3 ms·

This is the heart of the matter: > But over the week that Mr. Snowden has spent at Sheremetyevo airport, top Russian officials have tried to remain neutral on

by laureny 13y ago

This is the heart of the matter: > But over the week that Mr. Snowden has spent at Sheremetyevo airport, top Russian officials have tried to remain neutral on whether Mr. Snowden should be granted asylum, perhaps because they are wary of the damage it would do to their relationship with the United States. The same scenario is going to repeat with most countries on the planet. There are three kinds of countries: 1) those that have an extradition treaty with the US, 2) those that don't and are neutral to the US and 3) those that don't and that are enemies of the US. Countries in situation 1) and 2) will never accept to offer political asylum to Snowden. At worst, countries of type 2) will have to be given incentives (trade, money, etc...) to extradite Snowden but they can certainly not afford angering the US. Which leaves countries that are enemies of the US (e.g. Iran, Afghanistan, Cuba to some extent, etc...). Such countries couldn't care less to damage their relationships with the US and will gladly have Snowden over, but for Snowden to accept to move such countries would be openly admitting that he is an enemy of the US as well, which is what Putin is hinting. Blowing the whistle is one thing, disclosing confidential matter that damages the US on the geopolitical scene is usually referred to as treason.

notahacker 13y ago
There are three kinds of countries: 1) those that have an extradition treaty with the US, 2) those that don't and are neutral to the US and 3) those that don't and that are enemies of the US I'd say Russia was type 2b: a country which is basically neutral towards the US but can afford to anger them whenever they want to (arguably angering them infrequently actually strengthens their foreign policy hand). See also Russia's outspoken support of Assad.
PavlovsCat 13y ago
"for Snowden to accept to move such countries would be openly admitting" .. that no other country gave him asylum? Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavor. ^ that's a long queue, but Snowden isn't in it. But I think it could be argued that those who habitually hand over the democratic process to the highest bidders are.

by laureny 13y ago

notahacker 13y ago

There are three kinds of countries: 1) those that have an extradition treaty with the US, 2) those that don't and are neutral to the US and 3) those that don't and that are enemies of the US I'd say Russia was type 2b: a country which is basically neutral towards the US but can afford to anger them whenever they want to (arguably angering them infrequently actually strengthens their foreign policy hand). See also Russia's outspoken support of Assad.

PavlovsCat 13y ago

"for Snowden to accept to move such countries would be openly admitting" .. that no other country gave him asylum? Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavor. ^ that's a long queue, but Snowden isn't in it. But I think it could be argued that those who habitually hand over the democratic process to the highest bidders are.