Edward Snowden Files For Political Asylum In Russia

vikingpower writes "The official Russian Press agency Interfax has the scoop: Edward Snowden asks for political asylum in Russia (Google Translate). Russia Today, however, denies the news. Is this part of a clever disinformation move by Snowden, who reportedly is still in the Moscow airport Sheremetyevo 2?" The Washington Post is also reporting Snowden did apply for asylum in Russia. Snowden released a statement last night through Wikileaks, quoting: "For decades the United States of America has been one of the strongest defenders of the human right to seek asylum. Sadly, this right, laid out and voted for by the U.S. in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is now being rejected by the current government of my country. The Obama administration has now adopted the strategy of using citizenship as a weapon. Although I am convicted of nothing, it has unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me a stateless person. Without any judicial order, the administration now seeks to stop me exercising a basic right. A right that belongs to everybody. The right to seek asylum."

Comments

We have met the enemy

[rockout]

and he is us.

Re:We have met the enemy

[cold fjord]

I think you'll have to be a bit more specific than that.

Re:We have met the enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

Heheh
 
Time to come on home, boy, we got ya...
 
Don't worry, I nice room at the ADX supermax awaits. The next 50 years of your existence: 23 hours a day locked up, in a poured concrete cell, sleeping on a poured concrete bed, pissing in a poured concrete toilet, with a 4 inch wide window that you can only see the sky out of.
  hope it was worth it..

Re:We have met the enemy

[rockout]

Sure. I was born in an Eastern-bloc country (not Russia) and my dad took my mom and I out of there before I was 2. All I heard growing up was how America was the land of the free, and the evil Russians were holding down my cousins back in the homeland, and all of that was true. They were the enemy. They were opening the mail going back and forth between us and our relatives (literally - you could see it when the letters arrived, at both ends) and they were keeping more of them from leaving and joining us in the US, although some more did make it over.

Now we're the ones opening the mail of our own citizens. So what if it's electronic? Then you have one guy who made public a lot of the details of how the US government is spying on its own citizens, (and I'm glad he did it although I feel sorry for him because he's getting fucked) and he's being punished by the current gov't bringing the full weight of diplomatic pressure to make sure he can't get anywhere, even as they lie through their teeth and claim there's nothing special about his case and no backdoor dealing is being done to get "some hacker."

For me, it doesn't get any more backwards from what I grew up with.

Re:We have met the enemy

[vikingpower]

The quality of comments on Slashdot is going up again, for the first time since years. This is a comment that could come straight from cult literature, or could - alternatively - go straight into history. I hope I may use and disperse this comment.

Re:We have met the enemy

[__aaltlg1547]

Then you have one guy who made public a lot of the details of how the US government is spying on its own citizens, (and I'm glad he did it although I feel sorry for him because he's getting fucked) and he's being punished by the current gov't bringing the full weight of diplomatic pressure to make sure he can't get anywhere, even as they lie through their teeth and claim there's nothing special about his case and no backdoor dealing is being done to get "some hacker."

There is "nothing special" about how they're treating him compared to other international fugitives. If you're on the run from your government, they're going to revoke your passport to make it harder for you to travel. Grow up already. In the real world, that's what governments do when trying to get their hands on fugitives.

The hard thing for me to believe is how stupid he's being. Flee America which has become too oppressive and seek asylum in RUSSIA? He's in Russia and complaining about how intrusive American government can be? It beggars the imagination.

OK, that's not the only thing that's hard to believe. I also have trouble believing the NSA and Booz Allen Hamilton thought a computer security guy in Hawaii needed secret documents about the bugging of embassies and other intelligence operations he had nothing to do with. In short, the utter incompetence of the NSA and its contractors about keeping secrets seems to have gone completely missing.

Re:We have met the enemy

[Somebody Is Using My]

Don't worry, I nice room at the ADX supermax awaits. The next 50 years of your existence: 23 hours a day locked up, in a poured concrete cell, sleeping on a poured concrete bed, pissing in a poured concrete toilet, with a 4 inch wide window that you can only see the sky out of.
    hope it was worth it..

If life imprisonment is ultimately Snowden's fate, then it's up to /us/ to make sure his sacrifice is "worth it" by holding the criminals
that his disclosures forced into the light accountable for their crimes. We need to get the politicians, cops, bureaucrats and any others who supported these blatantly un-Constitutional activities out of their positions of power and replaced by people who actually follow the laws and ideals of this country.

So, given Snowden is likely to have sacrificed his freedom for us, I too hope it was worth it. We have an opportunity to squish the roaches underfoot before they scuttle out of the light. Let's make the best of it.

Re:We have met the enemy

[RoknrolZombie]

In a Nation of apathetic (or just pathetic) slackers, good luck with that. Don't get me wrong - I agree with you that the end result of Snowdens release(s) is ultimately what the public decides...but remember: We are the fattest, laziest, and dumbest people on the planet. Do you know why more people don't stand up to the Government? It's because the public doesn't give two shits about what the Government does as long as the Simpsons stay on the air. They aren't even aware enough to realize that the television shows are managed by a completely different department.

Re:We have met the enemy

[arth1]

If life imprisonment is ultimately Snowden's fate, then it's up to /us/ to make sure his sacrifice is "worth it" by holding the criminals
that his disclosures forced into the light accountable for their crimes. We need to get the politicians, cops, bureaucrats and any others who supported these blatantly un-Constitutional activities out of their positions of power and replaced by people who actually follow the laws and ideals of this country.

Unfortunately, the American people are binary thinkers by nature. En masse, we lack the mental capacity to think other than black and white, and will conclude that if it's proven that Snowden did anything bad, that proves that the government was good.

Re:We have met the enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

The hard thing for me to believe is how stupid he's being. Flee America which has become too oppressive and seek asylum in RUSSIA? He's in Russia and complaining about how intrusive American government can be? It beggars the imagination.

Seriously, he felt that China wasn't far enough away from the US. Why does Russia surprise you?

Re:We have met the enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

Over here in ex-Soviet Estonia, your government cannot revoke your travel documents unless you've suddenly become certifiably dead, or the information therein has suddenly become false. Neither of which is to be excluded without consideration, but a passport can't be revoked because you've become fugitive.

Re:We have met the enemy

[Empiric]

OK, that's not the only thing that's hard to believe. I also have trouble believing the NSA and Booz Allen Hamilton thought a computer security guy in Hawaii needed secret documents about the bugging of embassies and other intelligence operations he had nothing to do with. In short, the utter incompetence of the NSA and its contractors about keeping secrets seems to have gone completely missing.

My guess would be it was a case of bypassing the established security procedures (one could at least hope there were such in place) purely for questions of convenience. It would hardly be the first time in my experience that after a few rounds between Management and Dev/IT of "I can't complete Task X you've given me until I get Access Y enabled from Group Z" that the blanket directive is made to give Group N access to everything that could possibly be needed going-forward.

Not that it excuses it, but this is probably a case of the malice-versus-incompetence question being driven by "getting the work done quickly" as the rather banal overriding factor.

Re:We have met the enemy

[gsgriffin]

I think you are being suckered by the media slant on reporting.

The US has and still does provide asylum for political reasons. What that means is that if a person is standing up or being accused of something that is POLITICAL in nature in a country (NOT A LEGAL ISSUE), then they can seek asylum. If the legal issue is also political, then there is cause.

In this case, it is similar to any other crime of State where someone has done something, admitted to it, and needs to be brought to justice. If someone raped, stole, caused harm or broke another law in our country (especially if it is high profile), they will receive the same treatment as Snowden. If someone does something illegal (and not political) in another country, we will gladly send them back. We don't need more illegals or law breakers in our country. Have enough already.

Re:We have met the enemy

[syntaxterror7]

Sorry they took his passport, has not even been charged with a crime yet. But nothing special...

Re:We have met the enemy

[Creepy]

No, he was worried because the semi-autonomous island Hong Kong has an extradition policy with the US. Russia was meant to be an intermediary location to get to South America, probably through Cuba because you can get a direct flight. There are few direct flights to South America from Asia and most of those go to US friendly countries.

Incidentally, he probably was safe in Hong Kong due to the US's blunder of charging him with espionage (thus making it a political crime). If they'd simply charged him with theft, got him extradited, and then dumped death penalty espionage charges he'd be at the end of a noose already, right where Obama and co want him so they can keep their super secret illegal spy ring going. If you don't think this is all about keeping the NSA spying going and sweeping Snowden's body under the rug, remember that Cheney and Armitage did the exact same thing exposing Plume and there certainly weren't any espionage charges filed for that.

Re:We have met the enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's be honest: Snowden's fate is much more probably a firing squad than a prison cell.

Re:We have met the enemy

[0111 1110]

Can you give an example of a political crime that is not also a legal one? In Cuba, you can be arrested for criticizing the government. In Cuba doing that is a serious crime. Just because it is not a crime, to you, does not mean it is not a crime. In Cuba it is. From Cuba's POV if you do that you are a criminal.

Clearly you are of the opinion that leaking information that your government is doing stuff that many people believe it should not be doing is not a freedom of speech issue. I believe it most definitely is a freedom of speech issue and not a real crime and clearly so do many other people. So, yes, I believe it is 100% purely a political issue because what he has done should not be a crime. I agree that it is a crime in our country, but that is only because, like Cuba, we live under a repressive regime which routinely violates human rights.

Re:We have met the enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you're on the run from your government, they're going to revoke your passport to make it harder for you to travel."

Wrong, he is still a suspect in the eyes of the law as he has not been convicted. There is no legal basis to withdraw his travel docs yet. I am not sure when they did it but if they did it before the extradition hearing I am not surprised that HK gave them the finger. Why does the US always go so far out of its way to insult those that it seeks help from?

Re:We have met the enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

Some nice men in dark suits will be visiting you at 05:30 tomorrow to discus the best way to continue your education and how you may be able to provide a more constructive role in society.

Re:We have met the enemy

[Motard]

He was charged on June 14th.

Re:We have met the enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

After you said "grow up" I stopped reading and decided you need to go back to your parent's basement where you can be the "adult" of your kingdom.

Re:We have met the enemy

[Motard]

He's not being sought for anything regarding anything of his his own expression, so it's not about freedom of speech.

Specifically, he engaged "in unauthorized communication of national defense information and willful communication of classified communications intelligence information.

In addition to those charges, both brought under the Espionage Act, the government charged Snowden with theft of government property."

I don't know why he didn't just resign his position and then give an interview to a reporter to make his claims.

Ah, but no one would believe him without the leaks, right?

Well, his most troubling claim (to me) is that he could listen in on anyone's phone calls - including the president's. Yet, I'm not hearing anything from the leaks that actually supports this.

Re:We have met the enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

The hard thing for me to believe is how stupid he's being. Flee America which has become too oppressive and seek asylum in RUSSIA? He's in Russia and complaining about how intrusive American government can be? It beggars the imagination.

My jaw just hit the floor. How could you possibly believe that Snowden is fleeing in order to live in a society that is freer than where he came from? He is fleeing in order to evade retribution from the US government - in that respect, the only thing that matters is whether the country in question can stand up to US pressure and Russia seems like a perfectly reasonable candidate for that. His original actions were to make the world a freer place for everyone else, not himself. He's not saying that Russia is freer than the US, he's saying that the US wants to hurt him and Russia might be a useful shield. He was fighting for your freedoms, not his own.

Re:We have met the enemy

[fredrated]

Don't forget we are the most lied-to, propogandized and manipulated people on the planet. It will take some doing to get past that.

Re:We have met the enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

About 20 years ago, my father joined a pro civil liberties group that did FOIA requests for records on all of its members. Turns out my father had an FBI file. It contained the letters he wrote home to family (innocuous, "How is Susy doing?" type stuff) when serving, for the US, in WWII.

I heard a talk by a man born in the Soviet Union, and living in the US for the last few decades. He said, "everything the US said about the Soviet Union was true. And, everything the Soviet Union said about the US was true. But, nothing they said about themselves was true."

Re:We have met the enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to imply that it is the public duty to get outraged and protest and upend the government about anything you perceive as wrong. Why is privacy so important to begin with? Why should we all be getting up in arms over it? For all the comparisons to communist Russia and the Third Reich that people make over it, for all the screaming that we're turning into a fascist dictatorship, I've yet to see an instance of the common man being oppressed by the government. The government's voyeurism is creepy at worst. It is transparent to us, it does not affect our lives in any substantial way, so why should we care about it? Because it's "a slippery slope" to worse things? Nonsense. There's a reason that's a fallacy; if these "worse things" start happening, then we should absolutely protest them. But getting up in arms about something that really has no discernible impact on the daily lives of 99.9% of US citizens is silly. We're not going to topple our government, which, while far from perfect, does a pretty good job of maintaining order and protecting those three human rights upon which we were founded: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Re:We have met the enemy

[gsgriffin]

The whole idea that governments must expose everything they do all the time and never have any secrets is stupid! The whole altruistic concept that man is basically good is rubbish. The thought that the world will be a better place if some government are laid naked before the world while others will also work in private is foolishness.

Each person that comes to the US and claims political asylum must prove it. Many come, make the claim, and are rejected and returned. It is complicated, but political differences that are also illegal in a country may allow asylum...like not agreeing with the only party in the country and the threat of being killed if returned...not just imprisoned. Many countries do that for simply disagreeing with a policy...not doing something to actually undermine a country. Many people around the world flee their country, because they made a public statement that they don't like the way things are done. Yes, that can be illegal in a country, but it is NOT the same as treason, espionage, or telling secrets from a government when the person has signed a commitment to not discuss these secrets.

Saying you don't like things in your country. That is OK. Stealing secrets and undermining the country. Not OK. The real interesting thought here is if you are willing to have any of your family members killed by a terrorist in the US because they missed some communication. You may be willing just to know that there are not any phones tapped. I'm personally OK with it. Nothing said on my phone or surfed on my internet matters to anyone. Nothing to see or hear...they move on....and none of my family members have been killed by terrorists in this country. Wonder if they had this phone tap in place if the Twin Towers might still be standing today?

Re:We have met the enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that title goes to the North Koreans. We are lied to, propagandized and manipulated, but to nowhere near the extent that they are.

Re:We have met the enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

He's in Russia and complaining about how intrusive American government can be? It beggars the imagination.

It's amazing how much the world has changed, isn't it?

Re:We have met the enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

So I'm curious, how does it feel to be not only a criminal to the world, but a traitor to your country?

I sure hope you get what's coming to you, a tortured death that all traitors like you deserve.

Re:We have met the enemy

[Time_Ngler]

I also have trouble believing the NSA and Booz Allen Hamilton thought a computer security guy in Hawaii needed secret documents about the bugging of embassies and other intelligence operations he had nothing to do with. In short, the utter incompetence of the NSA and its contractors about keeping secrets seems to have gone completely missing.

That's because he probably wasn't a computer security guy, but rather an "infrastructure analyst". A person tasked to find ways to infiltrate and cause harm to foreign networks in preparation for a cyber war: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/07/nyt-snowden-was-hacker-nsa

Re:We have met the enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing to keep in mind though is that it is a violation of the extradition treaty to charge someone with charges other then those filed in the extradition request. You can't extradite someone for shoplifting then charge them with murder one unless they committed the murder after being extradited.

Re:We have met the enemy

[0111 1110]

He's not being sought for anything regarding anything of his his own expression, so it's not about freedom of speech.

I disagree with your interpretation of events. He is being sought for releasing information about some stuff that the government is doing. Communicating that information is a form of speech in our high tech world. It is that communication that is the crime in this case. Doing what he did is the only way to criticize the government when their activities are secret.

Specifically, he engaged "in unauthorized communication of national defense information and willful communication of classified communications intelligence information.

Emphasis mine.

In addition to those charges, both brought under the Espionage Act, the government charged Snowden with theft of government property."

Theft? Did he steal a government car or at least a USB drive? Oh. You mean he stole information? I disagree with the implication that information is something that can be 'stolen'. I do not believe information can be owned. So I don't believe information theft is a crime.

I don't know why he didn't just resign his position and then give an interview to a reporter to make his claims.

How would that have been different? His release of classified information would have still been a crime in this country.

Ah, but no one would believe him without the leaks, right?

No one would believe him about what? The "leaks" are the information that he wants people to know about.

Re:We have met the enemy

[0111 1110]

A democracy cannot function properly if the actions that its government takes are secret. In order for US citizens to stop its government from doing bad things, they must first know what those bad things are.

In this case our governmnent has embarked upon a worldwide surveillance program. You may approve of such a program, but not everyone does. What Snowden has done is open up these immoral, shameful activities so that the world can judge whether they are right or wrong and whether something should be done to stop them. At the very least people can take precautions and dump their gmail and yahoo email accounts and be far more careful with email encryption etc.

As far as government secrets in general I think it is permissable to keep such secrets during wartime or perhaps outside of wartime if we are likely to be at war with that country at some time in the near future, but that does not give them carte blanche to do whatever they want. If they are doing something very wrong I would hope that someone like Snowden would be willing to come out and let us know even if it means they have to remain in exile for the rest of their lives.

Re:We have met the enemy

[Motard]

Freedom of speech (expression) is the freedom to express yourself freely. It is not the freedom for me to publish your love letters to your girlfriend. Or your porn surfing habits. Or to distribute recordings of your most recent musical performance. These are things that, in our system of government, I do not own.

Snowden's actions, however, take this a step further. Not only did he release information that wasn't his, but information that he explicitly agreed not to reveal - under penalty of law. He would have had to do this in order to gain his security clearance, which surely was a benefit to his earnings.

Okay, so now you want to make the argument that information cannot be owned. Alright, under that view, the NSA has every right to whatever it can discover about you. And, for any purpose. What's your beef now?

You may have missed it, but Snowden is not the only ex-spook-type that has concerns. The difference, is that he's the only one stupid enough to commit a flagrant crime in doing it and winding up as a pawn of international politics. The others just talked to the press.

Re:We have met the enemy

[0111 1110]

Freedom of speech is the freedom to communicate freely. And yes it does mean the freedom to "publish" love letters if you had them lawfully. A letter is of course a physical thing that can be stolen. So I'm assuming that no laws. like breaking and entering, were broken to attain the information.

Porn "surfing"? I thought everyone downloaded porn from torrent sites like civilized folks. But, yes, if I happened to know your porn habits in a free society I could write about them.

Musical recordings have to do with copyright. That's a whole nother can of worms. It's a government granted monopoly for a period of time. It still doesn't mean you own the information and anyway copyright infringement is not what Snowden is being accused of. If that were the only charge he might well come back here to face them.

Your point that he agreed not to publish the information that he did just means he violated a contract. I guess the US government could sue him for breach of contract. Again, if the only charges he were facing upon return were copyright infringement and breach of contract he would probably return to face them.

Re:We have met the enemy

[datavirtue]

Wow, just wow. The twin towers comment was just plain dumb. The FBI and other agencies admittedly had knowledge of the hijackers and had full profiles on them--without tapping the phone of every American citizen. An FBI agent, who died in the twin towers, was worried about and had issued warnings of plots to attack the towers again. Yes, the towers had been attacked before--it was a well known target. The FBI was all over it--guess what? CIA agents have revealed that most of the information they get (while spying) is from "open sources"--newspapers, etc..

Re:We have met the enemy

[Motard]

You can't redefine 'Freedom of speech' according to your whims. If I give you a book of love poems I wrote, you can't take it upon yourself to reproduce it or sell it. The law protects me in this matter. And it's a good law. It protects authorship.

It's interesting that you turned the porn argument around. But you would agree that the NSA may, on the basis of information being free, reveal to the world, your apparent preoccupation with perkypenguins.com? Would you agree that the NSA's only fault is not sharing the information they get with the world?

Yup, Snowden violated a contract. A big one with severe penalties. Copyright would be another one if the congress took the completely reasonable step of extending copyright to classified government documents.

Re:We have met the enemy

[datavirtue]

The Simposons is off the air. Odd that you mention the Simpsons because it often contained references to many contradictory aspects of our society while parodying our low points and failures. I found it intellectually stimulating because I had to look up a lot of obscure references in the show--things which only people with a very broad education would know. But yeah, you could watch it and only extract low-brow humor as well. The show was genius.

Re:We have met the enemy

[datavirtue]

I wonder why that is?

Re:We have met the enemy

[arth1]

I think at least part of it is that this country was settled by religious nuts who neatly divided the world into good and evil. The binary thinking has persisted, and permeates most of American culture. There can only be two parties. There must always be an enemy. People are either criminals or law-abiding. You never win 2nd place, you lose 1st place. If two people fight, one must be a victim and the other a villain. If you're not wth us, you're against us.
It's all so easy when your world view is black and white.

Re:We have met the enemy

[rastos1]

There is "nothing special" about how they're treating him compared to other international fugitives.

True. Except he is fugitive from USA. That makes him special. Or can you point out dozens of such?

Re:We have met the enemy

[carolynblake]

We are Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden.

Re: We have met the enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, it's always wartime. The US had been at war every year since splitting from the British, excepting thirteen years scattered around within that period.

