cohorts.
For the third time in my life (the first two courtesy Bush Jr.) I'm deeply ashamed of my government.
> It occurs to me that there is a kind of deep hypocrisy for those who make the rules to claim that someone broke the rules.
Which is why I think it's silly that Snowden has (as so many before have and surely after him will) bothered to note that the US isn't allowing him to seek asylum. If you're in the position to seek asylum, and you think you deserve it, you're already claiming that the US is unfairly targeting you. Why would an organization that is unfairly targeting you be fair about asylum?
Which is why I think it's silly that Snowden has (as so many before have and surely after him will) bothered to note that the US isn't allowing him to seek asylum. If you're in the position to seek asylum, and you think you deserve it, you're already claiming that the US is unfairly targeting you. Why would an organization that is unfairly targeting you be fair about asylum?
Because the US is not a monolith.
> I suspect that the Obama administration broke may of their own rules rushing through the a change in status that fast
It's amazing what you can push through when a Secretary of State who can unilaterally revoke your passport once a valid warrant for arrest on Federal charges is issued, reports directly to you.
The only slow part of that would be getting the charges issued in the first place; Snowden simply took too long in Hong Kong.
It's amazing what you can push through when a Secretary of State who can unilaterally revoke your passport once a valid warrant for arrest on Federal charges is issued, reports directly to you.
The only slow part of that would be getting the charges issued in the first place; Snowden simply took too long in Hong Kong.
Which rules do you suspect the Obama administration broke?
In general the reason things take a long time to do in a bureaucracy is because of the required approvals from many different officials. If the President or a cabinet secretary wants something to happen now, this is less likely to be necessary.
In general the reason things take a long time to do in a bureaucracy is because of the required approvals from many different officials. If the President or a cabinet secretary wants something to happen now, this is less likely to be necessary.
"The tree that doesn't bend, breaks."
"Bend too far, and you're already broken."
It's more an issue of redefining the rules than breaking them. Court oversight becomes a secret rubber stamp that's never denied. Search becomes querying the database we already have. Non-citizenship becomes 51% confidence. Spying on enemy nations during wartime becomes Hey, Everybody's Doing It, Why Can't We? ...etc
"Bend too far, and you're already broken."
It's more an issue of redefining the rules than breaking them. Court oversight becomes a secret rubber stamp that's never denied. Search becomes querying the database we already have. Non-citizenship becomes 51% confidence. Spying on enemy nations during wartime becomes Hey, Everybody's Doing It, Why Can't We? ...etc
That's interesting but it doesn't answer the question of which rules the Obama administration broke by revoking Snowden's passport.
Not sure which, if any, were broken, but here's a quick rundown of existing rules I've found thus far: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5976018
I'm rather out of my depth where passport laws are concerned, though.
I'm rather out of my depth where passport laws are concerned, though.
[deleted]
I honestly don't know which ones, as I am not a lawyer or familiar with the processes that surround passport control. But I think it is very likely, verging on certainty, that some rules were broken.
Since you disclaim any knowledge of the subject, how is it that you feel qualified to make a pronouncement that something is almost certain?
[deleted]
> The Russians are clearly using Snowden as a pawn, probably because Russia is threatened by people like Snowden just as much as the US is.
Or simply because what else can a government use an individual for?
Or simply because what else can a government use an individual for?
I'm not taking sides here but Snowden is wrong on the facts about passport revocation. It is perfectly within the established law to revoke the passports of fugitives with federal arrest warrants. It doesn't make you a "stateless person" or "exile" you -- you're still welcome to return voluntarily.
The relevant U.S. law is 22 CFR 51.70 and 51.72 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-1999-title22-vol1/xml/CFR-1...
He does have a point that restricting travel does make it harder for you to seek asylum. But that's nothing new.
The relevant U.S. law is 22 CFR 51.70 and 51.72 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-1999-title22-vol1/xml/CFR-1...
He does have a point that restricting travel does make it harder for you to seek asylum. But that's nothing new.
Unfortunate this is as far down the comments as it is.
There are several interesting aspects to this story.
The first is obviously the revelations about NSA "overreach".
The second is that this guy could've remained hidden but he put his name behind the revelations rather than choosing the far safer path of being an "anonymous source". This lends his revelations more credence and you have to respect the guy for standing by his convictions. Maybe he would've been found out had he stayed in the shadows but he certainly didn't try to do that.
The third is that the US is very much two-faced here. It seems clear that the surveillance is being justified by a technical ruling to do with US vs foreign persons, a classified ruling no less. While this might be a fine legal argument, it doesn't engender support amongst foreign powers when you tell them you have every right to spy on their citizens but oh, by the way, can you do us a solid and hand over that fugitive?
In what world does the US think they'll get cooperation from anyone when they aren't treated not even as equals but with simple decency? So the foreign policy apparatus resorts to bullying tactics.
The fourth is that both China and Russia were blatantly thumbing their noses at the US. I see no world in which Russia hands the guy over so the actions of the US have done little more than force a guy in possession of Top Secret information to be harboured by a rival. Congratulations on that statecraft, Obama, Biden and Kerry.
What's more it's made the US appear internationally weak.
The last is that the various players on Snowden's side do seem to have screwed the pooch on this one by both issuing a letter of safe passage and not having some kind of contingency when the US did the predictable thing and revoked his passport. This could hardly have been an unprecedented move.
So good luck to you, Edward Snowden. I hope your sacrifice hasn't been in vein. The optimist in me hopes that a future president will pardon you and otherwise reverse this self-destructive course the US is on.
The first is obviously the revelations about NSA "overreach".
The second is that this guy could've remained hidden but he put his name behind the revelations rather than choosing the far safer path of being an "anonymous source". This lends his revelations more credence and you have to respect the guy for standing by his convictions. Maybe he would've been found out had he stayed in the shadows but he certainly didn't try to do that.
The third is that the US is very much two-faced here. It seems clear that the surveillance is being justified by a technical ruling to do with US vs foreign persons, a classified ruling no less. While this might be a fine legal argument, it doesn't engender support amongst foreign powers when you tell them you have every right to spy on their citizens but oh, by the way, can you do us a solid and hand over that fugitive?
In what world does the US think they'll get cooperation from anyone when they aren't treated not even as equals but with simple decency? So the foreign policy apparatus resorts to bullying tactics.
The fourth is that both China and Russia were blatantly thumbing their noses at the US. I see no world in which Russia hands the guy over so the actions of the US have done little more than force a guy in possession of Top Secret information to be harboured by a rival. Congratulations on that statecraft, Obama, Biden and Kerry.
What's more it's made the US appear internationally weak.
The last is that the various players on Snowden's side do seem to have screwed the pooch on this one by both issuing a letter of safe passage and not having some kind of contingency when the US did the predictable thing and revoked his passport. This could hardly have been an unprecedented move.
So good luck to you, Edward Snowden. I hope your sacrifice hasn't been in vein. The optimist in me hopes that a future president will pardon you and otherwise reverse this self-destructive course the US is on.
> The second is that this guy could've remained hidden but he put his name behind the revelations rather than choosing the far safer path of being an "anonymous source". This lends his revelations more credence and you have to respect the guy for standing by his convictions. Maybe he would've been found out had he stayed in the shadows but he certainly didn't try to do that.
I think that internal auditing would have very quickly identified him as the source the moment the leaks hit the papers.
At least this way they have a little bit of a PR shitstorm if they disappear him, as opposed to if he was totally anonymous.
Also, by doing that video interview, he gets to shape the narrative a tiny bit by pointing out all the opportunity he had to be malicious that he didn't use, illustrating that he's simply not. It's hard not to like the guy.
I think that internal auditing would have very quickly identified him as the source the moment the leaks hit the papers.
At least this way they have a little bit of a PR shitstorm if they disappear him, as opposed to if he was totally anonymous.
Also, by doing that video interview, he gets to shape the narrative a tiny bit by pointing out all the opportunity he had to be malicious that he didn't use, illustrating that he's simply not. It's hard not to like the guy.
I would argue that instead of "lend[ing] his revelations more credence" what he has done is made himself the story instead of the NSA activity that he was opposed to.
>>What's more it's made the US appear internationally weak
If that is the case then surely there must be lots of countries willing to offer him asylum and the traveling documents he needs.
>>What's more it's made the US appear internationally weak
If that is the case then surely there must be lots of countries willing to offer him asylum and the traveling documents he needs.
He's not still complaining about his passport, is he? Did Assange tell him to say that too?
A passport means that the host nation is comfortable with the person traveling abroad. For what should be obvious reasons the U.S. would rather he be back home (to stand trial). Even if you disagree with everything the NSA has done or will do, he technically broke the law. If the U.S. considers itself to observe the rule of law, then they have to pursue him as much as they'd pursue anyone else.
The U.S. has stripped persons of their citizenship for things as mundane as fraud, so this is hardly a made-up case for Snowden.
In fact, it's so not made up that there are existing procedures for when a passport may be revoked [1] [2]. Note that despite the foia_reading_room in the URL of [1], it is simply the U.S. Attorney's Manual, which is accessible directly from http://www.justice.gov/usao/index.html .
[1] http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit...
[2] http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/info/info_870.html
Edit: Also, since when did a conversation without an exchange of consideration or an agreement to perform certain actions become "wheeling and dealing"? This is the kind of stuff that has turned me off from Assange a long time ago; he's just as willing to distort as a government, as long as it suits his purpose.
A passport means that the host nation is comfortable with the person traveling abroad. For what should be obvious reasons the U.S. would rather he be back home (to stand trial). Even if you disagree with everything the NSA has done or will do, he technically broke the law. If the U.S. considers itself to observe the rule of law, then they have to pursue him as much as they'd pursue anyone else.
The U.S. has stripped persons of their citizenship for things as mundane as fraud, so this is hardly a made-up case for Snowden.
In fact, it's so not made up that there are existing procedures for when a passport may be revoked [1] [2]. Note that despite the foia_reading_room in the URL of [1], it is simply the U.S. Attorney's Manual, which is accessible directly from http://www.justice.gov/usao/index.html .
[1] http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit...
[2] http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/info/info_870.html
Edit: Also, since when did a conversation without an exchange of consideration or an agreement to perform certain actions become "wheeling and dealing"? This is the kind of stuff that has turned me off from Assange a long time ago; he's just as willing to distort as a government, as long as it suits his purpose.
Careful there. Revoking a passport is not the same as stripping a person of their citizenship. The press release itself seems to create some confusion here - Snowden is not stateless because he is still a US citizen, even though he doesn't currently have a passport.
Revoking a passport is routine when felony charges are filed. Citizenship on the other hand is much harder to remove, even if the US government had any interest in doing so (it doesn't in this case - it wants him back home).
Naturalized citizens can be stripped of citizenship in extreme cases when they're found to have lied on their citizenship applications. I'm not aware of any circumstance in which natural-born citizens can have their citizenship removed without them voluntarily renouncing it first.
Revoking a passport is routine when felony charges are filed. Citizenship on the other hand is much harder to remove, even if the US government had any interest in doing so (it doesn't in this case - it wants him back home).
Naturalized citizens can be stripped of citizenship in extreme cases when they're found to have lied on their citizenship applications. I'm not aware of any circumstance in which natural-born citizens can have their citizenship removed without them voluntarily renouncing it first.
Right. My point was only that the more extreme action (of stripping citizenship) has also occurred. Stripping someone of citizenship would tend to imply revoking of their passport, as it is indeed much more severe.
>The U.S. has stripped persons of their citizenship for things as mundane as fraud, so this is hardly a made-up case for Snowden.
For naturalization fraud. That is, if the original basis for citizenship was found to be invalid. Aside from that, it's nearly impossible to "strip" someone of their citizenship, I don't think it's a power that even authoritarian presidencies like Bush & Obama claim to have.
For naturalization fraud. That is, if the original basis for citizenship was found to be invalid. Aside from that, it's nearly impossible to "strip" someone of their citizenship, I don't think it's a power that even authoritarian presidencies like Bush & Obama claim to have.
I find it most interesting, and perhaps frightening, that Snowden's passport was revoked. I've been thinking quite a bit about it since that bit of news broke, and since it's referenced in this statement, it's back in my head.
I winced a bit at the claim of being a stateless person, as I'd previously understood that to mean lacking citizenship anywhere, not being without a passport for travel. Perhaps I've been wrong about that all these years.
