8 ms·

What a strange world we live in, when you have to run from the US government after revealing its illegal and unconstitutional activity and hope for safe haven i

by pavs 13y ago

What a strange world we live in, when you have to run from the US government after revealing its illegal and unconstitutional activity and hope for safe haven in Putin's Russia.

andreypopp 13y ago
What exactly do you find strange with this?
- pavs 13y ago
  Its strange because a whistleblower has to run from US government as he is 100% sure (rightfully) that there is no chance of having fair trial or policy change despite the revelations and its implications. And he has to run to Russia, a country that has much much worse human rights records (at least publicly, it is possibly that US government privately is much worse in human rights). I think the people of the USA should ask their government what is the legal way to expose government wrongdoing, _to the extend Snowden did_, without being prosecuted and having to run for his life? I am afraid, currently no such law exist.
  - jacquesm 13y ago
    It's a fairly typical case of shooting the messenger and this is the generalized fate of whistleblowers the world over, be it in corporations, governments or other institutions. The first response is to squelch the source by any means available. If there is change it usually is much later.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    as he is 100% sure (rightfully) that there is no chance of having fair trial Why is there no chance of him getting a fair trial? Are you accusing Federal judges of being corrupt puppets of the Obama administration or something?
    - pavs 13y ago
      Not fair in the sense that the current law exists to not protect whistleblowers like snowden. The law is by default against him and there is no legal way to expose the government to the extend snowden did. As to Federal judge's my understanding is that (might be wrong) most of these appointments are political in nature. And at least in case of supreme court the judges tends to align with their ideological bias and their interpretation of laws often wildly differs. Don't quote me on it though, just my understanding.
      - twoodfin 13y ago
        There were well-defined legal channels available to Snowden to communicate any concerns he had about the existing programs. By all accounts, he did not take advantage of any of them.
        danenania 13y ago
        That is ridiculously naive.
        pavs 13y ago
        Feel free to show examples of said "well-define legal channels" which Snowden could have used to show the depth of NSA's activity as he did, where the discussion is open for public debate. Also this has been going on for so long, why didn't anyone else from NSA use said well-defined legal channel to expose NSA activity or at-least put them up for scrutiny. I can think of 3 reasons: 1) There is no well-defined legal channels to expose NSA illegal activity, to the extend Snowden did. 2) NSA only hires people who are morally corrupt. 3) NSA employees are genuinely concerned about their safety and well-being if they want to expose NSA.
        hhenn 13y ago
        Did you see the interview that USA Today conducted with NSA whistleblowers Thomas Drake and William Binney when Snowden's leaks were first published? They specifically addressed the myth that there are effective mechanisms in place to report and rectify misconduct. There are none, and these very intelligent, very principled men agreed that Snowden took the correct course of action in exposing all of this. As dissenters within the agency, they have a more accurate idea about how all of this works in practice than nearly anyone else.
bluecalm 13y ago
All this despite overwhelming support from young educated citizens in your country.
- pavs 13y ago
  I am not a US citizen, nor do I live there. However I did live there for about 12 years. I don't think there is a lot of support in favor of Snowden in USA, don't be confused by internet activism. The reality is most people is US doesn't care about snowden or the implications of his revelations. In the current US, anti-government activism is a foreign concept. You won't find a lack of people complaining about the government, but you won't find them on the street and make some noise untill there is some real change. Even the occupy movement was largely a farce and it wasn't really against the government.
  - smileysteve 13y ago
    I'm finding NSA jokes are pretty common place now, between my dentist's office, my early baby boomer parents.
  - deveac 13y ago
    >I don't think there is a lot of support in favor of Snowden in USA, don't be confused by internet activism. This is spot on. Most people here don't even know his name. To the ones that do, he is "that guy that leaked all those secrets." It pains me to say it, but it's true. The odd thing is that with the recent House vote that almost successfully de-funded the NSA with regards to the meta-data collection program, it seems that a lot of our representatives were ahead of the population (or responding to the more activist elements of the population) on the issue. >Even the occupy movement was largely a farce and it wasn't really against the government. I was there that first day that it started. To be fair, the movement was largely about the relationship between the government and the private sector, not just the private sector.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Do you have evidence for that? I've not personally seen any polling, so maybe you're right, but my impression is that a lot of people of all ages strongly approve of government anti-terror efforts in general.
cadalac 13y ago
I'm really amazed at how many people complain about Putin. Would you all prefer to live in the Russia of 50 years ago?
- pavs 13y ago
