6 ms·

I don't think He'll be getting any FSB (new KGB) protection. They most likely control him now.

by kwal0203 13y ago

kristofferR 13y ago
What's the difference?
- kwal0203 13y ago
  Well being under their control implies you will do what they say. True, he will be protected but in essence he is 'buying' this protection through submission not 'getting' it.
tootie 13y ago
I think I'd rather do 2 years at Club Fed in the US than be under FSB control in Russia. I mean, Putin straight kills journalists.
- falk 13y ago
  "I mean, Putin straight kills journalists." So does the United States of America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 The United States government wants to make an example out of Snowden. There's no way he would serve just two years in prison.
  - tootie 13y ago
    That isn't remotely the same thing.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    Would it stretch your moral intellect too far to identify a key distinction there? Namely, intent matters: The U.S., as far as anyone has demonstrated, does not set out to kill journalists because what they write is inconvenient.
    - _ak 13y ago
      > The U.S., as far as anyone has demonstrated, does not set out to kill journalists because what they write is inconvenient. I remember that prior to the invasion of Iraq, the US said that any journalist that is not embedded with US troops is fair game. That does sound like they didn't mind killing journalists they don't control. This attitude also clearly shows in the bombing of the Al Jazeera offices in Baghdad, Bush's 2004 idea of bombing the Al Jazeera HQ in Qatar, or the attack on the Palestine Hotel.
      - twoodfin 13y ago
        I remember that prior to the invasion of Iraq, the US said that any journalist that is not embedded with US troops is fair game. That does sound like they didn't mind killing journalists they don't control. The quote you're likely thinking of was from then-Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke literally as Baghdad was falling: Pentagon spokeswoman Clarke said of Baghdad on Tuesday, "It is not a safe place. You should not be there." [1] Whether journalists thought it would be a good idea to hang out in Baghdad while it was under coalition assault, the Bush administration clearly thought that would be an unsafe thing to do. That doesn't mean they "didn't mind killing journalists they don't control" or that they claimed anything about journalists being "fair game". [1] http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Baghdad-closer-to-collapse-Army-Marine-tanks-2656778.php#page-2 http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Baghdad-closer-to-collaps...
    - rada 13y ago
      New York Times media correspondent David Carr: “If you add up the pulling of news organization phone records (The Associated Press), the tracking of individual reporters (Fox News), and the effort by the current administration to go after sources (seven instances and counting in which a government official has been criminally charged with leaking classified information to the news media), suggesting that there is a war on the press is less hyperbole than simple math.” AP president Gary Pruitt: "Longtime sources have stopped talking to the Associated Press in response to the Obama administration’s secret seizure of the wire service’s phone records. This chilling effect is not just at AP, it’s happening at other news organizations as well. Journalists from other news organizations have personally told me it has intimidated sources from speaking to them." Chief White House Correspondent for NBC News Chuck Todd: "You end up essentially criminalizing journalism when it comes to reporting on the federal government, particularly on national security. You know, I’ve had different conversations with people over the last week who are sitting there not quite comfortable having certain conversations on the phone." Would it stretch your moral intellect to google any of the above? The US has successfully criminalized real journalism so there is no need to kill. Not a whole lot better.
