10 ms·

Man, how times have changed. I was born in the 70s and the US was the country you would run to to escape retribution for whistleblowing you did back home. (†)

by enko 13y ago

Man, how times have changed. I was born in the 70s and the US was the country you would run to to escape retribution for whistleblowing you did back home. (†) For Snowden to be running to Russia to escape extradition from Hong Kong (!) is just fucking bizarro world for me. It is actually quite jarring. I don't trust Russia at all. But even thinking about it forces one to ask whether one trusts the USA. The answer to that is pretty jarring, too. (†) I'm not making a right/wrong judgement about his actions. He blew a whistle, a whistle he thought needed to be blown. In my opinion that is a necessary check on state power and is a defence in and of itself.

necubi 13y ago
Really, they haven't. Daniel Ellsberg, the leaker of the Pentagon Papers (1971), was also also charged with espionage. In his case all the charges against him were dismissed. Not, to be clear, because of any contriteness on Nixon's part. Instead, it was because the government was found to have illegally bugged his phone and broken into the office of his psychiatrist in order to find material with which to discredit him. Several of those involved were later convicted as part of the watergate trials [0]. If you think things were better in the 70s, you really weren't paying attention. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg#Trial_and_mistrial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg#Trial_and_mistr...
- samstave 13y ago
  >"because the government was found to have illegally bugged his phone and broken into the office of his psychiatrist Can this not be actual legal precedence AGAINST the entire NSA debacle to begin with? Seriously, can an IAMAL comment on if this could be used?
  - rosser 13y ago
    IANAL. My understanding of how these things work, however, is that the case against Ellsberg was dismissed by the trial judge, and therefore does not establish any precedent. If he'd been convicted, and the conviction overturned on appeal (and the conviction's having been overturned was upheld in any appeals thereof), then precedent would have been created. The reason it works this way is that trial courts are venues for finding facts, while appellate courts are vehicles for addressing questions of law surrounding those findings of fact. It's how those questions of law are resolved, so-called "case law", that creates precedents. IANAL; corrections welcome.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- genwin 13y ago
  > because the government was found to have illegally bugged his phone Man, how times have changed. Now espionage charges apply when someone leaks that the government bugged everyone's phone.
  - chid 13y ago
    Because the lovely government has declared it legal under secret 'patriot' laws.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - ims 13y ago
      Uh, here you go: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ56/pdf/PLAW-107publ56.pdf http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ56/pdf/PLAW-107publ...
    - fakeer 13y ago
      Yes. And that is unfortunate. I wonder where the Govt found this opportunity and grabbed it without delay..was it the new way of terrorism? First propagating Islam-phobia and then bring in the restrains slowly - one by one? What was it exactly?
- enko 13y ago
  > If you think things were better in the 70s, you really weren't paying attention. Yeah, well I was 3. Even so I don't seem to recall Ellsberg fleeing the country to escape absolute certain injustice. I don't recall his video interview with a foreign paper while he hid in China. Do you? Something has definitely changed.
  - regal 13y ago
    You're basing all this on a sample size of two.
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      How many famous whistleblowers are there?
      - markvdb 13y ago
        For a broader sample base, you just widen your category a tiny little bit to Edward Snowden, Jeremy Hammond, Aaron Swartz, Bradley Manning and Jacob Appelbaum.
        mehwoot 13y ago
        Aaron Swartz was a whistleblower?
        aagha 13y ago
        That sample set would still be statistically insignificant.
      - WeirdSemantics 13y ago
        I think the point is not that one should use larger samples, but rather than the conclusion is wrong since the sample is too small. Iow, there's no proof that the situation really changed in the US on the discussed topic.
      - fieryeagle 13y ago
- DennisP 13y ago
  Ellsberg has been saying that things were in fact better back then. He was arrested, released on bail, and spent the next couple years able to tell his story to the media. Manning was arrested and kept in solitary for almost four years before his trial, isolated from the outside world.
  - prewett 13y ago
    Ellsberg was a civilian, employed by the RAND Corporation [1] when he leaked the Pentagon Papers, which was a political report commissioned by a politician (Secretary of Defense McNamara). [2] Manning was serving in active military duty when he leaked actual military data (albeit historical). There is a huge difference there. When you do something like that in the military, you get court-martialed, which is a different set of rules than civilian court. I do think that 4 years of solitary confinement is beyond excessive, but the military has to court-martial him. I'm guessing it's all spelled out in the military handbook, and I don't think anyone would have expectations otherwise. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_papers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_papers