  The comparison was not between putin's Russia and Russia 50 years ago. It was between Russia and USA. Despite everything that is fucked up and wrong with US Government, I would hope (perhaps naively), its still better than Russia in terms of human rights at least?
  - jacquesm 13y ago
    > I would hope (perhaps naively), its still better than Russia in terms of human rights at least? That depends on a lot of factors: - are you homosexual - ethnically caucasian - A subscriber to Islam - have a name that matches the name of someone on a no-fly list - an 'enemy combatant' (ages 13 and up) - an activist of sorts Or anyone of a hundred other arbitrary criteria. Those could make the difference between a safe & secure life 'just' being harassed periodically by people in uniform or spending time in Gitmo or Siberia.
    - pavs 13y ago
      I agree with you and I am saying this from personal experience.
    - geoka9 13y ago
      > ethnically caucasian Actually, that matters in Russia a lot, too. Although, their meaning of the word is different (Russian Caucasians are people originated from around the Caucasian Mountains; that's where all the guerilla fighting is currently going on).
- crdoconnor 13y ago
  A not insignificant proportion of Russians do. You were guaranteed a job, a place to live and an education.
alan_cx 13y ago
This again? Again, name the country which is acceptable, possible to travel too, and out of US reach. Snowden has to take whatever he can get.
- pavs 13y ago
  You misread me. I am not saying this is a bad thing, nor am I holding snowden against some moral compass for doing it. I support it 100%.
1gor 13y ago
Has it ever occurred to anyone, that Putin's Russia today is a conservative's "paradise"? I mean, if you do not agree with everything that the 'progressive left' stand for, you may feel quite good in Russia. Putin's government is supporting the church, and promoting traditional family values. They have instituted significant money benefits for families with children, and as a result the much talked about decline in Russia's population has been stopped in 2013. For the first time in modern Russian history there are more babies born in Russia than people die of old age. http://www.amren.com/news/2013/06/russias-population-decline-said-to-have-stopped/ http://www.amren.com/news/2013/06/russias-population-decline... The laws prohibiting "gay propaganda" should be viewed in the context of these policies. Obviously, being gay as such is not illegal in Russia. There are gay bars in any large Russian city, and quite a few of celebrities have admitted to be gay. However, they have made it illegal to promote homosexuality publicly. Then, there are economic policies of Putin that would make Reagan jealous. Russian government has adopted a flat 13% tax rate on all incomes in 2001. Not only this has made Russia one of the lowest tax jurisdictions in the world. Most importantly, the flat rate has removed thousands of 'tax exceptions' that is the source of economic inefficiencies and outright corruption in most of 'developed' countries. Here is a noted US conservative lamenting that Putin has achieved something he had worked on most of his life. "We won the Cold War, but Russia gets a flat tax while America is stuck with a Byzantine tax system based on class-warfare ideology." http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2003/03/russias-flat-tax-miracle http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2003/03/russias-.... Finally, the 'freedom of press opression' and 'political persecution of opponents' thesis is in many ways overblown. Most popular Russian internet media outlets are openly anti-Putin (lenta.ru, slon.ru etc. etc.). The most listened to news/talk-show radio station (Echo Moskvy) is strongly anti-Putin, and a very popular cable TV channel (Dozhd) is also anti-Putin and anti-establishment. And the trial of the poster-child of anti-Putin opposition Mr Khodorkovsky (who was imprisoned years ago on fraud and tax-evasion charges) has just been recognised as a 'non-political' by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) (read: Khodorkovsky was indeed a crook, and his sentencing was not influenced by his anti-Putin stance). http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-european-court-khodorkovsky/25056475.html http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-european-court-khodorkov... Putin's government is also following Western conservative script with regard to intellectual property. Actually, today the have effected a broad-reaching anti-piracy law that would outlaw any internet site that publishes links to illegal movie download or torrent-trackers. To Putin's credit, the downloaders of illegal content themselves will not be prosecuted. So, parents of teenagers need not worry about gigantic fines etc. Obviously, Putin is no friend to US conservatives, primarily because Putin is a nationalist and conducts an independent foreign policy. What is good for Russia need not be good for the US. And vice versa. But Putin may be good for those Russians that hold traditional conservative values. Hell, such people may feel Russia is the last bastion of true conservatism left in the world, while not being exactly a Pinochet-like fascist place.
znowi 13y ago
I think what brought us to this point is our persistent belief into the Cold War era roles in the world. US the good guys. Ruskies - a menace to humanity. When the US invaded Iraq, everyone was upset, but in the end people shrugged it off. After all, the US is the good guys. They can't do no harm. Now after a decade of American led wars, invasions, drones... and now the mass surveillance program, we slowly start to realize that maybe things are not as good as they seem. Perhaps, it's time to reassess the past established roles and look at the world afresh.

