Snowden applies for asylum in Russia(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Snowden applies for asylum in Russia
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23328074
48 comments
Actually this particular story is just about Snowden, not the details revealed in what he leaked, and certainly not about your personal freedom from government tyranny.
That's why I said "the whole story". This article about Snowden seeking asylum is written only because Snowden revealed some nasty stuff about his government and now this government is after him. And this stuff is "nasty" for some people only because they have no way to escape or debate it. It is unilaterally imposed on them without any discussion. And those who'd try to disobey would face big troubles from federal government. That's why Snowden is in trouble and that's why people are interested in what happens about him.
What you're talking about sounds like Max Weber's theory about the state being defined as any entity with the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
I think a valid question would be: can a government even exist without the possibility of exercising violence as a means of control? And if that's the case, is there any other means of organizing human beings which would enable this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
I think a valid question would be: can a government even exist without the possibility of exercising violence as a means of control? And if that's the case, is there any other means of organizing human beings which would enable this?
Check out two short books: everyday anarchy and practical anarchy by Stefan Molyneux. http://freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx
TLDR: voluntary ostracism vs. forced prison. Cages are only for the beasts.
TLDR: voluntary ostracism vs. forced prison. Cages are only for the beasts.
I find it very odd that this article, along with most, repeatedly claims that Snowden needs to have a travel document in order to claim asylum. Many asylum seekers have no travel document at all when they enter the country where they seek asylum. In the UK most asylum seekers have no legal way to enter the country, as you technically can't switch from most other types of visa - they simply have to arrive and claim asylum on arrival.
There are two problems: First he'd need to be let onto a flight without valid travel documents. Secondly, he'd need for that flight to actually arrive at a location where he will not be apprehended and handed over to US authorities.
Russian asylum will alleviate both issues: It gives him easier access to commercial flights, and it makes it politically far more difficult for those European states that for example were willing to prevent Morales' plane access on a mere rumour he was aboard to justify forcing down a plane he is on. Consider the political fallout if an Aeroflot plane with someone granted political asylum by Russia gets turned back.. Or for that matter another diplomatic mission with him aboard their plane with asylum status.
Russian asylum will alleviate both issues: It gives him easier access to commercial flights, and it makes it politically far more difficult for those European states that for example were willing to prevent Morales' plane access on a mere rumour he was aboard to justify forcing down a plane he is on. Consider the political fallout if an Aeroflot plane with someone granted political asylum by Russia gets turned back.. Or for that matter another diplomatic mission with him aboard their plane with asylum status.
There's a simple but significant distinction here - it doesn't work for Air travel. And there's no tunnel from Russia to Bolivia ..
(also noteworthy is that most nations need you to be within their borders before you can apply for asylum. It appears Snowden would much rather have an invite before he arrives. This is ruling out most destinations)
(also noteworthy is that most nations need you to be within their borders before you can apply for asylum. It appears Snowden would much rather have an invite before he arrives. This is ruling out most destinations)
> needs to have a travel document in order to claim asylum
> they simply have to arrive and claim asylum
In order to arrive, he needs the travel document.
> they simply have to arrive and claim asylum
In order to arrive, he needs the travel document.
The trouble is that Snowden is not yet permitted to travel out of the Russian airport. He is seeking asylum in Russia because he can't get out of there without their permission.
This is what US wanted. To corner him into taking asylum in a country like Russia. This turns Snowden into a spy in minds of many Americans than a whistleblower (or I like to call public informant).
The stories on media will focus more on, "Spy or whistleblower" instead of domestic spying by NSA. Future whistleblowers are discouraged and the nature of spying is off the front page. Mission accomplished!
The stories on media will focus more on, "Spy or whistleblower" instead of domestic spying by NSA. Future whistleblowers are discouraged and the nature of spying is off the front page. Mission accomplished!
The US wants him in custody, and they think he's a criminal. I don't credit the administration for a devious plot here.
