
Statement by Edward Snowden to human rights groups at Sheremetyevo airport - pvnick
http://wikileaks.org/Statement-by-Edward-Snowden-to.html
======
brown9-2
_These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador
have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human
rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless._

Are people really not bothered at the irony in this sentence? Russia, as a
country that stands against abuse of the powerless by the powerful?

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/world/europe/russian-
court...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/world/europe/russian-court-
convicts-a-kremlin-critic-posthumously.html?pagewanted=all)

 _If the posthumous prosecution of Sergei L. Magnitsky, the lawyer who was
jailed as he tried to expose a huge government tax fraud and died four years
ago in a Russian prison after being denied proper medical care, seemed surreal
from the moment the authorities announced it, the verdict and sentencing on
Thursday did not disappoint.

By all accounts, it was Russia’s first trial of a dead man, and in the tiny
third-floor courtroom of the Tverskoi District Court, it took the judge, Igor
B. Alisov, more than an hour and a half to read his decision pronouncing Mr.
Magnitsky guilty of tax evasion._

It doesn't matter if it is hypocritical of an American like me to point this
out, when it goes on in my country/government as well - but I find it
willfully ignorant to label the Russian government as a defender of human
rights like this.

edit: here is some more reading on Russia and this topic:
[http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/04/24/russia-worst-human-
rights...](http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/04/24/russia-worst-human-rights-
climate-post-soviet-era)

~~~
fatjokes
> Are people really not bothered at the irony in this sentence? Russia, as a
> country that stands against abuse of the powerless by the powerful?

I'm more bothered by _your_ sentence. Russia and China are undoubtedly worse
offenders than the US when it comes to human rights (well, at least
historically, in this day and age the US seems to be racing to catch up).
However, this alone is never a valid reason to discount their criticisms of US
actions.

I know you're referring to Snowden's inclusion of Russia on that list, but in
this case, they (and maybe China) are the only ones who can stand up against
America. Clearly Ecuador fell with a single phone call.

I don't think it's hypocritical for you to point this out, but it simply
should not detract from the rest of his statement. Russia has not handed him
over---the least he can do is not bite the hand shielding him. I, for one, am
glad that people aren't bothered by it.

~~~
bsimpson
You've got to see the irony in taking asylum in a country where the kinds of
spying he blew the whistle on in the first place are brazenly displayed on
public television:

[http://boingboing.net/2013/07/08/snowden-and-venezuela-my-
bi...](http://boingboing.net/2013/07/08/snowden-and-venezuela-my-biza.html)

~~~
fatjokes
I totally agree that it is ironic. I just don't think it should detract from
his main point, and personally, I'm bothered by how many people are trying to
shift the focus to that. In the beginning, Snowden stated he didn't want the
news to be focused on him (see how that's turned out) but instead focus on the
NSA. I'm sure he wants it to be focused on Russia's human rights abuses even
less (there's plenty of coverage on that independent of him).

~~~
indlebe
Agreed. Tu quoque is really prevalent in this thread.

~~~
mindslight
Actually, no it's not. Compare to a thread about Assange. Snowden's
revelations are apparently really hard to ignore.

------
droithomme
It's very odd both that the US government would use Human Rights Watch to
convey messages (which are essentially threats or warnings) to Mr. Snowden,
and that Human Rights Watch would feel the need to agree to convey messages of
that nature on behalf of the state apparatus that is targeting Mr. Snowden.

It was also odd when I earlier read that Human Rights Watch was the only
agency which received an invitation from Mr. Snowden which felt the need to
release the message in advance to the media, including the time and place of
the meeting.

To see the problem with these events, consider it in any other situation where
a political prisoner who is in hiding, let's say a North Korean, is meeting
with representatives from human rights agencies. How would it be perceived if
one of those human rights agencies announced the location in advance and took
the opportunity to deliver a personal threatening message they had privately
received during a personal conversation with Kim Jong-un.

~~~
D9u

         consider it in any other situation where a political prisoner who is in hiding
    

_Mr. Correa has pointed to the case of two brothers, William and Roberto
Isaias, who ran a bank at the center of a huge Ecuadorean financial scandal in
the 1990s. They were convicted in absentia of financial wrongdoing in an
Ecuadorean court. They now live in the United States, but repeated requests
for extradition have been unsuccessful.

And Venezuela has demanded the extradition of Luis Posada Carriles, a former
C.I.A. operative accused here of masterminding the bombing of a Cuban airliner
that killed 73 people in the 1970s. He escaped from a Venezuelan prison in the
1980s and went to live in the United States.

