Slashdot Mirror


US Promises Not To Kill Or Torture Snowden

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "The WSJ reports that Attorney General Eric Holder promises Edward Snowden won't be tortured or face the death penalty in a new letter hoping to persuade Russia not to grant him asylum or refugee status. Holder's letter, dated Tuesday, notes that press reports from Russia indicated Snowden sought asylum in part based on claims he could be tortured or killed by the US government. It is common for the US to promise not to seek the death penalty against individuals being sought in other countries, because even America's closest allies won't turn over suspects if they believe that person might be executed. The United Nations special rapporteur on torture found Bradley Manning's detention was 'cruel and inhuman'." Update: 07/27 13:15 GMT by T : Several readers have noted that change.gov, established by the Obama transition team in 2008, has recently (last month) gone offline; among other things, it contained language specifically addressing the protection of whistleblowers.

58 of 616 comments (clear)

  1. Because they will kill AND torture Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Get it? They said OR, so that's not a lie.

    1. Re:Because they will kill AND torture Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would consider imprisonment and ruining his life just for doing the right thing to be a form of torture.

    2. Re:Because they will kill AND torture Snowden by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think it's pretty fucking sad when the US is obliged to promise explicitly, on a recurring basis, not to torture people.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:Because they will kill AND torture Snowden by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's kind of sadder that we can never expect the US to keep any promises, and that its principles (as opposed to its interests) are a complete illusion.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Because they will kill AND torture Snowden by TCM · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's sad that you're arguing what the non-torture promise is actually for. If the USA was actually a free and civilized country, it would be so outlandish a thought that they could torture anyone, that an extradition would actually be doubtless.

      The whole situation says a lot about "The Land of the Free" when a communist country known for not-so-democratic behaviour has to protect a citizen from a so-called western democratic country.

      Why Americans aren't using their 2nd amendment rights already to get rid of all these corrupt fucks is beyond me.

      --
      Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
    5. Re:Because they will kill AND torture Snowden by Patch86 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most countries will not extradite someone if there's a chance of them getting tortured or executed. Even if the prospect is very unlikely, defendant lawyers will be able use it to block an extradition. A signed letter from a head of state/justice from a country prevents this from being used as a defence.

      All that is required is certainty that the person won't be tortured. That should not need a special letter each and every time- there should be a letter saying that we promise to never torture anyone ever, which can be used in any circumstance.

      EU countries have that- no EU country has ever been asked to sign a letter promising not to torture someone, because it is understood that extant Human Rights legislation already covers that with gusto.

      The GP is expressing sadness because the US really should be in that category. The Constitution is supposed to promise exactly that. However, it is widely understood around the world that modern America partakes in what the rest of the world defines as torture- whether it be waterboarding, or the bizarre naked-solitary-confinement that Manning has had to endure. It is, therefore, a very sad thing that despite what the US Constitution says, there is no automatic guarantee that a prisoner of the United States will not be tortured. The President now needs to "Scout's Honour" promise it on a case-by-case basis.

      (And don't get me started on the death penalty. But that's a well trodden flamefest that I don't think we need to restart here and now...)

    6. Re:Because they will kill AND torture Snowden by D'Sphitz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why Americans aren't using their 2nd amendment rights already to get rid of all these corrupt fucks is beyond me.

      People just like to feel like they have big balls, as far as most are concerned the 2nd ammendment is just the right to post pictures of themselves holding their Glocks in a menacing pose on Facebook.

      It's a facade, if the time came to rise up against a tyrannical government for the security of a free state, most of them would be locked in the cellar.

    7. Re:Because they will kill AND torture Snowden by 0111+1110 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The US officially supports torture as an interrogation method. Doesn't even hide it, but admits to it openly, much to the chagin of Amnesty International. Gitmo is currently tube feeding prisoners who are treated like dogs. Abu Ghraib. That can't possibly have anything to do with the need for this letter. We gave up the high road years ago. Your attempt to deny it is laughable. There are very real reasons for us to have to deny that we will use torture. It isn't merely a technicality.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  2. That depends on your definition of torture by scarboni888 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Waterboarding was torture in Vietnam.

