
US sends pre-emptive warrant to Ireland to stop Snowden flight refuelling there - imc
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/us-sends-government-arrest-warrant-for-snowden-1.1453364
======
nicholassmith
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.

~~~
mchusma
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.

~~~
nicholassmith
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.

------
coldcode
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.

~~~
znowi
Where is the USSR when you need one :)

------
hopeless
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.

~~~
tomelders
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.

~~~
xradionut
US has other points of leverage on the Irish.

(How about we close this nice tax scam you got going...)

~~~
Spearchucker
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.

~~~
hnriot
haha, how naive.

~~~
Spearchucker
Not so sure. Those tax breaks are designed to benefit the Irish economy. When
your nation can't eat, would you side with a foreign government?

Also, if they toilet their economy, who do you think will bail them out?
You're aware that they're part of the EU, right?

------
eliasmacpherson
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States#Ireland)

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.

------
k-mcgrady
>> "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."

An interesting prospect but incredibly unlikely.

~~~
justincormack
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).

~~~
grecy
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.

~~~
justincormack
I don't think he could be extradited if he was going to not be tried either;
that would also be illegal in the US as he is a citizen...

~~~
toyg
Oh, he would be "trialled", of course. With a special trial, that could last
decades, time he gets to spend in protective custody, of course.

After all the bull*hit about "enemy combatants", my faith in the separation of
powers in the US is quite nil.

------
digikata
It will be an interesting contrast to see if Ireland is equally willing to
shelter live persons as well as they do corporations.

------
1337biz
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.

~~~
grecy
> _just harboring him around at the transit zone._

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.

It has always shocked me that US airports don't have this concept, it must be
the only major world transport hub that doesn't.

~~~
yardie
> 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.

~~~
grecy
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.

------
transfire
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

~~~
smalltalk
No. Can we please stop this adolescent drama? If you think there's a better
country, please, leave the US and go there. Do the rest of us a favor.

~~~
bengillies
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.

~~~
xradionut
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...)

------
mtgx
It seems the US bullying of other countries over Snowden is several times
worse than it was for Wikileaks.

------
Shivetya
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?

------
lambersley
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](http://goo.gl/hjMHg)

------
wwhitman
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.

~~~
mikeash
That's rather stupid. Generally, it is not the bullet that is considered to be
the dangerous weapon, but the gun which fires it.

If the lawyer thinks a high-speed potato can't kill somebody, I suggest he go
give it a shot (pun intended) and see what happens.

~~~
nwh
The bullet contains everything you need, not the gun. Lead and propellent, the
gun is just a convenient tube and handle.

~~~
mikeash
You're thinking of the cartridge. The bullet is just the projectile, and does
not include the propellant.

~~~
charonn0
You're all way over-thinking potatoes.

~~~
mikeash
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.

~~~
charonn0

        "potatoes can't kill, because otherwise Ireland would be a superpower" 
        is not the way to argue it.
    

I never made such an argument.

~~~
mikeash
_You_ didn't, but the lawyer referenced in the original comment I replied to
said essentially that.

~~~
jlgaddis
Oh geez, can we get any more off-topic?

Stop being so damn pedantic and nitpicky, both of you. All of you.

~~~
mikeash
Pedantic? Nitpicky?

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.

------
kimlelly
I guess they're getting afraid of this scenario, as well:

[http://www.thelocal.de/national/20130704-50697.html](http://www.thelocal.de/national/20130704-50697.html)

