Languish.org

QuoteU.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage in leaks about NSA surveillance programs
By Peter Finn and Sari Horwitz, Friday, June 21, 6:04 PM

Federal prosecutors have filed a sealed criminal complaint against Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked a trove of documents about top-secret surveillance programs, and the United States has asked Hong Kong to detain him on a provisional arrest warrant, according to U.S. officials.

Snowden was charged with espionage, theft and conversion of government property, the officials said.

The complaint was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, a jurisdiction where Snowden's former employer, Booz Allen Hamilton, is headquartered and a district with a long track record of prosecuting cases with national security implications.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

Snowden flew to Hong Kong last month after leaving his job at an NSA facility in Hawaii with a collection of highly classified documents that he acquired while working at the agency as a systems analyst.

The documents, some of which have been published in The Washington Post and Britain's Guardian newspaper, detailed some of the most-secret surveillance operations undertaken by the United States and the United Kingdom, as well as classified legal memos and court orders underpinning the programs in the United States.

The 29-year-old intelligence analyst revealed himself June 9 as the leaker in an interview with the Guardian and said he went to Hong Kong because it provided him the "cultural and legal framework to allow me to work without being immediately detained."

Snowden subsequently disappeared from public view; it is thought that he is still in the Chinese territory. Hong Kong has its own legislative and legal systems but ultimately answers to Beijing, under the "one country, two systems" arrangement.

The leaks have sparked national and international debates about the secret powers of the NSA to infringe on the privacy of Americans and foreigners. Officials from President Obama down have said they welcome the opportunity to explain the importance of the programs and the safeguards they say are built into them. Skeptics, including some in Congress, have said the NSA has assumed the power to soak up data about Americans that was never intended under the law.

There was never any doubt that the Justice Department would seek to prosecute Snowden for one of the most significant national security leaks in the country's history. The Obama administration has shown a particular propensity to go after leakers and has launched more investigations that any previous administration.

Justice Department officials had already said that a criminal investigation of Snowden was underway and was being run out of the FBI's Washington field office in conjunction with lawyers from the department's National Security Division.

By filing a criminal complaint, prosecutors have a legal basis to make the request of the authorities in Hong Kong. Prosecutors now have 60 days to file an indictment, probably also under seal, and can then move to have Snowden extradited from Hong Kong for trial in the United States.

Snowden, however, can fight the extradition effort in the courts in Hong Kong. Any battle is likely to reach Hong Kong's highest court and could last many months, lawyers in the United States and Hong Kong said.

The United States has an extradition treaty with Hong Kong, and U.S. officials said cooperation with the Chinese territory, which enjoys some autonomy from Beijing, has been good in previous cases.

The treaty, however, has an exception for political offenses, and espionage has traditionally been treated as a political offense. Snowden's defense team in Hong Kong is likely to invoke part of the extradition treaty with the United States, which states that suspects will not be turned over to face criminal trial for offenses of a "political character."

Snowden could also remain in Hong Kong if the Chinese government decides that it is not in the defense or foreign policy interests of the government in Beijing to have him sent back to the United States for trial.

Snowden could also apply for asylum in Hong Kong or attempt to reach another jurisdiction and seek asylum there before the authorities in Hong Kong act.

The anti-secrecy group Wikileaks has held some discussions with officials in Iceland about providing asylum to Snowden. A businessman in Iceland has offered to fly Snowden on a chartered jet to his country if he is granted asylum there.

The chief executive of Hong Kong, Leung Chun-ying, said last week that the city's government would follow existing law if and when the U.S. government requested help.

"When the relevant mechanism is activated, the Hong Kong [Special Administrative Region] Government will handle the case of Mr. Snowden in accordance with the laws and established procedures of Hong Kong," Leung said in a statement.

Quote from: Monoriu on June 21, 2013, 06:54:34 PM
Now we are stuck with him.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 21, 2013, 07:00:45 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on June 21, 2013, 06:54:34 PM
Now we are stuck with him.

I bet not for long.

Quote from: Monoriu on June 21, 2013, 07:03:00 PM
We take our treaty obligations seriously.  But there is the question of whether the charges against him are political in nature.  This is best decided in the courts.

Quote from: Monoriu on June 21, 2013, 07:03:00 PM
We take our treaty obligations seriously.  But there is the question of whether the charges against him are political in nature.  This is best decided in the courts Beijing.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 07:34:09 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on June 21, 2013, 07:03:00 PM
We take our treaty obligations seriously.  But there is the question of whether the charges against him are political in nature.  This is best decided in the courts Beijing.

Quote from: Monoriu on June 21, 2013, 08:00:24 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2013, 07:34:09 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on June 21, 2013, 07:03:00 PM
We take our treaty obligations seriously.  But there is the question of whether the charges against him are political in nature.  This is best decided in the courts Beijing.

If he goes to the courts, there is nothing we or Beijing can do about it.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 21, 2013, 08:20:34 PM
I thought espionage was something done on behalf of a foreign country? Didn't he just leak the information to the media? Now that is illegal and should be punished (though it may have been the morally right thing to do), but it doesn't sound like espionage unless I missed something.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 21, 2013, 08:20:34 PM
(though it may have been the morally right thing to do)

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 21, 2013, 08:12:46 PM
I think if the PRC intel people have or are going to interview this putz, they're going to be sorely disappointed in what he's got to give them, and probably won't care if he goes back.

Quote from: Iormlund on June 22, 2013, 12:03:13 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 21, 2013, 08:12:46 PM
I think if the PRC intel people have or are going to interview this putz, they're going to be sorely disappointed in what he's got to give them, and probably won't care if he goes back.

I thought he took a thumbdrive full of shit with him. It makes sense to trade it for a new life in China, since there are not that many places for that guy to go to.

Quote from: Monoriu on June 21, 2013, 07:03:00 PM
This is best decided in the courts.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 21, 2013, 08:39:53 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 21, 2013, 08:20:34 PM
(though it may have been the morally right thing to do)

:bleeding:  :bash: What the fuck is wrong with your generation, man?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 21, 2013, 07:05:22 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on June 21, 2013, 07:03:00 PM
We take our treaty obligations seriously.  But there is the question of whether the charges against him are political in nature.  This is best decided in the courts.

We expect you to take your treaty obligations seriously.

SURRENDER DOROTHY

Quote from: viper37 on June 22, 2013, 12:43:22 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on June 21, 2013, 07:03:00 PM
This is best decided in the courts.

are Chinese courts really impartial for a case like this?

Quote from: Tamas on June 22, 2013, 01:22:35 AM
I bet if he did this during the Bush administration you would be organizing the protest to drop the charges against him this very moment.

Quote from: Monoriu on June 23, 2013, 07:39:55 AM
We really have no place in this great game between superpowers.  Getting him to leave peacefully is probably best.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 23, 2013, 07:45:40 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on June 23, 2013, 07:39:55 AM
We really have no place in this great game between superpowers.  Getting him to leave peacefully is probably best.

:huh:

You guys passed Russia long ago.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 23, 2013, 07:49:03 AM
Isn't it ultimately up to Beijing whether he'd be allowed to stay or not?

Quote from: Monoriu on June 23, 2013, 07:39:55 AM
We really have no place in this great game between superpowers.  Getting him to leave peacefully is probably best.

QuoteAssange is now lending his support to  Snowden.

"He is bound for a democratic nation via a safe route for the purposes of asylum, and is being escorted by diplomats and legal advisors from WikiLeaks," the anti-secrecy group said in a statement, noting that they are giving the one-time CIA contractor legal counsel. "Once Mr. Snowden arrives in Ecuador his request will be formally processed."

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 23, 2013, 05:20:43 PM
:lmfao:

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/23/19102907-why-would-edward-snowden-seek-asylum-in-ecuador?lite

QuoteAssange is now lending his support to  Snowden.

"He is bound for a democratic nation via a safe route for the purposes of asylum, and is being escorted by diplomats and legal advisors from WikiLeaks," the anti-secrecy group said in a statement, noting that they are giving the one-time CIA contractor legal counsel. "Once Mr. Snowden arrives in Ecuador his request will be formally processed."

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2013, 01:24:37 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on June 23, 2013, 07:39:55 AM
We really have no place in this great game between superpowers.  Getting him to leave peacefully is probably best.

If it turns out that HK was served an extradition request and then let him out the back door, that will have been much more than strict neutrality.

Quote from: Monoriu on June 23, 2013, 07:01:35 PM
We did receive an extradition request.  But our lawyers say it wasn't up to our legal standards.  So we sought clairification from the US.  He left We allowed him to leave before we received such clarification.  Therefore, the extradition request that we received wasn't valid because we're spineless little pussies that will have to deal with the blowback from the US at a time of their choosing. :contract:

Quote from: Monoriu on June 23, 2013, 07:01:35 PM
We did receive an extradition request.  But our lawyers say it wasn't up to our legal standards.  So we sought clairification from the US.  He left before we received such clarification.  Therefore, the extradition request that we received wasn't valid :contract:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2013, 07:05:00 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on June 23, 2013, 07:01:35 PM
We did receive an extradition request.  But our lawyers say it wasn't up to our legal standards.  So we sought clairification from the US.  He left We allowed him to leave before we received such clarification.  Therefore, the extradition request that we received wasn't valid because we're spineless little pussies that will have to deal with the blowback from the US at a time of their choosing. :contract:

Quote from: Grey Fox on June 23, 2013, 07:51:26 PM
Equator saves the day once again.

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 23, 2013, 08:02:38 PM
It was definitely a weaselly move by HK that raises questions about its neutrality.  On the other hand, the US can't do shit about it.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2013, 08:16:09 PM

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 23, 2013, 08:02:38 PM
It was definitely a weaselly move by HK that raises questions about its neutrality.  On the other hand, the US can't do shit about it.

Not today.  But what goes around, comes around.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2013, 07:05:00 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on June 23, 2013, 07:01:35 PM
We did receive an extradition request.  But our lawyers say it wasn't up to our legal standards.  So we sought clairification from the US.  He left We allowed him to leave before we received such clarification.  Therefore, the extradition request that we received wasn't valid because we're spineless little pussies that will have to deal with the blowback from the US at a time of their choosing. :contract:

Quote from: katmai on June 23, 2013, 08:57:47 PM
It is cute that Mono thinks HK has any autonomy.

Quote from: katmai on June 23, 2013, 08:03:53 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on June 23, 2013, 07:51:26 PM
Equator saves the day once again.

:huh:


And Yi talks shit about my geography skillz

QuoteChina Said to Have Made Call to Let Leaker Depart
By JANE PERLEZ and KEITH BRADSHER
Published: June 23, 2013

BEIJING — The Chinese government made the final decision to allow Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, to leave Hong Kong on Sunday, a move that Beijing believed resolved a tough diplomatic problem even as it reaped a publicity windfall from Mr. Snowden's disclosures, according to people familiar with the situation.

Hong Kong authorities have insisted that their judicial process remained independent of China, but these observers — who like many in this article spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk freely about confidential discussions — said that matters of foreign policy are the domain of the Chinese government, and Beijing exercised that authority in allowing Mr. Snowden to go.

