8 ms·

> 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? I'm more bothe

> 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? I'm more bothered by your sentence. Russia and China are undoubtedly worse offenders than the US when it comes to human rights (well, at least historically, in this day and age the US seems to be racing to catch up). However, this alone is never a valid reason to discount their criticisms of US actions. I know you're referring to Snowden's inclusion of Russia on that list, but in this case, they (and maybe China) are the only ones who can stand up against America. Clearly Ecuador fell with a single phone call. I don't think it's hypocritical for you to point this out, but it simply should not detract from the rest of his statement. Russia has not handed him over---the least he can do is not bite the hand shielding him. I, for one, am glad that people aren't bothered by it.

brown9-2 13y ago
I see a large difference in not biting the hand that feeds you and labeling that country as "stand[ing] against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless". It turns his crusade from one which is anti-pervasive-surveillance to anti-US-government.
- fatjokes 13y ago
  His crusade from the beginning has been anti-surveillance in the US. Nobody doubts that Russia and China are doing the same---it's simply what's expected (unfortunately). From the beginning, his stated goal was simply to end this practice in America. As for his first statement, I simply don't read too much into it. My only take-away was "thanks for not turning me over". He's an expert on how the NSA is conducting surveillance---not on which countries are authorities on human rights.
  - tome 13y ago
    > From the beginning, his stated goal was simply to end this practice in America. I don't think this was true, otherwise I would feel unconditional support for him. He has released leaks about US spying on external targets and aims to flee to countries which have very poor relationships with the US. This muddies the waters considerably. Personally I think it weakens his message, and this disappoints me.
    - fatjokes 13y ago
      > He has released leaks about US spying on external targets and aims to flee to countries which have very poor relationships with the US I see what you mean, but I guess this is a personal opinion. I personally think it has had a positive net effect. Specifically, prior to this, hawks in the US were beating war drums after the news about Chinese cyberattacks. I feel they've gone silent lately. America has also always sat on the morality high-horse. I love this country, but it's still always fun to see the big guy get taken down a peg.
      - D9u 13y ago
        Here's an article dealing with the irony of the USA complaining about other nation's cyber shenanigans: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/11/world/asia/differences-on-cybertheft-complicate-china-talks.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/11/world/asia/differences-on-... I submitted the article here but it's buried in the morass of other submissions.
    - llamataboot 13y ago
      So you would rather have him flee to countries that would extradite him to the US so he can be tortured in solitary like Manning?
      - grumpygremlin 13y ago
        Stop applying the ter 'toture' to every corrrctional policy you disagree with.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        I would rather he come home so that he can undergo the normal civilian legal process he claims to want involved in the law enforcement activities the U.S. government seeks to undertake. Just like Thomas Drake, that other NSA whistleblower, who didn't flee and didn't get 'tortured in solitary'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake
        13y ago
  - malandrew 13y ago
    His crusade from the beginning has been anti-surveillance in the US. Yup. What a lot of people in the US Government forget is that a lot of other countries look to us for guidance for what is and is not acceptable. Now every country in the world that was previously criticized for building a surveillance state can now point at the US and say "Why does it matter what I'm doing, they are already doing it and doing so on a much greater scale". Is that really the legacy this country wants to have?
- llamataboot 13y ago
  In this case they /are/ standing against this particular human rights violation. Part of the whole point is that known human rights violators and authoritarian governments are acting better than the US on this, the supposed bastion of freedom and democracy in the world.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- ArcticCelt 13y ago
  He specifically refer to his single case, not the whole history of human rights of those nations. "It has threatened with sanctions countries who would stand up for my human rights and the UN asylum system. It has even taken the unprecedented step of ordering military allies to ground a Latin American president’s plane in search for a political refugee. These dangerous escalations represent a threat not just to the dignity of Latin America, but to the basic rights shared by every person, every nation, to live free from persecution, and to seek and enjoy asylum. Yet even in the face of this historically disproportionate aggression, countries around the world have offered support and asylum. These 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."
- malandrew 13y ago
  It turns his crusade from one which is anti-pervasive-surveillance to anti-US-government. ... but pro US-Constitution and pro-human-rights. Unfortunately, the US has not been through enough governments for most citizens to discern the government and a nation of people. In countries, where the regime in charge has changed several times, the citizens are far more keenly aware that a government only represents the interests of the people, when the interests of the people are also the interests of those in power in the government.
bsimpson 13y ago
You've got to see the irony in taking asylum in a country where the kinds of spying he blew the whistle on in the first place are brazenly displayed on public television: http://boingboing.net/2013/07/08/snowden-and-venezuela-my-biza.html http://boingboing.net/2013/07/08/snowden-and-venezuela-my-bi...
- fatjokes 13y ago
  I totally agree that it is ironic. I just don't think it should detract from his main point, and personally, I'm bothered by how many people are trying to shift the focus to that. In the beginning, Snowden stated he didn't want the news to be focused on him (see how that's turned out) but instead focus on the NSA. I'm sure he wants it to be focused on Russia's human rights abuses even less (there's plenty of coverage on that independent of him).
  - indlebe 13y ago
    Agreed. Tu quoque is really prevalent in this thread.
    - mindslight 13y ago
      Actually, no it's not. Compare to a thread about Assange. Snowden's revelations are apparently really hard to ignore.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > In the beginning, Snowden stated he didn't want the news to be focused on him (see how that's turned out) but instead focus on the NSA. People keep talking about what Snowden said, but why do they not look at what he did? If he really wanted to be out of the news it would be easy. Just ask Thomas Drake. Instead he's turned himself into a longtailed human interest story, despite his protestations to the contrary. If he's smart enough to act as a network structural hacker then surely he's smart enough to recall what types of stories drive the most media coverage in the U.S. His job in this was to get the evidence out there, let civil rights groups use it to carry on the fight, and to get himself back out of the media spotlight. Instead he's and WikiLeaks are sucking up all the oxygen from the EFF and ACLU.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- vermontdevil 13y ago
  Well that was a quick invocation of Godwin's Law.
reeses 13y ago
People want to weigh the argument by weighing the person. I believe we call this 'ad hominem'. The guy did something that had massive fallout and would really like to be able to live at least some form of a life. Sure, the countries offering asylum have pretty crappy human rights records and actually contribute a large number of asylum applicants to the USA. However, working in Venezuela or Bolivia, even if nowhere near the standard of living to which he may have become accustomed in Hawai'i, is better than sitting in a cell for years without trial and demonized and forgotten by the state. I see a massive difference between leaking capabilities and personalities. The former lets us evaluate policies against the rule of law. The second can be treasonous or harmful on an individual level. He didn't help Iran build The Bomb. He didn't even give anyone the ability to replicate the NSA's capabilities or detect interception of data in transit or at rest. He merely confirmed what many suspected and revealed what few knew (or cared about).
EpicEng 13y ago
Do you really believe that Russia and China took this stance out of morality? Come on, let's not be naive here. This is a political tool to them.
- marshray 13y ago
  So what? How does that change in any way the substance of Snowden's disclosures?
  - EpicEng 13y ago
    I never said that it does. I was responding to this line in the parent comment: "I know you're referring to Snowden's inclusion of Russia on that list, but in this case, they (and maybe China) are the only ones who can stand up against America. Clearly Ecuador fell with a single phone call."
rayiner 13y ago
> However, this alone is never a valid reason to discount their criticisms of US actions. No, but it's a valid reason to discount Snowden's positive characterization of those criticisms. It can be the case that both things are true: 1) Russia is correct in criticizing American action, regardless of its own actions; 2) Snowden is wrong to chalk it up to Russia's "standing up against the abuse of the powerless" instead of political grandstanding and deflection.