    But not anymore!

    1. Re:That depends on your definition of torture by AHuxley · · Score: 5, Informative

      Welcome to a world where " "severe pain" must necessarily be pain associated with "death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions"" is top quality legal jargon.
      "Prolonged mental harm" is months or years.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:That depends on your definition of torture by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But not anymore!

      What I find amazing is that the charge sheet hasn't changed: Treason. Section 3, Article 3, of the US Constitution prescribes a very specific punishment for that accusation, which to my knowledge the US Attorney General can't countermand. But that aside, it would not be without precident to say that once a political prisoner is lured out of hiding, they Darth Vader the agreement... just about every country has done that.

      The other countries of the world understand that you don't judge a country on the quality of its rhetoric, but on its past actions, when predicting what it will do in the current (or future) situations. The US has no credibility these days. It's not even a question of whether I think my own government is sincere or not anymore... it's a question of reputation and perception internationally.

      Your post is short, but this is the heart of the matter: Reputation, not law.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  3. good by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As an American, it breaks my heart that my fellow citizens are okay with indefinite detention and torture, and with the wiretapping which violates our constituation's 4th amendment.

    It's a small comfort that our government is facing trouble abroad because of those policies.

    1. Re:good by bzipitidoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Our fellow citizens take an awful lot lying down. I wish they wouldn't. Why are Too Big To Fail banks still in business in one piece, and not broken up? The social conservatives are especially aggravating. Get all worked up over abortion, and even totally fake issues like whether global warming is just a big hoax to get more public funding for climate scientists, and "teach the controversy" over Creationism and Evolution, while failing to see any difference between science and propaganda, and letting these white collar thieves walk.

      Education is thought to be crucial for a democracy to function. If these US citizens aren't just plain stupid, they certainly are lacking a good education. To fall for idiotic notions such as the proposal to secure the US-Mexico border with 300,000 guards, after the recent lesson we had in Iraq over the limits of brute, military force... well, we'll never educate everyone well enough to see through such attempts at manipulation, but a few more could be enough to tip the US into taking much better directions.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    2. Re:good by Sique · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So because you suffered because of 9/11 you are allowed no longer to adhere to law?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    3. Re:good by scarboni888 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Throughout history you will find that when the American people have been well-informed they have always made the right decision.

      It's hard to make good decisions based on bad information.

    4. Re:good by Fuzzums · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please, give me a break and tale a look at the statistics of deaths relates to traffic or cancer.
      I admit terrorism sound terrifying, but it is not nearly as deadly as the other two.

      --
      Privacy is terrorism.
    5. Re:good by king+neckbeard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You'll be modded into oblivion because you are a fucking moron. The deaths on 9/11, while tragic and meaningless, were statistically insignificant. You could save orders of magnitude more lives by applying the military, DHS, NSA, etc. budgets towards medical research or into self-driving cars or environmental research. That's assuming that the methods deployed by the above are effective, when they are most likely aggravating the problems they are meant to solve. So, you are calling people traitors because they don't want invasive, expensive programs that endanger our lives because "something must be done about 9/11, this is something, so we must do this.."

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    6. Re:good by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The deaths on 9/11, while tragic and meaningless

      Actually, some of the deaths weren't meaningless at all. The terrorists who attacked on 9/11 were going after the two mechanisms that leaders of the United States use to oppose their will on the part of the world they come from. Their targets were clear: the leaders of Wall Street businesses and the US military. There was nothing random about it. The other plane was probably aiming for Chicago, which would have allowed them to hit commodities markets that control the price of oil.

      That's not to say that all the deaths were because of targeting - the people on the planes, the cleaning staff, the firefighters, etc died but were not really the targets. But then again, was the general population of Baghdad really the target of the US attack on Iraq?

      I'm not saying the people who died on 9/11 deserved it, but it's worth remembering that terrorists act the way they do not because they are crazy and evil, but because they believe they have legitimate grievances and that their cause is worth fighting for.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    7. Re:good by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Quite simply, Bin Laden made it clear that he wanted to facilitate attacks that would force America to spend itself into oblivion and to completely eradicate our way of life.