From China's point of view, analysts said, the departure of Mr. Snowden solved two concerns: how to prevent Beijing's relationship with the United States from being ensnared in a long legal wrangle in Hong Kong over Mr. Snowden, and how to deal with a Chinese public that widely regards the American computer expert as a hero.

"Behind the door there was definitely some coordination between Hong Kong and Beijing," said Jin Canrong, professor of international relations at Renmin University in Beijing.

Beijing's chief concern was the stability of the relationship with the United States, which the Chinese believed had been placed on a surer footing during the meeting between President Xi Jinping and President Obama at the Sunnylands estate in California this month, said Mr. Jin and a person knowledgeable about the Hong Kong government's handling of Mr. Snowden.

The Chinese government was pleased that Mr. Snowden disclosed the extent of American surveillance of Internet and telephone conversations around the world, giving the Chinese people a chance to talk about what they describe as American hypocrisy regarding surveillance practices, said Mr. Jin and the person familiar with the consultations between Hong Kong and China.

But in the longer term, China's overall relationship with the United States, which spans global economic, military and security issues, was more important than the feelings of the public in China and Hong Kong, who felt that the contractor should be protected from the reach of the United States, analysts said.

Mainland Chinese officials "will be relieved he's gone — the popular sentiment in Hong Kong and China is to protect him because he revealed United States surveillance here, but the governments don't want trouble in the relationship," said the person familiar with the consultations between Beijing and Hong Kong.

Mr. Snowden went public in Hong Kong on June 9, the day after the meeting between Mr. Obama and Mr. Xi ended, as the source of a series of disclosures in the British newspaper The Guardian and The Washington Post about classified national security programs.

The stream of information about the extent of American worldwide eavesdropping shifted the focus in the public sniping between the Obama administration and China over cybersecurity that had been unfolding for months.

In a series of speeches, senior officials in the Obama administration, including the national security adviser, Tom Donilon, and the defense secretary, Chuck Hagel, had taken the offensive against China, publicly accusing it of cyberespionage against American businesses. Mr. Donilon said in a speech in March that China was responsible for theft of confidential business information and proprietary technologies through digital intrusions on an "unprecedented scale."

In response to those accusations, China said that it was the victim of cyberattacks from the United States.

Mr. Snowden's disclosures appeared to confirm the Chinese government's argument, and put the United States on the defensive. The highly classified documents that Mr. Snowden gave to the two newspapers showed that the N.S.A. compiled logs of virtually all telephone calls in the United States and collected the e-mail of foreigners from American Internet companies.

Mr. Snowden has denied giving China classified documents and said he had spoken only to journalists. But his public statements, directly and to reporters, have contained intelligence information of great interest to China.

Two Western intelligence experts, who worked for major government spy agencies, said they believed that the Chinese government had managed to drain the contents of the four laptops that Mr. Snowden said he brought to Hong Kong, and that he said were with him during his stay at a Hong Kong hotel.

If that were the case, they said, China would no longer need or want to have Mr. Snowden remain in Hong Kong.

The disclosures by Mr. Snowden set off a surge of commentary against American "double faced" and "arrogant" behavior by many users of China's version of Twitter.

In some instances, the Chinese news media made snide references to what it called the gap between how the United States portrayed itself, and what the United States practiced. "Washington must be grinding its teeth because Snowden's revelations have almost overturned the image of the U.S. as the defender of a free Internet," Global Times, which often reflects the official point of view, wrote in an editorial.

The precise details of how the Chinese government dealt with Hong Kong authorities were not immediately known.

But Beijing appears to have decided that weeks of focus on Mr. Snowden in Hong Kong and his disclosures about the American government's global surveillance practices were enough, and that he could turn into a liability, said a second person familiar with the handling of Mr. Snowden. "Beijing has gotten the most they can out of the Snowden situation," that person said.

A senior diplomat familiar with the way the Chinese government works said just before the departure of Mr. Snowden became public that he believed that Beijing would do all it could to keep Mr. Snowden out of American hands. The Chinese public would be outraged if the contractor was extradited, put on trial and jailed, he said. At the same time, the Obama administration would put relentless pressure on Beijing to get Mr. Snowden, he said.

"I see the sun of Sunnylands disappearing into the snow of Snowden," the diplomat said.

Quote from: Tamas on June 24, 2013, 08:01:08 AM
going to China was stupid, that's for sure.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2013, 01:07:52 PM
Talking heads are wondering why the State Department didn't suspend his visa, so he would be forced to stay put wherever he was.

You'd think that would be SOP.

edit: passport, not visa.

Quote from: HVC on June 24, 2013, 08:16:25 AM
From what I recall he had to get the ok for vacation destinations a few months in advance. Picking HK seemed less suspicious then a non-extradition country

Quote from: HVC on June 24, 2013, 08:23:30 AM
Do you have to have a passport to enter a country? I know a country can any you entry without one (or a visa as the case may be) but is there any international law stating you need one to enter a country?

Quote from: HVC on June 24, 2013, 08:23:30 AM
Do you have to have a passport to enter a country? I know a country can any you entry without one (or a visa as the case may be) but is there any international law stating you need one to enter a country?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 08:34:26 AM

Quote from: HVC on June 24, 2013, 08:23:30 AM
Do you have to have a passport to enter a country? I know a country can any you entry without one (or a visa as the case may be) but is there any international law stating you need one to enter a country?

I'm pretty sure there are no treaties about who you can and cannot any entry to.

Mono: how are you feeling about the independence of HK's courts right now?  How are you feeling about HK's commitments to treaties it has signed?

Quote from: Monoriu on June 24, 2013, 08:45:03 AM
He isn't a drug lord or a murderer. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 08:58:26 AM
You're contending that it can plausibly be argued that Snowden is being prosecuted for his political beliefs? :huh:

Quote from: Monoriu on June 24, 2013, 09:08:30 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 08:58:26 AM
You're contending that it can plausibly be argued that Snowden is being prosecuted for his political beliefs? :huh:

Yes.  I think his is clearly a special case. 

Quote from: Monoriu on June 24, 2013, 09:08:30 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 08:58:26 AM
You're contending that it can plausibly be argued that Snowden is being prosecuted for his political beliefs? :huh:

Yes.  I think his is clearly a special case.

Quote from: Legbiter on June 24, 2013, 09:29:56 AM
He's going to Ecuador? Damn, prison might be better than that.

Quote from: merithyn on June 24, 2013, 08:19:11 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2013, 01:07:52 PM
Talking heads are wondering why the State Department didn't suspend his visa, so he would be forced to stay put wherever he was.

You'd think that would be SOP.

edit: passport, not visa.

NPR is claiming that Snowdon's traveling on a suspended passport. Not sure what kind of fallout that's going to have for Russia and wherever Snowdon ends up.

Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2013, 10:17:39 AM
Why would he need a passport?  The only places he's ever going to go again are places who will shelter him because they'd like to fancy themselves as standing up to the US.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 09:40:44 AM
Okay Mono.  Thought about it and seeing it as a political case is not as laughable as I had first thought. :)

Doesn't get HK off the hook for making up the bullshit excuse though.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2013, 10:24:44 AM

Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2013, 10:17:39 AM
Why would he need a passport?  The only places he's ever going to go again are places who will shelter him because they'd like to fancy themselves as standing up to the US.

This is really a question for lawyers....To what extent can you put the law on trial in a criminal case like this? For example, get a few congressmen to come testify that the program is far beyond what they believe was intended to be authorized and Snowden is a whistleblower.

I assume the ability to do that is limited, but to the extent you can, you only need to get one juror on your side to avoid a conviction.

Quote from: Monoriu on June 24, 2013, 10:26:29 AM
Why?  You guys keep saying that we have zero autonomy and Beijing controls everything.  So why don't you believe this in Snowden's case?  This is a diplomatic matter, something that Beijing is responsible for under our laws.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 08:34:26 AM
Mono: how are you feeling about the independence of HK's courts right now? 

Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2013, 10:24:44 AM
This is really a question for lawyers....To what extent can you put the law on trial in a criminal case like this? For example, get a few congressmen to come testify that the program is far beyond what they believe was intended to be authorized and Snowden is a whistleblower.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 10:29:48 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on June 24, 2013, 10:26:29 AM
Why?  You guys keep saying that we have zero autonomy and Beijing controls everything.  So why don't you believe this in Snowden's case?  This is a diplomatic matter, something that Beijing is responsible for under our laws.

I do believe that.  I don't believe there was some technicality that the HK authorities were seeking clarification on.  That's what I'm calling bullshit.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 24, 2013, 10:30:30 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 08:34:26 AM
Mono: how are you feeling about the independence of HK's courts right now? 

The move appears to reinforce that since it was designed to keep Snowden out of the courts.
So much for Snowden putting his faith in the HK legal system.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2013, 10:30:47 AM
Thing is, there are specific remedies and protections available for government whistleblowers within the government under the Whistleblower Protection Act and the Whistleblower Enhanced Protection Act.  He choose not to take them.  That makes him part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2013, 10:30:47 AM
That makes him part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 10:36:23 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2013, 10:30:47 AM
Thing is, there are specific remedies and protections available for government whistleblowers within the government under the Whistleblower Protection Act and the Whistleblower Enhanced Protection Act.  He choose not to take them.  That makes him part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor.

Those laws are designed to protect and reward people who rat out their colleagues and superiors, not those who rat out the US.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2013, 10:45:14 AM

Yes, but if he has a problem with management--and his public statements reflect he does, particularly with the Obama Administration--then he should've taken it up with them internally, not zipping off with thumb drives and laptops.

Quote from: frunk on June 24, 2013, 10:53:58 AM
If you feel strongly enough about the problem that it requires whistleblowing then you could make the problem public, but you sure as hell don't give sensitive information to the country's enemies.  That's where he failed and where he crossed the line to traitor.

Quote from: frunk on June 24, 2013, 10:53:58 AM
If you feel strongly enough about the problem that it requires whistleblowing then you could make the problem public, but you sure as hell don't give sensitive information to the country's enemies.  That's where he failed and where he crossed the line to traitor.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2013, 10:55:50 AM

Quote from: frunk on June 24, 2013, 10:53:58 AM
If you feel strongly enough about the problem that it requires whistleblowing then you could make the problem public, but you sure as hell don't give sensitive information to the country's enemies.  That's where he failed and where he crossed the line to traitor.

Yeah, I know.  :garbon:

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 10:58:04 AM
:huh:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2013, 11:01:35 AM

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 10:58:04 AM
:huh:

It's the combination of rolleyes and disaffected acknowledgement of fact.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2013, 10:30:47 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2013, 10:24:44 AM
This is really a question for lawyers....To what extent can you put the law on trial in a criminal case like this? For example, get a few congressmen to come testify that the program is far beyond what they believe was intended to be authorized and Snowden is a whistleblower.

Thing is, there are specific remedies and protections available for government whistleblowers within the government under the Whistleblower Protection Act and the Whistleblower Enhanced Protection Act.  He choose not to take them.  That makes him part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor.

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 11:11:01 AM
I am pretty sure that extremely sensitive matters of national security does not fall under those protections. At least that is how it works here. You have the right to leak information to the media, and the government are not allowed to try to find out who leaked the info. But that does not apply when the matter leaked concerns national security, and making the information public would severely hurt national security.

Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2013, 10:17:39 AM
Why would he need a passport?  The only places he's ever going to go again are places who will shelter him because they'd like to fancy themselves as standing up to the US.

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 11:05:49 AM
At any rate, hasn't Snowden been maintaining that he has only spoken with media outlets?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2013, 11:16:43 AM
And that makes his claims as a "whistleblower" to alert the US public of what the government is doing even more full of shit, as well as Hong Kong's "political" interpretation of the charges.  He's a spy, and he deserves an all-inclusive trip to Federal prison for the rest of his life.

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 11:08:20 AM
How do you make information public without informing the nations enemies at the same time?

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 11:08:20 AM
How do you make information public without informing the nations enemies at the same time?

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 11:20:13 AM
Well as far as what's been leaked to the media - have any of his revelations actually harmed national security?

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 11:19:38 AM

I can think of a number of ways.  But one way for sure is to avoid giving them four lap top computers.

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 11:21:57 AM
Go on. What are the number of ways? How would you give the information Snowden leaked to the public without informing China at the same time?

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 11:20:13 AM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 11:08:20 AM
How do you make information public without informing the nations enemies at the same time?

Well as far as what's been leaked to the media - have any of his revelations actually harmed national security?

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 11:21:57 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 11:19:38 AM

I can think of a number of ways.  But one way for sure is to avoid giving them four lap top computers.

Go on. What are the number of ways? How would you give the information Snowden leaked to the public without informing China at the same time?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 11:23:08 AM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 11:21:57 AM
Go on. What are the number of ways? How would you give the information Snowden leaked to the public without informing China at the same time?

:huh: Tell the Guardian.  Don't give your computer to the Chinese.

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 11:24:01 AM
He has given a computer to the Chinese? Source?

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 11:18:54 AM
And what is the difference between a spy and a whistleblower in your opinion?

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 11:08:20 AM
How do you make information public without informing the nations enemies at the same time?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 11:21:49 AM

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 11:20:13 AM
Well as far as what's been leaked to the media - have any of his revelations actually harmed national security?

Presumably towel head bombers will be more careful with their phone calls.

Quote from: frunk on June 24, 2013, 11:30:12 AM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 11:08:20 AM
How do you make information public without informing the nations enemies at the same time?

The best way is by not fleeing to one of the nation's enemies and effectively putting yourself at their mercy.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 24, 2013, 11:34:36 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 11:21:49 AM
Presumably towel head bombers will be more careful with their phone calls.

They should already know better. Haven't any of them seen The Wire?

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 11:40:16 AM

That doesnt really answer the question, since leaking and what you do after that are two different things

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2013, 11:51:26 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 24, 2013, 11:34:36 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 11:21:49 AM
Presumably towel head bombers will be more careful with their phone calls.

They should already know better. Haven't any of them seen The Wire?

It's simply indicative of the entire counter-intuitiveness of the metadata intelligence gathering effort by the National Security Agency that it can be bested by a 46-cent stamp available at your local Post Office.

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 11:21:57 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 11:19:38 AM

I can think of a number of ways.  But one way for sure is to avoid giving them four lap top computers.

Go on. What are the number of ways? How would you give the information Snowden leaked to the public without informing China at the same time?

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 12:00:38 PM
Method #1 go to a member of whatever congressional or senate (or both) committee has some related oversight responsibility so that they can follow up .

Quote
Method #2 if he was certain that no legitimate process could address his concern and he needed to breach his oath (or whatever equivalent American's take in his position) then he could go to a reputable orgnization like the ACLU.

Quote
Method #3 leak information to a reputable US reporter who wouldn't drop the ball as badly as the Guardian did.

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 02:16:20 PM
He did that. He went to Washington Post first. Only when they did not break the news the day they said they would did he go to the Guardian.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 02:30:39 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 02:16:20 PM
He did that. He went to Washington Post first. Only when they did not break the news the day they said they would did he go to the Guardian.

I see.  He wanted instant gratification and so went with the media outlet who was less careful with the story.  Isnt that the point!

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 02:56:19 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 02:30:39 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 02:16:20 PM
He did that. He went to Washington Post first. Only when they did not break the news the day they said they would did he go to the Guardian.

I see.  He wanted instant gratification and so went with the media outlet who was less careful with the story.  Isnt that the point!

I think its more that he had crossed the point of no return already. Knowing that the NSA were probably on his tail it was a matter of actually getting the news out or not. Also, the publication of the leaks is probably his best life- insurance.

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 03:02:30 PM

The US was going to kill him?

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 03:12:06 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 03:02:30 PM

The US was going to kill him?

No, Im sure the US has never killed anyone percieved to be a threat to national security.

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 03:12:06 PM
No, Im sure the US has never killed anyone percieved to be a threat to national security.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 03:16:16 PM
I see.  Snowden was forced to give 4 lap tops to the Chinese because the US media didnt publish fast enough.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 03:16:44 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 03:12:06 PM
No, Im sure the US has never killed anyone percieved to be a threat to national security.

That's how you came to the conclusion that the US would have killed Snowden if given the chance?  :huh:

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 03:19:31 PM
I personally havent come to any conclusion at all.

QuoteNo, Im sure the US has never killed anyone percieved to be a threat to national security.

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 03:14:44 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 03:12:06 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 03:02:30 PM

The US was going to kill him?

No, Im sure the US has never killed anyone percieved to be a threat to national security.

Wait a second

*Gets out his :tinfoil:*

Okay, I'm now ready for this conversation. Do continue.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 03:24:33 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 03:19:31 PM
I personally havent come to any conclusion at all.

:scratches head:

Then what exactly did you mean by this post:

QuoteNo, Im sure the US has never killed anyone percieved to be a threat to national security.

Quote from: derspiess on June 24, 2013, 04:35:45 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 03:14:44 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 03:12:06 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 03:02:30 PM

The US was going to kill him?

No, Im sure the US has never killed anyone percieved to be a threat to national security.

Wait a second

*Gets out his :tinfoil:*

Okay, I'm now ready for this conversation. Do continue.

Yeah, I tried to keep an open mind on Snowden until he started saying that he thought the US would try to kill him.  That's when it started to get weird(er).

Quote from: frunk on June 24, 2013, 11:59:44 AM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 11:40:16 AM

That doesnt really answer the question, since leaking and what you do after that are two different things

The problem isn't just what he has said publicly, but also what he hasn't said but knows, and what information he has on his person (including laptops).  By running he's declared to the world that he doesn't plan to go back to the US and his passport is worthless.  That puts him at the mercy of the government of wherever he is.

Quote from: Iormlund on June 24, 2013, 05:45:48 PM

Quote from: frunk on June 24, 2013, 11:59:44 AM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 11:40:16 AM

That doesnt really answer the question, since leaking and what you do after that are two different things

The problem isn't just what he has said publicly, but also what he hasn't said but knows, and what information he has on his person (including laptops).  By running he's declared to the world that he doesn't plan to go back to the US and his passport is worthless.  That puts him at the mercy of the government of wherever he is.

And by staying home he would have been at the mercy of the US government. Running seems a much more sensible strategy.

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 02:16:20 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 12:00:38 PM
Method #1 go to a member of whatever congressional or senate (or both) committee has some related oversight responsibility so that they can follow up .

Not realistic.

QuoteIf no legitimate process can adress his concern, then the ACLU cannot do anything or spread any information either.

QuoteHe did that. He went to Washington Post first. Only when they did not break the news the day they said they would did he go to the Guardian.

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 03:17:42 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 03:16:16 PM
I see.  Snowden was forced to give 4 lap tops to the Chinese because the US media didnt publish fast enough.

Again with the 4 laptops? What is the source for that claim?

QuoteAs he pulled a small black suitcase and carried a selection of laptop bags over his shoulders, no one would have paid much attention to Ed Snowden as he arrived at Hong Kong International Airport. But Snowden was not your average tourist or businessman. In all, he was carrying four computers that enabled him to gain access to some of the US government's most highly-classified secrets

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2013, 11:29:00 AM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 24, 2013, 11:18:54 AM
And what is the difference between a spy and a whistleblower in your opinion?

Intent and action.

Quote from: Iormlund on June 24, 2013, 07:00:59 PM
Judging by the comments on Languish it seems to me the difference between both is the second spends the rest of his life in prison.

I don't know (or care) if Snowden was spy from the start. But the reaction here certainly makes desertion the only way out, even for a bona fide whistleblower.

Quote from: Syt on June 25, 2013, 12:34:06 AM
I think that Snowden was well intentioned, and maybe also hoping to be a hero of the people for uncovering all the data collection schemes. How he went on releasing that information, though ...

I'm a bit surprised at the lack of outrage about the data collection itself, both in the U.S. and the UK. I guess a lot of people are indifferent because the internet and electronic communications don't feel "real", unlike a bug in your phone, a camera in front of your house or someone opening your letters.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 25, 2013, 04:22:08 AM
I find it very strange that a great advocate of freedom is choosing to use a string of quasi-democratic thug states or outright totalitarian states to make his bid for freedom (China-->Russia-->Cuba-->Venezuela (maybe)-->Ecuador. All of those States have history of suppressing free speech to a degree vastly worse than the United States, in fact a place like Russia where the rule of law means nothing is a pretty dangerous stopover for Snowden. Putin's inclination is to do whatever he can to hurt the United States, but if we were to offer some sort of pot of honey in exchange for Snowden, Putin could easily order him given to us with no real concern for what Russian law says. He's actually probably in the most danger right now as long as he's in Russia, because in China the government was less likely to go strong arm.

Beijing didn't want a confrontation with the U.S., but they also sure as hell didn't want to do anything to violate the integrity of Hong Kong's independent government (which they would have been pressured to do in order to bypass the lengthy legal extradition process in Hong Kong.) That's why the story that "handlers" from Beijing arranged it so that Snowden was basically told "it's time to leave, now" makes sense. But in Russia there aren't such concerns, if someone bribes Putin well enough he'll gladly turn Snowden over.

I also continually find it strange when countries like Ecuador, which have limited press freedoms and various human rights abuses, blast us in the international press for things that they would do without hesitation.

Quote from: Syt on June 25, 2013, 12:34:06 AM
I think that Snowden was well intentioned, and maybe also hoping to be a hero of the people for uncovering all the data collection schemes. How he went on releasing that information, though ...

I'm a bit surprised at the lack of outrage about the data collection itself, both in the U.S. and the UK. I guess a lot of people are indifferent because the internet and electronic communications don't feel "real", unlike a bug in your phone, a camera in front of your house or someone opening your letters.

Quote from: Agelastus on June 25, 2013, 04:23:10 AM

Quote from: Syt on June 25, 2013, 12:34:06 AM
I think that Snowden was well intentioned, and maybe also hoping to be a hero of the people for uncovering all the data collection schemes. How he went on releasing that information, though ...

I'm a bit surprised at the lack of outrage about the data collection itself, both in the U.S. and the UK. I guess a lot of people are indifferent because the internet and electronic communications don't feel "real", unlike a bug in your phone, a camera in front of your house or someone opening your letters.

Several decades of terrorist bombs tends to desensitise you to certain things.