I'm still researching, but so far, I've found the following passport-revocation authorities:
1. Obtained illegally or through fraud
2. Altered or misused (no definition yet on 'misused')
3. Issued to persons whose citizenship is cancelled
4. Non-payment of child support
5. Non-repayment of repatriation loan
6. Persons convicted of sex tourism
7. Persons convicted of drug trafficking
8. [based on comment below] Standing warrants for arrest (and other standing legal/court orders against the bearer)
Interestingly enough, 22 USC § 2721 states that:
> A passport may not be denied issuance, revoked, restricted, or otherwise limited because of any speech, activity, belief, affiliation, or membership, within or outside the United States, which, if held or conducted within the United States, would be protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
I've yet to find an authority to revoke a passport from a citizen who is openly seeking political asylum.
However, there is 22 USC § 217a:
>A passport shall be valid for a period of ten years from the date of issue, except that the Secretary of State may limit the validity of a passport to a period of less than ten years in an individual case or on a general basis pursuant to regulation.
So, there's that. Perhaps this is one such individual case.
Additionally, the law requires the DOS to send the passport owner written notification of revocation. I wonder if the US is considering a press statement to be such written notice?
Any lawyers versed in passport issues know whether revoking a passport in a situation like this runs afoul of law or established precedent?
[edit: formatting failure on my part]
I winced a bit at the claim of being a stateless person, as I'd previously understood that to mean lacking citizenship anywhere, not being without a passport for travel. Perhaps I've been wrong about that all these years.
I'm still researching, but so far, I've found the following passport-revocation authorities:
1. Obtained illegally or through fraud
2. Altered or misused (no definition yet on 'misused')
3. Issued to persons whose citizenship is cancelled
4. Non-payment of child support
5. Non-repayment of repatriation loan
6. Persons convicted of sex tourism
7. Persons convicted of drug trafficking
8. [based on comment below] Standing warrants for arrest (and other standing legal/court orders against the bearer)
Interestingly enough, 22 USC § 2721 states that:
> A passport may not be denied issuance, revoked, restricted, or otherwise limited because of any speech, activity, belief, affiliation, or membership, within or outside the United States, which, if held or conducted within the United States, would be protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
I've yet to find an authority to revoke a passport from a citizen who is openly seeking political asylum.
However, there is 22 USC § 217a:
>A passport shall be valid for a period of ten years from the date of issue, except that the Secretary of State may limit the validity of a passport to a period of less than ten years in an individual case or on a general basis pursuant to regulation.
So, there's that. Perhaps this is one such individual case.
Additionally, the law requires the DOS to send the passport owner written notification of revocation. I wonder if the US is considering a press statement to be such written notice?
Any lawyers versed in passport issues know whether revoking a passport in a situation like this runs afoul of law or established precedent?
[edit: formatting failure on my part]
> A federal or state law enforcement agency may request the denial of a passport on several regulatory grounds under 22 CFR 51.70 and 51.72. The principal law enforcement reasons for passport denial are a federal warrant of arrest, a federal or state criminal court order, a condition of parole or probation forbidding departure from the United States (or the jurisdiction of the court), or a request for extradition.
http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/info/info_870.html
So I think the passport revocation was in fact legal since there was a request for extradition and a federal warrant of arrest.
http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/info/info_870.html
So I think the passport revocation was in fact legal since there was a request for extradition and a federal warrant of arrest.
Thanks. Hadn't found that one yet.
Any idea on how that plays into the open requests for asylum?
Also, I'm assuming the statute uses passport denial to also include passport revocation?
Any idea on how that plays into the open requests for asylum?
Also, I'm assuming the statute uses passport denial to also include passport revocation?
Yes, 22 CFR 51.72 says they can revoke for any of the same reasons they'd deny, including an outstanding federal arrest warrant. Seems pretty cut and dried to me.
As for how it interacts with asylum, well, it doesn't. If states had an obligation not to pursue or interfere with the travel of a fugitive seeking asylum, then take a guess what a lot of fugitives would do.
Generally if you're going to seek asylum, it's not the country you're fleeing FROM that facilitates your emigration, it's the country you're traveling TO.
Well, that's exactly what Snowden did, and got a travel document from the Ecuadorian embassy. But the surprising other half of the story here is that Ecuador revoked that travel document while he was in Moscow. THAT is arguably the main reason why he's in a bind right now, not that he or his advisors expected his US passport to remain valid, which is clearly revokable under the law in these circumstances.
As for how it interacts with asylum, well, it doesn't. If states had an obligation not to pursue or interfere with the travel of a fugitive seeking asylum, then take a guess what a lot of fugitives would do.
Generally if you're going to seek asylum, it's not the country you're fleeing FROM that facilitates your emigration, it's the country you're traveling TO.
Well, that's exactly what Snowden did, and got a travel document from the Ecuadorian embassy. But the surprising other half of the story here is that Ecuador revoked that travel document while he was in Moscow. THAT is arguably the main reason why he's in a bind right now, not that he or his advisors expected his US passport to remain valid, which is clearly revokable under the law in these circumstances.
Okay, thanks. I figured from what else I'd already researched and read that denial & revocation were essentially equal.
On the interaction with asylum, I did a poor job of being clear. I was wondering more about considerations of asylum given the current situation and the US revoking Snowden's passport. I'd already assumed that a country would revoke (although Snowden's a different kind of fugitive than, say, a murderer attempting to flee). Obviously, no country facilitates emigration of a person they wish to make a political and legal example of. Was wondering more if the revocation makes Snowden look like more of a case for political asylum, or less attractive for potential asylum granters.
The Ecuadorian revocation of travel documents--if their stated reasons are true--is certainly surprising (both for the revocation, and the political liability that they're assessing to Assange in relation to Snowden).
All that aside, revoking a standing passport just strikes me as a very dick move. Almost childish, even. It just screams, "Our allies aren't cooperating with us because we've been abusing them, so we'll just maroon the poor bastard until they cave cos they don't want to deal with him either." Not ineffective, but still a disappointing tactic from the administration.
On the interaction with asylum, I did a poor job of being clear. I was wondering more about considerations of asylum given the current situation and the US revoking Snowden's passport. I'd already assumed that a country would revoke (although Snowden's a different kind of fugitive than, say, a murderer attempting to flee). Obviously, no country facilitates emigration of a person they wish to make a political and legal example of. Was wondering more if the revocation makes Snowden look like more of a case for political asylum, or less attractive for potential asylum granters.
The Ecuadorian revocation of travel documents--if their stated reasons are true--is certainly surprising (both for the revocation, and the political liability that they're assessing to Assange in relation to Snowden).
All that aside, revoking a standing passport just strikes me as a very dick move. Almost childish, even. It just screams, "Our allies aren't cooperating with us because we've been abusing them, so we'll just maroon the poor bastard until they cave cos they don't want to deal with him either." Not ineffective, but still a disappointing tactic from the administration.
Looks like it's routine to revoke the passports of wanted fugitives. It's not an administration-specific tactic, it's state dept. policy. So no, I wouldn't say that in itself supports or detracts from his appeal for asylum.
Ah, okay. That kind of makes it sound more like once charges are filed against a person, passports are revoked. I wonder how swiftly such action typically takes place in comparison to this action.
It surprising that states cares about a passport in regard to a political refugee seeking asylum. It used to be a joke, as within the musical Chess, there is a short song with:
If these people can't strike
Blows for freedom
With a valid visa
We don't need 'em
My suspicion about why this is a big deal, at least from the administration's standpoint as a very calculated move, is to make Snowden toxic--without the passport, wherever Snowden is currently situated is a place from which he cannot easily move, instantly making him a legal and political liability. Add to that the difficult place it forces the host nation in to be grilled on why they're not taking action against an alleged lawbreaker who is within their sphere of influence. If he is going to be able to move, a country is going to have to muster the courage to stand before the world stage and make it known that they are helping.
It appeared for a moment that country was Ecuador. Now, apparently not (and quite possibly because of the publication of the alleged travel documents).
It appeared for a moment that country was Ecuador. Now, apparently not (and quite possibly because of the publication of the alleged travel documents).
My passport states:
"This passport is the property of the United States. It must be surrendered upon demand made by an authorized representative of the United States."
Title 22, Section 51.9 is the law it references, but I haven't read it.
"This passport is the property of the United States. It must be surrendered upon demand made by an authorized representative of the United States."
Title 22, Section 51.9 is the law it references, but I haven't read it.
Accusing the United States of depriving him of the right to seek asylum seems like a tautology to me. If the United States wasn't attempting to bring him back to the US for a trial, he wouldn't need to seek asylum.
Does this mean every country who attempts to prosecute people who subsequently seek asylum is violating "a basic right"?
Does this mean every country who attempts to prosecute people who subsequently seek asylum is violating "a basic right"?
My interpretation is that he's criticizing the US for interfering with the sovereignty of other nations. e.g., The US is influencing them to deny asylum.
He's accusing the USA of pressuring countries to deny asylum.
What is the difference between asking for extradition and pressuring to deny asylum? It just seems like anyone could make that accusation who flees a country to avoid a trial.
> What is the difference between asking for extradition and pressuring to deny asylum?
Asylum is considered a basic human right. I've posted elsewhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5974330
Asylum is considered a basic human right. I've posted elsewhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5974330
> This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes
Anyway, it really doesn't make sense to talk about asylum in relation to the country being fled. The declaration is a statement of what the destination state should do when it recognizes a case of persecution. 'Persecution' is inherently a subjective concept.
Anyway, it really doesn't make sense to talk about asylum in relation to the country being fled. The declaration is a statement of what the destination state should do when it recognizes a case of persecution. 'Persecution' is inherently a subjective concept.
Obama is saying "You broke the law. We want you back. We won't wheel and deal for you with any country who wants to use you iike a pawn to win some other concession or just enjoy sticking it to us. Take him in at your own risk" Nothing new here or deceitful. Pretty standard operating procedure.
Exactly. Does Snowden honestly expect to not be charged with a crime that he has admitted to, even if he disagrees with the morality of the crime?
> Does Snowden honestly expect to not be charged with a crime that he has admitted to
What on Earth are you talking about? It's abundantly clear that he expects to be charged with a crime (or at least to be treated as badly or worse as someone charged with a crime). Why do you think he left the USA and is seeking asylum?
What on Earth are you talking about? It's abundantly clear that he expects to be charged with a crime (or at least to be treated as badly or worse as someone charged with a crime). Why do you think he left the USA and is seeking asylum?
Then why start with this sentence? "One week ago I left Hong Kong after it became clear that my freedom and safety were under threat for revealing the truth" Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "I went to HK because I thought my freedom and safety would be under threat if I revealed the truth in my home country" I agree with you that's he's known it all along. So this feels like he's manipulating his supporters as he's not really being very honest.
His confusion over being denied a nonexistent "right to asylum".
Whistleblowing is protected, so the debate about whether he's a whistleblower or a spy is also the debate as to whether he has committed a crime
You missed out the bit where they were making ham-fisted public threats to any country who even so much as thought about taking him in.
I missed that part too. Source?
Threats to cancel trade agreements if Equador grants asylum to Snowden: http://news.antiwar.com/2013/06/26/sen-menendez-threatens-ec...
Snowden's claim that the Vice President of the US is involved in similar political pressure against multiple of the nations Snowden has requested asylum from:
"Yet now it is being reported that after promising not to do so, the President ordered his Vice President to pressure the leaders of nations from which I have requested protection to deny my asylum petitions."
This is obviously political "wheeling and dealing" to interfere with Snowden's right to request asylum.
Snowden's claim that the Vice President of the US is involved in similar political pressure against multiple of the nations Snowden has requested asylum from:
"Yet now it is being reported that after promising not to do so, the President ordered his Vice President to pressure the leaders of nations from which I have requested protection to deny my asylum petitions."
This is obviously political "wheeling and dealing" to interfere with Snowden's right to request asylum.
This is how relations between countries work. They need to be bilateral by definition. Agreements are weighed on a cost benefit ratio. What country wants to continue to be friends with a country that harbors their fugitives?
You're fudging the world of difference between not friends and active enemies. US has been using the threat of stick, not removal of carrot.
Apparently it was a carrot, as Ecuador spit it back out, didn't they?
Just an FYI:
Nicolas Maduro, president of Venezuela is in Russia right now. He flies not the national presidential airplane but a cuban plane.
Rumor has it, he visited Russia with the intention of giving Snowden a ride back to Venezuela.
