Greenwald: Snowden docs contain NSA 'blueprint'(news.yahoo.com)
news.yahoo.com
Greenwald: Snowden docs contain NSA 'blueprint'
http://news.yahoo.com/greenwald-snowden-docs-contain-nsa-blueprint-235836523.html
9 comments
<rant>
It is precisely this hypocrisy that has rankled more and more as the years roll by. Sure other countries do horrible stuff but nobody else claims to be such a bastion of freedom and democracy. As one learns about the sordid interventionist past of the USA one then realizes that the superficial rhetoric is at variance with past actions.
These double standards reek of the colonial mindset that is meant to be well behind us. I follow a couple of blogs and it is this they return to time and again. The double standards. The hypocrisy. Imagine if the USA didn't make such claims then when the whole NSA/Snowden thing broke people would just say, "oh well, that's just par for course then".
So can we just drop the whole freedom and democracy rhetoric now? Can we drop the pretense? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and all that. Measure for measure the USA is one of the more hostile and anti-democratic regimes globally. </rant>
Also, can I have my privacy back please?
These double standards reek of the colonial mindset that is meant to be well behind us. I follow a couple of blogs and it is this they return to time and again. The double standards. The hypocrisy. Imagine if the USA didn't make such claims then when the whole NSA/Snowden thing broke people would just say, "oh well, that's just par for course then".
So can we just drop the whole freedom and democracy rhetoric now? Can we drop the pretense? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and all that. Measure for measure the USA is one of the more hostile and anti-democratic regimes globally. </rant>
Also, can I have my privacy back please?
If it weren't for the rhetoric, guys like Snowden would never have been indoctrinated with the ideas of freedom and democracy, the very ideas that caused him to act. So no, I do not want to drop the rhetoric.
I think you need to follow a few more blogs.
In the words of Steven Rambam - "privacy is dead, get over it!"
It would be foolish to assume that our gov't will be fixing any of this any time soon. It would also be foolish to discard the one advantage the citizens have - a general awareness that freedom is something they cherish. That they don't understand what freedom is, exactly, is another issue.
But never fear - physics is stronger than US law, and we can create tools that allow those with the awareness of the importance of freedom and the ability to seek them out (another issue you can help with) to not be impeded by those pervasive forces.
It would be foolish to assume that our gov't will be fixing any of this any time soon. It would also be foolish to discard the one advantage the citizens have - a general awareness that freedom is something they cherish. That they don't understand what freedom is, exactly, is another issue.
But never fear - physics is stronger than US law, and we can create tools that allow those with the awareness of the importance of freedom and the ability to seek them out (another issue you can help with) to not be impeded by those pervasive forces.
In the light of the Reuters misquoting and subsequent reply by Greenwald yesterday (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6040182), I would be extremely extremely skeptical about any secondary interpretations of Glen Greenwald's own words. It seriously sounds more like the writer of this article has nothing better to do than grossly extrapolate a few words into a whole fucking fantasy conjecture. I mean, come on, the ENTIRE article consists of editorialising about someone else's own words, and padding it out with old facts.
The problem with this is upping the ante too much. The Government would prefer the secrets spilled to someone goading over them with it. The Government certainly would prefer this in the news for a year rather then for 40 years... Putin will use further disclosures as an excuse to hand him over expect not more then 30 days more.
Honest question, is anyone else completely past the point of caring until he actually shows more? (Please read to the end.) So far all we've gotten is some powerpoint slides, claims that they have other evidence, and a lot of interviews.
I've seen people in various communities saying, "Why is the media focusing on Edward Snowden, instead of the breach of civil liberties", but frankly, I wouldn't know how to cover this. He hasn't presented any concrete evidence, just the same powerpoint slides we saw a month ago. He claims he has some, but we're not seeing anything.
I'm not saying he's lying, or that this isn't a big deal- it is. I have a huge problem with the government ignoring the rule of law, especially in regards to treating digital content like it isn't supported by the 4th Amendment. I also don't like the idea of us treating our allies' citizens like they don't matter- legally speaking they don't, but morally speaking I'd rather we did better.
But at this point, how do you continue to cover a story when the key source of the story is taking it's incredibly sweet time in giving us anything more than "No really, guys, you've gotta believe me, you should be really mad!"