      He has accomplished both - with the assistance of idiots like the original poster, who is willing to just throw away every fundamental value and freedom of our society, just because some people died in a horrible and tragic event.

    8. Re:good by Entropius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Saying "the citizens are powerless until money is gotten out of politics" is a red herring. Money, at the end of the day, can't buy you votes without the assent of sheep who vote for whoever has the shiniest TV ad. Money only buys votes with an uneducated electorate.

      If voters really wanted to do something about this, they could.

    9. Re:good by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here's a question then: Do you believe the same thing about residents of, say, rural West Virginia that you do about residents of Saudi Arabia? In West Virginia, the government with nominal control of the natural resources work in lock-step with the owners of the companies doing the extraction to oppress and marginalize their work force, using legal and extra-legal means to prevent the workers from organizing, just like Saudi Arabia. Many religious leaders in West Virginia preach a mutated and particularly intolerant form of their religion that advocates making war on those who don't believe in the same religion, just like Saudi Arabia, and some members of their congregations have gone overseas to try to fight that war. Many residents believe firmly in anti-intellectualism and are distrustful of those who provide scientific explanations for natural phenomena, just like Saudi Arabia.

      I think you're getting the point. If you don't have the same views of those West Virginians as you do of Saudis, then your real opinion is about something other than atheism versus religion.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  4. WE promise not to kill or torture Snowden. by Shadowmist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Those Romanians who are holding him for us.... What were they thinking?!!

  5. Extraordinary rendition? by dns_server · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The USA does not need to do the torture, it can send the person to another country and have them do it.

  6. Fool me once .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First off we Snowden should get the Nobel of Peace . HIs actions revealed Government wrongdoings like Ellsberg did 40 years ago.
    They are heroes to the People . The Government is the traitor and criminal here .. not Snowden.
    Second : the fact a Government promises not to torture of kill someone is a sign that things are gone terribly wrong.
    Torture and murder are now " normal course of business " for the US Government. Democracy is dead.Government out of control.
    Nothing will keep Snowden from assasination.Extreme right wing nutjobs ( yes , right wing republicans ) will subsidise hit men to kill him.
    There's few chances for him to stay alive . To be promised not to be murdered or tortured , but a life in jail for blowing the whistle on illegal and reprehensible Government conduct is totally immoral. Democracy is dead in the US . The land of Freedom ? HA ! Let me laugh.
    Anyone saying " ok i go back " would be a total fool and idiot.

  7. hollow promise by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Our government refuses to admit that waterboarding, sleep-deprivation, and blasting a person with loud music for days on end are "torture". So them claiming they won't "torture" someone is a pretty weak commitment.

  8. Eric Holder's promises ... by boorack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obama promised not to scramble jets to get Snowden and two days later he forced a presidential plane down on suspicions that Snowden might be onboard. Of course, technically he didn't lie as he did this by his european puppet proxies. Eric Holder is even worse than Obama - overtly corrupt as contrasted to typical politicians who at least try to look honest. If he says he "won't torture nor kill", this is propably on the table. US of A desperately wants to make an example of Snowden - even if it will be messy and incur severe political costs. Those fucks want to prevent future whistleblowers by setting example now painful it is to have spine and resist criminal behavior of US government or US corporations.

  9. It's sad that this "promise" has to be made. by flogger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is the American government so oppressive that if you speak the Truth, people assume that the government will kill and/or torture you? The government has to step up and say, "We will not Kill or torture."

    Freedom of Speech is only one of the freedoms which is gone. People know it. Yet nothing is being done to bring them back.

    Snowden is my hero for saying the Truth. Emerson and Thoreau would be proud. Snowden's name is going to come up when I teach Transcendentalism to this year's students.

    That last sentence made me thing of posting AC, but I now have the strength to speak the truth also.

    --
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    "First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
    -- The Doctor, "Doctor
  10. No Torture...No Kill... by mizkitty · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They're just going to hold him naked in solitary like Manning...subject to "suicide checks" by waking him every half hour...

  11. Fool me once.. by RenHoek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really, what are the promises of the US worth nowadays?

