Slashdot Mirror
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."
You mad, bro? You seem mad, bro. (I'm from the US by the way)
Papers please! Here's a nice star for your chest. Cattle car number 13 please. This won't hurt a bit.
Are these imbeciles serious? Do they think for one second about the repercussions of an action like this? If I were Russia, I'd grant him asylum just to watch the US government look like even bigger morons than they already do.
1) US enacts sanctions against Russia ...
2) Russia, and half the world return the favor.
3)
4) No profit.
It's time for the people of this country to stop voting mainstream and replace the complete morons running this circus. There are just no words.....
It's like watching a 5-year old having a temper tantrum.
These clowns don't have anything more important to work on?
This is completely insane, made by people who are also completely insane. This is calling burning bridges and not looking back, one day in the not so distant future U.S it self might find it self on the other end of a sanction (after U.N headquarters are moved, or U.N itself is disbanded).
In any case, this is both stupid and insane by the U.S congress doing this. I wonder what threats NSA did bring to the table to get this through.
This "United Spies of America" with their OWN legal system and their OWN courts and Constitution...
THIS is essentially why the Revolutionary War was fought, freedom from this kind of authoritarian nonsense.
before the rest of the world decides to put trade sanctions on them. Few countries are as reliant on imports as the united states, the world would get along just fine, your people however would starve to death or die of dehydration
keep pushing assholes the world doesn't give a fuck about your pathetic ultimatums
Let this terrorist government burn their bridges. They need the world more than the world needs them. They deserve nothing more than having to crawl on their knees to get back with Europe, Russia and in particular China.
Signature intentionally left blank.
All Snowden did was let the us, (ya know...We the People of these United States) know that the secret courts, and secret spying was running amuck. As we employ these people, we should have a say as to what is funded. How would an employer feel if he had a secret project in his company that had an unlimited budget. Ya think he might want to know details? You think the head of the project should tell him that he did not need to know, security and all that. And that he had no right to know what was going on? This is beyond bizarre
Can we send these Senators, the NSA/CIA/DHS/DOD/DOiJ fascists, and anybody who opposed Justin Amash's NSA-limiting amendment (like Barack "greater government transparency and protection for whistle blowers" Obama) to Russia and get Snowden back?
So we know that the NSA lied to Congress and about half of the representatives want to stop the spying that Snowden told us about. That would seem to make the implication that Congress has realized that the few people who actually seem to care are in the majority against it. So Snowden shouldn't be that big a fish. We have federal laws against illegal immigration but the feds have decided not to put any effort into enforcement since it isn't popular. We have federal laws against marajuana, but with states making it legal, the feds have decided not to put any effort into enforcement. Now we have one guy and enforcement isn't popular, but yet they're making a big deal of enforcement?
On the one hand, I kinda get it, you have to enforce the laws to keep your secrets safe. On the other hand they're doing that already and have made it impossible for Snowden to return to the US without likely imprisonment. Isn't that more than enough? I'm surprised they'd do something to harm international relations over it.
Is it possible that Snowden has more information they're afraid that he'll turn over to another government? If he does, what could it be to be worth this witchhunt? It reminds me of Assuange which became a much bigger witchhunt than it seemed to warrant. I'm beginning to think that there must be some really ugly skeletons in the closet if Congress is this worried about people spilling secrets.
They're helping him. That will make Russian speed up the asylum process.
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
First, let me say that I think Snowden has done us all a service. Setting that aside, however, the Senate has some seriously skewed priorities. One of the real foreign policy accomplishments of the President's first term was the 'reset' with Russia, which helped improve relations after the mistakes made during the Bush era. Among other things, this allowed the supply of our troops in Afghanistan over Russian territory when it hit the fan in Pakistan. I'm certainly not a fan of that war, but if we're going to have soldiers over there it's much better that they be supplied.
Is the Senate really willing to sacrifice the gains made with Russia "to get a 29-year-old hacker" (as he's been termed) who likely has already given away all the information he possesses? Is it worth the strength of our relationship with one of the world's great powers to get at one guy whom Lindsey Graham regards as a traitor? What exactly are the Senate's priorities anyway?
Never go full retard.