    - DennisP 13y ago
      Snowden was a civilian contractor. If caught, do you think he would be treated more like Ellsberg or Manning? I know how I'd place my bet.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
akg_67 13y ago
Ironic, people used to seek asylum in US from persecution in other countries. How times have changed? Now people run to other countries for asylum to avoid persecution in US. More and more land of the free is becoming land of tyrants.
- neilc 13y ago
  20,000-40,000 people per year seek asylum in the US; we're discussing one person who has fled the US to avoid prosecution. Let's not overreact.
  - pyvpx 13y ago
    yeah guys. let's all calm down. the status quo is just fine. this guy is just an aberration. /s
    - untog 13y ago
      Uh, he is, though. How many people try to seek asylum from the US each year?
- vbtemp 13y ago
  > Ironic, people used to seek asylum in US from persecution in other countries. How times have changed? Now people run to other countries for asylum to avoid persecution in US. More and more land of the free is becoming land of tyrants. Lol. Russia is a place where journalists are routinely murdered, where governors are appointed like local fiefs, where Putin has rigged elections and brutally intimidated opponents. If you think Snowden is going there to avoid "persecution" I don't know what la-la-land you live in. He's going to run from the law, and he's going there because Russia is still geo-political public enemy #1, and they are giving him asylum not because he is some champion of human dignity (he lost that when he fled to China and revealed a whole lot more that was unrelated to surveillance), but because he has valuable information and having him in their possession obviously advances some political goals for them.
  - 13y ago
declan 13y ago
Two thoughts: Russia has already offered Edward Snowden asylum. And we don't have independent confirmation that he's on that flight that lands in about 4 hours; we have just the SCMP report, and the destination isn't mentioned in the HK government statement. I wouldn't be surprised if some if it were misinformation.
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  > Two thoughts: Russia has already offered Edward Snowden asylum. Do you have a source for this?
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    A thought experiment, I imagine. 1) Would it piss off the USA a whole lot if Russia offered Snowden asylum? 2) Yes 3) Russia offered Snowden asylum
    - joelrunyon 13y ago
      I'm confused at how this is a "source." You could say the same about North Korea, but it wouldn't make it mean they actually offered asylum.
      - sliverstorm 13y ago
        I was being humorous.
  - declan 13y ago
    I trust you tried Googling "Russia Snowden asylum?" :) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/edward-snowden-russia-asylum-request http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/edward-snowden-r...
    - raphman 13y ago
      While I like your friendly answer, I would really prefer sources to be mentioned alongside statements in HN discussions. Saying "just google it if you do not believe me" places the burden of verification on the reader, whereas it should be the author's duty to ease such verification. When I find 'Source: guardian.co.uk/...' in a discussion, this gives me the warm, fuzzy feeling of being able to easily verify your claims - even if I do trust you.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
eatitraw 13y ago
> I was born in the 70s and the US was the country you would run to to escape retribution for whistleblowing you did back home. I assume you meant "your home" != USA. But even now many people still seek asylum in the USA. As for Russia, it is certainly more free than in 70s, but a lot of people run from Russia because of prosecution for political reasons.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
t0dd 13y ago
Did Assata Shakur find a safe haven here in the U.S. in the '70s? Read her autobiography. I don't think "times have changed" so much. There's just a larger number of political dissidents now (as there should be). The Internet and 24/7 sensationalism in the media have made exposing government lies more scandalous, too.
- Tangaroa 13y ago
  Assata Shakur? The terrorist? Of course she did not "find a safe haven here in the U.S." while she and her Black Liberation Army were shooting people and blowing up buildings. The police were trying to put her in jail.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - Tangaroa 13y ago
      "just"? The BLA was shooting people and blowing up buildings, no scare quotes needed, they actually did that. That is why the police were after them: they were breaking the law in a serious way. How confused do you have to be to say that they should not have been investigated for these crimes because they were doing something else also?
znowi 13y ago
Russia will not risk a fairly good relationship with the US because of a "rogue" NSA contractor. They will readily hand him over at the first request (if not voluntary). I'd say it's a risk for Snowden to even land in Moscow. Possibly, it was the lesser evil on the way to safe haven in Cuba or some place else.
- Shivetya 13y ago
  have you been paying attention? Putin has shown quite a bit of disdain for Obama for many years and this year he just about dismisses him. When has Russia done much of anything recently to show its earnest co work with us? If anything the past years have reset a lot of relationships and not for the better.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by enko 13y ago

