Snowden’s whereabouts unknown(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Snowden’s whereabouts unknown
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russia-says-it-has-no-authority-to-expel-snowden/2013/06/24/325281f2-dcaf-11e2-bd83-e99e43c336ed_story.html
68 comments
Calling them neocons ignores the basis of their political beliefs: Statism. The American Democrats are essentially Statists who will - at any cost - support the advancement of the state, specifically the state's control over every aspect of life. Their mantra is "What you can control cannot hurt you."
Personally I also equate American Republicans with fascists, whom spout rhetoric about patriotism and some measure of ethnocentrism.
Personally I also equate American Republicans with fascists, whom spout rhetoric about patriotism and some measure of ethnocentrism.
Any ism is reductionist, always with some loss of information. Sometimes they're beneficial, every thought we have is the result of extremely downsampled data. But without being mindful that simplifications are at play they can be much more dangerous. It is hard or impossible to know which simplifications are actually happening in many cases, because the blanket is the only handle that many data have been tagged with - not the sum of their intricacies.
Those with power have statist tendencies. This is "just" a matter of "power corrupts" - those out of power on the left and the right are both substantially more leery of government control. Of course, that we can explain it is not to say that this corruption is something we should accept.
Yes - Statism is a better term! I agree.
Neocons and Neoliberals (which is what I would characterize the "liberal" elite in DC) are pretty similar in most ways. They simply differ on whether it is military force or economic "liberalization" that should be used to promote "freedom and democracy."
Is this surprising? These are people who believe in the morality of the state. Of course they believe in this, because their government is moral and of course would never do something unfairly or politically motivated like those goddamn caveman Republicans would they?
Remember where the neocons originated: these were Democrats who became frustrated by the post-Vietnam anti-war sentiments in the Democrat party (the 5 minutes that the Dems were an anti-war party).
Let's not forget that guys like Hitchens were some of the biggest cheerleaders for war post-9/11. Fake "liberal" and "conservative" labels that are more about Jesus and abortion than real politics are almost entirely meaningless. When someone says they are a liberal nowadays, it means nothing more to me than if they said they were a Yankees fan. I know it's going to be yet another indoctrinated statist.
Remember where the neocons originated: these were Democrats who became frustrated by the post-Vietnam anti-war sentiments in the Democrat party (the 5 minutes that the Dems were an anti-war party).
Let's not forget that guys like Hitchens were some of the biggest cheerleaders for war post-9/11. Fake "liberal" and "conservative" labels that are more about Jesus and abortion than real politics are almost entirely meaningless. When someone says they are a liberal nowadays, it means nothing more to me than if they said they were a Yankees fan. I know it's going to be yet another indoctrinated statist.
Isn't it more likely that you don't understand their views and the process by which they plan to enact them than that you fully understand them, better than they understand themselves?
Perhaps their driving motive is not politics at all, but something else (such as social change or well-being) and the politics required are simple a means to an end? Perhaps it's just that you don't understand their motives, or any number of other possibilities?
Your off-hand dismissal does nobody any good.
Perhaps their driving motive is not politics at all, but something else (such as social change or well-being) and the politics required are simple a means to an end? Perhaps it's just that you don't understand their motives, or any number of other possibilities?
Your off-hand dismissal does nobody any good.
"Perhaps their driving motive is not politics at all, but something else"
Yes, it's called narcissism.
Having been involved in politics at one point and being around elected politicians and aspiring politicians (at least at the state level), I can tell you with absolute certainty that the overwhelming motivation for public office is narcissism. This is also the reason I abandoned my interest in politics - some of the worst human beings I've ever been around.
Yes, it's called narcissism.
Having been involved in politics at one point and being around elected politicians and aspiring politicians (at least at the state level), I can tell you with absolute certainty that the overwhelming motivation for public office is narcissism. This is also the reason I abandoned my interest in politics - some of the worst human beings I've ever been around.
Calling Democrats "the left" is an interesting oddity for everybody outside the US. In most other countries the mainstream political spectrum of the US would go from right (Democrats) to far right (Republicans).
Sorry but either you're badly ignorant or being deliberately disingenuous.
Snowden has gone far beyond simple whistleblowing about US citizen's information being collected. He has specifically detailed hacking attempts by the US against Chinese universities and cell phone companies. This is clearly a different form of leaking and it is something the majority of the public is strongly against.
Snowden has gone far beyond simple whistleblowing about US citizen's information being collected. He has specifically detailed hacking attempts by the US against Chinese universities and cell phone companies. This is clearly a different form of leaking and it is something the majority of the public is strongly against.
