These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless.
Are people really not bothered at the irony in this sentence? Russia, as a country that stands against abuse of the powerless by the powerful?
If the posthumous prosecution of Sergei L. Magnitsky, the lawyer who was jailed as he tried to expose a huge government tax fraud and died four years ago in a Russian prison after being denied proper medical care, seemed surreal from the moment the authorities announced it, the verdict and sentencing on Thursday did not disappoint.
By all accounts, it was Russia’s first trial of a dead man, and in the tiny third-floor courtroom of the Tverskoi District Court, it took the judge, Igor B. Alisov, more than an hour and a half to read his decision pronouncing Mr. Magnitsky guilty of tax evasion.
It doesn't matter if it is hypocritical of an American like me to point this out, when it goes on in my country/government as well - but I find it willfully ignorant to label the Russian government as a defender of human rights like this.
> Are people really not bothered at the irony in this sentence? Russia, as a country that stands against abuse of the powerless by the powerful?
I'm more bothered by your sentence. Russia and China are undoubtedly worse offenders than the US when it comes to human rights (well, at least historically, in this day and age the US seems to be racing to catch up). However, this alone is never a valid reason to discount their criticisms of US actions.
I know you're referring to Snowden's inclusion of Russia on that list, but in this case, they (and maybe China) are the only ones who can stand up against America. Clearly Ecuador fell with a single phone call.
I don't think it's hypocritical for you to point this out, but it simply should not detract from the rest of his statement. Russia has not handed him over---the least he can do is not bite the hand shielding him. I, for one, am glad that people aren't bothered by it.
People want to weigh the argument by weighing the person. I believe we call this 'ad hominem'.
The guy did something that had massive fallout and would really like to be able to live at least some form of a life. Sure, the countries offering asylum have pretty crappy human rights records and actually contribute a large number of asylum applicants to the USA. However, working in Venezuela or Bolivia, even if nowhere near the standard of living to which he may have become accustomed in Hawai'i, is better than sitting in a cell for years without trial and demonized and forgotten by the state.
I see a massive difference between leaking capabilities and personalities. The former lets us evaluate policies against the rule of law. The second can be treasonous or harmful on an individual level.
He didn't help Iran build The Bomb. He didn't even give anyone the ability to replicate the NSA's capabilities or detect interception of data in transit or at rest. He merely confirmed what many suspected and revealed what few knew (or cared about).
You've got to see the irony in taking asylum in a country where the kinds of spying he blew the whistle on in the first place are brazenly displayed on public television:
I totally agree that it is ironic. I just don't think it should detract from his main point, and personally, I'm bothered by how many people are trying to shift the focus to that. In the beginning, Snowden stated he didn't want the news to be focused on him (see how that's turned out) but instead focus on the NSA. I'm sure he wants it to be focused on Russia's human rights abuses even less (there's plenty of coverage on that independent of him).
> In the beginning, Snowden stated he didn't want the news to be focused on him (see how that's turned out) but instead focus on the NSA.
People keep talking about what Snowden said, but why do they not look at what he did?
If he really wanted to be out of the news it would be easy. Just ask Thomas Drake.
Instead he's turned himself into a longtailed human interest story, despite his protestations to the contrary. If he's smart enough to act as a network structural hacker then surely he's smart enough to recall what types of stories drive the most media coverage in the U.S.
His job in this was to get the evidence out there, let civil rights groups use it to carry on the fight, and to get himself back out of the media spotlight. Instead he's and WikiLeaks are sucking up all the oxygen from the EFF and ACLU.
You're not only making a claim that he might be tortured but that any interaction that he would have with the US criminal justice system would inevitably result in torture. That's just ridiculous. Yes, in the decade after 9/11 a number of people were subjected to interrogation techniques that many people (including myself) would consider torture. However, this happened under a legal theory that would not apply in Snowden's case (it is impossible to consider him an enemy combatant) and is no longer in use. There is no reason to believe that someone who goes through the Federal civilian criminal justice system will be inevitably subject to torture.
