Snowden's choice of helper countries is a national security risk to the United States. Here you have someone in possession of (still undisclosed) state secrets from his work at the NSA, and who needs help from a foreign government. That's the very definition of compromised. What is he going to trade for protection? More classified information, of course--possibly much more sensitive information than the existence of programs like PRISM, which foreign spy agencies have likely known about for years. He has national security information, foreign governments want it, and they eventually will get it. This intel will eventually flow to China and/or Russia, where it will remain secret and used against the United States.
As others have said, the US placed him in that position themselves. Why should he owe any loyalty to a country and a government that wants to detain and perhaps torture or even execute him?
Loyalty to humanity as a whole should (and seemingly has, in his case) override more parochial considerations. The "national security" of the US nation is far less important than the individual humans who live in it, and Snowden has done the latter a great service.
Ecuador has an very poor human rights record. One of my colleagues is a former Ecuadorian journalist who was blacklisted for criticizing the government and had to flee the country. Strange choice for Snowden, given that.
The key difference in this case is that the information is flowing not directly to the foreign governments themselves, as in past cases, but rather to independent journalist organizations, so that the information can be known to everyone, both world governments and their citizens, equally.
In the past Snowden has leaked to journalists, but what happens in the following scenario?
Russia: "Snowden, the U.S. has requested that we detain you. We could hand your over to the U.S., but we'd be happy to offer you political asylyum here, or we could let you leave for Ecuador in a few hours and tell the U.S. we couldn't find you in time."
Snowden: "I'd like to leave for Ecuador, please."
Russia: "Well, then, all you have to do is tell us everything you know about programs X, Y, and Z. We're very interested in these programs, and anything you can tell us about U.S. surveillance of Russian government and military activities."
Snowden: "I don't know anything about those."
Russia: "Well, OK, I guess it's prison for you then."
Snowden: "No, wait--I'll tell you everything I know."
Or instead of pushing him to do whatever it takes to protect his own life which ultimately is a human reflex, the US Gov could have said: ok we acknowledge there is a problem with the data we gather, with the policies we enacted and with the way we informed the people, come back home we won't charge you for espionnage and we will listen to you to improve how we could protect the US without compromising privacy.
When did we decide that the national security programs of the United States should give a damn what a random 30 year old contractor thinks about them? This is risible. Who voted for Edward Snowden?
What he has done is not confined to "whistleblowing", if indeed any of it is. He apparently stole massive amounts of classified information, much of it on programs that by any reasonable definition are legitimate, albeit potentially embarrassing. He's now flying around from one U.S. strategic competitor to another, apparently unconcerned that what he stole could end up in the hands of those who do not wish the U.S. well. Feel free to describe him as being a hero to the world or whatever, but his protestations to have done all of this for love of country are starting to ring quite hollow.
...but his protestations to have done all of this for love of country are starting to ring quite hollow.
Why, because he doesn't behave in a way that comports with your definitions of love of country?
IMO, the truest patriot is one who cares enough about his country to call out its faults. That he doesn't want to be "Gitmo-ed" or suffer "extraordinary rendition" to a place where they "interrogate" you by shoving a broken beer bottle up your ass is pretty orthogonal to patriotism, if you ask me.
No, because going to Hong Kong, then Russia, then Ecuador with a few laptops full of classified information is not something a serious person does if they're interested in the welfare of the United States.
And seriously: It would have been completely illegal to send Snowden to Gitmo or any other nation. If you're worried that the President is willing to do things that are blatantly and obviously illegal and unconstitutional, as opposed to in the gray areas of national security, and that no one in the Congress or the judiciary could or would do anything about it, then hey, get that impeachment petition going. But really this is all just hn hyperventilation.
If Snowden thought he was a true whistleblower, he should have followed the law, which describes exactly how he should have communicated his concerns. If that had failed, go to Congress and testify. But sneaking off to HK with (apparently) a bunch of unrelated information was not a "brave" or "patriotic" thing to do.
Out of curiosity, is there any classified information he could have turned over (intentionally or otherwise) to the Russians that would make you reconsider the wisdom of his decisions?
What if one of those laptops has the names of undercover agents on it? I'm not saying it does, I'm just trying to understand the scope of your argument.