The political staff may be agonizing over talking points, but the real chess game is about catching the king. I don't think Obama and Putin were chatting about smearing Snowden, but rather about what the US will give Russia if Snowden is sent home, or prevented from going to South America.
The political staff may be agonizing over talking points, but the real chess game is about catching the king. I don't think Obama and Putin were chatting about smearing Snowden, but rather about what the US will give Russia if Snowden is sent home, or prevented from going to South America.
Exactly. And as evident by the US/Russian spy swap in 2010 [1] a transfer isn't out of the question. In the coming months, we may even see several undercover SVR operatives rounded up in the United States as bargaining chips.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegals_Program
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegals_Program
Is Snowden really that valuable to the US? Prosecuting him isn't going to be a PR coup in the way killing Osama Bin Laden or prosecuting war criminals is (quite the opposite in fact; it can only be damaging to the US govt image inone way or another), he doesn't know anything the US doesn't already know, and the "don't give away our secrets unless you want to rot in Russia" message is well and truly sent.
It's not a PR coup, they want to discourage possible whistleblowers by telling them: "if you reveal big stuff about us, we'll hunt you anywhere you go and eventually we'll find you and you'll pay".
>Prosecuting him isn't going to be a PR coup in the way killing Osama Bin Laden or prosecuting war criminals is
This; ironically prosecuting Snowden hurts the administrations relationship with subsections of both parties.
This; ironically prosecuting Snowden hurts the administrations relationship with subsections of both parties.
What about dropping Syria from our current agenda with Russia?
Well, it's effective. If the end result of Snowden's choice to take 3-4 NSA laptops into the two largest strategic competitor nations of the United States is nothing more than exposing the domestic surveillance, then an argument can be made for him being a noble whistle blower, but if the Russians and Chinese image those laptops and it costs lives, then Snowden's choice not to remain in the U.S. and blow the whistle will be viewed as cowardice.
If he wanted to do damage he could, you have to look at the intent of peoples actions.
He was forced by the intent of US government to be where he is now, that is cowardice by the US government to withdraw his passport, force a president on the ground and search his plane, all for giving a few powerpoint presentations to journalists! Had the US governemnt and NSA/CIA cowards not acted like the Stalinists the are, Snowden could still have been in USA, but thats not a place where he can talk freely, thats not a place where he can feel safe and if you believe otherwise you must have your head up in the sand for the last few months. He needs the laptops/the information, thats the only thing keeping him from a good dose of polonium.
He was forced by the intent of US government to be where he is now, that is cowardice by the US government to withdraw his passport, force a president on the ground and search his plane, all for giving a few powerpoint presentations to journalists! Had the US governemnt and NSA/CIA cowards not acted like the Stalinists the are, Snowden could still have been in USA, but thats not a place where he can talk freely, thats not a place where he can feel safe and if you believe otherwise you must have your head up in the sand for the last few months. He needs the laptops/the information, thats the only thing keeping him from a good dose of polonium.
The problem is by taking those laptops Snowden moved from being a whistleblower (a status that can be protected by laws and at least gives him a case in court) to an explict lawbreaker in the fact that US has strict export control laws governing protected data. Now, by means of either niavaty, cowardance, or ignorance, Snowden cannot avoid jail time in the US even assuming he isn't procecuted for leaking the information to The Guardian. Publicly leaking the information while going on trial in the US would have lead to people actually talking about the leaked information instead of focusing on the man as well as giving him a legal platform to stand on. I can't speak for Snowden's motivations be it cowardice, stupidity, or some disillusionment, but by leaving the country he hamstrung his own legitimacy and made it very difficult for the relevant information to be acted upon or even fully exposed.
By leaving the country he is still alive, in freedom and able to see the sun.
Do you honestly really think he would have received a fair trial that would have begun now and not after 2-3 years of solitary confinement, only having the memory of a day? A fair trail. USA is not the freedom country you so highly think of, these events should be enough for you to reevaluate it.
