
Statement from Edward Snowden in Moscow - mvbrasil
http://wikileaks.org/Statement-from-Edward-Snowden-in.html?snow
======
tokenadult
I'd really like to see Wikileaks devoting more of its time, energy, and fund-
raising into breaking news about government-operated surveillance programs in
the last two countries where Edward Snowden has been located, namely China and
Russia. As an American citizen and voter, I'm still mulling over what I think
should be the correct policy response to the revelations about NSA claims
about NSA data-gathering programs, but I have deep ties to China as a speaker
and reader of Chinese and a long-time student of the language, culture, and
history of China, and I have similar connections, less thoroughly developed,
to Russia. People everywhere just wanna be free. We ought to be hearing a lot
more about all the various governmental data-gathering and surveillance
programs, everywhere in the world, and of course we should also be learning
more about the actions of private business corporations to gather data on all
of us. That Wikileaks tells us much more about the United States federal
government than about any of those other entities tells me something about
Wikileaks, and perhaps tells me something favorable about the United States.

If you really want to be an idealistic but hard-headed freedom-fighter,
mobilizing an effective popular movement for more freedom wherever you live, I
suggest you read deeply in the publications of the Albert Einstein
Institution,

[http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsde07.html](http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsde07.html)

remembering that the transition from dictatorship to democracy described in
those publications is an actual historical process with recent examples around
the world that we can all learn from.

AFTER EDIT: Good catch by the readers who noticed the non-American English in
the Wikileaks press release here (mentioned in other comments in this thread).
The press release kindly submitted here is plainly not Edward Snowden's
verbatim words, but more self-publicizing from Wikileaks.

~~~
old-gregg

      >I'd really like to see Wikileaks devoting more of its time, energy, 
      >and fund-raising into breaking news about government-operated 
      >surveillance programs in the last two countries where Edward 
      >Snowden has been located, namely China and Russia.
    

I cannot speak for China, but majority of Russians lack a natural
compass/taste for civil liberties and human rights: they haven't had the time
to develop one. Their version of PRISM is called SORM-2
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SORM](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SORM)) - it
was launched with a complete lack of secrecy and, predictably, was met with
public apathy. There are no news to break. :(

~~~
narrator
That's the thing that's so jarring about the U.S policy. Their private
ideology, or whatever guides their actions, is quite obviously contradictory
to their publicly espoused beliefs. The Russian and Chinese government are at
least pretty direct about their ideology and intentions.

~~~
mpyne
Well I do hate to say it but we've always had an "us or them" mentality to the
rest of the world. I mean we were so isolationist that we were willing to
watch Europe burn from afar rather than do anything. There's no telling what
would have happened without Pearl Harbor; the U.S. may never have joined the
war against Germany at all, in fact.

You'll notice that much of the furor has come from the idea that the NSA might
be watching what _Americans_ are doing. For everything else there was
effectively a big giant "Of _course_ they were bugging $FOO, that's their
_job_ ".

Obviously Europe doesn't feel the same way (and didn't with ECHELON)...

~~~
philwelch
> I mean we were so isolationist that we were willing to watch Europe burn
> from afar rather than do anything. There's no telling what would have
> happened without Pearl Harbor; the U.S. may never have joined the war
> against Germany at all, in fact.

Yes, and? Did Europe intervene in the American Civil War, or in any of the
multitude of conflicts in the Americas, East Asia, or Africa over the past 200
years? Even the rest of Europe abandoned Austria and Czechoslovakia to the
Germans before Poland fell. Going to war is a huge commitment, and doing it
purely for the benefit of a continent that has spent the last several
centuries hell-bent on destroying itself sounds like a really bad idea.

The worst part is, when the US government _does_ see a situation that calls
for military intervention, like Vietnam or Iraq, that gets criticized as well.

~~~
fieryeagle
Do read up more on the history of both wars as 'seeing a situation' was a
pretty simple-minded opinion there. It took much much more than a call for
justice to move the military gears. There were always political or economic
agendas hidden under any wars and that makes one reason for criticism. I don't
even want to get started on other reasons.

~~~
philwelch
> There were always political or economic agendas hidden under any wars

Which is why the US was reluctant to get involved in the World Wars. You can't
have it both ways.

~~~
fieryeagle
Interestingly, there have been multiple speculations on US's involvement in
WW2:

One is the good democratic fight versus the bad facists. US were hampered by
the isolationist views held by quite a number of senators at the time, hence
there was no direct involvement until after Pearl Harbour attack, which
resulted in an almost uniform senatorial agreement on declaration of war.

Another is that US could have kept maintaining the profit stream from arms-
dealing to both sides (Germany still imported American arms prior to 1941 or
so, if I'm not mistaken) but got unwillingly dragged into the war.

Yet another more cynical view is that after the huge Axis loss at USSR, US
just saw the opportunity to join in and mope up what's left of the Axis since
winners get to dictate the terms. The Pearl Harbour event was a surprising but
timely excuse.

~~~
mpyne
> Yet another more cynical view is that after the huge Axis loss at USSR

"huge Axis losses" in the USSR didn't start happening until 1943 though. Even
the Nazi defeat at Stalingrad wasn't until the end of 1942.

So that view is not merely cynical, it's also simply inaccurate.

~~~
fieryeagle
I beg to differ. Operation Barbarossa was the one turning point of the USSR
invasion. Stalingrad was merely the consequence IMO as Barbarossa had led to
German army being both weakened and stretched too far out. They simply could
not compare to the Soviet war machine's recover-ability and production.

Of course Pearl Harbour was what got the US directly involved and nuking Japan
out in the end, but I hold the speculation that without Pearl Harbour, US
would still declare war to either Germany or Japan anyway because of several
reasons below: 1) US businesses were being harmed by the Axis, i.e. Germans
attacking cargo ships meant to supply arms to Britain. Sooner or later the
piled up losses would justify the entry in front of Congress.

2) The Japanese was expanding fast in Asia and they would not stop just short
of US territorial waters, plus the imposed embargo had been pissing the
Japanese off anyway. A clash was inevitable.

3) Letting USSR being the major player and eventual winner meant letting
communism spread throughout Europe. There had to be a sizable participation
from the Capitalist group in the war and the rest of the Western bloc was too
tattered to muster that up.

