From Amnesty International:
The reports that Edward Snowden has been living in Russia with precarious "temporary leave to remain" rather than under any formal asylum protection is further evidence he must be allowed to travel to and seek asylum in the country of his choice, said Amnesty International today.
Russia's one-year permit for the whistleblower and former US intelligence analyst to stay in the country is now reported to have expired without confirmation that it will be extended.
"Edward Snowden is cornered in a legal limbo, without a passport or asylum protection from any government," said Sherif Elsayed-Ali, Deputy Director of Global Thematic Issues at Amnesty International.
States should fully consider any asylum application from Edward Snowden, taking into account the massive human rights violations that he exposed, and noting the US government's repressive actions against him.
Related Stories
It looks like Edward Snowden has received a residence permit in Russia, which is valid for three years; and he has not asked for political asylum.
If Edward Snowden does one day travel back to the US, it's not going to be extradition, his lawyer assured. "No extradition is possible under Russian law," he said. "He has not committed any crime. He faces no charges in Russia."
Snowden's security in Russia is being ensured by a private firm, Kucherena said.
"He's without state protection and he can't possibly have it. To arrange state protection you have to go through many bureaucratic procedures."
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 06 2014, @02:22PM
/crocodile tears
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 06 2014, @02:39PM
I know I should not reply to trolls...
But why 'boo hoo'? Ok sure he committed a crime. However, that crime has done more to advance freedom than any single act in the past 20 years. He has exposed more criminal acts than we expected. On the internet the tinfoil guys were looking like they had egg on their faces because they were not paranoid ENOUGH! That is even scarier than what he did as those guys have some 'out there' theories. The current admin has show it does not care other than to make sure it has 'good spin'. I find that even more sad.
So yeah maybe 'boo hoo', but for the world population in what our gov is doing.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 06 2014, @02:57PM
i smear bear urine all across my chest
i am a manly man
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 06 2014, @04:41PM
But why 'boo hoo'? Ok sure he committed a crime. [Citation needed] However, that crime has done more to advance freedom than any single act in the past 20 years. [Citation needed] He has exposed more criminal acts than we expected. [Citation needed] On the internet the tinfoil guys were looking like they had egg on their faces because they were not paranoid ENOUGH! [Citation needed] That is even scarier than what he did as those guys have some 'out there' theories. [Citation needed] The current admin has show it does not care other than to make sure it has 'good spin'. [Citation needed] I find that even more sad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 06 2014, @05:19PM
[Citation needed]
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=edward+snowden [lmgtfy.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 06 2014, @10:20PM
Whose freedom? If you're talking "the people of the world," well, that is irrelevant given that we're talking about a spy agency who is supposed to be spying on the people of the world. The underlying assumption in your comment is that the US is the only country that spies on people, and now that they've been exposed, the world is a safer place for it. However, all countries spy, and have for thousands of years. Explain how this has advanced ANY freedoms?
Which of the exposed acts are criminal? If I recall correctly, nothing has been deemed illegal apart from what some split-decision "advisory panel" opined. Please don't embarrass yourself by cutting and pasting the 4th Amendment unless you're going to bring in some actual examples of actual relevant legal precedent and interpretation.
Lionize him all you want, as there certainly is no shortage of people here who do, but, in my opinion at least, the outcomes of his actions are way overblown and are almost totally political. I would be much more inclined to view him favorably if he actually did what he says he did, which would have been working through proper whistleblowing channels (which he has presented NO evidence that he did other than "trust me"; come on, you blindly copy Gigabytes of info but you aren't going to copy your Outlook PST file to cover your ass?), or releasing documentation that is pertinent to the domestic data collection. Just grabbing and dumping everything shows him to be intellectually lazy at best, and morally bankrupt at worst.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07 2014, @12:49AM
Please don't embarrass yourself by cutting and pasting the 4th Amendment unless you're going to bring in some actual examples of actual relevant legal precedent and interpretation.
So we can ignore the 4th amendment because it pleases you?
Ok then...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nsa+not+spying+on+americans [lmgtfy.com]
What were lead to believe...
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-nsa-is-probably-not-spying-on-you [vice.com]
What is true....
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2013/08/09/latest-nsa-revelations-debunk-obamas-no-spying-americans-claim [commondreams.org]
In what way is that not against the law? Show me the law and point # that lets the NSA know who my little sister called? Show me the court cases which say that is ok. Show me the law that says they can slurp up every piece of metadata out there? Show me how the same law I know you want to dig up is not being stretched well outside of its scope. Show me the law that lets Obama and the head of the NSA get in front of Congress and lie under oath? Or is it all in 'secret court documents' that I am not privileged enough to see?
Then this the writer of the bill has basically said 'we let you do too much' and 'we did not intend for you to do that and you know it'.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/10/nsa-surveillance-patriot-act-author-bill [theguardian.com]
Lionize him all you want
I was with you at first. However, after Obama went on and on how about things are not happening. Then the head of the NSA says the same things under oath to congress. Then Snowden comes out and says liar liar pants on fire and here are your own power point slides to show otherwise. Then the backtracking by the same two people.
which he has presented NO evidence that he did other than "trust me"
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/20/nsa-snowden-files-drives-destroyed-london [theguardian.com]
If it was not true why did they go over there personally and personally destroy the only evidence against him? If its not true then he is innocent and he can come home right?
