Slashdot Mirror


France Could Offer Asylum To Assange, Snowden

HughPickens.com writes: The Intercept reports that in the aftermath of the NSA's sweeping surveillance of three French presidents, French Justice Minister Christiane Taubira thinks National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange might be allowed to settle in France. Taubira was asked about the NSA's surveillance of three French presidents, disclosed by WikiLeaks this week, and called it an "unspeakable practice." Taubira's comments echoed those in an editorial in France's leftist newspaper Libération that France should respond to the U.S.'s "contempt" for its allies by giving Edward Snowden asylum. France would send "a clear and useful message to Washington, by granting this bold whistleblower the asylum to which he is entitled," wrote editor Laurent Joffrin in an angry editorial titled "Un seul geste" — or "A single gesture." (google translate) If Paris offers Snowden asylum, it will be joining several other nations who have done so in the past, including Bolivia, Nicaragua and Venezuela. However, Snowden is still waiting in Moscow to hear from almost two dozen other countries where he has requested asylum.

23 of 213 comments (clear)

  1. Ob exile by fermion · · Score: 4, Funny

    Presumably on Corsica

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:Ob exile by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, Elba. or possibly St. Helena.

  2. From TFA: by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Taubira doesn’t actually have the power to offer asylum herself, however. She said in the interview that such a decision would be up to the French president, prime minister and foreign minister. And Taubira just last week threatened to quit her job unless French President François Hollande implemented her juvenile justice reforms.

    So, basically, "not going to happen".

    --
    Dear Lord: One of your creatures may be hurt tonight. Please let it be the other creature.
    1. Re:From TFA: by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Also, how would Assange get there? The moment he steps out of the front door of the Ecuadorian embassy, he will be arrested.

    2. Re:From TFA: by Noryungi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Taubira doesn’t actually have the power to offer asylum herself, however. She said in the interview that such a decision would be up to the French president, prime minister and foreign minister. And Taubira just last week threatened to quit her job unless French President François Hollande implemented her juvenile justice reforms.

      So, basically, "not going to happen".

      Exactly. Also, Taubira (who used to be a person with integrity) completely caved-in when the absolute bastards running the how (President, Prime Minister, etc.) passed the most intrusive, anti-privacy, mass spying, "we will listen to everything you say and there is nothing yo ucan do about it" law France has ever seen.

      She cannot be trusted, alas, and Snowden and Assange should consider all this hoopla about asylum as so much hot air from a discredited governement.

      --
      The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    3. Re:From TFA: by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anyway, there are much simpler ways to smuggle somebody clandestinely.

      Not when the entire goddamn British military and intelligence community is carefully watching everything going into and out of that embassy. Wouldn't surprise me to find out that they secretly scan and/or trail every vehicle that leaves.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    4. Re:From TFA: by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except that the Ecuadorian embassy is on the second floor of a shared building, with no direct access to the garage or other internal locations. The only way in and out of the embassy is via a shared stairwell, which is not covered under diplomatic privilege and therefore anyone using said staircase is subject to normal laws of the host country.

      So how is he to get from the embassy to the car without being arrested?

    5. Re:From TFA: by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's already a tunnel to France. He only has to dig as far as Folkestone.

    6. Re:From TFA: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Diplomatic ladder

    7. Re:From TFA: by dave420 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They just use a diplomatic bag. Done. That's why they're there. The name is a misnomer - any container can be labelled a diplomatic bag and get all the protection that affords. They could also just handcuff him to a diplomatic courier, as it would be illegal to arrest, detain, or otherwise interfere the courier. There is precedent of people being shipped around in diplomatic bags, so it's not out of the question.

  3. Re:Seriously?!?!? by moronoxyd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, one could argue that these agencies should concentrate spying on hostile governments and terrorists, instead of heads of state of allied countries.
    But no, it is important for Americas national security to spy on, say, Airbus.

  4. Re:Seriously?!?!? by dcw3 · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  5. Re:Nope by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Funny

    France cave-in and surrender?!?!? NEVER!

