It's relieving that Iceland is the only country with any balls left for civil liberty, and all those that complained about the NSA spying but then refused Snowden asylum should be ashamed of their actions. It's an international embarrassment. Also quite ironic this happens on the Fourth.
As I type this, I breathe an immense sigh of relief. It's odd that Snowden, a man I hardly know, influences me that much. It's the feeling I get when I think of the founding fathers and their sacrifice and how it paid off after a long and difficult struggle.
I don't know if it will pay off for the United States, but bravo to Snowden for standing up and doing something apart from signing online "petitions."
Icelander here. Hold on to the praise for the moment. The bill may not even be discussed before the parliament is adjourned for summer holidays later tonight. So far it is not even on the agenda: http://www.althingi.is/cache.html#þingfundur
I would imagine that there will be a fair amount of influence exerted in the direction of Reykjavik to make sure this doesn't pass.
Actually, it would be fascinating to see the records of the incoming calls to the leaders of the Icelandic government - I wonder who could help with that? ;-)
We currently have a right wing majority in parliament in Iceland, and they're not keen on issues of civil liberty. Head of one of the ruling parties said last week that "Snowden is going to go to the back of the citizenship line like everyone else". Sorry.
What they could do is send out a letter to all the people at the front of the citizenship line and ask if anyone is willing to trade places with him. If I were waiting at the front of the line I would gladly switch places with him. I'm sure they can find someone.
Well, there might be 0.1% chance. I mean, Framsóknarflokkurinn just supported the new constitution, a bill put forward by the Leftist Green. They might yet surprise us.
We have a street name after Iceland in our capital. The reason: Iceland was the first western country to recognize the restoration of the independance of Lithuania. It took some balls 22 years ago, maybe they still have them :)
To be fair, though, the US never recognized the Baltic States incorporation into the USSR, neither de jure, nor de facto, therefore they had no restoration of independence to recognize.
Not really. As the USSR was collapsing and the Baltic countries broke free, Western countries rushed to re-recognise them (as most have de jure not recognised the occupation of the Baltic states). It did not take 24 hours after Iceland recognised the Baltic states, that Denmark did as well.
Furthermore, Denmark, along with Sweden and Norway spend the years following the dissolution of the USSR financially helping the Baltic states, something Iceland did not do (although, in their defence, they probably could not afford it either at that time).
Actually it took Denmark a bit more than two weeks to do the same, but you are right, they there second after Iceland. That was February 1991. Most of the other countries only "rushed" at the end of the summer after events in Moscow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_coup_d'état_attemp...
The part about help is true (though I heard a very pragmatic reason for it: "the better you live in your country, the less you will be likely to come to our". Not sure if working.)
Hope it passes. Edward is almost like a refugee (Palestinian or Syrian) - forced to leave his country, can't go back home, and no other country will accept him. Perhaps he should head for and remain on a vessel in International Waters?
I don't think you generally need to renounce one citizenship for another - I have dual citizenship, for example, and it's never caused anyone a problem.
This is certainly not a general situation. I thought that this is one of those situations that would mean a loss of citizenship but after reading some more I am utterly confused about the specific situation and dual-citizenship in general.
It's actually not confusing, you just have to ignore the statutes and State Department, because they don't control. Case law does.
The Supreme Court made a constitutional ruling (meaning it can't be overturned except by constitutional amendment; Congress and the Executive are powerless to change it themselves) in 1967 that US citizenship cannot be lost involuntarily.
"The very nature of our free government makes it completely incongruous to have a rule of law under which a group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race. Our holding does no more than to give to this citizen that which is his own, a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship."
Great info, thanks! Are you a lawyer?
...and furthermore, a passport is not required for travel: this is merely an international convention and can be waived and changed at any time.
No. At some point around 99/2000 I read Harry Blackmun's dissent in Callins and started on a path to a sophisticated layman's understanding of various areas of law through self-study, particularly constitutional issues.
Law school has always been a someday-maybe, but the more I see how it turns so many people into inhumane robots obsessed with the letter of the law instead of its spirit, the less motivated I am.
> Law school has always been a someday-maybe, but the more I see how it turns so many people into inhumane robots obsessed with the letter of the law instead of its spirit, the less motivated I am.
I don't think law school does that to people, I think that people that are oriented that way are a significant subset of the people attracted to law school.
It is entirely up to a country whether they recognise you as a citizen or not and there's no international limit on them. You could, depending on the country, collect as many as you want.
Yeah, but Fischer was wanted for playing chess in Yugoslavia and generally being an ass. Accepting Snowden is whole new level of shit-storm for whatever country does it.
I've been living in Iceland for about three years, and there's no way they're taking him.
It surely cannot be good legislative practice to make laws solely for one person, even if it seems to be the right thing at the time. In general it is thought to be good practice that a law should address a particular form of behavior rather than a specific individual or group.
In Iceland, citizenship can only be granted by passing a new law in the parliament.
Normally citizenships are granted in batches with similar bills, after the receivers pass the normal qualifying process carried out by the immigration authorities.
We still have no gasoline though and the cars/boats/planes are not electric. We have a lot of free energy in regards to heating, hot water and electricity only. Nor can we easily export that energy without large advances in the field of superconductors being so far from mainland Europe.
