16 ms·
Statement from Edward Snowden in Moscow
- jgrahamc 13y agoHe's not a 'stateless person'. His passport has been revoked, but he remains a US citizen.
- corin_ 13y agoI wonder whether that choice of phrase was a genuine mistake, an exaggeration based on emotion, or a calculated lie. I like to think it was the middle one.
- famousactress 13y agoI don't buy that. So far we've seen nothing but pitch perfect and intentional language choices from him. I still can't believe how remarkably well thought out and savvy all of his answers to the AMA thing were. I suspect he'd argue he's stateless because his citizenship in the US has been compromised, that he wouldn't be afforded the ability to be treated fairly like a citizen, hence the asylum requests.
- corin_ 13y agoIt's not really a valid argument, though. Even if there was a complete certainty that returning to the US would see him tortured and eventually executed, that still wouldn't change the fact that he is still a US citizen (unless he chooses not to be). That's why I'm hoping, all-be-it doubtfully, that it was innocent exaggeration rather than a lie - not that it really makes a huge difference I guess.
- famousactress 13y agoDoesn't leaving, refusing to return, and requesting asylum effectively fall under the "choosing not to be" category?
- corin_ 13y agoBy that logic I'm effectively banned from Africa, as I don't plan on going there. He said they "evoked my passport, leaving my stateless" not that he was effectively stateless due to his own decisions.
- darkchasma 13y agoUsually, I respect and appreciate your comments, but this suffers from being overtly pedantic, and clearly missing the forrest for the trees.
- tcoppi 13y agoIt is pretty much the backbone of his argument in the letter, so I don't think it is overly pedantic.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- michaelhoffman 13y agoEqually he has not been given the penalty of "exile." There is nothing the U.S. would like more than to have Snowden return to U.S. soil. This stretching of the truth does not engender trust.
- runjake 13y agoYou're parting hairs and completely missed Snowden's point: that the US government has slickly put him in limbo. He either turns himself in or ends up like the guy in the Tom Hanks movie, Terminal.
- michaelhoffman 13y agoStretching the truth is wholly unnecessary to making such a point. Need I argue that the ends do not justify the means?
- lhnz 13y agoYour argument stems from an inability to check what "exile" is... "Exile means to be away from one's home (i.e. city, state or country), while either being explicitly refused permission to return and/or being threatened with imprisonment or death upon return." [0] Hopefully that clears things up... [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exile
- tome 13y agoMy understanding is that the imprisonment/death would be a penalty for breaking the terms of the exile, which is something quite different.
- lhnz 13y agoFair enough, but at this point it's pretty close to exile without being a perfect example... Still: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5974040 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5974040 I think effectively it is a bad situation which has been created for him by the United States government. They are definitely manipulating his citizenship for their purposes whether you like the wording or not.
- knowknowledge 13y agoWhat does it even mean for a passport to be revoked?
- marshray 13y agoIt means that it is made not valid by the issuing country.
- lawnchair_larry 13y agoI'm wondering about this question myself. It's not as if the facts of your identity change because a country revokes a document. Is it just a policy issue, that there are no countries that allow entry without showing a passport? It certifies his identity, not his rights. I'm not sure how you can suddenly claim it's not valid, without claiming that the original certification was found to be incorrect.
- dreamfactory 13y agoIt sounds like the old Russian system where you couldn't leave the country without a passport (and it was made very hard to get one).
- obviouslygreen 13y agoTrue, but "my passport has been revoked" is not nearly self-promoting or dramatic enough for Snowden. Also, being a citizen of any nation doesn't mean a lot when returning to your country of citizenship means a (possibly one-way) ticket to some place that's not home and comes with the concept of "solitary confinement," among others. Not that self-promotion or drama are necessarily bad things in his position. Both are most certainly things he's using to keep himself on the minds of as many people as possible for as long as he can.
- jlgreco 13y agoThe state in question may feel that he still "belongs" to them in some fashion, but it seems pretty likely to me that he does not believe that state is "his" anymore. He is under no obligation to make concessions to them by adopting terminology which they control.
- mindcrime 13y agoThat's a question of perspective, isn't it? The USA may "claim" Snowden, but Snowden may not "claim" the USA. From his point of view, it may be entirely reasonable to use the term stateless.
- jlgreco 13y agoWell said; better than I could say it. In any modern just society being a "citizen" is an agreement between two parties. Governments no longer own their subjects.
- lhnz 13y agoYes, those two words are probably not precise enough to describe the situation. However if you read the context, what is being said is pretty much true: they are using citizenship as a weapon in order to deny him the human right to seek asylum. "The Obama administration has now adopted the strategy of using citizenship as a weapon. Although I am convicted of nothing, it has unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me a stateless person. Without any judicial order, the administration now seeks to stop me exercising a basic right. A right that belongs to everybody. The right to seek asylum." Pay too much attention to individual words and you fail to understand the big picture...
