19 ms·
Statement by Edward Snowden to human rights groups at Sheremetyevo airport
- chunkyslink 13y agoThank you Edward Snowden. You are a true hero.
- koops 13y agoNot only is Snowden brave, and smart enough to outwit (so far) the most powerful institutions of our day, he's also an excellent writer. To David Brooks and all the others who mock him for not finishing high school, take this statement as a model of clarity and forthrightness.
- adestefan 13y agoIf you think he wrote this on his own, then you're naive. I'm not challenging the intellectual capacity of Snowden, but there is an army of supporters, including a well known publicist, that have been trying to turn Snowden into the latest cause celebre.
- nitrogen 13y agoYou think the presidents write their State of the Union speeches on their own? It's only fair that the country that has a literal army of supporters, speechwriters, publicists, and lawyers, is matched by at least one well-known publicist.
- vermontdevil 13y agoAnd his video interview along with live online chat didn't showcase his abilities?
- Sven7 13y agoI think he has done something very important for everyone but really don't know about the smarts involved. In hindsight, just wondering if running around the world is any better than giving yourself up to the local police. Given the media spotlight he is under, I doubt if there would have been a repeat of what they did with Manning. He might have got more support too. I mean if you are passionate enough about your beliefs to throw your life away why not face the consequences head on. Sort of like a King or Gandhi. I realize what an unfair thing it is to say, but it would seem that sitting in some South American country or Russia, without knowing anyone and constantly looking over your shoulder would be equivalent to sitting in a cell in the US.
- gavinlynch 13y agoRyan Lizza of the New Yorker purports that the US Ambassador to Russia is denying the conversation stated in the 1st paragraph ever occurred: https://twitter.com/RyanLizza/status/355717218895536129 https://twitter.com/RyanLizza/status/355717218895536129 I don't find Wikileaks as a credible source on this topic in general.
- chunkyslink 13y agoI don't find the US government a credible source on anything fullstop. Can't you see whats going on here?
- brown9-2 13y agoIt is really quite hard to think of a reason why the US Ambassador to Russia would "[ask] her to relay to Mr Snowden that the US Government does not categorise Mr Snowden as a whistleblower and that he has broken United States law". The fact that he has been charged with a crime is a pretty good indication that the USG thinks he has broken the law. If you carry out Wikileak's line of thinking here, then anyone in any country who has been charged with a crime, no matter how severe or small, brutal or kind, should have the right to seek asylum from another country and that no state should interfere with that right. Also, they continue to make the false claim that he has been made "stateless", which shows a purposeful ignorance of how laws actually work.
- brown9-2 13y agoThese nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless. Are people really not bothered at the irony in this sentence? Russia, as a country that stands against abuse of the powerless by the powerful? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/world/europe/russian-court-convicts-a-kremlin-critic-posthumously.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/world/europe/russian-court... If the posthumous prosecution of Sergei L. Magnitsky, the lawyer who was jailed as he tried to expose a huge government tax fraud and died four years ago in a Russian prison after being denied proper medical care, seemed surreal from the moment the authorities announced it, the verdict and sentencing on Thursday did not disappoint. By all accounts, it was Russia’s first trial of a dead man, and in the tiny third-floor courtroom of the Tverskoi District Court, it took the judge, Igor B. Alisov, more than an hour and a half to read his decision pronouncing Mr. Magnitsky guilty of tax evasion. It doesn't matter if it is hypocritical of an American like me to point this out, when it goes on in my country/government as well - but I find it willfully ignorant to label the Russian government as a defender of human rights like this. edit: here is some more reading on Russia and this topic: http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/04/24/russia-worst-human-rights-climate-post-soviet-era http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/04/24/russia-worst-human-rights...
- Grue3 13y agoAs a Russian, this statement really rustled my jimmies. I hope US catches Snowden, and he rots in prison for the rest of his life. Though he still would be better off than Magnitsky.
- Karunamon 13y ago"Rotting in prison" is the least of Snowden's worries. We have precedent in what will happen, he'll be tortured just like Manning. And shame on you for venerating rule of law over right and wrong.
- Grue3 13y agoThe right thing for him to do would be to criticize Russian human right violations, especially against whistleblowers like him. The wrong and cowardly thing to do is to praise Russia for not handing his sorry ass to Americans as if it's some sort of victory for human rights.
- llamataboot 13y agoNow hopefully Russia will do the right thing and at least let him leave the damn airport. There are a number of routes from Russia to Venezuela that don't cross over Western European or US airspace -- can't VZ just send a private plane with a military escort over there and bring him back?
