Prism Program ( Big Brother gone too far?)

[Zoraptor]

I doubt the Chinese could resist the impulse to refuse the extradition anyway, since there's a certain 'man bites dog' irony about them refusing to extradite a political dissident to the US. I doubt there'd be many more popular Americans to the Chinese given how much wind was taken out of the complaints about their hacking with all the revelations of US monitoring.

[BruceVC]

I doubt the Chinese could resist the impulse to refuse the extradition anyway, since there's a certain 'man bites dog' irony about them refusing to extradite a political dissident to the US. I doubt there'd be many more popular Americans to the Chinese given how much wind was taken out of the complaints about their hacking with all the revelations of US monitoring.

 

Good points, it has almost taken the attention off the Chinese and there state sponsored hacking of US businesses and government institutions.

 

But from what I saw Snowden will still fight extradition through legal routes  and apparently there is some legal autonomy that Hong Kong has from China so it will be a protracted extradition

Edited June 22, 2013 by BruceVC

[Meshugger]

It's all very well documented and you are exaggerating the claims of the article. It goes to the nature of the discourse on Russia and China through half a century.

 

I don't see you discounting the WMD fiasco as a tin foil hat conspitacy.  Is that because you are willing to concede that goverments will make you believe whatever suits their strategic interests the best, including democracies who champion freedom of the press.

 

It doesn't matter if each of those claims are well documented or not. It is how the article was written and presented. You can just as easily with clever writing make it look like Reagan single-handedly, and without any aid ended the cold war. Or Gorbachev for that matter.

[BruceVC]

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1267261/snowden-leaves-hong-kong-commercial-flight-Moscow

 

Interesting but Snowden is now on a plane to Russia. It appears this makes sense and he can now fly to Iceland. He probably did this as it means he wouldn't have to land in any country that does support extradition back to the USA. Apparently this suits Hong Kong perfectly as this was becoming a real political bugbear for them with all the understandable pressure from the USA.

 

I wonder if Iceland will be his final destination

[Meshugger]

If the US want to get serious with this, they should just ask Mossad to kidnap him and dump him at the attourney's office in DC. Their performance ratio has been pretty good when it comes to individuals suspected to Nazi war crimes. 

 

Of course, they will have to convince the public that it was a necessary evil since his actions were perfectly comparable to genocide of a massive scale. 

[Gorgon]

 

It's all very well documented and you are exaggerating the claims of the article. It goes to the nature of the discourse on Russia and China through half a century.

 

I don't see you discounting the WMD fiasco as a tin foil hat conspitacy.  Is that because you are willing to concede that goverments will make you believe whatever suits their strategic interests the best, including democracies who champion freedom of the press.

 

It doesn't matter if each of those claims are well documented or not. It is how the article was written and presented. You can just as easily with clever writing make it look like Reagan single-handedly, and without any aid ended the cold war. Or Gorbachev for that matter.

 

So we are going to forego arguments that don't suit our predisposition. Interestingly enough our predisposition is what it was all about in case you missed it.

[Walsingham]

I was talking to a friend about this , and he made some interesting points which I can respect, if not agree with.

 

My friend's points were:

 

1) Silverman wasn't in uniform, he was bound by a civilian contract. This is very different from Manning's direct betrayal.

2) Silverman appears to have been selective about what he took. Unlike Manning.

3) Silverman went to a respected set of journalists. They arguably acted as a check on the responsible nature of the release, analogous to a Parliamentary or other process. Unlike Manning.

 

I wondered what you chaps thought.

[BruceVC]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/23/us-usa-security-russia-flights-idUSBRE95M06320130623

 

Wow, now he may be going to Venezuela,.

 

That is really going to piss the Americans off especially since they have such a strained and tenuous relationship with Venezuela already

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I was talking to a friend about this , and he made some interesting points which I can respect, if not agree with.

 

My friend's points were:

 

1) Silverman wasn't in uniform, he was bound by a civilian contract. This is very different from Manning's direct betrayal.

2) Silverman appears to have been selective about what he took. Unlike Manning.

3) Silverman went to a respected set of journalists. They arguably acted as a check on the responsible nature of the release, analogous to a Parliamentary or other process. Unlike Manning.

 

I wondered what you chaps thought.

1. True, but I'm pretty sure that his civilian contract contained some sort of provision where he agreed to not reveal information under penalty of X. In this likely event he still broke the law seeing as he did not go through the process to gain "whistle-blower" immunity.

2. Perhaps. To be a Devil's Advocate, what if he selectively took data to make the US policies look worse than they are, rather than tell the whole story?

3. No argument there.

[Walsingham]

Kaine,

 

1. I don't think the point my friend was making was that it was OK. The point was that a civilian is inherently less constrained against compromising fighting forces than a man who has freely volunteered, put on a uniform, and sworn brotherhood with those forces.

2. That's a very interesting point I've not heard before. I would counter that a large data dump is also unreliable. How do we know what information has been tampered with in a large release? Officials cannot usefully deny or confirm the material. 

3. I don't have much faith in journalists over a properly accountable democratic institution. but I can't deny I'm happier than I would be with just running down the street flinging classified documents about.

 

BTW, as an aside, the willingness of Russia and China to harbour this gentleman might say a little about the utility of "useful fools". After all, it's in their direct interests to give sanctuary to anyone leaking US/UK secrets.

[Zoraptor]

Manning's leaks initially went through and were vetted by the Grauniad (+others inc NYT) as well- until the pressure on them got too much and the Gariunad went back to printing reputable stuff like leaked statements of rape victims.