~~~
philwelch
In 1941, it probably didn't seem obvious that Russia would prevail. The
cynical, hegemonic move for capitalism certainly wouldn't have been to ally
with the Soviets, but rather to let both totalitarian regimes fight each other
to exhaustion and sweep up the remains of both.

~~~
fieryeagle
Hypothetically, a win for either Axis or Eastern bloc would spell disaster for
capitalism. That practically guarantee that US would join in the fray, one way
or another, indirectly or directly. Pearl Harbour helped alot with the
decision making, as other members pointed out in this thread and the general
consensus on America's participation in WW2.

~~~
philwelch
Right, I'm just saying counterfactually, if you were in charge of a global
capitalist conspiracy, you'd sell weapons to both sides until Germany and
Russia were both weakened and then conquer both, and then you have global
capitalist hegemony.

The fact that that's _not_ how it worked out is pretty good evidence that
there wasn't a global capitalist conspiracy behind the whole thing after all.

~~~
fieryeagle
Well, it was pretty much a big win for America after the war ended,
economically with all that arms trade and diplomatically as the affirmed
leader figure of Western bloc.

~~~
philwelch
It's easier to say that now that the US won the Cold War as well.

------
eblume
It's probably too late now, but I feel like it was a mistake not to release a
public encryption key along with his initial effluence of records. I for one
believe that this was written by Snowden, but it seems like an obvious use of
some basic form of identity signing.

Edit: It now seems like there is some reasonable doubt that this notice was
forged. I still remain confident this is no forgery, but the point I'd like to
make is that there may in fact be an identity question -- and that is a
problem with a technical solution that unfortunately seems not to have been
leveraged.

~~~
qwertzlcoatl
He used 'have' after United States of America, which is a Britishism. To
Americans, 'United States of America' is singular and would use "has" in this
particular sentence:

 _For decades the United States of America have been one of the strongest
defenders of the human right to seek asylum._

Maybe I'm overanalyzing but I don't think this is a verbatim statement from
Snowden.

~~~
bcn
Maybe it was changed since you saw it, but the statement now reads:

"...the United States of America has been..."

Edit to add: The statement as quoted at
[http://boingboing.net/2013/07/01/snowden-asks-russia-for-
asy...](http://boingboing.net/2013/07/01/snowden-asks-russia-for-asylum.html)
has the original version with "have" still in there.

Here's a screenshot from twitter of the original -
[https://twitter.com/ClaraJeffery/status/351833289000112128](https://twitter.com/ClaraJeffery/status/351833289000112128)

~~~
mpyne
So it was changed, and not flagged as being changed. Interesting...

~~~
lawnchair_larry
Not that interesting. It's probably because they proofread and edit statements
in a manner typical of any writing fitting of a professional appearance, and
didn't want tinfoil hats with an anti-wikileaks agenda to take cheapshots
based on the benign edits, when the substance was not materially affected.

~~~
mpyne
I work with coders and developers from the U.K. They _know_ what en_US is, and
they know what en_GB is, and it's very obvious which is which.

So to claim that WikiLeaks would fixup _all_ of Snowden's writings to conform
to en_GB and then switch it right back to en_US after HN notices is rather
surreal.

 _At best_ you could claim that Harrison herself simply transcribed Snowden's
_speech_ and that no one caught it until it was posted. But that still
wouldn't explain what happened to some of the missing words that Snowden would
have said. And that still wouldn't explain why WikiLeaks revised a statement
so important without so much as a mention of proofreading corrections post-
facto.

~~~
jlgreco
If they _" know_" en_US and en_GB, then assuming the statement is not actually
Snowden's but rather was written by a Brit, why did that Brit get it wrong? If
making a mistake while falsifying a statement from Snowden is plausible, then
why isn't making a mistake while editing or transcribing plausible?

I think you need to loosen your tinfoil.

~~~
mpyne
It may very well be tinfoil. But right now the totality of the evidence points
me to the idea that this isn't 100% Snowden's words. Forget about the grammar
and punctuation; read the _words_.

Does that sound like the same person talking about civil liberties and how
Obama didn't change enough for him, and being ready to stand up for what he
believes in? Or does that sound more like a certain _other_ ego at opposition
to the U.S. government and especially its President?

~~~
jlgreco
It probably isn't all of his words, but so long as he stands behind his name
on it, who cares?

The concern would be if wikileaks were completely fabricating this, but I see
no evidence for that. (Nor any motivation.)

~~~
mpyne
> The concern would be if wikileaks were completely fabricating this, but I
> see no evidence for that.

I doubt they are fabricating it, but honestly they have Snowden in as much of
a bind as the U.S. does now. They are his only source of support right now...
what does he do if they take it away? He's in a web of very unequal
relationships right now.

~~~
jlgreco
What are they actually providing him with right now? Money for food I guess?

~~~
mpyne
Airfare to his next destination and lodging costs as well. One of the articles
said that they even paid for his trip out of Hong Kong so I'm not sure how
much cash he has on him.

------
olefoo
It's almost as if he's deliberately provoking the most rabid response possible
from the United States Government.

Regardless of what happens to him; he is writing himself into the pages of
history.

His actions have opened the possibility of Western Europe defecting from the
US led coalition that has dominated world affairs for the past 70 years. Which
is not a result anyone could have predicted.

~~~
tonfa
> His actions have opened the possibility of Western Europe defecting from the
> US led coalition that has dominated world affairs for the past 70 years.
> Which is not a result anyone could have predicted.

What changed compared to previous US spying scandals? (e.g. Echelon and the
2003 European council wiretaps from the US)

~~~
dreamfactory
Your parents and grandparents are more likely to have read about this.

------
javajosh
It occurs to me that there is a kind of deep hypocrisy for those who make the
rules to claim that someone broke the rules. Rules require focus and diligence
to apply, and they favor those that apply them regularly, vs those to whom
they are applied.

I suspect that the Obama administration broke may of their own rules rushing
through the a change in status that fast - a bureaucracy the size of the US
doesn't process anything quickly without breaking the rules.

The Russians are clearly using Snowden as a pawn, probably because Russia is
threatened by people like Snowden just as much as the US is. Snowden threatens
those who make the rules, and then apply them fully to others and not at all
to themselves and their cohorts.

For the third time in my life (the first two courtesy Bush Jr.) I'm deeply
ashamed of my government.

