In the video you can see Maduro, Venezuela's President, making the official decision public. Of course, it's still to be seen if Snowden decides to go there, and how\when is he going to do it.
It was very sobering translating the comments to that video. Generally the comments were "Good for us to stand up to the USA...oh shit, what did we just do?"
Depends on how much money Venezuela is willing to spend on it, and how much Russia is willing to cooperate.
I just plotted a path from Moscow to Venezuela that avoids non-Russian/Venezuelan airspace. It's less than 12,000km. Several modern Boeing and Airbus planes can do that non-stop.
The only way I see a flight being successful is to have it be a Russian airline that gets him there directly avoiding US airspace. Call me cynical, but I could see the US attempting what was done w/ Bolivia on any other smaller country...
A great circle route from Murmansk to Caracas just touches the northern parts of Finland and Norway, and crosses Iceland. It's 9,300km long, so you should be able to modify that route to skirt those countries and stay under the 12,000km given.
(don't get me wrong - venezuela has serious problems. but cherry picking examples for one country is no argument at all. people in glass houses....
also, wouldn't it make the world a worst place if we required the country offering asylum to be "better" than the country persecuting someone? that seems pointless, except for internet point-scoring)
Sure, I'll agree that Guantanamo's a stain on this country.
And while we have entirely too many prisoners in this country, they aren't 'political prisoners'. People aren't thrown into prison for protesting the government. (Or not generally, you did have McCarthyism and such in the past)
The death penalty is not simply a state-by-state issue.
Besides the existence of a federal and military death penalty, the federal court system, including the US Supreme Court, deals with Constitutional issues related to the death penalty in states constantly, and has imposed various restrictions on its usage. SCOTUS has also been on an excruciatingly slow but clear path towards total nationwide abolishment.
There is very little in the US that can be treated as purely state-by-state, and so long as the 8th and 14th amendments exist, capital punishment definitely isn't one of them.
It's like saying State Insurance isn't a simple state issue because there could be intervention by the feds. Of course, but de-facto, it's a state issue and the Feds have their own purview for things like the military and treason, etc.
But, if a state wanted to eliminate it, they could, so long as their legislature or judiciary so decided. So it is a state by state issue, by and large.
[PS] I think allowing things to be done state by state actually help in the end to get the whole nation to agree on things which as a whole it might not without states or a state 'testing the waters' as it were. Eventually I see all states eliminating capital punishment, and I think being able to refer to states that have and show that it has not resulted in higher murder rates post elimination is a good thing. Same for pot laws and same sex marriage laws. In this big republic, given that we're not a strictly civil law, I think this bit by bit helps out, in the long run.
No, you're missing the point. The nation as a whole permits the death penalty to continue, even if some political subdivisions choose not to impose it themselves.
The idea of 50 sovereign states doing their own thing is merely a convenient fiction for those who don't want the murders conducted in their name to bother their conscience.
And it falls apart completely when you remember, the federal government sentences people to death, too, not just states. America conducts state-sponsored murder. Not even the 50-state fiction shields anyone from that reality.
Edit Re PS: Speaking of being technical... You're focusing on the mechanisms. I'm very familiar with the mechanisms, and I don't care about them. I care about the result. The result is we remain one of forty countries, almost all of which we hypocritically lambast for their human rights records, to retain the death penalty. No amount of procedural justification will change that, nor will it reduce our moral responsibility.
The federal government does still utilize the death penalty, but it's very rare these days. Only three times since 1963, whereas Texas has executed 500 people since 1982.
The war on drugs is almost always a war on the underclass / minorities. It is almost impossible to see when you live within it, but there will come a time years in the future when looking back on current America is like looking back on the era of slavery, in basic disbelief to the overwhelming ignorance of so many.
| People aren't thrown into prison for
| protesting the government.
Depends on what you are protesting. Look at the police response to the Occupy protests. Talk to anyone that's worked in the animal rights movement. Sure you don't get thrown in jail for 'protesting the government' directly, but you'll get things like selective enforcement of laws brought against you because you've stuck your head out.
In those instances, you might spend a few hours or the night in a jail cell, that's true. It's a bit different than what they do in Venezuela, or say, Egypt.
I was actually fearing that Argentina would volunteer for this. I appreciate that they got the jump on us in this case. I dont think we(Argentina) should meddle on this one.
I live in Venezuela. It is routine here that politicians air private conversations, by telephone, or even recorded inside houses. Until a few weeks there was even a TV program, sponsored by the government, that now and then aired private conversations by opposition leaders, for political benefits of course.
I really don't know if Snowden knows that, but it would be really ironic if he accepted the proposal.
I don't understand why people are trying to hold him to some kind of saintly standard.
He wanted to do what he could to expose what he believed to be wrongdoing. And now he simply wants to avoid prison if possible, like pretty much anyone else would. There's no nobility in throwing away his lifetime in an American jail -- he's already exposed the NSA's programs, and prison accomplishes nothing more.
Sure, it's easy to call him a hypocrite for applying for asylum in countries "less free" than the US. But as long as "free" countries allow themselves to be pressured by the US, what choice does he have? Would you do anything different in his shoes?
I also think he has the moral obligation to fight extradition. The US Government wants to make him an example to scare whistle blowers, like it's been done with Bradley Manning.
If whistle-blowers are safe, we will see more of them. More whistle-blowers means less corruption and a healthier political system.
Well spoken. Venezuela may not be the freest nation on earth, but I'm glad there's a few places around that stand up to US government bullying.
I say this as an American who will pledge allegiance to the US Constitution any day of the week, but not to the US government, especially not in its current form. I'm genuinely scared at how far my government has gone in persecuting lawful, nonviolent protesters and activists. Just look at the Aaron Swartz case, the harassment of Jacob Appelbaum at the border, or police actions during the Occupy protests (less related to hacker culture but just as important).
I can no longer believe that those who stay within the law have nothing to fear from the US government. This may not be true of the Venezuelan government either, but the fact that they don't let USG boss them around means at least there are options.
This is exactly why all this attention on him is distracting; he is human like everyone else, probably has a few skeletons in his cupboard, is probably going to make some bad moves in the future. Rendering this whole issue into one of the damn traitor stealing America's secrets will detract attention from fixing the current system.
Originally Snowden went to Hong Kong because of their supposed freedoms but right now I think he's mainly concerned about finding a place where he won't end up in an American dungeon for the rest of his life.
I wonder why he left Hong Kong then? Maybe he couldn't live with the writing on the wall telling him eventually the legal system there would probably hand him over.
My understanding is that Wikileaks convinced him to hopscotch Hong Kong => Russia => Cuba => Venezuela. I think that Snowden's father made some statements that he was angry with Wikileaks for this (because it ended up with Snowden stranded in Moscow).
That's unfortunate. It seems in retrospect he would have been better of waiting in Hong Kong until he had a promise of asylum elsewhere as well as a safe passage.
