There was a funny line in The Social Network that went:
`Like my brother and I are in skeleton costumes chasing the Karate Kid around a gym.`
That's kind of what America looks like. Snowden has all these mighty military secrets, but at the end of the day they just look like school bullies who want to smack him around. What Snowden did is without a doubt a crime, but one that seems like it was necessary, and should be easy to resolve. The longer this draws on the more America looks like a misguided bully, forcing weaker kids to pick on the nerd. It doesn't help that the mood seems to be to string him up as a traitor in war time.
Edit: 'easy to resolve' sounds flippant, but it's being turned into the biggest manhunt on a global stage since Bin Laden.
I agree with everything but the concept that what he did "is without a doubt a crime." In fact, many people, including lawyers and constitutional scholars, have debate on the subject. The reasons they might not be a crime include:
-Legal whistle blower protections
-precedent of committing lesser crimes to prevent larger crimes
-international case law around disobeying illegal orders
-the application of reasonableness in the 4th amendment
Snowden is committing a crime no more than Daniel Ellsburg releasing the Pentagon Papers was a crime, and Mark Felt (Deep Throat) was a criminal for exposing FBI and presidential misconduct.
Ooh, that's interesting thank you. My knowledge of constitutional application is Not Great, so it's interesting it'd fall within that. I think it's possibly still a crime but one with a certain level of legal affordability, but I'm sure much smarter people than me are working on that definition.
I'd have said the last one (FBI & President) wouldn't fall under treason exactly, as whilst they were whistleblower leakers they weren't of a certain level of international security relations.
They don't, but trials don't have to be drawn out, ridiculous processes like the Bradley Manning trial has become, they can be done with pretty straight forward behaviour from both sides.
I am from the US and hope someone out there tells us to go to hell. Until there is real resistance our leaders will continue to act like they own the earth.
Our (Irish) politicians have run away from lots of hard decisions recently but I really wish they'd have the balls (population, economy, armed forces) to tell the US government to fuck off occasionally.
The Irish probably could tell the states to "feck off" and have the backing of the US public. What with every american clinging on like spider monkeys to the last few remaining irish genes in their gene pool.
Serious question: just how do you figure the US can close that tax loophole (it's law, so not a scam)? Did you know that it only works when money is routed through the Netherlands? And from there to the Caribbean or elsewhere? You're stretching it, implying the US can sway lawmakers abroad.
The US can close the loophole at their end in a minute, by passing Cuba-style embargo laws. They won't do it today, because US corporations are prime benefactors of that scam, but it doesn't mean they won't ever do it.
In any case, there's absolutely no indication whatsoever that the Irish will risk jeopardizing their relationship with the Empire for little Ed Snowden; in fact, the opposite is likely true (they'd love to be the ones shipping a shackled Snowden to the NSA). It's probable that this intimation was issued to Ireland exactly because it's the country less likely to protest for being openly treated as vassal. For example, it's already quite doubtful that the stunt pulled on French and Spanish authorities for Morales's plane could ever be repeated, because public opinion in those countries is now incensed. Not everyone loves to be Air Strip One.
Ah the US missed a beat, the Irish politicians would happily have him detained in Shannon and escorted on to a Hercules, by men wearing blindfolds so as not to see any evil.
>> "if he travelled via Shannon as part of his efforts to get to Cuba and was arrested under the provisional arrest warrant pending an extradition process by the American authorities in the Irish courts, he could apply for asylum while being held in prison here."
Non extradition due to death penalty might work anywhere in Europe. It might not if US says it won't execute Snowden (if they lie, then no one will ever be extradited on that basis again, as that would be illegal from then on).
For the sake of background: people bring up the prospect of the death penalty for espionage often in these cases, but it's not something the US has actually invoked since WWII, even in very clear-cut situations where money changed hands or people died as a result.
I don't think the US have any interest in the death penalty for Snowden.
They'd much rather him rot without trial in Guantanamo for the rest of his life, as to serve a better lesson to anyone thinking of following his footsteps.
I still don't get why Russia is not just putting him on military transport to Cuba. They should have "some" experience flying that route without US interference. Nobody would mess around with a military transport and getting him out of the country would probably reflect on Russia better than just harboring him around at the transit zone.
> he's in an international transit lounge and therefore not actually in any country.
What would prevent other asylum seekers or refugees from doing the same? Leave a war torn hell hole and camp out at Stuttgart International, sleep on the benches and busk or beg to get a meal. The fact that this doesn't happens means there are other reasons and the transit lounge isn't a DMZ as you claim.
You must legally purchase a ticket that gets you to a destination you are legally allowed to enter. 99.9999% of airlines won't let you board a plane without that, because they foot the bill if you get sent back.
I've been in many international transit lounges "in" countries I wasn't legally permitted to enter (no visa).. but I had an onward ticket to a country I could enter, so I was allowed to do it.
> Russia are not harboring him because he's not in Russia, he's in an international transit lounge and therefore not actually in any country.