Two irrefutable truths are politicians are liars and so are spys. QED they lied about breaking the law.
I was with you at first. However, at this point you have lost me. You have squandered an opportunity to make the world better. For what, secrecy and lies? Honestly the last straw for me was the destruction of evidence. I dont even HAVE to trust him. I unfortunately see what my gov is doing. On top of that they have become a punchline (I lost my emails, ask the NSA badump bump). I see it as an assault on the very constitution that you casually dismiss.
However, if you insist on case law fine... http://www.fourthamendmentsummaries.com/ [fourthamendmentsummaries.com] There is a couple hundred YEARS of it.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Wednesday August 06 2014, @02:59PM
Where could he go, other than the Ecuadorian Embassy, that won't ship him off to the US when they apply pressure, or where he won't be taken by force/stealth in a black-ops mission? The US is just about afraid of Russia enough to prevent them taking him one way or the other. China too perhaps?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 06 2014, @03:09PM
quite a delicate dance we have here. i wonder if he salutes the Russian flag and kisses the ring of putin?
(Score: 2) by Theophrastus on Wednesday August 06 2014, @03:22PM
Germany. They could, and nearly would, do this as a sop to their populist rage against all the U.S. spying on their government, (is that rage justified? probably not. given some of the tendencies there to allow terrorist cells to foment). But it might be useful to grant Snowden asylum as political strategy in their relatively complicated multiparty system. but... Timing ist alles. and would Snowden trust that he wouldn't be snatched from there? (probably he shouldn't) It all sounds like a current John le Carre film [imdb.com], doesn't it?
(Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Wednesday August 06 2014, @04:04PM
of course he would obviously be less safe in Germany than Russia. If Snowden is nabbed in Germany they government there will whine a little and drop it, Russia; you really do have to worry just how (mentally) stable that government would react.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday August 06 2014, @04:05PM
Germany, like the rest of Europe, is just another American lapdog. Europeans are our tools, our pieces, to be played like expendable pawns across the geopolitical chessboard. Wanna bone Germany? Huh? Huh? Do ya boy?
Sic 'em, boy!
Ha HA! We own everyone! Man, it feels good to be American, We're like the coolest kid in the schoolyard! Everybody follows us around, wants to be us, and pays allegiance to us with their sycophantic behavior! U-S-A! U-S-A!
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Thursday August 07 2014, @06:13AM
Wrong. The american government owns everyone, including its citizens. Who did you think Snowden was whistleblowig for. Or did you think we still has any rights?
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by bart9h on Thursday August 07 2014, @11:04AM
A lot of people in Brazil are trying to pressure the government [softwarelivre.org] to give him asylum.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Thursday August 07 2014, @04:59PM
They also tried to pressure the government to spend the money they did on the world cup on social development. That didn't work out so much did it?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bradley13 on Wednesday August 06 2014, @03:07PM
I would love to see my country, Switzerland, offer him asylum. That's what neutral countries are supposed to do, among other things. Sadly, I don't think they will dare, as I am sure the US would impose all sorts of unofficial sanctions.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1) by Frost on Friday August 08 2014, @02:34AM
I would love to see my country, USA, offer him asylum. Land of the free, home of the brave.
(Score: 4, Informative) by ticho on Wednesday August 06 2014, @03:21PM
He is welcome to crash on my couch anytime. :-)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Wednesday August 06 2014, @04:30PM
I have to say, I'm surprised at how hesitant some people are to call Snowden a hero...even those who think he did the right thing. I'm certainly not. He's sacrificed any chance of any normal life forever to make us aware of a wrong being inflicted on us by our government. How does that not qualify?
I also don't buy any of the crap about whatever harm may have been done by the leaks. Bullshit on that one. Any such harm if it really occurred is totally on the federal scumbags who thought they were above the law...not Snowden.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday August 06 2014, @04:43PM
It's because there are a lot of people who are either too afraid to show support or even think about the issue because the people they choose to watch on T.V. and hang out with are saying Snowden's a traitor, and who wants to be associated with a traitor?
It's like saying Snowden's a pedophile, who would support one of those?
I always laugh at people here who accuse me of being a racist. Just wait until you are accused of being racist because you don't support illegal immigration, or better -- you're accused of being a pedophile and everything you say from there on afterward is considered null and void by everybody else because you defended the right to look at legal but small-breasted women online.
Your time will come, weenies, and when it does you'll be begging big bad racist Ethanol-fueled to break you out of pedo-prison.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by ancientt on Wednesday August 06 2014, @04:45PM
He is guilty of treason [merriam-webster.com] in an act of patriotism [merriam-webster.com]. He may have done something great for the country, but he certainly betrayed the trust he was given and acted against the interests of his government.
It is hardly surprising that many people are conflicted or hesitant. We find ourselves in a position of loving our form of government and some of the people involved and loving the ideals it is based on. Yet, at the same time, we're forced to recognize that many parts of it are acting contrary to the way we would expect a country founded on the idea of liberty to act.