~~~
michaelhoffman
Which rules do you suspect the Obama administration broke?

In general the reason things take a long time to do in a bureaucracy is
because of the required approvals from many different officials. If the
President or a cabinet secretary wants something to happen now, this is less
likely to be necessary.

~~~
lukifer
"The tree that doesn't bend, breaks."

"Bend too far, and you're already broken."

It's more an issue of redefining the rules than breaking them. Court oversight
becomes a secret rubber stamp that's never denied. Search becomes querying the
database we already have. Non-citizenship becomes 51% confidence. Spying on
enemy nations during wartime becomes Hey, Everybody's Doing It, Why Can't We?
...etc

~~~
michaelhoffman
That's interesting but it doesn't answer the question of which rules the Obama
administration broke by revoking Snowden's passport.

~~~
bobwaycott
Not sure which, if any, were broken, but here's a quick rundown of existing
rules I've found thus far:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5976018](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5976018)

I'm rather out of my depth where passport laws are concerned, though.

------
abalone
I'm not taking sides here but Snowden is wrong on the facts about passport
revocation. It is perfectly within the established law to revoke the passports
of fugitives with federal arrest warrants. It doesn't make you a "stateless
person" or "exile" you -- you're still welcome to return voluntarily.

The relevant U.S. law is 22 CFR 51.70 and 51.72
[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-1999-title22-vol1/xml/CFR-1...](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-1999-title22-vol1/xml/CFR-1999-title22-vol1-sec51-70.xml)

He does have a point that restricting travel does make it harder for you to
seek asylum. But that's nothing new.

~~~
irishcoffee
Unfortunate this is as far down the comments as it is.

------
cletus
There are several interesting aspects to this story.

The first is obviously the revelations about NSA "overreach".

The second is that this guy could've remained hidden but he put his name
behind the revelations rather than choosing the far safer path of being an
"anonymous source". This lends his revelations more credence and you have to
respect the guy for standing by his convictions. Maybe he would've been found
out had he stayed in the shadows but he certainly didn't try to do that.

The third is that the US is very much two-faced here. It seems clear that the
surveillance is being justified by a technical ruling to do with US vs foreign
persons, a classified ruling no less. While this might be a fine legal
argument, it doesn't engender support amongst foreign powers when you tell
them you have every right to spy on their citizens but oh, by the way, can you
do us a solid and hand over that fugitive?

In what world does the US think they'll get cooperation from anyone when they
aren't treated not even as equals but with simple decency? So the foreign
policy apparatus resorts to bullying tactics.

The fourth is that both China and Russia were _blatantly_ thumbing their noses
at the US. I see no world in which Russia hands the guy over so the actions of
the US have done little more than force a guy in possession of Top Secret
information to be harboured by a rival. Congratulations on that statecraft,
Obama, Biden and Kerry.

What's more it's made the US appear internationally weak.

The last is that the various players on Snowden's side do seem to have screwed
the pooch on this one by both issuing a letter of safe passage and not having
some kind of contingency when the US did the predictable thing and revoked his
passport. This could hardly have been an unprecedented move.

So good luck to you, Edward Snowden. I hope your sacrifice hasn't been in
vein. The optimist in me hopes that a future president will pardon you and
otherwise reverse this self-destructive course the US is on.

~~~
sneak
> The second is that this guy could've remained hidden but he put his name
> behind the revelations rather than choosing the far safer path of being an
> "anonymous source". This lends his revelations more credence and you have to
> respect the guy for standing by his convictions. Maybe he would've been
> found out had he stayed in the shadows but he certainly didn't try to do
> that.

I think that internal auditing would have very quickly identified him as the
source the moment the leaks hit the papers.

At least this way they have a little bit of a PR shitstorm if they disappear
him, as opposed to if he was totally anonymous.

Also, by doing that video interview, he gets to shape the narrative a tiny bit
by pointing out all the opportunity he had to be malicious that he didn't use,
illustrating that he's simply not. It's hard not to like the guy.

------
mpyne
He's not still complaining about his _passport_ , is he? Did Assange tell him
to say that too?

A passport means that the host nation is comfortable with the person traveling
abroad. For what should be obvious reasons the U.S. would rather he be back
home (to stand trial). Even if you disagree with everything the NSA has done
or will do, he technically broke the law. If the U.S. considers itself to
observe the rule of law, then they have to pursue him as much as they'd pursue
anyone else.

The U.S. has stripped persons of their citizenship for things as mundane as
fraud, so this is hardly a made-up case for Snowden.

In fact, it's _so not made up_ that there are existing procedures for when a
passport may be revoked [1] [2]. Note that despite the foia_reading_room in
the URL of [1], it is simply the U.S. Attorney's Manual, which is accessible
directly from
[http://www.justice.gov/usao/index.html](http://www.justice.gov/usao/index.html)
.

[1]
[http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit...](http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/15mcrm.htm#9-15.640)

[2]
[http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/info/info_870.html](http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/info/info_870.html)

Edit: Also, since when did a conversation without an exchange of consideration
or an agreement to perform certain actions become "wheeling and _dealing_ "?
This is the kind of stuff that has turned me off from Assange a long time ago;
he's just as willing to distort as a government, as long as it suits his
purpose.

~~~
arbuge
Careful there. Revoking a passport is not the same as stripping a person of
their citizenship. The press release itself seems to create some confusion
here - Snowden is not stateless because he is still a US citizen, even though
he doesn't currently have a passport.

Revoking a passport is routine when felony charges are filed. Citizenship on
the other hand is much harder to remove, even if the US government had any
interest in doing so (it doesn't in this case - it wants him back home).

