
US 'disappointed' with Hong Kong, asks Latin American countries to stop Snowden - ashleyblackmore
http://rt.com/news/snowden-us-disappointed-hong-kong-139/
======
polemic
Dripping with irony:

    
    
        Persons wanted on felony charges, such as Mr. Snowden, 
        should not be allowed to proceed in any further international 
        travel, other than is necessary to return him to the 
        United States. Because of the Privacy Act, we cannot 
        comment on Mr Snowden's passport specifically.
    

Maybe, after HKSAR's closing jibe[1], they think it's a game?

1\.
[http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201306/23/P201306230476.h...](http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201306/23/P201306230476.htm)

~~~
bjornsing
Speaking of irony, have you seen the ABC News interview[1] with General Keith
Alexander, Director of the NSA? He is specifically (and brilliantly) asked if
he is confident that the NSA has not broken Hong Kong law (in it's cyber
espionage activities). His answer is a mumble about the NSA not violating _US_
law.

Under those circumstances I'd be somewhat careful with the word
'disappointed'... :)

[1] [http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/nsa-chief-
keith...](http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/nsa-chief-keith-
alexander-system-did-not-work-as-it-should-have-to-prevent-snowden-document-
leaks/)

~~~
danbruc
»Are you sure you did not break US law when you hacked computer systems in the
USA?«

»I am sure we did not break Chinese law.«

~~~
coldtea
\-- still, the answer is for "when they hacked computer systems in the USA".

As for if they broke Chinese law "when they hacked computer systems IN CHINA",
that's another question.

~~~
nano111
if you use a computer (phone) MADE IN CHINA, you can't expect any privacy

~~~
coldtea
Err, wait what?

I thought we're technical people here.

~~~
nano111
they are all made in china, don't you get it?

------
beedogs
That's funny. I'm "disappointed" with America, and I think my reasons are
better.

------
jrockway
I was looking forward to watching the extradition trial snake through the Hong
Kong courts, but this is fun too. It really makes the US look like a lot of
incompetents trying very hard to not have their incompetence exposed, and we
all know how that ends. Snowden: 2, US: 0.

(I'd also like to see a response from all the senators and op-ed columnists
that were quick to remind us that Snowden was a "high school dropout" explain
why someone so clearly inferior to everyone else can outsmart them so
effortlessly.)

~~~
junto
The US have the "long game". They'll get him (sadly) eventually.

~~~
jrockway
Just like they got Bobby Fischer?

~~~
junto
Wasn't that just tax evasion?

------
jlgreco
> _" [as there was] no legal basis to restrict Mr Snowden from leaving"_

What exactly does the US think that Hong Kong should have done? Break the law?

What a bunch of hypocrites.

~~~
alan_cx
It is consistent though.... Since we are now sure that non Americans are worth
less than Americans to the US government, then it does actually make sense
that Hong Kong law could be regarded as secondary and that the demands of US
law reigns supreme.

Sadly, I suppose that would be a demonstration of the "arrogance" the US is so
often accused of.

Dunno why they dont just leave the bloke to it. Just issue a standard warrant
and he's basically never allowed back in the US unless he is prepared to face
the charges. Olde days, "exile" was a decent punishment for some one in this
position. Why not now? Surely never being allowed home for the rest of his
life, to a country so great as the USA must be a terrible punishment for an
American, no? What's wrong with a bit of olde skool exile?

~~~
coldtea
> _Surely never being allowed home for the rest of his life, to a country so
> great as the USA must be a terrible punishment for an American, no?_

Yes, imagine have to flee Nebraska or South Carolina for a place like
Amsterdam or Paris or Singapore, etc...

~~~
icelancer
That was, of course, his point. But Snowden DID leave Hawaii...

------
eli
Honest question: Is there any doubt that Snowden is guilty of the crimes he's
charged with (e.g. "unauthorized communication of national defense
information")?

~~~
jstalin
Yes. See here:

[http://www.popehat.com/2013/06/23/a-look-at-the-charges-
agai...](http://www.popehat.com/2013/06/23/a-look-at-the-charges-against-
edward-snowden/)

"Note that the second and third charges both require the feds to prove that
Snowden's release of information to the press was harmful to the United
States. This puts our government in the position of attempting to prove that
it is harmful to release accurate information about how it is spying on us,
and how it is misleading us about spying on us.

Espionage charges usually describe someone with classified information leaking
that information to powers hostile to the United States government."

~~~
eli
That doesn't seem like it would be nearly as awkward nor as difficult to prove
as is implied here.

I would think secret details of spy programs would almost always harm national
security (insofar as you believe spying can aide national security). The whole
point of spying on communications depends on the targets not knowing they're
being listened to.

(Note: I'm not saying the NSA program is good or justified)

~~~
csense
"The statute...require[s] the government to prove that the
defendant...communicated or made unavailable to an unauthorized person...in
any manner prejudicial to the United States or for the benefit of any foreign
government to the detriment of the United States...classified information..."

The middle part (labeled (3) by Popehat), as the blog correctly points out, is
the reason this is a big controversy and not a straightforward spy case --
it's not at all clear that his disclosures were meant to benefit foreign
powers, or that he was attempting to harm the United States.

~~~
eli
I think you're misreading that. It's whether the action has the _effect_ of
prejudicing the United States or benefiting a foreign government regardless of
intent.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>It's whether the action has the effect of prejudicing the United States or
benefiting a foreign government regardless of intent.

I wonder if there is a precedent supporting successful use of that charge.
That's very broad wording. Taken literally, nearly anything you say that isn't
puppies and rainbows could qualify.

~~~
eli
Nearly anything you say about a classified intelligence program to
unauthorized people, you mean. Yeah, I think that's the point :)

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Can't you see the Kafka-esque nature of such a condition?

------
alayne
But they're not worried about the fact that more people are seeking political
asylum from western countries? Is this our Roman Empire moment?

~~~
GoodIntentions
It's passed already? thirty hours of Warcraft a week after working to pay your
share of taxes is the new bread and circuses.

