View Poll Results: Do you agree with Snowden's Asylum in Russia?

Voters
96. This poll is closed
  • Agree

    68 70.83%
  • No not agree

    13 13.54%
  • Don't know

    3 3.13%
  • Don't care

    12 12.50%
Page 72 of 107 FirstFirst ...
22
62
70
71
72
73
74
82
... LastLast
  1. #1421
    Legendary! Wikiy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster, Local Group, Milky Way, Orion Arm, Solar System, Earth, European Union, Croatia
    Posts
    6,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    No not really. Why would you think that? Are you making an absolute statement like "no war is fought over resources"? Or are you saying "based on facts this war was about removing a dictator"? Cause there are facts that point at a resource based invasion too you know? Involvement of foreign oil companies during the war, international deals before and after the war, the race towards reconstruction, the unused refinement plants...
    Well first of all, I don't buy that a democratic nation could start a war over resources without that nation itself and anyone else knowing that it's about resources besides their government. That is, I don't think they could start such a war without making it obvious enough that it's about resources. Second, I don't see how any Western nation could gain anything concerning resources if a dictator is overthrown. Dictators don't stop trade, you know.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalyyn View Post
    He revealed that we were spying on our allies. Which, as we discussed before, everyone and their grandmother already knew. But it's the principle of the matter.
    Not everyone. You're forgetting about us naive folk, as opposed to you who watch too much action movies.

    Edit: He also didn't just reveal that. He revealed that companies such as Microsoft and Apple readily agree to let the NSA spy away at regular civilians. What I find puzzling is how some Americans would never allow the NSA to spy on American citizens while it's perfectly fine if the NSA does that to foreigners (and they'd be as appalled by the discovery of the NSA doing just that, if it actually did that obviously, as the rest of us non-Americans, as well as some Americans themselves, are about the fact that foreigners are getting spied on with such magnitude). After all, we foreigners don't have rights since we're not Americans.

    By the way, if there's a threat of terrorists, it's likelier you'll find it in America itself as opposed to overseas. It doesn't even make sense to spy on random foreign civilians and not do the same to random local civilians. 9/11 was committed by people living on American soil for months before the attacks itself, if you don't remember correctly.
    Last edited by Wikiy; 2013-07-12 at 04:54 PM.

  2. #1422
    Titan Kalyyn's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Indiana, US
    Posts
    11,392
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    Not everyone. You're forgetting about us naive folk, as opposed to you who watch too much action movies.

    Edit: He also didn't just reveal that. He revealed that companies such as Microsoft and Apple readily agree to let the NSA spy away at regular civilians. What I find puzzling is how some Americans would never allow the NSA to spy on American citizens while it's perfectly fine if the NSA does that to foreigners (and they'd be as appalled by the discovery of the NSA doing just that, if it actually did that obviously, as the rest of us non-Americans, as well as some Americans themselves, are about the fact that foreigners are getting spied on with such magnitude). After all, we foreigners don't have rights since we're not Americans.

    By the way, if there's a threat of terrorists, it's likelier you'll find it in America itself as opposed to overseas. It doesn't even make sense to spy on random foreign civilians and not do the same to random local civilians. 9/11 was committed by people living on American soil for months before the attacks itself, if you don't remember correctly.
    Well they aren't really looking specifically for terrorists. They're just looking for... anything, really. Anything useful.

  3. #1423
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Reeve View Post
    Whether or not the war was "about" resources, it would be stupid of the oil companies not to take an active interest in it. Oil company involvement is not in any way proof that the war was about the oil.



    Can you explain what you mean by this?
    Sorry but allow me to ask questions when I see their names in between who funded the rebels. It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask especially in light of the deals total had to shut with Iran.
    It's not asking if the queen is a lizard. It's asking what level of commitment did oil lobbies have in all this. Perfectly reasonable question if you asking me.

    Massive investments are done during a war and arent only oil related. There's land, structures, other resources, and then rebuilding and so on and on. Excuse my skepticism when I hear x war was fought to liberate x people. Libya is unstable. Gheddafi was mad but Libya wasn't the worst country up there.

  4. #1424
    Edward Snowden just today...

    -Calls US efforts to get him unlawful (they aren't).

    -Invokes World War II and declares he is standing up against crimes against the peace and against humanity (right...............)

