3 ms·

> He was in transit to Ecuador, which was going to grant him asylum. The U.S. government revoked his passport, trapping him in the Moscow airport. So the Ameri

by ajross 3y ago

> He was in transit to Ecuador, which was going to grant him asylum. The U.S. government revoked his passport, trapping him in the Moscow airport. So the American Plan To Trap Snowden In Russia For Propaganda Purposes comes down to.... revoking a passport for a wanted criminal, something we do hundreds of times ever month or whatever? Not much of a conspiracy. That's not how that works. If Ecuador was willing to grant asylum, Ecuador could easily have arranged transportation or issued their own passport. They still could, today! They didn't, and won't. Obviously you can spin that part too as part of a nefarious American Plan. But... Ecuador didn't want him either. It's as simple as that. And he's in Russia, equally simply, because Russia was willing (frankly eager) to antagonize US influence and interests. (FWIW: your last example of Snowden's seeming independence from Russian interference is a half decade stale. Please. What does he think of the shooting war his host country started?) Just don't spin this. Snowden broke US laws, fled the country, and ended up being hosted by an enemy. No more complexity need exist.

jccc 3y ago
Fidel Narvaez the Ecuadorian consul in London helped Snowden get out of Hong Kong to the Moscow airport on the way to Ecuador with the purpose of getting him asylum (which had previously been granted to Julian Assange). Joe Biden (then vice president) told the president of Ecuador by phone that relations between the U.S. and his country would "strongly deteriorate" if Snowden was given sanctuary there. So sure, at that point "Ecuador didn't want him either." I really don't care whether or not the U.S. planned for Snowden to be in Russia the moment they revoked the passport. The point is that he was trapped there by the actions of the U.S., and this was then used endlessly to insinuate all kinds of things about his motives and distract attention from the substance of the leaks.
z3c0 3y ago
You're invoking an ethos argument (appeal to authority). Basically, it's only valid if you accept US law as supreme, which in the very act of leaking documents showing how legislators and executive agencies abused their positions actually invalidates the very rule of law you apparently are so willing to kowtow to. In a more uncouth context, it's the kind of argument that would lead to one being deemed a "bootlicker", but we can stick with an apophasis to such for now.
fit2rule 3y ago
[dead]

by ajross 3y ago

jccc 3y ago

Fidel Narvaez the Ecuadorian consul in London helped Snowden get out of Hong Kong to the Moscow airport on the way to Ecuador with the purpose of getting him asylum (which had previously been granted to Julian Assange). Joe Biden (then vice president) told the president of Ecuador by phone that relations between the U.S. and his country would "strongly deteriorate" if Snowden was given sanctuary there. So sure, at that point "Ecuador didn't want him either." I really don't care whether or not the U.S. planned for Snowden to be in Russia the moment they revoked the passport. The point is that he was trapped there by the actions of the U.S., and this was then used endlessly to insinuate all kinds of things about his motives and distract attention from the substance of the leaks.

z3c0 3y ago

You're invoking an ethos argument (appeal to authority). Basically, it's only valid if you accept US law as supreme, which in the very act of leaking documents showing how legislators and executive agencies abused their positions actually invalidates the very rule of law you apparently are so willing to kowtow to. In a more uncouth context, it's the kind of argument that would lead to one being deemed a "bootlicker", but we can stick with an apophasis to such for now.

fit2rule 3y ago

[dead]