- loginalready 13y agoIt's not Russia that doesn't let him leave the airport, it's the US by revoking his passport in a clear violation of human rights. No country on the planet can just let him pass the border without violating it's own laws. This is exactly why revoking his passport is such a disgusting move that violates all common decency. If there was ever one specific moment in history in which the US changed from a flawed democracy to a totalitarian state, it's the moment they took Snowden's passport.
- DanBlake 13y agoSurely these countries have the power to grant him a passport for their country if they chose to do so.
- llamataboot 13y agoBut why not violate its own laws? Countries make and break their own laws all the time? Cops drive through red lights by flicking on their lights for a minute, surely a country can wave him onto a plane without checking his papers.
- famo 13y agoSnowden doesn't need a passport to leave Russia or enter Venezuela if he claims refugee status and requests asylum. The 1951 Refugee Convention allows a person seeking refuge to travel without a passport due to the possibility that the asylum seeker could be persecuted if identified by a document they're carrying. E.g. If your name is John Smith and your country is killing everyone named John Smith, you may not want to carry your passport with you.
- perlpimp 13y ago
- mythz 13y agoThe US Govt illegal activity couldn't have been exposed by a nicer guy. He's self-less and motivated by altruistic goals that serves everyone's interest but the US Govt's (and other Govt's they can influence). It certainly helps our cause that he's both intelligent and articulate. The fact that the US Govt can continue operating at full will irrespective of legal and constitutional boundaries shows just how much power and influence they already have.
- perlpimp 13y agoIt is now the government that is terrorizing the populace by displaying such a common disregard for laws it is enforcing. That is an act of an illegitimate government that uses illegal and immoral tactics to control general populace.
- mtgx 13y agoThe Western European countries are actively standing in the way of him going to Venezuela, and are actively opposing his asylum. So what do we do now?
- resu_nimda 13y agoThe Human Rights Watch representative...had received a call from the US Ambassador to Russia, who asked her to relay to Mr Snowden that the US Government does not categorise Mr Snowden as a whistleblower and that he has broken United States law. That's just...hilarious, and absurd. What purpose does that call serve; what goal is it working toward? Is it some sort of legal requirement? Can we just do without the inane posturing, for once? Edit: apparently there is some dispute as to whether this conversation actually took place.
- abarakadabara 13y agoLook, I understand that government spying through technology is an issue that belongs here. Every time Snowden eats a sandwich is not. There are a million places you can discuss this that are not here. Can we please stick to technology and hacking?
- StavrosK 13y agoHmm, what he said about the grounded plane made me wonder: What if he (or a supporter) falsely tipped off US authorities that he was on that plane to see whether he could travel to South America securely, or if the US would somehow intercept the plane? A dry run, as it were.
- redblacktree 13y agoI thought the same thing about the plane that flew from Russia to Cuba yesterday, skirting US airspace.
- maxk42 13y agoMore likely a commercial concern. The airline would incur a tremendous cost if its flight were grounded by US authorities and its customers are probably expressing worry about that possibility. They changed their route to assuage these fears.
- jessaustin 13y agoIs there any question whether the USA military would have stopped the plane if they had really believed Snowden was on it? Why would they care more about international law than the Fourth Amendment?
- llamataboot 13y agoIn semi-related news that I can't post because I get the hacker news "please slow down" warning -- hacker takes over website of VZ daily El Nacional and warns govt not to give asylum to Snowden or face leaks of corruption/bribery/etc https://knightcenter.utexas.edu/en/node/14126 https://knightcenter.utexas.edu/en/node/14126
- nemo1618 13y agoChrist, a script kiddie with his own product line[1]... words cannot express my disgust. [1] http://jesterscourt.cc/jestergear http://jesterscourt.cc/jestergear
- jessaustin 13y agoYeah, whatever one thought of this prankster before, he's certainly jumped the shark now. Does he think this action is somehow different from anything the "Anonymous" he reviles has ever done? Whatever happened to a letter to the editor?
- bedhead 13y agoIn all seriousness, is there even a single HN commenter who doesn't support/worship this guy? Is the diversity of thought that nonexistent on this subject? I'm just sorta curious and ask the question sincerely.
- hnal943 13y agoI don't support him. I think it's wildly hypocritical of him to run to China and Russia because he's so opposed to government spying. I also think that the NSA spying is less troubling that the other numerous abuses of the Obama administration, including using the IRS to repress political speech.
