
Snowden's Asylum: 'It's the law, stupid' - filipmaertens
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/08/2013841016657318.html
======
flexie
Obama's cancellation of the summit with Putin over Russia's granting of asylum
to one individual must be the most impotent foreign policy action for a quite
a while.

To maintain a bit of American dignity, at least Obama could have pretended
that catching a 30 year old hacker was less important than improving the
relationship between the two largest military powers on the planet.

I can only see the move explained as internal American politics.

~~~
adestefan
You do realize that is only one if the many reason why the meeting was
canceled? Theres a long laundry list of other, and more important, reasons.
Also, Putin has canceled the three previous meetings including two when he was
in the US.

~~~
alan_cx
Obama wanted to brand Snowden as a traitor, ignoring the detail, subtlety and
nuances involved in the case. Black and while, Snowden is a traitor. Yes?

Now, Russia gives Snowden temporary asylum, so in retaliation, Bush.... sorry,
Obama cancels meeting with Putin. Black and white, yes? Let us, wipe out the
detail and nuance. That is the rules, right?

So if Snowden is to be branded a traitor, Obama can be branded a petulant,
entitled, pampered, sulky, embarrassed, teen-aged child who is used to getting
his own way, and will throw toys out of the pram when mommy says "no".

Point being, this business of dirty tricks PR bites both sides. If Obama and
co want us to see Snowden as a black and white traitor, we are perfectly
entitled to state that the Putin meeting is canceled because of the Snowden
asylum, and ignore and of the other details.

Or US politics could grow up. The US gov could admit over reach. It could
thank Snowden and hail a new era of openness. It could redefine its role with
people, all people not just precious Americans, (we are all equal, right?) and
stop defaulting to treating them all like potential criminals, communists,
terrorists, drug dealers, pedophiles.......

~~~
mpyne
FWIW Obama's cancellation of the summit is getting rave reviews from basically
every major paper I've looked at. Conservative-leaning ones think Obama should
go farther, liberal-leaning ones seem to acknowledge that Obama has gotten
nothing from trying and it's time to quit proving Einsteinian insanity
correct.

All of them note that there was way more going into this decision than
Snowden; his was the proverbial straw on the camel's back.

~~~
alan_cx
Sounds all a bit "USA, USA, USA", rather than any sort of intelligent logic. I
think the article this thread is based on pretty much explains that.

Any US folk considered how hard it is for the rest of the planet to reconcile
US political and international posturing with normal international relations
and the idea of the rule of law?

~~~
mpyne
> idea of the rule of law?

The idea that you think Russia's actions have to do only with the rule of law,
but that the U.S.'s actions have _nothing_ to do with the rule of law, is kind
of surprising in my view.

Russia could have legally opted to decline the asylum request without
extraditing Snowden. I.e. "We won't arrest him but he has no permission to
leave the transit zone. Good luck convincing him to fly home".

In the same vein, even if you agree that _all_ of Snowden's disclosures are in
the public interest he still broke the law, and knew he broke it.

If I were to take it upon myself to have shot Ariel Castro, for instance, I
would likely still be charged with murder or manslaughter, even if I had known
he was kidnapping women.

But let's say that Snowden should be completely pardoned for leaking PRISM.
The U.S. government would still have grounds to charge him for leaking details
about hacking in China, which certainly did not benefit the American public.

And that, at this point, is all we're talking about. Charges to be sorted out,
and if some of those stick, sentences to be determined by factoring in
_mitigating circumstances_. That is hardly evidence of a government rampaging
through the international scene, as that is all quite standard material for
extradition negotiations. Things like grounding Bolivia's jet are examples of
roughshodding! But not this here.

But that's the thing. This isn't _strictly_ about rule of law. This is about
Putin using the club of anti-Americanism to improve his stature at home. If
Putin _really cared_ about "human rights" then why is Pussy Riot still in
prison? Why is it illegal to mention the idea of homosexuality to those poor
impressionable Russian youths?

It's not about human rights. It's about politics, just as much as Republicans
used to beat the drum of the "welfare queen" to advance their own position.

Accordingly, American papers are not very happy to see America used as a
convenient punching bag to advance Russian interests, even where they support
Snowden's overall point about surveillance, because they realize that the
world _is not binary_.

~~~
nikster
I live outside the USA and there's two messages to be heard out of the USA: \-
"We'll catch this guy and kill him" and \- "Give him up, or else..."

The US administration sounds like a foaming-at-the-mouth psychopath to the
rest of the world, a psychopath who's still holding the Obama agenda to
"protect whistleblowers" in their hands even while they make threats and act
crazy.

Meanwhile inside the USA the highly predictable campaign to discredit the
source is underway, with all the media happily participating, and nobody
asking any questions.

We expect these things from a country like Russia or China. We don't expect
them from the beacon of democracy, the USA. It means the USA pretty much _is_
Russia right now. Maybe a little less bad - fewer dissidents get killed
(Hastings, anyone?). But overall, same thing.

