As a European, I'm utterly and totally ashamed that nobody here actually offered him asylum. None.
This lack of action speaks so very clearly that whatever nasty the US is doing now, entire Europe is in on it already. Sans the actual European people under total surveillance ofcourse.
It seriously makes you wonder what's going on behind closed doors in European governments and EU offices. It can't be good, and it needs to be rooted out pronto.
I was specially ashamed to hear that my country had blocked Bolivia's President plane. An action that was absolutely uncalled for and for which we had no explanation from our government.
I'm with you. But then, the EU has been under the US boot for a long time now. And as Snowden's revelations show they knew about PRISM and at least some participated.
Real shame though that even a social oriented society like Europe can't do a thing about it.
@PanickedOmlette: You're hellbanned; don't ask me why, I just read HN with the option to see dead users.
Regarding your post, you're wrong about the MEP salaries:
Article 10 of the new Statute sets the amount of the MEPs salary as 38,5 % of the basic salary of a judge at the Court of Justice of the European Communities, thus currently €7,665 before tax.
Yes, the US can threaten every EU nation individually, with the help of the remaining EU nations. The punishment is isolation and it's called playing nations off against each other. It's a nice game theory thingy.
As a fellow EU citizen I completely agree, but am not particularly surprised. And don't feel that ashamed because as citizens we're only tangentially responsible for the crimes of our governments.
Sorry but this simply ain't true. Some European government bodies aren't even elected democratically and even as for those which are you can hardly blame the people for the crimes committed by their governments because most of those are committed behind closed doors.
Yes, the majority of the electorate might be gullible or even downright stupid but they're not responsible for the crimes committed in the name of people. Unfortunately, those who really are responsible won't be tried in court because the rule of law doesn't apply to them.
The citizen is the Principal who mandates the Agent (the government) to do something for him.
Now, if the Agent fucks up (and I'm sure we all agree that this has been the case worldwide for a very long time now), it becomes the responsibility of the Principal to replace the Agent with the right one. And this applies not just to single politicians but to entire political structures.
A slightly longer explanation: by being complacent you (and I) accept responsibility for a fractional share in what is being done in our name. We can't directly change anything about it but every time we vote we have the responsibility to try to improve things as much as possible. If we collectively fail at doing that then we all (not just those that voted for the status quo) are implicated.
Choosing to avoid revolution (if you think that is the only option, which I disagree with, for instance, you could start a political party, you could protest, you could strike, you could emigrate and so on) is the same as taking responsibility.
Simply abdicating responsibility while still taking part without any push-back against perceived injustice makes you an accomplice, like it or not.
I tried protesting too. It didn't seem to make any difference.
I can't see how a new political party would help, there are already some that align with my views (and for whom I voted) but they weren't elected. Starting another one would surely just split their vote further.
Striking would only hurt my employer, who seem to have very little to do with it. It's pretty impractical given that no union exists in my industry (and yes, I have tried to form one; no-one seemed interested).
Where could I emigrate that doesn't act the same way?
I've tried to push back, really I have. I can't see how to change things. It can't be my responsibility when I have no control over it.
My patriotism took a giant hit with USAPATRIOT. Its been in an abject freefall since Citizens United.
I used to venomously ridicule people who suggested 9/11 was a false flag event. As time has gone on, I find it more and more likely that they let it happen to justify perpetual war and the fullscale rollout of the Panopticon.
Pissing the US off would probably be enough reason enough for many European countries to not offer asylum anyway. Not that that says anything about whether there are other reasons as well.
Europe has not been an independent entity since the end of WW2 and the beginning of the cold war.
Unless you think that is normal for a country to have permanent military bases of a foreign power in its own territory.
I'm not judging or complaining, it's just the way it is. At some point in history, decisions were made about Europe's own place in the world that put it under US sphere of influence, and these decisions have important consequences to this day.
It can be argued that European countries traded part of their own sovereignity in exchange for security, protection and economic progress.
Europe is merely a free trade agreement between various independent country, and a common currency between a subset of these countries.
> Unless you think that is normal for a country to have permanent military bases of a foreign power in its own territory.
These bases are negociated not through the European Union, but through NATO agreements (AFAIK), and on a bilateral basis.
For example, there are no American bases in France since the 60's.