His first stop in the US justice system would almost certainly be solitary confinement, which is widely held to be a form of torture. I suppose he might not be thrown into solitary; he might be kept with other prisoners who have been told that he is a CIA assassin sent to kill them:
The effect is to deteriorate the mind. If people end up having panic attacks afterwards clearly it has caused them damage.
Whether it's widely held by the masses to be torture is of no importance because they have just as little knowledge as yourself.
Educate yourself in what psychiatrists, the United Nations, and Human Rights groups have been saying for a long time before stepping forth onto your soap box to call this "absurd."
I think most people don't think it's torture simply because they don't really know what it's like, haven't experienced it, can't readily imagine why it would be painful, etc.
Hell, even I would agree that prolonged solitary confinement probably counts as torture. That is the kind of thing that really should be reserved for those who simply cannot safely be around anyone.
However, if it were possible to do this without the subsequent mental trauma that would follow then that might be a different story. E.g. virtual social interaction (with other prisoners/guards) might be feasible, we certainly seem to get a lot of people who wall themselves away from others IRL so that they can play their online video games.
But even with that I don't see how that would be a more resource-efficient way to handle the task of rehabilitation where possible and humane segregation from society for the rest.
I think we have to figure that at some point almost any 'stick' in a carrot/stick system can, with overuse, become more dangerous to mental health than useful as a behavior modifier.
Considering that the First Congress authorized the death penalty for crimes like counterfeiting, and punishments like the pillory were still in use in the U.S. until well into the 1800's, no, I don't think the founders would have understood solitary confinement to be "cruel and unusual." The rack, drawing and quartering, flaying, etc, that's what the 8th amendment refers to.
I seem to recall you making a surprisingly originalist comment about the US Constitution before, as well. Do you really think the meaning of "cruel and unusual" doesn't evolve as we learn more over centuries? All kinds of things now regarded as indisputably abusive were taken for granted in the past (child abuse, to name one—or flogging for that matter). Solitary confinement seems like just this sort of thing, although one that is still somewhat early on the curve.
Even if you're one of those "living Constitution" people, at the very least terms like "cruel and unusual" must be defined relative to the broadly accepted social mores of the time. And treating solitary confinement as torture isn't just early on the curve, its something only a tiny minority of hyperliberals would consider to be true. I don't think the Constitution should be at the leading edge of social thought. It should lag behind until ideas are so clearly accepted as to be "obvious." Otherwise, it becomes a tool for peddling minority social viewpoints, which undermines its legitimacy in other regards. We're already feeling the effects of that today.
That all seems reasonable, though "living Constitution" sounds a bit silly to my ear—if that's used by advocates they should find a better name. On the other hand, the originalist thing seems flat-out dumb if it tries to deny that interpretations of past texts are always filtered through the present. One might as well exhume the authors and look for clues in their remains.
But never mind that—I'm more curious about this:
Otherwise, it becomes a tool for peddling minority social viewpoints, which undermines its legitimacy in other regards. We're already feeling the effects of that today.
> On the other hand, the originalist thing seems flat-out dumb if it tries to deny that interpretations of past texts are always filtered through the present.
There is nothing all that silly about it. It simply interprets the Constitution in the way you would a contract--based on what the parties intended the document to mean at the time of the agreement.
> What minority social viewpoints and what effects?
The death penalty would be a good example. Right now, support for the death penalty is around 60% among the American public. If a Supreme Court came along and found that "the living Constitution" meant that the death penalty was unconstitutional, despite the death penalty being common at the time of the founding and also supported by a majority of the public, that would undermine peoples' faith in the Constitution and the Supreme Court as an actual common agreed-upon framework as opposed to just another political tool.
Sometimes the Supreme Court has to spend that political capital, to bootstrap social change, but even when the decision is "right" in retrospect, it has an injurious effect on the institution itself. E.g. it becomes a lot easier for conservatives to dismiss the Supreme Court's opinion on something like giving Guantanamo prisoners habeas corpus rights when they can point to something like Roe v. Wade as evidence of the Court's political nature. It isn't just conservatives, of course. The Court lost enormous credibility among liberals in the 1920's and 1930's when it found all sorts of "economic rights" in the due process clause to strike down FDR's popular policies.