brown9-2 13y ago

I see a large difference in not biting the hand that feeds you and labeling that country as "stand[ing] against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless". It turns his crusade from one which is anti-pervasive-surveillance to anti-US-government.

fatjokes 13y ago
His crusade from the beginning has been anti-surveillance in the US. Nobody doubts that Russia and China are doing the same---it's simply what's expected (unfortunately). From the beginning, his stated goal was simply to end this practice in America. As for his first statement, I simply don't read too much into it. My only take-away was "thanks for not turning me over". He's an expert on how the NSA is conducting surveillance---not on which countries are authorities on human rights.
- tome 13y ago
  > From the beginning, his stated goal was simply to end this practice in America. I don't think this was true, otherwise I would feel unconditional support for him. He has released leaks about US spying on external targets and aims to flee to countries which have very poor relationships with the US. This muddies the waters considerably. Personally I think it weakens his message, and this disappoints me.
  - fatjokes 13y ago
    > He has released leaks about US spying on external targets and aims to flee to countries which have very poor relationships with the US I see what you mean, but I guess this is a personal opinion. I personally think it has had a positive net effect. Specifically, prior to this, hawks in the US were beating war drums after the news about Chinese cyberattacks. I feel they've gone silent lately. America has also always sat on the morality high-horse. I love this country, but it's still always fun to see the big guy get taken down a peg.
    - D9u 13y ago
      Here's an article dealing with the irony of the USA complaining about other nation's cyber shenanigans: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/11/world/asia/differences-on-cybertheft-complicate-china-talks.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/11/world/asia/differences-on-... I submitted the article here but it's buried in the morass of other submissions.
  - llamataboot 13y ago
    So you would rather have him flee to countries that would extradite him to the US so he can be tortured in solitary like Manning?
    - grumpygremlin 13y ago
      Stop applying the ter 'toture' to every corrrctional policy you disagree with.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      I would rather he come home so that he can undergo the normal civilian legal process he claims to want involved in the law enforcement activities the U.S. government seeks to undertake. Just like Thomas Drake, that other NSA whistleblower, who didn't flee and didn't get 'tortured in solitary'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake
      - 13y ago
- malandrew 13y ago
  His crusade from the beginning has been anti-surveillance in the US. Yup. What a lot of people in the US Government forget is that a lot of other countries look to us for guidance for what is and is not acceptable. Now every country in the world that was previously criticized for building a surveillance state can now point at the US and say "Why does it matter what I'm doing, they are already doing it and doing so on a much greater scale". Is that really the legacy this country wants to have?
llamataboot 13y ago
In this case they /are/ standing against this particular human rights violation. Part of the whole point is that known human rights violators and authoritarian governments are acting better than the US on this, the supposed bastion of freedom and democracy in the world.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
ArcticCelt 13y ago
He specifically refer to his single case, not the whole history of human rights of those nations. "It has threatened with sanctions countries who would stand up for my human rights and the UN asylum system. It has even taken the unprecedented step of ordering military allies to ground a Latin American president’s plane in search for a political refugee. These dangerous escalations represent a threat not just to the dignity of Latin America, but to the basic rights shared by every person, every nation, to live free from persecution, and to seek and enjoy asylum. Yet even in the face of this historically disproportionate aggression, countries around the world have offered support and asylum. These 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."
malandrew 13y ago
It turns his crusade from one which is anti-pervasive-surveillance to anti-US-government. ... but pro US-Constitution and pro-human-rights. Unfortunately, the US has not been through enough governments for most citizens to discern the government and a nation of people. In countries, where the regime in charge has changed several times, the citizens are far more keenly aware that a government only represents the interests of the people, when the interests of the people are also the interests of those in power in the government.