Putin knows this and they play exactly that angle. Idiotic behavior on the
side of the US administration makes that just soooo easy.

~~~
mpyne
> The US administration sounds like a foaming-at-the-mouth psychopath to the
> rest of the world

No offense but if this is really what you hear then there is _absolutely
nothing_ the U.S. could do or proclaim that would change your mind, or that of
the world.

So in that regard why worry about what the world thinks anyways? The world
will hear what they _want_ to hear, nothing more or less.

You need only look at the people comparing American human rights to Russian
ones, or saying that the NSA is evil when they spy but the German BND "are not
actually spying domestically and besides, they're incompetent".

The world has already decided, but let's not act like it's a completely
evidence-based decision that was made.

------
smackay
"In the age of digital wonders, more than ever we are dependent upon the
vigilance of citizens of conscience to protect us against Orwellian scenarios
of those many wannabe Darth Vadors lurking in the murky depths of the
governmental bureaucracy..."

This is probably the most sober assessment of the current situation which is
both optimistic and depressing simultaneously. The technology has reached a
point to make a snooper's wildest dreams come true but at the same time there
are more and more ways to get information about wrong-doing out into the open
and to discuss it which hopefully results in action to correct it.

The awkward part of the Surveillance Age is that permanent vigilance is very
difficult to sustain and any lapse or general complacency will be immediately
taken advantage of. Keeping governments in check now appears to be a 24/7
task.

~~~
nikster
Maybe I am an eternal optimist but in my opinion, it's impossible to keep all
that crazy stuff under wraps for long - information wants to be free, and it
will get out one way or another.

The USA is in a very bad situation thanks to the media's lock-step with the
government, and all is controlled by big business. You'd think there is no way
out. But at the same time, certain rights like the right to free speech do not
go away.

In times of great despair, great help arrives. This is why I think new
channels of communication apart from TV and newspapers will arise. New
channels that will not be owned by big business. HN readers will probably
laugh at the notion - hey, maybe the ...internet? Yeah I know - but it seems
like mass media still has a huge influence and, now, in 2013, still defines
"public opinion". What's on TV is what's true.

We have all the tech to change that, and I think it will change. Even though
it hasn't so far. Some new way of determining AND making the public opinion
will arise. I look forward to it (and if I can help enable it, I will)

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>Maybe I am an eternal optimist but in my opinion, it's impossible to keep all
that crazy stuff under wraps for long

It was kept under wraps for a long time. Those IRS training materials which
mentioned DEA/SOD intercepts were from 2005-2007. Each of the little pieces
needed to understand what's going on has been available for a long time, but
we all collectively failed to put it together[1].

>In times of great despair, great help arrives.

In comic books.

[1] Some of of us managed to put it together, but they were crazy tinfoil-hat
types.

------
simonh
I'm not particularly pro- or anti-Snowden, and I'm no fan of the Russian
government, but I think this article is correct.

Imagine the reverse case - a Russian government agent reveals massive and
pervasive, questionably legal surveillance by the FSB approved by secret
courts and without proper political oversight. Said Russian arrives in the US
and applies for political assylum. It would be appalling not to grant it,
while obviously allowing Russia to pursue normal legal channels to apply for
extradition.

~~~
sampo
What this episode has shown, is that a surprising number of Americans (also
commenters here in Hacker News) seem to lack that kind of sense of symmetry.

EDIT: Also some people responding to this comment (whoa).

~~~
tome
Whilst I acually agree with simonh's point, there's nothing like an actual
symmetry here. Russia is, and always has been, a far more oppressive state
than the US ever has been.

~~~
chunkyslink
Have you any evidence to back up this claim? I would wager that the list of
countries attacked, invaded or 'freed' as they like to say, is way higher for
the USA than Russia. That in my book makes the USA much more oppressive than
Russia.

~~~
tome
Yes, my evidence is the whole history of Russia from the Tsars, through
communism, to post communism, plus the history of the US from the War of
Independence onwards.

The US played a huge role (though not _quite_ as much as Americans would like
to think!) in freeing Western Europe from Nazism, freeing Asia from Imperial
Japan and freeing Eastern Europe from communism. It played a huge role in
reconstructing Europe after WWII and I guess the same is true of Japan.

Unfortunately the HN mix of American libertarians and European liberals is
rather myopic on this issue.

~~~
Volpe
> freeing Western Europe from Nazism

Here I was thinking it was "World War II" not "America saves the world II".

> freeing Asia from Imperial Japan

Yeah Russia had NOTHING to do with that one (except for pushing them out of
china, and being as pivotal as the US bombing of Japan in it's ultimate
surrender).

> freeing Eastern Europe from communism

Because communist are evil and all that other crap US propaganda teaches us.

> It played a huge role in reconstructing Europe after WWII and I guess the
> same is true of Japan.

Well yeah, it played a huge role in destroying them as well...

Any more cherry picking you'd like to ad to that list? Invented freedom
perhaps?