We'll see.
Nicolas Maduro, president of Venezuela is in Russia right now. He flies not the national presidential airplane but a cuban plane.
Rumor has it, he visited Russia with the intention of giving Snowden a ride back to Venezuela.
We'll see.
I very much doubt that the United States government is afraid of me. Snowden is a real drama queen.
I don't think that he deserves asylum either. I think he should come back to America, have a public trial with media coverage, and then we can firmly establish if what he did was wrong.
Edit: It appears that I'm unable to reply to the various comments on this, so I'll try to refine what I'm saying:
I do think that whistleblowers are necessary, especially in large, secretive organisations. But I think that Snowden's limbo isn't providing the requisite closure on the matter. I think that he should be compelled to explain his actions in court. I think all whistleblowers should, just as I think that anybody who kills somebody under a make-my-day law should still have their actions examined. Whistle blowing isn't something that somebody does lightly, and i think that should be doubly true for matters of national security.
Additionally, trying to vilify the government in a press statement is silly. Let their actions speak for them, and let your own actions speak for you.
I don't think that he deserves asylum either. I think he should come back to America, have a public trial with media coverage, and then we can firmly establish if what he did was wrong.
Edit: It appears that I'm unable to reply to the various comments on this, so I'll try to refine what I'm saying:
I do think that whistleblowers are necessary, especially in large, secretive organisations. But I think that Snowden's limbo isn't providing the requisite closure on the matter. I think that he should be compelled to explain his actions in court. I think all whistleblowers should, just as I think that anybody who kills somebody under a make-my-day law should still have their actions examined. Whistle blowing isn't something that somebody does lightly, and i think that should be doubly true for matters of national security.
Additionally, trying to vilify the government in a press statement is silly. Let their actions speak for them, and let your own actions speak for you.
Didn't work too well for Bradley Manning. I am not a US citizen, but for me its pretty obvious that your police force/intelligence services are out of control, at least in the context of this "national security" drama. I mean there are even secret court orders. How could the public control those? And if the public is left unable to know about and comment court orders, you have are serious problem with democracy and the rule of law.
What he did was certainly illegal. It's highly debatable as to whether or not it was wrong.
I would not overstate the certainty of the illegality. I've heard many people state this like it is a fact. It is much grayer legal territory. There is a substantial ways to go to determine if it would be found illegal.
The average american commits illegal acts daily, but I doubt you were referring to that.
The average american commits illegal acts daily, but I doubt you were referring to that.
I'm curious as to why you think so - the fact that he improperly removed and published information belonging to the NSA isn't disputed by anyone. I don't have the title and chapter on hand, but I'm just nearly certain that this is about as cut-and-dry illegal as it comes.
If you can give me a hint as to why it might not have been illegal, I would love to be enlightened.
If you can give me a hint as to why it might not have been illegal, I would love to be enlightened.
If he was tried, couldn't he (at least theoretically) be acquitted by the jury? Honest question; I don't know that much about the U.S. judicial system, but I'm aware of the concept of jury nullification.
(Not that I'm too keen on the possibility that the U.S. government would grant him the chance of a fair trial...)
(Not that I'm too keen on the possibility that the U.S. government would grant him the chance of a fair trial...)
Yes, juries in the USA can render any verdict they choose in criminal trials. Jurors cannot legally be punished for their verdicts, judges cannot direct verdicts in criminal trials, and acquittals cannot be appealed.
Jury nullification is possible, but it's unusual for any jury members who have heard of it to make the cut.
I think courts should be legally obliged to make jurors aware of that fact. Overall, I'm not a huge fan of trial by jury, but the idea that an unjust law (as felt by the general public) can be defeated like that certainly appeals to me.
(I'm not trying to make a point about Snowden's particular case, just speaking in general.)
(I'm not trying to make a point about Snowden's particular case, just speaking in general.)
It's in fact the opposite: the jury is explicitly told to judge the case, not the law, and mentioning nullification as a juror will certainly get you thrown out during the selection process, and I've even heard of cases which were sent to mistrial when the jury's intent was revealed. The best way to successfully nullify is to pretend that you've never heard of such a thing.
I do hope there's a demographic shift here. Facing heavy-handed laws regarding drugs and such, web-savvy young people seem to be slowly catching on about tactics like nullification, not talking to police, etc.
I do hope there's a demographic shift here. Facing heavy-handed laws regarding drugs and such, web-savvy young people seem to be slowly catching on about tactics like nullification, not talking to police, etc.
There has been some movement on this, New Hampshire passed a law requiring the court to allow the defense to inform the jury about nullification:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/10603/jury-nullification-i...
It seems that he may have been exposing illegal acts. Isn't it illegal _not_ to do that?
> have a public trial with media coverage
But that's not up to him, and seems... unlikely, let's say.
But that's not up to him, and seems... unlikely, let's say.
And the Egyptian, Turkish and Brazilian governments are not afraid of their citizens either.
It is best to give up any hope for a better world, power always prevails; and power is always on the side of authority.
It is best to give up any hope for a better world, power always prevails; and power is always on the side of authority.
I very much doubt that the United States government is afraid of me.
What makes you doubt that? You know you're not meant personally, right?
What makes you doubt that? You know you're not meant personally, right?
Damn, we live in a shitty world. And the comments in here are not much better. I wish him the best. It's sad that Ecuador is wavering. What a joke their leader is. First, they're posturing and puffing out their chests, now they look like fools.
Serious question: how has the US been "extrajudicial"?
Isn't it common to revoke a passport of someone you want to try of a crime and have extradited?
Does one expect the government to assist in your asylum attempts?
I don't believe one has the right to not be charged with a crime, especially one you have admitted to.
Isn't it common to revoke a passport of someone you want to try of a crime and have extradited?
Does one expect the government to assist in your asylum attempts?
I don't believe one has the right to not be charged with a crime, especially one you have admitted to.
> Yet now it is being reported that after promising not to do so, the President ordered his Vice President to pressure the leaders of nations from which I have requested protection to deny my asylum petitions.
I fail to see what is "extralegal" about trying to make sure you can get custody and try the person you've charged with a crime.
Every country in the world that has extradition treaties with other states does the same exact thing every day.
Every country in the world that has extradition treaties with other states does the same exact thing every day.
Why do you suppose people request asylum from third-party countries? Could you describe a circumstance in which it is a legitimate request should be granted?
Regardless of how you feel about whether his criminal charges are political there is nothing extralegal about requesting other countries to turn over the person you've charged with a crime.
It cannot be extra, meaning outside, the legal system, when all you have done is made a request within the established legal system and diplomatic customs.
It cannot be extra, meaning outside, the legal system, when all you have done is made a request within the established legal system and diplomatic customs.
We have no idea what kind of pressures the US has brought to bear against those considering his requests.
He has the right to seek it. Closed door pressure against those who can grant it is very certainly extralegal interference.
If they have any legitimate legal reason to interfere with his asylum requests to third parties, why not just charge him with a crime that those third parties would see as valid, or exclude torture from his potential punishments?
This is not about extradition, it's about asylum. Presumably you only grant asylum if you believe an extradition request is bullshit to begin with.
The US only has one non-scumbag move here, and that's to charge him with a crime or crimes, and make a credible commitment that his potential treatment before, during, and after the trial doesn't violate his basic human rights.
Going behind closed doors doesn't suddenly make the charges more plausible (espionage? really? he gave the info only to journos, spoke to no govts) or magically clean up the US's history of human rights abuses and torture against enemies of the military, be it Manning or al-Awlaki.
Bad or good, guilty or innocent - it is always wrong to turn someone over to be tortured.
He has the right to seek it. Closed door pressure against those who can grant it is very certainly extralegal interference.
If they have any legitimate legal reason to interfere with his asylum requests to third parties, why not just charge him with a crime that those third parties would see as valid, or exclude torture from his potential punishments?
This is not about extradition, it's about asylum. Presumably you only grant asylum if you believe an extradition request is bullshit to begin with.
The US only has one non-scumbag move here, and that's to charge him with a crime or crimes, and make a credible commitment that his potential treatment before, during, and after the trial doesn't violate his basic human rights.
Going behind closed doors doesn't suddenly make the charges more plausible (espionage? really? he gave the info only to journos, spoke to no govts) or magically clean up the US's history of human rights abuses and torture against enemies of the military, be it Manning or al-Awlaki.
Bad or good, guilty or innocent - it is always wrong to turn someone over to be tortured.
Are you suggesting that Snowden is aware of these backchannel threats then?
The US isn't in the habit of ensuring that the rule of law will be fulfilled since that is still the default posture of the government.
The US isn't in the habit of ensuring that the rule of law will be fulfilled since that is still the default posture of the government.
One thing that concerns me is that many Americans are adopting what is essentially a Tory/Loyalist attitude towards these events, without understanding the Tory/Loyalist political philosophy of dissidence, which differs from 'civil disobedience' and 'non-violent resistance' (those are the other guys).
Don't get me wrong -- we can't all be Patriots and Revolutionaries -- but our history has ill-fitted us to be good at being Tories and Loyalists. Those were the bad guys in all our grade-school stories ... and now we are those bad guys.
The classical Tory theory of dissidence is called "Passive Obedience." This doesn't mean bending over and being a wimp. It means being obedient to higher authority (God and Constitutional Law), while seemingly disobeying usurpers and tyrants, who are themselves violating the higher Law -- constitutional, moral, and natural. The "Passive" part is an old word meaning suffering (like the Passion of Christ).
Edward Snowden has given us a very good example of Passive Obedience -- if he is correct the programs are indeed unconstitutional. He certainly is suffering for his beliefs, and is fleeing, not resisting or rebelling against the State. Failure to obey the commands of usurpers and tyrants, or to obey bad law in defiance of the dictates of one's conscience, are not required even of Loyalists and Tories.
The fact that Tories and Loyalists, which the American people have become, are condemning his actions, shows only that we have forgotten how to be good Redcoats, as well as most certainly having forgotten how to be good Patriots.
As good Tories (not good Patriots though), Loyal to the American State, we have the right to petition our sovereign -- the American People, not its representative Government -- i.e., to request a constitutional convention to strike down these Star Chamber courts, redress the alleged tyranny, and end the usurpations against our Sovereign's previously constituted declarations, and granted Bill of Rights.
As far as Snowden's flight is concerned, Sir Thomas Hobbes gives a very clear explanation of both Passive Obedience and the right of the dissident to flee, in an attempt to evade the sure punishment he would otherwise receive with or without justice (however if he is caught he must meekly accept his Passion and martyrdom, without resistance -- Civil Disobedience and Resistance are the contrary of the Tory doctrine).
Time to pick sides -- but if we are going to be Tories all, let us not be bad ones. These are the times that try men's souls.
Don't get me wrong -- we can't all be Patriots and Revolutionaries -- but our history has ill-fitted us to be good at being Tories and Loyalists. Those were the bad guys in all our grade-school stories ... and now we are those bad guys.
The classical Tory theory of dissidence is called "Passive Obedience." This doesn't mean bending over and being a wimp. It means being obedient to higher authority (God and Constitutional Law), while seemingly disobeying usurpers and tyrants, who are themselves violating the higher Law -- constitutional, moral, and natural. The "Passive" part is an old word meaning suffering (like the Passion of Christ).
Edward Snowden has given us a very good example of Passive Obedience -- if he is correct the programs are indeed unconstitutional. He certainly is suffering for his beliefs, and is fleeing, not resisting or rebelling against the State. Failure to obey the commands of usurpers and tyrants, or to obey bad law in defiance of the dictates of one's conscience, are not required even of Loyalists and Tories.
The fact that Tories and Loyalists, which the American people have become, are condemning his actions, shows only that we have forgotten how to be good Redcoats, as well as most certainly having forgotten how to be good Patriots.
As good Tories (not good Patriots though), Loyal to the American State, we have the right to petition our sovereign -- the American People, not its representative Government -- i.e., to request a constitutional convention to strike down these Star Chamber courts, redress the alleged tyranny, and end the usurpations against our Sovereign's previously constituted declarations, and granted Bill of Rights.
As far as Snowden's flight is concerned, Sir Thomas Hobbes gives a very clear explanation of both Passive Obedience and the right of the dissident to flee, in an attempt to evade the sure punishment he would otherwise receive with or without justice (however if he is caught he must meekly accept his Passion and martyrdom, without resistance -- Civil Disobedience and Resistance are the contrary of the Tory doctrine).