Quote from: Iormlund on June 25, 2013, 05:38:27 AM

Quote from: Agelastus on June 25, 2013, 04:23:10 AM

Quote from: Syt on June 25, 2013, 12:34:06 AM
I think that Snowden was well intentioned, and maybe also hoping to be a hero of the people for uncovering all the data collection schemes. How he went on releasing that information, though ...

I'm a bit surprised at the lack of outrage about the data collection itself, both in the U.S. and the UK. I guess a lot of people are indifferent because the internet and electronic communications don't feel "real", unlike a bug in your phone, a camera in front of your house or someone opening your letters.

Several decades of terrorist bombs tends to desensitise you to certain things.

What a load of crap. The UK and the US are not the only places to have experienced terrorism.

You guys are just hysterical. Osama won the WoT.

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2013, 05:52:57 AM
Funny (and sad) to see how utterly successful it has been to steer public discussion away from the hideous facts he published to his person.

Quote from: Syt on June 25, 2013, 12:34:06 AM
I'm a bit surprised at the lack of outrage about the data collection itself, both in the U.S. and the UK. I guess a lot of people are indifferent because the internet and electronic communications don't feel "real", unlike a bug in your phone, a camera in front of your house or someone opening your letters.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 06:45:56 AM

Quote from: Syt on June 25, 2013, 12:34:06 AM
I'm a bit surprised at the lack of outrage about the data collection itself, both in the U.S. and the UK. I guess a lot of people are indifferent because the internet and electronic communications don't feel "real", unlike a bug in your phone, a camera in front of your house or someone opening your letters.

I haven't decided yet what I think about the programs, but I do find it telling that all the people expressing outrage about it seem to be mischaracterizing the actual workings.

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2013, 06:48:31 AM
In what way?

Quote from: Agelastus on June 25, 2013, 06:24:34 AM

Fuck you arsehole; I said nothing about the USA, only the UK where I was born, raised and still live. 40 years of on/off terrorist campaigns followed by a thirty year continuous one by the IRA certainly affected how this country feels about terrorist bombings. For one thing, we certainly don't become "hysterical" about them; it's just business as usual. For another thing we don't raise as much of a fuss about the things people do to protect us from them as some of our continental neighbours seem to expect.

I haven't been down south for a few years, so perhaps someone who has can tell me; have the litter bins ever reappeared at train stations or in the West End?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 06:51:05 AM

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2013, 06:48:31 AM
In what way?

In the way Syt just did: comparing it to tapping a phone or opening mail.

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2013, 06:55:35 AM
elaborate how it is different.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 07:01:09 AM

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2013, 06:55:35 AM
elaborate how it is different.

It's not tapping the phone of every person in the US.  It's looking to see if someone makes a bunch of calls to Taliban Central HR in North Waziristan then getting a warrant to tap their phone based on that.

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2013, 07:03:19 AM
The phone part, yes. You are, however, conveniently ignoring the part where they have billions upon billions of MONTHLY log entries of net traffic from and through the States.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 07:06:49 AM

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2013, 07:03:19 AM
The phone part, yes. You are, however, conveniently ignoring the part where they have billions upon billions of MONTHLY log entries of net traffic from and through the States.

I haven't read or heard much about that.  How does it work?

Quotehe Boundless Informant documents show the agency collecting almost 3 billion pieces of intelligence from US computer networks over a 30-day period ending in March 2013

QuoteA snapshot of the Boundless Informant data, contained in a top secret NSA "global heat map" seen by the Guardian, shows that in March 2013 the agency collected 97bn pieces of intelligence from computer networks worldwide

Quote from: Iormlund on June 25, 2013, 06:53:53 AMI was raised when ETA killed a hundred people a year.

Quote from: Iormlund on June 25, 2013, 06:53:53 AMI was still a kid when I saw 13-yo Irene Villa clutching at what remained of her legs, on live TV.

Quote from: Iormlund on June 25, 2013, 06:53:53 AMThey blew up a bus were I had been standing just a few hours past.

Quote from: Iormlund on June 25, 2013, 06:53:53 AMI went past the Mozart Plaza site 4 times a day for years (one of my best friends lived just opposite and won't forget the night the building was blasted to rubble). And before that I walked every day past the guards at the air force quarters, always alert and armed with submachine guns. Every time a cell was operating in town I was among the first to know: the girl next to me was the daughter of a colonel and when he'd been warned of activity she would jump off her chair every time she heard a siren going by.

Quote from: Iormlund on June 25, 2013, 06:53:53 AMSo yeah. We've been through this before, too. And guess what: if you look at the figures, terrorism pales in comparison to deaths in traffic accidents every year. Or workplace accidents. And lets not mention illness.

But none of those receive anywhere near as much attention or funding. Because at the end of the day, fear is useful.

Quote from: Iormlund on June 25, 2013, 06:53:53 AM

Quote from: Agelastus on June 25, 2013, 06:24:34 AM

Fuck you arsehole; I said nothing about the USA, only the UK where I was born, raised and still live. 40 years of on/off terrorist campaigns followed by a thirty year continuous one by the IRA certainly affected how this country feels about terrorist bombings. For one thing, we certainly don't become "hysterical" about them; it's just business as usual. For another thing we don't raise as much of a fuss about the things people do to protect us from them as some of our continental neighbours seem to expect.

I haven't been down south for a few years, so perhaps someone who has can tell me; have the litter bins ever reappeared at train stations or in the West End?

I was raised when ETA killed a hundred people a year. I was still a kid when I saw 13-yo Irene Villa clutching at what remained of her legs, on live TV. They blew up a bus were I had been standing just a few hours past. I went past the Mozart Plaza site 4 times a day for years (one of my best friends lived just opposite and won't forget the night the building was blasted to rubble). And before that I walked every day past the guards at the air force quarters, always alert and armed with submachine guns. Every time a cell was operating in town I was among the first to know: the girl next to me was the daughter of a colonel and when he'd been warned of activity she would jump off her chair every time she heard a siren going by.

So yeah. We've been through this before, too. And guess what: if you look at the figures, terrorism pales in comparison to deaths in traffic accidents every year. Or workplace accidents. And lets not mention illness.

But none of those receive anywhere near as much attention or funding. Because at the end of the day, fear is useful.

Quote from: Agelastus on June 25, 2013, 07:22:32 AM
You had me going a bit until you mentioned "illness".  Collectively, those things you mentioned get billions more spent on them that the "Fight against Terrorism" does. You took hyperbole a little too far there.

Quote from: The Brain on June 25, 2013, 07:22:42 AM
But were you poor?

Quote from: Iormlund on June 25, 2013, 07:39:02 AM

Quote from: The Brain on June 25, 2013, 07:22:42 AM
But were you poor?

No :blush:

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2013, 07:03:19 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 07:01:09 AM

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2013, 06:55:35 AM
elaborate how it is different.

It's not tapping the phone of every person in the US.  It's looking to see if someone makes a bunch of calls to Taliban Central HR in North Waziristan then getting a warrant to tap their phone based on that.

The phone part, yes. You are, however, conveniently ignoring the part where they have billions upon billions of MONTHLY log entries of net traffic from and through the States.

Quote from: Iormlund on June 25, 2013, 07:38:16 AM

Quote from: Agelastus on June 25, 2013, 07:22:32 AM
You had me going a bit until you mentioned "illness".  Collectively, those things you mentioned get billions more spent on them that the "Fight against Terrorism" does. You took hyperbole a little too far there.

Take a second to consider the amount of victims of terrorism. Then the amount of public money spent preventing it.
Now compare the same ratio for, say, cancer research.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 08:34:30 AM
There's also the notion that providing security is the one indispensible service the state provides.

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2013, 08:37:47 AM
That doesn't mean we are okay with dictatorship.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 08:40:14 AM

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2013, 08:37:47 AM
That doesn't mean we are okay with dictatorship.

Agreed.  But you missed my point.  I was comparing security with cancer research as an effective use of public funds.

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2013, 08:51:00 AM
But hyperbole aside Iorm's point stands. Government-led public discussion has terrorism as the most engrossing danger an individual can face in modern society, and thus it is okay to build 1984 on it.

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2013, 05:52:57 AM
Funny (and sad) to see how utterly successful it has been to steer public discussion away from the hideous facts he published to his person.

Quote from: Syt on June 25, 2013, 08:10:47 AM
Not to mention the UK following a large share of any and all internet traffic, and basically telling the NSA, "If you need anything, give us a shout!"

Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2013, 10:35:11 AM

Quote from: Syt on June 25, 2013, 08:10:47 AM
Not to mention the UK following a large share of any and all internet traffic, and basically telling the NSA, "If you need anything, give us a shout!"

Well that really is the thing isn't it?  Even if the US government rolls this stuff back there will be plenty of other people doing it for them, both in the private sector and other governments.  Ah hello to the brave new world.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2013, 10:36:26 AM

Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2013, 10:35:11 AM

Quote from: Syt on June 25, 2013, 08:10:47 AM
Not to mention the UK following a large share of any and all internet traffic, and basically telling the NSA, "If you need anything, give us a shout!"

Well that really is the thing isn't it?  Even if the US government rolls this stuff back there will be plenty of other people doing it for them, both in the private sector and other governments.  Ah hello to the brave new world.

People are acting like this is some sort of new development, simply because of the technology.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2013, 10:36:26 AM
People are acting like this is some sort of new development, simply because of the technology.

Quote from: Berkut on June 25, 2013, 10:44:36 AM
None of this is news to me, even before I ever saw a single article about it. I simply operated under the assumption it was happening. If is is technically feasible and not directly illegal, of course the NSA is doing it. That is what they do, and everything I've heard about the NSA is that they are rather astonishingly good at what they do when it comes to telecommunications snooping.

Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2013, 10:39:00 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2013, 10:36:26 AM
People are acting like this is some sort of new development, simply because of the technology.

It is pretty new.  Before they actually had to bug your house or something.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2013, 10:54:21 AM
Not really;  the moment the first cellular tower was constructed 30 years ago, so was the ability to track communications data.

Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2013, 10:55:45 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2013, 10:54:21 AM
Not really;  the moment the first cellular tower was constructed 30 years ago, so was the ability to track communications data.

30 years strikes me as pretty new, especially as cellular phones were not used by the general public until more like 15 years ago in large numbers.  But the real point is this is, or at least was, not general knowledge.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2013, 10:59:43 AM

Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2013, 10:55:45 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2013, 10:54:21 AM
Not really;  the moment the first cellular tower was constructed 30 years ago, so was the ability to track communications data.

30 years strikes me as pretty new, especially as cellular phones were not used by the general public until more like 15 years ago in large numbers.  But the real point is this is, or at least was, not general knowledge.

That's why I redited it with whenever, it's been a while so I don't remember.  Stop being a fucking grumbler.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 25, 2013, 04:22:08 AM
I find it very strange that a great advocate of freedom is choosing to use a string of quasi-democratic thug states or outright totalitarian states to make his bid for freedom (China-->Russia-->Cuba-->Venezuela (maybe)-->Ecuador. All of those States have history of suppressing free speech to a degree vastly worse than the United States, in fact a place like Russia where the rule of law means nothing is a pretty dangerous stopover for Snowden.