In this type of group you'll find some of the most hesitant since we are often given a tremendous amount of trust and value that trust and our integrity tremendously. It is hard for us to cheer for someone who so clearly violated the things we value so much, even if we value the result.
This post brought to you by Database Barbie
(Score: 5, Informative) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 06 2014, @05:03PM
Merriam-webster is NOT the definition of treason that is of any import (and secondly, even if it was, you'd be hard pressed to prove he was trying to overthrow the government or kill his sovereign).
This is treason under the US Constitution:
It is obvious that Snowden has not waged war on the US. What of adhering?
So please, stop falling for the BS spin of DC pols and bureaucrats, who interestingly, form the greatest threat to American values extant in the world today.
(Score: 1) by ancientt on Wednesday August 06 2014, @07:17PM
He betrayed the government's trust. That's what treason means. Certainly, a legal charge should be more rigidly defined, but I'm not suggesting he should be brought up on charges. Yes, I know some people are adamant that he should be, and your arguments are well directed toward them. Just not me.
This post brought to you by Database Barbie
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 06 2014, @07:48PM
That is not what treason means. Treason is defined in the US Constitution as indicated above. THAT is what treason means. To say that treason means anything else is to ignore the meaning of the term, kind of like how people who know nothing about computers, call the box containing the motherboard, cpu, video card, hard drives, media drives, etc., a "CPU". It may be a common usage, but it is flat out wrong. And to use "treason" in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution, is to conflate whatever random thing people mean by that, with the actual definition of treason. That is extremely dangerous and in addition, such usage is to fall hook line and sinker, for all the bait of the DC spinmeisters, who are using that word loosely but would assuredly punish it with death. That conflation of an informal definition with a legal one, is dangerous, duplicitous, and cynically intentioned.
You are no longer ignorant of what treason means in the context of Ed Snowden, and so you should really stop using it in the same fashion that some 80 yo grandpa would call the box on his desk a CPU, because by doing so you enable those who would destroy the Constitution and Mr. Snowden.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ancientt on Wednesday August 06 2014, @08:21PM
Are you familiar with the word "semantics" by chance? People often dismiss arguments with that term, but it is completely accurate to describe our disagreement and certainly seems to be a passionate point for you, so perhaps it is worth discussing.
How do you know what a word means? I look it up in the dictionary and if I don't think that's enough, I look at common usage, historical usage and etymology. I don't look at legal definitions unless I'm discussing a court case or contract.
You might be shocked to discover that countries outside of the US use the same word we do and they don't think its definition is dependent on our constitution. You might be even more shocked to discover that the vast majority of US citizens don't use it to mean the same thing as the constitutional definition. I wasn't ignorant of that definition, but I consider it irrelevant outside discussions of whether he should rightly be charged with that specific crime.
The "context" of Edward Snowden is not planar. He is a person, a human being, with drives, motivations, flaws and triumphs. His "context" is not only limited to discussions of criminal charges that might or might not be considered by the US.
This post brought to you by Database Barbie
(Score: 4, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 06 2014, @08:28PM
A matter of life and death is not a matter of semantics. The definition of Treason is literally, a life and death matter. To get the public thinking of him as treasonous per merriam-webster, is to make it all that easier to engage in state sponsored murder post show-trial.
To take all the effort of those people trying very hard to murder Snowden, swallow it, and then call it semantics -- we'll, you've made my foe list. You really need to think about just how dangerous, and just how easily you fell for, the "its only semantics" BS.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by ancientt on Wednesday August 06 2014, @08:52PM
A man is judged not only by his friends, but also by his foes.
You insist that someone else cannot use words according to their primary definition? If you insist this is sufficient reason, then yeah, I can live with the idea that you'd call me a foe.
Even you are admitting the difference when you use a capital T to spell the word. There is a difference between a legal definition and a common one. The legal definition is not the only correct usage and that's obvious. I find it shocking that you insist otherwise.
As you seem so dedicated to discussing the legal case of whether Snowden should be charged with Treason, allow me to formally enter that discussion. I'll cheerfully agree that of course he shouldn't be charged with Treason unless the charges are supported! I've heard idiots in Congress suggest he should be but I have yet to hear any supporting information. Perhaps you're aware of something I am not? Perhaps you're aware of some evidence people use to suggest he is guilty of that particular crime? I'm not, but then I haven't discussed it or researched it at any length. Please enlighten me of the key points if you'd care to make an argument against some point others have defended.
This post brought to you by Database Barbie
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 06 2014, @09:18PM
What you are seeing is the public being intentionally confused and misdirected by use of colloquial "treason" so that if Snowden is captured, it will be less shocked by the inevitable outcome of a trial under the espionage act -- the espionage act comes with its own unique rules against the normal methods of defense and so hamstring defendants, it is perfectly fair to characterize these trials as "show trials").
OK, so once the show trial is done, who will really care what happens to that "treasonous" bastard? Very few. Only those who realize that punishment was doled out in kangaroo court conditions, and that nothing he did met the pertinent definition of treason, will realize the magnitude of injustice done.