    -Calls Russia a defender of the powerless, the day after deceased human rights lawyer Sergei Magnitsky is posthumously convicted of Tax evasion.


    You can stick a fork in Edward Snowden. He's done.

  5. #1425
    Merely a Setback Reeve's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    28,800
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    Sorry but allow me to ask questions when I see their names in between who funded the rebels. It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask especially in light of the deals total had to shut with Iran.
    It's not asking if the queen is a lizard. It's asking what level of commitment did oil lobbies have in all this. Perfectly reasonable question if you asking me.
    Reasonable question, sure. But you can't just draw the conclusion, "The war was fought because we wanted to take the resources." That's an unfounded conclusion from your reasonable questions.

    Massive investments are done during a war and arent only oil related. There's land, structures, other resources, and then rebuilding and so on and on. Excuse my skepticism when I hear x war was fought to liberate x people. Libya is unstable. Gheddafi was mad but Libya wasn't the worst country up there.
    Sure, but those investments don't require a war. The government could just decide to invest in infrastructure in the US instead. Besides, you aren't going to get me to feel sorry for investing a ton of money in a foreign country after a war. Most countries rather like foreign investment.
    'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
    Or a yawing hole in a battered head
    And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
    And there they lay I damn me eyes
    All lookouts clapped on Paradise
    All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

  6. #1426
    Titan Kalyyn's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Indiana, US
    Posts
    11,392
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroesec View Post
    -Calls Russia a defender of the powerless, the day after deceased human rights lawyer Sergei Magnitsky is posthumously convicted of Tax evasion.
    Much in the same way that Ghengis Khan was a defender of the Chinese.

  7. #1427
    Scarab Lord Naxere's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    4,625
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroesec View Post
    You can stick a fork in Edward Snowden. He's done.
    You keep repeating this. I believe I recall you saying when this first became news, that he'd be "hunted down like a dog." So far, (thankfully) you've been wrong.

  8. #1428
    Quote Originally Posted by Erenax View Post
    You keep repeating this. I believe I recall you saying when this first became news, that he'd be "hunted down like a dog." So far, (thankfully) you've been wrong.
    Oh no. I haven't at all. In fact, I've been proven entirely right.

    The ENTIRE POINT of the conference was to get him infront of cameras. He has no other options. He can't make it to South America. China threw him out. He has no choice but to stay in Russia, but Russia really doesn't want him, especially since Vladmir Putin wants a summit with Obama before the G20 in September. And the US made clear, the only way Putin gets that meeting, is if Snowden is gone.

    And have you seen him? He's lost 30lbs in the past month. His clothes barely fit him. He's wasting away.

    So in fact, my side is winning. Snowden has no avenue to escape. No country that wants to risk their relations with the US. He just has the hope that Russia will decide that they value him over a meeting with Obama in September... which they won't.

    Moreover the well has been poisoned. No one will ever dare try to do something like Snowden did for a while, and no country will pay half as much attention to it. So I would happily say my statement qualifies. One month later, Snowden is running out of defenses. Everything for him, such as making his way to Latin America has moved from the possible to the impossible in the last two weeks. Now Russia is his last chance, and they have absolutely no reason to do that.

  9. #1429
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    Well first of all, I don't buy that a democratic nation could start a war over resources without that nation itself and anyone else knowing that it's about resources besides their government. That is, I don't think they could start such a war without making it obvious enough that it's about resources. Second, I don't see how any Western nation could gain anything concerning resources if a dictator is overthrown. Dictators don't stop trade, you know.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Not everyone. You're forgetting about us naive folk, as opposed to you who watch too much action movies.

    Edit: He also didn't just reveal that. He revealed that companies such as Microsoft and Apple readily agree to let the NSA spy away at regular civilians. What I find puzzling is how some Americans would never allow the NSA to spy on American citizens while it's perfectly fine if the NSA does that to foreigners (and they'd be as appalled by the discovery of the NSA doing just that, if it actually did that obviously, as the rest of us non-Americans, as well as some Americans themselves, are about the fact that foreigners are getting spied on with such magnitude). After all, we foreigners don't have rights since we're not Americans.