[deleted]
"the prominent left politicians"
Who exactly are you referring to? There are almost no politicians holding high office that can be called "left wing." At best, you have centrists.
Who exactly are you referring to? There are almost no politicians holding high office that can be called "left wing." At best, you have centrists.
How is leaking info about the US hacking Chinese mobile operators related to US citizens?
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1266821/us-hacks-chin...
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1266821/us-hacks-chin...
Well for one thing we no longer have moral standing to object if another country is caught hacking mobile data carriers in the US.
Neocons! Another one of those words.
But words have meanings. Would you mind explaining how exactly they are neocons, other than you feel they are somewhat sinister?
But words have meanings. Would you mind explaining how exactly they are neocons, other than you feel they are somewhat sinister?
Indeed. I think that should make it clear that the Liberals aren't turning into neocons, and the Conservatives aren't turning into... well, whatever.
I think you've just uncovered the fact that both parties are really just two sides of the same coin. It may appear that they're engaged in some kind of tug-of-war struggle, but if so, we are the rope.
In fact, both DEMs and GOPs agree on the vast majority of issues, the only differences are in fine details. They're both quite happy with the form and function of today's government.
I think you've just uncovered the fact that both parties are really just two sides of the same coin. It may appear that they're engaged in some kind of tug-of-war struggle, but if so, we are the rope.
In fact, both DEMs and GOPs agree on the vast majority of issues, the only differences are in fine details. They're both quite happy with the form and function of today's government.
Dude's gotta fall in line with Obama as ambassador. This is a bad example.
I wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that I buy into this, for any number of reasons, but one definition of a neocon is "a liberal who has been mugged by reality."
(For what it's worth, I primarily take issue with the words 'liberal' and 'reality'.)
(For what it's worth, I primarily take issue with the words 'liberal' and 'reality'.)
Kerry has spent the recent month advocating to send weapons into a conflict zone (Syria)...
Are there any congressmen (or congresswomen) who have been outspoken in favor of Snowden, or are all 435 members of the House and 100 members of the Senate condemning him?
Kerry is the Secretary of State. His role is to represent the State and the policy direction of the President.
'Deeply troubling' is diplospeak.
'Deeply troubling' is diplospeak.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why talking about politics in HN goes nowhere good, ever.
> A frustrated Secretary of State John F. Kerry said he was troubled by the apparent refusal of fellow world powers China and Russia to respond to espionage charges the United States had filed against Snowden, who leaked top-secret documents about U.S. surveillance programs.
This is kind of a strange statement. On what grounds could/would China or Russia "respond to espionage charges" in the absence of extradition treaties with the US?
Its also somewhat strange the US would expect any other country, especially these two, to care deeply about leaks against it that expose massive US/British spying against basically the whole world.
This is kind of a strange statement. On what grounds could/would China or Russia "respond to espionage charges" in the absence of extradition treaties with the US?
Its also somewhat strange the US would expect any other country, especially these two, to care deeply about leaks against it that expose massive US/British spying against basically the whole world.
You're taking Kerry's words WAY to literally. The US wanted Snowden and Russia said no, therefore the US had to respond. Kerry wasn't literally thinking "Oh my god! They said no! How dare they? What do you do now???"
The US knew what the answer was going to be before they even asked the question.
The US knew what the answer was going to be before they even asked the question.
That's exactly what he said -- throwing a hissy fit because Russia is not treating the US as a superpower...
I think Kerry is 'troubled' because if a Russian whistleblower revealed FSB secrets, it's obvious that the USA will now feel entitled to offer them asylum and ignore Russia's demands.
It's not strange if you follow the news.
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zxxx/t1049546.shtml
China's new President has made it a high priority to improve relations with the US which is why many were surprised Snowden was let out of HK quite so easily.
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zxxx/t1049546.shtml
China's new President has made it a high priority to improve relations with the US which is why many were surprised Snowden was let out of HK quite so easily.
Extradition for espionage seems like it ought to be totally different from the regular kind. If a guy gunned down some children or something, sure, yell at anyone and everyone in sight to get him back. But why would you expect any non-allied country to give the slightest damn about espionage?
Maybe they know this but perhaps they're just grandstanding in front of their electorate.
I wonder how those reporters feel signing up for a 12 hour flight to Cuba now for nothing. I have to confess I chuckled with the "they locked the doors and he's not on the flight!" tweet. Rountrip to Cuba for nothing.
Hopefully they use the 12 hours to discuss and write about the actual issue, instead of the person that reported it.