I've seen people in various communities saying, "Why is the media focusing on Edward Snowden, instead of the breach of civil liberties", but frankly, I wouldn't know how to cover this. He hasn't presented any concrete evidence, just the same powerpoint slides we saw a month ago. He claims he has some, but we're not seeing anything.
I'm not saying he's lying, or that this isn't a big deal- it is. I have a huge problem with the government ignoring the rule of law, especially in regards to treating digital content like it isn't supported by the 4th Amendment. I also don't like the idea of us treating our allies' citizens like they don't matter- legally speaking they don't, but morally speaking I'd rather we did better.
But at this point, how do you continue to cover a story when the key source of the story is taking it's incredibly sweet time in giving us anything more than "No really, guys, you've gotta believe me, you should be really mad!"
I honestly can't tell if you're trolling.
You're asking for evidence... but are apparently not happy with first hand accounts, and classified documents.
The authenticity has been confirmed -- take for example the senate hearings where the Snowden revealed programs are discussed... or the US government charging him with releasing classified documents (the ones he gave us).
You "have a huge problem with the government ignoring the rule of law, especially in regards to treating digital content like it isn't supported by the 4th Amendment" but don't seem to understand how you came to know about these violations of the 4th.
Are you trolling us? I'm asking because I honestly don't know.
What more evidence are you waiting for? Or you just don't want to get mad until you know everything? /me is so confused right now
You're asking for evidence... but are apparently not happy with first hand accounts, and classified documents.
The authenticity has been confirmed -- take for example the senate hearings where the Snowden revealed programs are discussed... or the US government charging him with releasing classified documents (the ones he gave us).
You "have a huge problem with the government ignoring the rule of law, especially in regards to treating digital content like it isn't supported by the 4th Amendment" but don't seem to understand how you came to know about these violations of the 4th.
Are you trolling us? I'm asking because I honestly don't know.
What more evidence are you waiting for? Or you just don't want to get mad until you know everything? /me is so confused right now
No, he's not trolling. Nor is he a government plant or right-wing nutjob. He's just someone posting on HN with a legitimate viewpoint not shared by the majority of people here. Regardless, it is a valid point and shouldn't be dismissed so readily.
No one is doubting the authenticity of the Prism Powerpoint, however only a handful of slides have been released. And as shocking as first hand accounts are, without any evidence to support them, it's extremely hard to verify or trust.
No one is doubting the authenticity of the Prism Powerpoint, however only a handful of slides have been released. And as shocking as first hand accounts are, without any evidence to support them, it's extremely hard to verify or trust.
No one is doubting the authenticity of the Prism Powerpoint, however only a handful of slides have been released.
There are clearly more than a few powerpoint slides, one of the very first stories was a warrant for Verizon, and many different docs have been released, FISA court documents, bulk warrants, overviews of several programs from several internal presentations, not just one (what you dismiss as 'powerpoint slides'), NSA inspector general report, GCHQ docs on bugging the G20, GCHQ docs on Tempora etc. What a bizarre assertion. The first hand accounts have been backed up by ex-NSA workers including Binney, Drake and others. How much more evidence do you need before you'd like to debate the real issues instead of talking about how trustworthy Greenwald is?
I'm genuinely curious which news sources you've been using, as apparently you have been completely mislead.
There are clearly more than a few powerpoint slides, one of the very first stories was a warrant for Verizon, and many different docs have been released, FISA court documents, bulk warrants, overviews of several programs from several internal presentations, not just one (what you dismiss as 'powerpoint slides'), NSA inspector general report, GCHQ docs on bugging the G20, GCHQ docs on Tempora etc. What a bizarre assertion. The first hand accounts have been backed up by ex-NSA workers including Binney, Drake and others. How much more evidence do you need before you'd like to debate the real issues instead of talking about how trustworthy Greenwald is?
I'm genuinely curious which news sources you've been using, as apparently you have been completely mislead.
Personally I believe him but I also believe that the powerpoint is far from enough. It contains nearly no information about what's Prism except that it exist and keep information from different companies.
A good evidence would be an actual use of the system. If I remember correctly, he said in an interview that he could go as far as getting informations about Obama. That is the best evidence you could show.
A good evidence would be an actual use of the system. If I remember correctly, he said in an interview that he could go as far as getting informations about Obama. That is the best evidence you could show.