    By the way, if there's a threat of terrorists, it's likelier you'll find it in America itself as opposed to overseas. It doesn't even make sense to spy on random foreign civilians and not do the same to random local civilians. 9/11 was committed by people living on American soil for months before the attacks itself, if you don't remember correctly.
    In the particular case of Libyan oil, having a mad patriotic dictator that hates the west doesn't help concluding deals. Fheddafi didn't really bend THAT much over.
    This is much better for oil companies.

  10. #1430
    Legendary! Wikiy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster, Local Group, Milky Way, Orion Arm, Solar System, Earth, European Union, Croatia
    Posts
    6,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    Massive investments are done during a war and arent only oil related. There's land, structures, other resources, and then rebuilding and so on and on. Excuse my skepticism when I hear x war was fought to liberate x people. Libya is unstable. Gheddafi was mad but Libya wasn't the worst country up there.
    You're forgetting that the war wasn't started by Western governments. The war was started by rebels. Western governments saw an opportunity to help those rebels and ensure a country goes from a dictatorship to a democracy which is in the end the better alternative for everyone. Similar to Libya, the US didn't help my country during the independence war because of oil (there ain't any of it here), they did it because they wanted to help a country make a proper transition from communism to democracy. Whether they did it for their own interests ('cause in the end it's in the interest of the US to have as least communist countries in the world as possible) or purely out of altruism is inconsequential.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    In the particular case of Libyan oil, having a mad patriotic dictator that hates the west doesn't help concluding deals. Fheddafi didn't really bend THAT much over.
    This is much better for oil companies.
    Except oil companies don't make deals with governments behind closed doors. They don't run countries. They don't order governments around. They too are inconsequential.

  11. #1431
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Reeve View Post
    Reasonable question, sure. But you can't just draw the conclusion, "The war was fought because we wanted to take the resources." That's an unfounded conclusion from your reasonable questions.



    Sure, but those investments don't require a war. The government could just decide to invest in infrastructure in the US instead. Besides, you aren't going to get me to feel sorry for investing a ton of money in a foreign country after a war. Most countries rather like foreign investment.
    Sure. Maybe I came a bit too frontal, but in fairness it was an answer to a similar comment on the opposite side though (or was it? I'm getting old). What I mean is I could say "just because they say its about freeing the people doesn't mean it is.

    Well... Buying rubble in the middle of Baghdad or any city has an enormous comeback per dollar invested.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    You're forgetting that the war wasn't started by Western governments. The war was started by rebels. Western governments saw an opportunity to help those rebels and ensure a country goes from a dictatorship to a democracy which is in the end the better alternative for everyone. Similar to Libya, the US didn't help my country during the independence war because of oil (there ain't any of it here), they did it because they wanted to help a country make a proper transition from communism to democracy. Whether they did it for their own interests ('cause in the end it's in the interest of the US to have as least communist countries in the world as possible) or purely out of altruism is inconsequential.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Except oil companies don't make deals with governments behind closed doors. They don't run countries. They don't order governments around. They too are inconsequential.
    It kind of is consequential instead cause it means the private companies investing in it wouldn't be concerned about the people once its over but rather maximise the profit (can you blame them?).
    I praise your optimism but I really can't see our society looking after the poor and desperate.

  12. #1432
    Legendary! Wikiy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster, Local Group, Milky Way, Orion Arm, Solar System, Earth, European Union, Croatia
    Posts
    6,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    I praise your optimism but I really can't see our society looking after the poor and desperate.
    Well, Western countries donate like 2% of their GDP to poorer countries... Society looks after the poor and desperate at least to some degree.

  13. #1433
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroesec View Post
    Edward Snowden just today...

    -Calls US efforts to get him unlawful (they aren't).
    Well individuals do have the right to seek and enjoy asylum according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Which the US ratified). And the US is most certainly engaging in special enforcement tactics to prevent him from reaching any of the nations that have offered him asylum.

    -Invokes World War II and declares he is standing up against crimes against the peace and against humanity (right...............)
    He invoked the Nuremberg Principles which do, in fact, state that individuals and conscientious objectors are responsible for their actions even under superior orders. This translates to a duty to defy orders if they are against international law.

    -Calls Russia a defender of the powerless, the day after deceased human rights lawyer Sergei Magnitsky is posthumously convicted of Tax evasion.
    The man died in prison awaiting trial for fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud and tax evasion.

    You can stick a fork in Edward Snowden. He's done.
    If he were done leaking, Russia would have granted him asylum (Those are their terms).