Well, OK, then. Snowden is rightfully a hero to your ideology. But I think anyone who's read history can argue that the institutions that currently "run the world" are among the most beneficial to mankind ever to emerge. They're not perfect, but we should think twice before tearing them down.
Oh absolutely they are the best so far, but they still aren't nearly good enough that we should just accept them and wait for their downfall or transition to come "naturally;" we must takes steps to ensure that the change occurs, not just wish it so.
Fair. But who voted for anyone running the NSA? When did we decide that the national security programs of the United States should operate without the consent of the governed?
65 million people voted less than a year ago for the guy who could order the NSA to stop or modify any of these programs immediately. Say what you like about the current occupant of the Oval Office, but he's not a rigid ideologue: Democratic voices and the resulting political forces can get him to move, and if by some chance they can't, there's a Congressional election in a year and a Presidential in three.
I understand that, and I want to jump on board the 'our representatives should have control' train and believe that we're voting for people in power to make these decisions, but I just don't think it's realistic. The President and Congress are simply limited by the finite amount of time they have, and it's about time that we realize that the size of the United States as a population and as a governing body has outgrown the framework designed just a few centuries ago.
Sure, we could expect that someone from the NSA would brief the President or congress on the happenings of surveillance. It seems like a huge priority. But I lean towards Hanlon's Razor and thus towards believing that there are multiple layers of people between the people who make these decisions and the President--layers of people who are balancing their job security (after all, who would hire someone fired from the NSA for overstepping the 4th amendment) and their job description (after all, who do we blame when terrorist attack?). It's simply the stupidity of the system rather that malicious individuals within it.
All that might be true, but nothing is stopping President Obama from ending any of these programs he's reading about in the New York Times with a phone call, followed by an executive order.
Maybe other programs would wiggle their way through the bureaucracy without his notice, but the fact that he hasn't made a big show of publicly terminating these particular programs suggests that he is responsive to the concerns of the public. Unfortunately the concerns of the public don't appear to line up with yours at the moment.
And to get back to my point, they don't line up with Snowden's either. Which is too bad for Snowden, but it doesn't give him the right to do whatever he wants with the classified information he was trusted and paid to protect.
This would be a terrible move for the US as it sets the example that leaking classified information is okay. Whether you believe what he did was right or wrong, he needs to face the consequences of his actions.
I think that most of what he has said so far has been corroborated. He has done enough to raise awareness of the issues that we know to be true. He should do whatever he needs to remain safe.
Snowden himself is now compromised. How do we know that what he releases to the press is factual, and not tampered by a foreign entity who received the real information and his cooperation in exchange for asylum? I think this pretty well destroys the credibility of his leaked information from this point forward. What happened to him "facing the consequences" of his actions to make sure the truth would out? I certainly understand him fleeing but it severely jeopardizes any further leaks. He has made it much easier for the Obama administration to discredit damaging information rather than being forced to face it as they have been doing.
Obama himself is now compromised. How do we know that what he releases to the press is factual, and not tampered by a secret entity who received the real information and his cooperation in exchange for fame? I think this pretty well destroys the credibility of his information from this point forward. What happened to him "facing the consequences" of his promises to make sure the States are governed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights? I certainly understand him fleeing his promises, but it severely jeopardizes any further trust he can lead the States and a World power. He has made it much easier for the public to discredit all information he parrots from his pulpit rather than being forced to face it as they have been doing.
> What happened to him "facing the consequences" of his actions to make sure the truth would out?
Again with this "all leakers and disssidents must throw themselves upon a pyre" attitude. Snowden never said he was going to needlessly kill himself (passively, or otherwise).
We can't verify the authenticity of any documents, but we also have no reason to believe that they are contaminated or sourced from foreign governments, at least not yet. And did he ever say he would "face the consequences?" The interviews I watched indicated that he felt he could not receive a fair trial in the US, which is why he felt the need to flee.
Snowden has awakened the whole world to the surveillance leviathan that is the US. The US have been the one world government for awhile now, it's just that most people (and countries) refused to see it until now.