Re: We have met the enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

North Korea is way freer than the US. Beliefs to the contrary are a result of american propaganda.

Re: We have met the enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh. So none of the information gleaned through illegal wire-taps has any effect on actions? It's just gathered for the sake of it ?

Re:We have met the enemy

[__aaltlg1547]

Just realized I said that the utter incompetence of the NSA had gone missing. Clearly the incompetence has been found is on full and embarassing display.

Accept the consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

What you did and the possible punishment does not merit asylum. Stop whining.

Re: Accept the consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

Snooze Alarm.

Hit the button. Roll over.

Re:Accept the consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

That's weird, multiple international treaties disagree. They must be wrong huh?

Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

I never figured Russia was the sort of bastion of human rights and limited government such that its leaders would want to help a guy like Snowden.

Re:Russia?

[MrHanky]

It's not. But it's big and powerful, and would put up a fight if the U.S. tried to extract him. Most first world countries wouldn't even dare protest.

Re:Russia?

[jellomizer]

We make these crazy lines between good guys and bad guys, with government these lines do not exist every government is capable of great good and evil at the same time.

Russia really doesn't care much about what he did. But they like putting the US in a position that they will need to beg and bargain to them.

Snowden was stupid enough to blab about what he found, he could have probably functioned a lot better by slowly feeding the American Conspiracy ideal by saying. I have worked for the CIA, I cannot tell you the details but you all should be really scared about your privacy. He probably could have gotten much further.

Re:Russia?

[0111 1110]

Has it not occurred to you that he could have just remained anonymous? He could have leaked everything he has leaked and released who he had worked for. Just saying that the US is doing something bad that involves your privacy would have accomplished nothing.

Re:Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have worked for the CIA ... you all should be really scared about your privacy.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the last post of jellomizer ...

Re:Russia?

[DexterIsADog]

Snowden was stupid enough to blab about what he found, he could have probably functioned a lot better by slowly feeding the American Conspiracy ideal by saying. I have worked for the CIA, I cannot tell you the details but you all should be really scared about your privacy. He probably could have gotten much further.

How about MLK? Could he have gotten much further if he went around politely murmuring in people's ears, "Uh, I think maybe we could do better for some people who aren't being treated very well..."

Or Gandhi? "You know, perhaps the British have made a mistake or two, and should maybe think about giving India its independence."

Okay, if those two are too far, how about if Daniel Ellsberg kept telling his friends, "Hey, the U.S. might be doing some less than perfect things in Vietnam."

Re:Russia?

[Motard]

Of course, he's not technically in Russia. Which makes me wonder why the FBI can't just fly some agents to Not-Technically-Russia and drag Snowden's ass back the the U.S. ;)

I don't think I agree with this statement...

[Pollux]

It has unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me a stateless person.

Not quite. He is still a citizen of the United States and can contact the US Embassy for assistance to leave the country, though it would mean his surrender to the United States. If he publicly made that intent known, officials from the US Embassy in Russia could travel to the airport, use diplomatic powers to pass into where Snowden rests, issue him temporary travel documents to escort him out of the airport and to the embassy, and arrange for travel home.

He's not stateless, but I'm sure he likes to think of himself that way.

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite. He is still a citizen of the United States and can contact the US Embassy

I think his point is that the US Government has flagrantly violated the contract of citizenship. So in a real and tangible sense he does not have it.

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

officials from the US Embassy in Russia could travel to the airport, use diplomatic powers to pass into where Snowden rests, issue him temporary travel documents to escort him out of the airport and to the embassy, and arrange for travel home.

Umm, I.

Ummm.

Ya. Go find an Orange Julius. They're pretty good.

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[Spottywot]

It has unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me a stateless person.

Not quite. He is still a citizen of the United States and can contact the US Embassy for assistance to leave the country, though it would mean his surrender to the United States. If he publicly made that intent known, officials from the US Embassy in Russia could travel to the airport, use diplomatic powers to pass into where Snowden rests, issue him temporary travel documents to escort him out of the airport and to the embassy, and arrange for travel home.

He's not stateless, but I'm sure he likes to think of himself that way.

The point of him seeking asylum is that he does not want to surrender to the US authorities, that was the whole point in him fleeing in the first place, but I'm sure you're aware of that. What he should have said to avoid needless pedantry is 'The US government have taken away the one advantage of US citizenship that is of any use to me right now, the ability to travel to somewhere that I won' t be incarcerated and demonised for the rest of my life'.

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[Anonymous Coward]

Passports cost a lot of money.
Most passports boldly proclaim yada yada we look after you, never mind the fact non-democracies (usually has the word 'Peoples')
use it as a tool to stop their citizens fleeing. Someone else IANAL can explain the the legality or otherwise of the alleged cancellation.
Whatever decision, can it be appealed? Can they get an injunction for 48 hours?
If it can be revoked at a whim, then it is just a temporary travel thingy, and the issue price should be lowered to $40 or so.

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[TWiTfan]

They would even provide him with a place to stay when he got back to the U.S.--a permanent place to stay.

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[Viol8]

Well using that moronic logic, given the human rights record of Russia he certainly won't have it there either will he?

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're on the run from people who want to prosecute you for acts you admit you did, that doesn't make you stateless, that makes you a wanted criminal. The only reason you'd call yourself stateless in that situation is if you felt like you had to ratchet up the drama another notch or two.

Calling out this guy on his willingness to redefine words for the purpose of PR is not needless pedantry.

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[F.Ultra]

So with your advanced logic you prefer Gitmo over Russia. Interesting.

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[Thruen]

If I'm understanding correctly, what he means is that while he should be able to seek asylum anywhere they'll have him, he can't currently travel anywhere to seek asylum. While this might not technically make him stateless, I think it'd be even less accurate to suggest that the ability to turn himself in means he isn't stateless. His government want to arrest him, almost certain to jail him indefinitely possibly even sentence him to death, and the closest thing to support he has from any other government is them simply allowing him to exist. He's about as stateless as he can get without renouncing his own citizenship, and he couldn't even do that if he wanted to as you need to sign an oath in front of a US diplomat, where he would be arrested. Saying he isn't is really just splitting hairs, a lot like denying that the NSA is collecting data from corporations because they're actually getting it from the FBI while the FBI gets it from corporations.

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[Anonymous Coward]

He is only stateless if the US decided to strip him of his citizen and deport him.

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[LordLucless]

If you're on the run from people who want to prosecute you for acts you admit you did, that doesn't make you stateless, that makes you a wanted criminal.

Uh, no. For you to be a wanted criminal, you have to have committed a crime. As he says, there has been no judicial order, and no conviction.

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[Politburo]

He is wrong, criminal charges were filed weeks ago.

A conviction at this point would represent trial in absentia and would be meaningless.

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[Anonymous Coward]

Any "contract of citizenship" comes with penalties for breaking the law. If he wants to flee, or feel his actions are justified, that's fine, but you can't wander around doing whatever you just because you are "convicted of nothing"; if you're accused and the criteria for evidence is satisfied (grand jury, warrants, etc.), as a citizen, you have to face the accusations, or lose some rights. In general, America is pretty good about this -- definitely has a better track record than Russia or China -- but just because Snowden may have pointed out a situation where citizen's rights are ignored does not mean he is immune from the other side of the contract you speak of.

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[Anonymous Coward]

They did the same thing to Charlie Chaplin, because he criticized the US Government, and the use of nuclear weapons. He lived the rest of his life in Europe.

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[Martin Blank]

Stateless means something very specific, and this isn't it. Passports are revoked for fugitives on a fairly regular basis, and have to be turned over to prevent people who have been indicted from leaving the country. Neither case revokes citizenship. Much as I agree with what Snowden did, he's playing up hist current circumstances. The US is simply narrowing his options, just as they would any other fugitive. Odds are that he's going to come back to face trial, because as much as Russia is enjoying tweaking the US, it's not going to do that forever as Snowden will become a sticking point in unrelated negotiations.

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[arth1]

So with your advanced logic you prefer Gitmo over Russia. Interesting.

When Nikita Khrushchev took over after Stalin, he said he would close the Gulags.
When Barack Obama took over after George Vissarionovich Bush, he said he would close Guantanamo Bay.

One of these told the truth.

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[0111 1110]

I never signed a contract saying that my government has the right to revoke my ability to move about freely without a conviction or trial. Have you?

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[0111 1110]

His crimes have not been proven in court. Under our system he must technically still be considered innocent. A free country would not consider his crimes to be real crimes, but nevertheless he did break the laws of the repressive regime that we live under here in the U.S.

He is certainly a valid asylum seeker. He's no different from a dissident who speaks out against any other repressive regime and faces life in prison or death if he is sent back to the country of birth. Seems pretty straightforward to me. I think someone will take him. He applied to Cuba. I would imagine they might agree. If only just to annoy the US. Cuba would actually be quite a nice place to retire and live the rest of your life. Getting money into the country can be tricky though.

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[0111 1110]

Revoking a passport is pretty close to revoking citizenship. If you live abroad it is funcionally equivalent. The consequences are almost exactly the same. Without a passport you cannot prove to other countries that you are a genuine citizen of the country where you were born. It's the equivalent of a dirty trick and is quite unjust.

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[assantisz]

Huh? Law enforcement has all kinds of tools to make sure that you cannot leave the country if you are accused of something. So, yes, the Department of State can revoke your passport so you stay put so you can get your trial or your conviction.

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[Applekid]

I never signed a contract saying that my government has the right to revoke my ability to move about freely without a conviction or trial. Have you?

Better check those EULAs more closely...

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[Motard]

Snowden wouldn't be going to Gitmo. Although it wouldn't be much of a consolation.

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[Motard]

Under our laws, having been charged, he must stand trial.

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[Motard]

But he was a Brit.

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Since the Executive Branch revoked his passport without any involvement of the Judicial Branch, it would appear that the US has deprived Snowden of his liberty without due process of law.

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[BlueStrat]

Snowden wouldn't be going to Gitmo. Although it wouldn't be much of a consolation.

More like what the Spacing Guild representative threatened the Padishah Emperor-of-the-Known-Universe Shaddam IV with should he fail them;

"...You will live out your life in a pain amplifier!"

Strat

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[0111 1110]

But until he has had his trial he must be considered to be 100% innocent. Until a court of law has proven his guilt to a jury. As of now he has merely been accused of a crime. That alone makes the invalidation of his passport unjust. Of course the government doesn't care about justice. Like any criminal organization, they just want their revenge against the guy who exposed their illegal and immoral actions to the world.

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[Motard]

I wonder if you realize all of the ludicrous implications of this line of reasoning? Like, oh, say, never actually being able to arrest someone (unless they volunteered, for some bizarre reason).

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[Anonymous Coward]

The point of him seeking asylum is that he does not want to surrender to the US authorities, that was the whole point in him fleeing in the first place,

Slight correction. He does not wish to surrender to the criminal organization that currently has taken over 100% of the US government, which is all he is fleeing in the first place.

Once the father of the house becomes a criminal in the eyes of the world, breaking that fathers curfew rules is no longer considered a valid argument nor point of concern.

If any actual US government officials were in place, he wouldn't have had to run.
All we have left is traitors to the constitution and every last law of the land (all laws of which come from the document destroyed by the current criminals running the country)

Once you toss the constitution out of the window, every single last law that grants the government power is null and void thus does not exist. It is not even possible to commit a crime against these people, as these same people have removed every law making such "crimes" a crime in the first place.

Thus Snowden committed no crimes against these traitors, and there is no law in place stating any act at all (let alone anything Snowden did) is illegal.

That is the situation the criminal traitors in power have created, and it would seem the rest of the world agrees.

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[bws111]

That is complete nonsense. 'Innocent until proven guilty' simply means that AT TRIAL the burden of proof falls on the prosecution. The prosecution must prove guilt, you do not have to prove innocence. What happens before trial falls under 'due process of the law'. As long as the law says that someone indicted by a grand jury (he was) for a federal crime can have their passport revoked, due process is being followed.

Re:I don't think I agree with this statement...

[Martin Blank]

It's not remotely close to revoking citizenship. It's removing your permission to travel through other countries pursuant to treaties to recognize passports as official documents for specific purposes. It's used all the time when fugitives go abroad to trap them in a situation where they can be brought back for trial, usually after being detained for not having a valid passport. It does nothing on its own to remove your rights to vote, hold office, or anything else that citizens can do, and a nation can choose to ignore the lack of a passport if it so chooses. And in case you're thinking it limits the right to travel, nations have long held sovereignty over who crosses their border, whether entering or leaving, and that can include blocking its own citizens from leaving the country for any or no reason.

Oh

[kiriath]

How I wish this was hard to believe.

Snowden has withdrawn that request?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

According to the age, Snowden has withdrawn that request. Mr Snowden withdrew his Russian asylum request because of a demand that he stop harming US interests by leaking documents

Re:Snowden has withdrawn that request?

[postbigbang]

This link was corroborated by Democracy Now this morning.

The post is therefore moot, but the mudslinging will continue unabated.

Yesterday's news for nerds

[mrsam]

"Edward Snowden Files For Political Asylum In Russia"

That was yesterday's news, sorry. Today's news, is that he's not.

Re:Yesterday's news for nerds

[TWiTfan]

This is /. Yesterday's news is their specialty.

Re:Yesterday's news for nerds

[arcite]

Yesterday is good. I prefer my news carefully aged over a week, scarce of facts and stuffed with partisan punditry.

Re:Yesterday's news for nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

So, Time magazine, then?

Re:Yesterday's news for nerds

[jfengel]

IMHO, there's a better chance of the news acquiring a few facts, and squeezing out a little bit of the partisan punditry (as the various partisan pundits point out each others' lies and exaggerations), if you let the news age for a week. It gives it a chance for some of the knee-jerk reactions to die off and perhaps even for slightly more thoughtful ones to creep in.

Unless you're actually Edward Snowden, you'd have done just fine getting this news next week, or next month. I believe that the rise of instant news is part of what's making political discussion so vacuous.

Is he insane??

[Anonymous Coward]

One can only wonder.. Asylum?, in Russia?? LMAO ROLF etc etc.
One of the worst countries regarding to human rights, freedom of press etc.

Re:Is he insane??

[benjfowler]

It's the same kind of severe lack of perspective you see of some the the extreme libertarians you see in these comment threads too...

Re:Is he insane??

[Anonymous Coward]

At least the Russians don't hold themselves up as some great bastion of freedom while they subvert all *their* freedoms.

Re:Is he insane??

[serviscope_minor]

One of the worst countries regarding to human rights, freedom of press etc.

Um so? They're bad to their own people, but they have no call to do anything to him. Quite the opposite since Putin so very much enjoys trolling the US. Yes Russia is bad, but Snowden was revealing the huge amount of illegal stuff that the US and it's normally moderately good on human rights allies were doing.

So what would you have him do, given that many places would deny him entry or turn him over to the US. And the US hasn't exactly had a great record on these things recently. On average is is very much better than Russia, and there is no denying that. For partulat cases it is still very, very bad (see e.g. gitmo, the CIA "extraordinary renditions" and the treatment of Manning).

So now he has done the brave and difficult thing of revaling massive scale illegal activities, he has the choice of going to an on average good country which likes to shoot or at least torture the messenger or an on very average bad country which would like to see him alive and well just to antagonise the US.

He's done the good deed and now his ass is on the line. What would you do?

Re:Is he insane??

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding. I would prefer to be in a place where at least I know they are spying and I have no rights. America is all about freedom and rights except that you don't have any and they lie.

What's up with all you O supporters anyways? What about all the promises of protecting whistleblowers, and transparency? Now all of you call snowden a criminal because he sees Obama's government breaking the laws. Jesus you are all a bunch of pansy hypocrites.

Take a moment and remember back to the speeches. Remember the feeling that finally, someone who gets it and will bring some sanity to government. Now the truth is out and he is dead set on destroying this country. Yet you still support him. Why? WTF is wrong with you people?

Re:Is he insane??

[evilRhino]

Obama started out center-right (started just to the right of Reagan) and moves more to the right every time someone calls him a socialist.

Re:Is he insane??

[Politburo]

I was reading something recently about all the plane hijackings in the 60-70s. A common destination was Cuba, and hijackers thought they would be lauded as heroes. In reality, they were not considered heroes. Most had their freedoms restricted while in Cuba. Some were put directly into labor camps. http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/24/travel/hijacking-book-qa/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Re:Is he insane??

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

Well, at least it's better than seeking asylum in China, which has practically taken the old Soviet Union as the major US bogeyman, besides those faceless/nameless fundamentalist terrorists. Russia is nominally more free than China and is probably less free than the US only because of the way Putin and his gang has dominated Russian politics, where there's no organized opposition comparable in size and influence to either of the two mainline US parties.

Re:Is he insane??

[arth1]

Obama started out center-right (started just to the right of Reagan) and moves more to the right every time someone calls him a socialist.

The political creep to the right has gone on for a long time now. By today's US views, Eisenhower and Nixon would have been called socialists.
I don't want to Godwin the thread, but today's democrats are truly so far to the right that they're brown around the edges. I don't even know what to say about republicans and populist liberalists.

Re:Is he insane??

[0111 1110]

So you'd rather be tortured to death in gitmo? But you do understand that other people may not share your enthusiasm for their own torture and death, right?

Re:Is he insane??

[drinkypoo]

They're bad to their own people, but they have no call to do anything to him. Quite the opposite since Putin so very much enjoys trolling the US.

And yet, what was Putin's reaction to his request for asylum? Okay, but you have to stop embarrassing the US. Frankly, I don't think you're even close to understanding this situation. The US and Russia have been using each other against their citizens as boogeymen for longer than I have been alive now. But frankly, neither country has any intention of trying to attack the other. It would simply cost too much. Russia doesn't have it and the USA can get more return closer to home. It would make more fucking sense to invade Canada, except that they seem willing to sell us their lumber and their oil in exchange for our shiny beads (fiat currency circling the toilet, that is) so we don't even need to do so. Snowden is being asked to STFU if he says in Russia because he is interfering with the political theater normally engaged in by the US and Russia.

Re:Is he insane??

[0111 1110]

Can you give a specific example of how Russia is worse than the US in terms of human rights violations? Are you thinking of something specific? I have heard that their police are as bad as ours in terms of violence and corruption, but I haven't heard much about what the Russian government has done to violate human rights.

Do they have something worse than gitmo and assasination of their own citizens without a trial, strip searches at the airport before you can travel, routine suspicionless roadblocks etc? The US has a very long list of human rights violations. It's not easy to be worse.

Re:Is he insane??

[serviscope_minor]

But frankly, neither country has any intention of trying to attack the other. It would simply cost too much.

I'm somewhat as a loss to explain how you read "trolling" and understood it as "armed attack". If you believe those are the same then you've not even close to understanding the situation.

The UK and France love using the EU as a mechanism for generally trolling each other. Every so often they are successful and get a rise out of the other one, it hits the papers, there are a few articles with bad puns in the headlines and then everyone forgets.

In fact the EU specifically seems to be designed as a forum so that France, England and Germany can gently antagonize each other without any serious political fallout.

Likewise, Putin enjoys getting a rise out of the US, but isn't silly enough to do something really serious.

Like I said: trolling.

Re:Is he insane??

[drinkypoo]

But frankly, neither country has any intention of trying to attack the other. It would simply cost too much.

I'm somewhat as a loss to explain how you read "trolling" and understood it as "armed attack". If you believe those are the same then you've not even close to understanding the situation.

Sigh.

Like I said: trolling.

Yes, YHBT. But not by me. YHBT by the US and Russia, which are not enemies. HTH, HAND.

Snowden isn't stateless

[cold fjord]

Having a passport canceled doesn't effect citizenship. Snowden's statement is rubbish on that point.

Prepared to issue one-entry travel document to Snowden: US

"We reject - you've heard Assange say earlier that he's sort of marooned in Russia. That's not true. We're prepared to issue one-entry travel document. He's still a US citizen. He still enjoys the rights of his US citizenship, which include the right to a free and fair trial for the crimes he's been accused of," the State Department spokesperson, Patrick Ventrell, told reporters at his daily news conference yesterday.

"We reject the notion that this is some sort of political prosecution. Indeed, it's not. These are serious crimes, serious violations of his obligations, and as somebody who had access to classified information, and so our position is that he needs to face a free and fair trial and not be a fugitive," Ventrell said.

Re:Snowden isn't stateless

[rwv]

he needs to face a free and fair trial

With a jury of his peers? I won't comment on whether the whistle-blower or the government is wrong here, but I would be very interested if a group of Average Joe's were given a chance to make a ruling with respect to the rights that a government has to keep details of its surveillance program secret.

Re:Snowden isn't stateless

[Charliemopps]

The executive branch of the united states has made it public that they feel its within their rights to capture, torture, and murder "US citizens" that they feel are an "imminent threat" to the United States. Which they clearly feel Snowden is. Snowden IS a US citizen, his state however, has forsaken him.