 

Second part is... well, no kidding. None of Snowden's stuff would be news to them but it isn't like the US or Britain wouldn't do the same- Boris Berezovsky was not granted asylum in the UK because he was an upstanding citizen being unfairly persecuted in Russia, he was a kleptomaniac who overstepped and his main use to Britain was to embarrass the Russkies. Same thing as complaining about the Russians parading CIA operatives with sub The Americans wigs around on TV like a major faux pas, it's not like the US didn't parade Anna Chapman et alia around as well.

[Rosbjerg]

So, Snowden has dissapeared. Was he snatched or did he go underground? Will we ever know?

[BruceVC]

So, Snowden has dissapeared. Was he snatched or did he go underground? Will we ever know?

 

Yeah, I don't know what to make of it. One thing I do know is that I won't be making any more predictions until I see what country he ends up in. I'm tired of being wrong

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Perhaps we should start betting on where he will pop up next?

 

I've got $50 on Iran.

[BruceVC]

Perhaps we should start betting on where he will pop up next?

 

I've got $50 on Iran.

 

You've raised a good point

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/ecuador-foreign-minister-says-nsa-leaker-snowden-seeking-asylum-there/2013/06/24/3e307ec8-dc84-11e2-a484-7b7f79cd66a1_story.html

 

 

 

I think he will still end up in Ecuador. I see Assange is actively supporting him and is pushing for this. I like the way the Ecuadorian foreign minister said

 

"There are some governments that act more upon their own interests, but we do not,” Patino said. “We act upon our principles.”

He added, “We take care of the human rights of the people.”

 

That's rich, the Ecuador government have a shocking and controversial record around human rights. What hypocrisy

 

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/wha/154504.htm

Edited June 25, 2013 by BruceVC

[Orogun01]

Anyone else feels like playing "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego"?

Snowden was last seen in a car that had flags that were red, white and blue.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I think we already knew he was in Russia.

[Walsingham]

If anyone wants a kickstarter I'd chip in to put him in the Ecuadorian embassy in London with Assange. I'd find it hugely amusing to pack the plcae with pasty egomaniacal nerds.

 

EDIT: @ Zoraptor

I wanted to check my facts, and according to Wikipedia he leaked direct to Wikileaks. The leaks then got taken up by the media.

 

He really does make me feel ill.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Walsingham

[Nepenthe]

If anyone wants a kickstarter I'd chip in to put him in the Ecuadorian embassy in London with Assange. I'd find it hugely amusing to pack the plcae with pasty egomaniacal nerds.

 

"Obsidian forums - now hosted by the Ecuadorian embassy of London."

[Zoraptor]

EDIT: @ Zoraptor

I wanted to check my facts, and according to Wikipedia he leaked direct to Wikileaks. The leaks then got taken up by the media.

Yeah, as wikileaks is anonymous- if Manning had not shot his mouth off to the wrong person he would (likely) not have been caught. Wikileaks released most of his stuff via the papers (inc Grauniad). That was one of the ironies, they were meant to be vetting the releases for sensitive info, then stopped and complained when sensitive stuff did get released.

 

Snowden is different though, as he clearly intended for it to be known that it was him doing the leaking there was no need for a middleman even though it's pretty clear he knew of WL.

[Walsingham]

With respect, Zor. Your previous post rather implied Manning's release had been vetted before release. It's why I went back and double checked.

 

Going back to Snowden, it seems to be the case that he went public because - and I am paraphrasing a quote - Congress was being lied to. I feel this reinforces my point entirely. Why not speak directly to those Congressmen who were being lied to? They'd have eaten up the scandal AND run with the ball.

[Amentep]

With respect, Zor. Your previous post rather implied Manning's release had been vetted before release. It's why I went back and double checked.

 

Going back to Snowden, it seems to be the case that he went public because - and I am paraphrasing a quote - Congress was being lied to. I feel this reinforces my point entirely. Why not speak directly to those Congressmen who were being lied to? They'd have eaten up the scandal AND run with the ball.

Its a point that's been brought up before and I have no answer for it (which is why, for now, I don't buy that Snowden was acting out of a desire to do good for "the US people"). Since a senator could have presented the evidence in the house or senate and be protected by the "Speech or Debate" clause, in theory the information could have been put out there to "protect" the US citizens without having to reveal how the information was obtained protecting Snowden. But it would have also left Snwoden anonymous, and I gather that being known was important to him.

[BruceVC]

 

With respect, Zor. Your previous post rather implied Manning's release had been vetted before release. It's why I went back and double checked.

 

Going back to Snowden, it seems to be the case that he went public because - and I am paraphrasing a quote - Congress was being lied to. I feel this reinforces my point entirely. Why not speak directly to those Congressmen who were being lied to? They'd have eaten up the scandal AND run with the ball.

Its a point that's been brought up before and I have no answer for it (which is why, for now, I don't buy that Snowden was acting out of a desire to do good for "the US people"). Since a senator could have presented the evidence in the house or senate and be protected by the "Speech or Debate" clause, in theory the information could have been put out there to "protect" the US citizens without having to reveal how the information was obtained protecting Snowden. But it would have also left Snwoden anonymous, and I gather that being known was important to him.

 

 

I think that Snowden has committed a serious crime against his country and he must face the consequences. But you raise an interesting question " why go public in the way he did ?"

 

Narcissism, misplaced views on doing the right thing or a Chinese spy? I have heard several theories and I don't know what to think. I just know if he aligns himself with Wikileaks he is making an egregious mistake. Unless you like being confined in a small embassy in the UK?

[Meshugger]

I like how Snowden stands accused espionage by the US when he leaked that the US spies on its citizens.

[Walsingham]

I like how Snowden stands accused espionage by the US when he leaked that the US spies on its citizens.

 

There's this thing called 'teams'...