He still hasnt leaked any damaging information mind you, no matter what is on those laptops and if its safe or not, he has so far made interviews and given a powerpoint to newspapers.
USA and most western democracies are countries where you cannot avoid jail if the government wants you there, you too are a criminal - copyright infrigement, and what no, they'll always find something, which is kind of the problem, you're a criminal but those who are elite criminals dont face jail.
When will NSA chief face a trail for lying to congress and breaking 4th amandement? When will NSA employee face a trial and jail time for going above his clearance and snooping on other peoples lives?
Do you honestly really think he would have received a fair trial that would have begun now and not after 2-3 years of solitary confinement, only having the memory of a day? A fair trail. USA is not the freedom country you so highly think of, these events should be enough for you to reevaluate it.
He still hasnt leaked any damaging information mind you, no matter what is on those laptops and if its safe or not, he has so far made interviews and given a powerpoint to newspapers.
USA and most western democracies are countries where you cannot avoid jail if the government wants you there, you too are a criminal - copyright infrigement, and what no, they'll always find something, which is kind of the problem, you're a criminal but those who are elite criminals dont face jail.
When will NSA chief face a trail for lying to congress and breaking 4th amandement? When will NSA employee face a trial and jail time for going above his clearance and snooping on other peoples lives?
Let me guess, you're a soviet?
Just spent a few minutes reading through your comment history.
"I suggest you try reading anything written by anyone, which would be certain to improve your existing knowledge."
"Please, leave the US."
"This is absolutely, without any doubt, the stupidest, least intelligent and most ridiculous and sensationalist comment ever to appear on the internet, or to be expressed in any other form."
"I can't believe this thought was formed in a human brain."
"No. Can we please stop this adolescent drama? If you think there's a better country, please, leave the US and go there. Do the rest of us a favor."
How about doing the rest of us a favor and ratchet down the hostility and melodrama a notch, mkay? You're not as witty as you think you are.
"I suggest you try reading anything written by anyone, which would be certain to improve your existing knowledge."
"Please, leave the US."
"This is absolutely, without any doubt, the stupidest, least intelligent and most ridiculous and sensationalist comment ever to appear on the internet, or to be expressed in any other form."
"I can't believe this thought was formed in a human brain."
"No. Can we please stop this adolescent drama? If you think there's a better country, please, leave the US and go there. Do the rest of us a favor."
How about doing the rest of us a favor and ratchet down the hostility and melodrama a notch, mkay? You're not as witty as you think you are.
It's counterintuitive, but now Russia is drifting away from its soviet past. Meanwhile western leaders start to understand that there is a good strategy with uniform democracy: play with envy (all this stuff "reach people should pay more, in order to keep compensation for unemployed, etc"). In some sense, this is motion towards socialism.
>Publicly leaking the information while going on trial in the US would have lead to people actually talking about the leaked information
That didn't happen when Manning was incarcerated. It's more likely, "story's over... the bad guy got nabbed". The foreign media doesn't stop their coverage of PRISM at Snowden's flight and there's no reason for domestic media to do so either.
That didn't happen when Manning was incarcerated. It's more likely, "story's over... the bad guy got nabbed". The foreign media doesn't stop their coverage of PRISM at Snowden's flight and there's no reason for domestic media to do so either.
Something to consider as well: if Russian or Chinese intelligence agencies image those laptops and it does not cost lives, but causes the failure of many ongoing operations, is he still a coward?
The operations of an organization sketchy enough to lie to congress and ignore the Constitution might be operations that really should fail.
Are you asking if it would be a bad thing if spying operations that should've never happened, get ended?
Depends on what operations.
Domestic: hero
Foreign: traitor
Domestic: hero
Foreign: traitor
>If the end result of Snowden's choice to take 3-4 NSA laptops into the two largest strategic competitor nations of the United States is nothing more than exposing the domestic surveillance
There's been nothing to suggest he has any intention other than exposing the NSA's illegal mass surveillance.