> I'm not judging or complaining, it's just the way it is. At some point in history, decisions were made about Europe's own place in the world that put it under US sphere of influence, and these decisions have important consequences to this day.
Western European countries, maybe, but please remember that Eastern Europe has been under Russian influence since the cold war (and many of them still are).
> It can be argued that European countries traded part of their own sovereignity in exchange for security, protection and economic progress.
Some of them traded a bit of their military sovereignty (the first and foremost being Germany), but as far as I know most of these countries are politically sovereign.
OK, we can widely adopt encryption and use alternets whenever possible, and attempt to affect technological activism. That is feasible and should be done as swiftly and as widely as possible. Evangelize these measures to the less technically inclined people in your life.
But as far as "removing" US military and intelligence presence from Europe - that will literally never happen, as all of Europe is entirely complicit in our presence and information gathering activities.
As an European resident, I definitely agree to your assessment. By intuition, I'd say an important role is played by the fact that some European countries, members of EU even, are also NATO members, but I find it somewhat difficult to structure my arguments right now.
Your list 2-5 is accurate, but the President's plane incident is bunk. Apparently Morales didn't have any fuel so he put on a little show play to get some attention. He didn't even take off from the same airport as snowden. While the US intelligence service is incompetent, I don't think they are that stupid.
6. The hosting of SWIFT in Belgium, and SIX Interbank Clearing in Switzerland, who are both pinnacles of the inefficient, rent-seeking, environmentally and socially irresponsible, protectionist financial establishment and its surveillance abuses. The former's main guilt is in centralizing data on all global interbank transfers and passing it off to allied governments (particularly the US, even after rage against matters surfaced in the EU parliament, a 'SWIFT2' was designed, and new regulation nominally put in place... in response, the very structure of the EU conveniently changed - creating the Directorate of Home Affairs (sound like "Homeland Security" to anyone else?), which rubber-stamped their surveillance requests, and actively sidelined the European Data Protect Supervisor, who were tasked with protecting citizens against such abuses). [Note: The above was volunteered on official letterheard in response to FOIA, straight from the agency in question]. Longtime aspiring to be perceived as politically non-partisan (self-described as an "international cooperative"), they shred any pretensions recently to ban Iran outright from the entire network in a move even the incoming director shockingly described as "unprecedented" (reading between the lines, I believe he perhaps personally honestly didn't support it and his hand was forced). The second operates as a deniable financial NGO on the part of the global financial establishment for petty protectionism with minimal transparency.
7. The illegal rendition of The Pirate Bay's anakata from Cambodia to Swedish solitary confinement (himself a Swedish citizen) - without charge or process - for a term said to constitute torture even under UN definition.
I'm just gonna post a previous comment I made on another story regarding this:
----------------------
I wonder why in the Venezuelan government's eyes it's OK for them to constantly monitor and record every call, email,etc made by their political opponents.
I wonder what would happen to an officer of the SEBIN (venezuelan inteligence agency)if they came out with details about how they record every political opponent movement. I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up being just another statistic in the homicide rates.
They even had a late night TV show (La Hojilla) where a guy would play back cell phone recordings and emails of the opposition politicians.Live. On TV. He had carte blanche to insult,record anyone he wanted live on TV. Chavez would often call in to the show to congratulate him.
They even had a Congress session where they played recordings of the cell phone calls of the most prominent opposition members and their family. And that was live on TV again!
Hipocrysy at it's best.
---------
These governments are not "fighting for freedom" or for the privacy rights of the people of the world.
Many of these governments would sell their mothers to have a PRISM-like system. Venezuela included.
EDIT: when I talk about hipocrisy, I'm talking about the venezuelan govt, not Snowden.
These governments are not "fighting for freedom" or for the privacy rights of the people of the world.
Given his published views on surveillance I'm sure Snowden would agree. I highly doubt Venezuela is his first choice for asylum, or anywhere close to it. He doesn't have a lot of choice at this point if he wants to stay out of the reach of the CIA. I doubt he'll stay there long, even if he wants to, but it might be a useful step on the way to another country.
I wouldn't be surprised if he eventually volunteers to come back to the US for trial, but he might be waiting until there have been enough disclosures of government wrongdoing, and enough public outrage, that the Obama administration wouldn't dare trying to sequester him and prevent an open trial.