- throwaway9848 13y agoHe _broke the law_ and is a fugitive from justice. He wouldn't be a hero if he wasn't risking consequences, and it should have been obvious from the start that he was going to be apprehended by the US eventually. EDIT: Also, the concept of "a human right to seek asylum" is meaningless. Asylum is a two-party arrangement. Is that a legal obligation for all nations to _grant_ asylum to seekers, regardless of circumstances?
- lhnz 13y agoYes, he did break the law but it is absurd for you to use the word 'justice'. Justice: The quality of being fair and reasonable. He's not running away from something which is 'fair or reasonable', his human rights are in grave danger. He is a fugitive from injustice. I do not care whether he is a hero or not, but I do care about whether it was a right thing to do and whether he is treated as a human should be treated. These are principles worth upholding.
- mpyne 13y ago> He's not running away from something which is 'fair or reasonable', his human rights are in grave danger. How so? I mean this sincerely. What do you think will happen to him when he is arrested? There's no brig to throw him in, as he's a civilian. Snowden was very concerned about the lack of judicial oversight in what he saw with PRISM, so why would he assume that very same judicial system would mark him for special treatment when people like Hanssen, the Walker gang, and even Aaron Hernandez have not received such? If Snowden really felt beforehand that the civilian justice system was so completely inequitable it seems weird that he'd have been so insistent on its involvement elsewhere.
- syjer 13y agodoesn't he fall in the "de facto" stateless person as defined by the unhcr http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=4ca1ae002 http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=4ca1a... ? (just asking, IANAL, so maybe some technicalities elude me)
- bmelton 13y agoFor what it's worth, the department of state correspondent Matthew Lee in CSPAN interviews were using "stateless" to describe Snowden as well, and days before he released this release. If Snowden is mistaken in using this terminology, he isn't the only one.
- diminoten 13y agoFor someone who doesn't want the story to be about him, he sure talks a lot about himself...
- cheald 13y agoIs this sarcasm?
- diminoten 13y agoI'm just wondering why he released this.
- cheald 13y agoTo apply pressure on the US government regarding the revocation of his passport making it impossible for him to reach Ecuador or where ever, of course. He's stuck in Moscow due to his passport being revoked and Putin's basically told him that he's not welcome there. He's in a tight spot. You'll notice he never once mentioned the documents or their contents in this message. He's not "making the story about himself" - he's using the media as a tool to apply pressure to the forces aligned against him in the hopes of securing his safety.
- diminoten 13y agoWhat pressure does a statement from the man himself apply to the US? I fail to see how this improves his situation one whit.
- cheald 13y agoIt's a plea for public support. By raising Obama's profile as an oppressor, he hopes to turn public sentiment against the sitting government. As someone else said, remaining silent lets his opposition control the discourse. You can see this clearly in the frenzy of stories in the media about Snowden's stripper girlfriend and the "IS HE A COMMIE SPY?" headlines. Providing a counterbalance makes it harder for the government propaganda machine to sway public opinion against him and turn him into Just Another Terrorist.
- rolfwind 13y agoI wish him the very best.
- javajosh 13y agoIt occurs to me that there is a kind of deep hypocrisy for those who make the rules to claim that someone broke the rules. Rules require focus and diligence to apply, and they favor those that apply them regularly, vs those to whom they are applied. I suspect that the Obama administration broke may of their own rules rushing through the a change in status that fast - a bureaucracy the size of the US doesn't process anything quickly without breaking the rules. The Russians are clearly using Snowden as a pawn, probably because Russia is threatened by people like Snowden just as much as the US is. Snowden threatens those who make the rules, and then apply them fully to others and not at all to themselves and their cohorts. For the third time in my life (the first two courtesy Bush Jr.) I'm deeply ashamed of my government.
- michaelhoffman 13y agoWhich rules do you suspect the Obama administration broke? In general the reason things take a long time to do in a bureaucracy is because of the required approvals from many different officials. If the President or a cabinet secretary wants something to happen now, this is less likely to be necessary.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- lukifer 13y ago"The tree that doesn't bend, breaks." "Bend too far, and you're already broken." It's more an issue of redefining the rules than breaking them. Court oversight becomes a secret rubber stamp that's never denied. Search becomes querying the database we already have. Non-citizenship becomes 51% confidence. Spying on enemy nations during wartime becomes Hey, Everybody's Doing It, Why Can't We? ...etc
- michaelhoffman 13y agoThat's interesting but it doesn't answer the question of which rules the Obama administration broke by revoking Snowden's passport.
- olefoo 13y agoIt's almost as if he's deliberately provoking the most rabid response possible from the United States Government. Regardless of what happens to him; he is writing himself into the pages of history. His actions have opened the possibility of Western Europe defecting from the US led coalition that has dominated world affairs for the past 70 years. Which is not a result anyone could have predicted.
- jusben1369 13y agoI don't think that will happen.
- olefoo 13y agoIt probably won't; but the fact that there is a split in what was previously a rock solid relationship, and that Europe would be much better off if it could distance itself from a US led global financial system does mean that the possibility is there in a way that it was not a month ago. The first leak in the dam doesn't look so threatening...
- mtowle 13y agoPerhaps biased, being something of a Germanophile, but Germany could be the uniquely positioned party here. If the UK loses its continental influence, the willingness of Euro-based business to respect the Pound (in trade, I mean - their acceptance, online or elsewhere, of the Pound as currency without first converting to Euro) may diminish. Further, London may fall out of the tech industry's graces as a good destination for regional headquarters. In either case, the UK's loss is France/Germany's gain - likely moreso Germany's because they're already ahead by a bit. Being an American, I know less than Jon Snow about how EU power works, but if the UK's losses mount and create a power vaccuum at/near the top, Germany and France are leading states even moreso than they were before. What that might amount to, I couldn't say.
- gaadd33 13y agoIsn't Dublin the tech industry headquarters for Europe? The City is still the financial capital for a huge number of markets and I doubt this would be able to shift it.
- eblume 13y agoIt's probably too late now, but I feel like it was a mistake not to release a public encryption key along with his initial effluence of records. I for one believe that this was written by Snowden, but it seems like an obvious use of some basic form of identity signing. Edit: It now seems like there is some reasonable doubt that this notice was forged. I still remain confident this is no forgery, but the point I'd like to make is that there may in fact be an identity question -- and that is a problem with a technical solution that unfortunately seems not to have been leveraged.
- marshray 13y agoThis is a serious question: How could we trust that his private key had not been compromised at this point?
- joonix 13y ago>Without any judicial order, the administration now seeks to stop me exercising a basic right. A right that belongs to everybody. This is British writing style. Brits leave off the preposition "from" in these types of sentences; Americans put it in. American English: "Administration now seeks to stop me from exercising a basic right." British English: "Administration now seeks to stop me exercising a basic right." I'm not a linguistics or grammar expert so I can't name the proper terms for all this. I've just observed in the past that this is a "Britishism" that differs from American style. It's interesting to see it here. Snowden wouldn't write like that. IMO, he needs to ditch Wikileaks because they've done nothing but harm him and seem to only be interested in advancing their agenda.
- thorum 13y agoI think all this really says is he's working with a European editor. Which you'd kind of expect since Snowden is an IT guy, not a writer.
- adamconroy 13y agoNice work Sherlock. Except I must say as a counter example that I am British and I flip-flop between using 'from' and not using 'from' in such sentences.
- guard-of-terra 13y agoBest read if you can imagine a voice in your head a-la Diablo III, how various spirits of past talk.
- Kapura 13y agoI very much doubt that the United States government is afraid of me. Snowden is a real drama queen. I don't think that he deserves asylum either. I think he should come back to America, have a public trial with media coverage, and then we can firmly establish if what he did was wrong. Edit: It appears that I'm unable to reply to the various comments on this, so I'll try to refine what I'm saying: I do think that whistleblowers are necessary, especially in large, secretive organisations. But I think that Snowden's limbo isn't providing the requisite closure on the matter. I think that he should be compelled to explain his actions in court. I think all whistleblowers should, just as I think that anybody who kills somebody under a make-my-day law should still have their actions examined. Whistle blowing isn't something that somebody does lightly, and i think that should be doubly true for matters of national security. Additionally, trying to vilify the government in a press statement is silly. Let their actions speak for them, and let your own actions speak for you.
- cheald 13y agoWhat he did was certainly illegal. It's highly debatable as to whether or not it was wrong.
- mchusma 13y agoI would not overstate the certainty of the illegality. I've heard many people state this like it is a fact. It is much grayer legal territory. There is a substantial ways to go to determine if it would be found illegal. The average american commits illegal acts daily, but I doubt you were referring to that.
- cheald 13y agoI'm curious as to why you think so - the fact that he improperly removed and published information belonging to the NSA isn't disputed by anyone. I don't have the title and chapter on hand, but I'm just nearly certain that this is about as cut-and-dry illegal as it comes. If you can give me a hint as to why it might not have been illegal, I would love to be enlightened.
- 13y ago
- thufry 13y agoThis reads like the statement of someone who realizes it might be his last.
- webghost 13y agoJust an FYI: Nicolas Maduro, president of Venezuela is in Russia right now. He flies not the national presidential airplane but a cuban plane. Rumor has it, he visited Russia with the intention of giving Snowden a ride back to Venezuela. We'll see.
- b_emery 13y agoGood spot: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2351981/Is-Ed-Snowden-set-claim-asylum-Venezuela-President-Maduro-visits-Russia-tomorrow.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2351981/Is-Ed-Snowde...
- suyash 13y agoWhat is the proof that this Statement came from Snowden directly?
- fragsworth 13y agoI guess it depends on how much you trust Wikileaks to review information for its accuracy.
- tokenadult 13y agoI'd really like to see Wikileaks devoting more of its time, energy, and fund-raising into breaking news about government-operated surveillance programs in the last two countries where Edward Snowden has been located, namely China and Russia. As an American citizen and voter, I'm still mulling over what I think should be the correct policy response to the revelations about NSA claims about NSA data-gathering programs, but I have deep ties to China as a speaker and reader of Chinese and a long-time student of the language, culture, and history of China, and I have similar connections, less thoroughly developed, to Russia. People everywhere just wanna be free. We ought to be hearing a lot more about all the various governmental data-gathering and surveillance programs, everywhere in the world, and of course we should also be learning more about the actions of private business corporations to gather data on all of us. That Wikileaks tells us much more about the United States federal government than about any of those other entities tells me something about Wikileaks, and perhaps tells me something favorable about the United States. If you really want to be an idealistic but hard-headed freedom-fighter, mobilizing an effective popular movement for more freedom wherever you live, I suggest you read deeply in the publications of the Albert Einstein Institution, http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsde07.html http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsde07.html remembering that the transition from dictatorship to democracy described in those publications is an actual historical process with recent examples around the world that we can all learn from. AFTER EDIT: Good catch by the readers who noticed the non-American English in the Wikileaks press release here (mentioned in other comments in this thread). The press release kindly submitted here is plainly not Edward Snowden's verbatim words, but more self-publicizing from Wikileaks.
- marshray 13y agoWikileaks is generally reactionary, i.e., they rely upon others to bring them leaks which they publish. The organization steadfastly denies going out to acquire the information themselves.
- mtowle 13y ago>reactionary In certain contexts, that word means 'counter-revolutionary', so be careful when using it to describe WikiLeaks. It's good that you had the presence of mind to include that i.e.! ;)
- Kylekramer 13y agoAccusing the United States of depriving him of the right to seek asylum seems like a tautology to me. If the United States wasn't attempting to bring him back to the US for a trial, he wouldn't need to seek asylum. Does this mean every country who attempts to prosecute people who subsequently seek asylum is violating "a basic right"?
- chrischen 13y agoHe's accusing the USA of pressuring countries to deny asylum.
- Kylekramer 13y agoWhat is the difference between asking for extradition and pressuring to deny asylum? It just seems like anyone could make that accusation who flees a country to avoid a trial.
- jpdoctor 13y ago> What is the difference between asking for extradition and pressuring to deny asylum? Asylum is considered a basic human right. I've posted elsewhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5974330 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5974330
- gohrt 13y ago> This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes Anyway, it really doesn't make sense to talk about asylum in relation to the country being fled. The declaration is a statement of what the destination state should do when it recognizes a case of persecution. 'Persecution' is inherently a subjective concept.
- burntsushi 13y agoMy interpretation is that he's criticizing the US for interfering with the sovereignty of other nations. e.g., The US is influencing them to deny asylum.
- jusben1369 13y agoObama is saying "You broke the law. We want you back. We won't wheel and deal for you with any country who wants to use you iike a pawn to win some other concession or just enjoy sticking it to us. Take him in at your own risk" Nothing new here or deceitful. Pretty standard operating procedure.
- brown9-2 13y agoExactly. Does Snowden honestly expect to not be charged with a crime that he has admitted to, even if he disagrees with the morality of the crime?
- baddox 13y ago> Does Snowden honestly expect to not be charged with a crime that he has admitted to What on Earth are you talking about? It's abundantly clear that he expects to be charged with a crime (or at least to be treated as badly or worse as someone charged with a crime). Why do you think he left the USA and is seeking asylum?
- jusben1369 13y agoThen why start with this sentence? "One week ago I left Hong Kong after it became clear that my freedom and safety were under threat for revealing the truth" Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "I went to HK because I thought my freedom and safety would be under threat if I revealed the truth in my home country" I agree with you that's he's known it all along. So this feels like he's manipulating his supporters as he's not really being very honest.
- brown9-2 13y agoHis confusion over being denied a nonexistent "right to asylum".
- codeulike 13y agoWhistleblowing is protected, so the debate about whether he's a whistleblower or a spy is also the debate as to whether he has committed a crime
- cletus 13y agoThere are several interesting aspects to this story. The first is obviously the revelations about NSA "overreach". The second is that this guy could've remained hidden but he put his name behind the revelations rather than choosing the far safer path of being an "anonymous source". This lends his revelations more credence and you have to respect the guy for standing by his convictions. Maybe he would've been found out had he stayed in the shadows but he certainly didn't try to do that. The third is that the US is very much two-faced here. It seems clear that the surveillance is being justified by a technical ruling to do with US vs foreign persons, a classified ruling no less. While this might be a fine legal argument, it doesn't engender support amongst foreign powers when you tell them you have every right to spy on their citizens but oh, by the way, can you do us a solid and hand over that fugitive? In what world does the US think they'll get cooperation from anyone when they aren't treated not even as equals but with simple decency? So the foreign policy apparatus resorts to bullying tactics. The fourth is that both China and Russia were blatantly thumbing their noses at the US. I see no world in which Russia hands the guy over so the actions of the US have done little more than force a guy in possession of Top Secret information to be harboured by a rival. Congratulations on that statecraft, Obama, Biden and Kerry. What's more it's made the US appear internationally weak. The last is that the various players on Snowden's side do seem to have screwed the pooch on this one by both issuing a letter of safe passage and not having some kind of contingency when the US did the predictable thing and revoked his passport. This could hardly have been an unprecedented move. So good luck to you, Edward Snowden. I hope your sacrifice hasn't been in vein. The optimist in me hopes that a future president will pardon you and otherwise reverse this self-destructive course the US is on.
- cpleppert 13y agoI would argue that instead of "lend[ing] his revelations more credence" what he has done is made himself the story instead of the NSA activity that he was opposed to. >>What's more it's made the US appear internationally weak If that is the case then surely there must be lots of countries willing to offer him asylum and the traveling documents he needs.
- sneak 13y ago> The second is that this guy could've remained hidden but he put his name behind the revelations rather than choosing the far safer path of being an "anonymous source". This lends his revelations more credence and you have to respect the guy for standing by his convictions. Maybe he would've been found out had he stayed in the shadows but he certainly didn't try to do that. I think that internal auditing would have very quickly identified him as the source the moment the leaks hit the papers. At least this way they have a little bit of a PR shitstorm if they disappear him, as opposed to if he was totally anonymous. Also, by doing that video interview, he gets to shape the narrative a tiny bit by pointing out all the opportunity he had to be malicious that he didn't use, illustrating that he's simply not. It's hard not to like the guy.
- mililani 13y agoDamn, we live in a shitty world. And the comments in here are not much better. I wish him the best. It's sad that Ecuador is wavering. What a joke their leader is. First, they're posturing and puffing out their chests, now they look like fools.
- spickelmier 13y agoExposing US surveillance of US citizens is clearly whistleblowing and a good thing. Taking government laptops with NSA information, telling the Chinese what sites of theirs the NSA hacked, and then releasing information about NSA listening in on others (outside of the US) goes well into the realm of breaking the law and should have consequences. Of course, taking a tour of our adversaries doesn't help his cause much... Also, I find it hard to swallow those who are up in arms about NSA spying on non-US citizens... seriously??? What do they think the NSA was formed to do??? That should not be a surprise... I do worry that Wikileaks is pretty much hijacking his agenda and substituting their own...
- arbuge 13y agoThere is little doubt he is winning the war of public opinion at this point - certainly overseas, and possibly back at home.
- lukifer 13y agoBack at home is questionable. He's got the backing of the young and the technorati, but the traditional media is wavering between "Just The Facts" to sell a manhunt, and labeling him an outright traitor who gave secrets to The Enemy. A great many people take the latter at face value and don't pursue the matter any further. He might have the backing of libertarians and the far left, but these were people already opposed to the known over-reach of state power. Honestly, if there's any hope of a significant sway in mainstream public opinion, I think it's going to come from the Tea Party.
- sneak 13y agoMy dad is about the most anti-authoritarian person I know, going so far as to sue the USG during 'nam for false induction. These days he gets all his news from (Michigan) broadcast TV and radio, and is pretty reclusive and doesn't talk to anyone. The narrative he'd constructed from these limited inputs was that he's an egomaniac computer hacker who took government data and then went to China and Russia. Technically it's not false, but that's the narrative (and all the implication) he'd assembled, given only MSM reports. I think this is much bigger news outside of the US than inside, and that's pretty sad. Then again, Obama claims "foreign entities" (thanks for pretty solidly Othering all of the 6.5+ billion other humans) are the only ones that get surveilled without a warrant. This whole thing stinks. Why'd NSA have to pull this stupid shit anyway? Did they really think that there'd be some huge domestic unrest against the military if they DIDN'T tap everyone's phones and resultantly missed some attack that hurts fewer people than we blow up quarterly with drones? I don't get it. The logic simply doesn't pan out, and these aren't stupid people, because you can't build information processing systems at this scale and be dumb. I feel like I'm missing something critical.