The fact that the United States has burned as much political capital as they have chasing him, at least to me, demonstrates a couple of possibilities:
1) What he is saying is true
2) He has something extremely damaging.
Otherwise why haven't they just said "lol conspiracy theorists"
1) What he is saying is true
2) He has something extremely damaging.
Otherwise why haven't they just said "lol conspiracy theorists"
Bradley Manning had nothing extremely damaging, yet has been treated very harshly. The spooks will prosecute you because in their mind, anything classified that is released is serious.
Honestly, some of what Snowden/Greenwald claim sounds like embellishment or bluster, and saying that Snowden has a dead-man's switch is a good way to get him assassinated by enemies of the US. It would be tragic if he is harmed because of bluffing.
Honestly, some of what Snowden/Greenwald claim sounds like embellishment or bluster, and saying that Snowden has a dead-man's switch is a good way to get him assassinated by enemies of the US. It would be tragic if he is harmed because of bluffing.
> Honestly, some of what Snowden/Greenwald claim sounds like embellishment or bluster
This is vague. What exactly do you think is bluster or embellishment. Greenwald is a very precise and measured journalist. Snowden strikes me as very cautious.
> and saying that Snowden has a dead-man's switch ...
Show me (in Greenwald's own words) where Greenwald claimed this of Snowden.
This is vague. What exactly do you think is bluster or embellishment. Greenwald is a very precise and measured journalist. Snowden strikes me as very cautious.
> and saying that Snowden has a dead-man's switch ...
Show me (in Greenwald's own words) where Greenwald claimed this of Snowden.
> Show me (in Greenwald's own words) where Greenwald claimed this of Snowden.
From TFA:
> Asked about a so-called dead man's pact, which Greenwald has said would allow several people to access Snowden's trove of documents were anything to happen to him, Greenwald replied that "media descriptions of it have been overly simplistic.
> "It's not just a matter of, if he dies, things get released, it's more nuanced than that," he said. "It's really just a way to protect himself against extremely rogue behavior on the part of the United States, by which I mean violent actions toward him, designed to end his life, and it's just a way to ensure that nobody feels incentivized to do that."
Which does sound like a direct quote from Greenwald, partly confirming (Yes, docs can still be released if he's dead), and partly rejecting (the "overly simplistic" and "rogue behavior on the part of the United States - which suggests it's not automatic, so enemies of the US would need to convincingly false-flag it for the desired outcome)
From TFA:
> Asked about a so-called dead man's pact, which Greenwald has said would allow several people to access Snowden's trove of documents were anything to happen to him, Greenwald replied that "media descriptions of it have been overly simplistic.
> "It's not just a matter of, if he dies, things get released, it's more nuanced than that," he said. "It's really just a way to protect himself against extremely rogue behavior on the part of the United States, by which I mean violent actions toward him, designed to end his life, and it's just a way to ensure that nobody feels incentivized to do that."
Which does sound like a direct quote from Greenwald, partly confirming (Yes, docs can still be released if he's dead), and partly rejecting (the "overly simplistic" and "rogue behavior on the part of the United States - which suggests it's not automatic, so enemies of the US would need to convincingly false-flag it for the desired outcome)
I totally agree. But at this point, we're kinda just having to take his word for it.
I want something specific here. Vague claims of spying over all these services, without specifics, without explaining why it might make sense for these companies to comply and not try to fight it legally(especially when they have grounds provided directly by the US Supreme Court in regards to the NSA letters), is just wearing on me. My attention, my ability to care about this is just running out, plain and simple. I want to be active in this, but when my demands are about as vague as those of the Occupy Wall Street movement, well, not a lot can be done.
I want something specific here. Vague claims of spying over all these services, without specifics, without explaining why it might make sense for these companies to comply and not try to fight it legally(especially when they have grounds provided directly by the US Supreme Court in regards to the NSA letters), is just wearing on me. My attention, my ability to care about this is just running out, plain and simple. I want to be active in this, but when my demands are about as vague as those of the Occupy Wall Street movement, well, not a lot can be done.
Glenn Greenwald said a year ago that "Relatedly, we find the prevailing sentiment that asylum is something that is only to be granted by the US and its western allies against unfriendly governments. The notion that one may need asylum from the US or the west – or that small Latin American countries unfavorable to the US can grant it rather than have it granted against them – is offensive and perverse to all good and decent western citizens, who know that political persecution is something that happens only far away from them." -Glenn Greenwald, 9 September 2012.