It's a good read, and covers in detail the kind of abuse of surveillance they have in Venezuela - what's interesting about this is that it cuts both ways. While you might say it shows Snowden to be hypocritical (though I'd argue he has no good choices here), it is also a perfect illustration of the dangers of pervasive surveillance, and the way it undermines our everyday democracy. It would be so easy to use surveillance to investigate and harass political opponents, and in the US or UK we wouldn't even know it is happening, we'd just read about the embarrassment of a politician over an affair or similar peccadillo, without knowing how the press came to be informed.
Thanks for that article it's a very interesting read, and I wasn't aware of that case.
There are many, many cases like this. And they don't even try to hide it or pass it as leaks. Even recently there was a recording presented by the Information Minister himself, which was taken in somebody's home. This means they had to break in to the house and place bugs.
When I say hypocrisy ( thanks for the correction) I mean the Venezuelan government, not Snowden. I support what he did and right now he cannot be picky as to where he goes to be safe.
That's the reason why I put "fighting for freedom" in quotes. The Venezuelan govt keeps making statements saying that it's our duty to protect Snowden for the freedom of the world. It's just that in their eyes, those that oppose them don't have right to that freedom.
>>>>>and enough public outrage that the Obama administration wouldn't dare trying to sequester him and prevent an open trial.
Agreed. This is probably true, considering his best chance for leniency is probably under the current administration. If a conservative where to take the White House, things could get very interesting. His best bet is to move now, while the Democrats are still mostly in charge.
I think that's irrelevant. Snowden was interested in revealing that democracies that purport to have a certain set of values actually have a different set of values, and a set of secret non-accountable courts and agencies which can do whatever they like. He's done that now, and now he needs refuge.
Yes it would be nice if he had asylum in a country which was more aligned with his beliefs, but guess what - none of those countries turned out to exist, since none of them offered asylum.
So what's he meant to do so that he doesn't appear hypocritical?
So remember: as long as you don't try to have a certain set of values, these things aren't actually bad. Nixon's mistake wasn't partisan spying, it was only not to say that partisan spying is OK.
Actually, I'm not referring to Snowden as hypocritical. I'm talking about the Venezuelan government. They keep talking about how the US government violates everyone's rights , when they do the same in Venezuela.
I do not judge Snowden at all, he did the right thing and now he needs to find a safe refuge.
This is why an adversarial world political situation is beneficial for normal citizens. Governments only care about this stuff when they can make others look bad. Venezuela is currently adversarial towards the USA on most fronts because they go against the grain of American neo-liberal imperialism.
I don't really care. But why not play them against each other if it means we as citizens get to hear more about the terrible things our countries are doing. Venezuelans certainly get plenty of American propaganda. Let the Americans hear the Venezuelan propaganda. It's all BS in the end but it leads to more transparency in much the same way adversarial governments are designed to work.
Let's see how long it lasts. Venezuela needs the US to survive. Our economy is in very bad shape right now, constant shortages of basics (certain foods, toilet paper,etc.) and we import pretty much everything we consume. A lot of it comes from the US.
At this point, Snowden is a pawn in an international strategy game. None of these countries are offering Snowden asylum because they believe in his cause. They are offering him asylum because it is something that they can use against the United States (for unrelated contentions) and use as a political trophy within their own countries.
As such, Snowden has to worry about many scenarios. Will his "host" country use him to extract concessions out of the United States in exchange for his extradition? When the regime changes in the country he ends up in, will he wear out his welcome? Can the country he ends up in even protect him from extraordinary rendition? Even if the country fully intends on assisting Snowden, would it be able to weather whatever sanctions were levied on it by the United States in the form of trade restrictions? Ecuador didn't seem to think so.
Then there is the question of whether he can even get to the country he is going to. France and Spain (indirectly) forced down the jet of the president of Bolivia on the rumor that Snowden was on the plane. There is no reason to expect that they and other European countries won't do so again. Routes from Russia to Cuba (assuming he has to use Havana as a stop) also typically fly over the United States. The United States is free to, if not directly force the plane down in the United States, not grant it permission to fly in U.S. airspace, effectively forcing it to land in a U.S. friendly country (Canada). And Cuba might simply hand him over to improve U.S. relations. My understanding is that small private jets simply do not have the range to go directly from Moscow to any of the countries listed (perhaps Venezuela would be just within reach).
