Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday June 26 2015, @10:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the don't-spy-on-your-friends-NSA! dept.

The Intercept reports that in the aftermath of the NSA's sweeping surveillance of three French presidents, French Justice Minister Christiane Taubira thinks National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange might be allowed to settle in France.

Taubira was asked about the NSA's surveillance of three French presidents, disclosed by WikiLeaks this week, and called it an "unspeakable practice." Taubira's comments echoed those in an editorial in France's leftist newspaper Libération that France should respond to the U.S.'s "contempt" for its allies by giving Edward Snowden asylum.

France would send "a clear and useful message to Washington, by granting this bold whistleblower the asylum to which he is entitled," wrote editor Laurent Joffrin in an angry editorial titled "Un seul geste" — or "A single gesture." (google translate)

If Paris offers Snowden asylum, it will be joining several other nations who have done so in the past, including Bolivia, Nicaragua and Venezuela. However, Snowden is still waiting in Moscow to hear from almost two dozen other countries where he has requested asylum.

French Justice Minister Christiane Taubira thinks National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange might be allowed to settle in France.

If France decides to offer them asylum, she would "absolutely not be surprised," she told French news channel BFMTV on Thursday (translated from the French). She said it would be a "symbolic gesture."

Taubira was asked about the NSA's sweeping surveillance of three French presidents, disclosed by WikiLeaks this week, and called it an "unspeakable practice."

Her comments echoed those in an editorial in France's leftist newspaper Libération Thursday morning, which said giving Snowden asylum would be a "single gesture" that would send "a clear and useful message to Washington," in response to the "contempt" the U.S. showed by spying on France's president.

Will France deliver the rebuke to Washington that Germany has failed to?


Original Submission 1 Original Submission 2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Saturday June 27 2015, @06:38PM

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 27 2015, @06:38PM (#202177) Journal

    Frojack - you have a poor knowledge of both the world wars, and of the Gulf wars.

    During the first world war, the late arrivals were the Americans. The French were fighting from the beginning to the end, alongside the UK, Belgians, commonwealth countries (including elements of the Caribbean countries, India, Australia and NZ). The French lost over 1 million dead and missing in action, compared with the US losses of 53,000. That means that, per capita, the French lost around 4.3% while the US comes in at 0.13% [wikipedia.org]. I suppose it depends on how you wish to view a 'contribution'

    During World War 2, the country was divided. Part had capitulated but although the country was occupied, the remainder fought on either as members of the Marquis, the Resistance or with the Free French Forces under De Gaulle. The total losses figures were much closer [wikipedia.org], with the French losing 550,00 compared to the US 420,00. But as a per capita value, that is 1.34% versus 0.32%. Again, although the US contribution was invaluable and the war would not have been won without it, it depends on how you measure it. Of course, the French civilian casualties knock the equivalent US figures 'out of the ball park', but having never had your country occupied it is easy to say that you wouldn't have followed the same path when you see your families being killed in front of you.

    In Bosnia, I had the honour of serving alongside both US and French special forces. They were both there from the beginning and were there to the very end. Not quite sure where you get your information from but I think your source is incorrect.

    Gulf War 1 - the French contribution was called Opération Daguet [wikipedia.org]. Their contribution is listed here [wikipedia.org]. One of the problems that the French suffered was that, after the initial air assault, they were prevented from using much of their air power (by the Americans) because the same aircraft were employed by the Iraqis. The US have an unenviable reputation when it comes to blue on blue (friendly fire) kills, and they apparently have forces that cannot recognise friendly IFF codes, use correct radio authentications or employ the other measures that are designed to alleviate such circumstances. It was probably the correct decision. Nevertheless, you cannot blame the French for being unable to contribute in this one particular aspect of military power. In every other aspect they contributed fully.

    Gulf War 2 - the Invasion of Iraq [wikipedia.org] - involved only 4 countries officially: the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland. France, along with many other countries objected to the invasion arguing that there was no hard evidence that justified it - they and the others have since been proven correct. They have fully participated in the UN operation to cope with the aftermath of the invasion. I'm not sure what you find lacking about that contribution.

    France, Germany and the UK, and many others have stood alongside the US more often than you seem to realise. When countries do stand alongside the US it would be nice if they could be treated as friends and allies. Which was the point of my original post.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 28 2015, @04:35AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 28 2015, @04:35AM (#202338)

    > Frojack - you have a poor knowledge

    When it comes to any sociological topic you could have just stopped right there.
    Frojack is the ultimate contrary indicator for any topic not narrowly technical.