Time to pick sides -- but if we are going to be Tories all, let us not be bad ones. These are the times that try men's souls.
Article 14 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
http://www.ichrp.org/en/article_14_udhr
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
http://www.ichrp.org/en/article_14_udhr
If there were ever a case for a second passport, this is one.
You can get buy one for $135,000. This is what Derek Sivers did. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3944339
https://sivers.org/comfort
http://www.sovereignman.com/lifestyle-design/how-to-obtain-a...
You can get buy one for $135,000. This is what Derek Sivers did. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3944339
https://sivers.org/comfort
http://www.sovereignman.com/lifestyle-design/how-to-obtain-a...
To imply that the US is somehow out of order to pursue his extradition makes no sense. What does he expect them to do?
IMHO, he should not have run. I don't think he would have any trouble convincing 12 people that what he did was the right thing. Running was bad form.
I don't like this guy, and I don't trust him.
IMHO, he should not have run. I don't think he would have any trouble convincing 12 people that what he did was the right thing. Running was bad form.
I don't like this guy, and I don't trust him.
Then show him up. Put your money where your mouth is by doing what you think is right.
In the meantime, let's get back to the message, not the messenger.
In the meantime, let's get back to the message, not the messenger.
A meta comment.
It reflects strongly on the state of our world now that I was more concerned about the fallout from visiting wikileaks.org than I was by the latest information coming from Snowden.
It reflects strongly on the state of our world now that I was more concerned about the fallout from visiting wikileaks.org than I was by the latest information coming from Snowden.
Is the world a different place after 9/11 .. heck yes!
How can the govt. prevent such an event from happening again or at least attempt to prevent it from happening again? Only way I can think is to invade every citizen's privacy of every nation, as they have done.
It seems for us the US there is no win win and with human nature there never is. If another 9/11 happens we'd be crying why didnt the govt. do more though the govt. is doing more and now we are crying what the hell are they doing?
Humans..we're never satisfied!
How can the govt. prevent such an event from happening again or at least attempt to prevent it from happening again? Only way I can think is to invade every citizen's privacy of every nation, as they have done.
It seems for us the US there is no win win and with human nature there never is. If another 9/11 happens we'd be crying why didnt the govt. do more though the govt. is doing more and now we are crying what the hell are they doing?
Humans..we're never satisfied!
How can the govt. prevent such an event from happening again or at least attempt to prevent it from happening again?
You don't. The price of freedom is the risk of getting hurt because the bad guys are in advantage. You don't step out of your front door with a gun and shoot everybody on the street because they may rob you - you get robbed and only after that you try to catch, charge and sentence the guy.
You don't. The price of freedom is the risk of getting hurt because the bad guys are in advantage. You don't step out of your front door with a gun and shoot everybody on the street because they may rob you - you get robbed and only after that you try to catch, charge and sentence the guy.
This reads like the statement of someone who realizes it might be his last.
Exposing US surveillance of US citizens is clearly whistleblowing and a good thing. Taking government laptops with NSA information, telling the Chinese what sites of theirs the NSA hacked, and then releasing information about NSA listening in on others (outside of the US) goes well into the realm of breaking the law and should have consequences. Of course, taking a tour of our adversaries doesn't help his cause much...
Also, I find it hard to swallow those who are up in arms about NSA spying on non-US citizens... seriously??? What do they think the NSA was formed to do??? That should not be a surprise...
I do worry that Wikileaks is pretty much hijacking his agenda and substituting their own...
Also, I find it hard to swallow those who are up in arms about NSA spying on non-US citizens... seriously??? What do they think the NSA was formed to do??? That should not be a surprise...
I do worry that Wikileaks is pretty much hijacking his agenda and substituting their own...
There is little doubt he is winning the war of public opinion at this point - certainly overseas, and possibly back at home.
Back at home is questionable. He's got the backing of the young and the technorati, but the traditional media is wavering between "Just The Facts" to sell a manhunt, and labeling him an outright traitor who gave secrets to The Enemy. A great many people take the latter at face value and don't pursue the matter any further.
He might have the backing of libertarians and the far left, but these were people already opposed to the known over-reach of state power. Honestly, if there's any hope of a significant sway in mainstream public opinion, I think it's going to come from the Tea Party.
He might have the backing of libertarians and the far left, but these were people already opposed to the known over-reach of state power. Honestly, if there's any hope of a significant sway in mainstream public opinion, I think it's going to come from the Tea Party.
My dad is about the most anti-authoritarian person I know, going so far as to sue the USG during 'nam for false induction.
These days he gets all his news from (Michigan) broadcast TV and radio, and is pretty reclusive and doesn't talk to anyone.
The narrative he'd constructed from these limited inputs was that he's an egomaniac computer hacker who took government data and then went to China and Russia. Technically it's not false, but that's the narrative (and all the implication) he'd assembled, given only MSM reports.
I think this is much bigger news outside of the US than inside, and that's pretty sad. Then again, Obama claims "foreign entities" (thanks for pretty solidly Othering all of the 6.5+ billion other humans) are the only ones that get surveilled without a warrant.
This whole thing stinks. Why'd NSA have to pull this stupid shit anyway? Did they really think that there'd be some huge domestic unrest against the military if they DIDN'T tap everyone's phones and resultantly missed some attack that hurts fewer people than we blow up quarterly with drones?
I don't get it. The logic simply doesn't pan out, and these aren't stupid people, because you can't build information processing systems at this scale and be dumb.
I feel like I'm missing something critical.
These days he gets all his news from (Michigan) broadcast TV and radio, and is pretty reclusive and doesn't talk to anyone.
The narrative he'd constructed from these limited inputs was that he's an egomaniac computer hacker who took government data and then went to China and Russia. Technically it's not false, but that's the narrative (and all the implication) he'd assembled, given only MSM reports.
I think this is much bigger news outside of the US than inside, and that's pretty sad. Then again, Obama claims "foreign entities" (thanks for pretty solidly Othering all of the 6.5+ billion other humans) are the only ones that get surveilled without a warrant.
This whole thing stinks. Why'd NSA have to pull this stupid shit anyway? Did they really think that there'd be some huge domestic unrest against the military if they DIDN'T tap everyone's phones and resultantly missed some attack that hurts fewer people than we blow up quarterly with drones?
I don't get it. The logic simply doesn't pan out, and these aren't stupid people, because you can't build information processing systems at this scale and be dumb.
I feel like I'm missing something critical.
I do credit the Three-Letter Agencies with the benefit of the doubt; they may know about dangers much scarier than shoe-bombs or even 9/11. It does not justify the overreach of authority, but is sufficient that I do want to presume on their intentions.
Having said that, given the opportunity and no legal obstacles, it's almost stupid not to soak up every last piece of data.
* If the motives are pure, they might stop a large attack, and/or avoid accusations of incompetence if an attack slips through.
* If motivated from above in the power structure, Obama or Cheney or whoever gets enough data to be ten steps ahead of political and economic foes, at home and abroad.
* If motivated from within, the agencies are able to blackmail and manipulate opponents to maintain their own budget and relevance. They might even do this out of genuine belief in their organization and mission.
* If motivated personally, a handful of powerful individuals get to maintain back-scratching relationships through selective dissemination of information, to say nothing of potential financial gains.
If I had to guess, every single one of these motives is at play at various levels. And of course, being in a position to have all this data gives one an immense amount of leverage to shut people up and hide misdeeds. Good to be the king.
Blaming the NSA for PRISM is like blaming the ocean for New Orleans. It's We The People who failed to build strong enough levees, and somebody was going to take advantage of it eventually. Time will tell if the public will accept the degree to which government institutions are openly doubling down. This is the political issue of our generation; if we accept spying as the norm, it will be very hard to undo.
Having said that, given the opportunity and no legal obstacles, it's almost stupid not to soak up every last piece of data.
* If the motives are pure, they might stop a large attack, and/or avoid accusations of incompetence if an attack slips through.
* If motivated from above in the power structure, Obama or Cheney or whoever gets enough data to be ten steps ahead of political and economic foes, at home and abroad.
* If motivated from within, the agencies are able to blackmail and manipulate opponents to maintain their own budget and relevance. They might even do this out of genuine belief in their organization and mission.
* If motivated personally, a handful of powerful individuals get to maintain back-scratching relationships through selective dissemination of information, to say nothing of potential financial gains.
If I had to guess, every single one of these motives is at play at various levels. And of course, being in a position to have all this data gives one an immense amount of leverage to shut people up and hide misdeeds. Good to be the king.
Blaming the NSA for PRISM is like blaming the ocean for New Orleans. It's We The People who failed to build strong enough levees, and somebody was going to take advantage of it eventually. Time will tell if the public will accept the degree to which government institutions are openly doubling down. This is the political issue of our generation; if we accept spying as the norm, it will be very hard to undo.
> Having said that, given the opportunity and no legal obstacles, it's almost stupid not to soak up every last piece of data.
then
> Blaming the NSA for PRISM is like blaming the ocean for New Orleans.
I simply can't buy that.
It doesn't take a ton of smarts to know that a giant database such as this, even in the hands of the most kind and benevolent stewards, _will not stay in those hands forever_.
It's a ticking time bomb for abuse. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when, and how bad. It's a silent bloodless military coup in a box with a big red button on top.
Once built, something like that could never get meaningfully opposed, and a large-scale abuse would be the absolute end of freedom as we know it: everything from oppression of the free press, to coercion and blackmail of political opponents, and silencing of activists or loudmouths of any/all stripes.
I just can't see how any reasonable person, even with a 100% belief in the legitimacy of spying, even domestically, could not see what a COLOSSALLY BAD IDEA this thing is.
No conceivable threat model, even fantastic ones from Hollywood, makes it seem sane, as the damage to the "American way of life" is an order of magnitude greater from such a system than any bomb or attack.
I see what you're saying, and all of these seem like reasonable explanations, but they all become non-starters when you consider the long-term consequence of this thing being built. It's like a doomsday machine that you can't turn off.
then
> Blaming the NSA for PRISM is like blaming the ocean for New Orleans.
I simply can't buy that.
It doesn't take a ton of smarts to know that a giant database such as this, even in the hands of the most kind and benevolent stewards, _will not stay in those hands forever_.
It's a ticking time bomb for abuse. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when, and how bad. It's a silent bloodless military coup in a box with a big red button on top.
Once built, something like that could never get meaningfully opposed, and a large-scale abuse would be the absolute end of freedom as we know it: everything from oppression of the free press, to coercion and blackmail of political opponents, and silencing of activists or loudmouths of any/all stripes.
I just can't see how any reasonable person, even with a 100% belief in the legitimacy of spying, even domestically, could not see what a COLOSSALLY BAD IDEA this thing is.
No conceivable threat model, even fantastic ones from Hollywood, makes it seem sane, as the damage to the "American way of life" is an order of magnitude greater from such a system than any bomb or attack.
I see what you're saying, and all of these seem like reasonable explanations, but they all become non-starters when you consider the long-term consequence of this thing being built. It's like a doomsday machine that you can't turn off.
We're definitely on the same page. What I'm getting at is the general human capacity for hubris, ideology, and group loyalty.
The One-Way Panopticon may be a horrible idea both morally and practically, but given the above human foibles, I'm not ready to jump to the easy conclusion that the perpetrators are Evil, Idiots, or Evil Idiots. People are complicated, and I ultimately lack sufficient data to assess motives. Rather, there are so many possible motives, at some point it doesn't really matter.
EDIT: I should clarify: When I say "they'd be stupid not to spy", I mean in the sense of short-sighted immediate goals. Obviously, on a larger scale, it is sheer lunacy.
The One-Way Panopticon may be a horrible idea both morally and practically, but given the above human foibles, I'm not ready to jump to the easy conclusion that the perpetrators are Evil, Idiots, or Evil Idiots. People are complicated, and I ultimately lack sufficient data to assess motives. Rather, there are so many possible motives, at some point it doesn't really matter.
EDIT: I should clarify: When I say "they'd be stupid not to spy", I mean in the sense of short-sighted immediate goals. Obviously, on a larger scale, it is sheer lunacy.
Knowledge is power and people/entities in govt are all about the pursuit of power.
I wish him the very best.
"and neither is the extralegal penalty of exile"
Okay, so this guy keeps saying some pretty strange things. If he came to the States, he would no doubt be tried in the legal system. He is putting himself into an extralegal position. I think it's probably the best thing for him to do at this point, but to say that the government has in any way forced him out of the legal system is pretty silly.