“The first thing you need to do to have the moral standing to ask for the
extradition of this youth Snowden, whose only act is to reveal the crimes that
you committed, is to turn over Luis Posada Carriles, who you are protecting,”
Mr. Maduro said this month. _

------
mythz
The US Govt illegal activity couldn't have been exposed by a nicer guy. He's
self-less and motivated by altruistic goals that serves everyone's interest
but the US Govt's (and other Govt's they can influence).

It certainly helps our cause that he's both intelligent and articulate.

The fact that the US Govt can continue operating at full will irrespective of
legal and constitutional boundaries shows just how much power and influence
they already have.

~~~
perlpimp
It is now the government that is terrorizing the populace by displaying such a
common disregard for laws it is enforcing. That is an act of an illegitimate
government that uses illegal and immoral tactics to control general populace.

------
ChuckMcM
Whomever is speech writing these statements (or editing them) is doing a great
job. Not only does Snowden make the US out to be a corrupt and despotic
nation, willing to subvert its own laws and principles to shut one person up,
it manages to position the US' character below that of countries run by South
American dictators and ex-KGB colonels.

It is my sincere hope that this event ends the political careers of a number
of US politicians, and engages enough voters to disrupt the status quo.

~~~
Demiurge
So, ex-KGB automatically means you were born to be an evil sadist? Amazing.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Is that what it means? I keep wondering why the news services keep bringing it
up.

~~~
Demiurge
Yes. Also anything Russian means totalitarian, oppressed, wrong, bad, Rambo,
Vodka, Bears, etc. As a recently naturalized US Citizen I can not begin to
describe how much better and dualistically simple everything looks though the
RedWhite&Blue glasses.

~~~
marshray
Rambo was Russian?!

~~~
Demiurge
no, he just like the mow them down

------
koops
Not only is Snowden brave, and smart enough to outwit (so far) the most
powerful institutions of our day, he's also an excellent writer.

To David Brooks and all the others who mock him for not finishing high school,
take this statement as a model of clarity and forthrightness.

~~~
adestefan
If you think he wrote this on his own, then you're naive.

I'm not challenging the intellectual capacity of Snowden, but there is an army
of supporters, including a well known publicist, that have been trying to turn
Snowden into the latest cause celebre.

~~~
nitrogen
You think the presidents write their State of the Union speeches on their own?
It's only fair that the country that has a literal army of supporters,
speechwriters, publicists, and lawyers, is matched by at least one well-known
publicist.

------
malandrew
Anyone asking him to come back and face trial under the current conditions is
either naïve or a fool. However, I think that he should at least put
conditions on the table under which he would return to the US to face trial.

The most important condition would be strict adherence to the 8th amendment,
which means no possibility of solitary confinement or other cruel and unusual
punishment and reasonable bail, so he is afforded the same rights that Daniel
Ellsberg was after leaking the Pentagon papers.

The other required condition would be changing the jurisdiction in which
charges are brought back to where they should have been filed, which is
Hawaii, _not_ Virginia. Cherry-picking a jurisdiction where many of those that
will be on the jury may work in the IC community or have close ties to the IC
community is not justice. In fact, it is a perversion of it.

Lastly, (and I know this would never happen), but I would love to see a Frost
v. Nixon type debate involving Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden, Barack Obama,
Gen. Keith Alexander and James Clapper live on national TV unrehearsed.

~~~
mindslight
You're falling into the trap that you're calling out other people for falling
into.

> _The most important condition would be strict adherence to the 8th
> amendment_

This is supposed to be a condition of USG existing in the first place, so the
only thing it could give is more empty promises.

> _In fact, it is a perversion of it [justice]_

Once again, if USG was bound by anything, it would already not be perverting
justice in every other trial.

At this point to Snowden, USG is just an angry beast to be avoided at all
costs. More power to him for working to unmask the extent of its colonization
of the world while he's still in limbo. But at this point, he can never return
to the soft prison with free speech, and has to deal with being in the rest of
the world without it. The only thing we can wish for _him_ is to be able to
resume a nice life next to a beach somewhere.

------
resu_nimda
_The Human Rights Watch representative...had received a call from the US
Ambassador to Russia, who asked her to relay to Mr Snowden that the US
Government does not categorise Mr Snowden as a whistleblower and that he has
broken United States law._

That's just...hilarious, and absurd. What purpose does that call serve; what
goal is it working toward? Is it some sort of legal requirement? Can we just
do without the inane posturing, for once?

Edit: apparently there is some dispute as to whether this conversation
actually took place.

------
chunkyslink
Thank you Edward Snowden. You are a true hero.