I don't think that's how it was working out. The US had started extradition proceedings and had told Hong Kong to arrest him. Hong Kong was required to do it based on the treaties with the US. They ended up giving Snowden a small window to leave by using a technical excuse but that wasn't going to last. If he had stayed in Hong Kong he'd be in jail for months and then be extradited to the US.
Hong Kong would have arrested him, but actually extraditing him would have been a process stretching out years. Releasing classified information is not an extraditable offense under the treaty, so the U.S. would have had to drum up some other charge. Snowden could have gone through several levels of appeals, each of which could have resulted in the whole thing being declared political by the courts and Snowden going free.
It could be though that the HK government preferred not to be in the middle of all this, and convinced him to leave.
> there was even a TV program, sponsored by the government
> then aired private conversations by opposition leaders
The government owns the TV in Venezuela. This is a very different premise (one is about political propaganda and another is about general population privacy).
That's like saying "it would be ironic if Snowden ended up in a solitary confinement cell, where you don't have any privacy at all."
Snowden didn't do all this to enhance his personal freedom. He knew from the start it would be degraded, one way or another. He sacrificed his own freedom for the sake of ours.
>> "like the one Snowden used from Ecuador to get to Moscow from Hong Kong"
AFAIK it later became clear they hadn't issued that document and Snowden was able to travel as his passport wasn't revoked until he was already in the air on his way to Russia.
If he was handed travel documents by Ecuador why is he stuck on a Russian airport? I assumed he did travel under his own password wich was still valid when he left Hong Kong.
You'd also have to include flyovers and opportunities for refuelling. The route would end up looking like a piece of cooked spaghetti was dropped on the map.
Assuming he makes it down there, who is up for visiting sometime? I've never been to Venezuela -- Angel Falls is really the only tourist thing which interests me there.
My hope was Snowden would pick a neutral or slightly decent place for asylum and exile, and it would maybe turn into the new US (i.e. "free place where people go to avoid oppression"), and maybe a startup hub for security (Berlin would be a top choice for that...) A protracted court case for extradition in Hong Kong would have been awesome for that, except for the high cost of housing.
But Venezuela is really not a place I'd consider. It's not Equatorial Guinea, but isn't even Argentina.
I'm a little shocked that even here on Hacker News, most of the top-level comments fell for the headline, rather than focusing the attention back where it belongs: the reason why Snowden needs asylum in the first place.
Enough of this drama. Snowden has served his purpose in revealing the extend of the NSA shenanigans, but we really shouldn't have to read about his every move.
This Reuters news release does not even mention the nature of the leaks that put Mr. Snowden in this situation. It's truly a sad state of reporting and public discourse.
Edit: taking a bit of my own advice:
We need to stop the NSA snooping all of our communications and restore due process for searches and seizures!
This article is a brief update on Snowden's asylum status and it conveys just that. Not every article on the matter needs to discuss the full depth of the issue.
I agree with the sentiment, but this is an important development. If whistle-blowers get protection, we will likely see more of them.
I'm OK with some news about Snowden from time to time as long as the number of stories about surveillance largely outnumber the ones about Snowden. I think HN has a healthy ratio.
You serious ? It should be clear that if you have information to share you should do so quietly without making yourself the target. Where would Snowden be without the legal and financial assistance of the Wikileaks team ? Likely rotting away for the rest of his life in a US jail.
Furthermore since Snowden's revelations has resulted in basically zero change to the status quo (no legislation, no change in policies, no change in diplomatic relations, no mass uprising by the public) you have to imagine he's wondering what the whole point of it was.
no legislation, no change in policies, no change in diplomatic relations, no mass uprising by the public
It's only been 5-6 weeks, how fast were you expecting things to happen? The Watergate scandal took over two years to unfold even though many of the major revelations took place during a general election campaign.
Watergate involved criminal activity. Everything the NSA has done is completely legal and vetted. Also the majority of the public support the policies, the protests have been weak to say the least and the EU is not going to do anything to upset the EU-US FTA. So it's hard to see where the drivers of change are going to come from.
I actually think the problem is the messaging. Rather than argue specific policy changes e.g. "ban monitoring of social media" or "transparent FISA courts" opponents have opted for the vague and somewhat vapid "restore the fourth".
My point was that even with pretty obvious criminal activity in the Watergate scandal, it still took a long time for it to reach crisis point, so it's a bit early to judge how the NSA thing might play out.
I agree with you about the messaging, and don't think the fourth amendment has ever supplied the broad privacy protection that its boosters seem to imagine. I think we need a more explicit privacy amendment, but haven't really thought about how to effectively promote this idea so far.
I find it very hard to argue that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (business records exceptions notwithstanding) in a public Twitter or Facebook feed. You could possibly allow for it in tightly restricted Twitter or Facebook feeds where a small number of users are allowed access, such as Close Friends in the case of Facebook.
Sometimes getting the public to accept a particular argument is not the hard part, it's laying out the alternatives factually in a way that shows the public how they contrast.
I find it very difficult to argue positions that take extremes of the type you laid out. I would also agree that vague notions are a waste of time.
Even with the revelations in 2004 and '05, it was clear that the focus of the program was traffic analysis by completely automated means, and we should have been willing to legislate the extent to which we will allow that activity in public laws in the public domain. The role of the FISC should be to allow for warrants in very uncommon cases of foreign espionage or international terrorism, not as a general mechanism to allow the presentation and consideration of secret evidence. And it doesn't end with that court, the state secret privilege has been used commonly and repeatedly (see the work of Steven Aftergood for more details) to quash cases that the government considers inconvenient, and the Congress has essentially wiped away the complicity of common carriers in violating their implied assurance of the privacy of voice communication. The President called, after these revelations, but nonetheless, for a renewed and expanded debate of these tradeoffs. Do we consider this over now that the broadcast and print media (of all political stripes) have left it alone? Have we now decided that the American people have accepted this as the new normal and moved on?
At every opportunity we conflate the mostly benign traffic analysis and ignore the very real threat (by those we call government) of a persistent and permanent archive of all of our most private conversations. These tools in the wrong hands would be devastating to any free people, placing so many of us in deadly danger of a government that may take our past words as proof of our treason. This is not theory, this is history. (The traffic analysis would also contribute to the ends of such a government, where guilt by association may be sufficient for punishment.)
Everything the NSA has done is completely legal and vetted.
You have absolutely no proof of that. If you'd read anything about the NSA, the history of it, or paid any attention at all, you'd know that to be false. Even if you were a casual observer of the situation, it would be foolish to make such a statement in defense of the NSA.
I have the exact opposite conclusion. I think sharing such information secretly exposes you to approximately the same risk of detection by the NSA, but much is much more dangerous since the public won't notice or care when you are arrested and held without trial.
To state the obvious. Enemy of the USA is not the same as being enemy of the people of the USA, its more like being enemy of the government of the USA.