- lukifer 13y ago
- jpdoctor 13y agoArticle 14 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. http://www.ichrp.org/en/article_14_udhr http://www.ichrp.org/en/article_14_udhr
- brown9-2 13y agoSerious question: how has the US been "extrajudicial"? Isn't it common to revoke a passport of someone you want to try of a crime and have extradited? Does one expect the government to assist in your asylum attempts? I don't believe one has the right to not be charged with a crime, especially one you have admitted to.
- sneak 13y ago> Yet now it is being reported that after promising not to do so, the President ordered his Vice President to pressure the leaders of nations from which I have requested protection to deny my asylum petitions.
- brown9-2 13y agoI fail to see what is "extralegal" about trying to make sure you can get custody and try the person you've charged with a crime. Every country in the world that has extradition treaties with other states does the same exact thing every day.
- sneak 13y agoWhy do you suppose people request asylum from third-party countries? Could you describe a circumstance in which it is a legitimate request should be granted?
- brown9-2 13y agoRegardless of how you feel about whether his criminal charges are political there is nothing extralegal about requesting other countries to turn over the person you've charged with a crime. It cannot be extra, meaning outside, the legal system, when all you have done is made a request within the established legal system and diplomatic customs.
- sneak 13y agoWe have no idea what kind of pressures the US has brought to bear against those considering his requests. He has the right to seek it. Closed door pressure against those who can grant it is very certainly extralegal interference. If they have any legitimate legal reason to interfere with his asylum requests to third parties, why not just charge him with a crime that those third parties would see as valid, or exclude torture from his potential punishments? This is not about extradition, it's about asylum. Presumably you only grant asylum if you believe an extradition request is bullshit to begin with. The US only has one non-scumbag move here, and that's to charge him with a crime or crimes, and make a credible commitment that his potential treatment before, during, and after the trial doesn't violate his basic human rights. Going behind closed doors doesn't suddenly make the charges more plausible (espionage? really? he gave the info only to journos, spoke to no govts) or magically clean up the US's history of human rights abuses and torture against enemies of the military, be it Manning or al-Awlaki. Bad or good, guilty or innocent - it is always wrong to turn someone over to be tortured.
- mcarlin 13y agoRole model. http://imgur.com/AfcF56q http://imgur.com/AfcF56q
- abalone 13y agoI'm not taking sides here but Snowden is wrong on the facts about passport revocation. It is perfectly within the established law to revoke the passports of fugitives with federal arrest warrants. It doesn't make you a "stateless person" or "exile" you -- you're still welcome to return voluntarily. The relevant U.S. law is 22 CFR 51.70 and 51.72 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-1999-title22-vol1/xml/CFR-1999-title22-vol1-sec51-70.xml http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-1999-title22-vol1/xml/CFR-1... He does have a point that restricting travel does make it harder for you to seek asylum. But that's nothing new.
- irishcoffee 13y agoUnfortunate this is as far down the comments as it is.
- mpyne 13y agoHe's not still complaining about his passport, is he? Did Assange tell him to say that too? A passport means that the host nation is comfortable with the person traveling abroad. For what should be obvious reasons the U.S. would rather he be back home (to stand trial). Even if you disagree with everything the NSA has done or will do, he technically broke the law. If the U.S. considers itself to observe the rule of law, then they have to pursue him as much as they'd pursue anyone else. The U.S. has stripped persons of their citizenship for things as mundane as fraud, so this is hardly a made-up case for Snowden. In fact, it's so not made up that there are existing procedures for when a passport may be revoked [1] [2]. Note that despite the foia_reading_room in the URL of [1], it is simply the U.S. Attorney's Manual, which is accessible directly from http://www.justice.gov/usao/index.html http://www.justice.gov/usao/index.html . [1] http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/15mcrm.htm#9-15.640 http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit... [2] http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/info/info_870.html http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/info/info_870.html Edit: Also, since when did a conversation without an exchange of consideration or an agreement to perform certain actions become "wheeling and dealing"? This is the kind of stuff that has turned me off from Assange a long time ago; he's just as willing to distort as a government, as long as it suits his purpose.
- arbuge 13y agoCareful there. Revoking a passport is not the same as stripping a person of their citizenship. The press release itself seems to create some confusion here - Snowden is not stateless because he is still a US citizen, even though he doesn't currently have a passport. Revoking a passport is routine when felony charges are filed. Citizenship on the other hand is much harder to remove, even if the US government had any interest in doing so (it doesn't in this case - it wants him back home). Naturalized citizens can be stripped of citizenship in extreme cases when they're found to have lied on their citizenship applications. I'm not aware of any circumstance in which natural-born citizens can have their citizenship removed without them voluntarily renouncing it first.
- mpyne 13y agoRight. My point was only that the more extreme action (of stripping citizenship) has also occurred. Stripping someone of citizenship would tend to imply revoking of their passport, as it is indeed much more severe.
- vijayboyapati 13y agoThis young man is a true American hero.
- cpursley 13y agoIf there were ever a case for a second passport, this is one. You can get buy one for $135,000. This is what Derek Sivers did. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3944339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3944339 https://sivers.org/comfort https://sivers.org/comfort http://www.sovereignman.com/lifestyle-design/how-to-obtain-a-second-passport-10112/ http://www.sovereignman.com/lifestyle-design/how-to-obtain-a...
- falcolas 13y agoA meta comment. It reflects strongly on the state of our world now that I was more concerned about the fallout from visiting wikileaks.org than I was by the latest information coming from Snowden.
- snicklepuff 13y agoTo imply that the US is somehow out of order to pursue his extradition makes no sense. What does he expect them to do? IMHO, he should not have run. I don't think he would have any trouble convincing 12 people that what he did was the right thing. Running was bad form. I don't like this guy, and I don't trust him.
- sounds 13y agoThen show him up. Put your money where your mouth is by doing what you think is right. In the meantime, let's get back to the message, not the messenger.
- paul9290 13y agoIs the world a different place after 9/11 .. heck yes! How can the govt. prevent such an event from happening again or at least attempt to prevent it from happening again? Only way I can think is to invade every citizen's privacy of every nation, as they have done. It seems for us the US there is no win win and with human nature there never is. If another 9/11 happens we'd be crying why didnt the govt. do more though the govt. is doing more and now we are crying what the hell are they doing? Humans..we're never satisfied!
- danbruc 13y agoHow can the govt. prevent such an event from happening again or at least attempt to prevent it from happening again? You don't. The price of freedom is the risk of getting hurt because the bad guys are in advantage. You don't step out of your front door with a gun and shoot everybody on the street because they may rob you - you get robbed and only after that you try to catch, charge and sentence the guy.
- jgoodwin 13y agoOne thing that concerns me is that many Americans are adopting what is essentially a Tory/Loyalist attitude towards these events, without understanding the Tory/Loyalist political philosophy of dissidence, which differs from 'civil disobedience' and 'non-violent resistance' (those are the other guys). Don't get me wrong -- we can't all be Patriots and Revolutionaries -- but our history has ill-fitted us to be good at being Tories and Loyalists. Those were the bad guys in all our grade-school stories ... and now we are those bad guys. The classical Tory theory of dissidence is called "Passive Obedience." This doesn't mean bending over and being a wimp. It means being obedient to higher authority (God and Constitutional Law), while seemingly disobeying usurpers and tyrants, who are themselves violating the higher Law -- constitutional, moral, and natural. The "Passive" part is an old word meaning suffering (like the Passion of Christ). Edward Snowden has given us a very good example of Passive Obedience -- if he is correct the programs are indeed unconstitutional. He certainly is suffering for his beliefs, and is fleeing, not resisting or rebelling against the State. Failure to obey the commands of usurpers and tyrants, or to obey bad law in defiance of the dictates of one's conscience, are not required even of Loyalists and Tories. The fact that Tories and Loyalists, which the American people have become, are condemning his actions, shows only that we have forgotten how to be good Redcoats, as well as most certainly having forgotten how to be good Patriots. As good Tories (not good Patriots though), Loyal to the American State, we have the right to petition our sovereign -- the American People, not its representative Government -- i.e., to request a constitutional convention to strike down these Star Chamber courts, redress the alleged tyranny, and end the usurpations against our Sovereign's previously constituted declarations, and granted Bill of Rights. As far as Snowden's flight is concerned, Sir Thomas Hobbes gives a very clear explanation of both Passive Obedience and the right of the dissident to flee, in an attempt to evade the sure punishment he would otherwise receive with or without justice (however if he is caught he must meekly accept his Passion and martyrdom, without resistance -- Civil Disobedience and Resistance are the contrary of the Tory doctrine). Time to pick sides -- but if we are going to be Tories all, let us not be bad ones. These are the times that try men's souls.
- stcredzero 13y agoIs there a way we can send cash to Edward Snowden?
- dmead 13y agowhy would he date it d/m/y instead of m/d/y?
- piqufoh 13y agoMaybe he's looking to avoid ambiguity.
- alan_cx 13y agoAs far as I know, that is normal. Putting month first is illogical.
- mpyne 13y agoIt's not normal in the USA (another Britishism apparently?). In the USA a date is spoken as "July 2nd, 2013" instead of "2 July 2013", which is why the shorthand date is MM/dd/YYYY (as it lines up with the way it is spoken).
- tsahyt 13y agoA take on being international perhaps? As far as I know the US is the only country that uses M/D/Y format. PRISM does not only concern US citizens.