Back then, we had to take his word on it. Now the US Government has strong-armed European countries to force the plane of the president of Bolivian down, because they thought he might give Snowden asylum. Now we have absolute incontrovertible proof, above and beyond any of the documents that Snowden leaked, in the tangible form of the US Government's illegal actions in spite of international law, that prove what Greenwald said was 100% right. What more could you ask for???
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6044406
Back then, we had to take his word on it. Now the US Government has strong-armed European countries to force the plane of the president of Bolivian down, because they thought he might give Snowden asylum. Now we have absolute incontrovertible proof, above and beyond any of the documents that Snowden leaked, in the tangible form of the US Government's illegal actions in spite of international law, that prove what Greenwald said was 100% right. What more could you ask for???
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6044406
So far all we've gotten is some powerpoint slides, claims that they have other evidence, and a lot of interviews.
He hasn't presented any concrete evidence, just the same powerpoint slides we saw a month ago. He claims he has some, but we're not seeing anything.
This is incorrect. Have you read any of the Guardian or WP stories? Quite a few documents have been leaked, covering a broad gamut of programs in the US and abroad. Whether the information about intelligence programs was presented in powerpoint format or not is irrelevant (though not all of it was), it has shown the broad outlines of the ambitions of the NSA and other intelligence services like GCHQ, many of which are supplying information wholesale to the NSA (on Americans and citizens of other nations). Other whistleblowers like Binney have also confirmed the truth of Snowden's allegations, so it's not as if we have a lack of evidence here, just a lack of accountability. Most stories have cited a different document, so if you are genuinely interested, I suggest you start here. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-nsa-files+content/docume...
If you don't care about Snowden or find Greenwald uninteresting that's fine, but you should be demanding answers from your government and representatives, not from Greenwald. Is he responsible for a massive spying program and the ambition to collect all the data in the world in centralised, searchable repositories? Is he the only or even the best authority on these programs? I'd say the people responsible for setting them up should be the ones we ask for more information and more answers.
What has been shown so far is enough in my opinion to enable us to ask hard questions of our respective governments, and of ourselves if we continue to enable them to collect this information over the long term and to realise their ambitions of total surveillance.
He hasn't presented any concrete evidence, just the same powerpoint slides we saw a month ago. He claims he has some, but we're not seeing anything.
This is incorrect. Have you read any of the Guardian or WP stories? Quite a few documents have been leaked, covering a broad gamut of programs in the US and abroad. Whether the information about intelligence programs was presented in powerpoint format or not is irrelevant (though not all of it was), it has shown the broad outlines of the ambitions of the NSA and other intelligence services like GCHQ, many of which are supplying information wholesale to the NSA (on Americans and citizens of other nations). Other whistleblowers like Binney have also confirmed the truth of Snowden's allegations, so it's not as if we have a lack of evidence here, just a lack of accountability. Most stories have cited a different document, so if you are genuinely interested, I suggest you start here. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-nsa-files+content/docume...
If you don't care about Snowden or find Greenwald uninteresting that's fine, but you should be demanding answers from your government and representatives, not from Greenwald. Is he responsible for a massive spying program and the ambition to collect all the data in the world in centralised, searchable repositories? Is he the only or even the best authority on these programs? I'd say the people responsible for setting them up should be the ones we ask for more information and more answers.
What has been shown so far is enough in my opinion to enable us to ask hard questions of our respective governments, and of ourselves if we continue to enable them to collect this information over the long term and to realise their ambitions of total surveillance.
I'm confused. Did you not read any media past the prism slides exposure ? The mode of this leak is not a pure data dump on the internet a la wikileaks but through a responsible journalist. Glenn Greenwald has been publishing detailed and specific accounts of different NSA activities almost on a daily basis... As an example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-co...
How much more specific do you need it to be ?
How much more specific do you need it to be ?
There is no smoking gun. These articles, without the documents/slides/files, to back them up, are little more than conjecture.
These articles, without the documents/slides/files, to back them up, are little more than conjecture
Well now I'm sure you're trolling. Does the following sound "little more than conjecture". (These are quotes from the article that I linked in the post you replied to)
The files show that the NSA became concerned about the interception of encrypted chats on Microsoft's Outlook.com portal from the moment the company began testing the service in July last year.
