Edward Snowden

[adi B]

doctrines of moronic ideas published by u-know-who :phehehe:

[FischerTal]

doctrines of moronic ideas published by u-know-who :phehehe:

Isko laga dala toh life chewtiya saalaB->

[StriKe]

[SLICKR392]

[Ram]

Rebel against some random commie regime in the East? Welcome home my son!! We shall take care of you, offer you and your family the red carpet. We will arrange for private jet flight to the Western country of your choice and pay for you and your family's expenses for a lifetime. You are a true role model and a symbol of free expression and civil liberties. Leak information about some horrifying US govt programs that make a mockery of your privacy and civil liberties? You criminal?! How dare you! We will hunt you down and put you in prison. We will blackmail every country in the world that wants to give you shelter and will make life so uncomfortable for you and your family that you give up by your own volition and a set a dangerous precedent for others who want to follow in your footsteps. :hysterical:

[Sachin=GOD]

What am I missing in the Snowden affair? The US government's dogmatic pursuit for Snowden is both counter-productive and hypocritical, writes scholar.

I would have thought that there was a clear set of principles that make the American diplomatic pursuit of Edward Snowden as a fugitive from justice a rather empty and futile gesture. As far as I can tell, there is not even a need for asylum as governments should have been prepared to grant Snowden residence status because his alleged criminal acts in the United States were without question political crimes , without violence or monetary motivation. I had thought it was as clear as law can be that any person who has committed a political crime should be exempted from mandatory extradition even if a treaty existed imposed a duty on its parties to hand over individuals accused of serious criminal activity. To be sure, from the perspective of the United States government, Snowden's exposure of the PRISM surveillance program was a flagrant violation of the Espionage Act. But it was also as clearly a political crime as almost any undertaking can be. There was no violence involved or threatened, and no person can be harmed by the disclosures. What puzzles me is why the refusal to hand Snowden over by expelling him to the United States, which is what Washington has asked Russia to do, raises any kind of serious question beyond wondering how the US government officials arrogantly made the request in the first place. As it was put to Moscow by the US government: "We expect the Russian government to look at all options available to expel Snowden to the United States to face justice for the crimes with which he is charged." Inherent hypocrisy It is also puzzling is why foreign governments do not make this simple point in response that international criminal law enforcement does not extend to political crimes even in the relation of governments friendly with one another, and there are good public policy and humanitarian reasons why such "criminals" should not be treated internationally as fugitives from justice. It seems clearly within the domain of reason to believe that the extent of secret surveillance, both within the United States and globally, is posing a dangerous threat to democracy and the rights and security of individuals, and in this sense, Snowden is an authentic whistleblower drawing attention to an urgent concern of many people and governments throughout the world. He can also be deemed to have engaged in acts of civil disobedience as his moral motivations clearly led him to act on behalf of the public good in a manner that he realised was in violation of applicable criminal law in the United States. Some have suggested that unlike Daniel Ellsberg who remained in the country after he released the Pentagon Papers, Snowden does not deserve to be treated as a whistleblower because he did not stay around to face the legal music, as if such a show of subservience to the legal system is a sina qua non of good faith. Breach of sovereignty The US government position contradicts its own long standing practice of refusing to give up those wanted for political crimes, including in some instances even shielding persons charged with terrorist activity. The most notorious example is that of Luis Posada Carrilles, an exile from Cuba with a long record of involvement in anti-Castro terrorist activity, alleged to have blown up a Cuban passenger plane in 1976 with 73 persons on board, and living without legal difficulties in Florida. This makes it a particularly dismaying moment when the governments of France, Portugal, Spain, and Italy denied overflight rights to the plane carrying Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, apparently hoping to persuade a friendly government to seize Snowden if he were on board and turn him over to American authorities who would transport him back to the United States. It should hardly be surprising that such diplomatic hard ball at Bolivia's expense angers Latin American countries, justifiably sensitive about the US willingness to encroach upon their sovereign rights in a manner that would not be tolerated if the situation were reversed. Undoubtedly, an anguishing reminder that the mentality that bestowed the Monroe Doctrine and 'gunboat diplomacy' on the Western Hemisphere is not entirely a thing of the past. Snowden himself shifted the context from the exemption of political crimes to asylum, which presupposes a justifiable fear of persecution of returned to the country of nationality. Nicolás Maduro, President of Venezuela, symbolically offered Snowden asylum on July 5, the holiday celebrating national independence. Snowden has reported accepted the offer, but there is no indication how he will make sure that his trip from Shermetyevo International