- SkyMarshal 13y agoI wonder what exactly happened with Hong Kong. Did he get wind that the HK govt intended to end-run its own laws and asylum process and extradite him, or something similar?
- isaacb 13y ago"and neither is the extralegal penalty of exile" Okay, so this guy keeps saying some pretty strange things. If he came to the States, he would no doubt be tried in the legal system. He is putting himself into an extralegal position. I think it's probably the best thing for him to do at this point, but to say that the government has in any way forced him out of the legal system is pretty silly.
- tommis 13y ago> If he came to the States, he would no doubt be tried in the legal system. How can you be so sure? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jabits 13y agoThank you, Edwin Snowden. In the end, you have made us more free.
- jabits 13y agoThank you Edwin Snowden. In the end, you have made us more free.
- kbd 13y agoI love that he included his middle name in the signature, after the US bungled its extradition request by getting that wrong.
- Uchikoma 13y agoI'm not sure you know how Wikileaks works "I'd really like to see Wikileaks devoting more of its time, energy, and fund-raising into breaking news about government-operated surveillance programs in the last two countries where Edward Snowden has been located, namely China and Russia." From my understanding people submit content to Wikileaks which then decides what and when to publish. But I guess this depends on if you believe Assange pushed Mannings to release documents.
- mpyne 13y ago> Providing a counterbalance makes it harder for the government propaganda machine to sway public opinion against him and turn him into Just Another Terrorist. Maybe he should tell Russian state media to tone it down a bit then. From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2351981/Is-Ed-Snowden-set-claim-asylum-Venezuela-President-Maduro-visits-Russia-tomorrow.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2351981/Is-Ed-Snowde... : "In several rapidly-aired shows on state-run TV, Snowden was flattered as 'a soldier in the information war, who fights, of course, on the side of Russia'." As far as Russia is concerned Snowden isn't fighting for some pan-national ideal; he's fighting on the side of Russia
- bobwaycott 13y agoI find it most interesting, and perhaps frightening, that Snowden's passport was revoked. I've been thinking quite a bit about it since that bit of news broke, and since it's referenced in this statement, it's back in my head. I winced a bit at the claim of being a stateless person, as I'd previously understood that to mean lacking citizenship anywhere, not being without a passport for travel. Perhaps I've been wrong about that all these years. I'm still researching, but so far, I've found the following passport-revocation authorities: 1. Obtained illegally or through fraud 2. Altered or misused (no definition yet on 'misused') 3. Issued to persons whose citizenship is cancelled 4. Non-payment of child support 5. Non-repayment of repatriation loan 6. Persons convicted of sex tourism 7. Persons convicted of drug trafficking 8. [based on comment below] Standing warrants for arrest (and other standing legal/court orders against the bearer) Interestingly enough, 22 USC § 2721 states that: > A passport may not be denied issuance, revoked, restricted, or otherwise limited because of any speech, activity, belief, affiliation, or membership, within or outside the United States, which, if held or conducted within the United States, would be protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I've yet to find an authority to revoke a passport from a citizen who is openly seeking political asylum. However, there is 22 USC § 217a: >A passport shall be valid for a period of ten years from the date of issue, except that the Secretary of State may limit the validity of a passport to a period of less than ten years in an individual case or on a general basis pursuant to regulation. So, there's that. Perhaps this is one such individual case. Additionally, the law requires the DOS to send the passport owner written notification of revocation. I wonder if the US is considering a press statement to be such written notice? Any lawyers versed in passport issues know whether revoking a passport in a situation like this runs afoul of law or established precedent? [edit: formatting failure on my part]
- olalonde 13y ago> A federal or state law enforcement agency may request the denial of a passport on several regulatory grounds under 22 CFR 51.70 and 51.72. The principal law enforcement reasons for passport denial are a federal warrant of arrest, a federal or state criminal court order, a condition of parole or probation forbidding departure from the United States (or the jurisdiction of the court), or a request for extradition. http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/info/info_870.html http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/info/info_870.html So I think the passport revocation was in fact legal since there was a request for extradition and a federal warrant of arrest.
- epynonymous 13y agoedward is a very strong writer, his rhetoric is perfect.
- Kiro 13y agoI'm so very tired of WikiLeaks. Since when is this their case?
- DannyBee 13y agoWaiting for the onion to write "Edward Snowden issues statement confirming he wrote earlier statement from Edward Snowden"
- yaix 13y ago> using citizenship as a weapon. Although I am convicted of nothing, it has unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me a stateless person. And, ironically, this terrible decision of the US government, ultimately is responsible for Snowden having to stay in Moscow and probably having to tell the Russian everything he knows, even the parts he never intented to reveal. The US government just did a classical "shot yourself in the foot", I'd say.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- squozzer 13y agoI'm sure those who signed the following doc were probably accused of egocentrism, among other things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_In...