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  6. Re:Nope by alex67500 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well there's also the great hypocrisy that lies there like an elephant in the room. France have probably tried to do the same on all its allies... (No presumption on whether they succeeded or not, just that the fact that they tried is highly likely).

    To me, the reaction of the French government shrieking like pigs is just a show for the public opinion, and maybe they'll send back the US Ambassador for good measure. But it will soon die down and no change is to be expected.

  7. Re:Great, now how do they get there? by radio4fan · · Score: 5, Informative

    You really think anyone would force a plane to land over a rape charge? Don't be ridiculous.

    It's not about the rape charge, it's about the wikileaking.

    And if you think nobody would/could force a plane to land over leaks, read up:

    Evo Morales grounding incident

  8. Yes that is the job of the NSA by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why should the NSA spy on French presidents?

    Why wouldn't they? First off, nation states spy on each other. Friend or foe doesn't play into it. Any nation that has the capability to spy on another nation will use that capability. Second, friends don't always stay friends and France hasn't exactly been the closest of allies to the US. Third, France has nuclear weapons and anyone who has nuclear weapons is going to be targeted for spying to make sure they aren't up to something dangerous. Nobody thinks it is likely that France is going to do anything weird but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Finally, France has communications with the leadership of other countries, some of which are far less friendly to the US than France is. Some of these communications are likely very interesting to US intelligence services. While the NSA might not be super interested in what the French president is up to, they probably are interested in some of the parties he is talking to.

    Exactly where in the NSA mission statement is this covered?

    Twenty seconds on wikipedia would have answered that question for you. This is exactly the job of the NSA, particularly for SIGNINT. You might find their mission to be troubling and I might even agree but it IS their job.

  9. Countries don't have friends. They have interests by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They should be spying on (real) terrorists and neutral/enemy countries, not on friendly/allied countries.

    Grow up. There is no such thing as a true friend among nation states. If you think France isn't spying on the US as well then you are naive and haven't read any of your history books. Countries don't have friends, they have interests. Spying between even the most ostensibly friendly of nations is a routine and commonly accepted occurrence. Countries that are friends today can easily be adversaries tomorrow and the US and France haven't had the closest of relationships.

    Is it sad that this is the state of affairs in this world? Of course. But don't be blind about how the real world works.

  10. Decisions Decisions by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 5, Insightful

    See if I can post today without all the damned errors :|

    This may sound odd, but I am of the opinion Mr. Snowden would be safer staying in Russia than he would in France. The United States and their allies ( assuming they don't piss ALL of them off by getting caught spying on them ) don't have the ability to freely operate in Russia. This makes it a bit more difficult to snatch such a high priority "prize" right off the street, never to be heard from again.

    There also exists the risk of future administrations in France cozying back up to the United States, putting their freedom in jeopardy once again. ( Granted, the same can happen in Russia, but is far less likely )

    So, unless Russia is as bad as the Western Media likes to portray, ( unlikely, but I've never been so can't say for myself ) I would think long and hard about leaving the safety of her borders.

    *Having grown up during the Cold War era, it's interesting to note how much things have changed. When US Citizens feel the need to flee to Russia ( or any non-US ally ) to escape what would most certainly be an unfair trial ( assuming you even receive one ), it has truly become a bizarre world.

  11. Re:Countries don't have friends. They have interes by Martin+Blank · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Countries that are friends today can easily be adversaries tomorrow and the US and France haven't had the closest of relationships.

    Thank you for pointing this out. Most people don't realize it.

    France dropped out as a full member of NATO in 1966, ordering most non-French forces out, and didn't rejoin it until 2009. The original purpose was so that France could potentially come to a separate peace with the Warsaw Pact nations if it didn't agree with the reasons for a war with them. This didn't last long, as a secret agreement for France to rapidly re-integrate into NATO forces was signed soon after.

    However, it caused a great deal of mistrust in other countries, and France has maintained interests in other countries around the world, not always for the betterment of those outside of France. It's strongly suspected of being behind the Israeli nuclear arms program, something that was originally opposed by the United States because it risked rising tensions in the Middle East where the Soviets had a strong presence in countries such as Egypt, Iraq, and Syria. France has also been caught conducting industrial espionage in numerous countries including the United States, and there's little reason to think that they've stopped there. The country has an international independence streak much longer than that of the US, and it's not likely to change anytime soon.