  14. #1434
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    Well, Western countries donate like 2% of their GDP to poorer countries... Society looks after the poor and desperate at least to some degree.
    Well there is plenty to say about western charity too actually

  15. #1435
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    Well individuals do have the right to seek and enjoy asylum according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Which the US ratified). And the US is most certainly engaging in special enforcement tactics to prevent him from reaching any of the nations that have offered him asylum.
    And yet, 200 Countries in the world, and exactly 3 have offered him asylum. Apparently 197 countries are behavior unlawfully? Furthermore he doesn't qualify as a refugee.

    This pretty much sums up why he is not protected by the UDHR as a refugee.

    http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/24...snt-a-refugee/

    Most of the countries in the world have signed the treaty or its 1967 amendment, including the U.S., China, Russia and Ecuador. (Hong Kong hasn’t, and China hasn’t required it to abide by the convention since it took control of the territory, but that’s moot now that Snowden’s in Russia.)

    So for Snowden to be a refugee with a valid claim to asylum he would have to argue two things. First, he’d have to show that he has a well-founded fear of persecution based on his political opinion. Second, he’d have to show that the crime he has admitted to, namely leaking highly classified documents, is either nonserious or political.

    That’s a tall order on all counts. Snowden isn’t being persecuted for holding a political opinion, he’s being prosecuted for violating U.S. law. Few countries in the world, if any, have greater protections for freedom of expression of political beliefs than the U.S. (Germany bans public espousal of Nazism, Russia criminalizes offenses to various public figures, Ecuador just passed a restrictive press law, and so on.) If Snowden wanted to express his opinion about the surveillance state he could do so with near absolute protection under the First Amendment.

    But even he says that’s not what he’s doing. Which gets to the second hurdle he has to clear. Snowden has admitted to breaking the law and said he is performing serious civil disobedience. In his first interview after coming forward as the source of the documents exposing the NSA’s broad surveillance programs, he said of his actions, “When you are subverting the power of government that’s a fundamentally dangerous thing to democracy.”

    That was a particularly impressive and well-thought-out statement, but it also appears to be a stark admission that he is committing the kind of serious crime that denies him the protection of a refugee.


    He invoked the Nuremberg Principles which do, in fact, state that individuals and conscientious objectors are responsible for their actions even under superior orders. This translates to a duty to defy orders if they are against international law.
    The Nuremberg Principles apply to unlawful orders. Everyone knows that. There is absolutely nothing unlawful about the NSA program. It was democratically passed by congress, signed off by the President, and overseen by the court.

    It may be unpopular. It may be controversial. It may even be outside the spirit of the constitution (I would say it isn't, but thats another debate). But it's domestic and international legal status is beyond question... which is why it isn't being brought up. This is something people do here, and across the world all the time. They call something unlawful because they disagree with it. That's not good enough and has never been.

    In the US Military for example, you are REQUIRED to disobey unlawful orders. But when you do, you're not off the hook. You undergo a Court Martial to ascertain the facts of non-compliance. They determine, via the Uniform Code if the order given was lawful or not, and if the servicemember was correct in refusing to obey it. Like anything else in the world, the validity of person's opinion is subject to legal findings. I think that's kind of self-evident that this is fair?

    Well the same thing applies to Edward Snowden, or even George Zimmerman (who may think he was entirely right in shooting Travyon Martin). Whatever people think or do on a personal level, it is up to a LEGAL process to ascertain the legitimacy of that action.

    Snowden can invoke the Nuremberg Principles all he likes. He can do it until he loses 25 more lbs and loses another month of his life in the airport. The fact remains, he is no more right than anyone who does something they are convinced they are absolutely right in doing, until a COURT finds that he was justified in his action or not. And as we know, Snowden doesn't wan't to be brought before a court. So his invokation of the Nuremberg Principles are entirely hollow. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to say "I am defying unlawful orders", but... who the hell is Edward Snowden to decide what is lawful or not after that first act of objection? The answer is he's goddamn no one. This is where courts to resolve legal disputes come into play, a process alleged Constitution worshiper Edward Snowden has completely spit in its face over.



    The man died in prison awaiting trial for fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud and tax evasion.
    Do you really want to argue the legitimacy of Russia's persecution of Magnitsky just to protect Edward Snowden? That's extraordinarily perverse if you do.