You are helping make this state of affairs a reality by pretending you are engaging in an issue of semantics. What you are doing is political spin designed make it easier to execute or gulag Mr. Snowden. At best, it is rooted in ignorance. Just below that, you are simply being obstinate in an argument. At worst, you are a shill for the Feds.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ancientt on Thursday August 07 2014, @01:23AM
I'm kinda flattered actually, I've rarely been called a shill and that's more of an impact than I usually expect. I'm pretty sure it's inaccurate since I've never been offered (not that I would accept) any sort of incentive to present any particular position, mostly I'm just ignored. That may contribute to my general cynicism.
You may have a point about the public being intentionally misdirected. I've rarely felt like the blustering I see on TV is an accurate representation of facts, but I attributed it to pandering and attempts to grab the fleeting spotlight rather than any particularly thought out campaign. Several times I've speculated that the obvious fallacies purported by elected officials had to be an intentional attempt to have logical arguments presented in opposition so that they could intentionally put themselves in a position of "bowing to the evident facts." Yet, it seems so common and rarely successful that I've mostly given in to the idea that officials are parroting simplistic ideas simply because it gets them re-elected. How else can you explain Congress having such a dismal approval rate while still retaining such high re-election rates?
My first reactions to the Snowden revelations were sort of a vindictive spirit of "I told you so" all around. I thought that now the public would finally care about our right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, finally care about the protections from unreasonable searches and see that the government that is supposed to represent us was instead abusing their position. But that didn't happen. I started asking my family what they thought, assuming they'd mirror my indignation and finally mirror my own disgust. They didn't. So I moved to asking friends and associates, believing that it was possible my own family was unduly influenced by false patriotism to reflect the real state of opinion of the public. I was disappointed to discover it seems endemic. Those that had a strong opinion had decided Snowden should be hung, and the rest universally didn't seem to care much at all.
So I took a step back. Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps I was the one who was unpatriotic. Perhaps the ideals I love about the US weren't the real reasons people love the US. In this too, I was mistaken. People actually think that the US is about Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness, but they don't really care about liberty, they just seem to think that Starbucks somehow equates to liberty. I was disappointed and angry to come to those conclusions. I tried hard to understand the common reasoning and it made me sick. I was engaging my child in a discussion about current politics and she was so energetic in her opinions about how right the system is and how wrong the current opinion that I finally told her straight up that the Constitution she so valued was ignored by the government that represents her. She was crushed. I didn't mean to crush her spirit, I admire it, but I was too honest. I regret it, I wish I'd protected her naivety a little longer.
So I took another step back into what I can only call surly ambivalence. I accept now that the people will happily trade their liberty for a flaking and shallow veneer of security and the people really don't care that their own government is trampling on their rights. Look at how my cynical posts here are treated! Where I allow myself to present the truth that our government doesn't care about truth, justice and liberty, I'm modded a Troll or Offtopic.
I posted that Snowden is a treasonous patriot, not out of any particular interest in whether the US will pretend to honor the legal definition, but rather because I've moved beyond expecting any adherence to the legality of charges. I researched the definition of the word treason and came to the conclusion that whatever the criminal definition might be, Snowden did betray the trust of the government that trusted him. I accepted the technical definition, but it offended me. How can you call someone a traitor when they serve the interest of the people of a democratic government? That is when I discovered that the definition of a patriot wasn't tied to a government. I too love my country, however misguided, stupid and evil parts of its government may be. It seemed obvious to me that however accurate the term traitor might be, Snowden was still a patriot. And so I clung to the phrase that he was a patriotic traitor. It may offend, but it is true and it can only be true when the government is acting in a way that harms the people.
So maybe I am "helping make this state of affairs a reality" but it isn't because I'm pretending it is an issue of semantics. It may be that I'm just to beaten down by the state of affairs. It may be that I'm just contributing to a sad reality by giving up on presenting the value-of-liberty viewpoint. I wish I had more optimism, even just a tiny spark of hope that it could be different if more people value liberty. But I don't believe it will happen. I don't see that spark anywhere inside myself anymore.
I value the idea of liberty, I want to believe that I live in a country that might someday act to protect it. But I don't believe it anymore. I gave up on that dream some time ago. So I don't really care about the debate on whether Snowden committed (legal) Treason anymore, because I don't believe it matters. The people who in a position to have that matter don't care and I can't change that. I do care about the man, the man who cares enough to destroy his chance at a simple happy life to give the country he loved, was committed enough to a dream I've given up on a chance to redeem itself. So I gave up on defending the debate on treason because I believe patriotism, true patriotism, is what he really deserves to be credited for.
So mod me down, call me a Troll and mark my posts as Flamebait, I don't really care anymore. Snowden will have at least one defender who will recognize what is really important about his actions, that he did it for the love of the people. I've given up on the people and I've given up on the dream, but I do respect the man and his dream, however pointless, that the US cares about our liberty.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:55PM
That's interesting, but merely by using the word "treason", you give a win to the foes of liberty. Just don't do it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday August 07 2014, @09:12PM
Here's another factor to consider in your "treasonous patriot" rationalization. If Snowden were a government employee rather than just a contractor, then he would be required to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Then he would have been legally obligated as a condition of his employment with the US government to "betray" the trust of the government under the circumstances.