At this point, though, I don't really see what option Snowden has but to take Venezuela's asylum offer and hope for the best. He is on a small boat on the ocean in a raging storm. His fate is not in his own hands.
Well, as an IT guy at the world's largest surveillance agency Snowden is also an intelligence asset.
Put another way, our failure of due process has led to a severe security breach. What made him flee was not convictions—he fled because Bradley Manning is in solitary.
Daniel Ellsberg, the Pentagon Papers leaker, argued well that Snowden made the right call to flee.[0]
Forcing down his plane, or any number of molestations, would only exacerbate this baffling strategy of abusing people to the extreme.
If the government didn't do that bullshit, like Ellsberg said, he'd come home and have his day in court.
Let's play this out a different way (Manning not in solitary). He's in a military prison, with military personnel. These are people who view what he did as ratting out his brothers in combat. He worked in an air-conditioned office, mind you, and hid behind the anonymity of the internet. He wouldn't last a week if he weren't in solitary. In that way, Manning's biggest problem isn't the government, it's the people he worked alongside.
Snowden is running away from having to take responsibility for his actions. It's not complicated. He knows full-well the penalties of revealing classified information, and acknowledged on multiple documents (going into his job) that he knew the procedures if he leaked any information. He leaked information. He doesn't want to go through that process, so he finds it easier to run to someone else in hopes that he won't face punishment.
>He knows full-well the penalties of revealing classified information
This makes about as much sense as the same argument from Airplane!: "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting in to. I say, let 'em crash!"
It's not complicated. If a system is corrupt, any punishments that system may mete out for bringing that corruption to light are also corrupt, by default, and should rationally be opposed.
Keep in mind, we have the Manning example to look at. "Facing punishment" in this case equates to "being tortured".
I don't think you're seriously suggesting that he should just turn himself in to be tortured - that gains everyone nothing. So what is your angle?
I wasn't making an argument as to whether he was right or wrong to do it, that's an argument for another thread.
Sure there seem to be extenuating circumstances, but ultimately he did knowingly break a law. Regardless of whether you think it's just or unjust, a law is a law. Devout Christians seem to think that paying taxes that ultimately support abortion is immoral. If they don't pay their taxes, they're guilty of tax evasion regardless of how moral they feel it is. This is probably a bad example, but I'm just trying to illustrate a point here.
Anyways, I was trying to say that the government isn't simply torturing Manning, there's a good reason for keeping him isolated. In a sense, he knew what he was doing, releasing troves of information that he had no legal right to release. He's going through the painful legal stuff now, but in a lot of ways I think he's better off isolated, rather than murdered by fellow inmates.
Even heard of July Nullification? Please read about it. Sometimes groups of citizens decide that a law should not be followed, and we are empowered to do that. The government is of the people, by the people and for the people.
I wish people could stop conflating normative and descriptive arguments on HN, and I wish the textarea where HN comments were entered included a summary of the Fundamental Attribution Error fallacy. This comment makes both mistakes.
The descriptive argument in this case is irrelevant. Okay, he broke the law. Nobody here disputes that.
So what?
The entire point I was trying to make was that I don't think the average HN reader, whatever their level of dedication to rule of law (some more, some less), wants to see a guy tortured because he broke a law, less so when the law is being abused by a corrupt system in furtherance of its corruption.
Not making this argument basically means that you're outsourcing your moral compass to a third party, a third party who often makes tenuous and outright backwards connections between moral principles and laws.
All judgements aside, the normative argument is the only thing there's any kind of discussion or disagreement on. Making the descriptive one apropos of nothing carries the connotation that you value the rule of law above all else.
I voted you up for whatever that's worth, but I wish you'd expand on what you mean. Oftentimes it seems you and I misunderstand each other.
I'm just sensitive to the notion that commenters are frequently attacked for their supposed motivations, usually read from tea leaves, by other commenters.
It's not that being misunderstood is a great injustice, but rather that it makes it very difficult to make descriptive points on HN, since the forum is unnecessarily tilted towards normative judgements that is is frankly not well qualified to make.
Moreover, descriptive comments often include "hard facts" data about the way things work, and are the product of some amount of research and analysis, which is valuable no matter what the commenter might believe. Normative comments very rarely have that value.
Put simply: a comment describing the way things work isn't a strong indicator that the author of the comment wants things to work that way.
A comment describing the way things work when known by all parties is commonly known as a non-constructive waste of everyone's time.
Show of hands. Who here legitimately thinks that Manning and Snowden didn't break the law as written?
With that in mind, I can only assume that someone posting something like this (especially comments like "the law is the law" - a tautology in any other context) has a different objective in mind, since most posters here don't post obvious facts to waste everyone's time.
Have you, personally, ever heard someone use the words "the law is the law" to have any other meaning other than the veneration of rule of law above some other concern? I have not.
Did you even read Ellsberg's article? Further, are you aware of the conditions Manning was held under? (Forced to sleep naked, not allowed to exercise, in solitary for such extended periods that human rights organizations declared it torture, etc.) Manning was held for years without trial.
> Manning was held from July 2010 in the Marine Corps Brig, Quantico, Virginia, under Prevention of Injury status, which entailed de facto solitary confinement and other restrictions that caused international concern. In April 2011 he was transferred to Fort Leavenworth, where he could interact with other detainees.[3] He pleaded guilty in February 2013 to 10 of the 22 charges, which could carry a sentence of up to 20 years.[4] The trial on the remaining charges, including aiding the enemy, began on June 3, 2013.[5]
So, from indictment to trial was about 3 years, no?
* The trial took place under UCMJ rules, which are different from civilian rules
* Manning's supposed mental health issues delayed his arraignment while it was determined whether he was fit to stand trial.
We also don't know (do we? sources welcome) whether Manning's defense wanted to hasten the trial. Trial delays often work to the advantage of defendants.
What I think we do at this point know is that Manning's treatment from July 2010 through April 2011, as a maximum security POI inmate at Quantico, was inhumane. It's worth mentioning that similar inhumanity is inflicted on civilian criminal inmates; it doesn't make the practice any more morally acceptable, but suggests that Manning's experience wasn't (unfortunately) unprecedented.
Regardless, my original comment meant only to speak to the issue of whether Manning was "held without trial". I don't think he was.
Additionally it takes much longer to prepare a case (or defense) when dealing with so much classified information. You can't even as much as use a normal printer anymore. All of the hardware, software, networks, people, etc. have to be specially screened and cleared to handle classified information.
Replace US in this situation with China, and 4th amendment violations with human rights violations. How many people would argue: "Well, that Chinese guy knew the consequences of letting the world know about Chinese human rights violations, he broke the law, lets send him home to be executed."
To be honest, I am outraged that more people do not write, email, or reach out to the White House and demand that this guy is pardoned or at least guaranteed a fair trial.
No one is saying that Snowden should go home to be executed, which is the big difference with your analogy. They're saying he should go home to stand that fair trial to which he's already guaranteed.
He's in a military prison, with military personnel. Why? His commander could have him confined anywhere[1]. If the country where civil enough that Snowden could get bail I would be all for him being here, but in this atmosphere he would barely get a show trial.
Alternatively, not everyone in the military is a self-obsessed psychopath intent on murdering Manning because he didn't hold to their ridiculous concept of honour.
I am a reservist, I have been mobilised at short notice and served overseas, and amazingly I would have no problem whatsoever not murdering Manning or someone like him, and indeed, were he in my custody, I would have a problem with and would even try to stop some wandering psychopath who did try to murder him. Crazy days.
would you stand up to your peers if they took immoral (and unconstitutional) actions? Keep in mind that (the officers anyway) take an oath to protect, preserve, and defend the constitution?
The constitution doesn't necessarily apply to members of the Military in it's entirety. They abide by the UCMJ or Uniform Code of Military Justice. Yes, all members are sworn to uphold and protect the US constitution and POTUS.
As to your personal question; I would stand against any unlawful actions taken against a detainee, and anything requiring unnecessary personal harm or danger. I don't like treating anyone inhumanely.
Snowden is running away from having to take responsibility for his actions.
Umm, "intelligently sidestepping a justice system known for its egregious disregard for due process in cases similar to his, as amply demonstrated by the Manning precedent" would be a better overall characterization of his actions.
You mean the very same justice system Snowden claims should have been involved in surveillance activities of NSA to keep them from risking tyranny? That justice system?
You make the supposition that the actions of not only the USG but also "the people he worked alongside" are legal/just/moral/right.
I think the flaw in your argument is that you're acquiescing to the supposed authority, legality and rightness of the USG and its military/intelligence agents.
Snowden is in absolutely no way running away "from having to take responsibility for his actions" -- he is running from a USG that has shown and proven they will torture and kill those who get in their way.
You think Manning is just "sitting in solitary" -- given his open homosexuality -- I am sure between waterboardings he is being forcefully sodomized and otherwise tortured.
You are under the delusion that the NSA/USG is "the good guys" -- they are agents of the CIA's psychopathy.
> You think Manning is just "sitting in solitary" -- given his open homosexuality -- I am sure between waterboardings he is being forcefully sodomized and otherwise tortured.
Do you really believe Manning is being waterboarded and sodomized? Do they just squeeze those sessions in between his trial appearances or something?
Is that all it takes, a lot of time served and then the guards get bored and sodomize you?
> What do you think they do in sites where people are renditioned to?
I have no clue. As best as I can tell waterboarding was finally taken off the menu around 2008 or so. But Manning wasn't 'renditioned' so I'm not sure what that has to do with my question anyways.
When the regime changes in the country he ends up in, will he wear out his welcome?
This is a reasonable question, but not sure the word 'regime' is warranted. If you're talking about Venezuela then that's a democratically elected government.
I didn't mean for the word to have a negative connotation. The word "regime" is a useful as it covers both the current administration and the system itself. So it would cover both a change in the elected leadership and, say, a new form of government installed by a coup or revolution.
I would not because I (and any reasonable person would) consider the odds of a change of the form of government itself in the United States to be so remote to not be worth mentioning. In the case of Venezuela, their constitution is only 13 years old, Nicaragua's is 26 years old, and Bolivia's is only 4 years old. The systems in these countries frequently change and are likely to do so again within Snowden's lifetime.
And Spain's constitution is not even 40, yet nobody called our government a regime - not even in the 80s. It carries a connotation you're probably not willing to admit.
the term "regime" connotes a "bad" government, "government" or "administration" connotes a "good" government. It is very Orwellian, but no mainstream paper would ever refer to the Obama regime.
OT: But I'm curious why the article has to define the countries who offered asylum as leftist:
> "...the leftist governments of Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua...."
This implies the asylum was extended because they are leftist as appose to other reasons, such as these countries felt rebuffed by US for forcing down the flight of the Bolivian president, or purely on humanitarian or other reasons.
By OT, do you mean on or off? I read your question as very much on topic, because the fact that they are leftist governments is going to be played out through the media to disparage and discredit Snowden through guilt by association tactics that focus entirely on the nature of the government(s) offering asylum. We've already seen this happening in the US media in response to the list of countries to whom Snowden has submitted asylum applications.
Guilty of being leftist? Is this a crime in the US? Does being known as a "leftist" cause you to be shunned or looked down upon? Does leftist mean the same as in Europe? (We generally call them socialists, but socialism is not a dirty word or concept in Europe, where as is associated with oppressive communist regimes of the cold war in the US.)
I don't think it helped that leftist organizations in the U.S. such as Weather Underground turned violent. An offshoot of WUO later murdered people to rob a Brinks truck to try to fund further violence.
Using violence to make your point has been a good way to get that point tainted in the minds of most of the U.S., especially after the Atlanta Olympic bombings, 9/11, etc.
Liberal and socialist have also started to take on a negative connotation, but not as bad as 'leftist'.
And of course it bears keeping in mind that many of those who oppose NSA surveilliance on principled grounds also oppose any type of leftist/socialist government by the same principles.
To me "leftist" has certain idealogical connotations, as in trying out a particular system of government that emphasizes strong and omni-present governmental control (like the USSR, for example).
In my opinion the countries listed are not leftist, they are simply very, very corrupt with very poor law and order and poor government accountability and democratic in name only.