Okay, so this guy keeps saying some pretty strange things. If he came to the States, he would no doubt be tried in the legal system. He is putting himself into an extralegal position. I think it's probably the best thing for him to do at this point, but to say that the government has in any way forced him out of the legal system is pretty silly.
> If he came to the States, he would no doubt be tried in the legal system.
How can you be so sure? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning
How can you be so sure? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning
[deleted]
This young man is a true American hero.
What is the proof that this Statement came from Snowden directly?
I guess it depends on how much you trust Wikileaks to review information for its accuracy.
> Providing a counterbalance makes it harder for the government propaganda machine to sway public opinion against him and turn him into Just Another Terrorist.
Maybe he should tell Russian state media to tone it down a bit then. From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2351981/Is-Ed-Snowde... :
"In several rapidly-aired shows on state-run TV, Snowden was flattered as 'a soldier in the information war, who fights, of course, on the side of Russia'."
As far as Russia is concerned Snowden isn't fighting for some pan-national ideal; he's fighting on the side of Russia
Maybe he should tell Russian state media to tone it down a bit then. From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2351981/Is-Ed-Snowde... :
"In several rapidly-aired shows on state-run TV, Snowden was flattered as 'a soldier in the information war, who fights, of course, on the side of Russia'."
As far as Russia is concerned Snowden isn't fighting for some pan-national ideal; he's fighting on the side of Russia
[deleted]
Role model.
http://imgur.com/AfcF56q
http://imgur.com/AfcF56q
> using citizenship as a weapon. Although I am convicted of nothing, it has unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me a stateless person.
And, ironically, this terrible decision of the US government, ultimately is responsible for Snowden having to stay in Moscow and probably having to tell the Russian everything he knows, even the parts he never intented to reveal. The US government just did a classical "shot yourself in the foot", I'd say.
And, ironically, this terrible decision of the US government, ultimately is responsible for Snowden having to stay in Moscow and probably having to tell the Russian everything he knows, even the parts he never intented to reveal. The US government just did a classical "shot yourself in the foot", I'd say.
Waiting for the onion to write "Edward Snowden issues statement confirming he wrote earlier statement from Edward Snowden"
I love that he included his middle name in the signature, after the US bungled its extradition request by getting that wrong.
I'm sure those who signed the following doc were probably accused of egocentrism, among other things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_In...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_In...
I wonder what exactly happened with Hong Kong. Did he get wind that the HK govt intended to end-run its own laws and asylum process and extradite him, or something similar?
I'm not sure you know how Wikileaks works "I'd really like to see Wikileaks devoting more of its time, energy, and fund-raising into breaking news about government-operated surveillance programs in the last two countries where Edward Snowden has been located, namely China and Russia."
From my understanding people submit content to Wikileaks which then decides what and when to publish. But I guess this depends on if you believe Assange pushed Mannings to release documents.
From my understanding people submit content to Wikileaks which then decides what and when to publish. But I guess this depends on if you believe Assange pushed Mannings to release documents.
I'm so very tired of WikiLeaks. Since when is this their case?
Thank you, Edwin Snowden. In the end, you have made us more free.
Thank you Edwin Snowden. In the end, you have made us more free.
Is there a way we can send cash to Edward Snowden?
Best read if you can imagine a voice in your head a-la Diablo III, how various spirits of past talk.
why would he date it d/m/y instead of m/d/y?
As far as I know, that is normal. Putting month first is illogical.
It's not normal in the USA (another Britishism apparently?).
In the USA a date is spoken as "July 2nd, 2013" instead of "2 July 2013", which is why the shorthand date is MM/dd/YYYY (as it lines up with the way it is spoken).
In the USA a date is spoken as "July 2nd, 2013" instead of "2 July 2013", which is why the shorthand date is MM/dd/YYYY (as it lines up with the way it is spoken).
A take on being international perhaps? As far as I know the US is the only country that uses M/D/Y format. PRISM does not only concern US citizens.
Maybe he's looking to avoid ambiguity.
edward is a very strong writer, his rhetoric is perfect.
For someone who doesn't want the story to be about him, he sure talks a lot about himself...
The Russians have said he's applying to 15 countries for asylum.
He's trying to gain public support and put pressure on the US government, while at the same time persuading countries to give him asylum. Releasing a statement will help him to do this.
He's trying to gain public support and put pressure on the US government, while at the same time persuading countries to give him asylum. Releasing a statement will help him to do this.
If my life was in jeopardy and I had means to apply pressure in a way that would reduce the risk of getting tortured by the U.S., I would apply that pressure in any way possible.
"If I violated US law and I had means to apply pressure in a way that would reduce the risk of getting imprisoned and convicted in the US, I would apply that pressure in any way possible."
Works either way.
Works either way.
Is this sarcasm?
I'm just wondering why he released this.
Because his most powerful weapon is controlling the public discourse.
If he goes entirely silent then the government will step in to fill the void: "His girlfriend's a stripper, he's a hacker terrorist, his neighbors say he's weird, he might be a soviet spy, he did it all for the attention, he's not an American."
If he speaks out on a daily basis the news media will eventually grow tired of the story and move on leaving him to be a 3rd page story when he's arrested.
His best option right now is to stay in front of the news for as long as possible until some solution is worked out. In the meantime staying positive with the American people will do more good for his eventual trial.
If he goes entirely silent then the government will step in to fill the void: "His girlfriend's a stripper, he's a hacker terrorist, his neighbors say he's weird, he might be a soviet spy, he did it all for the attention, he's not an American."
If he speaks out on a daily basis the news media will eventually grow tired of the story and move on leaving him to be a 3rd page story when he's arrested.
His best option right now is to stay in front of the news for as long as possible until some solution is worked out. In the meantime staying positive with the American people will do more good for his eventual trial.
To apply pressure on the US government regarding the revocation of his passport making it impossible for him to reach Ecuador or where ever, of course. He's stuck in Moscow due to his passport being revoked and Putin's basically told him that he's not welcome there. He's in a tight spot.
You'll notice he never once mentioned the documents or their contents in this message. He's not "making the story about himself" - he's using the media as a tool to apply pressure to the forces aligned against him in the hopes of securing his safety.
You'll notice he never once mentioned the documents or their contents in this message. He's not "making the story about himself" - he's using the media as a tool to apply pressure to the forces aligned against him in the hopes of securing his safety.
What pressure does a statement from the man himself apply to the US? I fail to see how this improves his situation one whit.
It's a plea for public support. By raising Obama's profile as an oppressor, he hopes to turn public sentiment against the sitting government.
As someone else said, remaining silent lets his opposition control the discourse. You can see this clearly in the frenzy of stories in the media about Snowden's stripper girlfriend and the "IS HE A COMMIE SPY?" headlines. Providing a counterbalance makes it harder for the government propaganda machine to sway public opinion against him and turn him into Just Another Terrorist.
As someone else said, remaining silent lets his opposition control the discourse. You can see this clearly in the frenzy of stories in the media about Snowden's stripper girlfriend and the "IS HE A COMMIE SPY?" headlines. Providing a counterbalance makes it harder for the government propaganda machine to sway public opinion against him and turn him into Just Another Terrorist.
I don't think it reads like a plea for public support, if it was intended as such then it isn't worded well. It reads like a bunch of other wikileaks press releases that are generally political statements about the importance of transparency. The problem is that if he wants public sympathy he needs to avoid coming across as having political motives and if he does want to make accusations then he must consider the possibility that they will backfire and cost him public support.
A 'counterbalance' can often instead be a distraction which is what I fear happened here.
A 'counterbalance' can often instead be a distraction which is what I fear happened here.
Probably because he and Wikileaks have the entire world media asking them for a statement daily.
I, for one, was grateful for the update. Yes, I care about how Snowden is personally doing in Moscow.
I, for one, was grateful for the update. Yes, I care about how Snowden is personally doing in Moscow.
We know he has been in Moscow for a long time! There isn't anything new here at all. As others have pointed out the statement used British phrases instead of american ones so it appears this was drafted by wikileaks instead of snowden, which isn't very reassuring.
Because, like anyone in that situation, he's trying to find a home. Unfortunately, for him to receive justice he needs to be in the spotlight because politicians won't make the right choice unless confronted by their constituents.
If he chose silence, he'd be infinitely detained, and would receive no justice.
If he chose silence, he'd be infinitely detained, and would receive no justice.
Justice for Snowden is a lifetime in jail, according to basically every government in the world.
That's his fundamental problem, after all. If any of the countries he intends to flee to were to have someone leak the same kind of documents that Snowden leaked about the US, that person would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the laws of that country.
So when you talk about justice, I don't think you want Snowden to receive justice, because that's a small cell for the rest of his life, or worse.
That's his fundamental problem, after all. If any of the countries he intends to flee to were to have someone leak the same kind of documents that Snowden leaked about the US, that person would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the laws of that country.
So when you talk about justice, I don't think you want Snowden to receive justice, because that's a small cell for the rest of his life, or worse.
Your reasoning presumes that countries of the world apply the same standard of 'justice' to foreign spies that they do to their own. Clearly this has proven to not be the true for China/HK and Russia.
I'm just pointing out the problem for any country of accepting Snowden. You're saying to your people, "It's okay to leak classified documents."
If I am reading that right you are saying that justice is defined by laws - rather than the law being derived from justice.
That seems right to me. Where there is no law (be that legal, moral, spiritual, etc), there can be no injustice.
diminoten seems to be talking specifically about legislation, not law in a broader sense.
[deleted]
Because history repeats itself, and you should learn from history.
Joan of Arc stood for France, in the Hundred Year's War. The story was not about her, it was about the country, the people. But yet, her narrative, the ideas she had, her martyrdom, etc all had a profound impact on the events of history, and lead the changing of the tides of the war.
A war is not fought on a martyr's backs. Sometimes, it takes 22 more years for the job to be finished. This doesn't mean putting someone up as an example isn't warranted, nor is it dilute or make the narrative of the people any less powerful.
Joan of Arc stood for France, in the Hundred Year's War. The story was not about her, it was about the country, the people. But yet, her narrative, the ideas she had, her martyrdom, etc all had a profound impact on the events of history, and lead the changing of the tides of the war.
A war is not fought on a martyr's backs. Sometimes, it takes 22 more years for the job to be finished. This doesn't mean putting someone up as an example isn't warranted, nor is it dilute or make the narrative of the people any less powerful.
How Snowden is treated sets a precedent for future U.S. dissidents of any kind. You might not care for or about him, but what happens to him sure as hell matters.
Because some people want to know what his status is so that they can support him.
The man is desperate for attention, but doesn't want to appear so. I guess.
How is releasing a single press release being "desperate for attention"?
A common theme among people who oppose Edward Snowden's is to criticize his character. Even within this thread people have resorted to name calling, dubbing him a "Drama Queen" and accuse him of seeking fame.
I suppose it's easier to attack a person than it is to attack the issues he stands for.
A common theme among people who oppose Edward Snowden's is to criticize his character. Even within this thread people have resorted to name calling, dubbing him a "Drama Queen" and accuse him of seeking fame.
I suppose it's easier to attack a person than it is to attack the issues he stands for.
If he wasn't, he would have simply turned himself in and faced trial.
All his globe-trotting and statements just detract from the issues he's raised re: surveillance.
All his globe-trotting and statements just detract from the issues he's raised re: surveillance.
Unless he doesn't believe that he can get a fair and just trial. Given the history of those before him, I'd say that's a fair assumption.
I don't think it's all that fair of an assumption, and even so, he's only delaying the inevitable. He will be brought back and tried eventually.
Riiiight... He'll get fair trial and ride a unicorn over happiness mountain. All life is delaying the inevitable. Let's hope he doesn't end his in a dark cell.
Yeah, much like those Jewish people should have turned themselves to the Roman Inquisition.
Or to the Nazi. I'm sure those guys are pretty cool.
I've seen your opinion before. And you appear to lack the ability to give his situation enough brain power to develop a realistic reply. But feel free to continue to blather on like you understand what's happening. Maybe we'll get a laugh out of it on HN.
You guess. Good contribution there.
How is this "a lot about himself"? It's very short, he states his situation, and his position. He clearly says "Their purpose is to frighten, not me, but those who would come after me." and then talks about Bradley Manning and Thomas Drake.