    If he were done leaking, Russia would have granted him asylum (Those are their terms).
    No. Russia doesn't want this. They very clearly don't want this. This is a wrecking ball for their plans. They have the G20 in September, the Sochii Olympics next year. They are trying to ramp up foreign investment (especially American investment) now that oil is well below the $120 per barrel they need to not run a deficit. Putin is desperate to cut another nuclear deal with Obama down below 1000 warheads just so he can save money on Russia's immense nuclear apparatus and reinvest it in conventional forces. Putin want's a Summit with Obama before the G20 to help assert his domestic and international standing as a peer.

    Russia has absolutely no reason under the sun to do more than the absolutel bare minimum for Snowden. A few years ago, I'm sure Putin would have given him asylum. Instead, like China, he mostly wants the problem gone.

    I forsee this ending one of two ways.
    (1) He'll be tossed on a chartered plane of Venezuela, which is fine in my opinion, because Venezuela will have a change of government eventually, especially since Maduro barely one last year, and you can believe the first thing the American ambassador will do, will be to ask Edward Snowden, by then a forgotten person living in obscurity, as an offering.

    (2) He'll be arrested an offered up to Obama as a "Welcome" gift. Because he'll become another Bradley-manning style "problem" for America (that is to say, he'll rile up people online and people of certain liberal persuasions but be irrelevant to most Americans).

    Either way, he's completely screwed. Short term or long term.

  16. #1436
    Merely a Setback Reeve's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    28,800
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    Sure. Maybe I came a bit too frontal, but in fairness it was an answer to a similar comment on the opposite side though (or was it? I'm getting old). What I mean is I could say "just because they say its about freeing the people doesn't mean it is.

    Well... Buying rubble in the middle of Baghdad or any city has an enormous comeback per dollar invested.
    It's almost certainly NOT only about freeing the people. If it were, we'd be in Syria right now, and North Korea. It's also about how easily the regime change can be accomplished and how the new regime will affect things for us in the future. Global energy stability is a factor. Regional power balance is a factor. Whether or not the leaders of the country support subversive groups is a factor. Whether or not the leader is abusing human rights is a factor. I don't like it when people reduce the whole story down to "Well you just attack countries for their resources," when the whole resource thing may have been a non-factor or a minor factor or a major factor in the whole mix of hundreds of factors that made the decision.
    'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
    Or a yawing hole in a battered head
    And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
    And there they lay I damn me eyes
    All lookouts clapped on Paradise
    All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

  17. #1437
    Titan Kalyyn's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Indiana, US
    Posts
    11,392
    Quote Originally Posted by Reeve View Post
    It's almost certainly NOT only about freeing the people. If it were, we'd be in Syria right now.
    Well that's by no fault of our own. As I said earlier, the international community shits itself at the very idea of us helping in Syria.

  18. #1438
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroesec View Post
    And yet, 200 Countries in the world, and exactly 3 have offered him asylum. Apparently 197 countries are behavior unlawfully? Furthermore he doesn't qualify as a refugee.

    This pretty much sums up why he is not protected by the UDHR as a refugee.

    http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/24...snt-a-refugee/
    Except the article is wrong. Snowden's crime is most certainly political.




    The Nuremberg Principles apply to unlawful orders. Everyone knows that. There is absolutely nothing unlawful about the NSA program. It was democratically passed by congress, signed off by the President, and overseen by the court.
    International law expressly guarantees right to privacy in Article 12.

    No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
    Which the NSA most certainly violates. Hence the orders to violate the UDHR are most certainly unlawful.




    Do you really want to argue the legitimacy of Russia's persecution of Magnitsky just to protect Edward Snowden? That's extraordinarily perverse if you do.
    Really? What facts do you have that I don't? Can you offer any proof of Magnitsky's innocence?

    No. Russia doesn't want this. They very clearly don't want this. This is a wrecking ball for their plans. They have the G20 in September, the Sochii Olympics next year. They are trying to ramp up foreign investment (especially American investment) now that oil is well below the $120 per barrel they need to not run a deficit. Putin is desperate to cut another nuclear deal with Obama down below 1000 warheads just so he can save money on Russia's immense nuclear apparatus and reinvest it in conventional forces. Putin want's a Summit with Obama before the G20 to help assert his domestic and international standing as a peer.