That's a widespread myth. Russia owns, and exercises control over, the transit area. If someone inside the transit area is wanted on a Russian arrest warrant (or whatever their equivalent is), Russian authorities will go in and get them.
All a transit area really is is a small section of a country that you are allowed to enter without a visa for that country, provided that you are simply passing through. There's nothing otherwise special about them.
It's a myth (I agree) that Russia is exploiting. Countries claim their "transit zones" aren't their soil when it suits them, and don't when it doesn't.
Russia are not harboring him because he's not in Russia
So what happens if you commit a major crime in that area? Who responds to a terrorist event there?
I don't know specific international laws, but I would guess that Russia has such an area for her own convenience (that if you are just passing through there's no need to bother with forcing you through Russian customs). But I would guess that Russia has every ability (and every legal right) to do whatever they want in that area whenever they want to, but is choosing not to on its own accord.
On the 4th of this July
the fireworks appeared
as tears
falling from our skies
spirit sinking
with the fading twinkle
On this 4th of July
the fireworks could be heard
bombs bursting against nerves
and conscious
in this land that has become
so large in view
so small in vision
nothing
but the feared and the fearing
It's perfectly reasonable to enjoy most of the things about a country and still find issues with it. It's also perfectly reasonable to question and complain about stuff when you think it's wrong. Not doing that, putting your fingers in your ears and running away is arguably the worse crime.
Which is funny since many of the US wealthy regard their homes outsides the States as bailout refuges if the situation in the States gets hostile to them. (Which is probably a good insurance policy...)
The inequality adjusted HDI says there are exactly 15 countries better than the US in the world.
Also, don't you find it a tiny bit ironic that your response to him was childish and immature e.g. "Well you can leave, if you don't like something". If everyone was like you, we'd have no progress, no revolution, and no change.
Just because other countries do bad things, it doesn't mean that you should put up with your representatives doing the same bad things (and blatantly lying to you about them).
So a diplomatic flight would be or would not be safe? Or does it entirely depend on how big you are? Does diplomatic immunity only exist on the grounds of an embassy and all points between simply make you fair game?
As in, whose plane would you have to be on to be safe? The Popes?
I really don't understand the public outcry. In the eyes of all that matters, he broke the law. Snowden knew where he signed up to work. Noone with any amount of brain processing capability would be so naive as to think that sort of stuff wasn't happening via the NSA. I have worked for organizations that when I categorically disagreed with their business model and operating processes, I left. He had that choice. It was certainly not his job to hold the Agency accountable. His chosen method was certainly not the acceptable protocol. In fact, its highly illegal.
This does not mean that I agree with the US or any Gov't for that matter also breaking laws.
EDIT: "Why shouldn't I work for the NSA?" - Good Will Hunting, 1997 http://goo.gl/hjMHg
This made me think of a court case a few years back. The defendant was arrested for shooting a potato cannon (PVC pipe, BBQ grill lighter and hairspray for propellant). When the charges were read as using a dangerous weapon the defendant's lawyer replied that if a potato were a dangerous weapon then Ireland would be a superpower.
I don't think so. Any projectile of decent mass will be deadly when accelerated to high speed. There's nothing that magically exempts potatoes from this just because they're edible. You can absolutely kill someone with a potato gun. The prosecution in question may be wrong for other reasons (e.g. fired safely and not with any intent to harm), but "potatoes can't kill, because otherwise Ireland would be a superpower" is not the way to argue it.
A comment was made about a lawyer making an argument which, in my opinion, is a bad argument. I pointed that out. I'm not being "pedantic" nor am I "nitpicking" when I point out that a potato cannon is, in fact, a deadly weapon and the lawyer's argument against it is stupid.
Now, I agree that the comment, and therefore the whole thread that followed it, was not really on-topic. But I'm not seeing this whole "pedantic and nitpicky" thing.
In addition to mikeash's correction, a round does not contain everything that you need. Without a chamber, a bullet is not going anywhere at a particularly dangerous speed. The casing is really not meant to contain the pressure of the burning propellant by itself and without a barrel then the expanding gases from the burning propellant would primarily dump their energy into the environment, not the bullet. In fact, without a chamber and barrel, the casing is actually more dangerous than the bullet, though still would not be deadly. This makes sense when you consider that the casing weights far less than the bullet.
`Like my brother and I are in skeleton costumes chasing the Karate Kid around a gym.`
That's kind of what America looks like. Snowden has all these mighty military secrets, but at the end of the day they just look like school bullies who want to smack him around. What Snowden did is without a doubt a crime, but one that seems like it was necessary, and should be easy to resolve. The longer this draws on the more America looks like a misguided bully, forcing weaker kids to pick on the nerd. It doesn't help that the mood seems to be to string him up as a traitor in war time.
Edit: 'easy to resolve' sounds flippant, but it's being turned into the biggest manhunt on a global stage since Bin Laden.