What constitues a country to be an enemy of the USA, and who gets to decide who is the enemy of the USA? On one side, 15 individual from Saudi Arabia was involved with 9/11, 2 from UAE, one from lebanon and one from Egypt. One could argue that so many of the terrorists and their organization originated from Saudi Arabia, they should be considered as the enemy of the people of USA. Yet they are not. To the best of my knowledge, they received no rebuffs from the USA government.
Why is Venezuela and other so called socialist latin american countries enemy of the USA? What did they do to harm the people of the USA? Nothing, yet they are considered the enemy of the USA. On the contrary USA over many decades wreaked havoc in latin america, caused many economical, political and human misery.
I don't see that his personal drama detracts from the NSA story at all. If he was being painted as a liar or a Chinese pawn, or mentally ill, or a sociopath, that would be sheer distraction -- but what happens to him is of great importance, especially to those who might follow in his footsteps.
You think it is attractive to accept a lifetime of exile, and fear that your physical safety could be compromised at any time by a (possibly forced) change in the government of the place where you live?
The only outcome which would encourage future whistleblowers is being allowed to live in honor in his own country, like Daniel Ellsberg has been able to. Unfortunately it does not look like any branch of the US government is willing to offer assistance, nor does there appear to be any prospect that either political party will ever embrace that idea, no matter what happens in polls (which currently are slightly against Snowden).
> You think it is attractive to accept a lifetime of exile
If I lived in an oppressive state then a lifetime of exile would not be too unwelcome.
During the cold war, the USA was somewhere persecuted people fled to. Now it's somewhere persecuted people flee from. While it is not yet as bad as the USSR was, it seems to me that it is sleepwalking to authoritarianism.
The thing is that the USA remains a prosperous pleasant place to live..as long as you do not challenge authority. We even remain outwardly tolerant of random criticism of authority so long as there is no actual threat to power structures.
Those facts are unlikely to change until we are much farther down the road to authoritarianism than we currently are.
Snowden is not a persecuted person. He's someone who deliberately lied in order to gain access a government spy agency and then stole state secrets which he is selling to the press.
No government would consider that to be acceptable.
Note: This is no defense of the NSA. However it is dishonest to claim that people who criticize the US government are persecuted and need to flee.
The US is not chasing Snowden because he criticized them. They are chasing him because of the stolen documents.
This is obviously much bigger than the leak of some classified documents that expose secret surveilance programs. The reaction of the US government (in this case, the decisions are probably made by Obama himself) is a lot bigger than a random criminal prosecution.
Just look at the measures taken in order to intimidate or capture Snowden: In effect, the US government grounded the private jet of a foreign head of state. If a similar action was done against the US, it would be considered an act of war. A persecution is exactly what this is, under the plausible (even legal) guise of criminal proceedings.
Nobody is saying this is a random criminal prosecution. He's being pursued for fraudulently obtaining a security clearance and stealing classified state secrets.
> The thing is that the USA remains a prosperous pleasant place to live..as long as you do not challenge authority.
Tens of thousands of Americans question authority on a daily basis and nothing happens to them. America is still a place where your rights and freedoms are respected quite a bit more than other countries.
What do you think would happen if you questioned authority in, say, Venezuela?
There is an important distinction between questioning authority, and challenging it. To give an extreme, it is the difference between commenting on a site like this one that the NSA is a fundamental threat to our freedom, and becoming a whistleblower like Snowden.
In short, if the action in question does not affect the powers that be from operating as they want to operate, there are no consequences from doing it. If the action challenges the powers that be then - no matter how wrong their actions - the consequences are real.
Those in power will respond to challenges. And shrug off questions.
And yes, that is indeed better than many other countries. (Though I personally felt that the rights and freedoms which I cared about were better protected when I lived in Canada.)
> What do you think would happen if you questioned authority in, say, Venezuela?
I am pretty sure that tens of thousands of Venezuelans question authority too. The difference is that it takes less to make the Venezuelan government feel threatened than it takes in the US.
No it's not. That's very melodramatic. A single person who hasn't even been persecuted yet has flown from the US. Maybe he (and others) think he will be persecuted if he returns, but that's something very different from what happened in the eastern bloc during the Cold War.
You don't think that suspending his passport and strong-arming various countries in refusing him political asylum or even air transit amounts to persecution?
The USA on May 11, 1973. (OK, the ruling was not exactly innocent. But Daniel Ellsberg walked free after intentional theft of classified government documents.)
Sorry to have a somewhat real answer to a rhetorical question.
Obviously. We were in an acknowledged but undeclared global war with the Soviet Union. We're not with Russia.
To me the more interesting change is that Ellsberg believed (correctly!) that a story like his could go to US media and would get out. Today nobody trusts the US media to report critically on the USA. (Hrm. If the 2000 election were to happen today, once the Guardian began digging up evidence of concrete, massive, and clearly illegal suppression of black turnout in Florida, would that get reported in the NY Times? Or on something that big would they maintain silence again until it was a mere footnote months later about the state of Florida having admitted to it, been sanctioned, and having promised to not do it again?)
CNN, and many other liberal "news sources" whose primary charter is to support the Obama administration can be blamed for most of this. They were minimizing the importance of the scandal, relegating those who were upset over it to the tinfoil hat club, and focusing on smearing Snowden personally from Day 1. This just shows that they have been successful in their endeavor.
The reason why ALL the news sources (liberal and otherwise) covered this is because it is newsworthy. It's human nature to want to put a face to a scandal. And to be honest it's a great face. Snowden is young, exciting, mysterious, less than perfect. Add the fact that he is jetsetting around the world, visiting exciting countries with great visuals, upsetting foreign leaders and creating lots of mini scandals just keeps his story rolling.
CNN especially is just a business. And Snowden is a money maker. No conspiracy needed to work this one out.
Exactly. Look at any other case like Paula Deen, or the McCann Cases or N. Holloway. They squeeze as much juice out of the stories as possible. Some are crimes deserving of _some_ attention, some are just stupidity, but they don't deserve as much coverage as they get.
Yet, other than taking advantage of people's insatiable appetitive for salaciousness, scandal and the travails of the rich or pretty or the gruesome there were no conspiracies or 'invisible hand' of the [TLA agency] coordinating any of these news cycles.
That doesn't change the fact that their coverage has been incredibly friendly to the Obama administration, while being very critical of Snowden. That's called bias.
Can't we flag Snowden stories and upvote more interesting articles that talk about the legal minutiae of the NSA programs, then? Or the speculation on the technical detail of how said programs might function, so that there's any remote grounding for security responses? Is that a thing we're unable to do?
I have been, but there hasn't been much available to upvote. I come on the front page, I see Snowden this and Snowden that and Hong Kong this and Moscow that and Iceland this and Ecuador that.
What's the point of having our own news aggregator if it's just going to reflect the mainstream news?
I understand what you say. I really do. But you see, the thing is that the way things are, the chance of having future revelations from new whistleblowers is -I fear- very much related to the ways Snowden finds -or not- to avoid getting caught and jailed by his government.