~~~
gadders
The USSR/Warsaw Pact was evil. I don't think you can even debate that, unless
you want to claim Hitler and Pol Pot were misunderstood as well.

~~~
pkinsky
I've got some bad news for you about the US and Britain. I assume you know
about Churchill's prefered method for dealing with 'uncivilized tribes',
poison gas?

~~~
tome
I don't understand the line of argumentation that, because one entity is
(partly) very bad it can't be much better than another entity.

------
martinkallstrom
In essence, the US government (not it's people) could be regarded as the
global bully. It's probably because bullying works and is economical. It makes
sense for them and the world where the US would have to apologize for it's
behaviour is not the world we live in, no matter how much we would want to.

But isn't it also a slight sign of weakness? Comparing to China, it's apparent
that US more often resorts to bullying tactics. Especially if you count in
military operations in that spectrum. If the US were an economical power the
bullying would not be more economical than a more long-term, silent and behind
the scenes overtaking of the global economy. Which is what China is engaged in
and US has been in the past.

~~~
kcorbitt
Historically speaking, it's hard to find a nation that with broad power
outside its own borders that has _not_ used that power to bully others.

~~~
rainsford
And also historically speaking, nations with the kind of relative power that
the United States has have behaved far, far worse towards other countries.
There are things the US could improve upon, but the bar has been set
impressively low by those who have held power before (including the United
States of years past).

------
Shivetya
ot to a point, I will be real curious if Time gives serious consideration to
Snowden as its man of the year.... let alone the boys in Sweden.

back ot

I said awhile back, Snowden fate is purely up to Putin, disclaim it all he
wants but if Putin found advantage to shipping him home it would happen.
Russia is far worse than the US when it comes to rights, but the US deserves
the embarrassment it receives from this to include the obvious snub of the
White House by Putin. The people who should be most embarrassed of their
behavior are the press, but they are so in bed with politics now that
reporting like that occurred with the Washington Post in the seventies cannot
occur today.

~~~
juhanima
The Nobel peace prize is actually given out by a committee nominated by the
Norweigian parliament. Alfred Nobel did'nt trust his countrymen in this
matter.

~~~
ehamberg
It should be noted that Norway and Sweden were in a personal union at that
time – a union that wasn't dissolved until 1905.

------
ck2
The idea of protesting the Olympics in Russia while we merrily went to China
would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

Many bad things the Russians do, we do right here. If it's a contest for
stupid, evil behaviors, we would only come out slightly ahead, certainly not
win any race for humanity.

And by the way, Russia has nuclear weapons still pointed at us - thousands of
them. Canceling ANY kind of talks is a bad idea, you never know the mentality
of someone behind the button.

~~~
onebaddude
>Russia has nuclear weapons still pointed at us - thousands of them. Canceling
ANY kind of talks is a bad idea, you never know the mentality of someone
behind the button.

Wow, talk about a Cold War throwback.

I do know their mentality: very much the same as ours. The Russians weren't
"irrational crazies" after WWII, and they aren't now.

~~~
ck2
Wasn't even implying they are crazy, after all USA also has thousands of nukes
pointed all over the world too.

I am saying any two countries with such powerful weapons pointed at each
other's citizens should always be talking.

------
lyndonh
In 5 years time Snowden will get fed up of the constant games and finally
gives himself up to the US government out of sheer boredom. Then he will get
shoved into a small cell, Kevin Mitnick style for 15 years. After great
expense will it have been worth it ? I mean for the American people ? All
those tax dollars wasted.

Why isn't anyone holding the government to account for all the bad things that
Snowden _told the truth_ about ?

~~~
GFischer
Are you kidding me, why would he give himself up?

History is not on your side, most exiles or refugees live all their lives in
exile.

~~~
lyndonh
I think you'll find that there is a big difference between the people who
planned and willingly went into exile and those who had no choice.

Of course he wouldn't want to give himself up.

You've missed the point though. The US government is directing the world media
on the chase for Snowden and keeping them distracted; no one is remotely close
to being held accountable for the things that Snowden leaked about.

"You told everyone that _we_ had done something wrong, and now you're going to
have to go to jail to make up for it".

------
scrrr
I wish that somebody (Michael Moore perhaps?) would make a great documentary
on the topic of the surveillance state that everyone watches. (And on the
seemingly broken American political system, as well.)

------
alan_cx
This is one of the best articles I have read on this subject yet.

~~~
marze
Yeah. A breath of fresh air, as they say.

------
tehwalrus
This about sums it up, yes.

------
diminoten
> and a moral and political duty not to do so, especially in the circumstances
> surrounding the controversy over Snowden.

What? Moral duty not to do so? Howso?

------
bengrunfeld
Snowden's future directly affects us all. If he was incarcerated against the
will of other powerful countries, it would send a strong message that personal
freedom is a thing of the past, and that if you do the right thing at the
expense of the government, you will be hunted down and punished.

I would really like to see Snowden being more vocal and discussing his beliefs
more. I think he could be a very powerful leader in the fight for privacy and
policies that restrict the government's snooping activities.