by pavs 13y ago

What a strange world we live in, when you have to run from the US government after revealing its illegal and unconstitutional activity and hope for safe haven in Putin's Russia.

andreypopp 13y ago

What exactly do you find strange with this?

pavs 13y ago
Its strange because a whistleblower has to run from US government as he is 100% sure (rightfully) that there is no chance of having fair trial or policy change despite the revelations and its implications. And he has to run to Russia, a country that has much much worse human rights records (at least publicly, it is possibly that US government privately is much worse in human rights). I think the people of the USA should ask their government what is the legal way to expose government wrongdoing, _to the extend Snowden did_, without being prosecuted and having to run for his life? I am afraid, currently no such law exist.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  It's a fairly typical case of shooting the messenger and this is the generalized fate of whistleblowers the world over, be it in corporations, governments or other institutions. The first response is to squelch the source by any means available. If there is change it usually is much later.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  as he is 100% sure (rightfully) that there is no chance of having fair trial Why is there no chance of him getting a fair trial? Are you accusing Federal judges of being corrupt puppets of the Obama administration or something?
  - pavs 13y ago
    Not fair in the sense that the current law exists to not protect whistleblowers like snowden. The law is by default against him and there is no legal way to expose the government to the extend snowden did. As to Federal judge's my understanding is that (might be wrong) most of these appointments are political in nature. And at least in case of supreme court the judges tends to align with their ideological bias and their interpretation of laws often wildly differs. Don't quote me on it though, just my understanding.
    - twoodfin 13y ago
      There were well-defined legal channels available to Snowden to communicate any concerns he had about the existing programs. By all accounts, he did not take advantage of any of them.
      - danenania 13y ago
        That is ridiculously naive.
      - pavs 13y ago
        Feel free to show examples of said "well-define legal channels" which Snowden could have used to show the depth of NSA's activity as he did, where the discussion is open for public debate. Also this has been going on for so long, why didn't anyone else from NSA use said well-defined legal channel to expose NSA activity or at-least put them up for scrutiny. I can think of 3 reasons: 1) There is no well-defined legal channels to expose NSA illegal activity, to the extend Snowden did. 2) NSA only hires people who are morally corrupt. 3) NSA employees are genuinely concerned about their safety and well-being if they want to expose NSA.
      - hhenn 13y ago
        Did you see the interview that USA Today conducted with NSA whistleblowers Thomas Drake and William Binney when Snowden's leaks were first published? They specifically addressed the myth that there are effective mechanisms in place to report and rectify misconduct. There are none, and these very intelligent, very principled men agreed that Snowden took the correct course of action in exposing all of this. As dissenters within the agency, they have a more accurate idea about how all of this works in practice than nearly anyone else.

bluecalm 13y ago

All this despite overwhelming support from young educated citizens in your country.

pavs 13y ago
I am not a US citizen, nor do I live there. However I did live there for about 12 years. I don't think there is a lot of support in favor of Snowden in USA, don't be confused by internet activism. The reality is most people is US doesn't care about snowden or the implications of his revelations. In the current US, anti-government activism is a foreign concept. You won't find a lack of people complaining about the government, but you won't find them on the street and make some noise untill there is some real change. Even the occupy movement was largely a farce and it wasn't really against the government.
- smileysteve 13y ago
  I'm finding NSA jokes are pretty common place now, between my dentist's office, my early baby boomer parents.
- deveac 13y ago
  >I don't think there is a lot of support in favor of Snowden in USA, don't be confused by internet activism. This is spot on. Most people here don't even know his name. To the ones that do, he is "that guy that leaked all those secrets." It pains me to say it, but it's true. The odd thing is that with the recent House vote that almost successfully de-funded the NSA with regards to the meta-data collection program, it seems that a lot of our representatives were ahead of the population (or responding to the more activist elements of the population) on the issue. >Even the occupy movement was largely a farce and it wasn't really against the government. I was there that first day that it started. To be fair, the movement was largely about the relationship between the government and the private sector, not just the private sector.
mikeash 13y ago
Do you have evidence for that? I've not personally seen any polling, so maybe you're right, but my impression is that a lot of people of all ages strongly approve of government anti-terror efforts in general.

cadalac 13y ago

I'm really amazed at how many people complain about Putin. Would you all prefer to live in the Russia of 50 years ago?