At this moment in history, faith in the Constitution and the Supreme Court is at historical lows on both sides, as a result of decades of liberal Courts using the bench as an instrument for social change on issues where there was no clear-cut consensus. Now, I happen to agree with those specific social issues, but that doesn't change the fact that this change came at high cost to the Court itself.
Originalism has a major advantage, and it is that when the Court isn't constantly finding new things in the Constitution, it can speak with far more authority on issues that were part of the original intent of the founders.
> There is nothing all that silly about it. It simply interprets the Constitution in the way you would a contract--based on what the parties intended the document to mean at the time of the agreement.
For contracts relating to small situations that would make sense, but for a piece of writing that is meant to apply to a whole country written by a few old men centuries ago is that really the most prudent choice?
We know so much more than they did -- e.g. science now tells us that we can actually quantify pain (both physical and emotional) with remarkable accuracy [1]. With the understanding and new knowledge that has become available in recent time it's likely that the founders would have had a totally different take on things, so I see slow and small nitpicky rectifications on minor points to be misguided in numerous respects since for all one knows founders' approach to several issues would have been altogether different if they had access to the abundant new findings and data that has only become available recently.
I'll give you an example: before I started getting into John Rawls writings, some contemporary philosophy (a lot of Sam Harris stuff), some writings on determinism, I was a libertarian. It was my access to new knowledge that informed my world view with a new and more scientifically rigorous take on things.
I had a longer reply, but somehow I don't think you're listening if the New Yorker is hyperliberal. Obviously solitary is not unusual, the questions are whether it's cruel, and whether it prevents recidivism and enables employment upon release.
> somehow I don't think you're listening if the New Yorker is hyperliberal.
I didn't say the New Yorker is hyperliberal. I said that the idea that solitary confinement is torture is hyperliberal (literally, "more liberal" than the liberal mainstream viewpoint).
> and whether it prevents recidivism and enables employment upon release.
That's absolutely irrelevant to Constitutionality. Something can be a stupid, ineffective, policy and yet be Constitutional.
> I didn't say the New Yorker is hyperliberal. I said that the idea that solitary confinement is torture is hyperliberal
Your exact words were, "only a tiny minority of hyperliberals would consider to be true". Since I had linked to the New Yorker which explores the issue in depth and gives significant credence to the idea, your aspersion quite apparently included the New Yorker. To say that it didn't is either revisionist, or you weren't clear with what you originally wrote. The New Yorker is a mainstream liberal publication.
> That's absolutely irrelevant to Constitutionality.
Agreed, but you also ignored the question about cruelty. I brought up those other points to make it clear that I'm not hyperliberal, not even necessarily liberal. I think it's good for our economy if ex-cons are able to work.
I believe the New Yorker and J. Law & Policy articles make a strong case for cruelty.
That said, solitary confinement over long periods of time is definitely torture. There's a stronger psychological component to this form of torture, and it often causes irreparable psychological damage as has been the case for several individuals who were subject to solitary confinement.
Why are you talking about Guantanamo, but linking to a picture from Abu Ghraib, while linking to a post where I clearly point out that when I talk about Guantanamo, I'm not talking about Abu Ghraib?
>this happened under a legal theory that would not apply in Snowden's case
how can he be sure that there isn't other legal theory secretly approved by secret court that would allow to subject him to simulated death (or something even more devilish) without leaving any evidence on his body? After all Snowden had security clearance, had friends in these agencies, heard stories, so he do knows better what is waiting for him...
>(it is impossible to consider him an enemy combatant)
why? isn't it is just an at-will designation by the executive branch without any roots in domestic or international law? And even if not enemy combatant, "enemy of the US" or "enemy of freedom" would work fine as well and would qualify him for "enhanced interrogation techniques 2.0 freedom deluxe edition" (nice movie "Dictator" btw)
> how can he be sure that there isn't other legal theory secretly approved by secret court that would allow to subject him to simulated death (or something even more devilish) without leaving any evidence on his body?
Because there is no such "secret court?" As a civilian Snowden cannot be tried in a military tribunal, and the only "secret court" that exists is FISC which is only empowered to grant warrants.