  12. Making life unpleasant is what the USA govt wants by Alain+Williams · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The government of the USA wants to reduce the likelihood of more whistle-blowers exposing what they are really up to. The best way to do this is to show to any potential whistle-blowers that if they do then their life will not be pleasant: a boring, long, incaceration is the best way of doing this; it will put most people off.

    Edward Snowden is a celebrity at the moment, being in the public eye will be attractive to some, regardless of the reality of living in an airport (or sofa in the Ecuadorian embassy in the case of Assange). If Snowden is killed or tortured he will be seen as a martyr, again this may be attractive to some. I am not saying that this is for everyone, but it may put some attention seekers off (I am not trying to imply that Snowden is an attention seeker).

    Also: by making the no kill/torture promise it raises the bar for Snowden's various applications for political assylum.

  13. Eric Holder by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is the same Eric Holder that lied under oath before congress about targeting members of the press, and before that lied under oath before congress about fast and furious, and before that lied under oath before congress about the dropping of the case against the New Black Panther Party.

    Eric Holder is well known to lie while under oath. Now when he is not under oath, Snowden is supposed to believe him? Give me a break.

    Fuck Eric Holder, a fuck this whole god damned completely corrupt administration.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
    1. Re:Eric Holder by woboyle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agree. They'll just put him in prison with a bunk mate that is a total psychopath and let him torture/murder Snowden - plausible deniability!

      --
      Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
    2. Re:Eric Holder by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This brings up a curious point.

      How many people here that are complaining about the government's actions voted for President Obama? How many voted for him twice?

      Of those who voted for him, especially in 2012, how do you like what he's doing to your rights under the Constitution?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    3. Re:Eric Holder by Ron+Goodman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I voted for him twice and am disappointed, but have to admit he is still better than the alternative.

    4. Re:Eric Holder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      He said he would provide the investigation materials the DOJ collected after Brian Terry was killed. That was what Congress was after, what the DOJ found in its research of the incident, they never asked for anything before that time from the program. When it came down to it, Holder refused to turn over those materials to Congress and because of that was held in Contempt of Congress.

      In addition: He told Congress that fast and furious was a continuation of a Bush administration policy (a talking point in the NYT a lot). Congress was intrested and asked for information that showed it was a continuation and Holder returned to say it was not a continuation and a new program under Obama.

      In addition: Holder said he hadn't heard about fast and furious before June of that year. Two weeks later Obama gave a speech saying he talked to Holder about the Fast and Furious program back in April.

      Thats at least 3 lies to Congress, under oath, about fast and furious alone that Holder has made. One he got held in Contempt of Congress for.

    5. Re:Eric Holder by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You people make me wanna puke! Ew! he is still better than the alternative... How the hell are you going to know that if you never vote for an alternative?? And fuck your lesser evil crap. There is no 'lesser' evil amongst democrats and republicans. They are a single evil on the same team.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:Eric Holder by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you get ever increasing evil. People had more than two choices, but of all the choices that we had most people chose increasing evil.

      The people that wrongly declare that there were only two choice are a major part of the problem. Thats you, a major part of the problem.

      I live in the state of Connecticut. We have a history of taking "the third choice" in local and statewide elections. The two most major cases include when the Republicans nominated John G. Rowland over Lowell P. Weicker as candidate for Governor of the state. Weicker ran independent and won the election.

      Interestingly, Weicker was running for Governor because he lost his Senate seat to Joe Lieberman. Years later, Joe Lieberman failed to get the Democrat nomination for the seat he was holding. The Democrats instead nominated Ned Lamont, so Lieberman ran independent and won that election.

      Your claims that their are only two choices falls on very deaf ears when speaking to someone from Connecticut. Stop voting to increase evil. Now.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    7. Re:Eric Holder by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Holder is unquestionably the sort of human garbage that belongs in our prisons a great deal more than probably anyone he has helped put there. The larger is though is not Holder's credibility its our nations credibility in general. Why should any anywhere accept the word of the United States government for any reasons other than the threat of force at this point?

      I mean really:

      We don't give money to governments resulting from military coups....but we can decide to not bother and determine if a coup has happened.

      We only go to war when a plurality of elected Congress persons and Senators agree...Well unless is just a kinetic military action.