------
tokenadult
I would have a lot more regard for what Snowden is claiming about United
States government actions if he would come back here to the United States and
stand trial. More and more of what is being said in his statements to the
press (which plainly are receiving editing help, at least, from Wikileaks) are
not making sense in the overall context of how different countries behave in
the community of nations.

When all the smoke is cleared away from Snowden's allegations, and there have
been congressional investigations into the data-gathering and surveillance
practices of United States government agencies and private companies, most
Americans will still be quite supportive of their federal government (in the
usual complaining United States way) and tens of millions of people around the
world will still desire to settle in the United States.

[http://www.gallup.com/poll/161435/100-million-worldwide-
drea...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/161435/100-million-worldwide-dream-
life.aspx)

To date, I am persuaded that United States government programs related to
foreign intelligence need more effective oversight--not least because they
hire snafus like Snowden. I am also persuaded that most countries with
governments subject to the discipline of a free press and free and fair
elections largely are willing to cooperate with the United States in the kind
of programs the NSA intends to run, because there are genuine threats from
terrorist plotters in those countries.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=Boston+Marathon+bombing&sour...](https://www.google.com/search?q=Boston+Marathon+bombing&source=univ&tbm=nws)

I'd be glad to see NSA programs reviewed by Congress, and possibly curtailed
in their operation to ensure their lawfulness. I'd also be glad to see Edward
Snowden go on trial according to United States law to weigh his actions
against any defenses he may be able to assert at trial. I've lived elsewhere
twice for long stays in my adult life, and after talking to people from around
the world about this, I'm still glad to be living in the United States at the
moment, and still mostly glad that the United States system of rule by law
operates as it does.

~~~
VladRussian2
>I would have a lot more regard for what Snowden is claiming about United
States government actions if he would come back here to the United States and
stand trial.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 180 times, i guess Snowden feels that
even a couple times of such simulated death experience would be too much -
look at how Manning looks - like a ghost (and i suppose Manning had it clearly
explained to him that if he mentions anything else that was done to him beyond
solitary confinement - it will be repeated in double amount)

note: while there is incomparable difference between Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's
actions and Snowden's, there isn't much difference from the POV of the ones
who have and would be "handling" the former and the latter - between terrorism
and high treason, high treason have been punished by the powers to be equally
or even more harsher.

~~~
cubalibre
How nice is it that we can casually talk about an American citizen fearing
being repeatedly tortured by his own government?

~~~
mpyne
And yet it's as inaccurate as casual talk that Obama will soon bring the dark
Witch's armies from Narnia to terrorize the populace.

Did Thomas Drake end up being waterboarded?

~~~
cubalibre
But that's not the point at all. Would it be legal for the military to
waterboard Bradley Manning? I have no idea. Twenty years ago, the answer would
be clearly "no".

------
StavrosK
Hmm, what he said about the grounded plane made me wonder: What if he (or a
supporter) falsely tipped off US authorities that he was on that plane to see
whether he could travel to South America securely, or if the US would somehow
intercept the plane?

A dry run, as it were.

~~~
redblacktree
I thought the same thing about the plane that flew from Russia to Cuba
yesterday, skirting US airspace.

~~~
maxk42
More likely a commercial concern. The airline would incur a tremendous cost if
its flight were grounded by US authorities and its customers are probably
expressing worry about that possibility. They changed their route to assuage
these fears.

~~~
jessaustin
Is there any question whether the USA military would have stopped the plane if
they had really believed Snowden was on it? Why would they care more about
international law than the Fourth Amendment?

------
llamataboot
Now hopefully Russia will do the right thing and at least let him leave the
damn airport. There are a number of routes from Russia to Venezuela that don't
cross over Western European or US airspace -- can't VZ just send a private
plane with a military escort over there and bring him back?

~~~
loginalready
It's not Russia that doesn't let him leave the airport, it's the US by
revoking his passport in a clear violation of human rights.

No country on the planet can just let him pass the border without violating
it's own laws. This is exactly why revoking his passport is such a disgusting
move that violates all common decency.