As a practical matter, people a lot more disliked by the state than Edward Snowden get tried in regular U.S. District Courts.
i don't say that these words didn't exist before. If you read the link you submitted, the first 2 paragraphs clearly state that "enemy combatant" notion used in the US after 9/11 is different from typical meaning of enemy combatant that existed before.
The "enemy combatant" as it is used in the US means people in the US custody who is outside of the US jurisdiction and have at the will of the executive branch been denied Geneva convention (which covers _everybody_, not just uniformed combatants - everybody else is also entitled to protected POW status until put into domestic justice system of the country possessing the custody)
Such "enemy combatant" notion don't have basis in the US law as well as in international law.
"...an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
Likewise, from the very same two paragraphs you reference you would find that the Bush-definition of enemy combatant describes an "unlawful combatant" who has no right to POW status under Geneva or the LOAC.
That doesn't mean that such civilian combatants have no rights whatsoever, but they are far limited compared to what Geneva provides for uniformed forces, and there is indeed precedent in international (and U.S.) law. For instance, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld was argued to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, which ruled (among other things) "... repudiating the U.S. government's unilateral assertion of executive authority to suspend the constitutional protections of individual liberty of a U.S. citizen. The Court recognized the power of the government to detain unlawful combatants, but ruled that detainees must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge.". Congress tried to clarify in 2006 with the "Military Commissions Act of 2006" which does indeed contain a definition of an unlawful enemy combatant (one not reliant solely on the will of the executive). Likewise, several Supreme Court rulings have further eroded the position taken by Bush regarding the legal rights afforded to unlawful combatants held in Gitmo and other places.
And going back to the subject here (of whether the executive can unilaterally declare Snowden to be an 'enemy combatant' and send him to Gitmo): "On 18 December 2003, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the Bush Administration lacked the authority to detain a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil as an "illegal enemy combatant" without clear congressional authorization (per 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)); it consequently ordered the government to release Padilla from military custody within thirty days." (Padilla was a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil).
But, that case ended up being thrown out on a technicality. When it was re-argued in the right court, they "ordered the Bush administration to either charge Padilla or release him.". They relied for that ruling on the Supreme Court ruling I'd just mentioned.
So no, Snowden should be perfectly safe from treatment as any kind of weird unlawful combatant should he return. In fact the term 'enemy combatant' was dropped in 2009 coincident to a certain regime change in the U.S.
>Likewise, from the very same two paragraphs you reference you would find that the Bush-definition of enemy combatant describes an "unlawful combatant" who has no right to POW status under Geneva or the LOAC.
no. Under Geneva, "unlawful combatants", like everybody else, are to be treated like protected POW until transferred to criminal or military justice system (lawful combatants are protected from such transfer). The "enemy combatant" status in the US is "unlawful combatant to whom both are intentionally and systematically denied - transfer to criminal or military justice system as well as POW status". That isn't "unlawful combatant" of Geneva, it is a violation of Geneva.
>they "ordered the Bush administration to either charge Padilla or release him.".
exactly.
> In fact the term 'enemy combatant' was dropped in 2009 coincident to a certain regime change in the U.S.
words change. People are still being held in Gitmo in violation of Geneva.
woowwwwowoww... now the wording is very critical, the real deal is other way around - they have used torture techniques that (too) many people would consider interrogation.
And even with that in mind, there's no actual right of the government to 'torture' military servicemembers accused of crimes either.
For that reason once the trial judge determined that Manning should not have been held under Prevention of Injury Status after the psychiatrist deemed that he was not actually a suicide risk, she ended up reducing whatever his eventual sentence happens to be due to the fault of the military in that case.
Mind, he's still kind of stupid for 'joking' about killing himself with his soldier/Marine guards (who are not trained psychiatrists and are therefore trained to take no chances).
But even Manning being in the military wouldn't completely excuse his treatment in his first stages of pre-trial confinement.
> You've got to see the irony in taking asylum in a country where the kinds of spying he blew the whistle on in the first place are brazenly displayed on public television
Screw irony. It seems people stop thinking when they find irony in a situation.