It's just frustrating that yet another post on HN is about Snowden, and not the actual information he's released. Yet another news cycle is going to be wasted now on playing the, "Where in the World is Edward Snowden?" game, when in reality, the man doesn't matter.
His education, temperament and girlfriend don't matter but his political persecution surely does.
good point.
He's not a 'stateless person'. His passport has been revoked, but he remains a US citizen.
Yes, those two words are probably not precise enough to describe the situation.
However if you read the context, what is being said is pretty much true: they are using citizenship as a weapon in order to deny him the human right to seek asylum.
However if you read the context, what is being said is pretty much true: they are using citizenship as a weapon in order to deny him the human right to seek asylum.
"The Obama administration has now adopted the strategy
of using citizenship as a weapon. Although I am convicted
of nothing, it has unilaterally revoked my passport,
leaving me a stateless person. Without any judicial order,
the administration now seeks to stop me exercising a
basic right. A right that belongs to everybody.
The right to seek asylum."
He _broke the law_ and is a fugitive from justice. He wouldn't be a hero if he wasn't risking consequences, and it should have been obvious from the start that he was going to be apprehended by the US eventually.
EDIT: Also, the concept of "a human right to seek asylum" is meaningless. Asylum is a two-party arrangement. Is that a legal obligation for all nations to _grant_ asylum to seekers, regardless of circumstances?
EDIT: Also, the concept of "a human right to seek asylum" is meaningless. Asylum is a two-party arrangement. Is that a legal obligation for all nations to _grant_ asylum to seekers, regardless of circumstances?
Yes, he did break the law but it is absurd for you to use the word 'justice'.
He is a fugitive from injustice.
I do not care whether he is a hero or not, but I do care about whether it was a right thing to do and whether he is treated as a human should be treated. These are principles worth upholding.
Justice: The quality of being fair and reasonable.
He is a fugitive from injustice.
I do not care whether he is a hero or not, but I do care about whether it was a right thing to do and whether he is treated as a human should be treated. These are principles worth upholding.
> He's not running away from something which is 'fair or reasonable', his human rights are in grave danger.
How so? I mean this sincerely.
What do you think will happen to him when he is arrested? There's no brig to throw him in, as he's a civilian. Snowden was very concerned about the lack of judicial oversight in what he saw with PRISM, so why would he assume that very same judicial system would mark him for special treatment when people like Hanssen, the Walker gang, and even Aaron Hernandez have not received such?
If Snowden really felt beforehand that the civilian justice system was so completely inequitable it seems weird that he'd have been so insistent on its involvement elsewhere.
How so? I mean this sincerely.
What do you think will happen to him when he is arrested? There's no brig to throw him in, as he's a civilian. Snowden was very concerned about the lack of judicial oversight in what he saw with PRISM, so why would he assume that very same judicial system would mark him for special treatment when people like Hanssen, the Walker gang, and even Aaron Hernandez have not received such?
If Snowden really felt beforehand that the civilian justice system was so completely inequitable it seems weird that he'd have been so insistent on its involvement elsewhere.
>> If Snowden really felt beforehand that the civilian justice system was so completely inequitable it seems weird that he'd have been so insistent on its involvement elsewhere.
The 'justice' system fulfils what power requires from it. It will be as inequitable with a trial as it has been with this whole fiasco.
The 'justice' system fulfils what power requires from it. It will be as inequitable with a trial as it has been with this whole fiasco.
Then there was never a reason to involve the 'justice' system in surveillance measures at all, was there?
>Then there was never a reason to involve the 'justice' system in surveillance measures at all, was there?
"...But Obama’s Justice Department, like Bush’s, has not been above an opportunistic (and occasionally downright Procrustean) reading of particular statutes to permit whatever it is that the White House wants to do."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5961518
"...But Obama’s Justice Department, like Bush’s, has not been above an opportunistic (and occasionally downright Procrustean) reading of particular statutes to permit whatever it is that the White House wants to do."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5961518
They could just hold him for years without a trial like what happened with Kevin Mitnick.
Well... that was bad, but it was bad for different reasons. Mitnick himself waived his right to a speedy trial. The government swamped him and his court in so much shit that he'd have a difficult time preparing a proper defense otherwise.
The flipside for Snowden is that at least it will count as time served so if he gets sentenced to more than 2 years it might actually be beneficial as I'd imagine you get to meet with your lawyers more often while prepping for trial.
The flipside for Snowden is that at least it will count as time served so if he gets sentenced to more than 2 years it might actually be beneficial as I'd imagine you get to meet with your lawyers more often while prepping for trial.
This, the US gov't has plenty of backdoors and sleazy dealings to circumvent a speedy trial by ones peers. It is why most criminal sentences aren't heard by juries, because the system is rigged and intentionally bullies the accused into taking plea bargains.
I am genuinely curious to know if there is a county whose judicial system could be used as a good example.
If "being a hero" requires risk (which I disagree with), then whenever it is possible to take the actions of a hero without the associated risk then it in fact becomes preferred that people not be heroes. Nobody has an obligation to become a martyr; there is no obligation to seek out risk, or to not evade it.
To your edit: See Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
To your edit: See Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
To the UN document (which has dubious jurisdiction, but I'll play along):
"Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution"
Which is followed by:
"This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations"
Which negates your point, because of this:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_U.S.%20new...
I don't understand what your point is about the nature of heroism.
"Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution"
Which is followed by:
"This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations"
Which negates your point, because of this:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_U.S.%20new...
I don't understand what your point is about the nature of heroism.
> dubious jurisdiction
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has no jurisdiction, it is not a law... If you are confusing it for one, then I think you have some reading to do.
> http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_U.S.%20new....
Most political charges are dressed up as non-political. Does this surprise you?
> I don't understand what your point is about the nature of heroism
If your intent for bringing up heroism was not to imply that he should be "brought to justice", "turn himself in", "should not have run", or any variation of those, then consider my point about the nature of heroism to be an aside.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has no jurisdiction, it is not a law... If you are confusing it for one, then I think you have some reading to do.
> http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_U.S.%20new....
Most political charges are dressed up as non-political. Does this surprise you?
> I don't understand what your point is about the nature of heroism
If your intent for bringing up heroism was not to imply that he should be "brought to justice", "turn himself in", "should not have run", or any variation of those, then consider my point about the nature of heroism to be an aside.
> Most political charges are dressed up as non-political. Does this surprise you?
Snowden's own father says he broke the law... but he wasn't a traitor in doing so. But I don't believe the UDHR talks about treason in their exception request.
Snowden's own father says he broke the law... but he wasn't a traitor in doing so. But I don't believe the UDHR talks about treason in their exception request.
Of course he broke the law. So did Tank Man.
Sure. But let's call a spade a spade.
He broke the law, and fled to avoid justice. All quite reasonable, from his perspective.
But why is he trying to claim something different? He claims the U.S. pursuit of him is somehow extralegal or some kind of perversion of justice. It's neither.
Snowden decided that the need of the public to know about PRISM was more important than the loss of national security value that would come from revealing the details about it. While that's his decision to make, it's not weird that there are laws in place to protect national security. His father acknowledges that. Hell, even Putin acknowledges that; why can't Snowden now? If you're going to go on the lam then hey, I see why.... but don't act like the government did anything weird in that regard.
He broke the law, and fled to avoid justice. All quite reasonable, from his perspective.
But why is he trying to claim something different? He claims the U.S. pursuit of him is somehow extralegal or some kind of perversion of justice. It's neither.
Snowden decided that the need of the public to know about PRISM was more important than the loss of national security value that would come from revealing the details about it. While that's his decision to make, it's not weird that there are laws in place to protect national security. His father acknowledges that. Hell, even Putin acknowledges that; why can't Snowden now? If you're going to go on the lam then hey, I see why.... but don't act like the government did anything weird in that regard.
I don't think this is an "either-or" situation.
He is fleeing "justice", he believes that the US is using extralegal, political, methods to pursue him in order to "bring" him to justice, and he finds it plausible that "justice" will involve a gross violation of his human rights.
I am not seeing the problem here that you seem to think there is. What are you expecting him to say, "The only reason I am running is so that I am not subjected to a fair trail and humane punishment."?
He is fleeing "justice", he believes that the US is using extralegal, political, methods to pursue him in order to "bring" him to justice, and he finds it plausible that "justice" will involve a gross violation of his human rights.
I am not seeing the problem here that you seem to think there is. What are you expecting him to say, "The only reason I am running is so that I am not subjected to a fair trail and humane punishment."?
> What are you expecting him to say, "The only reason I am running is so that I am not subjected to a fair trail and humane punishment."?
He could just say "I broke the law for the public good, there's no way to get this issue the attention it deserves otherwise. I intend to remain free even if I have to be in exile, as that is how I can do the most good for the people!" etc etc. Not really that hard, you know. :P
He could just say "I broke the law for the public good, there's no way to get this issue the attention it deserves otherwise. I intend to remain free even if I have to be in exile, as that is how I can do the most good for the people!" etc etc. Not really that hard, you know. :P
That would be a fine statement, but I have no problem with the statements he has made instead.
The UDHR is not a law per se, but has likely forms part of the customary international law, and so carries some legal force.
It has influenced the creation of laws much like many other documents that lay out rights have. It itself does not carry legal force, though there are laws that implement ideas laid out by it that do.
> Is that a legal obligation for all nations to _grant_ asylum to seekers, regardless of circumstances?
No, it's a legal obligation to not infringe on the right of people to seek and enjoy asylum. Of course, it's the UN, so it's debatable how much of a "legal obligation" any of it is, especially for the USA.
No, it's a legal obligation to not infringe on the right of people to seek and enjoy asylum. Of course, it's the UN, so it's debatable how much of a "legal obligation" any of it is, especially for the USA.
Doesn't any attempt to capture an international fugitive necessarily infringe that person's right to seek asylum?
> Doesn't any attempt to capture an international fugitive necessarily infringe that person's right to seek asylum?
Yes. This is what's wrong with this line of reasoning.
Yes. This is what's wrong with this line of reasoning.
Based on my reading of the article, yes. It's important to note, however, that the article does not apply to "prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." Presumably the definitions of those terms would be determined on a case-by-case basis by the International Court of Justice.
...and is a fugitive from justice.
Only in the narrowest, most legalistic sense of the term. In terms of what is just however, I think there's a lot of room for debate.
Only in the narrowest, most legalistic sense of the term. In terms of what is just however, I think there's a lot of room for debate.
> He _broke the law_ and is a fugitive from justice.
This, while seeming important, is basically irrelevant as long as the US is demonstrating their willingness to torture accused people prior to trial for crimes such as these.
He could have done something 10x worse and it still wouldn't matter. Nobody should ever be subjected to torture - even if convicted. They're torturing people for years before trials even start, if they start at all.
He cannot anticipate anything resembling justice in the US.
It's a red herring.
This, while seeming important, is basically irrelevant as long as the US is demonstrating their willingness to torture accused people prior to trial for crimes such as these.
He could have done something 10x worse and it still wouldn't matter. Nobody should ever be subjected to torture - even if convicted. They're torturing people for years before trials even start, if they start at all.
He cannot anticipate anything resembling justice in the US.
It's a red herring.
Yes, this whole line of argument that Snowden has put forward is beside the point. Whether you call it "exile" or not, it is perfectly reasonable for the US to revoke his passport. It is certainly not "extralegal." It's not even unusual. It is what happens when you're charged with a felony by a US court.
Revoking his passport is not extralegal. Nobody's arguing that.
Exerting unknown influence behind closed doors with those who have the ability to grant or deny his requests for asylum is an entirely different matter, though.
Exerting unknown influence behind closed doors with those who have the ability to grant or deny his requests for asylum is an entirely different matter, though.
I really hate arguments based on parsing words, but the Wikileaks statement says:
"This kind of deception from a world leader is not justice, and neither is the extralegal penalty of exile"
Doesn't "exile" refer to his being without a passport? So isn't he clearly saying that it's extralegal?
"This kind of deception from a world leader is not justice, and neither is the extralegal penalty of exile"
Doesn't "exile" refer to his being without a passport? So isn't he clearly saying that it's extralegal?
Snowden hasn't been tortured, and will certainly not be tortured when he gets back to the US.
Bradley Manning was submitted to sleep deprivation & extreme isolation, both of which are widely regarded as torture by civilized people. Given that it seems reasonable for Snowden to believe he will be tortured on his return to the US and unreasonable for someone to say that he certainly won't be tortured.