The C&D to the Bitcoins Foundation is no surprise either. It's in the cross hairs of the US government and it can't be allowed to exist. Read the book Cypherpunks and you'll find out why. I'm sure those in power know the book well.
Bad idea. I personally know a guy who was illegally kidnapped by the US government from Ecuador with the assistance of local police. Snowden will regret this decision.
Osama Nasr was abducted by the US from Milan, Italy in 2003 without permission or cooperation from the Italian government and tortured in Egypt. Illegal abduction can happen anywhere. I agree publicity would make it harder, but the US has shown willingness to act extra-legally and ignore the fallout even from allies (Pakistan, Italy etc), so Snowden is probably not safe anywhere, just a bit safer for longer in a country which opposes the US. In his words:
You can't come forward against the world's most powerful intelligence agencies and be completely free from risk because they're such powerful adversaries. No one can meaningfully oppose them. If they want to get you, they'll get you in time.
This happened just two years ago. Palestinian engineer, traveling in Ukraine, was captured by unknown people, and was found in Israel prison week later.
The US government has all the time in the world and in months/years from now when nobody remembers his name there will be an opportunity for a extradition to be done quietly.
I'm not trusting any "sources" that claim to know his final destination, as various ones have claimed Venezuela, Norway, and now Ecuador. I guess we'll have to wait a couple days to know what'll really happen.
Two weeks ago everything Snowden said would have sounded like bullshit. There are plenty of things we are not aware of. This kidnapping that I mentioned just happens to be something I was physically present to witness. However, I'm not going to provide further details. Feel free to move on with your day and ignore my comment.
Just wondering: What would be the appeals process if he were actually kidnapped by the US government in a foreign country. Is there some court by the United Nations that is mediating such cases even if there is an extreme power imbalance between both nations?
> Just wondering: What would be the appeals process if he were actually kidnapped by the US government in a foreign country.
The appeals process that would go through a system with the power to matter would be through the US courts and would almost certainly be unsuccessful, see U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 US 655 (1992) [1].
> Is there some court by the United Nations that is mediating such cases even if there is an extreme power imbalance between both nations?
A case could be filed in the International Court of Justice by the offended country against the US alleging violation of a treaty or some other element of international law within the competence of the Court, but for consideration of how much that would be worth even if the offended country won the case, consider Nicaragua v. United States [1].
I'm sure he did. But plans are just that. They're dependent on the moves of other players that you typically have no control over and can only imperfectly guess at.
You imply it's intentional. People (both "the media" as well as HN readers) are focusing on Snowden because it's much more exciting and interesting to read a real life spy thriller than discuss an NSA spying program that we all knew existed (at least in principle) for years.
His safety in Ecuador seems highly dependent on the attitudes of the current ruling party/president. What happens if a more US-friendly group takes hold of power?
That would seriously harm US relations with Mercosul and other Latin American countries. The US already has a poor track record in Latin America. Invading Ecuadorian sovereignty would basically turn Latin America into yet another region with strong Anti-American attitudes like the Middle East. I'm sure Europe would also heavily condemn such an action.
It doesn't necessarily mean that he has to go to Ecuador, he can stay in the Ecuadorian Embassy in Moscow (if there is one). But, can he? He doesn't have a visa to exit the airport.
If Russia bent it's rules. Having been at many international airports, I can't see how a car entered that holding /transfer area. His passport has been cancelled but is there an international db to check valid vs non-valid ones? What if Russia made believe they never got the "Snowden's passport has been cancelled" memo?
AIUI passport requirements are up to the receiving country. If Ecuador are willing to receive him then he can travel there (and travel through any number of airports on the way as long as he stays "skyside"), passport or no. Indeed the best policy for Russia and Snowden is probably for him to not legally enter Russia at all.
News you can trust, with desk reporter Julian Assange, field reporter Edward Snowden. Today we give an update on John McCain's trip to Syria, with video of McCain's night feeding on human organs with his best buddy, opposition leader Khalid Al-Hamad.
I hope he has plan B, or starts planning it. Ecuador is a tiny country and can easily be influenced by USA once this government falls. In smaller countries when USA needs a favor, it "forgets" a few things their leader does when it comes to human rights, elections and so on.