Re:Snowden isn't stateless

[TWiTfan]

I would be very interested if a group of Average Joe's were given a chance to make a ruling with respect to the rights that a government has to keep details of its surveillance program secret.

"Average Joe's" in the U.S. probably don't even know what the 4th Amendment is, much less how to apply it.

Re:Snowden isn't stateless

[cold fjord]

Snowden IS a US citizen, his state however, has forsaken him.

By no means. Forsaken means to abandon, or give up. The US hasn't done that, they have been trying to bring him back to the US the whole time.

they feel its within their rights to capture, torture, and murder "US citizens" that they feel are an "imminent threat"

Capture or kill, not torture or murder. I hadn't heard that Snowden had taken up arms against the US, or was directly aiding anyone who had. I doubt very much that he is subject to being killed, at least apart from possible judicial sentencing.

Re:Snowden isn't stateless

[Pecisk]

I don't see how this goes together - his breach of contracts and laws is very little to do with surveillance program itself, and therefore I don't see how it is related in any way.

As Edward's supporter you probably would like to spin it in political statement again, but please resist, because this ship has sailed.

Re:Snowden isn't stateless

[AHuxley]

Yes Charlie, the image of a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_and_Mitchell_defection (1960 NSA cryptologists)
or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Spies is been held up by a tame US mainstream media and warmed over rewritten talking points.
The US telco/ad/VoIP/chat brands and their support for bulk domestic access is now just part of life.
Snowden joins an impressive list of people:
http://cryptome.org/2013-info/06/whistleblowing/whistleblowing.htm

Re:Snowden isn't stateless

[Politburo]

There's really no way in hell that the "imminent threat" doctrine is used to drone Snowden. Whatever info he has, he has already distributed. Doing it now makes him a martyr, goes against stated positions, and is just a bad idea even without those considerations.

Re:Snowden isn't stateless

[fustakrakich]

A free and fair trial... Obviously that can't happen, hence the search for asylum... Of course this all depends on whether this whole story is even real.

Re:Snowden isn't stateless

[fustakrakich]

I hadn't heard that Snowden had taken up arms against the US, or was directly aiding anyone who had.

Your drone program needs no such assurances. And if he does get killed, that means he's guilty, by default. That's the policy.

Re:Snowden isn't stateless

[Anonymous Coward]

There's really no way in hell that the "imminent threat" doctrine is used to drone Snowden. ... Doing it now makes him a martyr

I agree, but wouldn't it be nice if things other than fear of making one a martyr were sited as the foremost reason?
You know, like "there is no way in hell that 'imminent threat' could apply because it is obviously irrelevant". Not "sure, we can declare him 'imminent threat', why not, but the fallout could be too costly to do it now"

Re:Snowden isn't stateless

[0111 1110]

From the POV of other countries he is stateless because he has not document to prove that he truly is a US citizen.

Re:Snowden isn't stateless

[Motard]

We could send them a copy of his birth certificate, if that would help. I don't think the problem has anything to do with his citizenship. It's not in dispute by anyone.

Re:Snowden isn't stateless

[Anonymous Coward]

He also has a legal responsibility to report criminal behavior. Bruce Schneier said it best...before any prosecution of Snowden takes place, there need to be serious and independent inquiries into any possible criminal behavior and trials of those who perpetrated it. Only after the extent of the criminal activity is known can a jury properly balance his responsibilities stipulated in his contract and his other legal responsibilities.

Re:Snowden isn't stateless

[0111 1110]

So what do you suggest is the reason why he cannot travel then? His citizenship has not actually been revoked although I'm sure the US would love to do that if they could and clearly the US is not the one making the decision about whether another country will allow him entry.

The airlines are part of the problem of course, but the only reason they would not accept him is because they think he will not be allowed in the arrival country without a valid passport. Cuba would have no way to know that Snowden's passport is not valid except for the fact that he's now famous. He may not be famous in Cuba however.

Re:Snowden isn't stateless

[Motard]

Why can't he travel? Because no country will have him (well, maybe Bolivia, we'll see). Well, wait....He's welcome in the U.S.. He won't exactly be 'welcomed' in the U.S., but, thus far, it's the only country that will remove all barriers to his arrival.

I can assure you that Cuba knows him and his status very well. He had a seat on an airplane to that very place and chose not to sit in it.

Re:Snowden isn't stateless

[Sabriel]

Contracts and laws designed to enable and conceal the violation of citizens' Amendment rights are unconscionable and illegal. I hope you can see how that relates to any evidence (not) produced at trial, keeping in mind the Sixth Amendment rights to, amongst other things, a public trial, an impartial jury and compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in a defendant's favor.

Re:Snowden isn't stateless

[0111 1110]

Because no country will "have" him. Are you trying to imply that no country would allow him in even if he could present a valid passport? That he cannot travel because every country on earth is in solidarity with the US and wants to see Snowden tried for treason? That seems pretty silly. His problem is that pretty much every country requires a passport in order to issue any kind of visa. Most countries don't consider the case of someone without a passport or the ability to get one. The ability to trap someone like this between countries is due to a sort of loophole.

Re:Snowden isn't stateless

[tragedy]

I'm just curious, is your quote accurate? If it's the State Department spokesperson's error saying "Assange" when he meant "Snowden", that's very interesting. If it was your error, it's not as interesting.

Re:Snowden isn't stateless

[tragedy]

"kill" /= "murder"? As for torture. I believe the official position is that torture isn't allowed, but various things that any sane person would clearly identify as torture are merely "enhanced interrogation".

Re:Snowden isn't stateless

[Pecisk]

And nothing of mentioned is related with revoking travel passport. Country can revoke passport at any time on written down certain rules, one of them is prosecution. I don't know if you can get overturned in court though.

Re:Snowden isn't stateless

[Motard]

They might let him in in order to detain him. But no, pretty much no country would want Edward Snowden running around. Look what just happened to the Bolivian President's plane based on a rumor that Snowden might be on board. Not only are there obvious headaches associated with him, there are all the possibilities of him causing further trouble by leaking behind their borders.

Re:Snowden isn't stateless

[Anonymous Coward]

"kill" /= "murder"?

That's right. Murder is unlawful killing. All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder.

The "enhanced interrogation" methods are generally simply unpleasant or mildly coercive, not torture. You might have a reasonable argument about waterboarding, but that was only done to 3 people by the US, the most recent of which was 10 years ago. The US has waterboarded probably tens of thousands of its own service members as part of their training - and still does. Did the US commit torture of its own service members? Obviously no. If the same was done to al Qaida members, is it torture? Coercive, yes. Unpleasant, yes, very. Torture? At the time, legally no. AG Holder seems to have agreed. It isn't done anymore by the US. And laws have meaning apart from the opinions of activists.

Re:Snowden isn't stateless

[Anonymous Coward]

Torture? At the time, legally no.

Legality of what the government does is defined by those doing it. Just like Saddam Hussein or Stalin never tortured anyone, by their own legal definition. Nor murdered anyone.

Re:Snowden isn't stateless

[tragedy]

That's right. Murder is unlawful killing. All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder.

There's no rational basis in US Law for killing Snowden and having it not be murder. It would simply be an assassination for revenge purposes. Playing "it's not a crime if the President does it" games doesn't make it legal either. As another poster pointed out to you, any sovereign entity can kill and torture who it pleases and, by your narrow definition, it's not murder or torture if they define it not to be via their laws. I honestly don't understand how anyone can be stupid enough to believe that's how it should work.

You might have a reasonable argument about waterboarding, but that was only done to 3 people by the US, the most recent of which was 10 years ago.

Sure. Also, the US certainly hasn't performed any other torture or had anyone else do it for them. That taxi driver from Afghanistan who was hung from his wrists for four days and given "simply unpleasant" compliance blows until the toxicity of his own dead flesh killed him wasn't tortured. No no no.

The US has waterboarded probably tens of thousands of its own service members as part of their training - and still does. Did the US commit torture of its own service members? Obviously no. If the same was done to al Qaida members, is it torture? Coercive, yes. Unpleasant, yes, very. Torture? At the time, legally no.

On the prisoners, yes it was torture. You have to be a true moron to think that it wasn't. It was also legally torture at the time as well. As for the waterboarding done to some US service members as part of their training, I have a few questions:

Do you understand the difference between a boxing match and a physical assault?

Do you understand the difference between consensual sex and rape?

Do you understand the difference between S&M and torture?

Finally, why don't you understand the difference between a relatively brief, but unpleasant, training exercise done in a safe environment by comrades in arms who don't want anything bad to happen to the subject, with medical personnel standing by and, let's be frank, almost certainly the option to tap out and outright torture with no end in sight done by people who hate you and want to hurt you, possibly with medical personnel standing by (but they also hate you and want to hurt you and might not actually lift a finger to save you), and no way to make them stop? Is it really that hard to understand the distinction. I mean seriously, are the people who make that argument seriously expecting they can trick anyone with half a brain into accepting the false equivalence? Are the people making that argument actually stupid enough to buy it themselves?

Withdrawn?

[Anonymous Coward]

UK Guardian reporting he changed his mind following Putin's comments... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/02/edward-snowden-nsa-withdraws-asylum-russia-putin

What an crybaby

[Anonymous Coward]

A passport is not the same thing as citizenship. Since he has successfully applied for asylum in many places, I don't see how his right to seek asylum is denied. This is just another Assange level crybaby in action. If he was so unbowed, etc. he would come for a trial willingly.

Re:What an crybaby

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets see you travel with your citizenship and no passport.

Re:What an crybaby

[Cenan]

Millions of people do that every year, this particular refugee was just dumb enough to start attention whoring before he was in a safe haven.

Re:What an crybaby

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they do, and you whine about them crossing the borders when the truth is we are all immigrants from somewhere, an asteroid, some goo in the ocean, or Mars.

Re:What an crybaby

[couchslug]

No one in their right mind has faith in the US trial system or respects anything its government does.

Who wants to linger in jail, possibly for years, awaiting "trial"? You still get "punished" either way.

Re:What an crybaby

[Xest]

On what grounds could he have sought asylum before he was in a safe haven? If he hadn't released anything he'd have just been laughed at. An American citizen fleeing persecution with no evidence that he was being persecuted? Asylum application rejected.

Re:What an crybaby

[1s44c]

Lets see you travel with your citizenship and no passport.

It's possible. Passports exist to prove identity, you don't need to prove your identity if people already know who you are.

The Red Cross and just about any government can issue temporary ID-proving documents although it's unlikely they will be accepted at airports as quickly and easily as a valid passport.

Re:What an crybaby

[1s44c]

He won't get a fair trail, that's the point.

Re:What an crybaby

[Cenan]

Snowden could have just as easily entered Ecuador, and then blown his whistle, instead of whoring for attention. Had he stayed anonymous after leaking, he could quite conceivably have had a few days of, mostly unrestricted, safe travel before his identity was found out. If he is even half as smart as everyone seems to think he is, why the fuck didn't he wait until he had safe ground beneath his feet?

Re:What an crybaby

[0111 1110]

Go ahead and try to enter another country without your passport. Let us know how that works out for you.

Re:What an crybaby

[0111 1110]

While I disagree that releasing documents about government abuse is the same as "whoring" I agree that Hong Kong was a very foolish choice for a place to make his stand. That choice may end up costing him his life. I also think withdrawing his application for asylum in Russia may have been a bad choice. What he really needs is a temporary travel document so that he can fly to a country that will grant him unconditional asylum. Asylum in Russia may have allowed him to get those travel documents until he can seek citizenship elsewhere. Also, once he is a Russian citizen the US would have no right to abduct him when he is traveling somewhere. That means he could live in another country as a tourist and just make visa runs to renew his visa. Then his chioce of countries becomes very large indeed. The lack of a passport is his main problem right now. Russian asylum would solve that eventually.

Re:What an crybaby

[1s44c]

Go ahead and try to enter another country without your passport. Let us know how that works out for you.

It's not uncommon for travellers to get their passports stolen, it's possible to get emergency travel documents if this happens although I'm sure it's not easy. I've never had to do it.

I live in Europe and can travel anywhere in the Schengen area without any ID checks at all as long as I don't fly there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area

Re:What an crybaby

[Cenan]

The documents Snowden leaked did not need a sender for them to be credible. He could have leaked the documents in a number of creative ways without giving away his identity, instead he opted for the "look at me, I'm important" approach. That is the act of "whoring for attention" I was talking about, not the leaking on its own.

And, while talking of being foolish, the guy is applying for asylum in something like 20 different countries, and the official statements all around are "if he's not on our soil, he's not our problem". Most of the countries he's applied to won't even consider his application. This bit of fact should not have come as a surprise to a defector, it's not like the cold war didn't produce ample precedent on the art of defecting. Had he done his homework properly, he would be sitting in a lawn chair on some Ecuadorian coke farm, smoking his pipe and reading the Guardian.

Re:What an crybaby

[0111 1110]

I don't think Snowden was motivated by "look at me". You think he so badly wanted to be famous that he was willing to either be executed, spend the rest of his life in jail, or spend the rest of his life in exile in order to accomplish that? That is a pretty extraordinary claim and I don't see any extraordinary evidence to back it up.

Now, you may want to argue that it was foolish of him not to simply remain anonymous and let his leaked documents speak for themselves. Fair enough. I would guess that he felt releasing his name would give more credibility to his revelations and I think it does give them more credibility, but that greater credibility comes at a very high cost to him.

As for being foolish, I agree that his plan wasn't particularly clever. It really doesn't seem well thought out. But his chief error was his choice of Hong Kong as the location for making his stand. They have an extradition treaty with the US for christ sake. There are even some countries right in Asia that lack extradition treatiest with the US.

If he survives this perhaps he will write about why he made such poor decisions if his goal had been to survive afterword. When I first heard about all of this it sounded like he was willing to sacrifice himself. That he did not mind going to prison or even being executed. If that were true initially it seems clear he has changed his mind about it.

Re:What an crybaby

[0111 1110]

It's not uncommon for travellers to get their passports stolen, it's possible to get emergency travel documents if this happens although I'm sure it's not easy. I've never had to do it.

Well I have had to do it. The first step is to go to your embassy. That's where you get your temporary travel documents.

Re:What an crybaby

[Cenan]

That is a pretty extraordinary claim and I don't see any extraordinary evidence to back it up.

Well, I guess that the act of leaking is evidence enough that he was willing to forfeit his life, at the very least accept exile, it's not like Bradley Manning's fate is any kind of secret, nor Assange's.

When I first heard of this case, the media portrayed it as if the leak had already happened, and then Snowden outed himself, as in two distinct events. I'm not sure if that's true or not, but something smells fishy in all of this. Allegedly, Snowden is a very smart guy, but since the leaks he's made a series of very poor decisions. Even for an ordinary guy, that's unusual, and if we take into account that he has one of Wikileaks' lawyers with him, it makes it all the more fishy.

I think we're a little bit too eager to accept Snowden is who he, and the NSA, says he is - I can't quite put my finger on it, but something is off in this whole thing. Why would two, presumably smart people, make a series of outright stupid decisions? It doesn't make sense that he would choose to fly, and Moscow as a destination makes even less sense. He could have rented a car, a boat or a new pair of sneakers and be almost untraceable. Why choose to fly, and why to Moscow? And as I mentioned earlier, why out himself when there's no reason to? Even if he wanted to make the leaks more credible, he could have done so from a much safer haven than Hong Kong.

It Was Obvious Snowden Didn't Write That

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/07/01/some-see-julian-assanges-hand-in-new-snowden-statement/

Wikileaks wrote and edited that statement, its becoming clear Snowden has submitted himself to be Wikileaks' useful idiot and pawn in their larger game.

It is really so sad, he has lost any sympathy for his case by associating with that organization.

Re:It Was Obvious Snowden Didn't Write That

[Anonymous Coward]

It is really so sad, he has lost any sympathy for his case by associating with that organization.

Fuck off US shill.

Re:It Was Obvious Snowden Didn't Write That

[arth1]

Wikileaks wrote and edited that statement, its becoming clear Snowden has submitted himself to be Wikileaks' useful idiot and pawn in their larger game.

I don't think Wikileaks has a larger game. Assange has delusions of grandeur and wants to be Bob Geldof, but apart from "get publicity", I don't think they have any plan or vision for what to do if their dreams came true. They do sometimes leak stuff that's useful for people to know, but these days, that appears to be a side effect, not the goal.
Wikileaks did not produce either Bradley Manning nor Eddie Snowden. They used both for publicity, and that the public got access to important documents and information was, I fear, not the primary goal.

I really wish there were whistleblower sites that was more secure and not in it for self-aggrandization and limelight.

Asylum

[benjfowler]

The right to asylum has been under attack for quite a while now; this is hardly news.

I'm happy to be explained the difference between 1) seeking asylum fleeing politically-motivated charges, versus 2) fleeing criminal charges, albeit, for offences committed with a political motivation.

Re:Asylum

[Prokur]

In Soviet Russia asylum seeks you!

Re:Asylum

[Anonymous Coward]

1) No trial.
2) With trial.

Re:Asylum

[Anonymous Coward]

Politically motivated charges would indicate there is going to be a trial - the distinction will be how much of that trial is public.

Secret courts and secret evidence are the tools of dictatorships and corrupt juntas the world over. The US is just catching up to its peers now.

Re:Asylum

[Anonymous Coward]

Anders Breivik would fall under criminal offences committed with a political motivation.

Americans will never defend their constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans will never defend their constitution, that has been proven for decades of abuses.

Land of the fat and LAZY.

The dream died years ago, I still have no idea why people still believe it is still a dream country.

Re:Americans will never defend their constitution

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Inertia. The center of empire, always building on the outskirts of the old collapsing one, had shifted from Europe to the Us and is now shifting to China. The world is learning a terrible lesson that there's more to freedom than freedom of speech. What good is it if every economic action is contained, proscribed, and approaching a corrupt state where you must get on bended knee to do anything?

Re:Americans will never defend their constitution

[mblase]

The dream died years ago, I still have no idea why people still believe it is still a dream country.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." -- Wiston Churchill

Re:Americans will never defend their constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

please post pics to prove you are not fat and then we shall judge you in the most objective way that we know how

Re:Americans will never defend their constitution

[LordLimecat]

This just in: The world sucks, there are no utopias, but western countries (including the US) are still a heck of a lot better than the alternatives.

That may be why "people still believe it is a dream country". This guy is in trouble for leaking state secrets. In most other countries (including the one Snowden is currently in) you get this star treatment just for speaking any ill of the government (see: Kasparov).

Re:Americans will never defend their constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

I still have no idea why people still believe it is still a dream country.

Because it's still better than yours.

Re:Americans will never defend their constitution

[jonwil]

As long as the American people continue to swallow the propaganda shoved in their face by the mainstream media, nothing is ever going to change.

Re:Americans will never defend their constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true.

A vast majority are fat and lazy and stuck watching their television shows, sport events and playing video games, but there are many pationate patriots that have been working very hard to correct the situation through peaceful actions. But many believe that is no longer an option and are prepared to fight.

The final straw will likely be gun control. That is the last line of defense against a tyranny, and so it will be the flash point of an armed conflict.

The United States Government was taken over decades ago by the New World Order. A bunch of filthy rich bankers attempting to seize control of everything. Many other countries have been taken over by them as well.

But this Snowden event is not what it looks like. Use your feelings, something is very wrong with it all. CNN Usually does not cover anything unless Obama wants them to, and anything on Youtube that is political sensative, usually gets removed, but that didin't happen either.

If Snowden really did what he claims, then he is a hero, but there is strong support for the theory that he is really just a governent plant.

Re:Americans will never defend their constitution

[0111 1110]

So what is your point? That we are now trying those others? Or that democracy isn't anything special?

Re:Americans will never defend their constitution

[0111 1110]

This just in: The world sucks, there are no utopias, but western countries (including the US) are still a heck of a lot better than the alternatives.

Have you actually lived in any of these alternatives? Or put another way, do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Re:Americans will never defend their constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately the loudest defenders of The Constitution, either haven't actually bothered to read it or completely fail to understand it.

Re:Americans will never defend their constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

What's with this ridiculous meme that China is the new world superpower, anyway?

The people are less free, suffering from overcrowding and horrible pollution, and China's economy is so globalized it suffers just as much as the rest of the world when stock markets crash. Any notion that it owns enough debt in other countries to parley for power is rubbish since China too would suffer from any sanctions or provocative actions they attempted to initiate. Militarily, they're also no match for the U.S. by itself, let alone NATO or the UN.

Maybe in 100 years China will be a superpower, but for now, they're still just another overrated developing country. I'd argue India has it better now, given that it has made itself so integral to the IT industry and as a result the standard of living is rising fast, along with the education level of its people.

Re:Americans will never defend their constitution

[SJHiIlman]

This just in: The world sucks, there are no utopias, but western countries (including the US) are still a heck of a lot better than the alternatives.

If your only justification for your actions are, "Well, at least I'm not as bad as the other guys!" something is probably wrong. We don't need a utopia; we need our government to stop flagrantly violating people's rights.