Not everyone who is convicted of a crime by the government is tortured and not every trial is a mocking pretense. Maybe, just maybe, Edward Snowden is speaking through the filter of his own prejudices and biases, which may not necessarily 100% reflect reality.
Maybe we should put it this way: the last person that the U.S.A. got its hands on that caused a similar amount of embarrassment to the U.S. government was brutally tortured.
Snowden would prefer not to find out if that trend is going to continue.
Snowden would prefer not to find out if that trend is going to continue.
What you call brutal torture is certainly nothing anybody wants to experience, but the implication that it is legally unprecedented or obviously illegal is not correct, particularly for someone who is both subject to UCMJ and is reasonably deemed a suicide risk.
Nice torture justification, bro. You should be proud of yourself: you've stood up for humans beings torturing other human beings. Probably the highlight of your life to date.
Hint: nobody has ever said they thought Manning was a suicide risk except for his torturers. All qualified medical personnel that have ever examined him (including the prison psychologist) have insisted that he wasn't. Hint 2: doing sleep deprivation and humiliation is not the way to reduce someone's chance of suicide, if you honestly believed they were a risk. Which no one did.
Hint: nobody has ever said they thought Manning was a suicide risk except for his torturers. All qualified medical personnel that have ever examined him (including the prison psychologist) have insisted that he wasn't. Hint 2: doing sleep deprivation and humiliation is not the way to reduce someone's chance of suicide, if you honestly believed they were a risk. Which no one did.
You seem awfully sure about this. Being a US citizen myself I would certainly hope you're correct, but given the excesses that the government has already hidden or excused with "but... terrorists!!! fear!!!" I think there is an outside chance that he has legitimate cause for concern.
It's not an outside chance. The last guy who leaked classified US military information to the press to expose a systemic coverup of abuses was tortured for several years prior to his trial beginning:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/01/1166253/-The-Tortur...
Additionally, Obama himself declared him (Manning) guilty in public before his trial even began. (I wish I was making this up.)
It's not speculation. We've watched it happen, and recently. They are condemned before the trial even begins, and denied basic human rights from the outset - rights we shouldn't even deny convicted mass murderers.
It's an incredible shame for everyone who used to be proud to be from the USA.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/01/1166253/-The-Tortur...
Additionally, Obama himself declared him (Manning) guilty in public before his trial even began. (I wish I was making this up.)
It's not speculation. We've watched it happen, and recently. They are condemned before the trial even begins, and denied basic human rights from the outset - rights we shouldn't even deny convicted mass murderers.
It's an incredible shame for everyone who used to be proud to be from the USA.
> The last guy who leaked classified US military information to the press to expose a systemic coverup of abuses was tortured for several years prior to his trial beginning:
His treatment was bad enough that you don't have to be counter-factual about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning#Detention
Last time I checked May -> April was still 11 months, and definitely not "several years".
> Additionally, Obama himself declared him (Manning) guilty in public before his trial even began. (I wish I was making this up.)
As far as I can tell from Googling, he said in a conversation, in the context of the rule of law, the "he broke the law". And that was it.
Am I missing something?
The rest of the context from the sites Google finds seems to indicate that Manning can't possibly get a fair trial, because the officers who would have to decide his guilt would treat that as some kind of order. Which is simply untrue, as evidenced by Manning's own reaction by asking for a bench trial.
If he had asked for a jury trial he would have had many more people to possibly conceive of his innocence. And the jury pool would have contained enlisted members as well, not just officers.
By asking for a bench trial he's one, and only one, commissioned officer away from being found guilty. That would be an insane choice, if this officer were really that susceptible to finding Manning guilty simply because Obama failed to use the word "allegedly" in a conversation.
Luckily, as Manning realizes since he's actually in the freaking military, that isn't the case at all.
His treatment was bad enough that you don't have to be counter-factual about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning#Detention
Last time I checked May -> April was still 11 months, and definitely not "several years".
> Additionally, Obama himself declared him (Manning) guilty in public before his trial even began. (I wish I was making this up.)
As far as I can tell from Googling, he said in a conversation, in the context of the rule of law, the "he broke the law". And that was it.
Am I missing something?
The rest of the context from the sites Google finds seems to indicate that Manning can't possibly get a fair trial, because the officers who would have to decide his guilt would treat that as some kind of order. Which is simply untrue, as evidenced by Manning's own reaction by asking for a bench trial.
If he had asked for a jury trial he would have had many more people to possibly conceive of his innocence. And the jury pool would have contained enlisted members as well, not just officers.
By asking for a bench trial he's one, and only one, commissioned officer away from being found guilty. That would be an insane choice, if this officer were really that susceptible to finding Manning guilty simply because Obama failed to use the word "allegedly" in a conversation.
Luckily, as Manning realizes since he's actually in the freaking military, that isn't the case at all.
Yeah. And waterboarding is not torture, i guess. You can play with words all you like.
Isn't his real concern that he could be electrocuted for this?
"Without any judicial order,"
The federal arrest warrant gives the State Department the ability to revoke passports it isn't 'unilateral' nor can the
'administration' revoke a passport for any reason.
Assuming Snowden is referring to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the second part of Section 14 would seem to apply here:
This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes
This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes
That makes no sense. 'Asylum' is a negotiation between the victim and the destination state. The origin state (USA) isn't a relevant party to the decision-making process. That's the whole point of the concept.
Well it's quite clear they're a party in the decision-making process if they are able to call up those countries and twist their arms into refusing it, so I don't really understand what point you're making - I guess in theory they're not a relevant party ...but in practice?
Usually, I respect and appreciate your comments, but this suffers from being overtly pedantic, and clearly missing the forrest for the trees.
It is pretty much the backbone of his argument in the letter, so I don't think it is overly pedantic.
[deleted]
That's a question of perspective, isn't it? The USA may "claim" Snowden, but Snowden may not "claim" the USA. From his point of view, it may be entirely reasonable to use the term stateless.
Well said; better than I could say it. In any modern just society being a "citizen" is an agreement between two parties. Governments no longer own their subjects.
True, but "my passport has been revoked" is not nearly self-promoting or dramatic enough for Snowden. Also, being a citizen of any nation doesn't mean a lot when returning to your country of citizenship means a (possibly one-way) ticket to some place that's not home and comes with the concept of "solitary confinement," among others.
Not that self-promotion or drama are necessarily bad things in his position. Both are most certainly things he's using to keep himself on the minds of as many people as possible for as long as he can.
Not that self-promotion or drama are necessarily bad things in his position. Both are most certainly things he's using to keep himself on the minds of as many people as possible for as long as he can.
Equally he has not been given the penalty of "exile." There is nothing the U.S. would like more than to have Snowden return to U.S. soil.
This stretching of the truth does not engender trust.
This stretching of the truth does not engender trust.
Exile usually involves a threat of violence if the person returns home. Many exiles are exiles because their home country's government would hurt them if they returned.
"Exile means to be away from one's home (i.e. city, state or country), while either being explicitly refused permission to return and/or being threatened with imprisonment or death upon return." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exile
Before calling into question the truth of statements made by a public figure please look up the common definition.
Update:
Websters does not use this exact definition, being a more compact format than wikipedia, but if you look under the examples in Websters you will see "Many chose to live as exiles rather than face persecution." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exile
"Exile means to be away from one's home (i.e. city, state or country), while either being explicitly refused permission to return and/or being threatened with imprisonment or death upon return." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exile
Before calling into question the truth of statements made by a public figure please look up the common definition.
Update:
Websters does not use this exact definition, being a more compact format than wikipedia, but if you look under the examples in Websters you will see "Many chose to live as exiles rather than face persecution." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exile
Snowden is not using the common definition of the phrase. He is explicitly using a legal definition when he says "the extralegal penalty of exile."
To argue that any person who cannot return to their home country without being arrested is "extralegally exiled" would mean that any fugitive is "extralegally exiled," an absurd result.
To argue that any person who cannot return to their home country without being arrested is "extralegally exiled" would mean that any fugitive is "extralegally exiled," an absurd result.
It depends if the punishment has been legally or extra-legal decided and would be extra-legally carried out. Such claims are always a matter of opinion and whose law, but not all opinions are equal.
1. Threats Made by the US Government: Obama's statements such that Snowden is not worth the effort of an expensive extra-legal killing (“not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker”) by a president that has engaged in many extra-legal killings, at least one against a US citizen, is a threat of extra-legal action. For instance if someone sent a letter that said "I'd kill you but you aren't worth the bullets" would be interpreted by many courts as a threat. Furthermore direct threats of extra-legal killing have been made by other members of the US government.
2. Prior Actions Against Snowden: The fact that Obama has attempted to use trade deals and threats to prevent Snowdens asylum appeals suggests that Obama and the US government is not willing to give Snowden a fair hearing since they are manipulating the international system of asylum to prevent him from getting a fair hearing internationally.
3.Prior Pattern of Action Against Other Whistle Blowers: Obamas illegal treatment of Bradley Manning is part of a pattern going back before Obama of illegal mistreatment of whistle blowers by the US government.
Given this evidence I would argue that the threat of extra-legal punishment is very much real and has been publicly communicated to all involved parties. The reality and communication of this threat to Snowden makes a very strong case for the claim that he has been extra-legally exiled.
1. Threats Made by the US Government: Obama's statements such that Snowden is not worth the effort of an expensive extra-legal killing (“not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker”) by a president that has engaged in many extra-legal killings, at least one against a US citizen, is a threat of extra-legal action. For instance if someone sent a letter that said "I'd kill you but you aren't worth the bullets" would be interpreted by many courts as a threat. Furthermore direct threats of extra-legal killing have been made by other members of the US government.
2. Prior Actions Against Snowden: The fact that Obama has attempted to use trade deals and threats to prevent Snowdens asylum appeals suggests that Obama and the US government is not willing to give Snowden a fair hearing since they are manipulating the international system of asylum to prevent him from getting a fair hearing internationally.
3.Prior Pattern of Action Against Other Whistle Blowers: Obamas illegal treatment of Bradley Manning is part of a pattern going back before Obama of illegal mistreatment of whistle blowers by the US government.
Given this evidence I would argue that the threat of extra-legal punishment is very much real and has been publicly communicated to all involved parties. The reality and communication of this threat to Snowden makes a very strong case for the claim that he has been extra-legally exiled.
It was in fact the one comment I had been about to make. Snowden has chosen to avoid the U.S., explicitly to avoid the legal system. His own father feels he probably technically broke the law so it's hard to claim that the U.S. government has somehow managed to switch all 3 of its branches into a KILL SNOWDEN mode.
If the charges are without merit then one of the very same judges that Snowden feels should be involved in these types of surveillance programs will throw them out.
Snowden's exile may very well be extralegal, but both the exile and the extralegality of it are on Snowden himself.
If the charges are without merit then one of the very same judges that Snowden feels should be involved in these types of surveillance programs will throw them out.
Snowden's exile may very well be extralegal, but both the exile and the extralegality of it are on Snowden himself.
> Snowden has chosen to avoid the U.S., explicitly to avoid the legal system.
No, he's chosen to avoid the US explicitly to avoid torture.
There's nothing legal about that.
No, he's chosen to avoid the US explicitly to avoid torture.
There's nothing legal about that.
Are you saying that the US justice system is by definition torture?
If so, I would think Snowden would have made that his moral priority to emphasize. There's no reason to fear "turnkey tyranny" (as he said) when we're already living in a torture regime, is there? In that case there's no key to turn, it's already here!
If so, I would think Snowden would have made that his moral priority to emphasize. There's no reason to fear "turnkey tyranny" (as he said) when we're already living in a torture regime, is there? In that case there's no key to turn, it's already here!
"turnkey tyranny" describes the future consequence for the median citizen.
Torturing those who leak information prior to trial is something that the US government has already demonstrated a willingness to do. It's simply disgraceful - a national shame.
Torturing those who leak information prior to trial is something that the US government has already demonstrated a willingness to do. It's simply disgraceful - a national shame.
Like how those other NSA whistleblowers were "tortured"? Their treatment was wrong, I'll admit, but calling it torture is insulting to those who have actually been waterboarded by the U.S.
No, it just means that the US engages in more varieties of torture, some of which we consider to be more severe than the others. That does not mean we can't use the same word to indicate all of them.