      No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...Except when a secret court issues them and then something less than reasonable suspicions appears to be good enough.

      We afford the accused a speedy trial...unless you happen to be held at GitMo

      We have a free press, which can protect its sources... unless someone says "national security" than all bets are off.

      You protected from cure and unusual punishment ... unless your name is Manning or you were sent to a CIA black site.

      Zeror fucking credibility.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    8. Re:Eric Holder by dcherryholmes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It was only a year ago that we had "the other side of the coin." They didn't cut teachers and teachers' salaries, curtail early voting, force nearly all the abortion clinics to close, and reduce corporate taxes even further. Are they similar in some ways? Yes, I'd say regardless of party the donor class gets fed first. But one is willing to let a few more scraps hit the floor. If that sounds like less than a ringing endorsement of the Democrats, you're reading me right. But to say there are no differences between them is to wrapped up in your own thought experiment, with no regard to the empirical data easily available by taking a look out your window.

    9. Re:Eric Holder by mendax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They'll just put him in prison with a bunk mate that is a total psychopath and let him torture/murder Snowden - plausible deniability!

      Bunkmate? You think he'll have a bunkmate? No, he will be put in solitary confinement after he is captured "for his own safety as well as security of the nation because of what he knows", found guilty in a trial that will be neither open nor fair because he will not be able to introduce the witnesses or evidence he'd like because of the classified nature of what he revealed, then sent to USP Florence ADMAX where he will continue to be housed in solitary confinement for the rest of his life where he will have Robert Hanssen, the Unibomber, and various terrorists such as the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber as neighbors although he'll never meet them.

      Solitary confinement IS an effective form of psychological torture. It does permanent psychological damage. Eric Holder is a liar. Mr. Snowden will be tortured; there is no doubt of it. It's just that he, unlike the rest of the world, doesn't consider things like solitary confinement and water boarding to be torture.

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    10. Re:Eric Holder by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a reason Jimmy Carter said we have no functioning democracy.

    11. Re:Eric Holder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well, based on your signature, it seems likely you are Libertarian. But to respond to your statement:

      Making a decision based on what you know are lies and misinformation is stupidity.

      Life is full of decision points where you have to make choices based on incomplete or suspect information. You prepare for them as best you can, and inform yourself as best you can. And sometimes delaying the decision is the best choice you can make. However the latter is never true when it comes to voting - if you haven't prepared for voting on voting day, by researching the available candidates as best you can, then you have failed to discharge your responsibilities as a citizen.

    12. Re:Eric Holder by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, the point is by showing up and voting you're providing active consent and support for a system that I believe is no longer working.

      You are actively supporting the system by actively stepping aside and letting others make the choice. You are worse that the person who votes for a 3rd party they really don't want as a "none of the above" vote. If everyone disgusted with the system voted nest vote for anyone other than a Republicrat, then the system would change in a few months. If everyone disgusted with the system stayed home, the system would *never* change. That's sufficient proof that your method is broken.

    13. Re:Eric Holder by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why bother, everyone knows according to bullshit American Politicians, it isn't torture it's enhanced interrogation techniques. As far as the US is concerned, if it doesn't involve 'PERMANENT' organ damage it isn't torture, so eyeballs, testicles, are free range as long as it ain't permanent, same goes for any imaginable form of sexual assault and rape as well as of course the indiscriminate use of chemical and electro schock weapons and of course heating and cooling have a totally different meaning to the US military, more like freezing and burning. Of course listening to music takes on a whole new meaning when it comes to US government interpretations.

      US don't torture, that's has to be the most laughable document imaginable. I fucking suppose the drone missile program is also designed to be utterly painless. The Uncle Tom Obama painless 'Hellfire Missle' no with local anaesthetic coatings. As for even pretending to hold fair trials, I have never heard of any government to be as ignorantly stupid as to position military police behind each and every reporter at a trial and claim it to be fair. Seriously the US has long ago drifted into the realms of autocratic Nazi style military law, when it comes to who is innocent and who is guilty, a total fantasy.