bsimpson 13y ago

You've got to see the irony in taking asylum in a country where the kinds of spying he blew the whistle on in the first place are brazenly displayed on public television: http://boingboing.net/2013/07/08/snowden-and-venezuela-my-biza.html http://boingboing.net/2013/07/08/snowden-and-venezuela-my-bi...

fatjokes 13y ago
I totally agree that it is ironic. I just don't think it should detract from his main point, and personally, I'm bothered by how many people are trying to shift the focus to that. In the beginning, Snowden stated he didn't want the news to be focused on him (see how that's turned out) but instead focus on the NSA. I'm sure he wants it to be focused on Russia's human rights abuses even less (there's plenty of coverage on that independent of him).
- indlebe 13y ago
  Agreed. Tu quoque is really prevalent in this thread.
  - mindslight 13y ago
    Actually, no it's not. Compare to a thread about Assange. Snowden's revelations are apparently really hard to ignore.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > In the beginning, Snowden stated he didn't want the news to be focused on him (see how that's turned out) but instead focus on the NSA. People keep talking about what Snowden said, but why do they not look at what he did? If he really wanted to be out of the news it would be easy. Just ask Thomas Drake. Instead he's turned himself into a longtailed human interest story, despite his protestations to the contrary. If he's smart enough to act as a network structural hacker then surely he's smart enough to recall what types of stories drive the most media coverage in the U.S. His job in this was to get the evidence out there, let civil rights groups use it to carry on the fight, and to get himself back out of the media spotlight. Instead he's and WikiLeaks are sucking up all the oxygen from the EFF and ACLU.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

vermontdevil 13y ago
Well that was a quick invocation of Godwin's Law.

reeses 13y ago

People want to weigh the argument by weighing the person. I believe we call this 'ad hominem'. The guy did something that had massive fallout and would really like to be able to live at least some form of a life. Sure, the countries offering asylum have pretty crappy human rights records and actually contribute a large number of asylum applicants to the USA. However, working in Venezuela or Bolivia, even if nowhere near the standard of living to which he may have become accustomed in Hawai'i, is better than sitting in a cell for years without trial and demonized and forgotten by the state. I see a massive difference between leaking capabilities and personalities. The former lets us evaluate policies against the rule of law. The second can be treasonous or harmful on an individual level. He didn't help Iran build The Bomb. He didn't even give anyone the ability to replicate the NSA's capabilities or detect interception of data in transit or at rest. He merely confirmed what many suspected and revealed what few knew (or cared about).

EpicEng 13y ago

Do you really believe that Russia and China took this stance out of morality? Come on, let's not be naive here. This is a political tool to them.

marshray 13y ago
So what? How does that change in any way the substance of Snowden's disclosures?
- EpicEng 13y ago
  I never said that it does. I was responding to this line in the parent comment: "I know you're referring to Snowden's inclusion of Russia on that list, but in this case, they (and maybe China) are the only ones who can stand up against America. Clearly Ecuador fell with a single phone call."

rayiner 13y ago

> However, this alone is never a valid reason to discount their criticisms of US actions. No, but it's a valid reason to discount Snowden's positive characterization of those criticisms. It can be the case that both things are true: 1) Russia is correct in criticizing American action, regardless of its own actions; 2) Snowden is wrong to chalk it up to Russia's "standing up against the abuse of the powerless" instead of political grandstanding and deflection.