Naturalized citizens can be stripped of citizenship in extreme cases when
they're found to have lied on their citizenship applications. I'm not aware of
any circumstance in which natural-born citizens can have their citizenship
removed without them voluntarily renouncing it first.

~~~
mpyne
Right. My point was only that the more extreme action (of stripping
citizenship) has also occurred. Stripping someone of citizenship would tend to
imply revoking of their passport, as it is indeed much more severe.

------
bobwaycott
I find it most interesting, and perhaps frightening, that Snowden's passport
was revoked. I've been thinking quite a bit about it since that bit of news
broke, and since it's referenced in this statement, it's back in my head.

I winced a bit at the claim of being a stateless person, as I'd previously
understood that to mean lacking citizenship _anywhere_ , not being without a
passport for travel. Perhaps I've been wrong about that all these years.

I'm still researching, but so far, I've found the following passport-
revocation authorities:

1\. Obtained illegally or through fraud

2\. Altered or misused (no definition yet on 'misused')

3\. Issued to persons whose citizenship is cancelled

4\. Non-payment of child support

5\. Non-repayment of repatriation loan

6\. Persons convicted of sex tourism

7\. Persons convicted of drug trafficking

8\. [based on comment below] Standing warrants for arrest (and other standing
legal/court orders against the bearer)

Interestingly enough, 22 USC § 2721 states that:

> _A passport may not be denied issuance, revoked, restricted, or otherwise
> limited because of any speech, activity, belief, affiliation, or membership,
> within or outside the United States, which, if held or conducted within the
> United States, would be protected by the first amendment to the Constitution
> of the United States._

I've yet to find an authority to revoke a passport from a citizen who is
openly seeking political asylum.

However, there is 22 USC § 217a:

> _A passport shall be valid for a period of ten years from the date of issue,
> except that the Secretary of State may limit the validity of a passport to a
> period of less than ten years in an individual case or on a general basis
> pursuant to regulation._

So, there's that. Perhaps this is one such individual case.

Additionally, the law requires the DOS to send the passport owner written
notification of revocation. I wonder if the US is considering a press
statement to be such written notice?

Any lawyers versed in passport issues know whether revoking a passport in a
situation like this runs afoul of law or established precedent?

[edit: formatting failure on my part]

~~~
olalonde
> A federal or state law enforcement agency may request the denial of a
> passport on several regulatory grounds under 22 CFR 51.70 and 51.72. The
> principal law enforcement reasons for passport denial are a federal warrant
> of arrest, a federal or state criminal court order, a condition of parole or
> probation forbidding departure from the United States (or the jurisdiction
> of the court), or a request for extradition.

[http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/info/info_870.html](http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/info/info_870.html)

So I think the passport revocation was in fact legal since there was a request
for extradition and a federal warrant of arrest.

~~~
bobwaycott
Thanks. Hadn't found that one yet.

Any idea on how that plays into the open requests for asylum?

Also, I'm assuming the statute uses passport denial to also include passport
revocation?

~~~
abalone
Yes, 22 CFR 51.72 says they can revoke for any of the same reasons they'd
deny, including an outstanding federal arrest warrant. Seems pretty cut and
dried to me.

As for how it interacts with asylum, well, it doesn't. If states had an
obligation not to pursue or interfere with the travel of a fugitive seeking
asylum, then take a guess what a lot of fugitives would do.

Generally if you're going to seek asylum, it's not the country you're fleeing
FROM that facilitates your emigration, it's the country you're traveling TO.

Well, that's exactly what Snowden did, and got a travel document from the
Ecuadorian embassy. But the surprising other half of the story here is that
_Ecuador_ revoked that travel document while he was in Moscow. THAT is
arguably the main reason why he's in a bind right now, not that he or his
advisors expected his US passport to remain valid, which is clearly revokable
under the law in these circumstances.

~~~
bobwaycott
Okay, thanks. I figured from what else I'd already researched and read that
denial & revocation were essentially equal.

On the interaction with asylum, I did a poor job of being clear. I was
wondering more about considerations of asylum given the current situation and
the US revoking Snowden's passport. I'd already assumed that a country would
revoke (although Snowden's a different kind of fugitive than, say, a murderer
attempting to flee). Obviously, no country facilitates emigration of a person
they wish to make a political and legal example of. Was wondering more if the
revocation makes Snowden look like _more_ of a case for political asylum, or
less attractive for potential asylum granters.

The Ecuadorian revocation of travel documents--if their stated reasons are
true--is certainly surprising (both for the revocation, and the political
liability that they're assessing to Assange in relation to Snowden).

All that aside, revoking a standing passport just strikes me as a very dick
move. Almost childish, even. It just screams, "Our allies aren't cooperating
with us because we've been abusing them, so we'll just maroon the poor bastard
until they cave cos they don't want to deal with him either." Not ineffective,
but still a disappointing tactic from the administration.

~~~
abalone
Looks like it's routine to revoke the passports of wanted fugitives. It's not
an administration-specific tactic, it's state dept. policy. So no, I wouldn't
say that in itself supports or detracts from his appeal for asylum.

~~~
bobwaycott
Ah, okay. That kind of makes it sound more like once charges are filed against
a person, passports are revoked. I wonder how swiftly such action typically
takes place in comparison to this action.

------
Kylekramer
Accusing the United States of depriving him of the right to seek asylum seems
like a tautology to me. If the United States wasn't attempting to bring him
back to the US for a trial, he wouldn't need to seek asylum.

Does this mean every country who attempts to prosecute people who subsequently
seek asylum is violating "a basic right"?

~~~
chrischen
He's accusing the USA of pressuring countries to deny asylum.

~~~
Kylekramer
What is the difference between asking for extradition and pressuring to deny
asylum? It just seems like anyone could make that accusation who flees a
country to avoid a trial.

~~~
jpdoctor
> _What is the difference between asking for extradition and pressuring to
> deny asylum?_

Asylum is considered a basic human right. I've posted elsewhere:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5974330](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5974330)

~~~
gohrt
> This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising
> from non-political crimes

Anyway, it really doesn't make sense to talk about asylum in relation to the
country being _fled_. The declaration is a statement of what the destination
state should do when it recognizes a case of persecution. 'Persecution' is
inherently a subjective concept.

------
jusben1369
Obama is saying "You broke the law. We want you back. We won't wheel and deal
for you with any country who wants to use you iike a pawn to win some other
concession or just enjoy sticking it to us. Take him in at your own risk"
Nothing new here or deceitful. Pretty standard operating procedure.

~~~
brown9-2
Exactly. Does Snowden honestly expect to not be charged with a crime that he
has admitted to, even if he disagrees with the morality of the crime?

~~~
baddox
> Does Snowden honestly expect to not be charged with a crime that he has
> admitted to

What on Earth are you talking about? It's abundantly clear that he expects to
be charged with a crime (or at least to be treated as badly or worse as
someone charged with a crime). Why do you think he left the USA and is seeking
asylum?