    Russia has absolutely no reason under the sun to do more than the absolutel bare minimum for Snowden. A few years ago, I'm sure Putin would have given him asylum. Instead, like China, he mostly wants the problem gone.
    Russia has expressly offered him temporary asylum (and thus ability to leave the airport and enter embassies to apply for asylum in more... developed nations whose laws prevent him from applying while in an airport) should he choose to stop leaking.

    I forsee this ending one of two ways.
    (1) He'll be tossed on a chartered plane of Venezuela, which is fine in my opinion, because Venezuela will have a change of government eventually, especially since Maduro barely one last year, and you can believe the first thing the American ambassador will do, will be to ask Edward Snowden, by then a forgotten person living in obscurity, as an offering.
    Unlikely since Venezuela will have, by then, granted him official refugee status and possibly citizenship.

    (2) He'll be arrested an offered up to Obama as a "Welcome" gift. Because he'll become another Bradley-manning style "problem" for America (that is to say, he'll rile up people online and people of certain liberal persuasions but be irrelevant to most Americans).
    You ignore the 3rd option. In 3 years, when the NSA has transparent limitations placed on it, this whole debacle is behind us and we've elected a new president, he could be offered a pardon.

    I think the last option is most likely given the plurality opinion of Snowden is that he did the right thing. A number which will almost certainly skew in his favor in the coming years.

  19. #1439
    Scarab Lord Naxere's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    4,625
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroesec View Post
    No. Russia doesn't want this. They very clearly don't want this.
    That's funny, considering they were heavily involved in his press conference today.

    Alec Luhn reports for the Guardian from Moscow on Snowden's airport appearance. "Friday's proceedings left little doubt that the Russian authorities were actively involved in Snowden's stay,"

  20. #1440
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    Except the article is wrong. Snowden's crime is most certainly political.
    Well... YOU may think that. But you're just a guy. But legally, no. It's not. Working for a spy agency and then leaking classified data and then fleeing the country does not qualify as a political crime under the vast majority of legal opinioning that has gone on with respect to the case.






    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    International law expressly guarantees right to privacy in Article 12.
    Which the NSA most certainly violates. Hence the orders to violate the UDHR are most certainly unlawful.
    I want to refer to you to this quote from the Head of GlobalSecurity.org on this very issue.
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/12/us/sno...ons/index.html

    Snowden may also be in financial jeopardy. As an employee of security contractor Booz Allen in Hawaii, he was reportedly making $120,000 annually, or a little more than half as much as it would cost to charter a G5 private jet from Moscow to any of his possible refuges. Right now, unless he's picked up a part-time job slinging burgers at Sheremetyevo International Airport, he's not making any money. Sure, some of his supporters are trying to raise funds to help, but his most robust defender, WikiLeaks, is struggling with serious financial troubles. And the group still has Julian Assange's legal problems to pay for.
    In sum, Snowden appears to have not calculated the long-term ramifications of going on the lam. "He's sort of like the Tsarnaev brothers," Pike says, in reference to the pair accused of the Boston Marathon bombings. "There was no follow-up plan. He just thought this one brief moment of glory was going to bend history, and he had no plan after that. He's going to be radioactive until the end of time."

    And there is this: He's made no secret of what he did or why. He has effectively confessed to everything. That makes it harder for any harboring nation to plead ignorance of the facts or accept that this is all purely political. Saying he did it to defend an important constitutional principle has won great admiration from some quarters, but it will probably hold about as much weight in court as the arguments of tax dodgers who insist that the 16th Amendment was never ratified.
    Put another way, the UDHR "privacy" argument is legal quackery. The opinion you hold with respect to it is not the one that will save Snowden from jail.





    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    Really? What facts do you have that I don't? Can you offer any proof of Magnitsky's innocence?
    Oh brother this is a whole other thread. Start with this........
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20626960

    Like, you trying to prove Magnitsky's guilt as a round about way to somehow confirm Russia as a country where the persecuted find hope and sanctuary is so laughable, so beyond the pale... like... I'm sitting here just stunned at what I read from you.



    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    Russia has expressly offered him temporary asylum (and thus ability to leave the airport and enter embassies to apply for asylum in more... developed nations whose laws prevent him from applying while in an airport) should he choose to stop leaking.
    Which they can change their mind on the second he steps out of the airport, into the hands of Russian federal agents. We shall see won't we. Are you really going to bet Edward Snowden is more important to Putin than his economic relationship with the US? Sounds like a loser of a bet, pal.