As per usual the narcissistic US government thinks it runs the world. Fuck you all.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I plan to enact sanctions against any US "lawmaker" who pledges to enact sanctions against an entire nation -- purely because that nation is considering a valid request for humanitarian asylum. The United States has tortured and indefinitely held prisoners, and continues to do so. Hell, I'm a US citizen and I'm scared of the raw psychopathy my country's government has displayed these past twelve or so years. Until there are trials and those who tortured are held accountable, the reputation of the United States will continue to suffer worldwide, full stop.
Predictable as it was, this is about the worst US could do in this case. For the first, it indirectly validates many of Snowdens claims about what the US is doing. For the second, it lends support to any request for asylum - after this there can be no doubt that he can not expect a fair trial in the US, when the whole system is so clearly out to get him. It plays directly in Snowderns favor - what he needs now is more publicity and escalation of the matter. Before he was an international incident, Snowden could have quietly disappeared after the noise settled down. Now his disappearance will be noticed, and be front page news, even many years from now.
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.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Few countries provide the kind of consumers with disposable income/available credit and an insatiable desire to buy shit like the US. You don't close the door on your biggest client. This posturing is aimed at the central and south American countries, not at Russia.
And it's unlikely that Russia will decide to take in Snowden. Remember - they have leakers and political refugees, too. We (the US and Russia) are fare more similar than dissimilar. Like flirting with the waiter/waitress at a restaurant in front of your significant other, it's being done for amusement, and everybody gets their jollies out of it. Getting the phone number of your server and then shacking up isn't on the menu for either side in this dysfunctional but stable relationship.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The same vote struck down an amendment to reel in the NSAs domestic spying program. Oh the irony, the painful, gut wrenching irony ...
Rumour has it that Snowden has requested asylum with the one place that the US government can take no punitive actions against whatsoever. A Place the US has no power or authority over...
Wall Street
Where do you rank AC's who can't count?
Personally, I'd love to see China offfer Snowden asylum. The likely result of a Chinese trade embargo would shutdown most wal-marts, and would be a catalyst in bringing manufacturing back to the US. This would be a win-win.
My initial reaction was really, my secondary reaction is to go to the liquor tore and start hoarding the best russian vodkas.
Sigh, I really think that our senators and congressmen are a big group of metally retarded ninnies.
The Senate Appropriations Committee supposedly did this unanimously so not a single one of these people can claim it's not their fault:
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI - Maryland
CHRIS COONS - Delaware
DAN COATS - Indiana
DIANNE FEINSTEIN - California
JACK REED - Rhode Island
JEANNE SHAHEEN - New Hampshire
JEFF MERKLEY - Oregon
JERRY MORAN - Jerry Moran
JOHN BOOZMAN - Arkansas
JOHN HOEVEN - North Dakota
JON TESTER - Montana
LAMAR ALEXANDER - Tennessee
LINDSEY GRAHAM - South Carolina
LISA MURKOWSKI - Alaska
MARK BEGICH - Alaska
MARK KIRK - Illinois
MARK PRYOR - Arkansas
MARY L. LANDRIEU - Louisiana
MIKE JOHANNS - Nebraska
MITCH MCCONNELL - Kentucky
PATRICK J. LEAHY - Vermont
PATTY MURRAY - Washington
RICHARD C. SHELBY - Alabama
RICHARD J. DURBIN - Illinois
ROY BLUNT - Missouri
SUSAN COLLINS - Maine
THAD COCHRAN - Mississippi
TIM JOHNSON - South Dakota
TOM HARKIN - Iowa
TOM UDALL - New Mexico
But maybe this was one of those "voice votes" where it wasn't really unanimous. It's being reported as unanimous, though, so the disgraced need to issue press releases disclaiming responsibility immediately, if they want to squirm out of this. I live in NM so I blame you, Tom Udall. Explain yourself.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
I remember a few years ago this Democratic senator making impassioned speeches for protection for whistleblowers and against Bush's wars in the middle-east, gitmo prison and NSA spying on Americans.
I wish I could remember his name.
Yeah that's sarcasm, mod me down.
Let me see if I've got this right. An agency of the federal government, with almost no oversight, has been spending billions of dollars spying on US citizens without a warrant or probable cause in violation of the 4th amendment to the US Constitution, the founding document of this republic, as well many other laws and congress is OK with this. However, some low-level contractor tells the American people they are being spied on and congress want everyone to drop what they are doing and use everything they have to go after this guy. This includes forcing an airplane with diplomatic ammunity to land so it can be searched in violation of G*D know how many treaties.