Re:Americans will never defend their constitution

[SJHiIlman]

Some people only seem to care about the second amendment as if it's the only part of the constitution, for instance. There are also the ones who think that the fourth amendment says that it can be thrown out if people believe the bogeyman will get us.

Re:Americans will never defend their constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

This just in: The other side has the oposite opinion! http://www.ted.com/talks/eric_x_li_a_tale_of_two_political_systems.html

Re:Americans will never defend their constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, as an american living in one of the alternatives: "Dude doesn't know what he's talking about."

Re:Americans will never defend their constitution

[LordLimecat]

I have visited one (China), and witnessed police swarm a man who tried to spread political pamphlets. Those pamphlets that bystanders picked up were rapidly confiscated.

You are either ignorant or being deliberately obtuse; the abuses of China, Russia, 99% of Africa, and huge chunks of South America and eastern europe are well documented. To list some things which happen there which would never happen in the west:

1. Liu Xiaobo is under house arrest in China due to political speech. To my knowledge he has had no trial. Family members were detained for speaking about him online.
2. The well known censorship surrounding "Tiananmen square". We worry about NSA knowing details about us. They worry about internet disconnection or detainment for searching / posting the wrong political idea (we're not talking about leaks, we're talking about "I support candidate Wu"-- which is in fact how Tiananmen square happened)
3. To quote wikipedia: "On 17 August 2012 Garry Kasparov was arrested and beaten outside of the court while examining the court case involving the all-female punk band Pussy Riot". This doesnt seem to be terribly unusual, especially when you consider the courtcase he was attempting to follow (the Pussy Riot trials).

Those are two fairly large "alternatives", and their human rights issues have been well documented if you cared to do a 5 second search on google for "human rights issues in China / Russia". We take for granted that we can say terrible things about the opposition political party here (look at the comments section in any random DrudgeReport post) without disappearing; that is simply not a reality for more than half of the world's population.

But I suppose if your criteria for being able to criticize human rights issues like forced abortions in china is "you have to have lived there", then you can go on being ignorant about how privileged you are to live in the west.

Re:Americans will never defend their constitution

[0111 1110]

The problem is that you painted your comments with a pretty wide brush. Your statement seemed to imply far more countries than just China and Russia. I agree that China is even worse than the US when it comes to human rights violations. About Russia I know very little. I'd have to look into it further. You've only given one example. That doesn't tell me much.

It's also important to keep in mind that not all laws are enforced. Sometimes the US can seem freer on paper, but when you actually live in that other place for a while you discover that in reality you have more freedom over there. In one of these Snowden threads someone who claimed to have spent a lot of time in Russia claimed that that is the case over there. That most of the time things are freer just because no one seems to care about what you do.

I have lived as an expat in Cuba, Colombia, Laos, and Malaysia and they are all nice places to live. They all have their strengths and weaknesses but overall I prefer all of them to life in the US with the possible exception of Laos and that's only because the locals have an awful habit of just burning their trash instead of paying for it to be picked up. Combine that with a lack of wind and it isn't too pleasant.

I also know that many people from Latin America are very disappointed when they arrive in the US and discover what people are like here. They discover that universal truth that money is not everything. Of course to some of them money is everything. Those are the ones who stay.

Re:Americans will never defend their constitution

[Pecisk]

"Have you actually lived in any of these alternatives? Or put another way, do you have any idea what you are talking about?"

I guess you must be Russian then :)

Re:Americans will never defend their constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans will never defend their constitution, that has been proven for decades of abuses.

Land of the fat and LAZY.

The dream died years ago, I still have no idea why people still believe it is still a dream country.

You mean Americans don't exercise their 4th amendment rights by keeping their private things private.

If the big social network and email providers hadn't TOLD YOU they own and read all the content you give them for various purposes, then it COULD be private.

It's just like regular mail vs. first class, the first is not private and protected under the fourth, you are supposed to know that.

You, sir, truly have a dizzying intellect.

[Anonymous Coward]

What a remarkably insightful comment!

Getting desperate?

[ark1]

Apparently he withdrew his asylum request after Putin asked him to stop leaking more secrets. Funny he would consider it in the first place knowing that Russians are likely much worst when it comes to surveillance of their own citizens. Can't see many nations wanting him at this time.

Re:Getting desperate?

[Anonymous Coward]

You would be desperate in his position too.

Re:Getting desperate?

[benjfowler]

Putin is a pragmatist. He no doubt has some very good reasons for wanting him to shut up. If they harbour him, then everyone's ire will be turned on the Russians. Russia wants to be seen as a big, serious player, not as a rogue state.

And Snowden himself doesn't seem to have the brains to not shit in his own nest.

Re:Getting desperate?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I wonder is a secret Swiss bank account number just got handed to Putin. How much do you suspect was in it? Regardless it sure as hell wouldn't be rubles. That's for the domestic serfs.

Re:Getting desperate?

[Cenan]

Everyone's ire is directed at the US, and it will stay that way regardless of which country, if any, eventually grants him asylum. Ultimately, Snowden's fate is completely irrelevant to the rest of the World, it will only affect the potential whistleblowers who come after him. Setting an example with his case is strictly an internal US affair.

Re:Getting desperate?

[Registered Coward v2]

Putin is a pragmatist. He no doubt has some very good reasons for wanting him to shut up. If they harbour him, then everyone's ire will be turned on the Russians. Russia wants to be seen as a big, serious player, not as a rogue state.

And Snowden himself doesn't seem to have the brains to not shit in his own nest.

More to the point: Putin is a former intelligence officer. While he certainly is open to obtaining information that would help Russia; he is probably has little respect for people who commit espionage against their country and little trust that they will stay loyal to Russia if he grants asylum. He's a pro, and will do whatever is best for Putin and Russia. At this point, he probably thinks the downside isn't worth it. No matter what our personal opinions are of Snowden's actions; we can probably agree he is really screwed.

Re:Getting desperate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Money and bank accounts are for serfs. Putin has and wants power.

Re:Getting desperate?

[dj245]

Can't see many nations wanting him at this time.

There are plenty of nations that love to poke the US in the eye and don't cooperate with the US. I can name half a dozen, and I've heard that he is in contact with about 20. If he were on Iranian, North Korean, Cuban, Venezuela, Ecuador, etc soil he would be fine. The difficult issue is extracting him from where he is now. Putting somebody in your pocket is one thing. Removing him out of someone else's pocket is quite another.

Re:Getting desperate?

[Pecisk]

Problem is he isn't whistle blower, but leaker, t.i. I'm yet to see anything to have "criminal charges" resonate outside of casual leftist forum message in web. He copied bunch of documents, most of them honeypot level. So what? It renewed discussion of NSA and laws it operates with, fine, it would be nice to have productive outcome from it (from example, having secret courts and legal opinions is just wrong). However, neither majority of electorate has wish to touch this issue, nor their representatives care about it. Even so, Snowden's run and farce with public announcements has destroyed any goodwill he would have from general public when he will hit court room (and he will).

Re:Getting desperate?

[1s44c]

Putin is a pragmatist. He no doubt has some very good reasons for wanting him to shut up. If they harbour him, then everyone's ire will be turned on the Russians. Russia wants to be seen as a big, serious player, not as a rogue state.

It's the US that's coming off as a rouge state here. The Russians have come off as reasonable and rational on the whole Snowden thing, and the not giving weapons to fundamentalists in Syria thing.

And Snowden himself doesn't seem to have the brains to not shit in his own nest.

Because you believe it's right that everyone must live in fear of the US government?

Re:Getting desperate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Very likely that he has run out of cash as whatever credit cards/traveling cheques he has on him are either been canceled or would be used to track him. There is an upper limit of $10,000 cash that he is allowed to carry getting out of US without having to declare it and pretty sure that he has to stay under the radar.

Probably having interviews is one of the ways he has to do to receive some much needed cash.

Re:Getting desperate?

[fustakrakich]

...most of them honeypot level.

Exactly, the whole story smells, designed to vilify whistle blowing in general. Sad to see it working so well.

Re:Getting desperate?

[Yomers]

He has both money and power, he just plays The Game... The Game of Thrones!

Re:Getting desperate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Without money and bank accounts, there is no power.

Re:Getting desperate?

[Cenan]

To deem him not a whistleblower seems like a rather harsh interpretation of the term. He is exposing, what he believes to be, unlawful practises, that seems to me to be exactly what a whistleblower does.

Many on /. seem to be overlooking that the ball is still rolling on this, the US government is not just collecting data on american citizens, but actively carrying out espionage missions against allies. Nobody around here (Europe) gives two flying fucks about Snowden or his fate, nor the laws NSA allegedly follows. The media here is much more concerned with the bugging of EU offices. The pictures most prominent on TVs across Europe is Obama trying to explain that little turd, all the while coming off as a complete idiot trying to explain 1+1 to a 4 year old, it really is not very pretty. And in case you havn't been paying attention the last couple of decades, what the media cares about, John Doe general public cares about.

The statement, that the ire of the world would turn to Russia if they granted Asylum to Snowden, smells very much like a "everybody probably thinks like me" fallacy, it's a projection based on the assumption that the rest of the world are americans.

Re:Getting desperate?

[0111 1110]

How can the Russians possibly be any worse? Short of home video surveillance I don't think any regime could be worse. The US government is already doing nearly everything it is possible to do with current technology that does not allow direct reading of thoughts.

Re:Getting desperate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody around here (Europe) gives two flying fucks about Snowden or his fate

I do. The strongest weapon we have against the abuses of the biggest superpower in the world are their citizens.
Snowden's fate is important, not only for the individual (he's a balsy bastard and I wouldn't like anything bad to happen to him), but also for their followers.

Unfortunately, after witnessing what's happening to him and Assange, I'm pretty sure any would-be whistleblowers are going to think twice before exposing the corruption in their governments.

Re:Getting desperate?

[drinkypoo]

Snowden himself doesn't seem to have the brains to not shit in his own nest.

What he has is what most Americans lack: Courage. He's acting in accordance with his convictions. Since they happen to include freedom of information, I happen to agree with them, but that's a separate issue.

Re:Getting desperate?

[Cenan]

Snowden is in a shit pile of his own making, not for leaking documents (because I applaud anyone who shines a light onto secretive agencies) but for seeking the spotlight before he had a safe haven. Had he not stood up, we would have had a lot longer to focus on the documents without him as a distraction, because that is what he ultimately is. What this debate needs is for Assange and Snowden to shut the fuck up, so we can get back to focusing on the contents and not the scapegoats.

That being said, it's tough luck for Snowden, and I think any politician anywhere should take a long hard look at themselves when they reject his asylum request, because had Snowden been named Chiang, and been born in China, they'd be lining up from here to Rome (quite a distance) offering him asylum.

Re:Getting desperate?

[0111 1110]

If he ran out of cash he would be as good as dead. I doubt that's the case. If anything his parents could send him money through third parties etc. I just hope he was smart enough to get all of his funds free from US banks before leaving for Hong Kong or at least before revealing his identity.

Re:Getting desperate?

[Pseudonym Authority]

Everyone's ire is directed at the US, and it will stay that way regardless of which country, if any, eventually grants him asylum. Ultimately, Snowden's fate is completely irrelevant to the rest of the World, it will only affect the potential whistleblowers who come after him. Setting an example with his case is strictly an internal US affair.

Russian and Chinese political strategists seem to have reached the opposite conclusion.

Re:Getting desperate?

[tragedy]

Russia wants to be seen as a big, serious player, not as a rogue state.

You do realize that you're talking about Russia here, don't you? Biggest country on Earth? Just a tiny bit smaller than South America and larger than three of the other continents. Major military power.

You're putting words in his mouth.

[Anonymous Coward]

And using bad grammar while you're at it.

Snowden never said canceling a passport <em>affects</em> citizenship. He did say, however, that the US government was using his citizenship as a weapon.

Think, then post.

Re:You're putting words in his mouth.

[cjjjer]

Hows about you preview, then submit.

A day late, but...

[Xest]

This news is a day late. Since this happened Putin told him he can't leak anything else if he wants to stay in Russia so he's withdrawn his request to Russia.

As for the US breaching article 14 I don't think it matters anymore, they've long thrown articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 out the window in the last decade and no one did anything so of course they'll try and get away with violating the rest despite being a signatory to the UDHR.

But in this case they're also now violating article 13, which states that:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.

Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."

Revoking Snowden's passport also violates this from what I can see as by removing his passport they're removing his right to travel and hence to leave Russia.

Or in other words the US has pretty much now completely thrown the de-facto document on basic levels of standards of human rights entirely out the window.

As each year goes on they're breaching a new article, when they do that how can they realistically preach to any other nation on human rights? How can they pretend to have the moral high ground next time a blind Chinese human rights activist turns up at their embassy and they claim they should be allowed to let him go to the US against China's will?

Re:A day late, but...

[ark1]

Revoking Snowden's passport also violates this from what I can see as by removing his passport they're removing his right to travel and hence to leave Russia.

Or in other words the US has pretty much now completely thrown the de-facto document on basic levels of standards of human rights entirely out the window.

Owning a passport/travelling between countries is a privilege not a right. When someone is suspected of a crime and there is a good chance this person may seek to leave the country to evade prosecution, the passport will be revoked. Snowden is not a special snowflake to warrant a different treatment.

Re:A day late, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

When someone is accused of a crime and is deemed a "flight risk", surrendering their passport is pretty standard practice. Snowden is a accused of espionage, and has pretty well demonstrated that he's a "flight risk", having already fled the country.

He's admitted to serious crimes, and now he's crying because the U.S. won't let him run away from facing a trial? Does he even hear himself?

Re:A day late, but...

[geogob]

You don't revoke passports. Once you arrested someone, the judge may decide to retain the travel documents to avoid that person fleeing justice. But the passport is not revoked, it is confiscated. And that is done once the person is arrested, not while the person is sitting somewhere in the world in a transit area.

Revoking a passport is quite extreme and I have never heard of such action. It is not the usual way to pursue international criminals. Thus it is a different treatment.

Re:A day late, but...

[Xest]

So if it's a privilege not a right then why is it defined as a human right in the UDHR which the US was active in both writing and voting for? The problem is they're not stopping him leaving the US for committing a crime there, they're stopping him travelling full stop by revoking his passport. That's not quite the same as a court forcing surrender of travel documents.

What about Chen Guangcheng? He was deemed a criminal in China but the US seemed to have no problem with arguing to get him out of the country? Is it only okay to support the UDHR which the US voted for when we're talking about foreigners?

There still seems to be a certain degree of extreme double standards here whatever the technicalities are.

Re:A day late, but...

[ark1]

You don't revoke passports. Once you arrested someone, the judge may decide to retain the travel documents to avoid that person fleeing justice. But the passport is not revoked, it is confiscated. And that is done once the person is arrested, not while the person is sitting somewhere in the world in a transit area.

Revoking a passport is quite extreme and I have never heard of such action. It is not the usual way to pursue international criminals. Thus it is a different treatment.

Passport Canada (US must have something similar) has a description of actions that may get your passport revoked. At this point I think he does fall in there.

Re:A day late, but...

[mitcheli]

This is really fascinating... In unrelated thoughts, the US currently has a law on the books called the Bradley Amendment, which defines child support enforcement mechanisms at the Federal Level. One of those provisions that states are allowed to do is to revoke passports for individuals that are behind on their child support. Curious how this treaty affects implementation of the Brandley Amendment and whether or not a fight in court at the State level (and theoretically to the Federal level) would play out if challenged against this...<\off topic> I think I'll have to do more reading on this...

Re:A day late, but...

[sangreal66]

There is nothing extreme about it, it is entirely routine:

The principal law enforcement reasons for the U.S. State Department to deny
or revoke a passport are the existence of (1) a valid federal or state felony arrest warrant; or (2) a
criminal court order, condition of parole or condition of probation that forbids departure from the
United States (See 22 C.F.R. 51.60-51.62)

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/smart/pdfs/passport_fact_sheet.pdf

This pdf is about sex offenders, but that isn't relevant to the regulations they cite (and I'm just demonstrating that it is standard procedure). 22 C.F.R. 51.62 allows them to revoke a passport if the bearer would not be eligible to get a new passport:

51.62 Revocation or limitation of passports.

(a) The Department may revoke or limit a passport when

(1) The bearer of the passport may be denied a passport under 22 CFR 51.60 or 51.61 ; or 51.28 ; or any other provision contained in this part; or,

22 C.F.R. 51.60 allows for denying a new passport based on outstanding arrest warrants:

(b) The Department may refuse to issue a passport in any case in which the Department determines or is informed by competent authority that:

(1) The applicant is the subject of an outstanding Federal warrant of arrest for a felony, including a warrant issued under the Federal Fugitive Felon Act (18 U.S.C. 1073); or

Put together, they can and do revoke passports based simply on having an outstanding arrest warrant, without a specific court order

Re:A day late, but...

[Politburo]

Oh, *you've* never heard of it.. well that settles it then.

Re:A day late, but...

[Politburo]

Where "technicalities" = "huge differences in the basic facts of each case", sure.

Re:A day late, but...

[Xest]

Feel free to expand upon them and explain their relevance.

Re:A day late, but...

[geogob]

I stand corrected, but not thanks to your help.

Thanks to sangreal66 and ark1 for their constructive and informative input. Although I'm still not wondering if this is the proper way to treat this case. Because provision allowing it exist, does not mean they are appropriate for this case.

Anyway, I believe it is somewhat irrelevant. If a country is serious about offering asylum, they might as well provide one-way travel documents to travel into that country.

Re:A day late, but...

[49152]

Revoking Snowden's passport also violates this from what I can see as by removing his passport they're removing his right to travel and hence to leave Russia.

It is not a violation of the human rights to prevent someone wanted on criminal charges from traveling. If it was all police arrests would be illegal which would obviously be absurd.

If the charges are fair is another matter.

Re:A day late, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

If Russia allows it, I'm pretty sure he can leave Russia and return to his country any time he wants. I suspect that, were he to make that intent known, the US government would be happy to send someone to issue him new travel documents, bring him home, carry his bags, and give him a new place to stay. ;)

Re:A day late, but...

[Xest]

There are some subtleties involved though and that's where the problem lies.

It's certainly not a violation of human rights to prevent someone convicted of a crime travelling, it's certainly not a violation of human rights to confiscate a passport of someone who has been charged awaiting trial from travelling.

But what's not so clear cut is if it's a violation of human rights to revoke the passport of someone who is already out the country, who committed no crime in the country they were in at the time of the incident they're being tried for.

The normal path for dealing with this situation is extradition judged by the host country on it's merits and revocation of passport is an unusual step normally only used when someone has also been say stripped of citizenship for example.

The problem is that Snowden is in limbo, because he can't enter Russia without a passport, and Russia can't even consider the US extradition without him officially entering Russia. This is why there's arguably a human rights violation and why I suspect he has claimed to have been made stateless - sure he has US citizenship still, but he's currently not officially residing in any state and feels that nor can he.

Re:A day late, but...

[49152]

"It's certainly not a violation of human rights to prevent someone convicted of a crime travelling, it's certainly not a violation of human rights to confiscate a passport of someone who has been charged awaiting trial from travelling."

Wrong again, it is not a requirement that he is being convicted. Being wanted/charged is enough.

It does not matter that he is abroad.

He is actually allowed to travel to the US. They have clarified that he will be given one way documents if he surrenders.

How Russia handles people without valid passports is not a matter for the US to consider.

While I agree he should not have been charged in the first place these arguments that they are somehow violating his rights to travel are just ludicrous.

Re:A day late, but...

[bill_mcgonigle]

they're stopping him travelling full stop by revoking his passport

Let's be perfectly clear - it's the other countries who are stopping him from traveling without a passport. Why can't he leave Russia for Cuba or Venezuela? They're just as complicit in the UDHR violations.

Re:A day late, but...

[Xest]

Go read a bit about universal jurisdiction and you'll understand the problem better.

Re:A day late, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

A passport is nothing more than a formality. There are lots of people who travel between other countries all the time without one. Revoking a passport makes it more difficult, but that is all.

Re:A day late, but...

[0111 1110]

Owning a passport/travelling between countries is a privilege not a right.

It is not a privilege at all. It is one of the most basic human rights: the right to move about freely whether or not a repressive government wants you to. If you believe you have no inherent right to travel without your government's permission then you are nothing more than a slave who is owned by your government. A passport was never intended to be a permission to travel document. It is just intended as proof to other countries that you truly are a citizen. That you were truly born in that country. Revoking a passport to prevent travel is an abuse of that purpose. It sickens me that so many Americans believe that is soon as they leave their home their ability to move about freely is a privilege bestowed upon them by their government. That is just pathetic.

Re:A day late, but...

[0111 1110]

To a citizen of a free country, Snowden has committed no crime. At least no more of a crime than criticizing his government. He is a dissident of a repressive regime that likes to claim it is not repressive. Nothing more.

Re:A day late, but...

[0111 1110]

It is not a violation of the human rights to prevent someone wanted on criminal charges from traveling.

It most certainly his. If you do not have the right to move about freely then any other right is meaningless.