    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    Unlikely since Venezuela will have, by then, granted him official refugee status and possibly citizenship.
    That's fine. He'll just have to get there then. Let's ask The President of Bolivia how flights from Moscow to South America are fairing these days if "Snowden" is rumored to be onboard.



    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    You ignore the 3rd option. In 3 years, when the NSA has transparent limitations placed on it, this whole debacle is behind us and we've elected a new president, he could be offered a pardon.
    I can't tell you how much your self-deluding comment here got a big belly laugh out of me. Like is this a joke? Are you kidding? Let me tell you something my friend, Americans have one concern and one concern only... for better or worse. Their wallets. Their economic security. In our republic of principle, people vote on how they feel about their jobs, their bills, their economic livlihood. Everything else is a very distant second. And if not one Wall Street Banker has gone to jail over the Financial Crisis and Americans have barely been moved to action about that, what are the odds they would about the abstract problem of NSA spying? And Snowden? Snowden is so abstract, so foreign, nobody will go out to the polls and vote for a new President on the basis of the NSA spying program. It is a story with no legs.

    Because 2016 is a very long time away. Snowden is probably running a bit low on cash about now. Certainly, he is not eating well judging by how much weight he's lost in just a month. So he could be offered asylum in Russia. Or he could make it to venezuela. Or he could be arrested. That's not the point. He's already yesterdays news. Everything he knew about the NSA is old news the second he shares it with the world, and when he runs out of things to trade... what is he? Radioactive. A tapped resource with nothing to offer. The money will stop, the cameras will go away, and he'll be all alone in some small Russian apartment, some small Venezuelan apartment or some small American prison cell.

    And when thats the case, who will care to stop the NSA? THIS IS EXACTLY THE POINT I'VE BEEN MAKING. No one has done more to undermine Edward Snowden, than Edward Snowden. Because he WILL go away, and so will all the controversy as America moves onto its next worry.

    And who is likely to be the next President? Well the short list is Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Hillary Clinton, or some Democratic or Republican Governor. None of which has ANY incentive to use their political capital to reign in the NSA.

    And furthermore they couldn't even do it... AS I SAID about a DOZEN times, the only way to STOP the NSA is to get 60 Senators, 218 Congressmen and the President on your side. So even if some privacy-crusader gets elected president, you still have the 60 Senators and 218 Congressmen to deal with.


    This is what I've been saying the entire time Laize. Doing what he did is the exact wrong, moronic way to stop NSA spying if that's what you're really worried about. Because he does end up in some small, shitty Venezuelan or Russian under close watch by security services, or in an American prison, when this is all over, when he is out of goods to trade for exposure, and the cameras have gone away. In America, had he not soiled his name with his behavior, he could have been Bradley Manning times ten. And now? He's the story of the middle half of 2013.... and nothing more. Do you remember the big story of the summer 3 years ago? I sure as hell don't.

    To offer another quote from that article

    Speaking of movies, near the end of the hit film "Catch Me If You Can," there's a scene that Snowden might do well to watch while he's killing time in the airport lounge (or wherever he is) pondering his fate. The young forger, Frank Abagnale, who has been staying a step ahead of the feds, finally grows irritated and fatigued. Not because they are particularly skilled in their hunting, nor because they are getting closer, but simply because they won't give up. In a fit of pique, he blurts into the phone, "Stop chasing me!" On the other end, the dogged, bureaucratic Treasury agent, Carl Hanratty, answers, "I can't stop. It's my job."

    Ultimately, this is why many people who have been involved in such matters believe Snowden will be caught. Because no matter how much he may love sticking it to the U.S. government and waving the banner of truth, justice, and freedom of speech, that mission will prove largely unsustainable without serious fundraisers, organizers and dedicated allies working on his behalf for a long time.

    They'll have to make Edward Snowden their living, because those who are chasing him already have. Government agents will be paid every minute of every day for as long as it takes. Seasons may change and years may pass, but the odds say that one morning, he'll look out of a window, go for a walk or stop for a cup of coffee, and the trap will spring shut. It will be almost like a movie.
    And that is why Edward Snowden is so completely screwed. A Presidential Pardon? Please friend, share with me what you're smoking.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •