4 ms·

FWIW Obama's cancellation of the summit is getting rave reviews from basically every major paper I've looked at. Conservative-leaning ones think Obama should go

by mpyne 13y ago

FWIW Obama's cancellation of the summit is getting rave reviews from basically every major paper I've looked at. Conservative-leaning ones think Obama should go farther, liberal-leaning ones seem to acknowledge that Obama has gotten nothing from trying and it's time to quit proving Einsteinian insanity correct. All of them note that there was way more going into this decision than Snowden; his was the proverbial straw on the camel's back.

tripzilch 13y ago
Except that, as the article indicates, this particular straw does not in fact carry any weight, apart from Russia's unwillingness to break their own and international laws for the sole purpose of pleasing the US.
- aet 13y ago
  I guess Russia doesn't feel like they are breaking the law when they are beating and murdering journalists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_R...
  - tripzilch 13y ago
    Yes, Russia isn't particularly well-behaved when it comes to human rights, okay, I don't think many people disagree. But please explain how, them breaking laws in self-serving, corrupted or even arbitrary circumstances, is relevant to their unwillingness to break it again just to please the US? (there's also some very interesting implications if the US would bring up the argument you sketch)
    - aet 13y ago
      I guess my point is that breaking the law isn't a huge deal there. Russia is characterized by "weak rule of law and the high corruption levels." [1],[2] Putin stole some guys super bowl ring in broad day light. [3] I just don't think their would be a lot of outrage from Russian citizens if Snowden were to be extradited. They have other stuff to worry about. I think "rule of law" is not the constraint here. Not say the Falk is wrong. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-28/russia-s-corruption-hampers-growth-rating-moody-s-says.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-28/russia-s-corruption... [2] http://www.cnbc.com/id/100805382 http://www.cnbc.com/id/100805382 [3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-21/putin-makes-super-bowl-ring-replacement-for-patriots-owner-kraft.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-21/putin-makes-super-b...
alan_cx 13y ago
Sounds all a bit "USA, USA, USA", rather than any sort of intelligent logic. I think the article this thread is based on pretty much explains that. Any US folk considered how hard it is for the rest of the planet to reconcile US political and international posturing with normal international relations and the idea of the rule of law?
- pekk 13y ago
  Rule of which law? I don't understand how you determined that the appropriate jurisdiction to settle the facts of the Snowden case lies outside the US. International law is founded on multilateral agreements, with each country deciding its relations to others.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > idea of the rule of law? The idea that you think Russia's actions have to do only with the rule of law, but that the U.S.'s actions have nothing to do with the rule of law, is kind of surprising in my view. Russia could have legally opted to decline the asylum request without extraditing Snowden. I.e. "We won't arrest him but he has no permission to leave the transit zone. Good luck convincing him to fly home". In the same vein, even if you agree that all of Snowden's disclosures are in the public interest he still broke the law, and knew he broke it. If I were to take it upon myself to have shot Ariel Castro, for instance, I would likely still be charged with murder or manslaughter, even if I had known he was kidnapping women. But let's say that Snowden should be completely pardoned for leaking PRISM. The U.S. government would still have grounds to charge him for leaking details about hacking in China, which certainly did not benefit the American public. And that, at this point, is all we're talking about. Charges to be sorted out, and if some of those stick, sentences to be determined by factoring in mitigating circumstances. That is hardly evidence of a government rampaging through the international scene, as that is all quite standard material for extradition negotiations. Things like grounding Bolivia's jet are examples of roughshodding! But not this here. But that's the thing. This isn't strictly about rule of law. This is about Putin using the club of anti-Americanism to improve his stature at home. If Putin really cared about "human rights" then why is Pussy Riot still in prison? Why is it illegal to mention the idea of homosexuality to those poor impressionable Russian youths? It's not about human rights. It's about politics, just as much as Republicans used to beat the drum of the "welfare queen" to advance their own position. Accordingly, American papers are not very happy to see America used as a convenient punching bag to advance Russian interests, even where they support Snowden's overall point about surveillance, because they realize that the world is not binary.
nikster 13y ago
"FWIW Obama's cancellation of the summit is getting rave reviews from basically every major paper I've looked at" The NSA is out of control, and calling the shots. The government is run by a cozy coalition of secret services and big business. Secret courts rubber-stamp away the constitution. But that's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that the media - and by that I mean ALL media - is more or less a propaganda channel for the government and the powers behind it. That means Americans are not adequately informed. Rather, they're bombarded with "talking points" that very effectively tell them what to think. The absence of an independent news media is the biggest crisis. We have FOX news and FOX News in green; we have the WJS and the WSJ in green (the NYT). The exact same message comes in different flavors - do you want Vanilla, or Chocolate, want a right-wing view or a left-wing view, your choice! Oh it comes in libertarian, too. Stewart and Colbert serve as emotional outlet for the dissatisfied without changing anything or straying too far from the course. As much as I love watching Colbert he's basically the government-approved court jester. If you want to know whether the USA has independent news media, ask yourself this: Which US newspaper or TV channel would print Snowden's leaks in the way the guardian in the UK does? Answer: None. They all protect the government because they're owned by the same business interest that's also running the government.

by mpyne 13y ago

tripzilch 13y ago

Except that, as the article indicates, this particular straw does not in fact carry any weight, apart from Russia's unwillingness to break their own and international laws for the sole purpose of pleasing the US.

aet 13y ago
I guess Russia doesn't feel like they are breaking the law when they are beating and murdering journalists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_R...
- tripzilch 13y ago
  Yes, Russia isn't particularly well-behaved when it comes to human rights, okay, I don't think many people disagree. But please explain how, them breaking laws in self-serving, corrupted or even arbitrary circumstances, is relevant to their unwillingness to break it again just to please the US? (there's also some very interesting implications if the US would bring up the argument you sketch)
  - aet 13y ago
    I guess my point is that breaking the law isn't a huge deal there. Russia is characterized by "weak rule of law and the high corruption levels." [1],[2] Putin stole some guys super bowl ring in broad day light. [3] I just don't think their would be a lot of outrage from Russian citizens if Snowden were to be extradited. They have other stuff to worry about. I think "rule of law" is not the constraint here. Not say the Falk is wrong. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-28/russia-s-corruption-hampers-growth-rating-moody-s-says.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-28/russia-s-corruption... [2] http://www.cnbc.com/id/100805382 http://www.cnbc.com/id/100805382 [3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-21/putin-makes-super-bowl-ring-replacement-for-patriots-owner-kraft.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-21/putin-makes-super-b...

alan_cx 13y ago

Sounds all a bit "USA, USA, USA", rather than any sort of intelligent logic. I think the article this thread is based on pretty much explains that. Any US folk considered how hard it is for the rest of the planet to reconcile US political and international posturing with normal international relations and the idea of the rule of law?

pekk 13y ago
Rule of which law? I don't understand how you determined that the appropriate jurisdiction to settle the facts of the Snowden case lies outside the US. International law is founded on multilateral agreements, with each country deciding its relations to others.
mpyne 13y ago
> idea of the rule of law? The idea that you think Russia's actions have to do only with the rule of law, but that the U.S.'s actions have nothing to do with the rule of law, is kind of surprising in my view. Russia could have legally opted to decline the asylum request without extraditing Snowden. I.e. "We won't arrest him but he has no permission to leave the transit zone. Good luck convincing him to fly home". In the same vein, even if you agree that all of Snowden's disclosures are in the public interest he still broke the law, and knew he broke it. If I were to take it upon myself to have shot Ariel Castro, for instance, I would likely still be charged with murder or manslaughter, even if I had known he was kidnapping women. But let's say that Snowden should be completely pardoned for leaking PRISM. The U.S. government would still have grounds to charge him for leaking details about hacking in China, which certainly did not benefit the American public. And that, at this point, is all we're talking about. Charges to be sorted out, and if some of those stick, sentences to be determined by factoring in mitigating circumstances. That is hardly evidence of a government rampaging through the international scene, as that is all quite standard material for extradition negotiations. Things like grounding Bolivia's jet are examples of roughshodding! But not this here. But that's the thing. This isn't strictly about rule of law. This is about Putin using the club of anti-Americanism to improve his stature at home. If Putin really cared about "human rights" then why is Pussy Riot still in prison? Why is it illegal to mention the idea of homosexuality to those poor impressionable Russian youths? It's not about human rights. It's about politics, just as much as Republicans used to beat the drum of the "welfare queen" to advance their own position. Accordingly, American papers are not very happy to see America used as a convenient punching bag to advance Russian interests, even where they support Snowden's overall point about surveillance, because they realize that the world is not binary.

nikster 13y ago

"FWIW Obama's cancellation of the summit is getting rave reviews from basically every major paper I've looked at" The NSA is out of control, and calling the shots. The government is run by a cozy coalition of secret services and big business. Secret courts rubber-stamp away the constitution. But that's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that the media - and by that I mean ALL media - is more or less a propaganda channel for the government and the powers behind it. That means Americans are not adequately informed. Rather, they're bombarded with "talking points" that very effectively tell them what to think. The absence of an independent news media is the biggest crisis. We have FOX news and FOX News in green; we have the WJS and the WSJ in green (the NYT). The exact same message comes in different flavors - do you want Vanilla, or Chocolate, want a right-wing view or a left-wing view, your choice! Oh it comes in libertarian, too. Stewart and Colbert serve as emotional outlet for the dissatisfied without changing anything or straying too far from the course. As much as I love watching Colbert he's basically the government-approved court jester. If you want to know whether the USA has independent news media, ask yourself this: Which US newspaper or TV channel would print Snowden's leaks in the way the guardian in the UK does? Answer: None. They all protect the government because they're owned by the same business interest that's also running the government.