- jetti 13y ago
  I tried searching for the charges that the US brought against Snowden and then the penalty for those charges. According to Yahoo[1] (which isn't a great source but it is the best I could find in the short time I have), the charges brought carry a max of 30 years in prison, along with fines. That is a whole lot more than just 2 years. On top of that, you can bet that US government is going to go for broke on that case as well in order to discourage such other leaks in the future. [1]http://news.yahoo.com/understanding-snowden-espionage-act-three-minutes-101807392.html http://news.yahoo.com/understanding-snowden-espionage-act-th...
  - tootie 13y ago
    Max sentence is unlikely. Libby and Kiriakou both got 30 months and they exposed covert agents which Snowden did not (I know Libby served no time, but he was still sentenced). If Snowden is brought home to face charges, he will probably get a worse sentence now because he fled.
    - acqq 13y ago
      Are you talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby the one who got off the hook by President Bush's personal intervention? How is that surprising that he got so little? You really assume that Obama would commute Snowden's sentence? Really?
    - SimHacker 13y ago
      Maybe they will let Dick Cheney shoot him in the face with a shotgun.
- itodd 13y ago
  Manning is charged with "aiding the enemy" which carries a life sentence. http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/07/18/judge-manning-case-allows-charge-aiding-the-enemy/YnC9VYhsWSxwIVJ2FfqpuI/story.html http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/07/18/judge-mann...
  - tootie 13y ago
    UCMJ. He was active duty military, not a civilian.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  2 years for alleged treason and endangering the lives of Americans? Some how I think not.
  - tootie 13y ago
    He hasn't been charged with treason and if he were, he'd be acquitted.
    - alan_cx 13y ago
      So, the fact he hasn't means he will not? And what crystal ball are you using to predict the out come of a hypothetical trial?
- ash 13y ago
  > Putin straight kills journalists I haven't seen definite evidence on Putin's involvement. Yes, there's some suspicion. Do you have good evidence?
- acqq 13y ago
  Whereas Obama seems to "just" imprison them: http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/obamas_personal_role_in_a_journalists_imprisonment/ http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/obamas_personal_role_in_a_jo... I'm not supporting such actions of any president.
- kaonashi 13y ago
  If you think that's what's in store for Snowden should he return to the U.S., I think you're really naive. I would expect something along the lines of the Manning treatment (psychological torture).
alan_cx 13y ago
Why? He is no threat to Russia or Putin what so ever. All the information he has is out or in the hands of others. On top of that, Putin is hardly likely to do anything to him apart from send him to the US as some sort of present, since the worlds media will be watching. Seem to me a lot of this FSB ownership stuff is prejudiced (pre-judged) scare mongering, and simply designed to undermine Snowden and his actions. I see no reason for the FSB to "control" Snowden at all. Monitor, of course, but who wouldn't? Even if the UK gave him asylum, we'd monitor his whereabouts.