~~~
jusben1369
Then why start with this sentence? "One week ago I left Hong Kong after it
became clear that my freedom and safety were under threat for revealing the
truth" Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "I went to HK because I thought my
freedom and safety would be under threat if I revealed the truth in my home
country" I agree with you that's he's known it all along. So this feels like
he's manipulating his supporters as he's not really being very honest.

------
webghost
Just an FYI:

Nicolas Maduro, president of Venezuela is in Russia right now. He flies not
the national presidential airplane but a cuban plane.

Rumor has it, he visited Russia with the intention of giving Snowden a ride
back to Venezuela.

We'll see.

~~~
b_emery
Good spot: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2351981/Is-Ed-
Snowde...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2351981/Is-Ed-Snowden-set-
claim-asylum-Venezuela-President-Maduro-visits-Russia-tomorrow.html)

------
jgrahamc
He's not a 'stateless person'. His passport has been revoked, but he remains a
US citizen.

~~~
michaelhoffman
Equally he has not been given the penalty of "exile." There is nothing the
U.S. would like more than to have Snowden return to U.S. soil.

This stretching of the truth does not engender trust.

~~~
EthanHeilman
Exile usually involves a threat of violence if the person returns home. Many
exiles are exiles because their home country's government would hurt them if
they returned.

"Exile means to be away from one's home (i.e. city, state or country), while
either being explicitly refused permission to return and/or being threatened
with imprisonment or death upon return."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exile](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exile)

Before calling into question the truth of statements made by a public figure
please look up the common definition.

Update:

Websters does not use this exact definition, being a more compact format than
wikipedia, but if you look under the examples in Websters you will see "Many
chose to live as exiles rather than face persecution." [http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/exile](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exile)

~~~
michaelhoffman
Snowden is not using the common definition of the phrase. He is explicitly
using a legal definition when he says "the extralegal penalty of exile."

To argue that any person who cannot return to their home country without being
arrested is "extralegally exiled" would mean that any fugitive is
"extralegally exiled," an absurd result.

~~~
mpyne
It was in fact the one comment I had been about to make. Snowden has chosen to
avoid the U.S., explicitly to _avoid_ the legal system. His own father feels
he probably technically broke the law so it's hard to claim that the U.S.
government has somehow managed to switch all 3 of its branches into a KILL
SNOWDEN mode.

If the charges are without merit then one of the very same judges that Snowden
feels should be involved in these types of surveillance programs will throw
them out.

Snowden's exile may very well be extralegal, but both the exile and the
extralegality of it are on Snowden himself.

~~~
sneak
> Snowden has chosen to avoid the U.S., explicitly to avoid the legal system.

No, he's chosen to avoid the US explicitly to avoid torture.

There's nothing legal about that.

~~~
mpyne
Are you saying that the US justice system is by definition torture?

If so, I would think Snowden would have made that his moral priority to
emphasize. There's no reason to fear "turnkey tyranny" (as he said) when we're
already living in a torture regime, is there? In that case there's no key to
turn, it's already here!

~~~
sneak
"turnkey tyranny" describes the future consequence for the median citizen.

Torturing those who leak information prior to trial is something that the US
government has already demonstrated a willingness to do. It's simply
disgraceful - a national shame.

~~~
mpyne
Like how those other NSA whistleblowers were "tortured"? Their treatment was
wrong, I'll admit, but calling it torture is insulting to those who have
actually been waterboarded by the U.S.

~~~
jacquesm
No, it just means that the US engages in more varieties of torture, some of
which we consider to be more severe than the others. That does not mean we
can't use the same word to indicate all of them.

And why limit yourself to NSA whistleblowers, a government that has crossed
this line has crossed that line in general, not just for some class. All this
'just NSA whistleblowers', 'just whistleblowers', 'just foreigners', 'just
enemy combatants' and so on isn't fooling anybody.

Some lines you just don't cross, lest you become that which you claim to
fight.

~~~
mpyne
> And why limit yourself to NSA whistleblowers, a government that has crossed
> this line has crossed that line in general, not just for some class.

Because the claim isn't that "the USA has tortured people". The claim is that
the USA will torture _Snowden_. Given the wide disparity in justice systems
utilized for U.S. citizens, "enemy combatants", and U.S. military, you have to
at least make that broad type of distinction to evaluate the probability of
the claim that Snowden will be tortured if he returns.

There's no end to the things you can do or refuse to do if your only
justification for that action (or lack thereof) is that a government has, at
some time, tortured somebody somewhere.

I agree wholeheartedly that the U.S. needs to account for instances where they
torture, but that also doesn't completely invalidate the whole government.

------
Kapura
I very much doubt that the United States government is afraid of me. Snowden
is a real drama queen.

I don't think that he deserves asylum either. I think he should come back to
America, have a public trial with media coverage, and then we can firmly
establish if what he did was wrong.

Edit: It appears that I'm unable to reply to the various comments on this, so
I'll try to refine what I'm saying:

I _do_ think that whistleblowers are necessary, especially in large, secretive
organisations. But I think that Snowden's limbo isn't providing the requisite
closure on the matter. I think that he should be compelled to explain his
actions in court. I think all whistleblowers should, just as I think that
anybody who kills somebody under a make-my-day law should still have their
actions examined. Whistle blowing isn't something that somebody does lightly,
and i think that should be doubly true for matters of national security.

Additionally, trying to vilify the government in a press statement is silly.
Let their actions speak for them, and let your own actions speak for you.

~~~
cheald
What he did was certainly illegal. It's highly debatable as to whether or not
it was wrong.

~~~
tjgq
If he was tried, couldn't he (at least theoretically) be acquitted by the
jury? Honest question; I don't know that much about the U.S. judicial system,
but I'm aware of the concept of jury nullification.

(Not that I'm too keen on the possibility that the U.S. government would grant
him the chance of a fair trial...)