Airport in Moscow to Caracas is not diverted on route in a way that allows the United States to take him into custody. There is another question lurking in the background. Will Venezuela be now made to pay for doing the right thing? And what of Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador that each indicated receptivity to Snowden's request for asylum? There has been speculation that in the post-Chavez era Maduro has been seeking to normalize relations with the United States, and that this goal might now be put on indefinite hold. And what about Hong Kong, China, and Russia that spurned American efforts to have Snowden expelled to the United States after his passport was cancelled? Snowden is a whistleblower I suppose that this attack of "surveillance panic" is a symptom of the larger importance being attached by Washington to cyber security, and worries about disabling attacks by way of hacking and debilitating viruses. But to go after Snowden in this way is more than panic, it suggests one more example of American exceptionalism that causes anger and resentment throughout the world - in effect, we are insisting that we expect from others far more than we are prepared to give. It is especially striking that among Snowden's disclosures are confirmations of the earlier rumors that the United States and Israel had developed the computer worm or virus, Stuxnet that had been used to disrupt operations in Iran's nuclear facilities. As with the use of drones around the world, the blowback effects seem once more ignored as America flexes its geopolitical muscles without regard for the constraints of international law, and the values of a free society. Reciprocity is the indispensable foundation of effective international law, and it is here that the Snowden affair seems particularly disturbing. If a Chinese Snowden was to make comparable revelations that violated Chinese criminal law there would not be a chance in a million that the United States would return such an individual to China, and wouldn't Washington be outraged if China used its leverage to persuade governments to divert a plane suspected of carrying the person they were seeking to prosecute, especially if it were a plane known to be carrying the president of a sovereign state? Can one imagine the US government turning over the blind Chinese human rights activist, Chen Gunagchen, for prosecution under a Chinese law criminalising deliberate harm to the country's public image? Of course not, and it is a good thing. Sovereign states, if not entirely paranoid and wedded to an autocratic conception of national security, should welcome the exemption of political crimes from cooperative law enforcement. Why would it be deemed unfriendly to provide sanctuary to Snowden as European countries, and even China and Russia, seemed to believe? Why were even the Latin American countries only led to act when a president was denied normal international comity in international airspace as head of a sovereign state? Giving sanctuary to political crimes helps makes the world safe for political dissent and pluralism, and offers a shield against the autocratic security state. It is admirable that Venezuela, whatever its reasons, stepped forward to offer Snowden asylum, which was deserved, considering the vindictive approach taken toward such other recent "leakers" as Bradley Manning and Julian Assange. What may be most regrettable in this yet unfinished drama is the American refusal to engage in self-scrutiny, to wonder whether surveillance and secrecy are not being abused, a gross over-reaction to 9/11 and extremist threats, that alters the balance between state and society in an anti-democratic manner, as well as threats the entire world as it falls within the domain of US national security. Such a worldview is decidedly imperial as it precludes granting reciprocal rights to others, and implicitly claims that the United States is above the law, or shapes the law to suit its own particular priorities. Instead of seeking to prosecute and punish Snowden, the healthy national response would be to reestablish limits on governmental surveillance and extraterritorial security claims. At least, it is time for citizens not to be fooled by the politics of deflection by which the government and a pliant media avoid the message and obsess about the messenger, and discuss the substantive issues that prompted the disclosures rather than seek to punish an individual of conscience who chose bravely to risk the fury of a state because some of its unseemly secrets were being made public. Richard Falk is Albert G Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Aljazeera

[Ram]

The US govt’s whole premise of calling Snowden a fugitive is that his revelations harmed US national security interests. Sure, if it is in your national security interest to bug foreign diplomatic complexes, collect unrestricted data on private citizens’ phone and internet communication without ever having to justify why and wiretap individual citizens phone lines without ever having to require a warrant to do that, then yes – Snowden’s revelations did undermine that. That is like saying that it is the Sri Lankan’ govt. larger national interest to execute Tamil civilians to bring a swift end to the LTTE-Lankan conflict and anyone who stands in the way of that approach or leaks information that embarrass the Lankan govt. in the world stage is also a criminal. The Snowden affair is a black mark on the international community. I genuinely expected a lot more support for him from at least certain European countries who value individual privacy and rights. But everyone’s simply cowered under US intimidation and turned the other way. Just goes to on to show that, when it comes to the big boys – there’s no right or wrong thing to do. All that matters is whose side you are on.