Does Snowden have better options? No. So he has no choice but accepting asylum in a non-free country, no matter how ironic it might result.
It's not the same thing. Venezuela underwent serious internal conflict, and has to constantly fight US sponsored propaganda and activism. As disrespectful as it seems, the state of Venezuela has a perfectly good reason to spy on international phone conversation between two people who would like to overthrow the regime, and who US cheers on to do so, hoping gain more influence. It doesn't mean that the state of Venezuela spies on all of its citizens.
I upvoted you, but understand that people are thinking with their gut (Stephen Colbert "Truthiness"-style) on this issue. We as a community seem to be embracing "no surveillance ever" over "spy on our enemies". I'm not sure I can disagree with it, but it's definitely not for the most noble/informed reasons.
I see a large difference in not biting the hand that feeds you and labeling that country as "stand[ing] against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless".
It turns his crusade from one which is anti-pervasive-surveillance to anti-US-government.
He specifically refer to his single case, not the whole history of human rights of those nations.
"It has threatened with sanctions countries who would stand up for my human rights and the UN asylum system. It has even taken the unprecedented step of ordering military allies to ground a Latin American president’s plane in search for a political refugee. These dangerous escalations represent a threat not just to the dignity of Latin America, but to the basic rights shared by every person, every nation, to live free from persecution, and to seek and enjoy asylum.
Yet even in the face of this historically disproportionate aggression, countries around the world have offered support and asylum. These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless."
In this case they /are/ standing against this particular human rights violation.
Part of the whole point is that known human rights violators and authoritarian governments are acting better than the US on this, the supposed bastion of freedom and democracy in the world.
His crusade from the beginning has been anti-surveillance in the US. Nobody doubts that Russia and China are doing the same---it's simply what's expected (unfortunately). From the beginning, his stated goal was simply to end this practice in America.
As for his first statement, I simply don't read too much into it. My only take-away was "thanks for not turning me over". He's an expert on how the NSA is conducting surveillance---not on which countries are authorities on human rights.
His crusade from the beginning has been anti-surveillance
in the US.
Yup. What a lot of people in the US Government forget is that a lot of other countries look to us for guidance for what is and is not acceptable. Now every country in the world that was previously criticized for building a surveillance state can now point at the US and say "Why does it matter what I'm doing, they are already doing it and doing so on a much greater scale". Is that really the legacy this country wants to have?
> From the beginning, his stated goal was simply to end this
practice in America.
I don't think this was true, otherwise I would feel unconditional support for him. He has released leaks about US spying on external targets and aims to flee to countries which have very poor relationships with the US. This muddies the waters considerably. Personally I think it weakens his message, and this disappoints me.
> He has released leaks about US spying on external targets and aims to flee to countries which have very poor relationships with the US
I see what you mean, but I guess this is a personal opinion. I personally think it has had a positive net effect. Specifically, prior to this, hawks in the US were beating war drums after the news about Chinese cyberattacks. I feel they've gone silent lately.
America has also always sat on the morality high-horse. I love this country, but it's still always fun to see the big guy get taken down a peg.
I would rather he come home so that he can undergo the normal civilian legal process he claims to want involved in the law enforcement activities the U.S. government seeks to undertake.
I don't want that. I want him to continue leaking this information. From all accounts, this is the tip of the iceberg we've heard so far. Snowden might have no intention of telling us about the extent of everything, but I at least want to hear everything unfold. The US court systems are not a place to get justice and enlighten the public. They're a place to pay huge legal fees to hopefully not end up dead or in a cell, especially in a case such as Sowdens'. One of his main goals for leaking all this is that the public had no idea of our laws because they were created in secret courts. He's supposed to now trust lady justice to reveal the truth?
> I want him to continue leaking this information.
Hasn't he repeatedly said that it's already all leaked? His friends on the outside would be able to hold the threat of that against the U.S. government, especially if he were mistreated in prison.
> One of his main goals for leaking all this is that the public had no idea of our laws because they were created in secret courts.
The public may have no idea of the laws, but it's not because they come from secret courts. The law itself has given the executive the power being used here. Metadata collection itself is legal (for decades), and so is collection of foreign surveillance (again, for decades).