- bedhead 13y agoPhew - I agree. Just making sure I'm not completely insane here, and frankly the hero worship of him is really starting to creep me out. I worry that too many people blindly see this as getting back at THE MAN without giving enough consideration to many other aspects of the ordeal. I think his actions while on the run are just pathetic. He's such a weasel, like a guy who sucker punches someone on the street then takes off. The to align himself with these other countries who in the grand scheme of things are far worse actors than the US takes some serious balls. I still get the sense that 90% of the reason he decided to pull this off was for selfish reasons, that he wanted the notoriety. EDIT - I suspect numerous downvotes will confirm the consensus
- insuffi 13y agoIt IS getting back at the MAN, as well as the man's partners(including all the big corporations). He lets them/the man lie, and then exposes them/him.(I'm not saying corporations LOVE to cooperate with the government. It is however unacceptable to give them direct backdoors(see microsoft case).) I don't think the weasel simile is appropriate in this case. I don't think aligning himself with countries of questionable loyalty to his ideals is an inherently bad thing either - 1)It creates a sort of dichotomy, and increases the contrast between what the US portrays itself to be, and what it actually is(due to it using the same exact methods commie governments use) 2) Those are the only ones that will give him asylum, as the US is, after all, a G6 country. 3) It buys him more time(see 2.) to make decisions. But you have to look at the other side of this issue - not for a second has the U.S. played this game without dirty tricks. I didn't downvote you, however, I do think you watch US based media too much, judging from the rather overly simple argument. If not, then my apologies.
- ChuckMcM 13y agoWhomever is speech writing these statements (or editing them) is doing a great job. Not only does Snowden make the US out to be a corrupt and despotic nation, willing to subvert its own laws and principles to shut one person up, it manages to position the US' character below that of countries run by South American dictators and ex-KGB colonels. It is my sincere hope that this event ends the political careers of a number of US politicians, and engages enough voters to disrupt the status quo.
- legutierr 13y agoI'm not aware of any of these South American countries that he mentioned being run by dictators. In fact, as far as I am aware, all South American countries are democracies. There are no "South American dictators".
- ChuckMcM 13y agoI apologize. The perception presented by the US press/propaganda is that these are "paper democracies" [1], in the sense that an election was held but the implication is that the outcome of that election was pre-ordained such that the person "elected" is really just a dictator wearing the mantle of democracy to give their position a bit more legitimacy. The unintended consequence of that propaganda effort is that many of the same sorts of innuendo can be applied to the US election process, so in a way they make themselves appear less legitimate than they might hope for. Regardless of the reality of the situation, Snowden (or his speech writers), have incorporated (or perhaps co-opted) this theme to position the US (in the eyes of US residents/citizens) as being the inferior form of government or country relative to countries that they have been told are, or are implied to be, "paper democracies" [1] I approve of that rhetoric because it has a chance of waking some people out of their "but it protects us from terrorism" slumber to realize that some prices are too high to pay and maybe this has gone too far and its time to change. And its clear that the incumbents are lining up on the side of supporting the NSA (I'm thinking of people like Senator Feinstein here) so they are the people we need to replace. We'll see how effective it is. And yes, there is the counter argument about "but this is just what the enemies of the US want, us to voluntarily neuter our own intelligence services so that they can get back to doing their evil deeds." which, were this a foreign policy forum, we would be going back and forth on the limits of sovereignty vs the rights of the citizenry. [1] I came across the term "paper democracies" in a book about the Iran Contra affair as a description of countries with elections whose outcome was rigged.
- mansigandhi 13y agoIs there anyway we, as a people, can help other than just support? Is there a petition running to the UN?
- turar 13y agoI regularly read reader comments on NYTimes regarding NSA/Snowden affair, and this is the first time that vast majority of highest-rated comments there are negative toward Snowden. Previously, the majority was overwhelmingly pro-Snowden. Very curious. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/13/world/europe/snowden-russia-asylum.html?ref=global-home http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/13/world/europe/snowden-russi...
- malandrew 13y agoAnyone asking him to come back and face trial under the current conditions is either naïve or a fool. However, I think that he should at least put conditions on the table under which he would return to the US to face trial. The most important condition would be strict adherence to the 8th amendment, which means no possibility of solitary confinement or other cruel and unusual punishment and reasonable bail, so he is afforded the same rights that Daniel Ellsberg was after leaking the Pentagon papers. The other required condition would be changing the jurisdiction in which charges are brought back to where they should have been filed, which is Hawaii, not Virginia. Cherry-picking a jurisdiction where many of those that will be on the jury may work in the IC community or have close ties to the IC community is not justice. In fact, it is a perversion of it. Lastly, (and I know this would never happen), but I would love to see a Frost v. Nixon type debate involving Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden, Barack Obama, Gen. Keith Alexander and James Clapper live on national TV unrehearsed.