No they will be hitting the duty free booze - you obviously haven't been around many Journalists :-)
And probably trying to persuade their editors that they should stay on Cuba for a few days just in case nudge nudge
And probably trying to persuade their editors that they should stay on Cuba for a few days just in case nudge nudge
Apparently there's no booze served on the flight either. The journalists are very disappointed.
This is ironic.
Snowden is able to pass through Russian territory because, according to the law of Russia, it is allowed. This, says Mr Kerry, is deeply troubling.
However, blanket monitoring of internet activity, which according to the law of the US, is allowed, is not deeply troubling?
Snowden is able to pass through Russian territory because, according to the law of Russia, it is allowed. This, says Mr Kerry, is deeply troubling.
However, blanket monitoring of internet activity, which according to the law of the US, is allowed, is not deeply troubling?
>He cited U.S. refusals to extradite bankers convicted in crimes in Ecuador, saying Quito was now free to exercise its “sovereignty” in the same way.
Way to go Ecuador!
>“There is no small irony here,” Kerry added, posing the hypothetical question of whether Snowden sought refuge in China and Russia “because they’re such powerful bastions of Internet freedom.”
No sign of shame or embarrassment. Disgusting.
Way to go Ecuador!
>“There is no small irony here,” Kerry added, posing the hypothetical question of whether Snowden sought refuge in China and Russia “because they’re such powerful bastions of Internet freedom.”
No sign of shame or embarrassment. Disgusting.
Hm. His passport was revoked. Reminds me of the communist era here in eastern Europe when people were not allowed to hold passports, unless the state decided that it's safe to let them travel abroad.
> [Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.)] added: “These are countries that violate press freedoms every day. And yet [Snowden]’s seeking political asylum in those very countries where . . . if he were to pull a Snowden in these countries, they’d jail him immediately.”
...exactly as the US has attempted to do, on trumped-up espionage charges no less? The _only_ reason that didn't happen in this case is because he learned from previous leakers and was smart enough to protect himself by fleeing the country beforehand.
...exactly as the US has attempted to do, on trumped-up espionage charges no less? The _only_ reason that didn't happen in this case is because he learned from previous leakers and was smart enough to protect himself by fleeing the country beforehand.
>“Ecuador puts its principles above its economic interests,” he said.
Something about this statement made me wonder: is Ecuador just collecting political fugitives so that it can cut some nice deal with the US in the future? This isn't a country with a stellar human rights record. I'm not sure how comfortable I am with them accumulating a stable of high profile asylum-seeking bargaining chips.
Something about this statement made me wonder: is Ecuador just collecting political fugitives so that it can cut some nice deal with the US in the future? This isn't a country with a stellar human rights record. I'm not sure how comfortable I am with them accumulating a stable of high profile asylum-seeking bargaining chips.
>This isn't a country with a stellar human rights record.
The same could be said of the US. Surely you know this. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opinion/americas-shameful-...
I assume when the US shelters human rights activists you will question its motives in a similar manner, no?
Also, cute how you jump to that reasoning first. Surely there is no other reason a sovereign nation would need a bargaining chip with the USA.
The same could be said of the US. Surely you know this. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opinion/americas-shameful-...
I assume when the US shelters human rights activists you will question its motives in a similar manner, no?
Also, cute how you jump to that reasoning first. Surely there is no other reason a sovereign nation would need a bargaining chip with the USA.
>The same could be said of the US. Surely you know this.
Yes, but the US has much bigger guns in the game of diplomatic bargaining than Ecuador - including actual guns. Handing over political refugees would be an unnecessary sacrifice of reputation for the US when there are so many other tools at its disposal. Other nations already mostly do whatever the US tells them to, and when they don't, a minor play like that wouldn't make a difference.
Ecuador does not have such clout, so political refugees are a far more useful bargaining chip.
Yes, but the US has much bigger guns in the game of diplomatic bargaining than Ecuador - including actual guns. Handing over political refugees would be an unnecessary sacrifice of reputation for the US when there are so many other tools at its disposal. Other nations already mostly do whatever the US tells them to, and when they don't, a minor play like that wouldn't make a difference.
Ecuador does not have such clout, so political refugees are a far more useful bargaining chip.
Since when is the US "handing over" anyone?
They aren't. I think you should reread my comment.
I did. Several times. I still don't understand what's being "handed over" exactly.
Nothing is being handed over by the US. The US doesn't stand to gain more by handing over political refugees than they could gain by other tools available to them, and they would lose reputation by handing over political refugees. So they don't. They don't hand over refugees because it would hurt them more than it would help them.
