4 ms·
IMHO, there should be an independent UN protection. If not, then how can any individual whistle blow against a country with the power and reach of the US? We h
by alan_cx 13y ago
IMHO, there should be an independent UN protection.
If not, then how can any individual whistle blow against a country with the power and reach of the US? We have the aggrieved party, a whole state, hunting down an individual for exposing its wrong doing. Its a little bit one sided.
Although the problem with the UN is that its loaded with US allies and money.
But there should be some safe harbour, with fair process, for people who speak out, where ever they come from and from who ever they are exposing.
- threeseed 13y agoIt's a cute and noble idea but pretty sure that more than just the US would be against it. Because wait for it. Most countries spy. And most countries don't appreciate rogue contractors jet-setting around the world revealing secrets about the nature of the spying.
- MikeCapone 13y agoJet-setting? "In journalism, jet set was a term for an international social group of wealthy people, organizing and participating all around the world in social activities unreachable to ordinary people. The term, which replaced "café society", came from the lifestyle of traveling from one stylish or exotic place to another via jet plane." I'm pretty sure that tern doesn't apply to Snowden, a man who said he's fleeing because he's afraid of spending the rest of his life in some "torture dungeon" off the grid.
- alan_cx 13y agoIgnoring your jet setting nonsense, which is obviously not on the cards... Fair process. Counties with nothing to hide.... Yes most countries might have a problem with it, when considered alone. But, if all countries knew that it equally applied to all, and that there is a fair process of sorting out what is reasonable to "blow" and what should happen, it could benefit all. So, in this case, an independent review might separate out what is public interest and what it not, and what should happen to Snowden. It could benefit the US. Such an organisation should be the place the whistle blower goes to, not runs to after the "damage" is done. No, I don't have it all worked out. I am not a lawyer. Yes I can see how difficult it would be to get it right. However, that does not negate the idea and value of having a structure to do this with in. Of course it will never ever be perfect, but I say something is better than nothing. Whistle blowers could still do their own thing and take what ever risk the like. No UN organisation will stop that unstoppable freedom.
- smsm42 13y agoYes, because UN, where Human Rights Council included such examples of human rights as China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Cuba and Libya, is the most trustworthy organisation of all. It's not like we have been exposed in recent years to a multitude of scandals about UN functionaries being bribed by homicidal dictators, or UN forces being caught in sexual abuse of people they were supposed to protect. No, UN is definitely the best resort when human rights abuses are concerned. Putin and Xi Jinping would never let it happen. >>> Although the problem with the UN is that its loaded with US allies and money. UN has China as a veto-power member and dozens of countries where you can be murdered for mere disagreeing with the government or choosing wrong religion to follow are voting members. And you say US is the problem with UN? That's my problem with current critics of the US policies in the US. They think since US government is overreaching and shows signs of corruption, there's nothing worse than it and they are ready to go to everyone - including organisations hundred times more corrupt and having infinitely lower standards of human rights - because there could be nothing worse than US government. Please believe it, there can be something much, much worse - and the UN is chock full of it.