There's been nothing to suggest he has any intention other than exposing the NSA's illegal mass surveillance.
[deleted]
> This is what US wanted. To corner him into taking asylum in a country like Russia
I really doubt it. This is not at all a best case scenario for the US. Still better than China though.
I really doubt it. This is not at all a best case scenario for the US. Still better than China though.
How did they force him to take a one-way flight to Moscow?
Moscow was not his destination. Just the connection. He had to stay in Moscow because the US revoked his passport before he could board the next plane.
My point is that he could have chosen to fly through a dozen other countries not named Russia. No one forced him to choose that connection (or to participate in the fake flight to Havana).
> The stories on media will focus more on, "Spy or whistleblower" instead of domestic spying by NSA. Future whistleblowers are discouraged and the nature of spying is off the front page. Mission accomplished!
That's already happened. I haven't heard much more than a peep about NSA spying since the Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego story took over.
That's already happened. I haven't heard much more than a peep about NSA spying since the Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego story took over.
Focusing on Snowden's flight is how domestic media can appear to cover the issue without actually educatng people. Foreign media isn't havning any difficulty continuing to talk about the underlying issues.
Matthew, that is true for news in the USA but if you browse international news stories there is LOTS of coverage about the leaks, how that affects other counties, business, etc.
Well, at least he's not stuck in an airport for the rest of his life. Stay in one long enough and even jail begins to look good.
But the problem remains -- what are we going to do about PRISM, or even more to the core of the problem, about the cult of secrecy in our government?
Senators Graham, McCain, and Pelosi would have you believe the cult is for our own good, because we're not informed enough to know what's good for us.
Of course, we don't have access to the information that would help us make up our own minds, so the circular argument closes itself and we have to resort to Plan B -- which is, "If you don't know national security, know those who do."
And I'd nominate the aforementioned senators, but they seem to know just a little more than I do -- by their own design, the executive branch's reluctance to be honest in hearings, and the judicial branch's own complicity in rubber-stamping requests.
By analogy, if a major US corporation hired whites 99.99% of the time over non-whites, the AG would be all over them.
Given the state we're in today, why did the founders even bother revolting? If you took what some of our senators are saying, replace "national security" with "monarchy", you'd probably have a speech uttered by some Tory back in 1770.
But the problem remains -- what are we going to do about PRISM, or even more to the core of the problem, about the cult of secrecy in our government?
Senators Graham, McCain, and Pelosi would have you believe the cult is for our own good, because we're not informed enough to know what's good for us.
Of course, we don't have access to the information that would help us make up our own minds, so the circular argument closes itself and we have to resort to Plan B -- which is, "If you don't know national security, know those who do."
And I'd nominate the aforementioned senators, but they seem to know just a little more than I do -- by their own design, the executive branch's reluctance to be honest in hearings, and the judicial branch's own complicity in rubber-stamping requests.
By analogy, if a major US corporation hired whites 99.99% of the time over non-whites, the AG would be all over them.
Given the state we're in today, why did the founders even bother revolting? If you took what some of our senators are saying, replace "national security" with "monarchy", you'd probably have a speech uttered by some Tory back in 1770.
I think Russia is the safest place for Snowden. Any western country is a no-go for obvious reasons. And South America is also questionable. Given how casually the Bolivian presidential plane was grounded and searched, the US may as well send a SEAL team to one of those "second class" countries for a recovery mission.
Personally, I feel whats really important is that we focus on the Elephant in the room, namely the things which were released by him.
It feels like we are focusing on perception and if he will be labeled a 'traitor' or not.
It feels like we are focusing on perception and if he will be labeled a 'traitor' or not.
This whole story is not about privacy, spying or politics. It is about your personal inability to choose your phone company, internet provider, or a bank without confronting armed "state" which dictates what is allowed to you. Don't like NSA spying through Verizon? Build your own phone company. Oops, there are feds with an order to "cooperate".
Guns and violence are the problem, not all these abstract things like "rights" or "privacy".