Re:A day late, but...

[Sir Holo]

When someone is suspected of a crime and there is a good chance this person may seek to leave the country to evade prosecution, the passport will be revoked.

Nope. Being suspected of a crime ad having your passport confiscated? That's an abrogation of standard legal procedure (IANAL).

Now, if one is arrested, charged, and arraigned––and if the judge determines the person is a flight risk––the passport can be revoked.

Re:A day late, but...

[Sir Holo]

Passport Canada has a description of actions that may get your passport revoked.

He is not a Canadian citizen, and Canadian law has no bearing on this issue.

Also, it is always a bad idea to assume anything when considering laws, especially between different countries. Legal systems may start from a particular base (e.g., Roman law, British Common law, etc.), but in any given country they take their own path based on subsequent legal decisions and laws enacted over time.

Re:A day late, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was all police arrests would be illegal which would obviously be absurd.

The constitutian says nothing about police arrest's so they are in deed illegal.
--
roman_mir

NSA is not us

[Anonymous Coward]

NSA is not us. If NSA were us, Clapper wouldn't be lying to Congress.
FISA ruling wouldn't be hidden from us, especially the 2011 one saying its illegal.
This wouldn't have been done in secret and they wouldn't have to lie to us.
Snowden wouldn't have had to leak something that should/needs be public in a democracy anyway.
FTC and other government agencies wouldn't have to remind Corps there are laws in the land.
Google Yahoo etc. wouldn't be fighting secret orders in secret kangaroo courts.
Cheney wouldn't be smirking.

So no, it's them, no us. A fear-mongering faction in the NSA led by General Alexander that simply decided one day to capture all data and store all data, on everyone, and a lot of traitors to their countries who went along with it. /rant

Amateur...

[Anonymous Coward]

Snowden is a fucking mess, dumbass motherfucker...

What did he expected? Release top secret files and 45 days later travel around the world like nothing happened?
He should have everything in place BEFORE he started all this shit storm...

And there is people that call this stupid moron a "hero"... Jesus.

Re: Amateur...

[Anonymous Coward]

NSA template response #1435-33

Re: Amateur...

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you know this is a template response, makes your response a template response. otherwise how would you know that it is a template?

Just the accusation implies knowledge that you can not have unless you are an insider. Which means that you are either making things up (Most Likely) or an agent Provocateur (unlikely but much worse).

Both options mean that you should be ignored...

Re:Amateur...

[geogob]

At least, he's not an Anonymous Coward, making such bold statements.

Re:Amateur...

[Anonymous Coward]

Knowledge Is Free.
We Are Anonymous.
We Are Legion.
We Do Not Forgive.
We Do Not Forget.
Expect Us.

PS: I still have my passport...

Re:Amateur...

[1s44c]

Snowden is a fucking mess, dumbass motherfucker...

Exactly. How stupid do you have to be to stand up against government tyranny? It's obvious that the US government was just watching out for foreign terrorists outside the US by collecting local phone data. It's even more obvious that the whole EU and UN are branches of al-queda and should be closely monitored for threats. Kofi Annan could be planning a suicide attack right now!!

I'm being ironic and mocking you Anonymous Coward because you are talking BS.

Re:Amateur...

[Anonymous Coward]

U mocking me, I call moms... Boo Fucking Hoo genius!

Snowden is still a dumbass and you little fuckers that believe you can beat/change the system (U.S.A. Fuck Yeah!) have much to learn...

Political In Russi

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome post
  thanks
http://itunerbd.blogspot.com
  http://makeyourwon.blogspot.com
  http://keygenbd.blogspot.com

STUPID asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

uh, he said it makes him 'stateless'

DERP

Norway

[beaverdownunder]

http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/edward-snowden-applies-asylum-in-norway-5484164

Re:Norway

[Anonymous Coward]

Revoked, as well as shitloads of others.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23145887

BBC NEWS KEEPIN IT REAL (R)

Re:Norway

[Anonymous Coward]

no http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/02/edward-snowden-nsa-asylum-application-list-countries

Re:Norway

[49152]

Norway has declined his application on formal grounds:
http://www.dagbladet.no/2013/07/02/nyheter/politikk/snowden/27999533/ (article in Norwegian language).

According to Norwegian law you have to actually be on Norwegian territory (an embassy would do) to apply for asylum. Since the application was sent to the embassy in Moscow by fax it was denied.

I think most of Europe has similar laws and will deny his application for the same reason.

Re:Norway

[Anonymous Coward]

and now someone have appealed to have the authorities consider his application again:
http://www.dagbladet.no/2013/07/02/nyheter/politikk/edward_snowden/innenriks/asyl/28002897/

Do not think it will help him since the law is very clear on how an asylum application must be delivered.

Re:Norway

[Idetuxs]

What about privacy in Norway? I'd really like to know as I consider Norway the most advanced country in the world (that i'm aware of).
I thought of Sweden the same way but after the Assange and TPB case, I'm pretty confident it's a US lapdog. So now I don't know what to think of other Sandinavian countries

Russian application withdrawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Another article saying the Russian application was withdrawn:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23145887

What is it really all about?

[3seas]

Abstractions... nothing more.... physical reality is only influenced by abstractions to the extent human action is connected to them. To understand this is to know its about excuses to use nothing more than brute force physically.

The Obama Adminastration is not a US governemnt but the government the founders wrote and warned us about when they wrote the Declaration of Independence. And they gave us instructions as to what to do about it. Recognizing its not only our right to do something about it but our Duty to.

So what does this do for Snowden? Plenty know, though the Obama Administration is in denial about it.

Snowden isn't stateless

[cold fjord]

Allow me to draw your attention to this line from: Statement from Edward Snowden in Moscow

"Although I am convicted of nothing, it has unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me a stateless person. "

Maybe you can change that last line to: Read, then post.

Snowden's statement - 1st July 2013

[Taco Cowboy]

http://wikileaks.org/Statement-from-Edward-Snowden-in.html?snow

Monday July 1, 21:40 UTC
One week ago I left Hong Kong after it became clear that my freedom and safety were under threat for revealing the truth. My continued liberty has been owed to the efforts of friends new and old, family, and others who I have never met and probably never will. I trusted them with my life and they returned that trust with a faith in me for which I will always be thankful.

On Thursday, President Obama declared before the world that he would not permit any diplomatic "wheeling and dealing" over my case. Yet now it is being reported that after promising not to do so, the President ordered his Vice President to pressure the leaders of nations from which I have requested protection to deny my asylum petitions.

This kind of deception from a world leader is not justice, and neither is the extralegal penalty of exile. These are the old, bad tools of political aggression. Their purpose is to frighten, not me, but those who would come after me.

For decades the United States of America has been one of the strongest defenders of the human right to seek asylum. Sadly, this right, laid out and voted for by the U.S. in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is now being rejected by the current government of my country. The Obama administration has now adopted the strategy of using citizenship as a weapon. Although I am convicted of nothing, it has unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me a stateless person. Without any judicial order, the administration now seeks to stop me exercising a basic right. A right that belongs to everybody. The right to seek asylum.

In the end the Obama administration is not afraid of whistleblowers like me, Bradley Manning or Thomas Drake. We are stateless, imprisoned, or powerless. No, the Obama administration is afraid of you. It is afraid of an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised Ã" and it should be.

I am unbowed in my convictions and impressed at the efforts taken by so many.

Edward Joseph Snowden Monday 1st July 2013

Re:Snowden's statement - 1st July 2013

[Quila]

Although I am convicted of nothing

Uh, you haven't been convicted because you ran, so you can't bitch about that. Now come back, subject yourself to a trial for breaking the laws you voluntarily swore to abide by, and then you will be convicted.

Re:Snowden's statement - 1st July 2013

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I am convicted of nothing

Uh, you haven't been convicted because you ran, so you can't bitch about that. Now come back, subject yourself to a trial for breaking the laws you voluntarily swore to abide by, and then you will be convicted.

Interesting that you think that voluntarily (by your emphasis) doing something somehow changes things. You assume that choosing one path also forces you to agree to be complicit in crimes and other illegal activities further down this path, all because some clause said so. You have to remember that there are layers of laws where the constitution is at the top of pyramid and overrides any law beneath it.

So even if you have your legal team with you to explain what you're reading while you 'voluntarily' agree to a contradictory set of rules, it still doesn't suddenly make those laws valid. And being convicted of those unjust/invalid laws due to political (or physical) pressure still doesn't make it ok.

In summary, it seems you are happy to support anyone with power and influence with no critical thought of your own.

Re:Snowden's statement - 1st July 2013

[datavirtue]

You gotta admit, the executive branch has been pulled into this game and has been made to look shifty and petty. If I were in the Oval office I wouldn't have given this story the time of day. It would have done Obama no harm to act like he didn't know who Snowden was, instead he has been sucked into a media-hyped tit-for-tat with a fleeing whistle blower. At least the Bush administration knew how to ignore a scandal and keep it in check. Best way for an executive to discredit a whistleblower: shake head from side to side, wrinkle forehead, and say "who." I'm a horrible liar and even I could pull that off.

Re:Snowden's statement - 1st July 2013

[Quila]

Interesting that you think that voluntarily (by your emphasis) doing something somehow changes things.

It does. He asked the government to be given a privilege, a position of trust with the government, In return for this privilege, and the high income that can come with it, he swore to abide by certain rules, agreeing that he could face civil and criminal penalties for doing so. He was also informed that there are channels for whistleblowers to divulge classified information, and to challenge the classification of information that is concealing violations of law, or is classified to prevent embarrassment of an agency.

So even if you have your legal team with you to explain what you're reading while you 'voluntarily' agree to a contradictory set of rules

You don't need a legal team. It's quite clear. You break the rules, you risk jail.

As Nelson would say

[C_Kode]

Haha.

Snowden has retracted his asylum application

[Taco Cowboy]

Snowden has retracted his asylum application to Russia, on the ground that he does not want to jeopardize the state-to-state relationship between Russia and the USA

Re:Snowden has retracted his asylum application

[vikingpower]

on the ground that he does not want to jeopardize the state-to-state relationship between Russia and the USA

I am not sure about that ground. The only fact we know for sure, at the moment, is that he has retracted. The ground is not known, and is being indicated by many sources to be the fact that Putin posed "no more disclosures" as a conditions. Which is not quite the same as what you state, only similar or an indication thereof.

Re:Snowden has retracted his asylum application

[Crimey McBiggles]

That's pretty informative bro. Care to provide a source??

Re:Snowden has retracted his asylum application

[Sponge Bath]

Russia made asylum conditional on Snowden only releasing more information to Russia. Publicly, this was stated as a requirement that Snowden not release anymore information while in Russia. Since the information is now in third party hands (implied by Assange), he can't comply. None of this is Snowden's choice.

Re:Snowden has retracted his asylum application

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia made asylum conditional on Snowden only releasing more information to Russia.

Oh, I think we, and the world's press would like to know where you plucked that gem from.

Lamo is that you?

Re:Snowden has retracted his asylum application

[SolitaryMan]

... being indicated by many sources to be the fact that Putin posed "no more disclosures" as a conditions.

Your mistake is taking whatever Putin (or any politician for that matter) publicly stated at face value.

As others have said

[arcite]

If Snowden walked into the US Embassy in Moscow, they would issue him travel pass for a one way ticket back to the States in about 5 minutes. That he an international fugitive on the run probably has more to do with his reluctance.

You may not want to admit it ...

[Taco Cowboy]

... but NSA does represent the Americans !!

Whether you like it or not, if you are an American (which I am), NSA is part and parcel of the American government - and whatever NSA is doing (and whatever the Obama administration is doing right now) does represent ALL THE AMERICANS

I mean, look at what is happening in Egypt

The Egyptians who are tired of the non-performing Egyptian presidents are gathering in HUGE CROWD, demanding that muslim-brotherhood figurehead to step down

And about America ... ... do you see anything like that happening ?

Why not ?

What kind of message the Americans are telling the world ? ... that we, the Americans, are SATISFIED with what the Obama administration is doing ... that we, the Americans, agree with what NSA is doing ... that we, the Americans, do not mind our phones be tapped, do not mind that the big brother has invaded our privacy, do not mind at all, that our liberties are being violated

By doing nothing, that's THE MESSAGE the Americans are telling the world ... whether you like it, or not

Re: You may not want to admit it ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So go start a protest in front of the whitehouse already. Oh wait, why are you still in your parent's basement? Because you're too chicken to do it!

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for saying that so clearly. I hope you all read that and understand what it means. Simply not acting is an action all by itself and means something.

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[Anonymous Coward]

By doing nothing, that's THE MESSAGE the Americans are telling the world ... whether you like it, or not

And the rest of the world is both laughing their asses off at you, and increasingly realizing that what America says and what America does are two entirely different things.

All that talk about rights and freedoms is hypocrisy, and as a government they're more interested in forcing other countries to adopt stricter copyright protections than anything else.

America has lost the right to tell other countries to not spy on their citizens, or pretty much anything -- because they do it themselves. You ignore your own Constitution more every week.

What the rest of the world is seeing is a steady decline into being xenophobic idiots who like to tell everyone else how to run their countries while steadily allowing their own to fall apart.

Re: You may not want to admit it ...

[nickmalthus]

See you on the 4th AC

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[jez9999]

And about America ... ... do you see anything like that happening ?

What about the Occupy movement?

Re: You may not want to admit it ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful. Touché.

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[Zedrick]

> Why not ?

Dexter, Longmire, Warehouse 13, Burn Notice, Under the Dome, Breaking Bad, Futurama, Psych, Homeland...?

As far as I know, the old Egyptians didn't have anything like that to distract the population with.

Re: You may not want to admit it ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, why doesn't this mobile webapp support UTF-8 already?

Re: You may not want to admit it ...

[arth1]

Unfortunately, the average American is more interested in going to a monster truck event or feeding their kids kosher hot dogs from Wal-Mart than caring. After all, who cares, it's only privacy, which is only a commodity, and did you know you could save fifty cents on socks at Marshall's this week?

"You must not abide and ignore with a passion
injustice that only turns other lives ashen.
You shall not permit it! You dare not, at all
accepting that outrage upon all will fall!
I cry with the final gasps of my breath:
You must not ignore, nor idly forget!"
-- Freely after A. Overland

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[RoknrolZombie]

Hrm...what about it? They don't seem to be terribly active anymore. Maybe after they were swarmed by the homeless people they gave up? Maybe they gave up because they needed an income to be able to be comfortably homeless themselves?

Re: You may not want to admit it ...

[fustakrakich]

Learn to type:

touché

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[fustakrakich]

What about the Occupy movement?

Yeah, what about it?

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And about America ... ... do you see anything like that happening ?

What about the Occupy movement?

Why not bring up 12-year-olds setting fire to bags of dog shit on neighbor's porches?

Cuz that's what the Occutards are.

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[canadian_right]

... and polls show that just under 50% of Americans are happy to trade liberty for "safety" while just under %50 are not willing to make this trade.

So I think the "it is us" statement is true.

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[DNS-and-BIND]

There are too many people out there who cloak their racism in criticism of the Obama administration. Sorry, but you sure sound like one of them.

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[tibman]

I thought the Egyptians had Warehouse 2?

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[Culture20]

America has lost the right to tell other countries to not spy on their citizens

BS. If Hitler admonishes someone for anti semitism, he's still correct because anti semitism is wrong. Hypocracy doesn't remove someone's right to tell the truth.

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[interkin3tic]

Ah, so we're doing nothing and that means we approve of the NSA spying. Tell us, what are we supposed to do?

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hrm...what about it? They don't seem to be terribly active anymore. Maybe after they were swarmed by the homeless people they gave up? Maybe they gave up because they needed an income to be able to be comfortably homeless themselves?

Maybe they gave up because they were threatened by a coordinated action from DHS, FBI, and NYPD to raid Zucotti Park:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/photo-galleries/2011/11/15/nypd-raid-on-zuccotti-park/
http://gothamist.com/2012/09/26/video_six_clips_from_the_raid_of_zu.php

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[arth1]

Ah, so we're doing nothing and that means we approve of the NSA spying. Tell us, what are we supposed to do?

While the population can exercise their first amendment right to peaceful assembly, small and agile forces can be picked from the fourth amendment guaranteed militia, to perform strikes at an oppressive enemy. With today's theatre being cyberspace, one could call them millisecondmen.

Of course, I do not in any way suggest that this SHOULD be done. All praise our benevolent government, and remember, the computer is your friend. Trust the computer.

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If Hitler does anything in public, he'll be arrested for war crimes. Best he stay hidden.

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[Applekid]

I mean, look at what is happening in Egypt

The Egyptians who are tired of the non-performing Egyptian presidents are gathering in HUGE CROWD, demanding that muslim-brotherhood figurehead to step down

And about America ... ... do you see anything like that happening ?

Why not ?

What kind of message the Americans are telling the world ? ... that we, the Americans, are SATISFIED with what the Obama administration is doing ... that we, the Americans, agree with what NSA is doing ... that we, the Americans, do not mind our phones be tapped, do not mind that the big brother has invaded our privacy, do not mind at all, that our liberties are being violated

Easy. The economy is in the shitter. Banks and corporations get bail outs and forgiven loans and bankruptcy protection. For the rest of us, persistent unemployment (so persistent, half are not even counted anymore because they cannot get any additional unemployment benefits). Commodity prices are increasing every month while pay remains stagnant. The majority of people have little to no net worth. You'd think we'd be ripe for mass demonstrations.

But being in poverty in the US features far better conditions than poverty in other nations. They can still afford a TV, McDonalds, free Obamaphone, free internet at the public library. The priority is to keep people fat and happy specifically so they don't march down the streets in protest. Aside from a few token advocates -- maybe, what, half a percent of the population? -- they're too busy watching Kim Kardashian, downing cheeseburgers, twittering about getting laid, and half-assing an online application to work at Target. These Brave New World comforts are what the masses stand to lose, so you get apathy. "Oh well, they're illegally collecting data on me, I DGAF becuz I got beer after trading my EFT for cash."

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[jez9999]

The point was that the post I was responding to said that Americans did nothing. At least Occupy tried. It's unreasonable not to mention them just because they were up against the tremendous power of the government and couldn't achieve anything.

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[davester666]

Sure, but it really reduces the effectiveness of the message if he says it as he has a row of Jews gunned down.

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care. I am content with my life. I don't want change because change might be for the worse and I'm not feeling oppressed enough that the risk would be worth the reward. The vast majority of my (and most Americans') human rights are still intact. Cases like this are on the fringe; 99.9% of Americans don't even have access to that kind of information to release if they wanted to. And as for snooping, I think fewer people care than privacy advocates think. If it's transparent and doesn't affect our lives, most of us just think it's a bit creepy, but it's a small price to pay for our current lifestyles. I'm not saying whether I'm justified in not being upset about it, just that's how it is.

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if you use your brain and evaluate the truth value of the hypocrite's statements on their own.

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[BitZtream]

Occupy was trying?

Seriously, camping out in the park in your Northface tent with your Northface jacket and backpack ... thats trying? You've got to fucking be kidding me.

You have no idea what 'trying to make change' is apparently.

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[RoknrolZombie]

Then why don't you enlighten us? It's all fine and dandy to tell us that what OWS did wasn't "trying"...what would you suggest? How exactly does a movement like that gain momentum in the first place? While I'm not necessarily young, the Vietnam protests are a bit before my time...and I don't think those were effective either.

So how, exactly, do the citizens effect change? We've been bitching about the exact same shit for the last 3 elections - that doesn't seem to be getting the job done. OWS made a stink for a few months, and managed to get some attention, but did anything change? I still don't see many bankers in jail, and the last time I checked BOA was still in business. So what do you suggest?

Of course, the "easy" suggestion is to "take up arms and fight the injustice"...how long do those folks last? A couple of days, tops, and they never get an opportunity to voice their impetus, leaving the public believing that they were just a run-of-the-mill terrorist. So what next? We can't exactly have secret meetings anymore, not with how much tracking the government is doing.

No, I think that OWS had the right idea, but it just never caught on. Why not? I couldn't say...if I could, I'd be trying to help from that side. I suspect that most of us are apathetic about our futures because we can't see a way for us to win...all we can see are ever increasing losses with no gains, which I'm sure was the goal of the US Gubmint to begin with. When the options are "leave things as they are when we can at least eat and have some semblance of existence" or "get loud and violent and die quickly and quietly" the former is going to get the American vote 9 times out of 10. Hell, probably more often than that...if we had even 10% of our population taking up arms someone would have to notice.

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the homeless people that the police rounded up and sent into their camp?

You mean occupy police infiltrators made up crimes about?

You mean the DHS federal paramilitary coordinated attack on peaceful protestors in all cities across america?

THAT Occupy?

Fuck you fascist.

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess what? The Egyptians gathered in a huge crowd to put down the monopolistic regime, then the gathered to put down the currently 'democratic' regime, guess what's going to happen next.

The enemy is NOT us, BUT we do need to look into the mirror before solving a problem.