      Seriously what US politician would be so stupid, so publicly shameless as to put their name to a document like that and not expect to be laughed at globally.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  14. Liars by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Define torture. Is it what they did to Manning? Is life in the SHU torture? Is being forced to kneel on concrete for minutes and hours on end torture? Is being slammed into the back of an all metal transport vehicle which has its muffler removed or better yet, made unbelievably loud and driven around for hours and hours and hours in the baking heat, manacled and chained so you can't stop yourself from being tossed around torture? Is being shoved in a transport plane, blindfolded, diapered chained to a seat so tightly you permanently lose feeling in your hands and feet , unable to move a muscle and "transported": in that one excruciatingly painful position for 30 hours while the plane is delayed" and "plans change" torture? Because according to Cheney and Rumsfeld and the other torturers , none of that is torture. The fact that the US IS going to torture Snowden if they get a hold of him is the best reason to not let them get a hold of him and when I say them I mean us. Whatever you think of Snowden's actions, -not a choice I would have made btw- he's not acting against the U.S. as an enemy. Even people who ARE enemies don't deserve to be tortured. Useless as a truth elicitor, it inflicts long-term damaging to the foreign policy interests of any nation that uses it (Thtnks Cheney!) torture ought to be relegated to the imaginations of just ordinary people who are, you know, very mad about something they see on TV . It has no place in the conduct of real people in the real world.

  15. There are three remarkable points about this by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. The US should not have to be in a position where they are making such promises. The Eighth Amendment was created specifically to put a stop to the sort of thing that the US is now promising not to do. It's sort of like announcing, completely seriously, "I swear I'm not a murderer!" - that's usually a signal you're at least involved in something you shouldn't be.

    2. Nobody seriously believes those promises after what the US has done to Bradley Manning, Anwar Al-Awlaki, and what they tried to do to Julian Assange. When Julian Assange argued that the US could no longer be trusted to follow its own laws and promises and international commitments, that argument may have seemed ludicrous, but it is increasingly becoming common opinion. Another example of the US's lawlessness is that they convinced France to force Bolivian president Evo Morales to land so they could search his plane for Snowden, violating all sorts of diplomatic rules to do so.

    3. The US is going up against Vladimir Putin's Russia in a battle of human rights records, and losing. That's just astounding.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:There are three remarkable points about this by countach44 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Re: 3 - as much as I love that statement, I think it's more accurately viewed as Putin will talk any chance he can to stick it to the US.

  16. Yeah, right.... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "US promises not to torture or kill Snowden." Yeah, right. They also promised they weren't spying on their own citizens until Snowden disclosed that they were. They also promise that they don't assasinate their own citizens, but maybe that missle that killed Anwar al-Awlaki fired itself. Numerous groups, including the International Red Cross have charged the US with torturing prisoners at numerous facilities, but the US denies the charges, but not the techniques used. Why? Because they have classified the techniques in question as interregation techniques, but not torture.

    So, yes, the US may promise not to torture or kill Snowden, but when the US changes the definition of torture to suit its purpose and has a recent history of outright dishonesty in related matters, why should anybody believe them? And what if Russia does turn Snowden over and the US is lying? Can Russia get Snowden back? No, of course not.

    The US may promise not to torture or kill Snowden, but actions speak louder than words. The words of the US say one thing, the actions something totally different.

  17. translation by 0111+1110 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First, the United States would not seek the death penalty for Mr. Snowden should he return to the United States.

    Translation: We will not "seek" it, but we don't guarantee that he won't get it. It's up to the judge who does the actual sentencing.

    The charges he faces do not carry that possibility, and the United States would not seek the death penalty even if Mr. Snowden were charged with additional, death penalty-eligible crimes

    Translation: We haven't yet charged him with treason for "aiding the enemy" yet, as we did with Manning, but we will. However when he is charged with treason it's up to the judge to sentence him to death. The prosecutor doesn't do the actual sentencing.

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  18. Amazing how much Bin Laden changed the U.S.A. by sasparillascott · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's amazing how much Bin Laden changed our country, for the worse. In just a few years we openly torture (something George Washington wouldn't allow and hadn't since the founding of the country), publicly kill Americans and others and of course spy on the entire population.