Quote from: Bluebook on June 25, 2013, 11:02:27 AM
And all of those states are places where the US cannot easily get him extratided. Not too hard to understand why he went there, and that has got nothing to do with advocating freedom, and everything to do with realpolitik.

Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2013, 11:02:17 AM
I am not arguing over semantics here :P my point is that it is new enough that the common joe in the street does not understand how things have changed...yet.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 25, 2013, 11:04:34 AM

Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2013, 11:02:17 AM
I am not arguing over semantics here :P my point is that it is new enough that the common joe in the street does not understand how things have changed...yet.

Then that's the Common Joe's fault for not being politically aware.

Quote from: Bluebook on June 25, 2013, 11:02:27 AMAnd all of those states are places where the US cannot easily get him extratided. Not too hard to understand why he went there, and that has got nothing to do with advocating freedom, and everything to do with realpolitik.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 06:51:05 AM

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2013, 06:48:31 AM
In what way?

In the way Syt just did: comparing it to tapping a phone or opening mail.

Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2013, 11:02:17 AM
I am not arguing over semantics here :P my point is that it is new enough that the common joe in the street does not understand how things have changed...yet.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 25, 2013, 11:07:50 AM
Yeah but I don't see Iceland or several other democratic countries being willing to extradite him. When you put your safety in the hand of tinpot thug rulers like Putin or the leaders of Venezuela and Ecuador you're only protected as much as they want to spite the United States. Maybe right now, that's enough. But in countries like that with weak rule of law and weak legal protections literally the leadership's whim could be all it takes for your asylum to be revoked and you to be in a helicopter on your way to an interrogation center.

A country like Iceland on the other hand, whatever happens it'll be what their courts say. Given they protected Bobby Fischer I doubt Snowden would have much to worry about.

Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2013, 11:09:29 AM
When did Ecuador become a rogue state dictatorship btw?  Shows how informed I am with events in Quito.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 24, 2013, 06:09:02 PM
What is unrealistic about that?  Clearly there are sympathetic ears in Congress

QuoteDon't understand.  Once the ACLU has the info, they could issue a press release.

Quotehe WashPo took some extra time to vet the information, he decided to dump them for an outlet with less punctilious editorial control?
If the Guardian hasdn't jumped to his tune, where would have gone next: Granma?

Quote
And where does the flee to China piece fit in here?

Quote from: Bluebook on June 25, 2013, 11:29:54 AM
"The ACLU issued a press statement today claiming that the US government is recording and storing all phone, email and text-message conversations. The source is an anonymous source" --it doesnt really fly, does it?

Quote from: Bluebook on June 25, 2013, 11:29:54 AM
It is not realistic to expect that the system that has created this intelligence gatherning operation, and gone to long lengths to keep it secret, would allow you to testify against it in Congress. Manning is a good example of what sort of treatment you can expect if you leak one word of this to a congressman.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2013, 11:18:31 AM
I attribute the lack of outcry over this to the "common Joe" understanding that what the government is doing isnt at all like tapping his phone or opening his letters.  If that was the case I think we would likely see a large and general hue and cry. 

Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2013, 11:34:30 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2013, 11:18:31 AM
I attribute the lack of outcry over this to the "common Joe" understanding that what the government is doing isnt at all like tapping his phone or opening his letters.  If that was the case I think we would likely see a large and general hue and cry. 

I would like to think that would be true.  But I do not think so.  We generally do not do the large and general hue and cry anymore.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2013, 11:33:06 AM
So now the US government is a Unitary State with one party rule.

Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2013, 11:35:52 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2013, 11:33:06 AM
So now the US government is a Unitary State with one party rule.

Well on issues like this the two parties are in basic agreement on everything

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2013, 11:35:48 AM
And there is a reason for that.  The Rule of Law is strong in your country.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2013, 11:37:08 AM
You might want to reflect on how very unlikely this statement is.

Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2013, 11:38:33 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2013, 11:37:08 AM
You might want to reflect on how very unlikely this statement is.

Uh oh the semantics police!

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2013, 11:43:15 AM
I want to see what comes of the ACLU litigation.

QuoteYour system works.  He should have used it.

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2013, 07:12:32 AM

Details and screenshots here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2013, 06:48:31 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 06:45:56 AM

Quote from: Syt on June 25, 2013, 12:34:06 AM
I'm a bit surprised at the lack of outrage about the data collection itself, both in the U.S. and the UK. I guess a lot of people are indifferent because the internet and electronic communications don't feel "real", unlike a bug in your phone, a camera in front of your house or someone opening your letters.

I haven't decided yet what I think about the programs, but I do find it telling that all the people expressing outrage about it seem to be mischaracterizing the actual workings.

In what way?

Quote from: Bluebook
"The ACLU issued a press statement today claiming that the US government is recording and storing all phone, email and text-message conversations. The source is an anonymous source" --it doesnt really fly, does it?

Quote from: Bluebook on June 25, 2013, 12:13:24 PM
You are aware that not only metadata but actual content is stored "for three days"...right?

Quote from: Siege on June 25, 2013, 01:09:13 PM
This guy Snowden works for Obama.
He came out with this nonsense to get the public eye away from the real scandal, Bengazi.

Quote from: Bluebook on June 25, 2013, 11:29:54 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 24, 2013, 06:09:02 PM
What is unrealistic about that?  Clearly there are sympathetic ears in Congress

It is not realistic to expect that the system that has created this intelligence gatherning operation, and gone to long lengths to keep it secret, would allow you to testify against it in Congress. Manning is a good example of what sort of treatment you can expect if you leak one word of this to a congressman.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 25, 2013, 01:15:22 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 25, 2013, 11:29:54 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 24, 2013, 06:09:02 PM
What is unrealistic about that?  Clearly there are sympathetic ears in Congress

It is not realistic to expect that the system that has created this intelligence gatherning operation, and gone to long lengths to keep it secret, would allow you to testify against it in Congress. Manning is a good example of what sort of treatment you can expect if you leak one word of this to a congressman.

Huh?
Manning never approached a member of Congress.  He went to Julian Assange.

I don't think you understand what is being proposed here - it is bringing the information privately to a member of Congress.  There is no shortage of Rand Pauls or Jerrold Nadlers who would have been interested to hear this.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2013, 11:18:31 AM
I attribute the lack of outcry over this to the "common Joe" understanding that what the government is doing isnt at all like tapping his phone or opening his letters.  If that was the case I think we would likely see a large and general hue and cry.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 12:14:44 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 25, 2013, 12:13:24 PM
You are aware that not only metadata but actual content is stored "for three days"...right?

Seriously?  Every phone call ever made is recorded, then the recording is kept for 3 days?  :huh:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 25, 2013, 11:47:45 AM
So the numbers of pieces of data, however seemingly impressive, tell us very little.  We need to know what this data consists us and how it was obtained.

Quote from: Maximus on June 25, 2013, 01:33:48 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 12:14:44 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 25, 2013, 12:13:24 PM
You are aware that not only metadata but actual content is stored "for three days"...right?

Seriously?  Every phone call ever made is recorded, then the recording is kept for 3 days?  :huh:

I don't know whether it is or isn't, but it wouldn't be hard to do.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2013, 02:16:47 PM
I believe you but that is a bit hard for me imagine as a possibility

Quote from: Iormlund on June 25, 2013, 02:31:09 PM
Why?

Telcos already have DBs full of metadata. They need those to keep track of calls for billing purposes. It's just a matter of adding more fields to those DBs and forwarding them to proper government agency.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2013, 02:32:17 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on June 25, 2013, 02:31:09 PM
Why?

Telcos already have DBs full of metadata. They need those to keep track of calls for billing purposes. It's just a matter of adding more fields to those DBs and forwarding them to proper government agency.

Recording every call is just a matter of adding a field to a spread sheet?

Quote from: Bluebook on June 25, 2013, 02:38:05 PM
The intercept probes on the transatlantic cables gave GCHQ access to its special source exploitation. Tempora allowed the agency to set up internet buffers so it could not simply watch the data live but also store it – for three days in the case of content and 30 days for metadata.

Quote from: Berkut on June 25, 2013, 02:58:49 PM
I think the extent that the US Average Joe cares is a lot more related to the government listening to US phone calls.

Mostly I think we are all ok with the US listening to all your guys phone calls.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 25, 2013, 02:59:19 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 25, 2013, 02:38:05 PM
The intercept probes on the transatlantic cables gave GCHQ access to its special source exploitation. Tempora allowed the agency to set up internet buffers so it could not simply watch the data live but also store it – for three days in the case of content and 30 days for metadata.

That is a statement of capability.
Question is how is that capability used. 

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 25, 2013, 03:04:20 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 25, 2013, 02:58:49 PM
I think the extent that the US Average Joe cares is a lot more related to the government listening to US phone calls.

Mostly I think we are all ok with the US listening to all your guys phone calls.

These are transatlantic cables, so a lot of it is going to capture communications involving at least one US person.
I think it is potentially cause for concern, even from pure US standpont.
The question, however, is exactly what is being done.

The Guardian article describes a process whereby algorithms are used to sift out the vast majority of the material.  What happens then?  Is the remainder further refined down using automated processes?  At what step does a human being get involved in reading communications?  What steps, legal requirements and safeguards are being used on the British side and on the American side at each step of this process?

We don't know.

Quote from: Bluebook on June 25, 2013, 02:38:05 PM
The intercept probes on the transatlantic cables gave GCHQ access to its special source exploitation. Tempora allowed the agency to set up internet buffers so it could not simply watch the data live but also store it – for three days in the case of content and 30 days for metadata.

QuoteThe processing centres apply a series of sophisticated computer programmes in order to filter the material through what is known as MVR – massive volume reduction. The first filter immediately rejects high-volume, low-value traffic, such as peer-to-peer downloads, which reduces the volume by about 30%. Others pull out packets of information relating to "selectors" – search terms including subjects, phone numbers and email addresses of interest. Some 40,000 of these were chosen by GCHQ and 31,000 by the NSA. Most of the information extracted is "content", such as recordings of phone calls or the substance of email messages. The rest is metadata.

Quote from: Bluebook on June 25, 2013, 02:38:47 PM
What part of storing content did you not understand?

Quote from: Berkut on June 25, 2013, 03:06:14 PM
But then, I never knew what was the process for any number of different ways intelligence agencies can illicitly gain intelligence, and how they go about making sure to remain with US law while they busily break everyone else.

QuoteSnowden's Options for Refuge Narrow
Obama Administration Has Sought to Cut Off Fugitive's Asylum Options

    By
    TE-PING CHEN
    and
    KEN BROWN
    CONNECT

As Edward Snowden entered his second week of limbo in Moscow's airport on Sunday, his decision to go to Russia is looking riskier than it first appeared, and may have left him in a worse situation than if he had stayed in Hong Kong.

Even with his next move uncertain, the former National Security Agency contractor caused fresh uproar over the weekend. On Sunday, German weekly Der Spiegel, citing information from Mr. Snowden, reported that the U.S. had placed listening devices in a European Union office in Washington, infiltrated its computers and carried out cyberattacks against EU bodies. The report prompted strong criticism from several European governments.