(Score: 3, Informative) by GlennC on Wednesday August 06 2014, @07:48PM
Since you apparently don't trust Cornell University, may I point you to another transcript?
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html [archives.gov]
See Article 3, Section 3
You may say that you disagree with Mr. Snowden's actions, but you may NOT define treason to suit your views.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ancientt on Wednesday August 06 2014, @08:38PM
I like and trust Cornell, but that is irrelevant. Why do you insist on the idea that the legal definition of a crime is the only correct definition of a word? A previous poster talked about the the "context of Edward Snowden" which I find farcical, but he was certainly right about the relevance of context. The legal definition for a criminal act is only important in the context of discussion a crime. Please be my guest if you'd like to do so, but I am not.
For the proper usage of a word, lets turn to the people who define things, you know, dictionaries. You'll find that they often refer to law, and there are a variety of dictionaries devoted to legal definitions, but even those usually reference the use of the word outside of US law, and for good reason. The word has narrow definition in the law of several countries, but the usage of that word is not limited to any single countries legal code, or in fact to legal terminology in general. It is at least as common to use the word without legal context as I was doing as it is to use it in legal context as you seem to be insisting is the only possible choice.
This post brought to you by Database Barbie
(Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:42AM
Because that's the only one that's going to matter if he is charged with treason by a US proscecutor. No other definition matters, even in the context of this international discussion.
Honestly, yours is a pretty disapppointing point of view for someone so articulate.
(Score: 2) by ancientt on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:55AM
Hooray! I got called "articulate!"
Sincerely, thanks for the compliment. Calling my viewpoint disappointing? Yeah, that pretty well describes my viewpoint. I invite you to review [soylentnews.org] my view as expounded on in other posts.
This post brought to you by Database Barbie
(Score: 2) by ancientt on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:59AM
The tagline at the bottom of the screen when I posted this:
makes me wish I had a few tears left to shed.
This post brought to you by Database Barbie
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday August 07 2014, @01:04AM
His government betrayed HIM, and everyone else that lives in the same country.
Once the government starts committing crimes against its citizens on a mass scale its in no position
to bring charges.
Those people who want him brought up on charges are among the guilty.
But they aren't in any hurry to try him, because any reasonable jury of people who love their
country would find him not guilty. It only takes one, and in this country jury nullification
is perfectly legal. (Even if they prove he violated a law by a specific act, the jury simply
votes not guilty - Case over.).
Further he is not alone. Several sites are reporting that there is at least one more [theregister.co.uk] person leaking information about government crimes.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by cafebabe on Wednesday August 06 2014, @08:20PM
When telling the truth aids and comforts your enemies, your enemies are freedom and justice.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by ancientt on Wednesday August 06 2014, @08:57PM
I really like that. Forgive my ignorance if it is, but is that a quote?
This post brought to you by Database Barbie
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Thursday August 07 2014, @12:36AM
Unless I plagiarized it unconsciously, it is original. I done a cursory search to check but there remains an above average chance that it is unoriginal because I previously ran a quotation search engine with a friend. He got the idea to do it because, at the time, it placed it in a category which was two clicks from Yahoo's homepage which, at the time, was the most popular page on the web. We got a significant volume of traffic from his sneakiness but never enough to pay for the hosting.
Regarding the truth in general, I am quite tired of English speaking countries being held as paragons of democracy when they are corrupt to the core. While the bread and circuses are stage-managed, the loose ends are covered with National Security Letters, D-Notices, super-injunctions, state secrets, bizarre export restrictions and firewalls and domain takedowns worthy of a fascist regime [wikipedia.org].
Regarding the Edward Snowden case, I am quite tired of people quoting the US legal definition of treason. It is so broad, I doubt that any US celebrity or politician has not aided one of the US's multiple enemies in a manner which was witnessed by two people. Indeed, this could occur in the course of exercising free speech. Any criticism of the US, legitimate or not, aids enemies. What are we to do? "Speak as if through a flower" as the Germans advised or "Speak truth to authority"? If you take Foucault's Raison d'Etat [wikipedia.org] or Celine's laws [wikipedia.org], it is the failure to speak the truth which gives power to authority; self-censorship out of self-interest. How many thousands of people knew what Snowden knew and how many lost their income, their house, their car, their partner, their freedom to travel and their right to a fair trial?
I've even seen the US legal definition of treason cited in discussions about Julian Assange. Well, he's not a US citizen and he's unlikely to have sworn allegiance to the US but I presume that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness came ahead of the US Constitution.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by ancientt on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:17AM
Well said.
This post brought to you by Database Barbie
(Score: 2, Informative) by CirclesInSand on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:23AM
Similar famous quote from the book "The Revolution: A Manifesto":
"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." --Dr. Ron Paul
(Score: 2) by ancientt on Thursday August 07 2014, @03:17AM
This post brought to you by Database Barbie
(Score: 1) by digitalaudiorock on Wednesday August 06 2014, @05:44PM
As someone else already pointed out, I'm not convinced he's guilty of treason at all. In any case, given that he was exposing a crime by the government far worse than anything he himself did, that's all pretty moot.