The only difference now is that the extra controls added to the modern equivalents of ECHELON, Carnivore, etc. have convinced the FISC that they comply with the public law where previous versions did not, but the FISC did not create any law by themselves.
I think you far overestimate the give-a-shit of the public at large to things like this. The public is accustomed from years of wiretaps, pen registers, cell phone tower searches, TV shows, subpoenas, and the fact that the NSA and CIA have existed for and been doing stuff like this for decades into assuming that there is some way for government investigators to get their hands on exactly this kind of data.
Just look at the arraignment for Aaron Hernandez. Why should people be shocked that the government can get your Facebook likes given what they were able to find about the murder of Lloyd within only a week.
At this point Snowden is only hurting his cause by making the story about himself and not about how the government has surveillance ability that is different in scale, if not actually in kind. The longer he drifts in with organizations that the public you're referring to feel are threats and enemies, the less likely it is that the same public will trust the message he's trying to convey.
Do you want him to do that before he has completed leaking all the information the American electorate needs to be an informed body politic, or after he has completed the leaks and provided American citizens all of the information he believes they need to know before he is potentially forever silenced?
He said it's already all leaked. After all, that's what Greenwald mentioned after Putin mentioned the requirement that Snowden knock it off when the topic of Russian asylum was first broached. The delay now is up to news outlets to maximize the news value, not Snowden himself.
Only two countries directly: Germany, which clearly has a superior human rights record than the U.S, and Brazil, which can certainly be argued to have a better record.
Edit: Perhaps "Ranking", or current policy is a better phrase than "Record", but in any case, the Nazis were a very long time ago, there aren't even that many WWII veterans alive anymore, much-less in power.
"Germany, which clearly has a superior human rights record than the U.S"
I think I just pissed my pants. Pardon my rudeness, but West Germany was forced to improve their human rights record by imposition from the Allied countries. East Germany continued to have a crap HR record.
Only in the recent record does Germany have a solid HR stance.
Getting older often involves forgetting to update the age at which people would not have experienced things directly. Of course, it makes sense when those people are 15-18, but...jeez.
It turns his crusade from one which is
anti-pervasive-surveillance to anti-US-government.
... but pro US-Constitution and pro-human-rights.
Unfortunately, the US has not been through enough governments for most citizens to discern the government and a nation of people. In countries, where the regime in charge has changed several times, the citizens are far more keenly aware that a government only represents the interests of the people, when the interests of the people are also the interests of those in power in the government.
> However, this alone is never a valid reason to discount their criticisms of US actions.
No, but it's a valid reason to discount Snowden's positive characterization of those criticisms. It can be the case that both things are true: 1) Russia is correct in criticizing American action, regardless of its own actions; 2) Snowden is wrong to chalk it up to Russia's "standing up against the abuse of the powerless" instead of political grandstanding and deflection.
I never said that it does. I was responding to this line in the parent comment:
"I know you're referring to Snowden's inclusion of Russia on that list, but in this case, they (and maybe China) are the only ones who can stand up against America. Clearly Ecuador fell with a single phone call."
You're implying US is a better country when it comes to human rights, but I don't see US defending his human rights. In fact, it's breaking many international laws trying to get him.
Also, I have to wonder what would've happened if there was any other weaker Russian president in place. I never liked Putin, but seeing how so many "democratic" countries were so quick to follow US' commands, and break international laws for US, just sickened me.
There's a difference between a partner and an ally, and a master. You can still stand up to your allies or partners at any time, if you disagree with their actions.
I don't think anyone ever coded gunboat diplomacy into law.
(You seem obsessed with laws, as if they possess value and worth in and of themselves, when really they are a very high latency sidechannel of society and power)
It's political opportunism in this case, there was neither an upside nor a downside to capitulating with US demands, but Putin could at least make the US look like inept hypocrites. Of all the human rights abuses that occur in Russia how can you think that Putin decided this was one that needed to be held to a higher standard?
Why would anyone be bothered? I believe this whole ordeal has shown no western country takes human rights seriously. We've known for a good while about Guantanamo, shady extraditions (from US allies), Israel's complete disregard for basic human rights on the West Bank... This isn't just western countries though, no country whatsoever seems to care about human rights unless it gives them a political edge.