We will always tend to gravitate towards the human aspect of any event, particularly individuals. This is why we donate to charities that depict a lone starving African child instead of millions of starving children in a hot country halfway around the world. He's the face of the leaks in the same way that Colonel Sanders is the face of KFC, and a single limping dog is the face of an animal charity. Without the human and individual element people lose interest entirely. Having said that, every time his name is mentioned it needs to be tied in to the worldwide wholesale surveillance by various governments. Just like businesses need both a product and a brand, the stories should be just as much about him (the brand) and the revelations (the product).
I think there's the fact that a lot of people care about what happens to someone who has delivered some vitally important information to the world at large. In a sense, by keeping him in the public spotlight he's a little bit more protected. It's also likely that this latest grant of asylum is a PR stunt, one that wouldn't have materialized had it not been for the ongoing media circus.
One problem here is that Snowden is one side, and "the NSA" is the other. It's not a person. It's not a drama. There is no coverage of how the people on the other side are scrambling to explain and excuse their behavior. That's what needs to change: the wrong-doers here need to be named and a microscope put on them, their careers, and their lives.
Disagree entirely. What needs to change is the current culture of individual worship.
If we continue our insatiability for personal narratives, we run into situations where organizations like the NSA can choose scapegoats and blame everything on them. That would be bad, because mass surveillance programs are not the work of individuals, they are systemic constructs. So the NSA gets to hold one or two out people for crucifixion, say "see, we've made things right by punishing X and Y", and continue doing things exactly as they've always done them.
Criminal penalties cannot be levied against organizations, only the individuals that make up those organizations. The NSA might say, "Well, I was only following orders," but that wasn't a cogent defense at Nuremberg and it's not a cogent defense now. Given that prior NSA director (Hayden) threatened to resign rather than implement similar schemes, it seems that Alexander is indeed culpable.
Heh. I hope I didn't imply that this attitude is something new. I think, frankly, that it's too engrained in our collective consciousness by now to ever change. But offering criticism that could be acted on is, I think, more productive than expressing the fatalist position that we're all fucked.
I agree that we could all do with a little less idol worship, but I think that what javajosh pointed out is also very important.
We have all been conditioned to use dialectic materialism as a means by which to argue - and THIS is the issue. There is a third way in this debate - and that is, continue to discover the crimes of the US Military Industrial complex, enlighten the people, and remove the criminals from power before it is too late.
Going back on forth on the "rightness/wrongness" of this whole situation is exactly what the powers that be expect, and depend on in order to continue to be able to operate in full view. Abandon the synthesis/anti-synthesis method in this debate, people.
Remember: what he revealed so far is just the tip of the iceberg. There are far more heinous secrets to be revealed, and we would all be better off - US Citizen, or not - if these secrets were finally pulled out into the open and made available for The People to understand.
Its no less terrifying than the fact that the US gov't can send you off to a top secret location for whatever reason it feels is an appropriate reason, whatsoever, and you will be left there without recourse or access to any Internationally-recognized forms of justice ..
Everyone knows why he is on the run, so they don't need to repeat it ad nauseam. Everybody loves a good chase and his run serves to keep the story front and center.
This is a very common reply for any HN post about Snowden. I agree that it would be a shame if we focused only on him, but the truth is that we don't! There is tons of coverage here about NSA, spying, restore the 4th, etc. I'd say there much, much more of that than there is about Snowden. And we do get to talk a little bit about him, no?
Where he ends up is very important to the goal of ending these programs. If a democratic country like Iceland or France were to take him it makes it much easier for a US Senator or Congressmen to agree that he is a whistleblower and not a traitor then if he's taken in by one of our so-called enemies. Getting some more Senators and Congressmen on his side would add tremendous energy to stoping these programs.
There can never be any serious political dissent in the US or the EU, or anywhere else really, when it is impossible for a person to travel freely against the wishes of any one powerful government. As Maduro puts it: "The European people have seen the cowardice and the weakness of their governments, which now look like colonies of the United States," It's an important issue in its own right.
Actually I am worried about Snowden's fate, because that will determine if there will be future whistleblowers or not. There can always be secrets, even now the NSA can just say "ok guys, we are winding all this down", while actually it continues in secret.
Just abandon him after he served his purpose seems not nice, to say the least. He did the world a favor and the world really should care that he remains well. And not talking about him may increases the risk that he just disappears when nobody looks - and I am not talking about disappearing from the media.
Sure, the revelations of NSA overreach are important.
But I think the Snowden story is important as well, perhaps even more important. It's not really about Snowden, personally. It's about the power and secrecy of the government. It's about individual conscience and defiance. It's about how we, as a society, deal with non-conformity.
Compare Snowden with Bradley Manning. Compare Manning with previous whistleblowers like Daniel Ellsberg, Mark Fein or Thomas Drake. Manning's leaks were much more consequential than those that came before him, but things turned out pretty badly for Manning himself. Snowden clearly thought about how to increase the impact of the information he released, as well as how to decrease the negative consequences for himself. The next leaker, whoever it turns out to be, will undoubtedly learn from Snowden's example, just as Snowden learned from Manning.
Snowden's story is important for the rest of us as well. Most of us will never have the chance to do what Snowden did. But we all face situations where doing the right thing could lead to negative consequences. Seeing what happens to Snowden, seeing how we collectively react to what he did, in the media and in person, who can avoid putting himself in Snoweden's shoes? Who can help asking, "What would my family say about me if I did something like that?"
I think the focus on Snowden's story can help us figure out what kind of society we want to have, as 911 recedes into the past. Ultimately that's more important than the news that the NSA, the government's largest spy organization, is actually spying.
Assuming Venezuela provides Snowden with some sort of travel document to leave Russia, the next big question is, how far is the US willing to go to apprehend him? How exactly is Snowden going to get a flight plan that allows him safe passage to Venezuela.
Obama previously said 'he's not scrambling jets' to catch him, but given this week's events I don't believe him. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the US went after his flight somehow. It seems like this administration is willing to be the international villain in their attempts to catch Snowden.
And maybe the CIA wouldn't dare forcibly take Snowden out of Russia or China, but who's to say they wouldn't do so to a smaller, less powerful country?
>> "And maybe the CIA wouldn't dare forcibly take Snowden out of Russia or China, but who's to say they wouldn't do so to a smaller, less powerful country?"
I think this is more to do with the publicity than the power/size of the country he is in when they do it. Extracting Snowden from another country forcefully would have huge repercussions. I think that would be the step too far that would unite world leaders in rebuking America.
Yes, but the extraordinary renditions were to cooperative governments. not to ones that were in opposition.
The list of countries that accepted prisoners for the US is relatively short and mostly consisted of "secular arab governments"[1] who were only too glad to torture suspected islamists so the US could claim it's hands were clean.
And it's not entirely true that no US official suffered any consequences... there were the CIA operatives kicked out of Italy. And neither Donald Rumsfeld, nor John Yoo will be planning any trips to Paris or Madrid any time soon.