- mindslight 13y agoYou're falling into the trap that you're calling out other people for falling into. > The most important condition would be strict adherence to the 8th amendment This is supposed to be a condition of USG existing in the first place, so the only thing it could give is more empty promises. > In fact, it is a perversion of it [justice] Once again, if USG was bound by anything, it would already not be perverting justice in every other trial. At this point to Snowden, USG is just an angry beast to be avoided at all costs. More power to him for working to unmask the extent of its colonization of the world while he's still in limbo. But at this point, he can never return to the soft prison with free speech, and has to deal with being in the rest of the world without it. The only thing we can wish for him is to be able to resume a nice life next to a beach somewhere.
- tokenadult 13y agoI would have a lot more regard for what Snowden is claiming about United States government actions if he would come back here to the United States and stand trial. More and more of what is being said in his statements to the press (which plainly are receiving editing help, at least, from Wikileaks) are not making sense in the overall context of how different countries behave in the community of nations. When all the smoke is cleared away from Snowden's allegations, and there have been congressional investigations into the data-gathering and surveillance practices of United States government agencies and private companies, most Americans will still be quite supportive of their federal government (in the usual complaining United States way) and tens of millions of people around the world will still desire to settle in the United States. http://www.gallup.com/poll/161435/100-million-worldwide-dream-life.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/161435/100-million-worldwide-drea... To date, I am persuaded that United States government programs related to foreign intelligence need more effective oversight--not least because they hire snafus like Snowden. I am also persuaded that most countries with governments subject to the discipline of a free press and free and fair elections largely are willing to cooperate with the United States in the kind of programs the NSA intends to run, because there are genuine threats from terrorist plotters in those countries. https://www.google.com/search?q=Boston+Marathon+bombing&source=univ&tbm=nws https://www.google.com/search?q=Boston+Marathon+bombing&sour... I'd be glad to see NSA programs reviewed by Congress, and possibly curtailed in their operation to ensure their lawfulness. I'd also be glad to see Edward Snowden go on trial according to United States law to weigh his actions against any defenses he may be able to assert at trial. I've lived elsewhere twice for long stays in my adult life, and after talking to people from around the world about this, I'm still glad to be living in the United States at the moment, and still mostly glad that the United States system of rule by law operates as it does.
- VladRussian2 13y ago>I would have a lot more regard for what Snowden is claiming about United States government actions if he would come back here to the United States and stand trial. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 180 times, i guess Snowden feels that even a couple times of such simulated death experience would be too much - look at how Manning looks - like a ghost (and i suppose Manning had it clearly explained to him that if he mentions anything else that was done to him beyond solitary confinement - it will be repeated in double amount) note: while there is incomparable difference between Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's actions and Snowden's, there isn't much difference from the POV of the ones who have and would be "handling" the former and the latter - between terrorism and high treason, high treason have been punished by the powers to be equally or even more harsher.
- mikemoka 13y agogranting asylum to Snowden will just influence relations between US and Russia,and is not done to be coherent with previous standings of the country on the topic of human rights,almost always different.Russia and others clearly try to challenge the rest of the world to increase their power in times of crisis, how nice,the sooner world leaders realize that the internet is an early glimpse at the future of society and start researching and doing things together the sooner things will improve,for everyone. Every individual has the particular interest to live in a healthy society,and not to have his possibilities limited by his country of birth if you ask me.
- droithomme 13y agoIt's very odd both that the US government would use Human Rights Watch to convey messages (which are essentially threats or warnings) to Mr. Snowden, and that Human Rights Watch would feel the need to agree to convey messages of that nature on behalf of the state apparatus that is targeting Mr. Snowden. It was also odd when I earlier read that Human Rights Watch was the only agency which received an invitation from Mr. Snowden which felt the need to release the message in advance to the media, including the time and place of the meeting. To see the problem with these events, consider it in any other situation where a political prisoner who is in hiding, let's say a North Korean, is meeting with representatives from human rights agencies. How would it be perceived if one of those human rights agencies announced the location in advance and took the opportunity to deliver a personal threatening message they had privately received during a personal conversation with Kim Jong-un.
- D9u 13y agoconsider it in any other situation where a political prisoner who is in hiding Mr. Correa has pointed to the case of two brothers, William and Roberto Isaias, who ran a bank at the center of a huge Ecuadorean financial scandal in the 1990s. They were convicted in absentia of financial wrongdoing in an Ecuadorean court. They now live in the United States, but repeated requests for extradition have been unsuccessful. And Venezuela has demanded the extradition of Luis Posada Carriles, a former C.I.A. operative accused here of masterminding the bombing of a Cuban airliner that killed 73 people in the 1970s. He escaped from a Venezuelan prison in the 1980s and went to live in the United States. “The first thing you need to do to have the moral standing to ask for the extradition of this youth Snowden, whose only act is to reveal the crimes that you committed, is to turn over Luis Posada Carriles, who you are protecting,” Mr. Maduro said this month.
