Slashdot Mirror
Russia Plans To Extend Edward Snowden's Asylum
mendax writes "The New York Times reports, 'Russia plans to extend its offer of asylum to Edward J. Snowden beyond August, a Russian lawmaker said Friday at the World Economic Forum ... The lawmaker, Aleksei K. Pushkov, chairman of the foreign affairs committee in Russia's lower house of Parliament, hinted during a panel discussion that the extension of temporary refugee status for Mr. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, might be indefinite. "He will not be sent out of Russia," Mr. Pushkov said. "It will be up to Snowden."'"
Snowden said yesterday that going back to the U.S. is not an option because of the country's poor whistleblower protections "which through a failure in law did not cover national security contractors like [him]." He added, "This is especially frustrating, because it means there’s no chance to have a fair trial, and no way I can come home and make my case to a jury."
.... and end this saga! Give him a home in the Sakha Republic - that place will get populated
It's on here because Snowden is the biggest whistleblower of his generation, and this article will get generate views and comments for a less-than-interesting Friday afternoon/evening.
Last time I checked, Russia's continual asylum was conditional on not releasing more information, otherwise Snowden had a year to find a new place to avoid a drone strike. One wonders if he made a deal, or the Russians just enjoy annoying the US.
Last time I checked, Russia's continual asylum was conditional on not releasing more information,
Easy for him to live up to since he gave the entire trove to Greenwald, et al. Snowden hasn't released anything since, because he doesn't have anything left. Same reason all the talk about the FSB getting access to the files is also baseless speculation.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I have a ring that lets me save at +4 vs. misplaced shame.
My remark was more about equating Putin and Obama's behavior toward dissidents than it was about Snowden himself.
You may not like Snowden, but in the broader context of the IRS scandal, and now this indictment against Dinesh D'Souza, the real people who should consider whether they bear any shame are those who re-elected Barack Obama. Not only do I reject your attempted shaming, I say the buck stops here with trying to pass it on.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01...
Is this a new thing now, where /. cuts off the hyperlink?
unmolested: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01...
a href: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/us/politics/us-willing-to-hold-talks-if-snowden-pleads-guilty.html?_r=0
This is dumb and whoever implemented it is dumb.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
The way I saw it, it was all of our unethical war. I'm sorry if that opinion offends you -- if you do not feel responsible for it for any given reason (I was also underage when it kicked off, I was 15) -- but I do believe that a society is, to an extent, the sum of its parts, and that we all owe it to ourselves to take ownership of whatever society we live in. It seemed like a better option than funding it with my tax dollars.
I also knew that if I was going to be critical of it, I had better see it first hand. And after seeing it first hand, the truth of the matter for the average Iraqi citizen was that he feared Iranian troops far more than he did American troops, and his biggest fear would be American troops leaving and opening the door for Iranian troops to enter. That was the feeling I got, time after time, talking to interpreters and 10 year old English speaking kids. They loved the same idea of America I grew up loving. I did my best to be ethical, as an individual, and to this day I can't say I ever once compromised my morals. Hell, by the time I got there, we weren't even doing raids. We did "soft-knocks," meaning we knocked first and tried to communicate before any escalation of force. The only reason we'd be there is if there was a known "terrorist," that is "insurgent," that is someone who had actively tried to kill people who did not deserve it or tried to kill soldiers. And the quandary in all this for me is that many times this information was not received through fancy, high-tech intelligence gathering methods. It was received through good old-fashioned tattle-tales from the same neighborhood, people who needed something we could give them (usually money). We did some good things now and then, too, you know, things I am proud to say I was a part of, like handing out bundles of your precious tax dollars to folks who would 1) never forget it and 2) use it for something more than a new car in their driveway or a new television on their wall. I actually think that one day Iraq will be a modern, booming country with much more promise than many parts of America, and I'm not sure it could have been that way if Saddam had stayed in power. That's only my opinion, and it's not based on any sort of data (this is a thing I am trying to overcome this year on a general level).
But to you, Citizen, I would like to apologize for having been a part of that unethical war. And I would like to apologize for the disability checks they send me. In hindsight, I'd probably have found another job if I had thought about it longer. But I wouldn't have commented on the war anymore, I wouldn't have felt equipped to. I was tired of people in my family telling me that 1) I couldn't have an opinion because I had not been there and 2) I simply did not have what it took to be a soldier. That last part is exactly why I went infantry. I'm not a violent person.