Mr. Snowden had hoped for asylum in Ecuador, but that seems less likely now. President Rafael Correa on Sunday retreated further from his country's early support of Mr. Snowden, telling the Associated Press it was up to Russian authorities to decide whether Mr. Snowden could travel to the Ecuadorean embassy in Moscow to seek asylum.

Mr. Snowden's limbo is the product of a series of rapid decisions made during his final 24 hours in Hong Kong, when he was struggling over whether to remain there or seek asylum elsewhere.

According to people familiar with his case, Mr. Snowden at first wanted to stay in Hong Kong, and sought to build public support there by giving a local newspaper information about U.S. hacking activities in the city. His Hong Kong legal team, which included local opposition legislator Albert Ho, was preparing for a long fight.

At least part of his legal team believed Hong Kong represented the best option to protect their client's safety and interests, one of the people familiar with his case said. Mr. Snowden, though, was getting a different message from WikiLeaks. On June 12, Mr. Snowden through an intermediary asked the antisecrecy organization to help him seek asylum in Iceland, WikiLeaks said on June 19. In the days after his approach, WikiLeaks asked other governments about asylum possibilities on Mr. Snowden's behalf.

"He obviously chose to go to Moscow, though I don't know why. I wouldn't have," said Patricia Ho of Hong Kong law firm Daly & Associates, who isn't involved in the case. She said Mr. Snowden had had a range of options still open to him before he left Hong Kong, including filing for asylum or contesting the U.S.'s request in the city's robust judicial system.

But Mr. Snowden's escape plan stalled when he got stuck in the transit area of the Moscow airport.

He touched down in Moscow a week ago on his way to Ecuador "via Russia and other states," according to WikiLeaks. Some two days later, Russian President Vladimir Putin denied a U.S. request to expel Mr. Snowden and urged the fugitive to get on his way. He has since been stuck in Sheremetyevo Airport's transit zone without a valid U.S. passport or a Russian visa, facing an increasingly uncertain path.

The Obama administration sought to systematically cut off Mr. Snowden's asylum options once he left Hong Kong, said senior U.S. officials working on the strategy.

One focus, these officials said, has been to repeatedly stress to Moscow that hopes for better cooperation on issues ranging from counterterrorism to Syria could be jeopardized without cooperation on Mr. Snowden.

On Ecuador, senior U.S. officials, including Vice President Joe Biden, have told Quito that its economic engagement with the U.S. could diminish if Mr. Snowden is granted asylum. The Latin American country has a dollar-based economy and is reliant on the U.S. for 40% of its exports. Oil accounts for about 80% of Ecuador's exports to the U.S., but the country also exports significant amounts of fish and seafood, bananas and flowers.

The Obama administration has used the outrage in Congress over Mr. Snowden to pressure Mr. Correa, said U.S. officials.

White House officials declined to discuss in detail Mr. Biden's phone conversation with Mr. Correa. But U.S. officials said this threat of congressional action against Quito continues to be used by the administration to try to gain Mr. Correa's cooperation. They said they still believed the Ecuadorean leader was worried about the economic costs to his country.

The U.S. point man on dealing with Russia on Mr. Snowden has been the State Department's No. 2 diplomat, Undersecretary William Burns, said senior U.S. officials. Mr. Burns is a former American ambassador to Moscow who has regularly worked with Russia on issues from Middle East peace initiatives to Islamic militancy in the Caucasus. Mr. Burns also coordinated extensively with Russia when he served as the U.S. point man on Iran's nuclear program.

Mr. Burns and Secretary of State John Kerry have coordinated a message to Moscow that Russia can't expect the same level of support on counterterrorism and law-enforcement issues without cooperation on Mr. Snowden, U.S. officials said. Mr. Kerry particularly noted in talks with Russian officials, including Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, that over the past two years, the U.S. has extradited seven people who were wanted for crimes to Moscow.

One factor driving Mr. Snowden from Hong Kong, according to the people familiar with his case, was the likelihood that he would be held in jail while his extradition case was fought. In jail, he would have lost his Internet access. "I don't think he'd mind being in prison, so long as he could have the Internet," one of the people said.

It isn't known whether Mr. Snowden has Internet access at the Moscow airport, but others in the transit zone have access to the Web and other communications.

Mr. Snowden's chances of avoiding surrender to the U.S. by Hong Kong authorities were slim, some lawyers in Hong Kong said. "If he'd stayed in Hong Kong, authorities would only have been able to stall for so long, and then they would've had to comply under their obligations," said Kevin Egan, a Hong Kong lawyer who has handled surrender cases but who wasn't involved in the Snowden case. Since 1998, the city has handed back people to the U.S. in 65 cases under its surrender agreement. In at least one other case—involving someone charged by the U.S. with smuggling—Hong Kong didn't send the person back.

Other Hong Kong lawyers said one of Mr. Snowden's best options, and one that remains open to him if he returned to Hong Kong, is to file an asylum claim either with the Hong Kong government or the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, something he could have done while in Hong Kong. Another avenue for Mr. Snowden would have been for China to block the surrender by exercising its right to intervene in issues involving national security and foreign relations, though it is believed that Beijing signed off on his departure, according to diplomats and Hong Kong legislators.

China's Foreign Ministry didn't respond to questions last week about what role Beijing had played in negotiations over Mr. Snowden. "The central government obviously respects the Hong Kong SAR (Special Administrative Region) government's handling of affairs in accordance with law," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said at a regular news briefing.

Mr. Snowden could return to Hong Kong, Ms. Ho of Daly & Associates said, attempting to apply for asylum after he arrived from the Hong Kong government or the UNHCR. The Hong Kong government has asked airlines to bar him from flying there, but he could get around that restriction because Russia would be "returning" him to Hong Kong, which would be different than "allowing" him to fly to Hong Kong like a normal passenger, she said.

Mr. Snowden's time in Hong Kong was cloaked in secrecy, beginning with his initial approach to his lawyers. On June 10, the day after he exposed his identity in the Guardian newspaper, a Hong Kong-based intermediary called a local lawyer known for his work on human-rights issues to seek assistance, according to a person familiar with the case. The lawyer, who didn't know the caller, was told to meet him on a street in Hong Kong and they would ride together in a taxi to meet Mr. Snowden, the person said.

Soon after, reporters found Mr. Snowden in the Mira Hong Kong Hotel in the densely packed Tsim Sha Tsui neighborhood and he fled from there with the lawyer, the person said. Mr. Snowden moved locations only under cover of darkness and wore a cap and sunglasses on the rare occasions he went out, the people familiar with his case said.

In the days before Mr. Snowden's exit from Hong Kong, Mr. Ho, the opposition legislator, unsuccessfully sought clarification from the city's government on Mr. Snowden's case, the people familiar with the case said. He was growing increasingly worried that stepped-up pressure by the U.S. would push Hong Kong's government to detain him, these people said.

Around June 21, the same time the U.S. unsealed charges against him, according to one of the people familiar with his case, Mr. Snowden received an encrypted message that claimed to represent a government authority who urged him to leave Hong Kong, and assured him he would be able to clear immigration if he tried to do so. Mr. Ho tried to contact Hong Kong's government to determine whether the message's assurances were genuine, but didn't receive an immediate reply.

Mr. Snowden woke on Saturday, June 22, to news that the U.S. had unsealed the charges accusing him of crimes under the U.S. Espionage Act and theft of government property. He began looking for flights out of Hong Kong, a person familiar with his case said.

Moscow wasn't his only pick, this person said: His goal was to get somewhere he believed would protect him from the U.S. government's reach. He knew he needed to avoid U.S. airlines but didn't have a final destination in mind, people familiar with his case said. Throughout the day, he vacillated between staying and going, and about where he would go if he left, the person said.

Around midnight on Saturday, Mr. Snowden told his legal team that he wanted to leave town, the person said, and he was urged to get a good night's sleep and to think about it some more.

The next day, June 23, Mr. Snowden made up his mind and headed for the airport in a private car, the person said. In part because they weren't using mobile phones to communicate, one of his lawyers had gone ahead to the airport not knowing if Mr. Snowden would appear. At the airport, the lawyer bought a plane ticket to Shanghai—the cheapest one he could find—to ensure that he could accompany Mr. Snowden past immigration checks. He arrived at the airport just in time to make his Aeroflot flight to Moscow. He had no luggage to check. He cleared immigration and security and quietly boarded the flight.
—Jay Solomon, Chester Yung, José de Córdoba, Jeremy Page and Paul Sonne contributed to this article.

Write to Te-Ping Chen at [email protected] and Ken Brown at [email protected]

A version of this article appeared July 1, 2013, on page A1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Snowden In Limbo As Options Narrow.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 01, 2013, 08:28:07 AM
I'm not sure why he didn't get into contact with a Hong Kong lawyer before he did all of this. He could have found out what the process was and known in advance that while he might prevail in an extradition hearing, he'd be looking at a few months/years in custody while it worked out. Knowing that maybe he would have tried to go to Iceland or something directly.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 01, 2013, 08:28:07 AM
What it sounds like is some lawyers that probably knew what they were talking about in Hong Kong told him he should have stayed there.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 01, 2013, 08:48:24 AM
While Putin was being his regular cock-face self in the beginning, notice he's silent now. I don't think he'll turn Snowden over to us directly, but it's obvious now he probably doesn't want more involvement in this matter and won't do anything to help Snowden.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 08:33:13 AM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 01, 2013, 08:28:07 AM
I'm not sure why he didn't get into contact with a Hong Kong lawyer before he did all of this. He could have found out what the process was and known in advance that while he might prevail in an extradition hearing, he'd be looking at a few months/years in custody while it worked out. Knowing that maybe he would have tried to go to Iceland or something directly.

Like everyone else of his Assburger generation, he's simply not as smart as he thinks he is.

Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2013, 09:07:46 AM
That chat had him as a fan of the gold standard. :(

Quote"If he wants to stay here, there is one condition: He must stop his work aimed at harming our American partners, as strange as that sounds coming from my lips," Putin told reporters after a gas exporters' conference in Moscow.

Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2013, 08:59:31 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 08:33:13 AM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 01, 2013, 08:28:07 AM
I'm not sure why he didn't get into contact with a Hong Kong lawyer before he did all of this. He could have found out what the process was and known in advance that while he might prevail in an extradition hearing, he'd be looking at a few months/years in custody while it worked out. Knowing that maybe he would have tried to go to Iceland or something directly.

Like everyone else of his Assburger generation, he's simply not as smart as he thinks he is.

If those IRC chats were really of him, he just sounds like a Languish poster.

Quote from: Solmyr on July 01, 2013, 01:35:15 PM
I don't think Martinus is Snowden. Maybe he's Snowden's lawyer?

Quote from: Solmyr on July 01, 2013, 01:35:15 PM
I don't think Martinus is Snowden. Maybe he's Snowden's lawyer?

Quote'Unbowed' Snowden makes Moscow statement, releases list of countries contacted for asylum
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden released a statement Monday night from Moscow saying he is "impressed at the efforts taken by so many" to help him, with WikiLeaks hours later releasing a list of countries to be sent applications for asylum.

Sarah Harrison, WikiLeaks' legal advisor to Edward Snowden, has made requests for asylum from a long list of nations, according to a news release posted to that organization's website early Tuesday morning.

