

Snowden’s whereabouts unknown - gerhardi
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russia-says-it-has-no-authority-to-expel-snowden/2013/06/24/325281f2-dcaf-11e2-bd83-e99e43c336ed_story.html

======
cpursley
Funny how the prominent left politicians (not citizens) are coming out and
showing who they really are: Neocons.

The only thing 'deeply troubling' is that both sides are labeling a
whistleblower as a 'leaker' and 'traitor' when all he's done is expose that
U.S. citizens info is collected without warrants, a likely constitutional
violation.

~~~
ihsw
Calling them neocons ignores the basis of their political beliefs: Statism.
The American Democrats are essentially Statists who will - at any cost -
support the advancement of the state, specifically the state's control over
every aspect of life. Their mantra is "What you can control cannot hurt you."

Personally I also equate American Republicans with fascists, whom spout
rhetoric about patriotism and some measure of ethnocentrism.

~~~
cpursley
Yes - Statism is a better term! I agree.

~~~
wavefunction
Neocons and Neoliberals (which is what I would characterize the "liberal"
elite in DC) are pretty similar in most ways. They simply differ on whether it
is military force or economic "liberalization" that should be used to promote
"freedom and democracy."

------
smegel
> A frustrated Secretary of State John F. Kerry said he was troubled by the
> apparent refusal of fellow world powers China and Russia to respond to
> espionage charges the United States had filed against Snowden, who leaked
> top-secret documents about U.S. surveillance programs.

This is kind of a strange statement. On what grounds could/would China or
Russia "respond to espionage charges" in the absence of extradition treaties
with the US?

Its also somewhat strange the US would expect any other country, especially
these two, to care deeply about leaks against it that expose massive
US/British spying against basically the whole world.

~~~
refurb
You're taking Kerry's words WAY to literally. The US wanted Snowden and Russia
said no, therefore the US had to respond. Kerry wasn't literally thinking "Oh
my god! They said no! How dare they? What do you do now???"

The US knew what the answer was going to be before they even asked the
question.

~~~
anotherblue
That's exactly what he said -- throwing a hissy fit because Russia is not
treating the US as a superpower...

------
jusben1369
I wonder how those reporters feel signing up for a 12 hour flight to Cuba now
for nothing. I have to confess I chuckled with the "they locked the doors and
he's not on the flight!" tweet. Rountrip to Cuba for nothing.

~~~
michielvoo
Hopefully they use the 12 hours to discuss and write about the actual issue,
instead of the person that reported it.

~~~
walshemj
No they will be hitting the duty free booze - you obviously haven't been
around many Journalists :-)

And probably trying to persuade their editors that they should stay on Cuba
for a few days just in case _nudge_ _nudge_

~~~
makomk
Apparently there's no booze served on the flight either. The journalists are
very disappointed.

------
hobbes
This is ironic.

Snowden is able to pass through Russian territory because, according to the
law of Russia, it is allowed. This, says Mr Kerry, is deeply troubling.

However, blanket monitoring of internet activity, which according to the law
of the US, is allowed, is not deeply troubling?

------
flyinRyan
>He cited U.S. refusals to extradite bankers convicted in crimes in Ecuador,
saying Quito was now free to exercise its “sovereignty” in the same way.

Way to go Ecuador!

>“There is no small irony here,” Kerry added, posing the hypothetical question
of whether Snowden sought refuge in China and Russia “because they’re such
powerful bastions of Internet freedom.”

No sign of shame or embarrassment. Disgusting.

------
rumcajz
Hm. His passport was revoked. Reminds me of the communist era here in eastern
Europe when people were not allowed to hold passports, unless the state
decided that it's safe to let them travel abroad.

------
graedus
> [Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.)] added: “These are countries that violate
> press freedoms every day. And yet [Snowden]’s seeking political asylum in
> those very countries where . . . if he were to pull a Snowden in these
> countries, they’d jail him immediately.”

...exactly as the US has attempted to do, on trumped-up espionage charges no
less? The _only_ reason that didn't happen in this case is because he learned
from previous leakers and was smart enough to protect himself by fleeing the
country beforehand.

------
mistercow
>“Ecuador puts its principles above its economic interests,” he said.

Something about this statement made me wonder: is Ecuador just collecting
political fugitives so that it can cut some nice deal with the US in the
future? This isn't a country with a stellar human rights record. I'm not sure
how comfortable I am with them accumulating a stable of high profile asylum-
seeking bargaining chips.

~~~
schiffern
>This isn't a country with a stellar human rights record.

The same could be said of the US. Surely you know this.
[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opinion/americas-
shameful-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opinion/americas-shameful-
human-rights-record.html)

I assume when the US shelters human rights activists you will question its
motives in a similar manner, no?

Also, cute how you jump to that reasoning first. Surely there is no other
reason a sovereign nation would need a bargaining chip with the USA.