necubi 13y ago

Really, they haven't. Daniel Ellsberg, the leaker of the Pentagon Papers (1971), was also also charged with espionage. In his case all the charges against him were dismissed. Not, to be clear, because of any contriteness on Nixon's part. Instead, it was because the government was found to have illegally bugged his phone and broken into the office of his psychiatrist in order to find material with which to discredit him. Several of those involved were later convicted as part of the watergate trials [0]. If you think things were better in the 70s, you really weren't paying attention. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg#Trial_and_mistrial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg#Trial_and_mistr...

samstave 13y ago
>"because the government was found to have illegally bugged his phone and broken into the office of his psychiatrist Can this not be actual legal precedence AGAINST the entire NSA debacle to begin with? Seriously, can an IAMAL comment on if this could be used?
- rosser 13y ago
  IANAL. My understanding of how these things work, however, is that the case against Ellsberg was dismissed by the trial judge, and therefore does not establish any precedent. If he'd been convicted, and the conviction overturned on appeal (and the conviction's having been overturned was upheld in any appeals thereof), then precedent would have been created. The reason it works this way is that trial courts are venues for finding facts, while appellate courts are vehicles for addressing questions of law surrounding those findings of fact. It's how those questions of law are resolved, so-called "case law", that creates precedents. IANAL; corrections welcome.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
genwin 13y ago
> because the government was found to have illegally bugged his phone Man, how times have changed. Now espionage charges apply when someone leaks that the government bugged everyone's phone.
- chid 13y ago
  Because the lovely government has declared it legal under secret 'patriot' laws.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - ims 13y ago
    Uh, here you go: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ56/pdf/PLAW-107publ56.pdf http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ56/pdf/PLAW-107publ...
  - fakeer 13y ago
    Yes. And that is unfortunate. I wonder where the Govt found this opportunity and grabbed it without delay..was it the new way of terrorism? First propagating Islam-phobia and then bring in the restrains slowly - one by one? What was it exactly?
enko 13y ago
> If you think things were better in the 70s, you really weren't paying attention. Yeah, well I was 3. Even so I don't seem to recall Ellsberg fleeing the country to escape absolute certain injustice. I don't recall his video interview with a foreign paper while he hid in China. Do you? Something has definitely changed.
- regal 13y ago
  You're basing all this on a sample size of two.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    How many famous whistleblowers are there?
    - markvdb 13y ago
      For a broader sample base, you just widen your category a tiny little bit to Edward Snowden, Jeremy Hammond, Aaron Swartz, Bradley Manning and Jacob Appelbaum.
      - mehwoot 13y ago
        Aaron Swartz was a whistleblower?
      - aagha 13y ago
        That sample set would still be statistically insignificant.
    - WeirdSemantics 13y ago
      I think the point is not that one should use larger samples, but rather than the conclusion is wrong since the sample is too small. Iow, there's no proof that the situation really changed in the US on the discussed topic.
    - fieryeagle 13y ago
DennisP 13y ago
Ellsberg has been saying that things were in fact better back then. He was arrested, released on bail, and spent the next couple years able to tell his story to the media. Manning was arrested and kept in solitary for almost four years before his trial, isolated from the outside world.
- prewett 13y ago
  Ellsberg was a civilian, employed by the RAND Corporation [1] when he leaked the Pentagon Papers, which was a political report commissioned by a politician (Secretary of Defense McNamara). [2] Manning was serving in active military duty when he leaked actual military data (albeit historical). There is a huge difference there. When you do something like that in the military, you get court-martialed, which is a different set of rules than civilian court. I do think that 4 years of solitary confinement is beyond excessive, but the military has to court-martial him. I'm guessing it's all spelled out in the military handbook, and I don't think anyone would have expectations otherwise. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_papers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_papers
  - DennisP 13y ago
    Snowden was a civilian contractor. If caught, do you think he would be treated more like Ellsberg or Manning? I know how I'd place my bet.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

akg_67 13y ago

Ironic, people used to seek asylum in US from persecution in other countries. How times have changed? Now people run to other countries for asylum to avoid persecution in US. More and more land of the free is becoming land of tyrants.

