7 ms·

Ryan 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.co

Ryan 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 ago
I don't find the US government a credible source on anything fullstop. Can't you see whats going on here?
- cema 13y ago
  Looks like a confidence war?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- wwhitman 13y ago
  What if they had vague powerpoint slides?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - flyinRyan 13y ago
    Don't hold your american flag security blanket so tight, you're going to strangle it.
brown9-2 13y ago
It 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.
- Daishiman 13y ago
  He has been made de facto stateless. At this point actual legality is irrelevant. His right to asylum is real as well as his status as whistleblower; that the US recognizes neither is not grounds for rejecting either statement.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    Anyone who has their passport revoked is de facto stateless? That's nonsensical. Your passport is not your citizenship, and the U.S. would be happy to have Snowden back within its borders. Or did you have something more specific in mind?
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      Suppose North Korea charged and revoked the passport of one of its upper-level citizens for the same crime as Snowden. Would you not call that person de facto stateless, since their only option is to stay in the international terminal of the airport they're in, or be treated unfairly by their home country?
      - twoodfin 13y ago
        No, I wouldn't. That person would still be a citizen of North Korea, but without their authorization to travel internationally. Just because returning to your country would likely be unpleasant for you doesn't mean you no longer have a country.
- llamataboot 13y ago
  Anyone can seek asylum, that doesn't mean it will be granted. In this case it has been granted and accepted. Big difference.
fatjokes 13y ago
Given that the US has been caught in lie after lie on this topic, for once I find Wikileaks to be more credible.
mti 13y ago
Says the Guardian[0]: "Tany Lokshina has confirmed that the US embassy called her before the meeting to ask her to pass on to Snowden the message that he was not a whistleblower." So forget about Wikileaks. It's either Human Rights Watch's Tany Lokshina lying, or the US Ambassador. [0]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/12/edward-snowden-to-meet-amnesty-and-human-rights-watch-at-moscow-airport-live-coverag#block-51e01f46e4b0d557cc000973 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/12/edward-snowden-t...
deelowe 13y ago
"Sorry for the confusion, guys. confirmed that call came from US embassy but not necessarily US Ambassador ."

chunkyslink 13y ago

I don't find the US government a credible source on anything fullstop. Can't you see whats going on here?

cema 13y ago
Looks like a confidence war?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
wwhitman 13y ago
What if they had vague powerpoint slides?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  Don't hold your american flag security blanket so tight, you're going to strangle it.

brown9-2 13y ago

It 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.

Daishiman 13y ago
He has been made de facto stateless. At this point actual legality is irrelevant. His right to asylum is real as well as his status as whistleblower; that the US recognizes neither is not grounds for rejecting either statement.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Anyone who has their passport revoked is de facto stateless? That's nonsensical. Your passport is not your citizenship, and the U.S. would be happy to have Snowden back within its borders. Or did you have something more specific in mind?
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    Suppose North Korea charged and revoked the passport of one of its upper-level citizens for the same crime as Snowden. Would you not call that person de facto stateless, since their only option is to stay in the international terminal of the airport they're in, or be treated unfairly by their home country?
    - twoodfin 13y ago
      No, I wouldn't. That person would still be a citizen of North Korea, but without their authorization to travel internationally. Just because returning to your country would likely be unpleasant for you doesn't mean you no longer have a country.
llamataboot 13y ago
Anyone can seek asylum, that doesn't mean it will be granted. In this case it has been granted and accepted. Big difference.

fatjokes 13y ago

Given that the US has been caught in lie after lie on this topic, for once I find Wikileaks to be more credible.

mti 13y ago

Says the Guardian[0]: "Tany Lokshina has confirmed that the US embassy called her before the meeting to ask her to pass on to Snowden the message that he was not a whistleblower." So forget about Wikileaks. It's either Human Rights Watch's Tany Lokshina lying, or the US Ambassador. [0]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/12/edward-snowden-to-meet-amnesty-and-human-rights-watch-at-moscow-airport-live-coverag#block-51e01f46e4b0d557cc000973 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/12/edward-snowden-t...

deelowe 13y ago

"Sorry for the confusion, guys. confirmed that call came from US embassy but not necessarily US Ambassador ."