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[Pseudonym Authority]

Yup, he's clearly racist because he disagreed with something Obama is doing. Alright, pack it up, we're done here. We've reached the extent of DNS-and-BIND's glorious argument and we can go to bed assured that any criticism of Obama is the same as joining the Klan and burning a cross on the White House lawn.

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[martinQblank]

" does represent ALL THE AMERICANS"

Yup. In our names, behind our backs.

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[datavirtue]

This just demonstrates the racism inherent in those who view opposition to Obama as cloaked racism. It takes one to know one.

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[datavirtue]

half-assing an online application to work at Target.

Where did you get this one?

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... but NSA does represent the Americans !!

The sad truth is that most Americans are lazy fat stupid uneducated
self-centered scum.

So nothing is going to change. You'd all better get used to it, because
the above scum are more than willing to trade ANYTHING for the illusion
of security.

As for "freedom", that has been an illusion for over a century in the US, so
anyone who is whining about the recent losses needs to study some history.

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[Anonymous Coward]

the Vietnam protests are a bit before my time...and I don't think those were effective either..

You're wrong.

Lyndon Johnson changed his plans based in no small part on
the discontent in the US relative to the mess in Viet Nam.

I was THERE. I was in the protests. I saw change happen, and I
also saw that liar Nixon leave office.

Change can happen. It is idiots like you who dismiss the idea of
making an effort who are the real enemy.

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[carolynblake]

There actually are large crowds gathering both at Bradley Manning's trial location, all over the US, and the world, But the corporate owned news is not reporting it.

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... and polls show that just under 50% of Americans are happy to trade liberty for "safety" while just under %50 are not willing to make this trade.

So I think the "it is us" statement is true.

From a social science perspective, polls and surveys are notoriously unreliable and extremely hard to get right, a point that has been made numerous times on Slashdot, but which apparently has to be made over and over again to the folks that don't understand the role of measurement in science. The difficulty of getting a measurement technique to work is often massively underestimated by those with little experience in measurement, and this is especially true in social science, an area in which the typical Slashdotter is highly under-educated.

Proving that a poll or survey is measuring something useful and doing so with reasonable precision and accuracy (which are not the same thing) usually requires decades of research, by which point it is entirely likely that the passage of time (and the corresponding cultural change) has invalidated the measure entirely. This kind of thing is what makes social science really hard.

Further, the idiots and dregs of a society tend to be heavily over-represented in polls: competent people with a life are too busy living their life to waste time on this sort of thing. In Western society you tend to get the opinions of people who spend their lives in front of the television set, which may not be an audience competent to have an opinion about anything that matters (why not just ask an alcoholic for their opinion about an important issue: on average they'll be just as mentally competent as the compulsive TV watcher?).

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[RoknrolZombie]

the Vietnam protests are a bit before my time...and I don't think those were effective either..

You're wrong.

Lyndon Johnson changed his plans based in no small part on the discontent in the US relative to the mess in Viet Nam.

I was THERE. I was in the protests. I saw change happen, and I also saw that liar Nixon leave office.

Change can happen. It is idiots like you who dismiss the idea of making an effort who are the real enemy.

Idiots like me? Perhaps you'll want to reread the post you're replying to and realize that there are question marks throughout. I have dismissed nothing, and have instead asked for legitimate alternatives. This crap up there ^ ? Yeah, that's not helping either. Your generation made no great leaps in fixing these problems, and contributed largely to the quagmire of bullshit that we're trying to wade through now. As far as I can see, this up-coming generation isn't going to have a choice but to deal with it. Do *you* feel confident that they can do it alone? So I'm sorry if my ignorance is so offensive to you Mr...oh...Anonymous Coward. Way to stand up for your rights.

Re:You may not want to admit it ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing English is not your first language. "America has lost the right to tell other countries to not spy on their citizens" is not supposed to be taken literally.

Hypocrite

[Anonymous Coward]

So he supposedly "martyred" himself for freedom, and yet has no qualms about living in countries that are much more oppressive than the US. Hypocrite, pure and simple.

Re:Hypocrite

[1s44c]

So he supposedly "martyred" himself for freedom, and yet has no qualms about living in countries that are much more oppressive than the US. Hypocrite, pure and simple.

He applied for Asylum in a few countries that are less oppressive than the US too.

But it's not a hypocritical act to sacrifice yourself so that others may have greater freedom.

Re:Hypocrite

[mblase]

But it's not a hypocritical act to sacrifice yourself so that others may have greater freedom.

If he was sacrificing himself, he would have stayed in the USA after distributing all the documents he'd stolen and proudly stood trial for what he'd done.

Instead, he ran for it. And now he's having to deal with the unfortunate reality that most countries aren't going to stick their neck out to protect him from the United States if there's nothing to be gained.

Re:Hypocrite

[Anonymous Coward]

He should rot in jail...

Re:Hypocrite

[0111 1110]

Please renounce your US citizenship. Since you obviously don't think that is any sort of sacrifice. Go live in exile for the rest of your life and then get back to us.

Re:Hypocrite

[1s44c]

It sounds like you are saying that someone who pushes a child out of the path of a car is a coward unless they make sure they are themselves hit by that car in the process. It's possible to do good (or what you believe to be good) without destroying yourself in the process.

Re:Hypocrite

[Pseudonym Authority]

If he was sacrificing himself, he would have stayed in the USA after distributing all the documents he'd stolen and proudly stood trial for what he'd done.

Why? You don't have to be stupid to sacrifice yourself. If you witness a mafia boss murder someone, are you going to proudly and boldly testify without asking for witness protection? Believe it or not, given the choice, most people would like to do what they think is right AND not have their life ruined.

Circus and farce

[Pecisk]

Sorry guys, I know you want to fight oppression, corporations, evil governments and what else, but level of cheese coming out of Assange and now Snowden is making me puke. Seriously, a stateless person? Passport is *document*, not nationality or citizenship. It is revoked when you have lost formal trust of country it has been issued by (regular procedure for accused runaways). Edward, you already invalidating anything you have said before (except factual leaked docs), because your intent is to speculate emotionally.

What he really thought will happen after his identification as the source? That everybody will jump out of joy when he will ask for political asylum? That he will have capability to travel after identifying himself? What is this with this childish behavior?

Re:Circus and farce

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of farcical, how about Barry referring to him as a "hacker"?

Huh? I'm sorry, but that looks several levels at least above Snowden's pay grade. Or was this some kind of bizarre slip of the tongue, somehow?

Re:Circus and farce

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno. He's a dumbass? An agent provocateur? In that case the more interesting question is, for who? Who would want to to poison the well, in the minds of the sheeple, and the scuttlefish, about whistle-blowing? What really damaging info, that we didn't know before, has really been leaked, as opposed to merely embarrassing, and actually of more use to those protesting too much?

Makes you wonder who Julian is really working for, sometimes.

Sorry, I want to believe, but....

Re:Circus and farce

[Pseudonym Authority]

Edward, you already invalidating anything you have said before

Oh wow. Does a more model example of ad hominem exist? "You're a prick and I don't like you, so everything you've said is wrong. End of discussion!" Grow up, you're the one being emotional.

Re:Circus and farce

[Pecisk]

Like it or not, our act as human being and part of society indicates our trust worthy in eyes of our pier. Assange and Edward uses emotional speculation as a tool to gain more popular support, but this clearly backfires. Because in this case Edward not only leaked documents, but also made some strong claims about nature of NSA capabilities, which can't be verified by us without clearance. If he claims he's stateless (which clearly he's not) and uses emotional language to complain about his situation (when he clearly broke laws and contracts to make political stand, which is fine by me, but please go to court, fight, not run). And what is this with these childish tantrums - if I will go to US, they will give me death penalty, etc. etc. This strongly suggests that his motivations are political and therefore it is hard for everyone in society to trust to his word (where it's not backed by documents or other sources).

Re:Circus and farce

[Anonymous Coward]

He's been holed up in an airport for how long now, and you expect him to not get a little emotional over the whole thing? Have some sympathy, geez..

This is so much fun!

[Andover Chick]

An international thriller unfolding day-by-day. A nerd on the run in exotic locations. Every morning there are dozens of fascinating stories in the news. Awesome!

This is getting to be an interesting show...

[ducomputergeek]

If he wanted to blame someone, I'd blame the folks at Wikileaks who advised him to travel from Hong Kong to Russia in the first place. Apparently they told him they'd find him a place for Asylum and it seems they couldn't deliver.

Sorry, but part of civil disobedience is a willingness to suffer the consequences as just or unjust as they maybe. That's what sets people like Gandhi, Mandela and MLKjr apart from this guy. They took their stands and paid the price of their stands.

Some want to lift this guy up as some kind of hero. Others a criminal and traitor. I've held the position that he's both. At least until he begins giving up operational tradecraft information then I start to lean more towards criminal. It's one thing to bring to light what is going on in generalities.

Although I'm getting a laugh at the coming out of the EU being up and arms about our spying on them, especially the French. After all the DGSE is the only intelligence service I know of that publically publishes the fact that 25% of their budget is spent on industrial espionage to help French businesses.

At any rate, glad we can all be focused on this little side drama as opposed to the meat of the story: mainly the spying programs that the NSA have been engaged in. Funny how just a week later that's been pushed from the news headlines. If this wasn't enough to get people into the streets with pitchforks and willing to tar and feather the lot of them in DC I guess nothing will. It was a nice republic, too bad we couldn't keep it.

Re:This is getting to be an interesting show...

[misexistentialist]

Sorry, but part of civil disobedience is a willingness to suffer the consequences as just or unjust as they maybe. That's what sets people like Gandhi, Mandela and MLKjr apart from this guy. They took their stands and paid the price of their stands.

Exile is a consequence. He's not a leader of a movement like those guys, and his conviction itself wouldn't be illegitimate, so disappearing into jail would mean nothing.

Re:This is getting to be an interesting show...

[c0lo]

It was a nice republic, too bad we couldn't keep it.

You want to say you did try?

Re:This is getting to be an interesting show...

[drinkypoo]

If he wanted to blame someone, I'd blame the folks at Wikileaks who advised him to travel from Hong Kong to Russia in the first place.

If they have a mole, it wouldn't be the first time...

At any rate, glad we can all be focused on this little side drama as opposed to the meat of the story: mainly the spying programs that the NSA have been engaged in.

I don't know about you, but I have always assumed that the NSA was intercepting all of my communications, and passing them to the FBI. This is just not much of a bombshell to me. The question is more what we're supposed to do about it when we can't even agree that corporations shouldn't be treated like people even though they never die.

Re:This is getting to be an interesting show...

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a nice republic, too bad we couldn't keep it.

It's interesting, just yesterday I was mourning on the loss of my home country, Canada, while others were celebrating its birth.

Isaiah..

[MickLinux]

59:1.Surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save,
nor his ear too dull to hear.
2.But your iniquities have separated
you from your God;
your sins have hidden his face from you,
so that he will not hear.
3.For your hands are stained with blood,
your fingers with guilt.
Your lips have spoken falsely,
and your tongue mutters wicked things.
4.No one calls for justice;
no one pleads a case with integrity.
They rely on empty arguments, they utter lies;
they conceive trouble and give birth to evil.
5.They hatch the eggs of vipers
and spin a spiderâ(TM)s web.
Whoever eats their eggs will die,
and when one is broken, an adder is hatched.
6.Their cobwebs are useless for clothing;
they cannot cover themselves with what they make.
Their deeds are evil deeds,
and acts of violence are in their hands.
7.Their feet rush into sin;
they are swift to shed innocent blood.
They pursue evil schemes;
acts of violence mark their ways.
8.The way of peace they do not know;
there is no justice in their paths.
They have turned them into crooked roads;
no one who walks along them will know peace.
9.So justice is far from us,
and righteousness does not reach us.
We look for light, but all is darkness;
for brightness, but we walk in deep shadows.
10.Like the blind we grope along the wall,
feeling our way like people without eyes.
At midday we stumble as if it were twilight;
among the strong, we are like the dead.
11.We all growl like bears;
we moan mournfully like doves.
We look for justice, but find none;
for deliverance, but it is far away.
12.For our offenses are many in your sight,
and our sins testify against us.
Our offenses are ever with us,
and we acknowledge our iniquities:
13.rebellion and treachery against the Lord,
turning our backs on our God,
inciting revolt and oppression,
uttering lies our hearts have conceived.
14.So justice is driven back,
and righteousness stands at a distance;
truth has stumbled in the streets,
honesty cannot enter.
15.Truth is nowhere to be found,
and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey.
The Lord looked and was displeased
that there was no justice.
16.He saw that there was no one,
he was appalled that there was no one to intervene;

Re:Isaiah..

[MickLinux]

My own interpretations:
Primarily, this is actually about the crucifixion: the part that follows deals with his righteousness being his only clothing [he was naked when crucified], and so on.

But it also applies to us today, in its primary condition:

your sins have hidden his face from you,
so that he will not hear.
In World War II, we were heard. It will not happen now.

4.No one calls for justice;
no one pleads a case with integrity.
They rely on empty arguments, they utter lies;
they conceive trouble and give birth to evil.

See what is on slashdot every day. We call it trolling, sometimes. Sometimes we call it Online Reputation Management. Sometimes we mod it up.

5.They hatch the eggs of vipers
and spin a spider's web.
Whoever eats their eggs will die,
and when one is broken, an adder is hatched.

how many times, are we offered up that which is bad for us, as a good thing. The director the the NSA among them! Also the chairmen of the Fed, and our lawyers, or doctors... often our bishops and priests, our realtors... But if anyone points that out, they have made a mortal enemy, an adder.

6.Their cobwebs are useless for clothing;
they cannot cover themselves with what they make.
Their deeds are evil deeds,

All those webs of intrigue... will never cover their --or our-- nakedness. They will never honor us.

and acts of violence are in their hands.

Remember the last wikileaks scandle, Manning, where video of our soldiers slaughtering innocent civilians and laughing -- a war crime!!! -- was released, and only Manning has been charged? Need I say more?

7.Their feet rush into sin;
they are swift to shed innocent blood.

Iniquitous laws made by evildoers aside, Manning is innocent in the strongest sense of the word. So is Snowden. Here on Slashdot, I see some deny that, some laugh at him and taunt him -- cowards, you -- some agree with that, and some agree, while laughing that he's going to be destroyed.

They pursue evil schemes;
acts of violence mark their ways.

Again, not so much those we name as terrorists, though them too: Rather, our own government, and even us.

8.The way of peace they do not know;
there is no justice in their paths.

Our leadership destroys our whistleblowers, and let mass murderers go free. In justice, such deserve to die at the hands of the mass murderers they supported.

They have turned them into crooked roads;
no one who walks along them will know peace.
9.So justice is far from us,
and righteousness does not reach us.
We look for light, but all is darkness;
for brightness, but we walk in deep shadows.
10.Like the blind we grope along the wall,
feeling our way like people without eyes.
At midday we stumble as if it were twilight;
among the strong, we are like the dead.
11.We all growl like bears;try to threaten others for our safety
we moan mournfully like doves. gasping in shock and pain
We look for justice, but find none;
for deliverance, but it is far away.
12.For our offenses are many in your sight,
and our sins testify against us.
Our offenses are ever with us,
and we acknowledge our iniquities:

13.rebellion and treachery against the Lord,
turning our backs on our God,

this is the source of our problems. Deny it, but you will live it.

inciting revolt and oppression,
uttering lies our hearts have conceived.

I'm going to say, most people--even on slashdot now-- are afraid to post what they believe, by now. Our government embraced Naziism, and we are living in Nazi times.

14.So justice is driven back,
and righteousness stands at a distance;
truth has stumbled in the streets,
honesty cannot enter.

15.Truth is nowhere to be found,
and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey.

Snowden

The Lord looked and was displeased
that there was no justice.
16.He saw that there was no one,
he was appalled that there was no one to intervene;

This is where I look for my answer. When there is noone to save, then look to the Lord to save.

Life imitating art

[arcite]

I wonder if he has discovered the finer delicacies of airport eating, as seen in the Terminal, such as the venerable ketchup and mustard cracker sandwich.

Re:Life imitating art

[Yomers]

There are a few hotels that provide services for transit passengers in Sheremetevo, including couple four-five star hotes - so he probably stays in a nice room and gets regular meals delivered from hotel restaurant. Hotel do not have to be located inside airport transit zone, just a separate guarded floor in an ordinary hotel. So I bet he is pretty comfortable now.

Wait a minute!

[Ihlosi]

He still enjoys the rights of his US citizenship, which include the right to a free and fair trial for the crimes he's been accused of

This is now considered a right of US citizens, not a human right in general? I think I need to change my travel plans...

(What's a 'free' trial anyway? Is that 'free' as in 'beer', or some other type of 'free'?)

Re:Wait a minute!

[AHuxley]

Free to select from a very short list of security cleared lawyers.

ma83

[Anonymous Coward]

I thoNught it was my goals. It's when the top. Or were,

Can you say psyop?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lee Harvey Snowden.

That's what some of the Fox radio talk hosts are calling hm. For the usual wrong reasons, but the comparison seems apt regardless.

Re:Can you say psyop?

[Anonymous Coward]

And why does this whole thing smell like that cock-and-bull story about Benghazi?

Re:Can you say psyop?

[Anonymous Coward]

Coming soon to a theatre near you: "Friends of Stuart Gill", starring Robert Mitchum. Oh, wait...

I don't think Snowden quite understands the law.

[sirwired]

Firstly, he's not stateless. The US is not denying the fact he is currently a United States Citizen. A stateless person is one with no citizenship anywhere. A stateless person has no right of entry into any country; he has the right to return to the US any time he wants.

Second, nothing in international law obligates any country to not object to an asylum application. It would be a treaty violation to make asylum seeking in and of itself a crime, but that's not happening.

That UN treaty does protect asylum seekers from purely political prosecutions, but Snowden has moved well away from whistleblowing on domestic surveillance programs (I could certainly classify that as "political"), and has progressed to apparently spilling the beans on every electronic intelligence gathering operation he could get his hands on.

When he was still talking about domestic surveillance of questionably constitutionality, I could see him as a civil liberties hero. But he's gone well beyond that by now.

And, as a side note, how did he NOT think going from Hong Kong to Moscow was going from The Frying Pan Into the Fire? Hong Kong was a strange choice to begin with. (He could be successfully hiding almost anywhere in Western Europe, had he fled there.) Leaving Hong Kong to head to Moscow was even stranger. If he wanted the "Court of Public Opinion" on his side, this was not necessarily the best way to go about it. Not to mention the danger inherent in relying on the goodwill of the Peace and Freedom Loving Peoples of Russia.

Yet

[Anonymous Coward]

"does represent ALL THE AMERICANS"
Only 60 members of Congress were briefed and only 3000 people knew about the project in Government. It doesn't represent *all* Americans. It's a deception that's falling apart sustained by secrecy.

Conspiracies take time to unravel.

Half a million signatures tell me, that half a million people SO FAR have read the Guardian leaks. That's a good start.
As the court opens the 2011 FISA ruling that this program is illegal, they'll be 5 million more.
As the extent of the phone surveillance becomes apparent it will be 50 million.
As the extent of the trawl of public records comes out, that will be 300 million.

Re:Yet

[RoknrolZombie]

And in the end they'll replace the program with something that even fewer people are aware of or have access to, with proper checks in place for their contractors. We'll be back to "business as usual" within a year...assuming, of course, that there's not already something in place that we are still unaware of.

Re:Yet

[Salgak1]

Considering we ALREADY knew, if we were paying attention. Remember ECHELON, and "Jam ECHELON day" ?? Remember "CARNIVORE" ?? Remember "Total Information Awareness" ?? This just release 4.x (and probably higher, nobody found the earlier and/or intermediate programs. . .) It will NEVER go away. It will change names, contractors involved, and maybe even agencies. But there's nothing so permanent as a Government Surveillance Program. ..

Re:Yet

[Anonymous Coward]

But there's nothing so permanent as a Government Surveillance Program.

We've had modern telephone systems for less than 30 years. Our government has only been around for a couple hundred years. Human history goes back many thousands of years. I think you've been reading the Washington Post too much.

Re:Yet

[Applekid]

Considering we ALREADY knew, if we were paying attention. Remember ECHELON, and "Jam ECHELON day" ?? Remember "CARNIVORE" ?? Remember "Total Information Awareness" ?? This just release 4.x (and probably higher, nobody found the earlier and/or intermediate programs. . .)

Those were all crazy tin-foil hat conspiracy theories. Hence the GP's comment "Conspiracies take time to unravel". I'd add that it takes courage and luck, too. Courage for someone to speak out, and luck for someone influential to listen.

Speaking for myself, people I previously regarded as batshit crazy like Alex Jones sound a little more sane these days.

Re:Yet

[wisnoskij]

So you are not responsible for whatever your democratically elected government does, as long as they decide to not tell you about it.