    He may be dead, but we lost so much to the weak minded choices of our political weenies in Washington (the prior administration coming up with these awful choices and then the current one not stopping them so the become "the new normal" in perpetuity - its amazing what he changed our country into via our politicians.

  19. Shameful by markdavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >"US Promises Not To Kill Or Torture Snowden""

    I can't believe how sad it is that such a letter would ever be necessary coming from the USA. I am so ashamed to be an American since 9/11. A land where everyone is treated as a potential terrorist and the government has destroyed the Constitution the country was built on.

  20. Sad...and pointless by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think it's pretty fucking sad when the US is obliged to promise explicitly, on a recurring basis, not to torture people.

    Worse it's a pointless exercise. When your definition of torture excludes things like water boarding and sleep deprivation any promise not to torture is clearly meaningless.

  21. No other promises! by redelm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I note with interest the USG did NOT promise to hold a speedy, fair public trial. And the point is not redundant any more than torture is.

    I like to look for "negative knowledge" -- things that could reasonably have happened, and perhaps should have, but did not. Rejected options, certainly. While imperfect, this does yield insight.

  22. Because they'll lock him up in Guantanamo by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The US administration enabled laws to allow holding people indefinitely without trial.

    Congress and the Senate have made it clear that they don't care about the facts of the case: Snowden is guilty in their eyes.

    Snowden would be a fool to leave Russia for some small country. Russia has nukes that will make the US think twice before pulling a "Bin Laden" on him.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  23. the USA is a lost cause now by aepervius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Why Americans aren't using their 2nd amendment rights already to get rid of all these corrupt fucks is beyond me."

    Because for the majority of them, nothing is wrong. For the majority of them, as long as they got their food, their work, their entertainment, all is fine. The giov reassure them, "we willg et the traitor!". Snowden is the one disturbing them , he is shaking the status quo, making them see stuff they don't want to see. So they when psyop poo-poo snowden for some minor stuff, "his girlfriend is strange and some sort of stripper" then they forget the main point and dismiss snowden. Or Manning. or anybody disturbing them in their comfortable status quo. Mind you the US is not the only one in that situation. But it is the most flagrant in the US, after they were caught torturing, killing their own citizen, spying on the whole world, lying, lying and lying even more.

    The only way the american will revolt, is if the middle and lower class get so much economic pressure that normal life get for them unviable. Then they will revolt. And their politics overlord might be stupid enough to let plutocrate of all ilk really destroy the middle and lower class enough that this will happen. But it will take at least a few more catastrophe like what happenned with the banks or 2 more decades of stagnation for the middle / low class.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  24. We used to accuse the Soviets... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    of oppressing their citizens in just this way. Now, a whistleblower, who can't be proven to have revealed even one explicit state secret (beyond the rather unshocking fact that they were being surveilled) to a foreign power is asking for asylum in Russia.

      Times change, don't they.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  25. Promised Not to Torture? by Scarletdown · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Am I the only one here who finds it odd that our government officials specifically pointed out that Snowden would not be tortured? Is that not something that should not have even had to be said? Sounds like anyone who was involved in preparing this public statement should now come under investigation on suspicion of torturing prisoners, since it sounds like they are implying that torture is perfectly normal here despite being a blatant violation of the Eight Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  26. Re:doing the math by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not only this, but as someone who has lived in countries with systems designed to encourage small parties (NZ, DE), I have seen the difference it can make. The third parties almost never get into government (it can happen, but it is not the point of voting for them), instead what happens is the bigger parties change their policies to try to capture the votes off them. We have two big parties that are within a few percentage points of each other. One election some newcomers calling themselves the pirate party suddenly get a few percent of the vote after being basically unheard of until then. Their platform is based on internet neutrality. The media starts talking about internet neutrality. The big parties start wondering if it would be clever to start developing internet neutrality policies in order to pull those few percent. Those few percent would help big party X get ahead of big party Y, and wouldn't effect their current voter base much. Suddenly the small party has changed government policy without even getting into power.

    If a third party candidate in the US got 10% of the vote, the entire political campaign system would shift into a new gear and start trying to pander directly to those 10%.