I don't think they are "leftist"; they are just very corrupt and the majority of people are powerless to change it because criminal and military elements are opposing them.
a particular system of government that emphasizes strong and omni-present governmental control
That's just "authoritarian", which isn't really limited to a specific place on the left-right spectrum. You can have left-wing governments based on strong state control and security services (USSR, GDR, Cuba), as well as right-wing ones based on the same (Francoist Spain, Pinochet-era Chile, Iran, apartheid South Africa).
Your definition of 'left' and 'right' in politics is quite simply just wrong. Both left and right can descend into state control just as easily. Fascism, for example, is a far-right ideology.
I also don't know why you think Venezuela is less democratic then many other N Hemispheric countries. But having no comparison with which to judge I don't know how corrupt a country needs to be in order to register as 'very, very corrupt' on your radar.
That's quite a bait-and-switch of a news article. The headline claims something, and then the article body says that, actually, they have no idea if their headline is correct or not, and their only sources were a deleted tweet and another tweet making vague reference to an apparently nonexistent newspaper article.
Well, the deleted tweet was from someone who ought to know, it claimed to reference a report on a Russian 24 hour news channel, not in an article, but it's still suspicious that this isn't on their website. OTOH, Snowden accepting asylum in Venezuela, wouldn't be particularly surprising, since that's where he was originally headed.
If the Venezuelan government really wanted to be nasty, they could arrange for Snowden to be assassinated in a manner that implicates the US government.
Much better for the GoV to keep Snowden alive and "WikiLeak"-ing.
I think the damage these leaks do to the US is generally underestimated. Not just in terms of security, but also politically and economically. It's VERY likely that a great deal of damage will be done economically over the long term.
Frankly, I wouldn't even be surprised to see a lot of these Latin American nations begin capitalize on that economic damage over the long term.
This whole NSA Affair will prove to be bad business all the way around.
Maybe they could have a frigate on a "far northing training excerise". He could then fly by helicoper to the ship. Interdicting a home bound passenger jet is one thing (esp. as they need fuel). Interdicting frigate in international waters is a another ball game. But yeah, I'm probably far into the realm a fantasy here:
"Moscow - Barents Sea - Windward Islands - Caracas" interesting article in Spiegel Online today. They have a map of the potential route and other suggestions.
For example: He could travel as diplomatic baggage.
Sounds crazy, but there are at least two cases where this has been tried. Both cases were unsuccessful but if they were we probably wouldn't know about them.
In December 2002, a North Korean ship was boarded by Spanish special forces in coordination with the US off the Horn of Africa.[1] They believed it was carrying missiles or other arms. It was a shipment of Scud missiles on its way to Yemen, and they eventually let them pass.[2]
It is well within the capability of the US Navy to blockade or stop a Venezuelan warship, and it would probably be a bad strategy to show even token resistance when days away from anyone else being able to see what is happening.
The narrative could be something along the lines of —they were given an easy way to give him up, but they were crazy and shot at us first! I have no idea what warning shots are like from missile frigates and whether they are easy to interpret.
It might be easier to hope that a 11 or 12 hour flight avoiding unwelcoming airspaces would simply go mostly unnoticed. Foreign Policy also played with the idea a few days ago.[3]
My guess is that as long as he remains safe for a few years, popular opinion will eventually shift to his favor and he'll be pardoned, and eventually treated more like Ellsberg than Vanunu. However, since it is in the long term interests of Venezuela to repair relations with the US, it will require luck for Snowden to become popular enough in the US for a pardon before Venezuela decides that it has 'thought deeper' about what he did, and wants to make a friendly gesture toward its American partners.
Someone with some spare money should charter a private jet for him and then fly some extra hops to stay far away from countries that could cause trouble.
Is it absolutely certain he's even in Russia? Couldn't he have left Hong Kong on a freighter bound for South America weeks ago? It would explain why nobody has seen him since he disappeared in HK.
Google Translate gives me: "According to News 24, with reference to Maduro, Snowden accepted his offer of asylum. If so, it is found that the safest option"
This lack of action speaks so very clearly that whatever nasty the US is doing now, entire Europe is in on it already. Sans the actual European people under total surveillance ofcourse.
It seriously makes you wonder what's going on behind closed doors in European governments and EU offices. It can't be good, and it needs to be rooted out pronto.