Requests were made following the initial bids submitted to Ecuador and Iceland, with the list now including countries throughout Europe, Latin and Central America, and several others. The complete list is below:

"The requests were made to a number of countries including the Republic of Austria, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, the Federative Republic of Brazil, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Cuba, the Republic of Finland, the French Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of India, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Ireland, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Nicaragua, the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Poland, the Russian Federation, the Kingdom of Spain, the Swiss Confederation and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela," the statement reads. 

The Norwegian Foreign Minister, Frode Anderson, confirmed on Tuesday that an application for asylum had been received at the Norwegian embassy in Moscow. However, he noted that although the document is allegedly signed by Snowden, there was no way of verifying the signature's validity. Anderson declined to give any further information regarding the subject matter of the application. 

Meanwhile, Venezuelan President, Nicolas Maduro, said that Venezuela had not yet received an application for political asylum from the US fugitive.

"Snowden is a man who told the truth and demands protection under international human rights law," said Maduro to press during a trip to Moscow.

Poland has also confirmed that it received an asylum application. Moreover, Spain and Austria have both said that they cannot consider an asylum bid unless Snowden is located in the respective country. 

Snowden's request for asylum was handed over to the Austrian embassy in Moscow on Monday, but it can only be submitted in Austria directly, APA news agency cites the country's Interior Minister Johanna Mikl-Leitner, as saying. When asked by journalists if Snowden could be extradited once in Austria, the Minister answered that no international arrest warrant had been issued for the whistleblower.

Finnish asylum also cannot be requested from abroad, according to Keijo Norvanto, Head of the Unit for Communications at Finland's Foreign Ministry.

"We can confirm that we received the request. But we cannot consider it official. To officially seek political asylum, Snowden must first come to Finland and go to the police or migration service. But in this case the request procedure was violated, so the appeal is not going to be considered," ITAR-TASS news agency cites Norvanto as saying.

Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo knows nothing of an asylum request from Edward Snowden, but has reiterated statements made by other states that an asylum application is only valid when made on Spanish soil.   
"For an asylum petition to become a petition that the government could study, in other words for it to be legally admissible, it has to be made by a person who is in Spain," Reuters cites Garcia-Margallo as saying.

The former National Security Agency contractor who leaked documents detailing widespread domestic and foreign surveillance said he is disturbed by what he sees as the Obama administration's use of international intimidation tactics. 

"On Thursday, President Obama declared before the world that he would not permit any diplomatic 'wheeling and dealing' over my case," Snowden wrote. "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."

"This kind of deception from a world leader is not justice, and neither is the extralegal penalty of exile. These are the old, bad tools of political aggression. Their purpose is to frighten, not me, but those who would come after me."


Snowden highlighted how Washington's effort to bring him home for prosecution seemed to reflect a new ideology that portrays citizenship as a kind of extrajudicial blunt weapon.


"For decades the United States of America [has] been one of the strongest defenders of the human right to seek asylum," Snowden wrote. "Sadly, this right laid out and voted for by the US in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is now being rejected by the current government of my country. The Obama administration has now adopted the strategy of using citizenship as a weapon. Although I am convicted of nothing, it has unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me in a stateless person. Without any judicial order, the administration now seeks to stop me [from] exercising a basic right. A right that belongs to everybody. The right to seek asylum."  


The statement is referring to a Friday phone call between US Vice President Joe Biden and Rafael Correa, the president of Ecuador, in which Biden asked Correa to reject Snowden's request for political asylum. Correa said in a speech Saturday that Snowden "will have to assume his own responsibilities" for his actions, but called the case an example of US "double standards" after an American court rejected an Ecuadorian extradition request in 2012.


The statement, posted to the WikiLeaks website, is the second time the whistleblower has communicated to the public since arriving in Moscow from Hong Kong on Sunday, June 23. The first time came the same day in the form of a letter thanking Ecuadorian lawmakers for considering his request for political asylum and for helping him travel to Russia.

"No matter how many more days my life contains, I remain dedicated to the fight for justice in this unequal world. If any of those days ahead realize a contribution to the common good, the world will have the principles of Ecuador to thank," part of that text read, according to a translation quoted by Reuters.

The fugitive whistleblower went on to thank his supporters and encourage the public to form its own opinion on his case and on the trial of Bradley Manning, the US soldier who faces life in prison for leaking US military information to WikiLeaks in 2010.


"In the end the Obama administration is not afraid of whistleblowers like me, Bradley Manning or Thomas Drake. We are stateless, imprisoned, or powerless. No, the Obama administration is afraid of you. It is afraid of an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised – and it should be," the statement reads.

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2013, 04:13:19 PM
I can't recall the last time my opinion of someone swung so dramatically from one extreme to another.

Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2013, 05:14:35 PM
I tuned into Glenn Beck

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2013, 05:03:37 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2013, 04:13:19 PM
I can't recall the last time my opinion of someone swung so dramatically from one extreme to another.

Yeah, my original opinion of him was that he broke the law and if captured he should be punished. But I also thought he was in the Ellsberg mold, doing something he believed was right and all that, so I was sort of half hoping he found safety in Hong Kong or Iceland or wherever.

Now he just sounds like another Assange, I think it's still important to have a public debate about the sort of programs he exposed, but I can think that and still think Snowden is basically a whiny little attention whoring bitch, not to mention a massive hypocrite.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 02, 2013, 05:20:10 PM

Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2013, 05:14:35 PM
I tuned into Glenn Beck

Why would you do that? His shtick got boring years ago.  :hmm:

Quote from: Phillip V on July 02, 2013, 05:22:36 PM
Millennials ;)

Quote from: DGuller on July 01, 2013, 01:13:38 PM
Can you be missing if you're not missed?  :hmm:

Quote from: Razgovory on July 02, 2013, 05:54:42 PM

Quote from: DGuller on July 01, 2013, 01:13:38 PM
Can you be missing if you're not missed?  :hmm:

I missed him.  I don't want everyone to come to the realization that I'm the dumbest guy here.

Quote from: DGuller on July 02, 2013, 05:59:51 PM
I missed him.  I don't want everyone to come to the realization that I'm the dumbest guy here.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 02, 2013, 06:09:40 PM

Quote from: DGuller on July 02, 2013, 05:59:51 PM
I missed him.  I don't want everyone to come to the realization that I'm the dumbest guy here.

I didn't add anything to this quote. :yeah:

Quote from: Razgovory on July 02, 2013, 05:54:42 PM

Quote from: DGuller on July 01, 2013, 01:13:38 PM
Can you be missing if you're not missed?  :hmm:

I missed him.  I don't want everyone to come to the realization that I'm the dumbest guy here.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 02, 2013, 06:27:34 PM
I prefer "immature". :blurgh:

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2013, 05:03:37 PM
Yeah, my original opinion of him was that he broke the law and if captured he should be punished. But I also thought he was in the Ellsberg mold, doing something he believed was right and all that, so I was sort of half hoping he found safety in Hong Kong or Iceland or wherever.

Now he just sounds like another Assange, I think it's still important to have a public debate about the sort of programs he exposed, but I can think that and still think Snowden is basically a whiny little attention whoring bitch, not to mention a massive hypocrite.

Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2013, 07:12:32 PM
THATS REAL RETARDED SIR

Quote from: Liep on July 02, 2013, 07:05:02 PM
France denied a Bolivian plan entry into its airspace because of fear that Snowdon might be on board. Going a little crazy, no? Of course, if any country would try to smuggle Snowdon out of Moscow...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23156360

QuoteSnowden case: Bolivia condemns jet 'aggression'

Bolivia has accused European countries of an "act of aggression" for refusing to allow its presidential jet into their airspace, amid suggestions US fugitive Edward Snowden was on board.

Quote from: Jacob on July 03, 2013, 11:25:21 AM
I'm getting the impression that significant parts of American intelligence related work is outsourced to private companies - security clearances, data handling and analysis and that sort of thing. Even policy drafting?

Does anyone know to what extent that is true?

Quote from: Jacob on July 03, 2013, 11:25:21 AM
I'm getting the impression that significant parts of American intelligence related work is outsourced to private companies - security clearances, data handling and analysis and that sort of thing. Even policy drafting?

Does anyone know to what extent that is true?

QuoteLeslie James Pickering noticed something odd in his mail last September: A handwritten card, apparently delivered by mistake, with instructions for postal workers to pay special attention to the letters and packages sent to his home.

"Show all mail to supv" — supervisor — "for copying prior to going out on the street," read the card. It included Mr. Pickering's name, address and the type of mail that needed to be monitored. The word "confidential" was highlighted in green.

"It was a bit of a shock to see it," said Mr. Pickering, who owns a small bookstore in Buffalo. More than a decade ago, he was a spokesman for the Earth Liberation Front, a radical environmental group labeled eco-terrorists by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Postal officials subsequently confirmed they were indeed tracking Mr. Pickering's mail but told him nothing else.

As the world focuses on the high-tech spying of the National Security Agency, the misplaced card offers a rare glimpse inside the seemingly low-tech but prevalent snooping of the United States Postal Service.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F07%2F04%2Fus%2F04postal%2F04postal-articleLarge.jpg&hash=e32904038f77ca6316436626d459884cd6f9df74)

Quote from: Kleves on July 03, 2013, 03:51:08 PM
How dare the postal service look at the outside of my letters!  :ultra:

Quote from: Valmy on July 03, 2013, 03:58:02 PM

Quote from: Kleves on July 03, 2013, 03:51:08 PM
How dare the postal service look at the outside of my letters!  :ultra:

Weak.

Quote from: Savonarola on July 04, 2013, 06:01:10 AM
I get job listing from companies from time to time.  This morning I got one from Booz-Allen, and I thought "Yeah, I heard you had an opening."

A year ago all their jobs were satellite communications; now they're mostly data analysis.  My favorite title so far "Big Data Scientist."

Quote from: Neil on July 04, 2013, 12:53:10 PM
I wish someone would insert a glass rod into that guy's urethra and his it with a hammer.  Then he could complain about Stasi 2.0.

Quote
Apology demanded over Morales' jet diversion

Six South American leaders condemn four EU states for 'virtual kidnapping' of Bolivian president.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aljazeera.com%2Fmritems%2FImages%2F2013%2F7%2F5%2F20137503738126734_20.jpg&hash=4a43ae6e29e45b0ed04d46b190ea0b37a1e2d1d2)


Evo Morales (L) lashed out at US ahead of a special meeting of South America's leaders [Reuters]


Six South American leaders have demanded an explanation and public apology from four European countries for diverting Bolivian President Evo Morales' plane earlier this week.

Morales' presidential plane landed in Austria on Tuesday night after France, Portugal, Italy and Spain closed their airspace over suspicions that the fugitive US whistleblower Edward Snowden was aboard. The information was inaccurate and Morales, who was returning from a summit in Russia, was able to fly home on Wednesday.

At the summit in the Bolivian city Cochabamba on Thursday, five regional leaders joined Morales in denouncing his "virtual kidnapping" and the US pressure they believed spurred it behind the scenes.

At the end of the summit, which included the leaders of Argentina, Uruguay, Ecuador, Surinam and Venezuela, a statement was issued demanding answers from France, Portugal, Italy and Spain, the European Union (EU) member states that closed their airspace. The US was not mentioned in the statement.