[Crookbond]

Statement by Edward Snowden to human rights groups at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport

Hello. My name is Ed Snowden. A little over one month ago, I had family, a home in paradise, and I lived in great comfort. I also had the capability without any warrant to search for, seize, and read your communications. Anyone’s communications at any time. That is the power to change people’s fates. It is also a serious violation of the law. The 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution of my country, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and numerous statutes and treaties forbid such systems of massive, pervasive surveillance. While the US Constitution marks these programs as illegal, my government argues that secret court rulings, which the world is not permitted to see, somehow legitimize an illegal affair. These rulings simply corrupt the most basic notion of justice – that it must be seen to be done. The immoral cannot be made moral through the use of secret law. I believe in the principle declared at Nuremberg in 1945: "Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring." Accordingly, I did what I believed right and began a campaign to correct this wrongdoing. I did not seek to enrich myself. I did not seek to sell US secrets. I did not partner with any foreign government to guarantee my safety. Instead, I took what I knew to the public, so what affects all of us can be discussed by all of us in the light of day, and I asked the world for justice. That moral decision to tell the public about spying that affects all of us has been costly, but it was the right thing to do and I have no regrets. Since that time, the government and intelligence services of the United States of America have attempted to make an example of me, a warning to all others who might speak out as I have. I have been made stateless and hounded for my act of political expression. The United States Government has placed me on no-fly lists. It demanded Hong Kong return me outside of the framework of its laws, in direct violation of the principle of non-refoulement – the Law of Nations. It has threatened with sanctions countries who would stand up for my human rights and the UN asylum system. It has even taken the unprecedented step of ordering military allies to ground a Latin American president’s plane in search for a political refugee. These dangerous escalations represent a threat not just to the dignity of Latin America, but to the basic rights shared by every person, every nation, to live free from persecution, and to seek and enjoy asylum. Yet even in the face of this historically disproportionate aggression, countries around the world have offered support and asylum. These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless. By refusing to compromise their principles in the face of intimidation, they have earned the respect of the world. It is my intention to travel to each of these countries to extend my personal thanks to their people and leaders. I announce today my formal acceptance of all offers of support or asylum I have been extended and all others that may be offered in the future. With, for example, the grant of asylum provided by Venezuela’s President Maduro, my asylee status is now formal, and no state has a basis by which to limit or interfere with my right to enjoy that asylum. As we have seen, however, some governments in Western European and North American states have demonstrated a willingness to act outside the law, and this behavior persists today. This unlawful threat makes it impossible for me to travel to Latin America and enjoy the asylum granted there in accordance with our shared rights. This willingness by powerful states to act extra-legally represents a threat to all of us, and must not be allowed to succeed. Accordingly, I ask for your assistance in requesting guarantees of safe passage from the relevant nations in securing my travel to Latin America, as well as requesting asylum in Russia until such time as these states accede to law and my legal travel is permitted. I will be submitting my request to Russia today, and hope it will be accepted favorably. If you have any questions, I will answer what I can. Thank you.

http://wikileaks.org/Statement-by-Edward-Snowden-to.html

[FischerTal]

international duties??? i dont agree with that. why work for the US govt in the first place if you are a global citizen?

[Crookbond]

international duties??? i dont agree with that. why work for the US govt in the first place if you are a global citizen?

[FischerTal]

it says in his statement that he believes international duties transcend national obligations of obedience. :dontknow: why would you join the NSA in the first place if you truly believe that? PS: Most of the countries he's thanking for support spy on their own citizens, especially the country where he is right now.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

it says in his statement that he believes international duties transcend national obligations of obedience. :dontknow: why would you join the NSA in the first place if you truly believe that? PS: Most of the countries he's thanking for support spy on their own citizens, especially the country where he is right now.