I don't think He'll be getting any FSB (new KGB) protection. They most likely control him now.

kristofferR 13y ago

What's the difference?

kwal0203 13y ago
Well being under their control implies you will do what they say. True, he will be protected but in essence he is 'buying' this protection through submission not 'getting' it.

tootie 13y ago

I think I'd rather do 2 years at Club Fed in the US than be under FSB control in Russia. I mean, Putin straight kills journalists.

falk 13y ago
"I mean, Putin straight kills journalists." So does the United States of America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 The United States government wants to make an example out of Snowden. There's no way he would serve just two years in prison.
- tootie 13y ago
  That isn't remotely the same thing.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Would it stretch your moral intellect too far to identify a key distinction there? Namely, intent matters: The U.S., as far as anyone has demonstrated, does not set out to kill journalists because what they write is inconvenient.
  - _ak 13y ago
    > The U.S., as far as anyone has demonstrated, does not set out to kill journalists because what they write is inconvenient. I remember that prior to the invasion of Iraq, the US said that any journalist that is not embedded with US troops is fair game. That does sound like they didn't mind killing journalists they don't control. This attitude also clearly shows in the bombing of the Al Jazeera offices in Baghdad, Bush's 2004 idea of bombing the Al Jazeera HQ in Qatar, or the attack on the Palestine Hotel.
    - twoodfin 13y ago
      I remember that prior to the invasion of Iraq, the US said that any journalist that is not embedded with US troops is fair game. That does sound like they didn't mind killing journalists they don't control. The quote you're likely thinking of was from then-Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke literally as Baghdad was falling: Pentagon spokeswoman Clarke said of Baghdad on Tuesday, "It is not a safe place. You should not be there." [1] Whether journalists thought it would be a good idea to hang out in Baghdad while it was under coalition assault, the Bush administration clearly thought that would be an unsafe thing to do. That doesn't mean they "didn't mind killing journalists they don't control" or that they claimed anything about journalists being "fair game". [1] http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Baghdad-closer-to-collapse-Army-Marine-tanks-2656778.php#page-2 http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Baghdad-closer-to-collaps...
  - rada 13y ago
    New York Times media correspondent David Carr: “If you add up the pulling of news organization phone records (The Associated Press), the tracking of individual reporters (Fox News), and the effort by the current administration to go after sources (seven instances and counting in which a government official has been criminally charged with leaking classified information to the news media), suggesting that there is a war on the press is less hyperbole than simple math.” AP president Gary Pruitt: "Longtime sources have stopped talking to the Associated Press in response to the Obama administration’s secret seizure of the wire service’s phone records. This chilling effect is not just at AP, it’s happening at other news organizations as well. Journalists from other news organizations have personally told me it has intimidated sources from speaking to them." Chief White House Correspondent for NBC News Chuck Todd: "You end up essentially criminalizing journalism when it comes to reporting on the federal government, particularly on national security. You know, I’ve had different conversations with people over the last week who are sitting there not quite comfortable having certain conversations on the phone." Would it stretch your moral intellect to google any of the above? The US has successfully criminalized real journalism so there is no need to kill. Not a whole lot better.
jetti 13y ago
I tried searching for the charges that the US brought against Snowden and then the penalty for those charges. According to Yahoo[1] (which isn't a great source but it is the best I could find in the short time I have), the charges brought carry a max of 30 years in prison, along with fines. That is a whole lot more than just 2 years. On top of that, you can bet that US government is going to go for broke on that case as well in order to discourage such other leaks in the future. [1]http://news.yahoo.com/understanding-snowden-espionage-act-three-minutes-101807392.html http://news.yahoo.com/understanding-snowden-espionage-act-th...
- tootie 13y ago
  Max sentence is unlikely. Libby and Kiriakou both got 30 months and they exposed covert agents which Snowden did not (I know Libby served no time, but he was still sentenced). If Snowden is brought home to face charges, he will probably get a worse sentence now because he fled.
  - acqq 13y ago
    Are you talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby the one who got off the hook by President Bush's personal intervention? How is that surprising that he got so little? You really assume that Obama would commute Snowden's sentence? Really?
  - SimHacker 13y ago
    Maybe they will let Dick Cheney shoot him in the face with a shotgun.
itodd 13y ago
Manning is charged with "aiding the enemy" which carries a life sentence. http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/07/18/judge-manning-case-allows-charge-aiding-the-enemy/YnC9VYhsWSxwIVJ2FfqpuI/story.html http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/07/18/judge-mann...
- tootie 13y ago
  UCMJ. He was active duty military, not a civilian.
alan_cx 13y ago
2 years for alleged treason and endangering the lives of Americans? Some how I think not.
- tootie 13y ago
  He hasn't been charged with treason and if he were, he'd be acquitted.
  - alan_cx 13y ago
    So, the fact he hasn't means he will not? And what crystal ball are you using to predict the out come of a hypothetical trial?
ash 13y ago
> Putin straight kills journalists I haven't seen definite evidence on Putin's involvement. Yes, there's some suspicion. Do you have good evidence?
acqq 13y ago
Whereas Obama seems to "just" imprison them: http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/obamas_personal_role_in_a_journalists_imprisonment/ http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/obamas_personal_role_in_a_jo... I'm not supporting such actions of any president.
kaonashi 13y ago
If you think that's what's in store for Snowden should he return to the U.S., I think you're really naive. I would expect something along the lines of the Manning treatment (psychological torture).

alan_cx 13y ago

Why? He is no threat to Russia or Putin what so ever. All the information he has is out or in the hands of others. On top of that, Putin is hardly likely to do anything to him apart from send him to the US as some sort of present, since the worlds media will be watching. Seem to me a lot of this FSB ownership stuff is prejudiced (pre-judged) scare mongering, and simply designed to undermine Snowden and his actions. I see no reason for the FSB to "control" Snowden at all. Monitor, of course, but who wouldn't? Even if the UK gave him asylum, we'd monitor his whereabouts.