What Russia is doing with their anti-gay laws for example, is similar to what western countries have done to privacy, all in the name of an abstract idea like terrorism/protect the children/drugs.
Just because Snowden is against human rights violations it does not make him exempt of having to dance with the devil. Being a complete rebel, even in a world where it's obviously ruled by fake morals, is not a wise thing to do, specially when your life is at stake.
I believe this whole ordeal has shown no western country takes human rights seriously.
Spot on. Given this situation, as some of the still relatively empowered, IMHO we in the technology community therefore have a moral obligation to do what we can to support any potential remedies to the situation.
Funny: when I read the article, it struck me that a person seeking asylum elsewhere for revealing secret spying by his country, then being hunted by his country as a criminal sounds like something you would hear from some totalitarian country (yes, even Russia), but not America.
I guess I am more concerned about what's happening to our country now than with litigating the human rights history of tangentially involved nations.
I agree. I am personally very supportive of what Snowden has done and I want him to remain free (the torture that has been inflicted on Bradley Manning is totally unconscionable). But at the same time, I do recognize that there is always danger in playing realpolitik ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend", in this case), at any level.
I am more bothered no European country stood up to offer him asylum. Granted its laughable to think the US would be safe haven for someone from the EU, but it needs to start somewhere.
As I posted before, dreamers of one world government only need to see what is happening to here to understand the folly of that ideal.
No single European country can risk starting a conflict with the US and the European Union as a whole is not yet homogeneous enough to take this kind of decisions. Delaying the trade agreement was pretty much the extent of what it can do right now.
It sounds like they're getting to him already. He's the next Philip Agee and the US government couldn't be happier about that. You say you're against warrantless domestic spying? You must be a commie traitor!
The only way Snowden can win now is to come home and let himself become a martyr.
"The only way Snowden can win now is to come home and let himself become a martyr."
Even then, I'm not sure he "wins". People have a very, very short attention span. He'd be forgotten before the sentencing was handed down, most likely. From a legal point of view, the case is pretty simple: did you release documents you swore not to release? Yes? Penalty is X years in prison. I don't see much martyrdom there. He won't be killed, he won't be tortured (he may be in solitary, which may be for his own safety more than anything else, whether he's a suicide risk or at risk of being murdered in prison -- just my opinion), so there isn't much to be get all that enraged about (beyond what he's already leaked).
The time would probably be taken to put together some evidence, figure out exactly what was leaked, and how. I'm sure there are many, many things he'd get charged with, so there's a lot of research to get done, and since it's sensitive information, there needs to be a lot of care taken to figure out what was accessed and just as importantly what wasn't accessed.
By then, Kim Kardashian will be working on a divorce or another baby ("South", anyone?), Aaron Hernandez will be up for appeal or something and the public won't will care much about this.
"Solitary confinement is considered to be a form of psychological torture when the period of confinement is longer than a few weeks or is continued indefinitely. Negative psychological effects have been documented, leading one judge in a 2001 suit to rule that 'Solitary confinement units are virtual incubators of psychoses—seeding illness in otherwise healthy inmates and exacerbating illness in those already suffering from mental infirmities.'"
There's no evidence that solitary confinement is being actually used to prevent suicide/harm in these political cases, and a great deal of evidence that it is simply punitive. For Manning, the prison psychiatrist repeatedly stated he was at no risk of suicide and tried, unsuccessfully, to have him taken off the naked sleep deprivation routine that he was on.
Prisoners commit suicide all the time; the wardens keep stats so they can brag about how hideous they are. That's been true everywhere, forever. The innovation we've seen in the USA with solitary confinement, which is intended to break those who effectively oppose prison management when placed in the general population, is that the tax-paying public is actually dumb enough to believe it's about preventing suicides. If one really cared to prevent the myriad of societal pathologies that stem from our shameful prison system, the best way to do that would be to release those whose imprisonment causes those problems.
"Americans have a short attention span, care more about Kim Kardashian's baby than their liberty" Isn't going to be an effective argument with patriotic Americans.