Read about Nuremberg trials.In 1945 while trying High Ranked Nazi authorities the Allied court led by USA said that,though all the Nazi officials were merely following orders in accordance to the rule of their country it was in violation of the laws of humanity/Human rights/and their duties towards all humans and international duties. So i guess it was USA which set the precedent in 1945 and now Snowden is barely following that precedent.This just shows what a hypocritical society the US is.

[FischerTal]

Read about Nuremberg trials.In 1945 while trying High Ranked Nazi authorities the Allied court led by USA said that' date='though all the Nazi officials were merely following orders in accordance to the rule of their country[b'] it was in violation of the laws of humanity/Human rights/and their duties towards all humans and international duties. So i guess it was USA which set the precedent in 1945 and now Snowden is barely following that precedent.This just shows what a hypocritical society the US is.

so nazis gassing jews= us govt allegedly "snooping" on its own citizens..... kuch bhi PS: he's in moscow right now. Do you know what Putin does to his own people? :giggle:

[Malcolm Merlyn]

so nazis gassing jews= us govt allegedly "snooping" on its own citizens..... kuch bhi PS: he's in moscow right now. Do you know what Putin does to his own people? :giggle:

Both violate human rights.Hence he is right.

[FischerTal]

Both violate human rights.Hence he is right.

to each his own, but he shouldnt have been working for an organization like NSA in the first place if he felt international responsibilities come before national obligations of obedience.

[Crookbond]

it says in his statement that he believes international duties transcend national obligations of obedience. :dontknow: why would you join the NSA in the first place if you truly believe that? PS: Most of the countries he's thanking for support spy on their own citizens, especially the country where he is right now.

NSA does NOT state that your job description would entail spying on international citizens. You are grossly misinterpreting the Nuremberg principle. It means that you should not be obligated to your nation just because it follows lawful stupidity.

[FischerTal]

NSA does NOT state that your job description would entail spying on international citizens. You are grossly misinterpreting the Nuremberg principle. It means that you should not be obligated to your nation just because it follows lawful stupidity.

NSA full form is National Security Agency, which is involved the protection of USA against any threat, domestic or foreign. Im sure they spy on international citizens all the time..... Ex: Watch the documentary on how Bin Laden was finally found. A lot of intelligence work, which includes espionage on non-Americans was done, so I mean someone like Snowden would know what his organization has been doing for a long time, so why come out now?

[Muloghonto]

it says in his statement that he believes international duties transcend national obligations of obedience. :dontknow: why would you join the NSA in the first place if you truly believe that? PS: Most of the countries he's thanking for support spy on their own citizens, especially the country where he is right now.

Because being employed by the NSA and having some boundaries towards nationalistic sentiments (IE, act in 'global interests' if said boundaries are broken) are not mutually exclusive. Not every NSA agent is a field operative, infact the vast majority of them are either pretending to be Shaw cable installers or sitting at a desk processing through picobytes of data. I dont think having a mentality of 'i wont do anything and everything for my country' precludes you from working in the national defence & intelligence sector. You'd be foolish to think that every single memeber of the Army engineeering corps would pick up a rifle and fight instead of tuck tail and run if their position is compromised. Absolute loyalty to the nation is required from certain sectors of the security apparatus: the field agents ( intelligence or military, ie, fighter units) and policy making have to be 100% loyal to nation above all. But ancillary services does not require 100% loyalty. The guy who fixes nuts and bolts to the tank or the guy who sits at a desk greeing the press- they are definitely allowed to go 'sod this, i am outta here' when it gets too hot for them to handle.

[Crookbond]

NSA full form is National Security Agency' date=' which is involved the protection of USA against any threat, domestic or foreign. [b'] Im sure they spy on international citizens all the time..... Ex: Watch the documentary on how Bin Laden was finally found. A lot of intelligence work, which includes espionage on non-Americans was done, so I mean someone like Snowden would know what his organization has been doing for a long time, so why come out now?

There are lawful means of obtaining data to mitigate security threats versus intentional over reach just to create a profile of a normal individual in the name of security. There is also a fallacy in your example. Such ops are not sent to the whole department - there are specific teams which deal with these ops and data is restricted to those teams.

[FischerTal]

There are lawful means of obtaining data to mitigate security threats versus intentional over reach just to create a profile of a normal individual in the name of security. There is also a fallacy in your example. Such ops are not sent to the whole department - there are specific teams which deal with these ops and data is restricted to those teams.

:icflove: thanks...