~~~
Lexarius
Jury nullification is possible, but it's unusual for any jury members who have
heard of it to make the cut.

~~~
tjgq
I think courts should be legally obliged to make jurors aware of that fact.
Overall, I'm not a huge fan of trial by jury, but the idea that an unjust law
(as felt by the general public) can be defeated like that certainly appeals to
me.

(I'm not trying to make a point about Snowden's particular case, just speaking
in general.)

~~~
lukifer
It's in fact the opposite: the jury is explicitly told to judge the case, not
the law, and mentioning nullification as a juror will certainly get you thrown
out during the selection process, and I've even heard of cases which were sent
to mistrial when the jury's intent was revealed. The best way to successfully
nullify is to pretend that you've never heard of such a thing.

I do hope there's a demographic shift here. Facing heavy-handed laws regarding
drugs and such, web-savvy young people seem to be slowly catching on about
tactics like nullification, not talking to police, etc.

~~~
jordanthoms
There has been some movement on this, New Hampshire passed a law requiring the
court to allow the defense to inform the jury about nullification:
[http://www.policymic.com/articles/10603/jury-
nullification-i...](http://www.policymic.com/articles/10603/jury-
nullification-in-new-hampshire-becomes-reality)

------
mililani
Damn, we live in a shitty world. And the comments in here are not much better.
I wish him the best. It's sad that Ecuador is wavering. What a joke their
leader is. First, they're posturing and puffing out their chests, now they
look like fools.

------
brown9-2
Serious question: how has the US been "extrajudicial"?

Isn't it common to revoke a passport of someone you want to try of a crime and
have extradited?

Does one expect the government to assist in your asylum attempts?

I don't believe one has the right to not be charged with a crime, especially
one you have admitted to.

~~~
sneak
> Yet now it is being reported that after promising not to do so, the
> President ordered his Vice President to pressure the leaders of nations from
> which I have requested protection to deny my asylum petitions.

~~~
brown9-2
I fail to see what is "extralegal" about trying to make sure you can get
custody and try the person you've charged with a crime.

Every country in the world that has extradition treaties with other states
does the same exact thing every day.

~~~
sneak
Why do you suppose people request asylum from third-party countries? Could you
describe a circumstance in which it is a legitimate request should be granted?

~~~
brown9-2
Regardless of how you feel about whether his criminal charges are political
there is nothing extralegal about requesting other countries to turn over the
person you've charged with a crime.

It cannot be _extra_ , meaning outside, the legal system, when all you have
done is made a request within the established legal system and diplomatic
customs.

~~~
sneak
We have no idea what kind of pressures the US has brought to bear against
those considering his requests.

He has the right to seek it. Closed door pressure against those who can grant
it is very certainly extralegal interference.

If they have any legitimate legal reason to interfere with his asylum requests
to third parties, why not just charge him with a crime that those third
parties would see as valid, or exclude torture from his potential punishments?

This is not about extradition, it's about asylum. Presumably you only grant
asylum if you believe an extradition request is bullshit to begin with.

The US only has one non-scumbag move here, and that's to charge him with a
crime or crimes, and make a credible commitment that his potential treatment
before, during, and after the trial doesn't violate his basic human rights.

Going behind closed doors doesn't suddenly make the charges more plausible
(espionage? really? he gave the info only to journos, spoke to no govts) or
magically clean up the US's history of human rights abuses and torture against
enemies of the military, be it Manning or al-Awlaki.

Bad or good, guilty or innocent - it is always wrong to turn someone over to
be tortured.

~~~
brown9-2
Are you suggesting that Snowden is aware of these backchannel threats then?

The US isn't in the habit of ensuring that the rule of law will be fulfilled
since that is still the default posture of the government.

------
jgoodwin
One thing that concerns me is that many Americans are adopting what is
essentially a Tory/Loyalist attitude towards these events, without
understanding the Tory/Loyalist political philosophy of dissidence, which
differs from 'civil disobedience' and 'non-violent resistance' (those are the
_other_ guys).

Don't get me wrong -- we can't all be Patriots and Revolutionaries -- but our
history has ill-fitted us to be _good_ at being Tories and Loyalists. Those
were the bad guys in all our grade-school stories ... and now we _are_ those
bad guys.

The classical Tory theory of dissidence is called "Passive Obedience." This
doesn't mean bending over and being a wimp. It means being obedient to higher
authority (God and Constitutional Law), while seemingly disobeying usurpers
and tyrants, who are themselves violating the higher Law -- constitutional,
moral, and natural. The "Passive" part is an old word meaning suffering (like
the Passion of Christ).

Edward Snowden has given us a very good example of Passive Obedience -- _if_
he is correct the programs are indeed unconstitutional. He certainly is
suffering for his beliefs, and is fleeing, not resisting or rebelling against
the State. Failure to obey the commands of usurpers and tyrants, or to obey
bad law in defiance of the dictates of one's conscience, are not required even
of Loyalists and Tories.

The fact that Tories and Loyalists, which the American people have become, are
condemning his actions, shows only that we have forgotten how to be good
Redcoats, as well as most certainly having forgotten how to be good Patriots.

As good Tories (not good Patriots though), Loyal to the American State, we
have the right to petition our sovereign -- the American People, not its
representative Government -- i.e., to request a constitutional convention to
strike down these Star Chamber courts, redress the alleged tyranny, and end
the usurpations against our Sovereign's previously constituted declarations,
and granted Bill of Rights.

As far as Snowden's flight is concerned, Sir Thomas Hobbes gives a very clear
explanation of both Passive Obedience and the right of the dissident to flee,
in an attempt to evade the sure punishment he would otherwise receive with or
without justice (however if he is caught he must meekly accept his Passion and
martyrdom, without resistance -- Civil Disobedience and Resistance are the
contrary of the Tory doctrine).

Time to pick sides -- but if we are going to be Tories all, let us not be
_bad_ ones. These are the times that try men's souls.

------
jpdoctor
Article 14 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from
persecution.

This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising
from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles
of the United Nations.

[http://www.ichrp.org/en/article_14_udhr](http://www.ichrp.org/en/article_14_udhr)

~~~
joelg236
I hope you aren't saying that Snowden's crime is contrary to the purposes and
principles of the United Nations.

~~~
jpdoctor
I'm not judging, I'm providing the text for the Article he referenced in his
statement.

------
cpursley
If there were ever a case for a second passport, this is one.

You can get buy one for $135,000. This is what Derek Sivers did.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3944339](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3944339)

[https://sivers.org/comfort](https://sivers.org/comfort)

[http://www.sovereignman.com/lifestyle-design/how-to-
obtain-a...](http://www.sovereignman.com/lifestyle-design/how-to-obtain-a-
second-passport-10112/)

------
snicklepuff
To imply that the US is somehow out of order to pursue his extradition makes
no sense. What does he expect them to do?

IMHO, he should not have run. I don't think he would have any trouble
convincing 12 people that what he did was the right thing. Running was bad
form.

I don't like this guy, and I don't trust him.