1. many of which fell during the Arab Spring, and some of which are still (Syria) in the process of falling.
Pretty sure that Russia would also need to cooperate in order for Snowden to leave as well. Whether it's approving planes to land or witnessing his travel documents whilst boarding.
And be serious. Obama is not going to scramble jets to destroy a plane to catch one low level hacker. He doesn't need to. The damage has been done and Snowden doesn't have a whole lot more he can reveal that will hurt the US. They pretty much want to just set an example for other people thinking of leaking military secrets.
The Guardian ran a pros-and-cons comparison previously of the various options Snowden might have (Venezuela and Ecuador at that time IIRC). One of the downsides of Venezuela was that the violent crime is so bad it would be relatively easy to have him killed and make it look like a robbery.
From my outside-the-US perspective, I've got this cynical theory developing - the this "international drama" the US government is fueling is much less about Snowden, and much more about measuring just how much they can get away with in full public view - relyng on bread and circuses to keep the voting public distracted. I suspect "they" know that Snowden has almost certainly distributed all the documents in a way that means that catching and imprisoning him won't stop their release (and may well accelerate their release), and that this is all just a power play demonstratingthat "the rules" are for other people, not The US Governemnt.
It feels as though they got their answer about how the International diplomatic community may respond: it seems they crossed a line with the Latin American governments, and US influence in the region is already taking hits. First Equador renouncing the Andean Trade Preference Act, then the timing of this feels coupled to the Bolivian plane overreach (in stark contrast to Obama's "29 yo kid" dismissal). Perhaps it's unlikely to last, but for the moment we seem to be seeing this bloc standing together, motivated by the US.
One thing I don't understand is why Mr. Snowden did not remain anonymous when he leaked his information? Wouldn't that have given him more options for avoiding reprisal? Or did he reveal his identity to protect himself?
It would not have provided such a good example of conscience and courage to humanity if he'd remained anonymous. Is it possible to have a chance to obtain justice without having revealed himself? Is it possible for us to solve these issues if we don't consciously and assertively reject them? Report the truth about hypocrites and this is what those who are afraid of the truth will do to you. Now anyone can see that the US government is not acting in the interest of the society.
Revealing himself can also give courage to those who are under the powerful illusion that the mechanisms of the US government are not able to be overcome by a living human being.
He said in the original interview with Greenwald that he felt that since he was breaking the law, he owed it to Americans to explain why. The way he's done it, he's the very definition of a whistleblower.
The most concerning part of this article are the comments which to me feel like they have been paid for.
Take this for example:
'Snidely70448 Snowden STOLE 3 NSA computers with top secret classified government documents in violation of his employment agreement with Booz Allen, theft alone is a basic crime and when the theft involves top secret government documents it’s in violation of the Espionage Act. Flight to avoid prosecution is also a crime in this country. These laws weren’t written yesterday just for Mr. Snowden. The U.S. is seeking Edward Snowden to answer to those charges. Plain and simple. He isn’t being singled out or vilified. You claim that NSA is violating the 4th Amendment (Congress and the Patriot Act disagree with you), yet you ignore that Snowden violated basic laws of the land.'
That seems like a pretty sane comment. Is there something factual in it with which you disagree, or are you simply surprised at the existence of opinions other than your own?
There is absolutely no way for anyone to report the illegal activity of the NSA without committing any crime or breaking any laws. The law of the land is so severely in favor of NSA protecting its ass, is that the only way to reveal it is to absolutely destroy your life from a legal point of view.
So to concentrate on the legality of the whistleblower's activity, instead of concentrating on the NSA's activity seems a little suspect.
Comments like that are scary because it's seems to be the opinion of a majority of Americans, and it betrays a morality that's stuck on stage 4 of Kohlbergs stages of moral development[0]. When you derive your ethics from whatever the government says is the law, you can end up excusing a lot of bad shit.
In contrast Snowden seems to be at stage 6, and his actions seem way saner than that comment.
I don't buy into the shill argument, I actually think it is dangerous to write off an opinion that seems to be shared with around half the US population. Instead of dismissing the argument I think supporters of his actions need to argue and reason the case clearly.
That said the problem with the comments are:
* Violation of an employment agreement are not federal crimes
* Theft of classified documents is not a violation of the Espionage Act. The reason why the espionage act is from 1917 is because government lawyers love the broad language in it. They haven't needed to update it because it can be applied so broadly, but the language of the law states that there needs to be an intent to aid the enemy or to prevent the US Military from carrying out operations.
The other red flag that indicated that Snowden hasn't violated 'basic laws' is that the USA is resorting to diplomatic pressure rather than an INTERPOL notice. You can't use INTERPOL for political charges but you can use it for more classic charges like theft.
There is a good reason why the 4th amendment was written, it was a lesson learned form British colonialism where independence oriented towns and villages were surrounded and houses were searched indiscriminately to shake out sympathizers opposed to the crown.
It's dangerous to begin assuming that everyone you disagree with is disingenuous. It's a sign of too much time spent talking to people who think like you do.
> You claim that NSA is violating the 4th Amendment (Congress and the Patriot Act disagree with you), yet you ignore that Snowden violated basic laws of the land.
Isn't the 4th amendment a pretty basic law of the land, in the Bill of Rights along with free speech, trial by jury and the other nuisances?
I would take it one step further and say that the charges against Snowden are not laws of the land, they are simplistic, maybe even mechanistic laws with no real moral authority while the bill of rights is the supreme law of the land with significant moral basis.
I think this can be explained by Stockholm Syndrome, sadly. "Hang the petty thieves, appoint the big ones to high office", and then keep attacking the messengers who try to inform you of the degraded situation you're in.
If had a penny for every time that happens when blindly accepted authority is criticized in any way, I could simply buy the NSA and DARPA, and start implementing some of Bill Hicks' ideas, like shooting food at starving people.
That comment isn't well worded, but I've made similar ones.
It's a counterpoint to people saying that Snowden is being 'persecuted' and that the USA is now a place that freedom loving people flee from.
Whilst I agree with the view that we should not have mass surveillance and it would be horrifying if someone were persecuted for expressing that view, that is not why the US is chasing him.
He is being chased for intentionally stealing classified documents. Can you name a government that wouldn't pursue someone who did this?
Heh, quite stylish that Maduro mentioned the US/Israel's proxy war in Syria in the same breath. Interestingly, pre-conflict Syrian relations were discussed pointedly by Assange with Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, in his The World Tomorrow interview: https://assange.rt.com/nasrallah-episode-one/ Dig the beard.
Assuming he were to fly commercial. What way can he get from SVO to Caracas (CCS)? Like what's a possible route whereby he isn't flying over france/italy/spain which have supposedly not allowed him to fly over their airspace?
Is a jet chartered for him? Does a G4 have the range? Where does it need to stop to refuel?
Going with Iceland kind of seems like a no-brainer. He initially went to Hong Kong, which has a much lower incident of Government corruption than even the US (forgot the link, saw this mentioned in an article). I'm guessing that Venezuela is not going to score very high on that list compared to Iceland. In addition, as others have mentioned, it becomes much more political, as there is an "enemy"/animosity vibe between us and some Latin American countries, whereas there is not with Iceland.
It would end up being kind of ironic and sad if he had to live in a country that ended up being just as corrupt and used this level of spying on its own citizens. Pretty confident that Iceland would not be pulling crap like that.
Except that Iceland isn't even close to offering him asylum.
"The proposal to grant Snowden citizenship received limited support when it was discussed Thursday — the last day before summer recess. Six members of minority parties were in favor out of Parliament's 63 members."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/07/05/nsa-snowden-ic...
> "Who is the guilty one? A young man ... who denounces war plans, or the U.S. government which launches bombs and arms the terrorist Syrian opposition against the people and legitimate President Bashar al-Assad?" he asked, to applause and cheers from ranks of military officers at the parade.
188 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 229 ms ] threadI just plotted a path from Moscow to Venezuela that avoids non-Russian/Venezuelan airspace. It's less than 12,000km. Several modern Boeing and Airbus planes can do that non-stop.
I doubt it's the shortest possible. I bypassed the Lesser Antilles rather than ensure I was in international airspace trying to go between them.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=MMK-CCS&MS=wls2&DU=km
[1]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10...
why raise the standards for other countries?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration
(don't get me wrong - venezuela has serious problems. but cherry picking examples for one country is no argument at all. people in glass houses....
also, wouldn't it make the world a worst place if we required the country offering asylum to be "better" than the country persecuting someone? that seems pointless, except for internet point-scoring)
[edited multiple times btw]
And while we have entirely too many prisoners in this country, they aren't 'political prisoners'. People aren't thrown into prison for protesting the government. (Or not generally, you did have McCarthyism and such in the past)
Besides the existence of a federal and military death penalty, the federal court system, including the US Supreme Court, deals with Constitutional issues related to the death penalty in states constantly, and has imposed various restrictions on its usage. SCOTUS has also been on an excruciatingly slow but clear path towards total nationwide abolishment.
There is very little in the US that can be treated as purely state-by-state, and so long as the 8th and 14th amendments exist, capital punishment definitely isn't one of them.
It's like saying State Insurance isn't a simple state issue because there could be intervention by the feds. Of course, but de-facto, it's a state issue and the Feds have their own purview for things like the military and treason, etc.
But, if a state wanted to eliminate it, they could, so long as their legislature or judiciary so decided. So it is a state by state issue, by and large.
[PS] I think allowing things to be done state by state actually help in the end to get the whole nation to agree on things which as a whole it might not without states or a state 'testing the waters' as it were. Eventually I see all states eliminating capital punishment, and I think being able to refer to states that have and show that it has not resulted in higher murder rates post elimination is a good thing. Same for pot laws and same sex marriage laws. In this big republic, given that we're not a strictly civil law, I think this bit by bit helps out, in the long run.
The idea of 50 sovereign states doing their own thing is merely a convenient fiction for those who don't want the murders conducted in their name to bother their conscience.
And it falls apart completely when you remember, the federal government sentences people to death, too, not just states. America conducts state-sponsored murder. Not even the 50-state fiction shields anyone from that reality.
Edit Re PS: Speaking of being technical... You're focusing on the mechanisms. I'm very familiar with the mechanisms, and I don't care about them. I care about the result. The result is we remain one of forty countries, almost all of which we hypocritically lambast for their human rights records, to retain the death penalty. No amount of procedural justification will change that, nor will it reduce our moral responsibility.
I really don't know if Snowden knows that, but it would be really ironic if he accepted the proposal.
He wanted to do what he could to expose what he believed to be wrongdoing. And now he simply wants to avoid prison if possible, like pretty much anyone else would. There's no nobility in throwing away his lifetime in an American jail -- he's already exposed the NSA's programs, and prison accomplishes nothing more.
Sure, it's easy to call him a hypocrite for applying for asylum in countries "less free" than the US. But as long as "free" countries allow themselves to be pressured by the US, what choice does he have? Would you do anything different in his shoes?
If whistle-blowers are safe, we will see more of them. More whistle-blowers means less corruption and a healthier political system.
I say this as an American who will pledge allegiance to the US Constitution any day of the week, but not to the US government, especially not in its current form. I'm genuinely scared at how far my government has gone in persecuting lawful, nonviolent protesters and activists. Just look at the Aaron Swartz case, the harassment of Jacob Appelbaum at the border, or police actions during the Occupy protests (less related to hacker culture but just as important).
I can no longer believe that those who stay within the law have nothing to fear from the US government. This may not be true of the Venezuelan government either, but the fact that they don't let USG boss them around means at least there are options.
It could be though that the HK government preferred not to be in the middle of all this, and convinced him to leave.
Snowden's not exactly in a position to be so picky, at the moment.
> then aired private conversations by opposition leaders
The government owns the TV in Venezuela. This is a very different premise (one is about political propaganda and another is about general population privacy).
Snowden didn't do all this to enhance his personal freedom. He knew from the start it would be degraded, one way or another. He sacrificed his own freedom for the sake of ours.
It's also really ironic for people who aren't whistleblowers to criticize the limited options of whisteblowers.
AFAIK it later became clear they hadn't issued that document and Snowden was able to travel as his passport wasn't revoked until he was already in the air on his way to Russia.
How they're going to actually get him to Venezuela without the plane being forced down and searched is another thing entirely.
But Venezuela is really not a place I'd consider. It's not Equatorial Guinea, but isn't even Argentina.
Enough of this drama. Snowden has served his purpose in revealing the extend of the NSA shenanigans, but we really shouldn't have to read about his every move.
This Reuters news release does not even mention the nature of the leaks that put Mr. Snowden in this situation. It's truly a sad state of reporting and public discourse.
Edit: taking a bit of my own advice:
We need to stop the NSA snooping all of our communications and restore due process for searches and seizures!
I think your problem is that you're seeing one article as the indicator of the state of public discourse. Heres a bunch more:
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0...
This article is a brief update on Snowden's asylum status and it conveys just that. Not every article on the matter needs to discuss the full depth of the issue.
I'm OK with some news about Snowden from time to time as long as the number of stories about surveillance largely outnumber the ones about Snowden. I think HN has a healthy ratio.
Furthermore since Snowden's revelations has resulted in basically zero change to the status quo (no legislation, no change in policies, no change in diplomatic relations, no mass uprising by the public) you have to imagine he's wondering what the whole point of it was.
It's only been 5-6 weeks, how fast were you expecting things to happen? The Watergate scandal took over two years to unfold even though many of the major revelations took place during a general election campaign.
I actually think the problem is the messaging. Rather than argue specific policy changes e.g. "ban monitoring of social media" or "transparent FISA courts" opponents have opted for the vague and somewhat vapid "restore the fourth".
