4 ms·

How hard does the US government want him back, now that the cat is out of the bag? Obviously, the US don't want to appear "soft" on the matter - the interest of

How hard does the US government want him back, now that the cat is out of the bag? Obviously, the US don't want to appear "soft" on the matter - the interest of the administration is to avoid future whistleblowers by having a tough posture. But Snowden has a pretty massive following worldwide, on a scale that Assange and Chelsea Manning don't have. Wouldn't a trial be a terrible PR move, on top of raising embarrassing question about the activities of the NSA and their legality?

pluma 11y ago
At this stage I'm certain one of three things will happen if the US can get a hold of him: 1) he will be secretly disappeared in a way that gives the US plausible deniability. 2) he will die in an "accident". 3) he will be taken to trial and put away for life, most likely in solitary confinement ("for his own safety"). It is obvious nobody actually cares about the activities of the NSA and their legality at this point. There has been some bad PR around it but all in all the American public hasn't revolted and the allies are still under control and don't want to risk it. Also, to this day, Snowden is routinely referred to as "a leaker" and US politicians' calls for his death and branding him as a traitor have been met with nary any criticism. At this point it's no longer about what secrets Snowden can reveal, it's just about neutralizing what the US government (as in: politicians and state officials) considers a threat to its interests (as in: their interests, not those of the nation). And to make an example of him, obviously.
- mercurial 11y ago
  1) Would demand a lot of creativity. "Plausible deniability" when you are the prime suspect is hard to achieve. 2) I don't believe that for a second. Not because the US are not willing to kill people, but because of the level of scrutiny. 3) He would certainly go to trial. I don't know how that'd turn out, but I don't see that advancing the political career of anyone (that said, I'm not American, maybe I'm misjudging the American public).
notahacker 11y ago
Agree. With Assange I think it's even more obviously the case that it wouldn't actually be in US government interests to bring him to trial in the US. He's a skilled communicator, has a similar and even more fanatically loyal following, is a civilian holding the passport of of an allied state, and it's by no means certain what they could charge him with never mind how they could secure a conviction that looked like justice to the average voter. I bet security chiefs were besides themselves with glee when allegations completely unrelated to his day-to-day activities emerged, and even more delighted when his response was to refuse to defend himself against the allegation on the basis that it must be part of a coordinated dirty tricks campaign against his freedom of speech. It's great to get the chilling effect on those most likely to be motivated to expose government wrongdoing without actually having to do anything, never mind do something that the average voter might think is going too far.

pluma 11y ago

At this stage I'm certain one of three things will happen if the US can get a hold of him: 1) he will be secretly disappeared in a way that gives the US plausible deniability. 2) he will die in an "accident". 3) he will be taken to trial and put away for life, most likely in solitary confinement ("for his own safety"). It is obvious nobody actually cares about the activities of the NSA and their legality at this point. There has been some bad PR around it but all in all the American public hasn't revolted and the allies are still under control and don't want to risk it. Also, to this day, Snowden is routinely referred to as "a leaker" and US politicians' calls for his death and branding him as a traitor have been met with nary any criticism. At this point it's no longer about what secrets Snowden can reveal, it's just about neutralizing what the US government (as in: politicians and state officials) considers a threat to its interests (as in: their interests, not those of the nation). And to make an example of him, obviously.

mercurial 11y ago
1) Would demand a lot of creativity. "Plausible deniability" when you are the prime suspect is hard to achieve. 2) I don't believe that for a second. Not because the US are not willing to kill people, but because of the level of scrutiny. 3) He would certainly go to trial. I don't know how that'd turn out, but I don't see that advancing the political career of anyone (that said, I'm not American, maybe I'm misjudging the American public).

notahacker 11y ago

Agree. With Assange I think it's even more obviously the case that it wouldn't actually be in US government interests to bring him to trial in the US. He's a skilled communicator, has a similar and even more fanatically loyal following, is a civilian holding the passport of of an allied state, and it's by no means certain what they could charge him with never mind how they could secure a conviction that looked like justice to the average voter. I bet security chiefs were besides themselves with glee when allegations completely unrelated to his day-to-day activities emerged, and even more delighted when his response was to refuse to defend himself against the allegation on the basis that it must be part of a coordinated dirty tricks campaign against his freedom of speech. It's great to get the chilling effect on those most likely to be motivated to expose government wrongdoing without actually having to do anything, never mind do something that the average voter might think is going too far.