And why limit yourself to NSA whistleblowers, a government that has crossed this line has crossed that line in general, not just for some class. All this 'just NSA whistleblowers', 'just whistleblowers', 'just foreigners', 'just enemy combatants' and so on isn't fooling anybody.
Some lines you just don't cross, lest you become that which you claim to fight.
And why limit yourself to NSA whistleblowers, a government that has crossed this line has crossed that line in general, not just for some class. All this 'just NSA whistleblowers', 'just whistleblowers', 'just foreigners', 'just enemy combatants' and so on isn't fooling anybody.
Some lines you just don't cross, lest you become that which you claim to fight.
> And why limit yourself to NSA whistleblowers, a government that has crossed this line has crossed that line in general, not just for some class.
Because the claim isn't that "the USA has tortured people". The claim is that the USA will torture Snowden. Given the wide disparity in justice systems utilized for U.S. citizens, "enemy combatants", and U.S. military, you have to at least make that broad type of distinction to evaluate the probability of the claim that Snowden will be tortured if he returns.
There's no end to the things you can do or refuse to do if your only justification for that action (or lack thereof) is that a government has, at some time, tortured somebody somewhere.
I agree wholeheartedly that the U.S. needs to account for instances where they torture, but that also doesn't completely invalidate the whole government.
Because the claim isn't that "the USA has tortured people". The claim is that the USA will torture Snowden. Given the wide disparity in justice systems utilized for U.S. citizens, "enemy combatants", and U.S. military, you have to at least make that broad type of distinction to evaluate the probability of the claim that Snowden will be tortured if he returns.
There's no end to the things you can do or refuse to do if your only justification for that action (or lack thereof) is that a government has, at some time, tortured somebody somewhere.
I agree wholeheartedly that the U.S. needs to account for instances where they torture, but that also doesn't completely invalidate the whole government.
Solitary confinement is torture.
Which NSA whistleblower was subjected to solitary confinement?
Fair enough, I was thinking of Bradley Manning. I don't know if the other NSA guys were held in solitary. However, I'll be surprised if they capture Snowden and he isn't. Why wouldn't he be?
It has nothing to do with torture. Snowden is, quite reasonably, afraid of going to prison for breaking the law.
Websters does not have any language of the sort relating to "imprisonment or death upon return". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exile
By the Wikipedia definition above every criminal who flees the country to avoid arrest is by definition in exile. Skipping town because you want to avoid a crime isn't being in exile, it is being on the run.
By the Wikipedia definition above every criminal who flees the country to avoid arrest is by definition in exile. Skipping town because you want to avoid a crime isn't being in exile, it is being on the run.
Websters does not use this exact definition, being a more compact format than wikipedia, but if you look under the examples in Websters you will see "Many chose to live as exiles rather than face persecution." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exile
Fun that we reach for the wikipedia definition of a word; that definition is easily editable.
What??? He is, very clearly by definition, exiled.
From Wikipedia: Exile means to be away from one's home (i.e. city, state or country), while either being explicitly refused permission to return and/or being threatened with imprisonment or death upon return.
From Wikipedia: Exile means to be away from one's home (i.e. city, state or country), while either being explicitly refused permission to return and/or being threatened with imprisonment or death upon return.
So if I rob a bank and flee to South America to escape justice I am exiled? Give me a break.
Exile is indeed how it is generally described when the "bank" is a "country" and "you" are a "dictator".
[deleted]
Yes, except it would be self-exile.
If your alternatives are "Return to your home country and face torture." or "Accept that you will have to live out your days under the protection of a government not your own."; I would say that qualifies as being forced into exile.
And no, the use of the word "Torture" is not hyperbole in this case; no matter what technicalities you sugar coat it with; the US Government lacks all credibility on the issue of human rights at this time.
And no, the use of the word "Torture" is not hyperbole in this case; no matter what technicalities you sugar coat it with; the US Government lacks all credibility on the issue of human rights at this time.
Would you consider someone who murdered several children and then fled the country to be in exile? Because his choices would be to return and face the death penalty, or live in hiding abroad.
Whether you think he did a good thing or a bad thing, it's clear that Snowden is, by his own acknowledgment, guilty of multiple counts of serious felonies in the United States. The government is acting as expected, given this fact.
Whether you think he did a good thing or a bad thing, it's clear that Snowden is, by his own acknowledgment, guilty of multiple counts of serious felonies in the United States. The government is acting as expected, given this fact.
Your needlessly inflammatory hypothetical example is irrelevant in this case. Snowden did not; no matter whose rhetoric one accepts uncritically, perform an act of violence. And most people's moral calculus admits the concept of the balance of harms; whereby an acts benefits to the public at large or the victims of an evildoer outweigh the harms to the evildoer of having it's evil actions revealed to the world.
That the US government is acting as we might expect rather than allowing a congressional investigation into these clearly unconstitutional programs and the legal smokescreen that was designed to prevent any challenge to their legality; is not an advertisement for it's good faith towards the citizenry.
That the US government is acting as we might expect rather than allowing a congressional investigation into these clearly unconstitutional programs and the legal smokescreen that was designed to prevent any challenge to their legality; is not an advertisement for it's good faith towards the citizenry.
The US government may or may not start a congressional investigation into these programs. PRISM may or may not be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. But even if both things happen, the US will do everything they can to get Snowden, convict him, and put him in jail for the rest of his life.
> Would you consider someone who murdered several children and then fled the country to be in exile?
Yes, absolutely. Are there any English speakers who wouldn't?
Yes, absolutely. Are there any English speakers who wouldn't?
We would say "self-imposed exile". Or colloquially, that he was "on the lam". Exile is where someone else imposes it on you.
The distinction seems vague to me. It's either "don't come back or we will throw you in jail for coming back" or "don't come back or we will throw you in jail for committing a previous crime."
For the latter, you could very well be judged not guilty and go off scot-free. Whereas with exile you get thrown in the slammer just for coming back.
Thank you for an injection of sanity and reason into the thread.
According to Wikipedia:
Exile means to be away from one's home (i.e. city, state or country), while either being explicitly refused permission to return and/or being threatened with imprisonment or death upon return.
So he's probably not so much worried about whether or not he can return to the U.S., but rather what would happen to him when he did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exile
Exile means to be away from one's home (i.e. city, state or country), while either being explicitly refused permission to return and/or being threatened with imprisonment or death upon return.
So he's probably not so much worried about whether or not he can return to the U.S., but rather what would happen to him when he did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exile
Even so, the imprisonment would be because he returned per se. He may come back and the jury says "not guilty" and walk off a free man, after all.
I would never come back to the U.S. if I was due the punishment afforded to Bradley Manning.
And this is the problem of being too willing and too brutal when making examples of transgressors.
You're parting hairs and completely missed Snowden's point: that the US government has slickly put him in limbo. He either turns himself in or ends up like the guy in the Tom Hanks movie, Terminal.
Stretching the truth is wholly unnecessary to making such a point. Need I argue that the ends do not justify the means?
But clearly he did not stretch the truth, you just failed to understand the full meaning of exile. An accident, but easily remedied. Why are you so insistent that he is stretching the truth?
Your argument stems from an inability to check what "exile" is...
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exile
"Exile means to be away from one's home (i.e. city, state
or country), while either being explicitly refused
permission to return and/or being threatened with
imprisonment or death upon return." [0]
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exile
Just to be clear - he hasn't been exiled by the US. He is in self-imposed exile to avoid prosecution.
They haven't revoked his citizenship... just his passport. That doesn't remove citizenship, just the ability to travel abroad.
They haven't revoked his citizenship... just his passport. That doesn't remove citizenship, just the ability to travel abroad.
If he returns to the US he will be tortured, as Manning was, prior to trial for much the same charge.
It's not self-imposed exile if returning to the US is a non-option due to their DEMONSTRATED TENDENCY to deny prisoners their basic human rights.
It's not self-imposed exile if returning to the US is a non-option due to their DEMONSTRATED TENDENCY to deny prisoners their basic human rights.
My understanding is that the imprisonment/death would be a penalty for breaking the terms of the exile, which is something quite different.
Fair enough, but at this point it's pretty close to exile without being a perfect example...
Still: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5974040
I think effectively it is a bad situation which has been created for him by the United States government. They are definitely manipulating his citizenship for their purposes whether you like the wording or not.
Still: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5974040
I think effectively it is a bad situation which has been created for him by the United States government. They are definitely manipulating his citizenship for their purposes whether you like the wording or not.
They revoked his passport because he's wanted for questioning about a crime. How is that different from any other criminal who flees abroad?
They revoked his passport because they needed time to negotiate with other countries to refuse him the right to asylum.
And this isn't about just being questioned. If he is extradited back to the US, expect a lot worse to happen to him...
What he has done is no doubt illegal, but it also strikes me as a positive thing. I disagree with people that say he is a fugitive from justice - I think it's very clear that he is a fugitive from injustice. He has shown us injustices from the US government - and now they wish to have him stand trial in order that they can lock him up for life, sentence him to death or torture him.
Is there a difference between Snowden and other criminals? Yes, Snowden has done the right thing.
And this isn't about just being questioned. If he is extradited back to the US, expect a lot worse to happen to him...
What he has done is no doubt illegal, but it also strikes me as a positive thing. I disagree with people that say he is a fugitive from justice - I think it's very clear that he is a fugitive from injustice. He has shown us injustices from the US government - and now they wish to have him stand trial in order that they can lock him up for life, sentence him to death or torture him.
Is there a difference between Snowden and other criminals? Yes, Snowden has done the right thing.
The state in question may feel that he still "belongs" to them in some fashion, but it seems pretty likely to me that he does not believe that state is "his" anymore.
He is under no obligation to make concessions to them by adopting terminology which they control.
He is under no obligation to make concessions to them by adopting terminology which they control.
What does it even mean for a passport to be revoked?
I'm wondering about this question myself. It's not as if the facts of your identity change because a country revokes a document. Is it just a policy issue, that there are no countries that allow entry without showing a passport?
It certifies his identity, not his rights. I'm not sure how you can suddenly claim it's not valid, without claiming that the original certification was found to be incorrect.
It certifies his identity, not his rights. I'm not sure how you can suddenly claim it's not valid, without claiming that the original certification was found to be incorrect.
It sounds like the old Russian system where you couldn't leave the country without a passport (and it was made very hard to get one).
It means that it is made not valid by the issuing country.
doesn't he fall in the "de facto" stateless person as defined by the unhcr http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=4ca1a... ?
(just asking, IANAL, so maybe some technicalities elude me)
(just asking, IANAL, so maybe some technicalities elude me)
I wonder whether that choice of phrase was a genuine mistake, an exaggeration based on emotion, or a calculated lie. I like to think it was the middle one.
I don't buy that. So far we've seen nothing but pitch perfect and intentional language choices from him. I still can't believe how remarkably well thought out and savvy all of his answers to the AMA thing were. I suspect he'd argue he's stateless because his citizenship in the US has been compromised, that he wouldn't be afforded the ability to be treated fairly like a citizen, hence the asylum requests.
It's not really a valid argument, though. Even if there was a complete certainty that returning to the US would see him tortured and eventually executed, that still wouldn't change the fact that he is still a US citizen (unless he chooses not to be). That's why I'm hoping, all-be-it doubtfully, that it was innocent exaggeration rather than a lie - not that it really makes a huge difference I guess.
Doesn't leaving, refusing to return, and requesting asylum effectively fall under the "choosing not to be" category?
By that logic I'm effectively banned from Africa, as I don't plan on going there. He said they "evoked my passport, leaving my stateless" not that he was effectively stateless due to his own decisions.
For what it's worth, the department of state correspondent Matthew Lee in CSPAN interviews were using "stateless" to describe Snowden as well, and days before he released this release.
If Snowden is mistaken in using this terminology, he isn't the only one.
If Snowden is mistaken in using this terminology, he isn't the only one.
If you really want to be an idealistic but hard-headed freedom-fighter, mobilizing an effective popular movement for more freedom wherever you live, I suggest you read deeply in the publications of the Albert Einstein Institution,
http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsde07.html
remembering that the transition from dictatorship to democracy described in those publications is an actual historical process with recent examples around the world that we can all learn from.
AFTER EDIT: Good catch by the readers who noticed the non-American English in the Wikileaks press release here (mentioned in other comments in this thread). The press release kindly submitted here is plainly not Edward Snowden's verbatim words, but more self-publicizing from Wikileaks.