I'd think people would (or should) be more afraid of those who wouldn't violate that "trust" under similar circumstances.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by ancientt on Wednesday August 06 2014, @07:59PM
People react as if "betraying the trust of your government" (treason by definition) is inherently evil. That's not necessarily the case.
Which crime was that exactly? I have yet to see anyone charged with a crime. Sure, maybe it should be a crime by any reasonable standard, or by definition according to the Constitution, but since when does "reasonable standard" apply to governmental agencies? As far as "according to the Constitution" goes, we might as well quit pretending and grow up; the Constitution isn't something our government actually adheres to.
You're living in a fantasy if you think the government is actually going against the will of the people. This is a government of, by and for the people. The people cared about this for about three days and then moved on to Bieber. The people don't care. Sure, a few geeks may thrash about and write letters or blogs or post in forums, but the vast majority of the people don't have a problem with the things Snowden revealed and they're represented by a government that doesn't either.
Politicians and geeks care about it. Geeks care because we think we have rights that don't disappear when an electrical current is involved. Politicians care because they don't want people thinking about that.
This post brought to you by Database Barbie
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 06 2014, @09:58PM
Waiting for someone to be charged with a crime is a poor measure of whether a crime has been committed. It's prosecutorial discretion. Just look at the years after the 07/08 crash. Some fines, but very few individuals put in prison. Or CIA agents engaging in torture. Or retroactive immunity for ISPs. Or countless other examples. There is no justice for the powerful.
(Score: 2) by ancientt on Thursday August 07 2014, @12:26AM
Dang. And I thought my perspective was bleak.
This post brought to you by Database Barbie
(Score: 2) by ancientt on Thursday August 07 2014, @01:38AM
You're right of course. I've given up on the idea that the government can be held accountable for crimes, but I can still hope that the people can care about an ideal. Barely. Really... maybe not at all, but I will still call Snowden a patriot because however ineffective his actions were, I can believe his actions came from a love for the people.
This post brought to you by Database Barbie
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday August 06 2014, @06:14PM
He is guilty of treason in an act of patriotism. He may have done something great for the country, but he certainly betrayed the trust he was given and acted against the interests of his government.
This happens only when the government itself is not patriotic.
Let's look at the following hypothetical situation. The government abducts small children, cooks them, and serves for dinner to leaders of that government. This procedure is classified top secret; since the government determines what is secret, it's trivial.
One man discovers this and hurries to announce the misdeeds to the world. He is immediately charged with breach of trust, and with treason because "he acted against the interests of his government." Is this man a hero or a traitor? (Well, the answer obviously depends on who you hold allegiance to - to your country or to your government.)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ancientt on Wednesday August 06 2014, @07:14PM
Thanks for that response, I like the phrase "the government itself is not patriotic" and shall reference it myself from time to time.
A lot of the replies I've gotten are quibbling about the definition of treason. I know that the legal charge is different from a definition and that there are a variety of definitions available. I actually spent some time reading about the meaning of the words when I first came across the concept of "treasonous patriot" and am convinced it is an accurate description despite the rejections I've seen in reply.
Treason is a description of the betrayal of a government's trust. That's not the definition that you use to convict someone, but treason is something that can be descriptive where there is no king and doesn't require witnesses. That means that MW's definitions and the legal definition are not the only proper uses of the word.
So in answer to your question, yes, the man is a traitor and a hero. Being a traitor isn't necessarily the evil thing we treat it as. Betraying the trust of an evil government can be a noble thing. I don't believe the US government is evil, but I certainly don't condone every action by every part of it. Does that mean it is worthy of betrayal? Perhaps, or perhaps just those organizations within it which do something evil.
But is the NSA actually guilty of doing something evil? I'm still on the fence about that. I don't like the idea that they should need to gather information on innocent people, but the IRS and Census do that too, if not to the same extent. People are upset because they believe that our Constitutionally protected freedoms are being eroded... but I'm sorry to say, you're too late for the party. We gave up pretending the Constitution had actual authority years ago and we've just been paying lip-service for over a century now. There is no going back, no matter how much I might wish otherwise, and I'll contribute to your campaign if you look like you have even a miniscule chance of reversing that truth. So, without pretending that the government and laws we have are based on Constitutional right, I'm prepared to accept reality. The reality is that we have to work with the government we have in the courts that we have or plan a revolution and people who won't bother voting won't bother revolting.
So back to the question: is the NSA actually guilty of doing something evil? In light of the reality of what our government is and what our society accepts, I'm growing apathetic. I cared a lot, a whole lot, when I first heard. I couldn't believe that people could finally hear on the prime time news the things I'd been fretting over for years. But you know what? The majority of the public doesn't care. They honestly don't have any passion about it at all. They're fine with the idea that the NSA can listen to every call they make. And you know what? That means that it's okay with the people who determine what our government is going to be.
A government of the people, for the people and by the people. I used to be proud of that.
This post brought to you by Database Barbie
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Wednesday August 06 2014, @08:38PM
Your scenario of state sponsored child abduction isn't so far fetched. The UK Government exported 7,000 children per year [bbc.co.uk] and only one woman objected [wikipedia.org]. Unfortunately, it isn't a historical issue [activistpost.com].