I agree with you about the messaging, and don't think the fourth amendment has ever supplied the broad privacy protection that its boosters seem to imagine. I think we need a more explicit privacy amendment, but haven't really thought about how to effectively promote this idea so far.
Sometimes getting the public to accept a particular argument is not the hard part, it's laying out the alternatives factually in a way that shows the public how they contrast.
I find it very difficult to argue positions that take extremes of the type you laid out. I would also agree that vague notions are a waste of time.
Even with the revelations in 2004 and '05, it was clear that the focus of the program was traffic analysis by completely automated means, and we should have been willing to legislate the extent to which we will allow that activity in public laws in the public domain. The role of the FISC should be to allow for warrants in very uncommon cases of foreign espionage or international terrorism, not as a general mechanism to allow the presentation and consideration of secret evidence. And it doesn't end with that court, the state secret privilege has been used commonly and repeatedly (see the work of Steven Aftergood for more details) to quash cases that the government considers inconvenient, and the Congress has essentially wiped away the complicity of common carriers in violating their implied assurance of the privacy of voice communication. The President called, after these revelations, but nonetheless, for a renewed and expanded debate of these tradeoffs. Do we consider this over now that the broadcast and print media (of all political stripes) have left it alone? Have we now decided that the American people have accepted this as the new normal and moved on?
At every opportunity we conflate the mostly benign traffic analysis and ignore the very real threat (by those we call government) of a persistent and permanent archive of all of our most private conversations. These tools in the wrong hands would be devastating to any free people, placing so many of us in deadly danger of a government that may take our past words as proof of our treason. This is not theory, this is history. (The traffic analysis would also contribute to the ends of such a government, where guilt by association may be sufficient for punishment.)
You have absolutely no proof of that. If you'd read anything about the NSA, the history of it, or paid any attention at all, you'd know that to be false. Even if you were a casual observer of the situation, it would be foolish to make such a statement in defense of the NSA.
Isn't Snowden's whole point that it really just looks like that on paper? Really, nothing prevents determined insiders from doing what they want.
There has never been any doubt that whistle blowers can seek refuge in countries that are enemies of the United States.
What constitues a country to be an enemy of the USA, and who gets to decide who is the enemy of the USA? On one side, 15 individual from Saudi Arabia was involved with 9/11, 2 from UAE, one from lebanon and one from Egypt. One could argue that so many of the terrorists and their organization originated from Saudi Arabia, they should be considered as the enemy of the people of USA. Yet they are not. To the best of my knowledge, they received no rebuffs from the USA government.
Why is Venezuela and other so called socialist latin american countries enemy of the USA? What did they do to harm the people of the USA? Nothing, yet they are considered the enemy of the USA. On the contrary USA over many decades wreaked havoc in latin america, caused many economical, political and human misery.
The only outcome which would encourage future whistleblowers is being allowed to live in honor in his own country, like Daniel Ellsberg has been able to. Unfortunately it does not look like any branch of the US government is willing to offer assistance, nor does there appear to be any prospect that either political party will ever embrace that idea, no matter what happens in polls (which currently are slightly against Snowden).
If I lived in an oppressive state then a lifetime of exile would not be too unwelcome.
During the cold war, the USA was somewhere persecuted people fled to. Now it's somewhere persecuted people flee from. While it is not yet as bad as the USSR was, it seems to me that it is sleepwalking to authoritarianism.
Those facts are unlikely to change until we are much farther down the road to authoritarianism than we currently are.
That's just spooky. That is exactly the same thing my friend who moved to Shenzhen said of that part of China.
The only thing left to figure out is if its "worse" in China or just different (in regards to how authority is "threatened").
No government would consider that to be acceptable.
Note: This is no defense of the NSA. However it is dishonest to claim that people who criticize the US government are persecuted and need to flee.
The US is not chasing Snowden because he criticized them. They are chasing him because of the stolen documents.
Just look at the measures taken in order to intimidate or capture Snowden: In effect, the US government grounded the private jet of a foreign head of state. If a similar action was done against the US, it would be considered an act of war. A persecution is exactly what this is, under the plausible (even legal) guise of criminal proceedings.
Tens of thousands of Americans question authority on a daily basis and nothing happens to them. America is still a place where your rights and freedoms are respected quite a bit more than other countries.
What do you think would happen if you questioned authority in, say, Venezuela?
In short, if the action in question does not affect the powers that be from operating as they want to operate, there are no consequences from doing it. If the action challenges the powers that be then - no matter how wrong their actions - the consequences are real.
Those in power will respond to challenges. And shrug off questions.
And yes, that is indeed better than many other countries. (Though I personally felt that the rights and freedoms which I cared about were better protected when I lived in Canada.)
Or to said authority, for that matter.
I am pretty sure that tens of thousands of Venezuelans question authority too. The difference is that it takes less to make the Venezuelan government feel threatened than it takes in the US.
No it's not. That's very melodramatic. A single person who hasn't even been persecuted yet has flown from the US. Maybe he (and others) think he will be persecuted if he returns, but that's something very different from what happened in the eastern bloc during the Cold War.
He is being chased because of his intentional theft of classified government documents. Can you name a country in which that would be legal?
Sorry to have a somewhat real answer to a rhetorical question.
Now consider how he would have been viewed by the US if he'd instead flown to Moscow and applied to Brezhnev for asylum.
To me the more interesting change is that Ellsberg believed (correctly!) that a story like his could go to US media and would get out. Today nobody trusts the US media to report critically on the USA. (Hrm. If the 2000 election were to happen today, once the Guardian began digging up evidence of concrete, massive, and clearly illegal suppression of black turnout in Florida, would that get reported in the NY Times? Or on something that big would they maintain silence again until it was a mere footnote months later about the state of Florida having admitted to it, been sanctioned, and having promised to not do it again?)
Also, compare that fate to what happened to Bradley Manning. Living in Venezuela is way better than solitary confinement.
Does every article need to recount all the events leading up to the current situation? Where do we draw the line, exactly?
The reason why ALL the news sources (liberal and otherwise) covered this is because it is newsworthy. It's human nature to want to put a face to a scandal. And to be honest it's a great face. Snowden is young, exciting, mysterious, less than perfect. Add the fact that he is jetsetting around the world, visiting exciting countries with great visuals, upsetting foreign leaders and creating lots of mini scandals just keeps his story rolling.
CNN especially is just a business. And Snowden is a money maker. No conspiracy needed to work this one out.
Yet, other than taking advantage of people's insatiable appetitive for salaciousness, scandal and the travails of the rich or pretty or the gruesome there were no conspiracies or 'invisible hand' of the [TLA agency] coordinating any of these news cycles.
I have been, but there hasn't been much available to upvote. I come on the front page, I see Snowden this and Snowden that and Hong Kong this and Moscow that and Iceland this and Ecuador that.
What's the point of having our own news aggregator if it's just going to reflect the mainstream news?