    Nations spy on other nations, because almost every one has been assured of something and then been stabbed in the back. Reagan told Thatcher that the US had no intention of invading Grenada even as forces were moving in, and the attack began just a few hours later. I'm sure that as much as Thatcher may have forgiven Reagan later, plans were put in place to try to catch this kind of thing at an earlier stage, whether through satellites, photography from chartered aircraft, and 'tourists' who happen to be near key locations, or through traditional espionage techniques of stealing or turning people.

    It's an understood game. Everyone does it, everyone tries to stop it. They get better at both sides, and the dance continues.

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  12. Re:Dribbling Nazi F*cktard by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Informative

    There is no crime of 'skipping bail' in the UK- only the USA has the 'crime' of breaking bail conditions.

    The Bail Act of 1976 says otherwise. Section 6, Offence of absconding by person released on bail, says in part:

    (1) If a person who has been released on bail in criminal proceedings fails without reasonable cause to surrender to custody he shall be guilty of an offence.

    (2) If a person who— ..(a)has been released on bail in criminal proceedings, and ..(b)having reasonable cause therefor, has failed to surrender to custody,
    fails to surrender to custody at the appointed place as soon after the appointed time as is reasonably practicable he shall be guilty of an offence.

    (3) It shall be for the accused to prove that he had reasonable cause for his failure to surrender to custody.

    (4) A failure to give to a person granted bail in criminal proceedings a copy of the record of the decision shall not constitute a reasonable cause for that person’s failure to surrender to custody.

    (5) An offence under subsection (1) or (2) above shall be punishable either on summary conviction or as if it were a criminal contempt of court.

    (6) Where a magistrates’ court convicts a person of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above the court may, if it thinks— ..(a)that the circumstances of the offence are such that greater punishment should be inflicted for that offence than the court has power to inflict, or ..(b)in a case where it commits that person for trial to the Crown Court for another offence, that it would be appropriate for him to be dealt with for the offence under subsection (1) or (2) above by the court before which he is tried for the other offence,
    commit him in custody or on bail to the Crown Court for sentence.

    (7)A person who is convicted summarily of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above and is not committed to the Crown Court for sentence shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both and a person who is so committed for sentence or is dealt with as for such a contempt shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine or to both.

    He was granted bail (which was posted by followers) in a criminal proceeding (extraditions are criminal proceedings). He was ordered to return on a specific day and failed to do so. He was granted chances to return in order that his bail would be returned to those who had donated to it, but still did not, and the bail was revoked and the money kept by the Crown. Unless Assange can prove that his failure to appear was reasonable, he's in for three months at a minimum but it could be up to 12 months, plus a possible fine.

    I don't know that any country would make bail jumping not be a crime. It's intentionally evading criminal prosecution. Assange will probably never get bail again anywhere in his life.

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  13. Re:Countries don't have friends. They have interes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Here's a question for you. How often does your wife bug-sweep your bedroom? People don't have marriages, they have interests within sexual alliances."

    This is a poor analogy at best. Are you married? Spouses are constantly secretly keeping tabs on one another without being overt. They are eyeing what one another is doing and spending on a regular basis. And though they aren't necessarily doing it all super covertly, they aren't always open about it.

  14. Re:Nope by rogoshen1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    You have obviously never played Civilization. You can even goad Gandhi into dropping nukes on you if you spy on him sufficiently.

    Go play and then get back to us.

  15. US/Euro warrants did not effect Polanski's stay by drnb · · Score: 3

    I'm not sure either Snowden or Assange could live in France in safety anyway. France is subject to European Arrest Warrants. Snowden might be safe from those but if I were him I'd prefer a country like Iceland.

    France granted asylum to convicted fugitive child rapist Roman Polanski. The victim was 13 years old. After pleading guilty he fled to France before sentencing. No US and European arrest warrant interfered with his 30+ year stay in France.