pavs 13y ago
The comparison was not between putin's Russia and Russia 50 years ago. It was between Russia and USA. Despite everything that is fucked up and wrong with US Government, I would hope (perhaps naively), its still better than Russia in terms of human rights at least?
- jacquesm 13y ago
  > I would hope (perhaps naively), its still better than Russia in terms of human rights at least? That depends on a lot of factors: - are you homosexual - ethnically caucasian - A subscriber to Islam - have a name that matches the name of someone on a no-fly list - an 'enemy combatant' (ages 13 and up) - an activist of sorts Or anyone of a hundred other arbitrary criteria. Those could make the difference between a safe & secure life 'just' being harassed periodically by people in uniform or spending time in Gitmo or Siberia.
  - pavs 13y ago
    I agree with you and I am saying this from personal experience.
  - geoka9 13y ago
    > ethnically caucasian Actually, that matters in Russia a lot, too. Although, their meaning of the word is different (Russian Caucasians are people originated from around the Caucasian Mountains; that's where all the guerilla fighting is currently going on).
crdoconnor 13y ago
A not insignificant proportion of Russians do. You were guaranteed a job, a place to live and an education.

alan_cx 13y ago

This again? Again, name the country which is acceptable, possible to travel too, and out of US reach. Snowden has to take whatever he can get.

pavs 13y ago
You misread me. I am not saying this is a bad thing, nor am I holding snowden against some moral compass for doing it. I support it 100%.

1gor 13y ago

Has it ever occurred to anyone, that Putin's Russia today is a conservative's "paradise"? I mean, if you do not agree with everything that the 'progressive left' stand for, you may feel quite good in Russia. Putin's government is supporting the church, and promoting traditional family values. They have instituted significant money benefits for families with children, and as a result the much talked about decline in Russia's population has been stopped in 2013. For the first time in modern Russian history there are more babies born in Russia than people die of old age. http://www.amren.com/news/2013/06/russias-population-decline-said-to-have-stopped/ http://www.amren.com/news/2013/06/russias-population-decline... The laws prohibiting "gay propaganda" should be viewed in the context of these policies. Obviously, being gay as such is not illegal in Russia. There are gay bars in any large Russian city, and quite a few of celebrities have admitted to be gay. However, they have made it illegal to promote homosexuality publicly. Then, there are economic policies of Putin that would make Reagan jealous. Russian government has adopted a flat 13% tax rate on all incomes in 2001. Not only this has made Russia one of the lowest tax jurisdictions in the world. Most importantly, the flat rate has removed thousands of 'tax exceptions' that is the source of economic inefficiencies and outright corruption in most of 'developed' countries. Here is a noted US conservative lamenting that Putin has achieved something he had worked on most of his life. "We won the Cold War, but Russia gets a flat tax while America is stuck with a Byzantine tax system based on class-warfare ideology." http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2003/03/russias-flat-tax-miracle http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2003/03/russias-.... Finally, the 'freedom of press opression' and 'political persecution of opponents' thesis is in many ways overblown. Most popular Russian internet media outlets are openly anti-Putin (lenta.ru, slon.ru etc. etc.). The most listened to news/talk-show radio station (Echo Moskvy) is strongly anti-Putin, and a very popular cable TV channel (Dozhd) is also anti-Putin and anti-establishment. And the trial of the poster-child of anti-Putin opposition Mr Khodorkovsky (who was imprisoned years ago on fraud and tax-evasion charges) has just been recognised as a 'non-political' by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) (read: Khodorkovsky was indeed a crook, and his sentencing was not influenced by his anti-Putin stance). http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-european-court-khodorkovsky/25056475.html http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-european-court-khodorkov... Putin's government is also following Western conservative script with regard to intellectual property. Actually, today the have effected a broad-reaching anti-piracy law that would outlaw any internet site that publishes links to illegal movie download or torrent-trackers. To Putin's credit, the downloaders of illegal content themselves will not be prosecuted. So, parents of teenagers need not worry about gigantic fines etc. Obviously, Putin is no friend to US conservatives, primarily because Putin is a nationalist and conducts an independent foreign policy. What is good for Russia need not be good for the US. And vice versa. But Putin may be good for those Russians that hold traditional conservative values. Hell, such people may feel Russia is the last bastion of true conservatism left in the world, while not being exactly a Pinochet-like fascist place.

znowi 13y ago

I think what brought us to this point is our persistent belief into the Cold War era roles in the world. US the good guys. Ruskies - a menace to humanity. When the US invaded Iraq, everyone was upset, but in the end people shrugged it off. After all, the US is the good guys. They can't do no harm. Now after a decade of American led wars, invasions, drones... and now the mass surveillance program, we slowly start to realize that maybe things are not as good as they seem. Perhaps, it's time to reassess the past established roles and look at the world afresh.