neilc 13y ago
20,000-40,000 people per year seek asylum in the US; we're discussing one person who has fled the US to avoid prosecution. Let's not overreact.
- pyvpx 13y ago
  yeah guys. let's all calm down. the status quo is just fine. this guy is just an aberration. /s
  - untog 13y ago
    Uh, he is, though. How many people try to seek asylum from the US each year?
vbtemp 13y ago
> Ironic, people used to seek asylum in US from persecution in other countries. How times have changed? Now people run to other countries for asylum to avoid persecution in US. More and more land of the free is becoming land of tyrants. Lol. Russia is a place where journalists are routinely murdered, where governors are appointed like local fiefs, where Putin has rigged elections and brutally intimidated opponents. If you think Snowden is going there to avoid "persecution" I don't know what la-la-land you live in. He's going to run from the law, and he's going there because Russia is still geo-political public enemy #1, and they are giving him asylum not because he is some champion of human dignity (he lost that when he fled to China and revealed a whole lot more that was unrelated to surveillance), but because he has valuable information and having him in their possession obviously advances some political goals for them.
- 13y ago

declan 13y ago

Two thoughts: Russia has already offered Edward Snowden asylum. And we don't have independent confirmation that he's on that flight that lands in about 4 hours; we have just the SCMP report, and the destination isn't mentioned in the HK government statement. I wouldn't be surprised if some if it were misinformation.

joelrunyon 13y ago
> Two thoughts: Russia has already offered Edward Snowden asylum. Do you have a source for this?
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  A thought experiment, I imagine. 1) Would it piss off the USA a whole lot if Russia offered Snowden asylum? 2) Yes 3) Russia offered Snowden asylum
  - joelrunyon 13y ago
    I'm confused at how this is a "source." You could say the same about North Korea, but it wouldn't make it mean they actually offered asylum.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      I was being humorous.
- declan 13y ago
  I trust you tried Googling "Russia Snowden asylum?" :) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/edward-snowden-russia-asylum-request http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/edward-snowden-r...
  - raphman 13y ago
    While I like your friendly answer, I would really prefer sources to be mentioned alongside statements in HN discussions. Saying "just google it if you do not believe me" places the burden of verification on the reader, whereas it should be the author's duty to ease such verification. When I find 'Source: guardian.co.uk/...' in a discussion, this gives me the warm, fuzzy feeling of being able to easily verify your claims - even if I do trust you.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

eatitraw 13y ago

> I was born in the 70s and the US was the country you would run to to escape retribution for whistleblowing you did back home. I assume you meant "your home" != USA. But even now many people still seek asylum in the USA. As for Russia, it is certainly more free than in 70s, but a lot of people run from Russia because of prosecution for political reasons.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

t0dd 13y ago

Did Assata Shakur find a safe haven here in the U.S. in the '70s? Read her autobiography. I don't think "times have changed" so much. There's just a larger number of political dissidents now (as there should be). The Internet and 24/7 sensationalism in the media have made exposing government lies more scandalous, too.

Tangaroa 13y ago
Assata Shakur? The terrorist? Of course she did not "find a safe haven here in the U.S." while she and her Black Liberation Army were shooting people and blowing up buildings. The police were trying to put her in jail.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - Tangaroa 13y ago
    "just"? The BLA was shooting people and blowing up buildings, no scare quotes needed, they actually did that. That is why the police were after them: they were breaking the law in a serious way. How confused do you have to be to say that they should not have been investigated for these crimes because they were doing something else also?

znowi 13y ago

Russia will not risk a fairly good relationship with the US because of a "rogue" NSA contractor. They will readily hand him over at the first request (if not voluntary). I'd say it's a risk for Snowden to even land in Moscow. Possibly, it was the lesser evil on the way to safe haven in Cuba or some place else.

Shivetya 13y ago
have you been paying attention? Putin has shown quite a bit of disdain for Obama for many years and this year he just about dismisses him. When has Russia done much of anything recently to show its earnest co work with us? If anything the past years have reset a lot of relationships and not for the better.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]