3 ms·

Source about smuggling him out[1] >Interviewed in August 2015 by the Bolivian newspaper El Deber, Assange stated that Wikileaks and the government of Venezuela

by slg 3y ago

Source about smuggling him out[1] >Interviewed in August 2015 by the Bolivian newspaper El Deber, Assange stated that Wikileaks and the government of Venezuela discussed smuggling Snowden out of Russia aboard the presidential plane of either Venezuela or Bolivia. Source about his other options for asylum [2] >Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia offer asylum to Edward Snowden The whole argument was that he was stuck in Russia because he couldn't get to where he really wanted. Where did he really want to go? From my understanding, that was Ecuador, but they didn't seem to want him there. I'm not judging Snowden specifically because he chose Russia over Venezuela. I am judging him for the hypocrisy of decrying US political oppression while fleeing to a country that is even more oppressive which seemed to be a forgone conclusion as soon as he left the US. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident#Julian_Assange's_statement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident... [2] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/06/venezuela-nicaragua-offer-asylum-edward-snowden https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/06/venezuela-nica...

Volundr 3y ago
"Discussing" something is not the same as offering it, and your same source mentions that indeed said plane was then grounded due to suspicions Snowden was on board. In other words someone discussed a plan, that had it been put into action would have failed. Not great evidence for "he could have left if he wanted to". And it should be plainly obvious that offering someone asylum is not the same as offering to smuggle someone out of a foreign country.
- slg 3y ago
  >Discussing" something is not the same as offering it I never said they were "offering" to smuggle him out. I said "collaborated on plans". The phrase you used is "discussed a plan". Are you really going to quibble over the semantic difference between those two? >and your same source mentions that indeed said plane was then grounded due to suspicions Snowden was on board. In other words someone discussed a plan, that had it been put into action would have failed. But it wasn't the actual plan because he wasn't on board. As I have said multiple times now in this thread, if he was on board, they could have planned the flight to not fly through the airspace of US allies. That was the only reason the plan was grounded. The US isn't going to shoot down a plane carrying a foreign head of state over international or foreign airspace. >And it should be plainly obvious that offering someone asylum is not the same as offering to smuggle someone out of a foreign country. No, but it is an offer that would have made him safe if he was smuggled there.
  - Volundr 3y ago
    > No, but it is an offer that would have made him safe if he was smuggled there. I don't think anyone is arguing that if he magically had the ability to be smuggled somewhere wouldn't then have options. But there's no evidence to suggest he had that ability. The fact that Assange said "hey do you think you would want to smuggle Snowden out on your plane" and Venezuela said "nah, I'm not really looking for ways to piss of Russia and the US simultaneously" does not constitute an opportunity.

by slg 3y ago

Volundr 3y ago

"Discussing" something is not the same as offering it, and your same source mentions that indeed said plane was then grounded due to suspicions Snowden was on board. In other words someone discussed a plan, that had it been put into action would have failed. Not great evidence for "he could have left if he wanted to". And it should be plainly obvious that offering someone asylum is not the same as offering to smuggle someone out of a foreign country.

slg 3y ago
>Discussing" something is not the same as offering it I never said they were "offering" to smuggle him out. I said "collaborated on plans". The phrase you used is "discussed a plan". Are you really going to quibble over the semantic difference between those two? >and your same source mentions that indeed said plane was then grounded due to suspicions Snowden was on board. In other words someone discussed a plan, that had it been put into action would have failed. But it wasn't the actual plan because he wasn't on board. As I have said multiple times now in this thread, if he was on board, they could have planned the flight to not fly through the airspace of US allies. That was the only reason the plan was grounded. The US isn't going to shoot down a plane carrying a foreign head of state over international or foreign airspace. >And it should be plainly obvious that offering someone asylum is not the same as offering to smuggle someone out of a foreign country. No, but it is an offer that would have made him safe if he was smuggled there.
- Volundr 3y ago
  > No, but it is an offer that would have made him safe if he was smuggled there. I don't think anyone is arguing that if he magically had the ability to be smuggled somewhere wouldn't then have options. But there's no evidence to suggest he had that ability. The fact that Assange said "hey do you think you would want to smuggle Snowden out on your plane" and Venezuela said "nah, I'm not really looking for ways to piss of Russia and the US simultaneously" does not constitute an opportunity.