I think there's the fact that a lot of people care about what happens to someone who has delivered some vitally important information to the world at large. In a sense, by keeping him in the public spotlight he's a little bit more protected. It's also likely that this latest grant of asylum is a PR stunt, one that wouldn't have materialized had it not been for the ongoing media circus.
If we continue our insatiability for personal narratives, we run into situations where organizations like the NSA can choose scapegoats and blame everything on them. That would be bad, because mass surveillance programs are not the work of individuals, they are systemic constructs. So the NSA gets to hold one or two out people for crucifixion, say "see, we've made things right by punishing X and Y", and continue doing things exactly as they've always done them.
We have all been conditioned to use dialectic materialism as a means by which to argue - and THIS is the issue. There is a third way in this debate - and that is, continue to discover the crimes of the US Military Industrial complex, enlighten the people, and remove the criminals from power before it is too late.
Going back on forth on the "rightness/wrongness" of this whole situation is exactly what the powers that be expect, and depend on in order to continue to be able to operate in full view. Abandon the synthesis/anti-synthesis method in this debate, people.
Remember: what he revealed so far is just the tip of the iceberg. There are far more heinous secrets to be revealed, and we would all be better off - US Citizen, or not - if these secrets were finally pulled out into the open and made available for The People to understand.
Remember China is a country in which a policeman can send you to jail without trial for criticizing the government.
2. Somebody calls out the trend
3. Somebody calls out the `the person that calls out the trend`
4. Repeat as long as neccessary
5. Somebody calls out the meta
Every time, every single time.
But I think the Snowden story is important as well, perhaps even more important. It's not really about Snowden, personally. It's about the power and secrecy of the government. It's about individual conscience and defiance. It's about how we, as a society, deal with non-conformity.
Compare Snowden with Bradley Manning. Compare Manning with previous whistleblowers like Daniel Ellsberg, Mark Fein or Thomas Drake. Manning's leaks were much more consequential than those that came before him, but things turned out pretty badly for Manning himself. Snowden clearly thought about how to increase the impact of the information he released, as well as how to decrease the negative consequences for himself. The next leaker, whoever it turns out to be, will undoubtedly learn from Snowden's example, just as Snowden learned from Manning.
Snowden's story is important for the rest of us as well. Most of us will never have the chance to do what Snowden did. But we all face situations where doing the right thing could lead to negative consequences. Seeing what happens to Snowden, seeing how we collectively react to what he did, in the media and in person, who can avoid putting himself in Snoweden's shoes? Who can help asking, "What would my family say about me if I did something like that?"
I think the focus on Snowden's story can help us figure out what kind of society we want to have, as 911 recedes into the past. Ultimately that's more important than the news that the NSA, the government's largest spy organization, is actually spying.
Obama previously said 'he's not scrambling jets' to catch him, but given this week's events I don't believe him. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the US went after his flight somehow. It seems like this administration is willing to be the international villain in their attempts to catch Snowden.
And maybe the CIA wouldn't dare forcibly take Snowden out of Russia or China, but who's to say they wouldn't do so to a smaller, less powerful country?
I think this is more to do with the publicity than the power/size of the country he is in when they do it. Extracting Snowden from another country forcefully would have huge repercussions. I think that would be the step too far that would unite world leaders in rebuking America.
The list of countries that accepted prisoners for the US is relatively short and mostly consisted of "secular arab governments"[1] who were only too glad to torture suspected islamists so the US could claim it's hands were clean.
And it's not entirely true that no US official suffered any consequences... there were the CIA operatives kicked out of Italy. And neither Donald Rumsfeld, nor John Yoo will be planning any trips to Paris or Madrid any time soon.
1. many of which fell during the Arab Spring, and some of which are still (Syria) in the process of falling.
And be serious. Obama is not going to scramble jets to destroy a plane to catch one low level hacker. He doesn't need to. The damage has been done and Snowden doesn't have a whole lot more he can reveal that will hurt the US. They pretty much want to just set an example for other people thinking of leaking military secrets.
Revealing himself can also give courage to those who are under the powerful illusion that the mechanisms of the US government are not able to be overcome by a living human being.
That's my take, anyway.
Take this for example:
'Snidely70448 Snowden STOLE 3 NSA computers with top secret classified government documents in violation of his employment agreement with Booz Allen, theft alone is a basic crime and when the theft involves top secret government documents it’s in violation of the Espionage Act. Flight to avoid prosecution is also a crime in this country. These laws weren’t written yesterday just for Mr. Snowden. The U.S. is seeking Edward Snowden to answer to those charges. Plain and simple. He isn’t being singled out or vilified. You claim that NSA is violating the 4th Amendment (Congress and the Patriot Act disagree with you), yet you ignore that Snowden violated basic laws of the land.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-oper...
... sounds eerily like something you'd hear Carney or some other spokesman say at a press briefing. It's the familiar paternalistic tone that does it.
So to concentrate on the legality of the whistleblower's activity, instead of concentrating on the NSA's activity seems a little suspect.
In contrast Snowden seems to be at stage 6, and his actions seem way saner than that comment.
[0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_m...
That said the problem with the comments are:
* Violation of an employment agreement are not federal crimes * Theft of classified documents is not a violation of the Espionage Act. The reason why the espionage act is from 1917 is because government lawyers love the broad language in it. They haven't needed to update it because it can be applied so broadly, but the language of the law states that there needs to be an intent to aid the enemy or to prevent the US Military from carrying out operations.
The other red flag that indicated that Snowden hasn't violated 'basic laws' is that the USA is resorting to diplomatic pressure rather than an INTERPOL notice. You can't use INTERPOL for political charges but you can use it for more classic charges like theft.
There is a good reason why the 4th amendment was written, it was a lesson learned form British colonialism where independence oriented towns and villages were surrounded and houses were searched indiscriminately to shake out sympathizers opposed to the crown.
Isn't the 4th amendment a pretty basic law of the land, in the Bill of Rights along with free speech, trial by jury and the other nuisances?
If had a penny for every time that happens when blindly accepted authority is criticized in any way, I could simply buy the NSA and DARPA, and start implementing some of Bill Hicks' ideas, like shooting food at starving people.
It's a counterpoint to people saying that Snowden is being 'persecuted' and that the USA is now a place that freedom loving people flee from.
Whilst I agree with the view that we should not have mass surveillance and it would be horrifying if someone were persecuted for expressing that view, that is not why the US is chasing him.
He is being chased for intentionally stealing classified documents. Can you name a government that wouldn't pursue someone who did this?
It would end up being kind of ironic and sad if he had to live in a country that ended up being just as corrupt and used this level of spying on its own citizens. Pretty confident that Iceland would not be pulling crap like that.
"The proposal to grant Snowden citizenship received limited support when it was discussed Thursday — the last day before summer recess. Six members of minority parties were in favor out of Parliament's 63 members." http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/07/05/nsa-snowden-ic...
I had to laugh at the sheer absurdity.