- redthrowaway 13y agoSnowden's location is not a secret. Announcing that yes, he is indeed where everyone knows he is, does not put him in jeopardy.
- ash 13y agoFrom the audio recording of the message (starting from 30:40): "Not that I wanna be their official messenger." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNQSVurlAak&t=30m40s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNQSVurlAak&t=30m40s
- wwhitman 13y agoWikileaks is using him as a meat puppet and now he is totally fucked, whatever shred of credibility he had is lost by praising Russia for their dedication to human rights. I suppose you can defend their record but you will be fighting uphill.
- gwu78 13y ago"I also had the capability..." I would have revised this sentence to say: "I, acting under the authority of the Executive branch of my government, had the capability..." The Constitution exists for the protection of citizens against the overreaching of their government, not for the protection of citizens against their fellow citizens. The question is whether it has any teeth left with regard to unreasonble search and seizure performed by the government (or its agents, like Mr. Snowden).
- bpatrianakos 13y agoThe fact that the US doesn't recognize Snowden as a whistleblower doesn't prove persecution or anything at all. He broke the law. He and others may not like it or agree and they don't have to but its still clear he broke the law. What has Snowden told us that we didn't alreay know since 2006? He gave us classified documents and the names and operations of classified programs. Programs we already knew about but just didn't know the name of or how they worked. Hell, even with what he did give us we still don't actually know how they work. But we sure as hell always knew our calls and Internet activity were being monitored. I'm not a fan of what the NSA is doing but I don't think Snowden is even remotely close to a hero either. Did you know you can take that position? That there's a difference between ones position on NSA spying and whether Snowden is a whistleblower? I'm of the opinion that Snowden and the NSA are criminals.
- anovikov 13y agoI wonder why he can't travel to Latin America. Is it just the issue of not being able to transit through Western Europe or U.S. airports and the lack of direct air connection? Why Mr. Assange does not arrange a private jet flight for him? Moscow to Caracas is under 10K km so it should not be a problem. Even if that's expensive (maybe $200-250K), a few months of living in Sheremetyevo will eat up as much money, or more.
- lambda 13y ago> The Human Rights Watch representative used this opportunity to tell Mr Snowden that on her way to the airport she had received a call from the US Ambassador to Russia, who asked her to relay to Mr Snowden that the US Government does not categorise Mr Snowden as a whistleblower and that he has broken United States law. Am I the only one who found this whole statement pretty odd? Let's see. A "whistleblower" is a term for someone who blows a whistle. This is generally meant to indicate someone who is making some kind of loud noise to report a crime; someone (maybe a cop, maybe just someone who is a victim of a crime) trying to get attention that a crime has been committed. Now, when reporting a crime, do you generally expect the perpetrator of that crime to be the appropriate person to determine whether or not a crime has been committed, and thus whether or not labeling the person a "whistleblower" is appropriate? The whole idea of whistleblower laws that don't protect someone from reporting to the public about crimes committed by the administration is laughable. What the hell is the point of any kind of whistleblower laws or protection if you can't actually blow the whistle on your bosses?
- baddox 13y agoBut the whole idea of government is that one group of individuals should be the "top level" of authority, creating, enforcing, and interpreting its own laws, reserving the authority to keep certain types of secrets (and, of course, reserving the authority to determine which types of secrets qualify), etc.
- lambda 13y agoUm, no. The whole idea of democracy is that there is no "top level" of authority. In the US system, there are representatives of the people, passing laws. There is a single executive, also a representative of the people, implementing said laws. And there are the courts, interpreting said laws when there are disagreements over them. But the whole point of representative democracy is that the people ultimately get to decide who is doing this, so that a runaway government cannot be a single "top level" of authority that creates, enforces, and interprets its own laws. The whole point is that the people are the highest authority, and the government serves at their will. But if the government hides substantial information from the people, a democracy cannot effectively function. The people need to know what the government is doing. There are good reasons for limited amounts of secrecy, for particularly sensitive information or for privacy purposes. But keeping vast amounts of information on things that affect everyone, outside of a wartime environment, is anti-democratic. This type of secrecy, this type of executive action which is seen as being unquestionable by even elected representatives, let alone the people, is turning the government from a representative democracy to an oligarchy.
- rmdoss 13y agoNext few days will be interesting to see what Russia will do there. They do not have the best track record in terms of privacy or human rights, but helping him will make them look good internationally.