If there was ever one specific moment in history in which the US changed from
a flawed democracy to a totalitarian state, it's the moment they took
Snowden's passport.

~~~
famo
Snowden doesn't need a passport to leave Russia or enter Venezuela if he
claims refugee status and requests asylum. The 1951 Refugee Convention allows
a person seeking refuge to travel without a passport due to the possibility
that the asylum seeker could be persecuted if identified by a document they're
carrying. E.g. If your name is John Smith and your country is killing everyone
named John Smith, you may not want to carry your passport with you.

------
lambda
> The Human Rights Watch representative used this opportunity to tell Mr
> Snowden that on her way to the airport she had received a call from the US
> Ambassador to Russia, who asked her to relay to Mr Snowden that the US
> Government does not categorise Mr Snowden as a whistleblower and that he has
> broken United States law.

Am I the only one who found this whole statement pretty odd?

Let's see. A "whistleblower" is a term for someone who blows a whistle. This
is generally meant to indicate someone who is making some kind of loud noise
to report a crime; someone (maybe a cop, maybe just someone who is a victim of
a crime) trying to get attention that a crime has been committed.

Now, when reporting a crime, do you generally expect the perpetrator of that
crime to be the appropriate person to determine whether or not a crime has
been committed, and thus whether or not labeling the person a "whistleblower"
is appropriate?

The whole idea of whistleblower laws that don't protect someone from reporting
to the public about crimes committed by the administration is laughable. What
the hell is the point of any kind of whistleblower laws or protection if you
can't actually blow the whistle on your bosses?

~~~
baddox
But the whole idea of government is that one group of individuals should be
the "top level" of authority, creating, enforcing, and interpreting its own
laws, reserving the authority to keep certain types of secrets (and, of
course, reserving the authority to determine which types of secrets qualify),
etc.

~~~
lambda
Um, no. The whole idea of democracy is that there is no "top level" of
authority.

In the US system, there are representatives of the people, passing laws. There
is a single executive, also a representative of the people, implementing said
laws. And there are the courts, interpreting said laws when there are
disagreements over them.

But the whole point of representative democracy is that the people ultimately
get to decide who is doing this, so that a runaway government cannot be a
single "top level" of authority that creates, enforces, and interprets its own
laws. The whole point is that the people are the highest authority, and the
government serves at their will.

But if the government hides substantial information from the people, a
democracy cannot effectively function. The people need to know what the
government is doing. There are good reasons for limited amounts of secrecy,
for particularly sensitive information or for privacy purposes. But keeping
vast amounts of information on things that affect everyone, outside of a
wartime environment, is anti-democratic.

This type of secrecy, this type of executive action which is seen as being
unquestionable by even elected representatives, let alone the people, is
turning the government from a representative democracy to an oligarchy.

~~~
baddox
> The whole idea of democracy is that there is no "top level" of authority.

Not true in any practical sense. If the government physically does something
to me (like surveils me, arrests me, evicts me, etc.) I don't get to vote my
way out of it. They are the top level of authority in any meaningful sense.

~~~
lambda
You appear to be confusing individual authority with collective authority. Of
course you, personally, cannot get out of being arrested; if anyone could get
out of being arrested by voting or saying that they are a member of the
populace and thus are the ultimate authority, that would be pretty silly.

But rather, the people, collectively, are supposed to be the top level of
authority. If the people want to vote out the current administration, they
can. If they want to change the laws, they can vote for representatives who
will do so. If they want to change the constitution, they can call a
constitutional convention. Now sure, no individual can do this alone; they
have to get a substantial fraction of the populace to do it along with them.

However, there are several factors that work against this. One major one is
secrecy. If what the government is doing is hidden, then they cannot provide
oversight (nor can their elected representatives, or the courts).

------
turar
I regularly read reader comments on NYTimes regarding NSA/Snowden affair, and
this is the first time that vast majority of highest-rated comments there are
negative toward Snowden. Previously, the majority was overwhelmingly pro-
Snowden. Very curious.
[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/13/world/europe/snowden-
russi...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/13/world/europe/snowden-russia-
asylum.html?ref=global-home)

~~~
malandrew
Possible HB Gary Sockpuppets?

~~~
munin
yes, anyone who disagrees with you is just a puppet!

------
bedhead
In all seriousness, is there even a single HN commenter who doesn't
support/worship this guy? Is the diversity of thought that nonexistent on this
subject? I'm just sorta curious and ask the question sincerely.

~~~
hnal943
I don't support him. I think it's wildly hypocritical of him to run to China
and Russia because he's so opposed to government spying. I also think that the
NSA spying is less troubling that the other numerous abuses of the Obama
administration, including using the IRS to repress political speech.

~~~
bedhead
Phew - I agree. Just making sure I'm not completely insane here, and frankly
the hero worship of him is really starting to creep me out. I worry that too
many people blindly see this as getting back at THE MAN without giving enough
consideration to many other aspects of the ordeal.

I think his actions while on the run are just pathetic. He's such a weasel,
like a guy who sucker punches someone on the street then takes off. The to
align himself with these other countries who in the grand scheme of things are
far worse actors than the US takes some serious balls. I still get the sense
that 90% of the reason he decided to pull this off was for selfish reasons,
that he wanted the notoriety.

EDIT - I suspect numerous downvotes will confirm the consensus

~~~
acqq
How are those countries "far worse actors" except for you not living in one of
them and therefore having a significant bias? Did any of these countries
invade a country as big as Iraq based on plain manipulations? Can any country
come even near in the number of dictators it supported?