Have I got this right? Well! I'm glad I live in a free country! USA! USA!
Another day closer to redwood heaven
Maybe he should sneak into the US. Then they'd have to sanction themselves, which would be the ultimate troll.
Soviet SOPA
This just in: the soviet union has fallen! The country whose capital is Moscow will henceforward be known as the Russian Federation, or just "Russia" for friends.
Oh wait, that was almost 22 years ago. Don't worry, I can understand the confusion, with American society still acting like it's cold war and things.
After the Battle of Trafalgar, Napoleon decided that Great Britain should be blockaded. Any country that did business with the British would be his enemy. Well, um, it was the largest seagoing power at the time. Countries HAD to do business with the British. So, Napoleon dragged his empire into a death of 1,000 cuts by getting involved in needless conflicts. Snowdon basically has to go to China, France, Russia or someone who prefers to have an arm's length relationship with the US now. Whoever does house him may end up making a lot of political hay from this.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
That sounds like an unconstitutional bill of attainder to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
It is "an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without privilege of a judicial trial." This is prohibited by Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution.
Wake up and smell the roses -- Just a day after your congress failed to amend a bill with an article to de-fund the domestic spy net exposed by Edward Snowden, they made sure to unanimously amend another bill with a different article to sanction an entire country--site unseen-- for harboring him from prosecution for what is essentially whistle-blowing. They are employing historic pressure already, having called on allies to ground a diplomat's plane he was rumored to be aboard.
Anyone who doubts the authenticity of Snowden's information, or the level of access he had in his position, need only look at the effort being expended by this government to reel him in to cast all doubt aside.
I would at least applaud them for being internally-consistent, if it weren't for the fact that they're only consistent against the ideals this country is supposed to hold dear.
An American citizen told the rest of the American citizens (and, by extension) the world what their government was up to.
Suppose he goes to (say) Ecuador. So now the American government wants to use force against any American who wants to engage in mutually-beneficial trade with an Ecuadorian, to the mutual harm of both? Neither of them has anything to do with geopolitics -- they just want to trade bananas for tractors, or whatever it is, and really wish their governments would fuck right off and let them do it.
We have governments because they're supposed to make our lives better, but how is this wankery good for anyone?
Amused by the scenario of what would happen if the Vatican gave him asylum then? Not that I know of it being possible, feasible or remotely likely, but still, I chuckled.
This is really the central issue. There are few American values outside of money any longer, and this moral hazard is in the process of destroying the country.
In this case, we have a whistleblower providing evidence that
1) The American government is spying on American citizens without obtaining any warrants, unless you count secret court orders that have no judicial oversight*
2) This program is even kept as a secret from other parts of the government
3) Parts of the government have been lying to congress about what the spying program is about, who they have collected information on, and how they go about collecting it
*(This is a hugely important point. One of the favorite tricks of a totalitarian regime is to legitimize anti-democratic activity by simply making it legal. But if the constitution says we are free from unreasonable searches and seizures, a secret law passed by a secret court shouldn't hold sway. The only difference between our government and despotism is that they get more than one person to declare the government's will, pass it around in secret to co-conspirators who share the same backwards worldview, and then pretend that the theater they just acted for has some legitimacy.
The stark reality is that our government is corrupt and therefore does whatever it wants. As Nixon famously stated: When the President does it, it's not illegal. Then the question has to be asked: if that's the case, what is the difference between a President and a King?)
In essence, there is a part of our government that has approved its own spying program in a process that the public has no chance of knowing about.
So, why aren't we hearing about this in the media? Why are we instead hearing about his girlfriend, or his personal life? Because American media is no longer tasked with seeking the truth. Their primary concern is profit, and covering the birth of a British child is a lot more profitable than hiring skilled journalists to do journalism. Additionally, the Executive routinely threatens to cut off access to their staff for any news organizations that step out of line. For organizations like the Guardian, that risk is minimized, since they don't depend on empty stories to fill the vacuum of the 24 hour news cycle. For someone like CNN or Fox, the only thing that matters is the ratings, and that's best achieved by cheap, exasperated, stupid television. They can fill the airtime with "breaking news" about celebrities, or cat videos, or whatever pretend journalism is the cheapest to produce, but they feel like they need access so they can continue presenting the strained theater of left versus right. Every headline screams out: "Obama 'slams' GOP Leadership" or "Boehner threatens retaliation for 'nuclear option.'"