Re:Yet

[Znork]

Anyone thinking that Echelon was a conspiracy theory would have been deliberately ignorant to the extent that they probably wouldn't notice being subjected to a daily rectal probe. If you can find it in encyclopedias with references, if the eu parliament producing publicly available reports discussing the fact that it's used for industrial espionage, if it's written about in multiple newspapers, well, then the only way you can regard it as a conspiracy theory is by making up your own reality.

By the way, did you know that the US tortured, drugged, sexually abused and brainwashed innocent people, including children, and engaged in human experimentation on a significant scale, trying to figure out how to do mind control?

Guess what, MKULTRA is also real. If you wanted to not believe in Echelon, try that one. And ask yourself, for people engaging in the MKULTRA activities, do you believe there is anything at all that they wouldn't do if they felt like it?

Re:Yet

[BitZtream]

WTF, Echelon was admitted to for fucks sake. You could claim it was misdirection, but pretending they were nut job conspiracy theories just shows your ignorance.

Re:Yet

[TheSeatOfMyPants]

It's not really democratically elected: much of it is appointed by the existing corrupt government, and all important positions that we can vote on are effectively restricted to candidates approved by one of the two political parties. The rare times that a third party comes even remotely close to gaining power, the closest major party absorbs it, thus severely diluting its ability to have any real effect.

what an idiot

[slashmydots]

Political asylum and you committed a huge crime asylum are really two different things.

"I have done nothing wrong"

[asylumx]

When Snowden outed himself, he said 'I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong' so why won't he come back and face trial? There are obviously plenty of lawyers who would love to represent him and the case will be covered like crazy by the media.

Truth is, he did do something wrong. He committed treason (and continues to, claiming he has more info about the NSA as if to bribe other countries for asylum). Whether he did it for good reason or bad has nothing to do with the fact he committed the crime. That's the deal with being an activist: you accept the punishment for what you did, even if you think the result of what you did was a good thing.

Re:"I have done nothing wrong"

[squiggleslash]

so why won't he come back and face trial?

Well I'm kinda guessing here, but I suspect he doesn't want to go to prison.

Re:"I have done nothing wrong"

[Anonymous Coward]

Treason, according to US law is:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Snowden did not levy War against the country, nor did here give Aid or Comfort to it's enemies. Treason is NOT what you think it is.
References:
WikiPedia
Cornell Law

Re:"I have done nothing wrong"

[ZahrGnosis]

Oddly, I think you are correct but for the wrong reasons. The court seems to hold that Treason can only happen with "enemies" when war has been levied. Since the US is not at war with Russia or China (or the UK for that matter), Snowden is probably in the clear on Treason. If they were, however, providing classified information to them could qualify as giving "aid". As Snowden continually seems to consider himself an American, "adhering" is probably not going to stick in any case as well.

Still, the U.S. has not formally been at war since WWII, I believe, although congress has authorized military action since then, and it's unclear if those actions would qualify someone as an "enemy", for purposes of Treason. If it could be shown that Al-Qaeda, (for example, or someone with whom we're in military conflict, or someone who has declared war on the US even if we did not reciprocate formally), received this information and made use of it, would be the only plausible path I can see for a charge of Treason, which I suspect the courts would eventually deny. "Lesser" (than treasonous) criminal charges, on the other hand, are far more likely to succeed.

So, yes, I think he is in the clear, legally, on Treason.

WSJ recently had a good article on it: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324688404578543410828226862.html

Re:"I have done nothing wrong"

[Anonymous Coward]

He may have committed a crime but it was to reveal a bigger crime committed by the US Government. Do two wrongs make a right? Sometimes? It appears that he tried to use the proper channels but got rebuffed, so he is going to the court of public opinion because he feels that Americans' constitutionally protected rights are being violated without cause and without forewarning.

The fact that this sensitive type of activity is being processed without an adequate safety vent (ie. workers prosecuting the snooping don't have formal channels to escalate, discuss and get feedback) shows how out of control this is. It sounds like the old school fraternity/military industrial complex of put up and shut up, follow the orders type of organization that has run amok.

At some point, people have to speak up, or forever live with their failings as they see their organizations do wrong. One can cite a recent example of Romeo Dallaire, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rom%C3%A9o_Dallaire), who could have said nothing as he watched genocide occur in Rwanda. Or one could be like Duch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kang_Kek_Iew), the infamous camp guard/interrogator in Cambodia, who was caught and claimed only to be 'doing his job'.

While Snowden isn't going around murdering swaths of civilians, he is exposing the thuggish nature of the US Government. That is counter to what he believes in, and when the President of the United States isn't doing his job (defending the Constitution instead of trampling on it), someone needs to tell President Obama to do his bloody job.

If Snowden is guilty of anything, it is revealing the hypocrisy of the Obama Administration and by extension the US Government when the Americans are pushing for freedom and transparency abroad, while spying on their own citizens. Snowden isn't a saint, but he surely shouldn't be demonized either. At this point, Snowden should have stopped leaking information because what he has revealed is enough. The later leaks about foreign surveillance is not germane to his discussion and actually hurts his cause more than it helps, although the foreign outrage from the spied upon allies might get Snowden some traction in getting refuge (to counter the diplomatic pressure that the Obama Administration is using to crush Snowden).

Re:"I have done nothing wrong"

[Anonymous Coward]

Truth is, he did do something wrong. He committed treason (and continues to, claiming he has more info about the NSA as if to bribe other countries for asylum). Whether he did it for good reason or bad has nothing to do with the fact he committed the crime.

Are undercover cops doing something wrong when they bust a gang of dangerous criminals? Undercover cops are committing treason against the gang, but that's a good thing. Treason is a euphemism in this case. All it really is is a rephrasing of the old "snitches get stitches." What the US is doing now is no different from what a gang does when pursuing snitches. You want Snowden's head only because you perceive yourself to be part of the gang. Meanwhile, the larger society of the world takes a very different view of this, just as you take a very different view on undercover police than targeted gangs do.

That's the deal with being an activist: you accept the punishment for what you did, even if you think the result of what you did was a good thing.

That's something that you just made up. The real deal with being an activist is that usually you can't be an activist without suffering consequences. Sometimes you can reduce the consequences, for example by fleeing the country, and thereby you can promote further activism by showing other would-be activists that the consequences are not as severe as it might at first seem - obviously, that's preferable. You wouldn't suggest that undercover police should submit to whatever consequences a gang might want to impose on him. Of course not - because you are not part of the gang. In this case you perceive yourself to be part of the gang, which is the only reason that you would write things like that.

Re:"I have done nothing wrong"

[drinkypoo]

When Snowden outed himself, he said 'I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong' so why won't he come back and face trial?

Which word was unclear to you? Which of those words do you believe constitute a willingness to be run through a kangaroo court?

Snowden the Drama Queen

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Whether you agree with what Snowden did or not (I for one do not), dude is a serious drama queen. This is somewhat typical of his generation. Everything is just so much more bigger and more important because it happens to them . It reminds me of an article I read some months ago about how his generation is convinced because they re-tweeted some messages in 2009 during the Iranian presidential election unrest that "I was there, man, on the ground trying to help Iranian democracy."

He clearly did not think things out very well. If he had, he would have fled to Ecuador first, asked for asylum, then leaked everything. Instead he thought he could hide out in Hong Kong, not realizing that China could suggest to Hong Kong authorities that making Snowden someone else's problem ASAP might be the best idea for everybody. I am amused at how he talks about how "I am convicted of nothing". Yes, of course. The reason he is "convicted of nothing" is because he has so far avoided having to answer for his actions in a US court of law.

Re:Snowden the Drama Queen

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Whether you agree with what Snowden did or not (I for one do not), dude is a serious drama queen. This is somewhat typical of his generation. Everything is just so much more bigger and more important because it happens to them .

Being from Snowden's generation -- I'm the same age -- I have to say that I for one am personally shocked by the entire NSA spying incident and the subsequent witch-hunt of Snowden himself. Not surprised, but still despite myself, shocked.

Despite having grown a warty hide of cynicism over the last decade, despite having watched western society fail again and again over the last 10 years, despite having suspected the truth for many years already, the sheer scale and nakedness of the NSA's programs has pierced right down to the soft kernel of hope for the world instilled in me during the 1990s. The brazen outrage of the NSA and US military, the absurdly exaggerated charges against Snowden, and the relentless and petty retaliation by the US government have cast present reality back into a past which I was raised to believe would never reoccur.

Snowden is a hero. He's a straight up hero. He gave up reward, riches, happiness, and his own future for the sake of his principles and his fellow countrymen. People in the US should build a statue in his honour. Instead, they're howling like fascists for satisfaction.

If Snowden returns to the United States, I don't think he will get a day in open court. I doubt he will see a military tribunal. After everything that has happened, after just how wrong the world has become, it would not surprise me if Snowden was simply disappeared. It would shock me yes, but not surprise me.

Re:Snowden the Drama Queen

[Anonymous Coward]

You regard Snowden as a "drama queen" because he actually did something about a problem that you don't even realize exists! The fact that you think sacrificing everyone's privacy, to the extent of our government recording ALL domestic electronic communications, for the sake of almost totally theoretical marginal gain in security, is pathetic, and somewhat typical of your generation.

Re:Snowden the Drama Queen

[Anonymous Coward]

This post proves the parent's message. Bradley Manning is currently having his day in court and he released much more serious data. Nidal Hasan murdered 13 soldiers and he's still receiving paychecks and medical coverage from the army. Our legal bureaucracy is trundling along just fine, and those two are in the military justice system that is far stricter than the civilian one. Snowden's at much more risk of actually disappearing if he gets asylum in Russia than he would be coming home.

Re:Snowden the Drama Queen

[cupnoodleboy]

It is too early to tell if Snowden is a hero or not. While it is true that he is willing to give up personal comfort and riches in order to do something he deems important, so do Osama Bin Laden and his followers. Bin Laden and his followers are even willing to commit suicides in order to achieve their aims, and in their way of thinking, they may even believe they are fighting for the freedom and welfare of their fellow Muslims. To qualify as a hero, it is also necessary to ascertain that the benefits of his action significant outweigh the damages caused. The debate about this would certainly continue for quite a while.

 

Re:Snowden the Drama Queen

[Pecisk]

Here you go - this generation is a drama queen. Dramatic claims, "Snowden" will disappear....+5 Insightful. Sigh.

Childish.

Also he may have overplayed his hand

[Sycraft-fu]

So his first leak was understandable to many: He found a program that seemed to be, if not illegal, at least questionable and had an American intelligence agency targeting American citizens which it is not supposed to do. Ok, you can understand why someone would choose to reveal that, even if you disagree with that choice. There is a strong argument to be made for the public's interest in knowing this information (if it is accurate).

However now he seems to just be leaking anything and everything. "The NSA is spying on China!" "This NSA is spying on the EU!" Not only is that shit really not that surprising, but it really isn't the kind of thing he can make the same claim about in terms of public good. This seems to be more of a "spill my guts on anything I know because they are after me,' situation.

Well that is not the kind of thing that is going to endear him to many people, or many nations. While a nation might be interested in using him as an asset (one of the oldest parts of spycraft is doubling people) and finding out in private what he knows about the US's spying against them, they are far less interested in hearing it screamed in public to any that will listen.

So I really think he overplayed his hand on things. Had he just leaked information about the PRISM program, I find it far more likely he'd find somewhere to take him in, perhaps in trade for a private debrief about what else he knows. As it stands he is harming his own position.

Re:Also he may have overplayed his hand

[naasking]

"The NSA is spying on China!" "This NSA is spying on the EU!" Not only is that shit really not that surprising, but it really isn't the kind of thing he can make the same claim about in terms of public good.

The Europeans seem quite surprised and angered by the information, so I call bullshit.

Re:Also he may have overplayed his hand

[0111 1110]

However now he seems to just be leaking anything and everything. "The NSA is spying on China!" "This NSA is spying on the EU!" Not only is that shit really not that surprising, but it really isn't the kind of thing he can make the same claim about in terms of public good.

So far he hasn't leaked anything about spying on our enemies. Only on our friends. I was not aware that we were doing that. So the release of this information was of benefit to me. It's possible I am the only American citizen who didn't realize that we spied on our best and closest allies, but I highly doubt it.

So he has not released "anything and everything" and he has not released any information that is "not surprising". At least not to a rational US citizen without inside knowledge who is not also a consiracy theorist.

"Everyone has the right..."

[mblase]

"Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." That's not the same as saying that other countries are obligated to grant you asylum.

Also, I'm personally not sure if this is a "case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes". Theft of classified government data does not, in my opinion, qualify as a political crime.

Re:"Everyone has the right..."

[0111 1110]

But you do realize that many people disagree with you, right?

Re:"Everyone has the right..."

[Anonymous Coward]

"Theft of classified government data" may not constitute a political crime, but "Attempting democracy" definitely does.

You can't have a democracy when people are not allowed to know what the candidates stand for. So giving them that information can very well be considered attempting democracy.

Ummmm, no.

[Sycraft-fu]

The State Department can revoke your passport. You might notice there's a little part that says "This passport is the property of the United States (Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 51.9). It must be surrendered upon demand made by an authorized representative of the United States Government." They have the right to revoke your passport and criminal charges are a reason they can. In that event what happens is you can get a special travel document that'll let you go back to the US. Yes, if he takes that, he'll face trial in the US. That is the point of revoking his passport. A passport is not a license to run away, it is a travel document to allow you to travel legally. The US can revoke your passport and tell you to come home if they are charging you with a crime.

I think you need to read up a bit more on the law and human rights. It is quite well established that a country can charge their citizens with a crime, and can do things like revoke travel rights while they stand trial. What Snowden is accused of is a crime. You can certainly argue that they shouldn't charge him, but releasing classified information you've been given access to is a crime. You sign all kinds of NDAs to that effect having a security clearance. You are made full and well aware it is a crime to reveal classified information.

So the US has a valid charge against him, and it is within its rights, nationally and internationally, to revoke his passport and demand he return to face trial. That doesn't mean it is morally right, but that is up to the individual to decide. There is no human rights issue here though. Revealing classified information you are given access to is a crime in every nation I am aware of (in some it is a crime period, even if you are given the information from someone else and have no clearance yourself), and in the US they make it VERY clear when you get your security clearance that you agree not to do so, under penalty of law.

Re:Ummmm, no.

[Xest]

Do you have a link to the US' policy on password revocation? A guy above posted a link to Canada's rules but they're obviously not relevant and in fact prove the opposite - Canada's rules state that revocation only occurs if the passport has been used to commit a crime, but as he hasn't been convicted of anything then it could not be revoked under that clause. I'm intrigued to see when the US deems it valid to revoke a passport and whether unlike Canada it's on a mere charge rather than conviction.

Although you're absolutely right that revealing classified information is a crime in just about every country you mustn't forget that there are often whistleblower exceptions too (here in the UK they'd fall under public interest protections). Hence why it's too early to revoke his passport for committing a crime - you need a conviction to determine that, hence the reason for being intrigued to see the US' laws on the issue.

It's also worth noting there's generally a distinction between passport revocation and passport confiscation. Confiscation of a passport is usually what's used when a criminal is awaiting trial and a flight risk, revocation invalidates an existing passport such that a new one would have to be issued for someone to obtain a valid one once more. This does have some relevance to this case in that Snowden was already out of the country and hadn't broken any laws in the country he was in at the time. Does the US even have universal jurisdiction laws for this sort of thing? I was under the impression the closest they had was the Protect America Act but that's reserved specifically for terrorism IIRC.

I know on Slashdot it's popular to think binary (whether that's because just about everyone here is an IT worker and it's a trait that plagues that mindset I don't know) such that you're either with something and claim that something is most definitely right or against something and claim that something is most definitely wrong, but I don't think it's that simple, I think it's far less clear cut than that hence why I raise the question of whether the US can really even just revoke his passport like that.

The rest of what I mentioned regarding the UDHR I think is pretty well established fact though, it seems a bit of a farce to pretend the US hasn't breached those articles listed pertaining to things like torture/degrading treatment, right to fair trial and so forth when it's run Guantanamo and performed extraordinary rendition and extrajudicial killings, though I don't know if you were disputing that part of my post or just the parts relating to Snowden?

Re:Ummmm, no.

[Xest]

Ignore my previous request, someone else just posted the US regulations on revocation of passports and it looks like the US is particularly strict in this regard and can indeed revoke based on nothing more than a charge regardless of validity.

All BS

[Anonymous Coward]

He felt so strongly that what he was doing was right, that he decided to flee the country willingly to avoid prosecution before doing what he did.

He know he was doing something against the law of the US.

If he really wanted to make a point, he would have not fled, but willingly faced the music in open court.

Re:All BS

[0111 1110]

And if you really believe in what you are saying now, you should pour gasoline all over yoruself and light a match. Seriously. Then we will all know that you really mean what you say. IOW, you go first.

Human Rights Record of the United States 2012

[Anonymous Coward]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/bilingual/2013-04/21/c_132327394.htm

Started 30 years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

That trend started 30 years ago when we elected Reagan.

The American people have repeatedly insisted that God and Guns equals freedom and liberty, which is in fact only a delusion.

Re:Started 30 years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction, almost 33 years.

rank amatuer -needs advisor

[peter303]

(1) Turned down good asylum candidates: Ecuador, Hong Kong, Russia.
(2) Didnt seem to know that most places dont even consider asylum until you are on their soil (including embassy).

Re:rank amatuer -needs advisor

[0111 1110]

Neither Hong Kong nor Russia are good asylum candidates. Russia wants to make asylum conditional on something he may no longer even have any control of and Hong Kong has an extradition treaty with the US which makes it pretty useless even though it is a nice place to live. He didn't turn down Ecuador. Ecuador just decided that they enjoy being the US's bitch too much. The US vice president must have promised him something. Who knows what. Maybe to suck his dick, but that's just my own speculation. For whatever reason Ecuador no longer seems like they would grant him asylum.

curious how he is financing his adventure

[peter303]

I assume he saved a fair amount from his hihg paying federal jobs. But he is still a young guy and probably doesnt have to much.
Any money he did not hide abroad has probably been locked down by US warrants. US harrassed Wiikileaks to almost extinction three years ago. They can probably gvie good advice on how to channel money now.
I fear when the world loses interest in him, he will run out of money and have to chose an unsatisfactory choice.

Re:curious how he is financing his adventure

[BitZtream]

Harassed to extinction?

Seriously? Do you have no fucking clue how cheap it is to run a website? Once you take away all the leeches using wikileaks to fund their own personal agendas, just posting shit on the Internet is fucking dirt cheap if you have a clue. A fucking torrent file so you don't have to spend as much on bandwidth and you're done.

I promise you I could pay for a year of running data distribution for wikileaks in one of my paychecks, without any help from anyone else, and I don't make that much.

You really need to get a clue and stop blindly believing these people are trying to look out for you.

Whats next, you'll start telling us that Jimmy Swaggart is an honest faith healer?

Re:curious how he is financing his adventure

[drinkypoo]

I promise you I could pay for a year of running data distribution for wikileaks in one of my paychecks, without any help from anyone else, and I don't make that much.

Let me know how much your hosting provider charges you when you become the target of regular DDoS. I guarantee you that the cheapies you're considering will drop you like a hot rock in month one.

Re:curious how he is financing his adventure

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he's paying in bitcoin.

Re:I don't think Snowden quite understands the law

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly, he's not very bright.

Fake poll proves fake justification

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a typical leading question they asked on that push poll:

"Did you follow reports about the government collecting emails and other online activities directly from large internet companies to TRACK FOREIGN SUSPECTS IN TERROR investigations very closely,"

And even then, with the blatant lie in the question designed to deliver a high percent, they could only just get the number above 50%.

So no,
It is them.

Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

It tends to interfere with getting support from your country.

Re:Treason

[neghvar1]

Committing treason against a corrupt government vs. treason against your country can be seen differently by the people. Though he did break the law, many people see him as a hero. Think of it. It took acts of treason against a government that was suppressing and refusing to listen to our people for us to become the country we now are. Maybe this is the first step towards another revolution.

what a tool

[noh8rz10]

what a tool this Snowden is. he's a wanted fugitive, accused of treason and espionage. then he whines that US is blocking his asylum bids? no shit, sherlock! he needs to recognize the impact of his actions, and set his expectations accordingly. somebody call the waaambulance! US has long arms around the world, so he shouldn't be surprised when the MIB show up to put him on a plane to quantico
in short, he did a really crappy thing (or herioc thingi if that's your worldview), and he's going to be held accountable to it. any statements to the contrary are naive and self centered (like assange himself).

Re:what a tool

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post should have just said "I'm a tool"

Re:what a tool

[Applekid]

what a tool this Snowden is. he's a wanted fugitive, accused of treason and espionage. then he whines that US is blocking his asylum bids? no shit, sherlock! he needs to recognize the impact of his actions, and set his expectations accordingly. somebody call the waaambulance! US has long arms around the world, so he shouldn't be surprised when the MIB show up to put him on a plane to quantico
in short, he did a really crappy thing (or herioc thingi if that's your worldview), and he's going to be held accountable to it. any statements to the contrary are naive and self centered (like assange himself).

