11 ms·
At this point, Snowden is a pawn in an international strategy game. None of these countries are offering Snowden asylum because they believe in his cause. The
by skwirl 13y ago
At this point, Snowden is a pawn in an international strategy game. None of these countries are offering Snowden asylum because they believe in his cause. They are offering him asylum because it is something that they can use against the United States (for unrelated contentions) and use as a political trophy within their own countries.
As such, Snowden has to worry about many scenarios. Will his "host" country use him to extract concessions out of the United States in exchange for his extradition? When the regime changes in the country he ends up in, will he wear out his welcome? Can the country he ends up in even protect him from extraordinary rendition? Even if the country fully intends on assisting Snowden, would it be able to weather whatever sanctions were levied on it by the United States in the form of trade restrictions? Ecuador didn't seem to think so.
Then there is the question of whether he can even get to the country he is going to. France and Spain (indirectly) forced down the jet of the president of Bolivia on the rumor that Snowden was on the plane. There is no reason to expect that they and other European countries won't do so again. Routes from Russia to Cuba (assuming he has to use Havana as a stop) also typically fly over the United States. The United States is free to, if not directly force the plane down in the United States, not grant it permission to fly in U.S. airspace, effectively forcing it to land in a U.S. friendly country (Canada). And Cuba might simply hand him over to improve U.S. relations. My understanding is that small private jets simply do not have the range to go directly from Moscow to any of the countries listed (perhaps Venezuela would be just within reach).
At this point, though, I don't really see what option Snowden has but to take Venezuela's asylum offer and hope for the best. He is on a small boat on the ocean in a raging storm. His fate is not in his own hands.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- doctorpangloss 13y agoWell, as an IT guy at the world's largest surveillance agency Snowden is also an intelligence asset. Put another way, our failure of due process has led to a severe security breach. What made him flee was not convictions—he fled because Bradley Manning is in solitary. Daniel Ellsberg, the Pentagon Papers leaker, argued well that Snowden made the right call to flee.[0] Forcing down his plane, or any number of molestations, would only exacerbate this baffling strategy of abusing people to the extreme. If the government didn't do that bullshit, like Ellsberg said, he'd come home and have his day in court. [0] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/daniel-ellsberg-nsa-leaker-snowden-made-the-right-call/2013/07/07/0b46d96c-e5b7-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/daniel-ellsberg-nsa-l...
- JonFish85 13y agoLet's play this out a different way (Manning not in solitary). He's in a military prison, with military personnel. These are people who view what he did as ratting out his brothers in combat. He worked in an air-conditioned office, mind you, and hid behind the anonymity of the internet. He wouldn't last a week if he weren't in solitary. In that way, Manning's biggest problem isn't the government, it's the people he worked alongside. Snowden is running away from having to take responsibility for his actions. It's not complicated. He knows full-well the penalties of revealing classified information, and acknowledged on multiple documents (going into his job) that he knew the procedures if he leaked any information. He leaked information. He doesn't want to go through that process, so he finds it easier to run to someone else in hopes that he won't face punishment.
- stonemetal 13y agoHe's in a military prison, with military personnel. Why? His commander could have him confined anywhere[1]. If the country where civil enough that Snowden could get bail I would be all for him being here, but in this atmosphere he would barely get a show trial. [1] http://usmilitary.about.com/library/weekly/aa102200a.htm http://usmilitary.about.com/library/weekly/aa102200a.htm
- Karunamon 13y ago>He knows full-well the penalties of revealing classified information This makes about as much sense as the same argument from Airplane!: "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting in to. I say, let 'em crash!" It's not complicated. If a system is corrupt, any punishments that system may mete out for bringing that corruption to light are also corrupt, by default, and should rationally be opposed. Keep in mind, we have the Manning example to look at. "Facing punishment" in this case equates to "being tortured". I don't think you're seriously suggesting that he should just turn himself in to be tortured - that gains everyone nothing. So what is your angle?
- JonFish85 13y agoI wasn't making an argument as to whether he was right or wrong to do it, that's an argument for another thread. Sure there seem to be extenuating circumstances, but ultimately he did knowingly break a law. Regardless of whether you think it's just or unjust, a law is a law. Devout Christians seem to think that paying taxes that ultimately support abortion is immoral. If they don't pay their taxes, they're guilty of tax evasion regardless of how moral they feel it is. This is probably a bad example, but I'm just trying to illustrate a point here. Anyways, I was trying to say that the government isn't simply torturing Manning, there's a good reason for keeping him isolated. In a sense, he knew what he was doing, releasing troves of information that he had no legal right to release. He's going through the painful legal stuff now, but in a lot of ways I think he's better off isolated, rather than murdered by fellow inmates.
- jgrahamc 13y agoWhen the regime changes in the country he ends up in, will he wear out his welcome? This is a reasonable question, but not sure the word 'regime' is warranted. If you're talking about Venezuela then that's a democratically elected government.
- jswhitten 13y agoA regime is just the government or form of government that is in power. A democratic regime is still a regime.
- boxerab 13y agothe term "regime" connotes a "bad" government, "government" or "administration" connotes a "good" government. It is very Orwellian, but no mainstream paper would ever refer to the Obama regime.
- skwirl 13y agoI didn't mean for the word to have a negative connotation. The word "regime" is a useful as it covers both the current administration and the system itself. So it would cover both a change in the elected leadership and, say, a new form of government installed by a coup or revolution.
- eyko 13y agowould you have used the same word in reference to the USA?
- skwirl 13y agoI would not because I (and any reasonable person would) consider the odds of a change of the form of government itself in the United States to be so remote to not be worth mentioning. In the case of Venezuela, their constitution is only 13 years old, Nicaragua's is 26 years old, and Bolivia's is only 4 years old. The systems in these countries frequently change and are likely to do so again within Snowden's lifetime.
- jmnickels 13y agoA Gulfstream V could get him there directly. Doesn't solve the EU airspace issues though.