Well its not like there are many vehicles that support the fuel. As far as I'm aware there are only two electric "pumps" available in the entire country. We're still very much based on the technology of gasoline. 2050 perhaps, but its still a long way off.
Way to go. I wonder why none of the south american countries offered him citizenship and a passport, maybe even a diplomatic one (it won't give him immunity, but will help with travel arrangements)
It's the oldest currently extant parliament. Ancient Greece doesn't count. England may or may not count (from 1215); UK since 1707 and UKoGBaNI is since 1800.
Unfortunately, as someone living outside of the USA, watching on, it seems fairly obvious who is running America :(
Look no further than recent times and you see the USA government working hard, spending money, trying so hard to convict and lock up Snowden just for for telling the truth.
Yet bankers from the GFC ripped of millions of people (around the world), made millions in ill gotten gains and the US Justice Department just can't find enough evidence to prosecute anyone.
Any one want to guess why? Money talks!
It the words of that great US band, Rage Against the Machine, Wake up!, wake up!.
Iceland is closer to the halfway line between mainland Europe and North America than it is to Europe. Geologically it is squarely in the middle, being built on the mid-Atlantic ridge. The nearest larger piece of land is Greenland, which is on the North America continental plate.
These facts matter. Iceland is used to being very far from everyone, and able to set its own rules. Because who is going to bother trying to invade?
Ahem. Iceland is a very strategic location in the centre of the Atlantic sea, a good place for Arctic circle expeditions and a half-way stop to Europe. During WW2 it was used as an outpost for supply deliveries to the USSR.
Therefore invading Iceland would be a good call for any large force for strategic purposes.
I think you might also underestimate the influence both Europe and the US are able to place upon it. "Able to set its own rules" is probably a bit of an exaggeration that I would guess is derived from the awful journalism that has recently suggested that Iceland have done "great things" (jail bankers, bail out its own mortgage holders) when the journalism is infact mostly incorrect.
Iceland is really not _that_ different from Europe/US.
None of what you say indicates that Iceland is actually in Europe.
Yes, you're right that it is a convenient waypost between the North America and Europe. But the key point here is between.
You are also right that there is the ability to put pressure on Iceland from lots of places, including the USA and Europe. However compare how much independence Iceland feels with European countries of the same size. In population it is in the middle of Luxembourg, Malta, Jersey and the Isle of Man. Which of those is even remotely comparable?
Iceland has Scandinavian culture and language, its strongest allies remain Norway and Denmark, especially after the U.S. closed their air base on Iceland.
Iceland's like 2.5 hours from Oslo and 3 hours from London or Copenhagen by plane, so it's much more accessible from Europe.
I was in Iceland last year, and met more than one person who expressed a bit of resentment towards the WWII Invasion of Iceland [1] and the subsequent US military presence through the cold war [2], ending only in 2006.
> The invasion force consisted of 746 marines, ill-equipped and only partially trained.
...
> The expedition was organized hastily and haphazardly. Much of the operational planning was conducted en route. The force was supplied with few maps, most of poor quality, with one of them having been drawn from memory. No one in the expedition was fully fluent in the Icelandic language.
...
> The British forces began their operations in Reykjavík by posting a guard at the post office and attaching a flier to the door. The flier explained in broken Icelandic that British forces were occupying the city and asked for cooperation in dealing with local Germans.
Are we sure this wasn't actually a plan for a war comedy film that somebody in the British hierarchy mistook for a serious proposal?
Looking at the bill, I see that he just had his 30th birthday a couple of weeks ago. Happy Birthday Edward! 30th is sort of a big deal (or depressing to some) - I'm sure he was 20 he didn't expect to be "celebrating" his 30th this way.
Just before adjourning parliament, a vote was cast to put the bill before a parliament committee to be discussed further. The vote was defeated 24 to 33, 5 didn't vote and one was absent. Seems like this door has closed.
Iceland seems like a pretty good place to me. Minus the freezing and harsh winters, and the lack of sun. From all that I hear about it, it seems like a good place to expatriate to. Any thoughts on this?
I'm an American living in Iceland for about three years now. I like it here -- it's nice. But if you get your "facts" from the foreign press, you'll be sorely disappointed. It's not some sort of wonderland where the people took back the country from the bankers and wrote a new constitution on Facebook.
I applaud the initiative but if this bill passes, what are the chances that we won't cave in and hand Snowden over as soon as the US start applying some real pressure?
Next question - how long are they in other governments? For example, the recent US "Freedom to Fish" [in the 'waters downstream of a dam'] Act is only two pages.
In the US, if it were sure to pass, there would be many amendments for unrelated things and then it would be 600 pages long and we'd deal with the repercussions of unseen gotchas for the next 50 years.
600 pages? That's like a note scribbled on a napkin. Obamacare was 2400+ pages as a bill, though contracted to mere 906 pages as a law. Current immigration bill is about 1200 pages. And Obamacare is not unique at its verbosity, there are a number of bills that are almost as long as it is:
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1375-For-Bills-in-...
As I type this, I breathe an immense sigh of relief. It's odd that Snowden, a man I hardly know, influences me that much. It's the feeling I get when I think of the founding fathers and their sacrifice and how it paid off after a long and difficult struggle.
I don't know if it will pay off for the United States, but bravo to Snowden for standing up and doing something apart from signing online "petitions."