Within five months, the documents explain, Microsoft and the FBI had come up with a solution that allowed the NSA to circumvent encryption on Outlook.com chats
A newsletter entry dated 26 December 2012 states: "MS [Microsoft], working with the FBI, developed a surveillance capability to deal" with the issue. "These solutions were successfully tested and went live 12 Dec 2012."
Two months later, in February this year, Microsoft officially launched the Outlook.com portal.
Well now I'm sure you're trolling. Does the following sound "little more than conjecture". (These are quotes from the article that I linked in the post you replied to)
The files show that the NSA became concerned about the interception of encrypted chats on Microsoft's Outlook.com portal from the moment the company began testing the service in July last year.
Within five months, the documents explain, Microsoft and the FBI had come up with a solution that allowed the NSA to circumvent encryption on Outlook.com chats
A newsletter entry dated 26 December 2012 states: "MS [Microsoft], working with the FBI, developed a surveillance capability to deal" with the issue. "These solutions were successfully tested and went live 12 Dec 2012."
Two months later, in February this year, Microsoft officially launched the Outlook.com portal.
Uh, have you been paying any attention at all, or are you just simply trolling?
There's new information and solid evidence coming out on a near-daily basis.
There's new information and solid evidence coming out on a near-daily basis.
Where is it. Seriously, link me some stuff. I've read everything Greenwald and Snowden have put out, and so far, it's a lot of conjecture, not a lot of hard evidence. I believe him. But we literally are incapable of making more concrete progress without more.
I want more than words. Give me some pictures, give me methods, give some evidence. Some of what he's said doesn't make a lick of sense, likely because it's skewed slightly to make people more cautious about their privacy(which would be great) but is light on others. Specifically, his accusations of direct access to servers- I have a seriously hard time believing these companies, with an amazing amount of capital sitting around, would risk their potential profits to provide this backdoor(in terms of users leaving) and not fight it legally.
I want more than words. Give me some pictures, give me methods, give some evidence. Some of what he's said doesn't make a lick of sense, likely because it's skewed slightly to make people more cautious about their privacy(which would be great) but is light on others. Specifically, his accusations of direct access to servers- I have a seriously hard time believing these companies, with an amazing amount of capital sitting around, would risk their potential profits to provide this backdoor(in terms of users leaving) and not fight it legally.
They probably do fight it. They're just not allowed to tell you that.
But then why have your CEOs claim the complete opposite? They're not compelled to lie, they would only be compelled not to talk. Furthermore, I imagine the cost to fight something like this wouldn't be small- would it be so easy to have it lost in a company's financials?
Why would the legal department itemize that? If there is such a program I'm sure the NSA has figured out a way to get the courts to keep everyone who knows about it gagged.
How do you know what they're compelled to do? You're operating on the same principle as rsync.net with their warrant canary, as if that will actually work. I doubt it. In this case, the NSA would go to the FISA court, ask them to order Google to say that the program doesn't exist, and for good reason... not doing that could disclose the program, the existence of which is classified.
The idea that you can't be compelled to lie is some Kantian ideal of a justice system. I don't see why the justice system that routinely puts people to death would be squeamish about telling people they have to lie.
It might be too difficult, and too many people or resources might be involved to make it feasible to hide such a program, but that's different from saying that, as a matter of principle, you can't be ordered to lie by a court. Of course, the court order wouldn't say "you have to lie." It would say something to the effect of: "Your public statements must not mention, imply, insinuate, etc. the existence or potential existence of program X."
No court is going to have trouble figuring out that failure to keep updating a warrant canary implies receipt of a secret warrant.
How do you know what they're compelled to do? You're operating on the same principle as rsync.net with their warrant canary, as if that will actually work. I doubt it. In this case, the NSA would go to the FISA court, ask them to order Google to say that the program doesn't exist, and for good reason... not doing that could disclose the program, the existence of which is classified.
The idea that you can't be compelled to lie is some Kantian ideal of a justice system. I don't see why the justice system that routinely puts people to death would be squeamish about telling people they have to lie.
It might be too difficult, and too many people or resources might be involved to make it feasible to hide such a program, but that's different from saying that, as a matter of principle, you can't be ordered to lie by a court. Of course, the court order wouldn't say "you have to lie." It would say something to the effect of: "Your public statements must not mention, imply, insinuate, etc. the existence or potential existence of program X."
