US Lawmakers Want Sanctions On Any Country Taking In Snowden

An anonymous reader points out this story about the latest effort by the U.S. to get Edward Snowden back in the country. "A U.S. Senate panel voted unanimously on Thursday to seek trade or other sanctions against Russia or any other country that offers asylum to former spy agency contractor Edward Snowden, who has been holed up for weeks at a Moscow airport. The 30-member Senate Appropriations Committee adopted by consensus an amendment to a spending bill that would direct Secretary of State John Kerry to meet with congressional committees to come up with sanctions against any country that takes Snowden in."

Comments

Right of asylum cannot be assumed

[sam_vilain]

From a quick check on the Wikipedia page on it:

Protected grounds include race, nationality, religion, political opinions and membership and/or participation in any particular social group or social activities.

While I can't claim to be intimately fimiliar with the relevant international law: the UN CRSR (1951) probably applies. It specifically doesn't apply to "War Criminals", but I'm not sure what else.

Business Insider have a somewhat cynical take on Snowden's asylum claim which I think is worth reading.

Re:Right of asylum cannot be assumed

[Arker]

You realize this is the 2013 version of the internet right?....

You know that is exactly why you need to turn off javascript, right?

In 1992 we didnt have Reveton.

Re:Right of asylum cannot be assumed

[Arker]

Why is it worth reading? Did you check their assertions? The link they describe with "he's loudly trumpeting the moral superiority of the Putin government" only leads to him very briefly thanking the Russians, among others, who did not simply deny his asylum appeal without consideration. I dont see any 'trumpeting' at all, and I have no reason to expect the rest of this link-heavy screed actually supports its conclusions either.

Good grief. The republicans are nuts and now ....

[WindBourne]

the dems have joined them.

Snowden is gone. We should just SHUT UP and allow him to run around for a while. At some point, he will want to come back to the west. We can capture him then. However, if we act this nuts threatening all other nations, then at some point, a Russian or Chinese will run and they will want him back.
This is about as insane as the issue with assanage. The guy is NOT an American, nor did he swear allegience to our nation or to not reveal secrets. As such, we have NO rights to Assanage. To go after him like this is just plain foolish.

Naming Names

[Frobnicator]

The specific names are hard to come by right now.

Let's fix that. It was a unanimous voice vote. Here are the names. Contact them and tell them what you will:

RICHARD C. SHELBY (R), Alabama
LISA MURKOWSKI (R), Alaska
MARK BEGICH (D), Alaska
JOHN BOOZMAN (R), Arkansas
MARK PRYOR (D), Arkansas
DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), California
CHRIS COONS (D), Delaware
MARK KIRK (R), Illinois
RICHARD DURBIN (D), Illinois
DAN COATS(R), Indiana
TOM HARKIN (D), Iowa
JERRY MORAN(R), Kansas
MITCH MCCONNELL (R), Kentucky
MARY L. LANDRIEU (D), Louisiana
SUSAN COLLINS (R), Maine
BARBARA MIKULSKI (D), Maryland
THAD COCHRAN (R), Mississippi
ROY BLUNT(R), Missouri
JON TESTER (D), Montana
MIKE JOHANNS (R), Nebraska
JEANNE SHAHEEN (D), New Hampshire
TOM UDALL (D), New Mexico
JOHN HOEVEN(R), North Dakota
JEFF MERKLEY (D), Oregon
JACK REED (D), Rhode Island
LINDSEY GRAHAM(R), South Carolina
TIM JOHNSON (D), South Dakota
LAMAR ALEXANDER (R), Tennessee
PATRICK LEAHY (D), Vermont
PATTY MURRAY (D), Washington

Re:Naming Names

[kiwimate]

What on earth are you talking about and however did you get modded up to +5? Economic sanctions may come about in times of war, granted. But to claim they're an act of war is to cheapen and trivialize the horror that is such a conflict as to be named a war.

Economic sanctions can be as minor a thing as import tariffs. They're a part of everyday international business.

People here are getting way too emotional and need to grow up.

Re:Ugggh.

[reboot246]

Do you mean the same clowns who wouldn't vote against the NSA the other night? They don't represent us. Hell, they don't even think about us.

Re:Hey US...

[Tailhook]

The gp understands the reality that with the exception of Cuba, N. Korea and perhaps a few others, no nation on Earth will risk trade troubles with the US over Snowden. The US is the biggest single sovereign importer of finished goods in the world and therefore holds an economic trump card over every other nation.

One more reason why the US being the planet's trade whore is bad for everyone.

And no, sanctions for harboring Snowden won't violate any trade laws. This is "national security" and every trade agreement you can think of has a great big national security exception. The President can invent a trade sanction against anyone at any time for anything plausibly related to "national security."

Re: Ugggh.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you want us to believ e we're not getting screwed already? The insurance companies are the problem, and while the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was built on the plans of Mitt Romney rather than a more reasonable structure, it's still an improvement despite the endless howls to the contrary.

Re:Ugggh.

[hey!]

Psst... I live in Massachusetts, where we have had Obamacare since back when it was Romneycare (but after it was Bob Dolecare). The sky has not fallen. Initially there has been some supply pressure as people who were priced out of the market for certain services (adolescent mental health care was a biggy) lined up to get services they could now afford. That's a problem, but not an entirely a bad thing.

People always piss and moan about change, but change was coming in health care, even without Obamacare. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend change wasn't coming, but health care spending as a percent of GDP rose from about 5% of GDP in 1960 to 17.9% of GDP in 2009. That's twice what socialist paradise Sweden pays. Do you think things would remain the same when spending reached 25% of GDP? 30%? Or even remained at 17.9%?

Re:Our of their minds...

[xQx]

Not Australia though.

Just in case that troublesome citizen we have hauled up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in the UK has any aspirations of coming home, we changed our laws to facilitate extradition to the states for 'terrorists' without any of that annoying red tape.

http://castancentre.com/2012/03/07/extradition-and-mutual-assistance-changes-slip-in-under-the-radar/