What's happening to Snowden is less about punishing him as it is scaring any future would-be whistleblowers. He already threw his previous life away by exposing illegal data mining, would he have done so if he thought he also wouldn't be able to get safe harbor anywhere else?

Consider, if he was really a bad guy, he'd board the train to Pyongyang from Moscow. I'm sure North Korea would welcome a former NSA sysadmin with open arms.

Re:what a tool

[noh8rz9]

oh come on, be reasonable. he's on the lam from US where he's indicted for treason and espionage. the US is trying to catch him. is this some violation of human rights? what did he expect would happen. I say to snowden, "don't be a tool."
also, this "defender of people's freedoms" seeking asylum in russia, china, or NK? come on, what a hypocrite. this guy's a joke and a half. Obama is thankful for him the way he's thankful for assange, making all the drama about him instead of his revalations. way to go man! winning!

Re:what a tool

[Anonymous Coward]

The rest of the world does get the idea that Americans are stupid but thankfully there are others to balance the impression people like you create.

Re:what a tool

[noh8rz8]

Also, the PRISM stuff is whistle blowing, but is the other stuff? I don't think so. That's what spies do. They spy on other spies. You think Germany doesn't have lines into the US embassy there? Don't be naive.

Re:what a tool

[noh8rz8]

Dude, this is an internal domestic matter. Unless you want to get in a big fight through asylum, stfu and butt out.

Re: what a tool

[Anonymous Coward]

Your knowledge of history is lacking. If you think the US would have been better off if Snowden had kept his mouth shut, you are sorely mistaken.

Despite the current fallout from his releases, America will, in the long run, benefit from this all coming to light. Look, a good number if people, respected and not, suspected the Gov't was doing this shit. And they were right. That 'guess' though, is irrelevant because we're now all faced with the hurdle or reversing it all to a sane state.

You, me, the teenager down the street, and everyone else, have rights that this Governments behavior, in the name if terrorism, trump. There is a sane way of protecting America with regard to surveillance, and still retaining the rights afforded to everyone US citizen.

Don't let this distract from the fact that your still whining about the messenger in all this. Your playing right into the media vortex. Congratulations on being part of the problem!

Re:what a tool

[BitZtream]

What's happening to Snowden is less about punishing him as it is scaring any future would-be whistleblowers. He already threw his previous life away by exposing illegal data mining, would he have done so if he thought he also wouldn't be able to get safe harbor anywhere else?

A real man would have, yes. A real man would have told the public, and stood proud and dared the government to treat him like a bitch for it, with the backing of the public to protect him.

What he did on the other hand was lie, broke contracts, ran out of the country, then started asking some of America's biggest Friemeies to protect him.

He's not a hero, he's a traitor.

Ghandi is a hero. Nelson Mandela is a hero. Martin Luther King was a hero. These men stood by their actions, with pride. These men changed the world. Snowden will just be another minor footnote in history that no one will remember in a couple years.

This guy is a douche like Assange who wants attention, guess what ... he got it. And its not the attention he wanted, but its certainly the attention he deserves.

The only reason he's not on a 'train to NK' is because he's probably aware of what they do to traitors there after they've had their way with them.

Re:what a tool

[drinkypoo]

A real man would have, yes. A real man would have told the public,

A real man would not engage in the No True Scotsman fallacy as his opening gambit.

Re:what a tool

[Time_Ngler]

It wasn't

Re: what a tool

[noh8rz9]

Your knowledge of history is lacking. If you think the US would have been better off if Snowden had kept his mouth shut, you are sorely mistaken.

nice straw man. I never said that. all I'm saying is that he should be prepared to take the heat for his actions, as Bitztream said above, instead of running to hide and yelling at the US for trying to catch him.

I think it was OK to relase the prism stuff because it was unconstitutional, but there's no reason for teh europe or china stuff. it's not unconstitutional. i call that traitorous.

Re:what a tool

[Pseudonym]

He's been indicted? When did that happen?

The GP had it right: he's been accused. The US government has filed a (sealed) complaint for theft of government property, and two offences under the Espionage Act. He has not even been accused of treason in any legally-meaningful way.

Re:what a tool

[SolitaryMan]

As much as I agree that this shit needed to be exposed, he should not have done it if he was not ready to face trial. Otherwise the political value of this act drops dramatically.

Re:what a tool

[vikingpower]

Did you even remotely consider the possibility that Snowden may be in a situation somewhat ( or much ) similar to those who opposed the German fascist government in the '30s of the XXth century ? If and when your adversary or, let's use the right word here, your enemy is a superpower, your best option may be, as a matter of fact, to run. And then again, Sir: would YOU stand all alone in an American court and face the entire impetus of the state rolling over you ? Would you, Sir ?

Re:what a tool

[UltraZelda64]

If you weren't a fucking dumbass and you were in Snowden's shoes, no doubt you'd be trying to seek asylum in as many countries as you could too. Yes, even if their views don't perfectly align with yours. Life is full of choices... and in Edward's case, they are unfortunately running out as the U.S. tries to strong-arm countries out of giving him asylum.

Everything Mr. Black Asshole says is exactly opposite of what he really means. He won't be doing any "wheeling and dealing" to catch a 29-year-old "hacker"? Sure--he'll just have his Vice President and other people he controls in the government do it for him. Hell, he'll have European governments do his dirty work for him, blocking their airspace so a South American president cannot safely return home on schedule, under the "suspicion" that this 29-year-old "hacker" is on-board. Nope, no "wheeling and dealing" or "scrambling jets" here.

Fuck the U.S. government... and I am *from* the U.S. I'm just waiting for someone, *anyone*, to accept Edward. He has done us Americans an invaluable service. Fuck, he has done the entire world a service, including those weak pussies known as France who helped to block off Bolivian President Morales. Edward deserves justice--and not the kind of hypocritical bullshit that my own government dishes out that they call "justice". He knows he won't get real "justice" here, so he left. That's completely understandable, and it should be fucking obvious by now to any U.S. citizen.

Never mind the fact that the U.S. has no extradition treaty with Russia and we were begging them to hand him over; yet, we will commit an international crime of blocking a national leader's flight just to catch him. What a bunch of motherfucking hypocrites we are.

Re:what a tool

[noh8rz9]

god, I can't stand it when words come out of your mouth. i'm glad you have a new man crush - is he single? speaking of snowden, he's a total joke. just some kid running scared to anybody that will pretend to shelter him. china? NK? russia? doesn't matter, because this whole thing was about personal attention from square one, not about human rights. ideally wherever he goes he'll still have internet access so he can do all sorts of skype interviews and tweet a bunch. "they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR INTERWEBZ!!!"

Re: what a tool

[Anonymous Coward]

Treason means nothing in absolute ethical terms in this situation, where the entity issuing the judgement is horribly corrupt. The word perhaps one had value in the implied sense of 'betrayal of one's own team'. In the current situation, it's offensive of the US to cry foul when the game, rules and referee are corrupt. All it means is 'we're gonna fuck you over for enlightening those few world citizens currently ignorant that the US is a cesspool of corruption and double-speak.' I for one would welcome a straightforward statement to that effect. I guess the US government is so twisted that they probably couldn't speak the truth even if they tried. What are we to do?

Re:what a tool

[UltraZelda64]

You must stand for government corruption. I don't.

Re: what a tool

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup

Re:what a tool

[noh8rz9]

i stand for order and justice. without order there can be no peace.

NO, The government does not represent us

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States Zionist-occupied government does not represent the citizens of the USA!

a way back in

[neghvar1]

If he wants back in, get some cosmetic surgery, contact lenses, go bald and new style or no facial hair. After which, cross our unprotected southern borders, choose a new name, get a fake ID on the black market, stay low for awhile and slowly merge into society again and keep a low profile.

ASYLUM

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing has been mentioned about any Muslim led nation. Why has he not fled to Iran/Iraq? This (stab in the back to the NSA) would be a perfect cover story for him to become a double agent. Just imagine the trojans that could be loaded onto his hard drives. Once those ferocious rootkits infest every pc in every muslim nation, we will know every thing about every muslim - we will know before THEY do about their discontent and terrorist plans.

Re:I don't think Snowden quite understands the law

[dunkelfalke]

I used to be stateless (de jure, with a 1954 convention travel document), and you are quite wrong. I had the right to return to Germany and the same right of entry to a country someone else with a valid visum has.

Snowden became a traitor ....

[WindBourne]

once he spoke about foreign involvement. Prior to that, is was debatable as to his being a whistleblower. But when speaking about what is happening in the foreign context, he became a full blown traitor.

Post to undo mod.

[borl]

Post to undo mod.

US should follow its own rules

[Dcnjoe60]

According to the Passport Fact Sheet published May 2012, (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/smart/pdfs/passport_fact_sheet.pdf) the US may revoke a passport if there is an arrest warrant (which there is) to keep an individual from departing the US, if there is a court order restricting the individual from leaving the US. Since Snowden was already outside the US, it would seem frivolous to issue a court order barring him from leaving the US and therefore, by the State Department's own regulations (laws), it appears revoking his passport was handled improperly and this could be seen as a human rights violation as he is effectively imprisoned without due process (without a passport he cannot enter Russia, either and is confined to the one area of the airport that is considered international space).

If Russia declines asylum, since Snowden is technically not in Russia, but in international space, any country could grant him political asylum, put him on a plane, private or otherwise and let him into their country as a political refugee (for which international law does not require a passport). The question is which country will be the one to do that?

The US better hope that nothing happens to him while he is stranded, too. It would be hard to convince the rest of the world that after not following the law on password revocations that we just didn't take him out.

Re:US should follow its own rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a head of state didn't stop us from arresting Manuel Noriega.

As for the alleged state of war at the time, only Congress can declare war.

Re:US should follow its own rules

[Chuckstar]

Can we please not randomly make stuff up?

There's nothing about the passport revocation procedure that requires the suspect be in the U.S. when revocation occurs.

Re:US should follow its own rules

[Dcnjoe60]

Can we please not randomly make stuff up?

There's nothing about the passport revocation procedure that requires the suspect be in the U.S. when revocation occurs.

I didn't make it up, I took it right off the document from the state department that was included in the post.

Re:US should follow its own rules

[Chuckstar]

But that document doesn't say that.

Re:US should follow its own rules

[sangreal66]

You're conflating the two procedures described in that document. One is for active felony arrest warrants (Snowden's case), and the other is for when there is no active warrant, but leaving the country would result in one due to an existing court order. The actual regulation that the fact sheet is based on also distinguishes between the two:

(1) The applicant is the subject of an outstanding Federal warrant of arrest for a felony, including a warrant issued under the Federal Fugitive Felon Act (18 U.S.C. 1073); or

(2) The applicant is subject to a criminal court order, condition of probation, or condition of parole, any of which forbids departure from the United States and the violation of which could result in the issuance of a Federal warrant of arrest, including a warrant issued under the Federal Fugitive Felon Act; or

In fact, it goes on to list extradition proceedings as another valid reason:

(5) The applicant is the subject of a request for extradition or provisional request for extradition which has been presented to the government of a foreign country; or

Re:US should follow its own rules

[Dcnjoe60]

But that document doesn't say that.

It states: The principal law enforcement reasons for the U.S. State Department to deny or revoke a
passport are the existence of (1) a valid federal or state felony arrest warrant; or (2) a criminal court order, condition of parole or condition of probation that forbids departure from the United States (See 22 C.F.R. 51.60 - 51.62).

Again, the US Government action not only keeps him from leaving the US, of which he is gone and they know it, but now, he cannot return of his own free will because he no longer has a passport. The law in question is meant to keep US citizens who have been accused of a crime from fleeing the country. Revoking one's passport after they have fled doesn't do what the law is intended to do. It does make it so he cannot re-enter the US, but since the US wants him to return it seems unlikely that it was their intention. It also keeps him from entering Russia, since he no longer has a valid passport, unless Russia grants him political asylum, which he has requested. Since he is in international space, any other country can also grant him asylum and let him enter without a passport.

Somebody in the state department thought they were being crafty but actually, they actually gave him more options than he had before (had he been in Russian territory, that would have been different his only options would have been asylum in Russia or for Russia to violate international treaties).

The agency responsible for secrets, the NSA seems to have failed miserable with regards to Snowden and now the agency responsible for diplomacy, the State Department seems to have also. What's next, charge him as a terrorist and anybody who aids him we invade? The US is quickly escalating this into a international incident which will not bode well for anybody, especially the US. All to cover up our secret spy ring that everybody but the American public already new about.

Re:US should follow its own rules

[Dcnjoe60]

But, he was already outside the United Stated, so what exactly does cancelling his passport do, except make it impossible for him to return to the United States of his own volition?

The extradition provision does not apply, because he is not in any country at the moment. Revoking the passport in that situation is to make it so he can't leave. They should have done that when he was in Hong Kong. However, he never entered Russia, he is in the free zone. He can get on another plane and go to any other country. In that country, he cannot enter, since he does not have a passport, unless the government of that country allows him (asylum).

The actions taken by the state department make no sense given the reality of the situation. Put differently, who exactly is supposed to deport him? He isn't in any country at the moment. Basically, they jumped the gun and have led credence that he is being politically persecuted for being a whistle blower. In doing so, even if Russia won't grant asylum and let him enter, there are many countries who will, if for no other reason so their leader can say they stood up to the US. Don't forget, they revoked his passport after he offered to come back to the US of his own free will.

Re:US should follow its own rules

[Chuckstar]

I don't get it.

There's an arrest warrant out for him. So they can revoke his passport. Nothing illegal going on. Nothing that contradicts that document you linked to.

Re:US should follow its own rules

[sangreal66]

He doesn't need a passport to return to the US. Or any other country that decides to let him, like you said. It is simply a measure to make things more difficult for him. Regarding the extradition point, his passport was revoked while he was still in Hong Kong.

My point wasn't really whether or not the move makes sense, just that nothing in the regulations say he has to be in the country to revoke his passport (your original claim)

Re:US should follow its own rules

[0111 1110]

He doesn't need a passport to return to the US. Or any other country that decides to let him

Going back to the US is obviously not something he wants. He'd be better off killing himself than doing that. In order to enter another country without a passport he will probably have to be granted asylum first. Unfortunately many countries won't grant him asylum until he arrives there. So generally he can't apply for asylum because he cannot travel because he doesn't have a passport. he cannot even enter Russia in order to apply at embassies there because Russia won't give him a visa without a passport. Russia might be willing to grant him asylum and then allow him in, but Russia's asylum is apparantly conditional upon a sort of gag order, the conditions for which he probably could not meet even if he wanted to. I doubt The Guardian is going to stop publishing his stuff even if Snowden asked them not to. So it's a bit of a pickle.

Unless you were thinking in terms of a country that doesn't require a valid passport to enter. It occured to me that Cuba probably doesn't have whatever online computer checking system is necessary to check passport validity. So he might be able to enter Cuba or a country like it except the airline may not be willing to fly him there. In theory he might also be able to enter a country at a land border crossing without computers. Something he clearly can't do from an airport transit lounge of course.

File for asylum?

[PPH]

Why was my first impression one of an accomplice having baked a file into a cake for Snowden?

Re:File for asylum?

[TeknoHog]

File not found. The cake is a lie.

Horribly OT correction...

[Anonymous Coward]

private to FLETC and other Feds, etc. : No, not Bobby. JC. He's in the 1989 folder, at least. But you knew, of course. Interesting parallels to thissnake in the garden.

Everybody else, move along, nothing to see here....

you posted the edited version

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130701/15364423684/ed-snowden-releases-statement-moscow-though-its-unclear-if-snowden-actually-wrote-it.shtml

https://twitter.com/fmanjoo/status/351831942959865858

There is a good chance either he did not write this statement at all, or wikileaks edited the shit out of it to "pretty it up" for the press.

Re:you posted the edited version

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130701/15364423684/ed-snowden-releases-statement-moscow-though-its-unclear-if-snowden-actually-wrote-it.shtml

https://twitter.com/fmanjoo/status/351831942959865858

There is a good chance either he did not write this statement at all, or wikileaks edited the shit out of it to "pretty it up" for the press.

Are your only objections to the contents of that text ad-hominem?

Justice Served

[Anonymous Coward]

Perfect

bin Laden

[ThatsNotPudding]

What an evil fucking genius; he knew the true nature of our corporate-fascist politicians better than we did. One successful attack was all that was required.

Yet more proof the USA is worse than China.

[Anonymous Coward]

What was it the merkins complained about with monarchy? What they say goes?

Well here we have a "What we say goes".

Hypocrisy is news to him?

[J'raxis]

"For decades the United States of America has been one of the strongest defenders of the human right to seek asylum. Sadly, this right, laid out and voted for by the U.S. in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is now being rejected by the current government of my country."

Snowden worked for the U.S. Government for how long and never learned the U.S. motto of "do as we say, not as we do"? He actually thinks things like laws and human rights apply to the U.S. Government?

Do you still wonder if he's a traitor?

[BitZtream]

Because this should make it pretty fucking clear.

you should be deleted from this world

[Anonymous Coward]

your mom wish you were never born

He will come back

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

After now the entire world will watch him stand trial --- a FAIR trial. If anything happens to him by unfair means, the reputation of the United States is over.

Re:He will come back

[1s44c]

After now the entire world will watch him stand trial --- a FAIR trial. If anything happens to him by unfair means, the reputation of the United States is over.

So if I wanted to tarnish the reputation of the US all I have to do is make sure Snowden dies in suspicious circumstances.

I wonder how many world leaders have thought about that one.

But alive he is doing quite a job tarnishing the reputation of the US by doing nothing but telling the truth.

Re:He will come back

[Anonymous Coward]

the reputation of the United States is over.

It was over the moment Guantanamo became public knowledge.

Unfortunately, our politicians want to stay friends with the US, and thus pretends that there is nothing wrong with invading foreign countries in the name of democracy, while being a fascist police state yourself.

He is a tool

[Anonymous Coward]

of the zionist occupied government

HELLO JEWBOY

[PhuckIndian]

Enjoy your enslaved goyim puppet ni66er president and your U.S. Zionist occupied government while you can. Because soon we will exercise our 2nd amendment right on your tiny little ass.

I sure hope the war starts sooner than later

[maliqua]

I sure hope the entier world finally sees america for what it is and decides its time for them to taste that unique brand of freedom they force upon others.

Snowden...

[DrStoooopid]

Snowden is representative of the whiny,"Look at me, I participated, see? Here's my trophy" generation. Crusaders can't expect to lead the battlecharge, without assuming not only some of the risks, but also the consequences. If Russia was going to allow him to stay in the country, he should've accepted. Why? Because even the ugliest of Russia's hot women are hotter than his ex-stripper girlfriend. STFU, and enjoy your new homeland, jackass.

Just curious

[Anonymous Coward]

Are YOU doing anything to make his sacrifice worth it, apart from posting on Slashdot?

Snowden's Big Mistakes

[Anonymous Coward]

How dumb is this guy?

1. Reveal leaks first.
2. Run and find asylum second.

If he was smart, he would have secured his "freedom" first.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, some are fat. Others are lazy. But yes, some are fat and lazy.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Because he really is in Russia. Putin is just playing a political game. It doesn't cease being Russia just because they have a holding zone for transients there. Only embassies have "foreign soil" status, and that's just by courtesy anyway. Any US agents that went there to try something would get stomped.

Re:I don't think Snowden quite understands the law

[Sir Holo]

Firstly, he's not stateless. The US is not denying the fact he is currently a United States Citizen. A stateless person is one with no citizenship anywhere. A stateless person has no right of entry into any country; he has the right to return to the US any time he wants.

OK, so it's true enough that he is not indeed stateless.

But also, haven't two or three US Citizens ended up in essentially permanent detention without trial, in violation of the Bill of Rights?

That's no excuse to call himself stateless, but, he could reasonably call himself "effectively stateless," considering recent actions by some arms of the US government (as in the above).

Finland

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here, but you must be on territory. Moscow embassy wouldn't do and I believe that is Norway's policy as well. However, an interesting fact from our local media, interior ministry informed they wouldn't give any special treatment for an asylum seeker wheather he/she comes from America or Afganistan, ie. possible arrival, person whoever entered the country and what are his/her chances for an asylum would all stay classified. That means policy for no press conference for every Syrian refugee received today would apply equally to Snowden, no matter who he is.

Law-heads

[Anonymous Coward]

I am uncomfortable with the amount of people concerned with Snowden, and not interested in judicial investigation of the NSA programs (FISA does not count).

NSA goon alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, FFS. Watch the NSA bots infiltrate discussions.

Roaches.

Hey Snowden!

[CHIT2ME]

Hope you like borsht!

Re:I don't think Snowden quite understands the law

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is not denying the fact he is currently a United States Citizen.

His proof of being a citizen of the United States is his passport. Revoking the only valid proof is pretty much denying the fact.

If the police revoked your drivers license, would you claim that "the police is not denying that I am allowed to drive a car"?

(The drivers license being proof that you are allowed to drive a car, just like a passport is proof of citizenship).