1702845791×2
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Wednesday August 06 2014, @06:21PM
no, the ones guilty of treason are the ones who didn't come forward and are helping to hide the crimes committed by the US government. they are also guilty of violating their oath of office by not only refusing to protect the US Constitution against domestic enemies but by being the domestic enemies against which they should be protecting the US Constitution and actively undermining it, which is a federal crime under Title 5 USC Section 7311. this is real, actual, constitutionally-defined treason that they're committing; what Snowden did isnt treason no matter how you define it.
(Score: 1, Troll) by ancientt on Wednesday August 06 2014, @08:10PM
That's cute, it's almost like you believe the US government gets its authority from the Constitution. I wish I could pretend to be that naive.
The definition of treason is betraying the trust of the government, and he did that. You may dream of a government that is bound to follow a set of rules based on ideals of liberty and justice, but that's not what we have. We have a government that represents the people and the people, frankly, don't care. If you question them, and I have because I was terribly naive and couldn't believe what I was hearing, most of them don't have a problem with the things Snowden revealed.
If you do have a problem with the NSA activities Snowden revealed, then you are in opposition to the will of the people as (sadly accurately) reflected in the government of the United States of America. Title 5 USC Section 7311 has "constitutional" repeated several times so it's only relevant if the government decides they can use it against someone.
This post brought to you by Database Barbie
(Score: 1) by dougisfunny on Wednesday August 06 2014, @11:05PM
Well, he does have a point. There are two sets of conflicting rules. One set says "Protect X", the other says "Abuse X" so really, it could be made a case that anyone in that situation where they have the choice between doing either could be "treasonous" for not doing the other.
(Score: 2) by ancientt on Thursday August 07 2014, @01:35AM
Thanks.
I am willing to accept that Snowden betrayed the trust of the government in order to protect the interest of the people.
The definition of treason is about government, while patriotism is about the people of a country. I'm willing to ignore the arguments about legal definitions because I don't think anybody who cares can make a difference to the government, but the people can still care about a patriot. I'm not convinced that there is hope, but I can respect and even admire the dream and the dreamer when it comes to the people.
This post brought to you by Database Barbie
(Score: 1) by dougisfunny on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:18AM
If you think about it further, it could be that the idea is to enable blackmail via selective prosecution. There are so many laws, that it is nearly, if not actually impossible to abide by the law.
If you set up specifically contradicting rules, you can blackmail your agents / employees saying "keep toeing the line or else" and then if you get tired of them, throw them to the wolves of the press, call them rogue and charge them with whichever set of "crimes" they committed.
(Score: 1) by arslan on Wednesday August 06 2014, @10:44PM
Based on your adoption on that definition of treason, the U.S is guilty of treason against the Crown. You seem to be hiding behind definitions to mask your insecurity. If you so value the things you preach, your government has violated that much more at a much bigger scale than Snowden.
Snowden isn't just a patriot, what he has done isn't just to the benefit to the American population but to everyone in the world - that may not have been his intention though - he's a hero to humanity, the only price for that is betraying the trust of a corrupt government.
(Score: 2) by ancientt on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:35AM
Yup.
Don't get hung up on the definition of "treason." Treason is about defying government, but patriotism is about defending the rights of the people. You might want to review this thread to get more detail on the ideals I hold dear.
This post brought to you by Database Barbie
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07 2014, @07:57AM
When acting for the people is acting against the interest of the government, you may as well burn that old document containing the words "government of the people, by the people". Because then you have the exact opposite.
(Score: 1) by deathlyslow on Wednesday August 06 2014, @04:47PM
While people view his actions as being right or wrong, depending on leanings. You have to respect the man for taking a stand and getting the info out there. I wonder why Cuba or another smallish country, that doesn't depend on the US for much of anything, hasn't stepped up to the plate. I don't agree with him fleeing, he knew what he was going to do, so he should have set up a dead man switch of sorts and stuck around to really be a pain.
(Score: 2) by ancientt on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:40AM
Interesting. I haven't spent much time second-guessing his approach. I agree with the respect. Your comment makes me think "what would I do in that situation" and I wonder. If you knew what he knew, would you have thought you could successfully carry off the plan to stick around and be a pain?
This post brought to you by Database Barbie
(Score: 2) by ancientt on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:44AM
I discussed this with my wife, the only way we can see that you could have a feeling of security sufficient enough to "stick around" is if you are sleeping with the President.
This post brought to you by Database Barbie
(Score: 1) by arslan on Thursday August 07 2014, @03:17AM
Maybe because they know they can't really give him any real protection if the U.S. decides to commando in and do a forceful retrieval without any significant repercussion and even if they do, Snowden knows the same fact and would probably refuse? I would think at this point really, only Russia or/and China have the capabilities to provide some level of hesitation to the U.S.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by EQ on Wednesday August 06 2014, @06:15PM
The Russians didn't give him asylum out of the goodness of Putin's heart - they accepted him temporarily so they could pump him for data (sources & methods, how he managed to evade security, any as yet unreleased data, etc. all useful for future espionage), and then exploit him politically (Putin is adept at that sort of thing). They're done with that now, so they are likely to discard him, like a piece of obsolescent gear that's worn out. That's not a moral judgement, that's just the reality of politics. Real life does not offer up hollywood-movie style happy endings, and it appears Snowden is headed for a sad ending.