~~~
mistercow
>The same could be said of the US. Surely you know this.

Yes, but the US has much bigger guns in the game of diplomatic bargaining than
Ecuador - including actual guns. Handing over political refugees would be an
unnecessary sacrifice of reputation for the US when there are so many other
tools at its disposal. Other nations already mostly do whatever the US tells
them to, and when they don't, a minor play like that wouldn't make a
difference.

Ecuador does not have such clout, so political refugees are a far more useful
bargaining chip.

~~~
schiffern
Since when is the US "handing over" anyone?

~~~
mistercow
They aren't. I think you should reread my comment.

~~~
schiffern
I did. Several times. I still don't understand what's being "handed over"
exactly.

~~~
mistercow
Nothing is being handed over by the US. The US doesn't stand to gain more by
handing over political refugees than they could gain by other tools available
to them, and they would lose reputation by handing over political refugees. So
they don't. They don't hand over refugees because it would hurt them more than
it would help them.

My point is that that reasoning does not necessarily hold for Ecuador. This is
why it's _not_ necessary to suspect that the US is collecting refugees as
future bargaining chips, while it _is_ necessary to consider that Ecuador
might be.

If you still think I'm suggesting that the US is handing over refugees, please
point out where I said anything of the sort, and I will clarify.

~~~
schiffern
Ahh, ok. Thanks for the clarification!

------
redsymbol
From the article: _The flight from [Moscow] was packed with journalists who
had purchased tickets believing that Snowden would be on the flight._

It would be hilarious if Snowden and his companions tried to get seats on that
flight, but could not, because it was already fully booked by these proactive
journalists.

------
wf
“It would be very disappointing if he was willfully allowed to board an
airplane,” said Kerry, who was traveling in New Delhi. _“There would be
without any doubt . . . consequences.”_ [emphasis mine].

What is he insinuating by saying something cryptic like this?

~~~
nicholassmith
It's standard sabre rattling. There's not a lot America could do to China or
Russia to upset them, so it's pointless rattling of the political sabre to try
and look tough on the big stage. Well, in my opinion anyway, unless Kerry
means he's going to unleash a torrent of US cyberspooks to pwn their networks
even more.

------
dsirijus
> "if he were to pull a Snowden in these countries, they’d jail him
> immediately."

This is the first time I've noticed this usage of "Snowden". Anyone noticed it
earlier?

------
lucian1900
> “The bottom line is very simple,” Schumer said. “Allies are supposed to
> treat each other in decent ways, and Putin always seems almost eager to put
> a finger in the eye of the United States, whether it is Syria, Iran and now,
> of course, with Snowden. That’s not how allies should treat one another, and
> I think it will have serious consequences for the United States-Russia
> relationship.”

And spying on so many of the citizens of so many allies is somehow perfectly
ok?

~~~
rmk2
Well...Russia _does_ seem a bit bitter about other spying incidents:
[http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=425431](http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=425431)

So it's not just the spying on citizens, it's also the...uhm...spying in
general.

------
hispeedencrypt
The tone of this article suggests Snowden is nothing more than a pawn in
someone else's game.

Why should anyone care so much about him? We've heard repeatedly that what he
has disclosed - a massive amount of spying on Americans and other nationals -
was already known by everyone.

Who was that person who said: If you are worried about someone discovering
your "secret" activities, then maybe you be doing those activities in the
first place.

Maybe the sooner politicians accept that "frictionless sharing" is the future,
the better off we'll all be? What do you think?

Other commenters have pointed out that most users outside HN do not care about
data privacy. So why should politicians care? Are they a special case? I
thought they represent the views of their constituents.

------
nakedrobot2
These politicians are increasingly sounding desperate. Like the parents of a
teenager who realize that their power is not limitless and is in fact
evaporating.

------
LandoCalrissian
He may actually make it, which is amazing. This is probably the best outcome
Snowden could have possibly hoped for.

------
pvnick
Kerry really comes off as a crybaby here

------
avn2109
How is Snowden pulling this off? Can anyone elaborate on the balance of power
that has allowed him to stay free and travel? This seems to be quite a feat,
but I can't read between the lines enough to sort out why these foreign powers
are staying out of his hair.

~~~
Sharlin
What do you think would happen in the symmetrical situation where a Russian or
Chinese whistleblower, exposing evidence of his respective country spying on
the Americans, were to seek protection from the US? There's no chance the
Yanks would just meekly accede to an extradition request.

------
angersock
From a politics standpoint, this is really really poor diplomacy, giving a
public tone which makes us look weak and forcing us into a position where the
US looks servile to other countries. It's just sloppy.

Why can't we have Clinton back as Secretary of State?