Boehner and his counterparts are barely able to communicate with regular voters, but that's because they have no idea what it's like to be a regular voter. They probably don't know what a loaf of bread costs, because they have servants and assistants who do that sort of thing for them. Half of congress is made up of millionaire lawyers, and the result of that is a bunch of outrageously overwrought laws that have nothing to do with helping anyone but their rich friends. Even now while they are discussing what tax breaks to keep, they have demanded that the proposal be kept a secret for fifty years . The reason is because if the truth were known, you could go down the line and see the leashes traveling from the election year donors to the politicians they have bought and paid for. Which would be great to know during the next election, but again, you don't matter. You don't exist, as far as they are concerned.
Back to the media... taking on the US government is expensive, and not only are the producers (who couldn't give two shits about our rights) not invested in the truth, but there's also probably an army of lawyers worried about getting entangled in expensive
Mao is dead and China's agricultural sector recovered so much that China exports a lot of food. However that's irrelevant anyway since there's plenty of other wheat exporting countries that would like to have China as a customer but haven't been able to compete with US taxpayer subsidised wheat.
It would piss off the US wheat lobby a great deal though, have a dramatic economic effect on some regions and end a few political careers in the US.
Snowden is neither accused nor convicted of any crime.
Yet the US seems to be about to threat to sanction any country that harbors him.
I think the US would finally officially and publicly say goodbye to being a constitutional state and to obeying the rule of law.
And I'm very interested in the WTO-Implications.
This could be a good thing for the rest of the world.
Out of all the problems the world faces, drugs are the least important
Keep telling yourself that mate, don't look at actual figures that say an American is 7x as likely as a Chinese or a European to be locked up. And don't dig down to find that one reason for the appealing lead America has in incarceration rates is the war on drugs*. Ignore the fact that there is a heavily armed swat team knocking down your neighbor's door with a battering ram because someone smelt a wiff of the joint he was smoking. So yeah close your eyes and ears and everything will be just fine and dandy in the land of the free (from drugs) and for god sake don't investigate what happens to the children of the 500K pot smokers you have locked up. Don't inform yourself, just lock em all up and let god sort it out, eh?
Given that drug abuse is endemic amongst low-income minorities in America, I can't help but think that drug legalization is a covert form of racism
Now that's irony with a capital "I" - the American prohibition on dope was promoted by the government of the day as a way to get "lazy Mexicans" back to work.
Your hate for junkies and potheads is clearly and democratically expressed in those numbers, but the facts of life are such that prohibition has never worked and never will, all it does it create a huge black market and what that delivers to society is misery in the form of oppression (note the date on the bend), violence and corruption. Those who are still ignorant enough to support it are the moral criminals in the war on (some) drugs, the fact they are a "well meaning" democratic mob is of little comfort to the victims.
you should be ashamed of yourself
Why? I'm a proud grandfather of three, I'm a degree qualified professional and have not been out of work since 1981, I currently earn around twice the national average wage and live on the shores of port phillip bay. I've been a responsible pot smoker since 1977 but it's none of yours or the government's dammed business how or why I abuse my own lungs in my own home. And yes I'm sure my employer and the US government read my slashdot posts, thing is at 54 I'm too old to be ashamed of my behavior and will happily admit to, and defend, my pot smoking (although I don't normally tell people like you, for obvious reasons).
So next time you're at a work party sipping on your free grog, have a look around. One in five of those people will be a responsible pot smoker and according to you they should be locked up, their children made into wards of the state, and their family home/farm sold by the state as an illegally acquired asset (regardless of where the money actually came from or the fact that there was only a couple of plants in a well lit closet).
* - Not sure if the following stats are on that page, but here is your "non problem" in a nutshell..
-The 27 nations of the EU have a population of 500M and a total prison population of 600K.
-The US has population of 300M, a total prison population of over 2M of which 500K are locked up for victimless drug crimes.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
This may be the worst congress I'll witness in my life. They can't pass any laws, but they are willing to sacrifice international relationships to save face, even though the damage is already done. R.I.P. democracy; you had a good run.