My point is that that reasoning does not necessarily hold for Ecuador. This is why it's not necessary to suspect that the US is collecting refugees as future bargaining chips, while it is necessary to consider that Ecuador might be.
If you still think I'm suggesting that the US is handing over refugees, please point out where I said anything of the sort, and I will clarify.
My point is that that reasoning does not necessarily hold for Ecuador. This is why it's not necessary to suspect that the US is collecting refugees as future bargaining chips, while it is necessary to consider that Ecuador might be.
If you still think I'm suggesting that the US is handing over refugees, please point out where I said anything of the sort, and I will clarify.
Ahh, ok. Thanks for the clarification!
From the article: The flight from [Moscow] was packed with journalists who had purchased tickets believing that Snowden would be on the flight.
It would be hilarious if Snowden and his companions tried to get seats on that flight, but could not, because it was already fully booked by these proactive journalists.
It would be hilarious if Snowden and his companions tried to get seats on that flight, but could not, because it was already fully booked by these proactive journalists.
“It would be very disappointing if he was willfully allowed to board an airplane,” said Kerry, who was traveling in New Delhi. “There would be without any doubt . . . consequences.” [emphasis mine].
What is he insinuating by saying something cryptic like this?
What is he insinuating by saying something cryptic like this?
It's standard sabre rattling. There's not a lot America could do to China or Russia to upset them, so it's pointless rattling of the political sabre to try and look tough on the big stage. Well, in my opinion anyway, unless Kerry means he's going to unleash a torrent of US cyberspooks to pwn their networks even more.
> "if he were to pull a Snowden in these countries, they’d jail him immediately."
This is the first time I've noticed this usage of "Snowden". Anyone noticed it earlier?
This is the first time I've noticed this usage of "Snowden". Anyone noticed it earlier?
> “The bottom line is very simple,” Schumer said. “Allies are supposed to treat each other in decent ways, and Putin always seems almost eager to put a finger in the eye of the United States, whether it is Syria, Iran and now, of course, with Snowden. That’s not how allies should treat one another, and I think it will have serious consequences for the United States-Russia relationship.”
And spying on so many of the citizens of so many allies is somehow perfectly ok?
And spying on so many of the citizens of so many allies is somehow perfectly ok?
Well...Russia does seem a bit bitter about other spying incidents: http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=425431
So it's not just the spying on citizens, it's also the...uhm...spying in general.
So it's not just the spying on citizens, it's also the...uhm...spying in general.
The tone of this article suggests Snowden is nothing more than a pawn in someone else's game.
Why should anyone care so much about him? We've heard repeatedly that what he has disclosed - a massive amount of spying on Americans and other nationals - was already known by everyone.
Who was that person who said: If you are worried about someone discovering your "secret" activities, then maybe you be doing those activities in the first place.
Maybe the sooner politicians accept that "frictionless sharing" is the future, the better off we'll all be? What do you think?
Other commenters have pointed out that most users outside HN do not care about data privacy. So why should politicians care? Are they a special case? I thought they represent the views of their constituents.
Why should anyone care so much about him? We've heard repeatedly that what he has disclosed - a massive amount of spying on Americans and other nationals - was already known by everyone.
Who was that person who said: If you are worried about someone discovering your "secret" activities, then maybe you be doing those activities in the first place.
Maybe the sooner politicians accept that "frictionless sharing" is the future, the better off we'll all be? What do you think?
Other commenters have pointed out that most users outside HN do not care about data privacy. So why should politicians care? Are they a special case? I thought they represent the views of their constituents.
These politicians are increasingly sounding desperate. Like the parents of a teenager who realize that their power is not limitless and is in fact evaporating.
He may actually make it, which is amazing. This is probably the best outcome Snowden could have possibly hoped for.
Kerry really comes off as a crybaby here
How is Snowden pulling this off? Can anyone elaborate on the balance of power that has allowed him to stay free and travel? This seems to be quite a feat, but I can't read between the lines enough to sort out why these foreign powers are staying out of his hair.
What do you think would happen in the symmetrical situation where a Russian or Chinese whistleblower, exposing evidence of his respective country spying on the Americans, were to seek protection from the US? There's no chance the Yanks would just meekly accede to an extradition request.
From a politics standpoint, this is really really poor diplomacy, giving a public tone which makes us look weak and forcing us into a position where the US looks servile to other countries. It's just sloppy.
Why can't we have Clinton back as Secretary of State?
Why can't we have Clinton back as Secretary of State?
The only thing 'deeply troubling' is that both sides are labeling a whistleblower as a 'leaker' and 'traitor' when all he's done is expose that U.S. citizens info is collected without warrants, a likely constitutional violation.