~~~
sounds
Then show him up. Put your money where your mouth is by doing what you think
is right.

In the meantime, let's get back to the message, not the messenger.

------
falcolas
A meta comment.

It reflects strongly on the state of our world now that I was more concerned
about the fallout from visiting wikileaks.org than I was by the latest
information coming from Snowden.

~~~
krapp
I think it reflects more strongly on your own paranoia, if you really worry
that just visiting wikileaks might get you arrested or something.

------
paul9290
Is the world a different place after 9/11 .. heck yes!

How can the govt. prevent such an event from happening again or at least
attempt to prevent it from happening again? Only way I can think is to invade
every citizen's privacy of every nation, as they have done.

It seems for us the US there is no win win and with human nature there never
is. If another 9/11 happens we'd be crying why didnt the govt. do more though
the govt. is doing more and now we are crying what the hell are they doing?

Humans..we're never satisfied!

~~~
danbruc
_How can the govt. prevent such an event from happening again or at least
attempt to prevent it from happening again?_

You don't. The price of freedom is the risk of getting hurt because the bad
guys are in advantage. You don't step out of your front door with a gun and
shoot everybody on the street because they may rob you - you get robbed and
only after that you try to catch, charge and sentence the guy.

------
thufry
This reads like the statement of someone who realizes it might be his last.

------
spickelmier
Exposing US surveillance of US citizens is clearly whistleblowing and a good
thing. Taking government laptops with NSA information, telling the Chinese
what sites of theirs the NSA hacked, and then releasing information about NSA
listening in on others (outside of the US) goes well into the realm of
breaking the law and should have consequences. Of course, taking a tour of our
adversaries doesn't help his cause much...

Also, I find it hard to swallow those who are up in arms about NSA spying on
non-US citizens... seriously??? What do they think the NSA was formed to do???
That should not be a surprise...

I do worry that Wikileaks is pretty much hijacking his agenda and substituting
their own...

------
arbuge
There is little doubt he is winning the war of public opinion at this point -
certainly overseas, and possibly back at home.

~~~
lukifer
Back at home is questionable. He's got the backing of the young and the
technorati, but the traditional media is wavering between "Just The Facts" to
sell a manhunt, and labeling him an outright traitor who gave secrets to The
Enemy. A great many people take the latter at face value and don't pursue the
matter any further.

He might have the backing of libertarians and the far left, but these were
people already opposed to the known over-reach of state power. Honestly, if
there's any hope of a significant sway in mainstream public opinion, I think
it's going to come from the Tea Party.

~~~
sneak
My dad is about the most anti-authoritarian person I know, going so far as to
sue the USG during 'nam for false induction.

These days he gets all his news from (Michigan) broadcast TV and radio, and is
pretty reclusive and doesn't talk to anyone.

The narrative he'd constructed from these limited inputs was that he's an
egomaniac computer hacker who took government data and then went to China and
Russia. Technically it's not false, but that's the narrative (and all the
implication) he'd assembled, given only MSM reports.

I think this is much bigger news outside of the US than inside, and that's
pretty sad. Then again, Obama claims "foreign entities" (thanks for pretty
solidly Othering all of the 6.5+ billion other humans) are the only ones that
get surveilled without a warrant.

This whole thing stinks. Why'd NSA have to pull this stupid shit anyway? Did
they really think that there'd be some huge domestic unrest against the
military if they DIDN'T tap everyone's phones and resultantly missed some
attack that hurts fewer people than we blow up quarterly with drones?

I don't get it. The logic simply doesn't pan out, and these aren't stupid
people, because you can't build information processing systems at this scale
and be dumb.

I feel like I'm missing something critical.

~~~
lukifer
I do credit the Three-Letter Agencies with the benefit of the doubt; they may
know about dangers much scarier than shoe-bombs or even 9/11\. It does not
justify the overreach of authority, but is sufficient that I do want to
presume on their intentions.

Having said that, given the opportunity and no legal obstacles, it's almost
stupid _not_ to soak up every last piece of data.

* If the motives are pure, they might stop a large attack, and/or avoid accusations of incompetence if an attack slips through.

* If motivated from above in the power structure, Obama or Cheney or whoever gets enough data to be ten steps ahead of political and economic foes, at home and abroad.

* If motivated from within, the agencies are able to blackmail and manipulate opponents to maintain their own budget and relevance. They might even do this out of genuine belief in their organization and mission.

* If motivated personally, a handful of powerful individuals get to maintain back-scratching relationships through selective dissemination of information, to say nothing of potential financial gains.

If I had to guess, every single one of these motives is at play at various
levels. And of course, being in a position to have all this data gives one an
immense amount of leverage to shut people up and hide misdeeds. Good to be the
king.

Blaming the NSA for PRISM is like blaming the ocean for New Orleans. It's We
The People who failed to build strong enough levees, and somebody was going to
take advantage of it eventually. Time will tell if the public will accept the
degree to which government institutions are openly doubling down. This is
_the_ political issue of our generation; if we accept spying as the norm, it
will be very hard to undo.

~~~
sneak
> Having said that, given the opportunity and no legal obstacles, it's almost
> stupid not to soak up every last piece of data.

then

> Blaming the NSA for PRISM is like blaming the ocean for New Orleans.

I simply can't buy that.

It doesn't take a ton of smarts to know that a giant database such as this,
even in the hands of the most kind and benevolent stewards, _will not stay in
those hands forever_.

It's a ticking time bomb for abuse. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of
when, and how bad. It's a silent bloodless military coup in a box with a big
red button on top.

Once built, something like that could never get meaningfully opposed, and a
large-scale abuse would be the absolute end of freedom as we know it:
everything from oppression of the free press, to coercion and blackmail of
political opponents, and silencing of activists or loudmouths of any/all
stripes.