Chemical lobotomy is always an option, somewhere in jail something happens - no one would know for sure. He wouldn't speak against the corrupt and perverted establishment and he wouldn't die.
I think it is better option to be pain in the ass and be always there like a sore spot distracting the government.
Playing the martyr card hasn't worked for Manning. The US general public still doesn't care. Snowden would be sacrificing himself for literally nothing. The best thing he can do is keep all this in the news as long as possible.
Yeah this is how one actually participates in the public discourse, when one's opponents operate from cozy sinecures of secrecy and corruption. It's different than what we "learned" in junior high civics class, which assumed that "good people" exist, and that they naturally rise to positions of authority in a secret bureaucracy.
Manning was not a good candidate for martyrdom anyways. His case had obvious ulterior motives, he didn't turn himself in (but did brag about it), made the barest of attempts to go to the media, leaked way, way more than was necessary, what he did leak wasn't even as bad as things like Abu Ghraib or the Mahmudiyah rape/killings in Iraq (which came out via normal whistleblower channels, btw), leaked things in a way to put Afghani informants and sympathizers at bodily risk, I could probably go on.
I mean, there's a reason Snowden sought to differentiate his methods from Manning's, even if he had the same overall goal.
I think he's 'siding' with anyone that will let him rent an apartment and live like a human being. I'm sure he'd prefer France, but they need to offer and he needs to get out of Russia.
Since he has taken the US to task, it looks like anywhere in the 'liberal West' will probably just lob him back to the US to face whatever the authorities can cook up for him. His point isn't any less valid because he wants to avoid that.
The liberal West where laws are enforced by teams of soldiers that conduct armed invasions of civilian homes, threatening bystander's lives, killing their pets, destroying property, and never being held accountable for any of it? The US may be better than Russia when it comes to human rights, but that is not really a strong statement.
Snowden has sided with the West. If the government were never embarrassed by its bad behavior, we would keep losing our rights until eventually there was nothing left but tyranny hiding behind a constitutional facade. It would not help anyone for Snowden to return to the USA at this point. He will never have access to classified information again, and in all likelihood he would find himself in solitary confinement until the end of his life.
Is there a country in the liberal West that has offered him asylum? If not, how are they "the least of evils", since they will hand him over to the U.S. to be tortured?
Situational democracy. Democracy that is more democratic for select few and rest have to suffer injustices and rights transgressions of quasi-orwellian - in Russia and US. Somewhat like equality of proletariat - where some are more equal than others.
As a Russian, this statement really rustled my jimmies. I hope US catches Snowden, and he rots in prison for the rest of his life. Though he still would be better off than Magnitsky.
As a Russian, I'm proud of good things my government does (including Snowden's case) and ashamed of bad things it does (those things are offtopic in this discussion though).
Are you serious? You think it would set a good precedent that the guy who blew the whistle on the world wide spying going on ends up rotting in jail? That helps us how exactly?
As a Russian you would understand that the price Russians would charge for not handing Snowden's ass to Americans would be high. "Either praise our human rights or go for a fair trial without prolonged pre-trial unusual and cruel punishment" - an offer one can hardly refuse.
Are people really not bothered at the irony in this sentence? Russia, as a country that stands against abuse of the powerless by the powerful?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/world/europe/russian-court...
If the posthumous prosecution of Sergei L. Magnitsky, the lawyer who was jailed as he tried to expose a huge government tax fraud and died four years ago in a Russian prison after being denied proper medical care, seemed surreal from the moment the authorities announced it, the verdict and sentencing on Thursday did not disappoint.
By all accounts, it was Russia’s first trial of a dead man, and in the tiny third-floor courtroom of the Tverskoi District Court, it took the judge, Igor B. Alisov, more than an hour and a half to read his decision pronouncing Mr. Magnitsky guilty of tax evasion.
It doesn't matter if it is hypocritical of an American like me to point this out, when it goes on in my country/government as well - but I find it willfully ignorant to label the Russian government as a defender of human rights like this.
edit: here is some more reading on Russia and this topic: http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/04/24/russia-worst-human-rights...