Just as a minuscule example of US foreign policies, have you ever heard about
this:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état)

Or use of, practically, chemical weapons:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange)

Or something current:

[http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/11/to_protect_...](http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/11/to_protect_and_defend_obama_constitution)

"Now in his second term, President Obama insists that his counterterrorism
policies differ markedly from Bush's. However, there are far more similarities
than differences with regards to: _non-battlefield targeted killings_ (an
estimated 50 under Bush, and _387 under Obama_ ); indefinite detention of
suspected terrorists (approved by both through executive orders); broad
surveillance authorities (as former NSA and CIA director Michael Hayden
admitted on Sunday, _' NSA is actually empowered to do more things than I was
empowered to do under President Bush's special authorization'_)"

------
llamataboot
In semi-related news that I can't post because I get the hacker news "please
slow down" warning -- hacker takes over website of VZ daily El Nacional and
warns govt not to give asylum to Snowden or face leaks of
corruption/bribery/etc

[https://knightcenter.utexas.edu/en/node/14126](https://knightcenter.utexas.edu/en/node/14126)

~~~
nemo1618
Christ, a script kiddie with his own product line[1]... words cannot express
my disgust.

[1] [http://jesterscourt.cc/jestergear](http://jesterscourt.cc/jestergear)

~~~
jessaustin
Yeah, whatever one thought of this prankster before, he's certainly jumped the
shark now. Does he think this action is somehow different from anything the
"Anonymous" he reviles has ever done? Whatever happened to a letter to the
editor?

------
mtgx
The Western European countries are actively standing in the way of him going
to Venezuela, and are actively opposing his asylum.

So what do we do now?

------
gavinlynch
Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker purports that the US Ambassador to Russia is
denying the conversation stated in the 1st paragraph ever occurred:
[https://twitter.com/RyanLizza/status/355717218895536129](https://twitter.com/RyanLizza/status/355717218895536129)

I don't find Wikileaks as a credible source on this topic in general.

~~~
chunkyslink
I don't find the US government a credible source on anything fullstop. Can't
you see whats going on here?

~~~
wwhitman
What if they had vague powerpoint slides?

~~~
flyinRyan
Don't hold your american flag security blanket so tight, you're going to
strangle it.

------
bpatrianakos
The fact that the US doesn't recognize Snowden as a whistleblower doesn't
prove persecution or anything at all. He broke the law. He and others may not
like it or agree and they don't have to but its still clear he broke the law.
What has Snowden told us that we didn't alreay know since 2006? He gave us
classified documents and the names and operations of classified programs.
Programs we already knew about but just didn't know the name of or how they
worked. Hell, even with what he did give us we still don't actually know how
they work. But we sure as hell always knew our calls and Internet activity
were being monitored.

I'm not a fan of what the NSA is doing but I don't think Snowden is even
remotely close to a hero either. Did you know you can take that position? That
there's a difference between ones position on NSA spying and whether Snowden
is a whistleblower? I'm of the opinion that Snowden _and_ the NSA are
criminals.

------
mansigandhi
Is there anyway we, as a people, can help other than just support? Is there a
petition running to the UN?

------
mikemoka
granting asylum to Snowden will just influence relations between US and
Russia,and is not done to be coherent with previous standings of the country
on the topic of human rights,almost always different.Russia and others clearly
try to challenge the rest of the world to increase their power in times of
crisis, how nice,the sooner world leaders realize that the internet is an
early glimpse at the future of society and start researching and doing things
together the sooner things will improve,for everyone.

Every individual has the particular interest to live in a healthy society,and
not to have his possibilities limited by his country of birth if you ask me.

------
anovikov
I wonder why he can't travel to Latin America. Is it just the issue of not
being able to transit through Western Europe or U.S. airports and the lack of
direct air connection? Why Mr. Assange does not arrange a private jet flight
for him? Moscow to Caracas is under 10K km so it should not be a problem. Even
if that's expensive (maybe $200-250K), a few months of living in Sheremetyevo
will eat up as much money, or more.

------
rmdoss
Next few days will be interesting to see what Russia will do there.

They do not have the best track record in terms of privacy or human rights,
but helping him will make them look good internationally.

------
wwhitman
Wikileaks is using him as a meat puppet and now he is totally fucked, whatever
shred of credibility he had is lost by praising Russia for their dedication to
human rights. I suppose you can defend their record but you will be fighting
uphill.