No court is going to have trouble figuring out that failure to keep updating a warrant canary implies receipt of a secret warrant.
AFAIK, I don't think Larry, Sergey, Eric, or Marissa (for example) have security clearances at all.
You're asking for a level of certainty that is just not possible here. As mentioned you can see with the total resources invested towards getting him, the press reports, and total coverage there is actually something going on here with the total inertia of the entire situation and he is not lying.
Your demand for more evidence clearly contradicts a plan he has already made. I'm sorry your craving and addiction for something new day by day can't be satiated, but he has to leverage the evidence he has with his safety. He is a potential political prisoner.
Your demand for more evidence clearly contradicts a plan he has already made. I'm sorry your craving and addiction for something new day by day can't be satiated, but he has to leverage the evidence he has with his safety. He is a potential political prisoner.
Glenn Greenwald has been showing us this stuff for years, we just haven't been paying attention. Now all of a sudden he's sitting on thousands of documents that prove he was right all along, and events are unfolding just as he predicted. See this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6044406
So much for the bogus mainstream press narrative about Snowden being a "low level" NSA operative.
Actually I don't think you can prove he was higher ranking one way or another. It would appear, based on the wide variety of documents he stole, that they were in fact hacked – with Snowden abusing his privileges on NSA computers. No single person would have access to that much compartmentalized information without being at NSA HQ.
This just seems incredibly reckless and selfish. The odds of these documents, which everyone appears to agree will harm legitimate US interests, being accidentally released seems dangerously high. I really hope his Dead Man Switch encryption system is better than the one that allowed wikileaks to accidentally leak unredacted and unvetted cables.
The password for the wikileaks cables were leaked by a Guardian journalist in a book rushed out about the story:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zJr4qXVzdEAC&q=crystallis...
not really wikileaks fault - at a certain point you have to trust journalists you're working with, or no work can be done with the data. You could encrypt files individually I suppose, but you still rely on someone to release it responsibly.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zJr4qXVzdEAC&q=crystallis...
not really wikileaks fault - at a certain point you have to trust journalists you're working with, or no work can be done with the data. You could encrypt files individually I suppose, but you still rely on someone to release it responsibly.
What actions do you think you would take if you were in his situation that would be less reckless or selfish?
I honestly don't know, but I don't think that's a very good excuse.
I don't think I'd ever risk stealing documents that could genuinely bring harm to America.
I hope for everyone's sake that this is either a bluff or a misquote.
I don't think I'd ever risk stealing documents that could genuinely bring harm to America.
I hope for everyone's sake that this is either a bluff or a misquote.
Right. Because one "blueprint" can defeat a multi-billion dollar security agency. I call this bullshit.
This sounds to me like journalistic license from Greenwald, who probably does not fully understand the technology involved. I'm guessing it's a little more nuanced: one could learn about known exploits and compromised services to stay on "safe" communication methods, or use some of the exploits themselves.
Snowden hand selected thousands of documents. I'm sure this blueprint isn't a single piece of paper.
Duplicate seems a little dubious here... Unless there is some insane never before published vuln in some core routing protocol or the DNS that seems a bit misstated.
...I hope.
...I hope.
Open-source that stuff already!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/violeta-ayala/what-if-snowden-...
"I would like people to know that today the U.S. hosts some of Bolivia's largest criminals. One such person is the former president, Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, and two of his ministers who are wanted in Bolivia, not for information leaks, but to face charges for the killing of 60 people who were protesting against his government's policies to sell Bolivia's resources to U.S. corporations. Sanchez de Lozada escaped Bolivia in a jet in 2003 and to this day the U.S. refuses to accept Bolivia's extradition request for him."
Glenn Greenwald covered this almost a year ago:
America's refusal to extradite Bolivia's ex-president to face genocide charges: Obama justice officials have all but granted asylum to Sánchez de Lozada – a puppet who payrolled key Democratic advisers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/09/america-...
How prescient of Greenwald: "Relatedly, we find the prevailing sentiment that asylum is something that is only to be granted by the US and its western allies against unfriendly governments. The notion that one may need asylum from the US or the west – or that small Latin American countries unfavorable to the US can grant it rather than have it granted against them – is offensive and perverse to all good and decent western citizens, who know that political persecution is something that happens only far away from them." -Glenn Greenwald, 9 September 2012.