Perhaps Snowden should have thought it through a bit more thoroughly - and released only small bits of the information regarding illicit domestic surveillance, then stayed and fought in the courts in the US, where public opinion would certainly support him for revealing the widespread illegal domestic spying. But his alleged theft of US military plans for various war scenarios (including unit capabilities, positioning and use) is a legitimate criminal charge despite the brave whistle-blowing aspects of his other actions, and those things are what has him facing the most serious criminal charges--as well as the additional crime of handing them over to Russia and China, if he has done so. Its that part (defense plans/capabilities) of his actions that cost him some public support in the US. Also his choice of countries was rather unwise -- running to Russia raised more than a few questions amongst even the non-paranoid intelligence community members. Perhaps he should have gone to Switzerland or Sweden and requested asylum?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by etherscythe on Wednesday August 06 2014, @07:09PM
He should have gone to an Icelandic embassy and requested asylum. I think his mistake (obvious now) was to go to Hong Kong where there was an extradition treaty in place, and then reveal his role before making an exit. He got lucky heading to Russia (his options at that time were severely limited, and he only managed to make an exit because the US file an extradition request incorrectly). Now - well, I figured he should have been planning his next move with the clock obviously ticking. He should have done the clever thing and skipped out of the country unnoticed. Instead he's been doing interviews, making long-distance appearances and planning privacy-enhancing software. Well, he's still got the run of the country - might as well show up at another embassy and see what they can do for him. It can't be that hard to run a ship in international waters where the US has no jurisdiction.
Neither Sweden nor Switzerland have the guts to stand up to the US anymore, sadly. They could give him a nice multi-time-zone watch to keep track of local time on the run though. Least they could do, really.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 1) by AlHunt on Wednesday August 06 2014, @10:17PM
> It can't be that hard to run a ship in international waters where the US has no jurisdiction.
If Snowden finds himself on a ship in international waters, I'm thinking jurisdiction wouldn't be a real big concern for the US.
(Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Thursday August 07 2014, @03:08AM
HK was carefully chosen. Frem Glenn Greenwald's No Place to Hide (again).
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Thursday August 07 2014, @03:40PM
Like I said, in hindsight the mistake is more obvious. I could have done the same. Then again, Iceland was a strong contender; Bobby Fischer [npr.org] resisted extradition to the US from there. He wasn't quite so public of a fugitive I don't think, but I imagine it wouldn't be all that different. I'm not sure the US is willing to impose sanctions over him, honestly. He could have done it. Too bad Icelandic government went chicken or something and failed to consider granting him citizenship before the legislative body went into recess, leaving him no options at the time.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday August 06 2014, @07:12PM
Snowden wasn't intending to stay in Russia when he got marooned there by actions of the US. So if you want to blame someone for his having to stay in Russia, blame the US State Department.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Informative) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 06 2014, @08:01PM
To all those who parrot the "face the music" argument the Federal Government started, please be aware that under the rules set up for trials under the espionage act -- rules the Feds wrote -- a fair trial would be an impossibility. I'm surprised this has to be addressed so often -- it is evidence of how effective DC spin really is.
Anyway, read this before spouting that BS again please.
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2013/08/why-edward-snowden-cannot-receive-fair-trial-united-states [pressfreedomfoundation.org]
Note that the author is an attorney.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Thursday August 07 2014, @09:19PM
What would be the point? Releasing a little such information is just as illegal as releasing a lot of information. Public opinion is just as strong as it would be then. And staying and fighting in a domestic court means sentence by kangaroo courts who aren't allowed to consider mitigating circumstances of the information release or the legal environment that whistleblowers have to deal with.
And really, how could this have turned out better either for us or for Snowden? My view is that if you don't want whistleblowers running to potential enemies, then change the laws so that whistleblowing becomes a valid means of alerting us to illegal or danger conditions in these intelligence services rather than a trap for the unwary and naive.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Lazarus on Wednesday August 06 2014, @08:45PM
His exposure of illegal acts by the NSA was only a fraction of the info this scumbag leaked. He's exposed plenty of our legitimate spy operations, but a ton of derpy geeks think this jerk is a hero. The most charitable way to view him is as a foolish dupe of the deeply-misleading anti-American blogger and insult spewing man-child Glenn Greenwald.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday August 07 2014, @01:57AM
Snowden is unequivocally a hero. When the Second American Republic has been founded and all the overlords of our era have been put paid in full, we're going to put Snowden's face on Mt. Rushmore.
I wonder if there isn't some kind of haven we citizens of the world can supply him that will be secure against the criminals in Washington DC. At the moment he's not in their power because their power is countered by Russia's (and China's before). But I wonder if there were some way to, I dunno, create a sea-steading community or enclave on Antarctica that surrounds him with people who have volunteered to keep him safe.
Washington DC delenda est.