I just can't see how any reasonable person, even with a 100% belief in the
legitimacy of spying, even domestically, could not see what a COLOSSALLY BAD
IDEA this thing is.

No conceivable threat model, even fantastic ones from Hollywood, makes it seem
sane, as the damage to the "American way of life" is an order of magnitude
greater from such a system than any bomb or attack.

I see what you're saying, and all of these seem like reasonable explanations,
but they all become non-starters when you consider the long-term consequence
of this thing being built. It's like a doomsday machine that you can't turn
off.

~~~
lukifer
We're definitely on the same page. What I'm getting at is the general human
capacity for hubris, ideology, and group loyalty.

The One-Way Panopticon may be a horrible idea both morally and practically,
but given the above human foibles, I'm not ready to jump to the easy
conclusion that the perpetrators are Evil, Idiots, or Evil Idiots. People are
complicated, and I ultimately lack sufficient data to assess motives. Rather,
there are so many possible motives, at some point it doesn't really matter.

EDIT: I should clarify: When I say "they'd be stupid not to spy", I mean in
the sense of short-sighted immediate goals. Obviously, on a larger scale, it
is sheer lunacy.

------
rolfwind
I wish him the very best.

------
isaacb
"and neither is the extralegal penalty of exile"

Okay, so this guy keeps saying some pretty strange things. If he came to the
States, he would no doubt be tried in the legal system. He is putting himself
into an extralegal position. I think it's probably the best thing for him to
do at this point, but to say that the government has in any way forced him out
of the legal system is pretty silly.

~~~
tommis
> If he came to the States, he would no doubt be tried in the legal system.

How can you be so sure?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning)

------
vijayboyapati
This young man is a true American hero.

------
suyash
What is the proof that this Statement came from Snowden directly?

~~~
fragsworth
I guess it depends on how much you trust Wikileaks to review information for
its accuracy.

------
mpyne
> Providing a counterbalance makes it harder for the government propaganda
> machine to sway public opinion against him and turn him into Just Another
> Terrorist.

Maybe he should tell Russian state media to tone it down a bit then. From
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2351981/Is-Ed-
Snowde...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2351981/Is-Ed-Snowden-set-
claim-asylum-Venezuela-President-Maduro-visits-Russia-tomorrow.html) :

"In several rapidly-aired shows on state-run TV, Snowden was flattered as 'a
soldier in the information war, who fights, of course, _on the side of Russia_
'."

As far as Russia is concerned Snowden isn't fighting for some pan-national
ideal; he's fighting on the side of Russia

------
mcarlin
Role model.

[http://imgur.com/AfcF56q](http://imgur.com/AfcF56q)

------
yaix
> using citizenship as a weapon. Although I am convicted of nothing, it has
> unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me a stateless person.

And, ironically, this terrible decision of the US government, ultimately is
responsible for Snowden having to stay in Moscow and probably having to tell
the Russian everything he knows, even the parts he never intented to reveal.
The US government just did a classical "shot yourself in the foot", I'd say.

------
DannyBee
Waiting for the onion to write "Edward Snowden issues statement confirming he
wrote earlier statement from Edward Snowden"

------
kbd
I love that he included his middle name in the signature, after the US bungled
its extradition request by getting that wrong.

------
squozzer
I'm sure those who signed the following doc were probably accused of
egocentrism, among other things:

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

------
SkyMarshal
I wonder what exactly happened with Hong Kong. Did he get wind that the HK
govt intended to end-run its own laws and asylum process and extradite him, or
something similar?

------
Uchikoma
I'm not sure you know how Wikileaks works "I'd really like to see Wikileaks
devoting more of its time, energy, and fund-raising into breaking news about
government-operated surveillance programs in the last two countries where
Edward Snowden has been located, namely China and Russia."

From my understanding people submit content to Wikileaks which then decides
what and when to publish. But I guess this depends on if you believe Assange
pushed Mannings to release documents.

------
Kiro
I'm so very tired of WikiLeaks. Since when is this their case?

------
jabits
Thank you, Edwin Snowden. In the end, you have made us more free.

------
jabits
Thank you Edwin Snowden. In the end, you have made us more free.

------
stcredzero
Is there a way we can send cash to Edward Snowden?

------
guard-of-terra
Best read if you can imagine a voice in your head a-la Diablo III, how various
spirits of past talk.

------
dmead
why would he date it d/m/y instead of m/d/y?

~~~
alan_cx
As far as I know, that is normal. Putting month first is illogical.

~~~
mpyne
It's not normal in the USA (another Britishism apparently?).

In the USA a date is spoken as "July 2nd, 2013" instead of "2 July 2013",
which is why the shorthand date is MM/dd/YYYY (as it lines up with the way it
is spoken).

~~~
squozzer
A lot of US-govt types use DMY syntax. A stint in the Armed Farces will teach
you how.

~~~
mpyne
Yes, we use dates such as 3 Jul 13 in the Armed Forces, but _never_ 3/7/13.

------
epynonymous
edward is a very strong writer, his rhetoric is perfect.

------
diminoten
For someone who doesn't want the story to be about him, he sure talks a lot
about himself...

~~~
reaganing
The man is desperate for attention, but doesn't want to appear so. I guess.

~~~
Permit
How is releasing a single press release being "desperate for attention"?

A common theme among people who oppose Edward Snowden's is to criticize his
character. Even within this thread people have resorted to name calling,
dubbing him a "Drama Queen" and accuse him of seeking fame.

I suppose it's easier to attack a person than it is to attack the issues he
stands for.

~~~
reaganing
If he wasn't, he would have simply turned himself in and faced trial.

All his globe-trotting and statements just detract from the issues he's raised
re: surveillance.

~~~
cheald
Unless he doesn't believe that he can get a fair and just trial. Given the
history of those before him, I'd say that's a fair assumption.

~~~
reaganing
I don't think it's all that fair of an assumption, and even so, he's only
delaying the inevitable. He will be brought back and tried eventually.

~~~
Ygg2
Riiiight... He'll get fair trial and ride a unicorn over happiness mountain.
All life is delaying the inevitable. Let's hope he doesn't end his in a dark
cell.