'We don't need US embassy'

Morales warned that he could close the US Embassy in Bolivia, blaming Washington for pressuring European countries to refuse to allow his plane to fly through their airspace in what he called a violation of international law.

"We don't need a US embassy in Bolivia," Morales said. "My hand would not shake to close the US embassy. We have dignity, sovereignty. Without the US, we are better politically, democratically."


We're here to tell President Evo Morales that he can count on us. Whoever picks a fight with Bolivia, picks a fight with Venezuela.

Nicolas Maduro, President of Venezuela


"Europe broke all the rules of the game," the Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro said in Cochabamba. "We're here to tell President Evo Morales that he can count on us. Whoever picks a fight with Bolivia, picks a fight with Venezuela."

Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa said he and the other leaders were offering "all of our support" to Morales following the rerouting of the plane, calling it an aggression against the Americas.

Morales said that while the plane was parked in Vienna, the Spanish ambassador to Austria arrived with two embassy personnel and they asked to search the plane. He said he denied them permission.

In a separate statement, Russia also criticised France, Spain and Portugal on Thursday for delaying the Bolivian president's flight home.

"The actions of the authorities of France, Spain and Portugal could hardly be considered friendly actions towards Bolivia [...] Russia calls on the international community to comply strictly with international legal principles," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

During his visit to Russia before his plane was forcefully landed, Morales suggested that he would be willing to consider a request from Snowden for asylum.

'Apologies not enough'

Morales, long a fierce critic of US policy towards Latin America, received a hero's welcome in an airport in the Bolivian capital of La Paz late on Wednesday night. His return followed the dramatic, unplanned 14-hour layover in Vienna.

France issued an apology to the Bolivian government. But Morales said "apologies are not enough because the stance is that international treaties must be respected."

Morales said he never saw Snowden when he was in Russia, and that Bolivia had not received a formal request for asylum for him.

Bolivia has said that it will summon the French and Italian ambassadors and the Portuguese consul to demand explanations.

Snowden, who leaked a National Security Agency surveillance programme, is far from public eye, believed to be at a transit area in an airport in Moscow.

Quote from: Savonarola on July 04, 2013, 06:01:10 AM
A year ago all their jobs were satellite communications; now they're mostly data analysis.  My favorite title so far "Big Data Scientist."

Quote from: merithyn on July 05, 2013, 01:06:08 PM

Quote from: Savonarola on July 04, 2013, 06:01:10 AM
A year ago all their jobs were satellite communications; now they're mostly data analysis.  My favorite title so far "Big Data Scientist."

That's what Max is. :)

Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2013, 10:39:42 PM

Quote from: Valmy on July 03, 2013, 03:58:02 PM

Quote from: Kleves on July 03, 2013, 03:51:08 PM
How dare the postal service look at the outside of my letters!  :ultra:

Weak.

Actually I think he's right.

Quote from: Caliga on July 05, 2013, 01:45:05 PM
AMERICA, FUCK YEAH  :(

Quote from: Savonarola on July 05, 2013, 01:40:00 PM

:o

Uh... :unsure:  I love America and... :unsure: the NSA is the only real guardian of our liberties  :unsure:

Quote from: Kleves on July 05, 2013, 02:33:50 PM
I think recording the outside of envelopes is a much less serious infringement on your privacy than listening in to telephone calls or even getting the metadata from such calls. For one thing, with a letter you are giving the information to the government agency to use on your behalf - you want them to look at the information (rather then just sending the letter somewhere randomly). You also probably suspect that, at some level, the information on where mail is going is being retained by the government - if only because they need the information to plan out how to efficienctly (heh) run the post office. They need to know where mail is going, and how much of it there is. For packages, we probably have even less of an expectation of privacy, as we probably expect some amount of scrutiny of even the contents of the packages (by X-ray, or some bomb-detection device perhaps). So I think the government keeping a record of the outside of envelopes/packages for some unknown length of time is not (relatively) that big a deal.

Quote from: Zanza on July 05, 2013, 04:29:29 PM
If they just need it for planning purposes, the data can be anonymous and aggregated and there is absolutely no problem. The postal service having statistics on how many items of mail they typically transport per day, week, season, whatever from NY to LA is obviously total fine. But knowing that John Smith from NY has written four letters to Jane Doe in LA in the last six months is not relevant to planning purposes at all. That particular information is not needed by the post office anymore once Jane has gotten her letter. A good privacy policy would be to only keep that the number of letters sent a letter from NY to LA, or maybe that a particular road in LA received so many letters that day/week/month, or that the mailbox in NY typically has so many letters per day etc.

Doing an x-ray of a package is the same. Once the package is cleared or at least once its delivered, that information serves no security purpose anymore and should not be stored.

Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2013, 07:55:27 PMnot only do we let email providers see who we send emails to, but also the content.

Quote from: Syt on July 05, 2013, 09:01:31 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2013, 07:55:27 PMnot only do we let email providers see who we send emails to, but also the content.

Does that seem right to you?

Quote from: Syt on July 05, 2013, 11:50:07 PM
Of course, but do you think it should be that non-participating parties have access to your private communications in that way?

Quote from: Zanza on July 06, 2013, 08:24:32 AM
I must admit that I am surprised, even bewildered, that Americans, who I had so far seen as very skeptical regarding their government, seem pretty nonchalant about this.

Quote from: Zanza on July 06, 2013, 08:30:54 AM
Garbon's concern about the costs of such a program apparently being his only concern shows a certain shallowness.

Quote from: Zanza on July 06, 2013, 08:24:32 AM
I must admit that I am surprised, even bewildered, that Americans, who I had so far seen as very skeptical regarding their government, seem pretty nonchalant about this.

Quote from: Zanza on July 06, 2013, 08:24:32 AM
Shrill? I just try to understand a position that I don't share. My default position is an expectation of privacy. Everywhere, all the time. Maybe not from my fellow citizens, but certainly from the government. The government should generally only ever collect data for a clear-cut purpose and not just because it can.

And not being a person of public interest, the courts would also protect my privacy against most of my fellow citizens, e.g. recording or photographing me and e.g. publishing that just because I am in a public place is not legal here.

I must admit that I am surprised, even bewildered, that Americans, who I had so far seen as very skeptical regarding their government, seem pretty nonchalant about this.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2013, 09:43:15 AM
'Cause we don't care about the privacy of people in other countries?  That is sorta why we have a CIA, to spy on people in other countries.

Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2013, 09:15:40 AMFor the most part, I think that my government is pretty incompetent.

Quote*So then the discussion devolves to me on how easy the gov't can get my info and I will say I will agree that we shouldn't be trying to make that easier when the government hasn't stated a legitimate reason.

Quote from: Zanza on July 06, 2013, 08:24:32 AM
I must admit that I am surprised, even bewildered, that Americans, who I had so far seen as very skeptical regarding their government, seem pretty nonchalant about this.

Quote from: Zanza on July 06, 2013, 08:24:32 AM
I must admit that I am surprised, even bewildered, that Americans, who I had so far seen as very skeptical regarding their government, seem pretty nonchalant about this.

Quote from: DGuller on July 06, 2013, 11:11:30 AM
:wacko: Jesus Christ.  You do realize that the government doesn't need to use its information in courts to fuck with someone, they just have to leak it to someone?  Or that the government may not give two shits about you, but someone working in government can?

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 06, 2013, 11:18:07 AM

Quote from: DGuller on July 06, 2013, 11:11:30 AM
:wacko: Jesus Christ.  You do realize that the government doesn't need to use its information in courts to fuck with someone, they just have to leak it to someone?  Or that the government may not give two shits about you, but someone working in government can?

Like I said, I'm not personally concerned about any of that. That doesn't mean I think the government needs to do it. But there's not a lot of evidence the government is doing those things, it looks like they're collecting large amounts of mostly not very personal information and storing it in vast databases where some very small percentage is subject to further analysis by an intelligence analyst. Like I said, I worry about things the government will do. My list of things was not intended to be a complete one, nor did I imply it was so. If the government was leaking it or using it in intimidation schemes, I'd want that stopped. But just collecting it does not particularly concern me. It's actually being done with cooperation and oversight from all three branches of government.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 06, 2013, 11:18:07 AM

Quote from: DGuller on July 06, 2013, 11:11:30 AM
:wacko: Jesus Christ.  You do realize that the government doesn't need to use its information in courts to fuck with someone, they just have to leak it to someone?  Or that the government may not give two shits about you, but someone working in government can?

Like I said, I'm not personally concerned about any of that. That doesn't mean I think the government needs to do it. But there's not a lot of evidence the government is doing those things, it looks like they're collecting large amounts of mostly not very personal information and storing it in vast databases where some very small percentage is subject to further analysis by an intelligence analyst. Like I said, I worry about things the government will do. My list of things was not intended to be a complete one, nor did I imply it was so. If the government was leaking it or using it in intimidation schemes, I'd want that stopped. But just collecting it does not particularly concern me. It's actually being done with cooperation and oversight from all three branches of government.

Quote from: Zanza on July 06, 2013, 10:38:36 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2013, 09:43:15 AM
'Cause we don't care about the privacy of people in other countries?  That is sorta why we have a CIA, to spy on people in other countries.

The latest bit was about the US postal service photographing all mail and supposedly keeping that information for ten years now. It's just a guess, but I think that mainly aims at Americans, not foreigners. What astounds me is not that you don't care about the privacy of foreigners, but that don't seem to care about your own privacy in all of this.

Quote from: DGuller on July 06, 2013, 11:35:49 AM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 06, 2013, 11:18:07 AM

Quote from: DGuller on July 06, 2013, 11:11:30 AM
:wacko: Jesus Christ.  You do realize that the government doesn't need to use its information in courts to fuck with someone, they just have to leak it to someone?  Or that the government may not give two shits about you, but someone working in government can?

Like I said, I'm not personally concerned about any of that. That doesn't mean I think the government needs to do it. But there's not a lot of evidence the government is doing those things, it looks like they're collecting large amounts of mostly not very personal information and storing it in vast databases where some very small percentage is subject to further analysis by an intelligence analyst. Like I said, I worry about things the government will do. My list of things was not intended to be a complete one, nor did I imply it was so. If the government was leaking it or using it in intimidation schemes, I'd want that stopped. But just collecting it does not particularly concern me. It's actually being done with cooperation and oversight from all three branches of government.

So we should not be worried about potential for misuse of power on this particular issue?

Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2013, 12:08:48 PM
I have concerns about privacy, but I do kind of want the government to at least look at the outside of the envelope.   I mean, that's where I wrote the address I want them to send it to.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 08, 2013, 10:54:17 AM
There are no valid grounds for Snowden to seek asylum.

He does not have a well-founded fear of persecution based on any of the eligible categories.

Fear of being prosecuted for breaking the law is not a valid basis for asylum.

QuoteWhy Venezuela Offers Asylum to Snowden

President Nicólas Maduro sends a message of his loyalty to Iran.


By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY

Edward Snowden, the former U.S. government contractor wanted for leaking sensitive national intelligence, is a victim of "persecution" by "the world's most powerful empire," Venezuelan President Nicólas Maduro said on Friday.

Mr. Maduro offered asylum to the fugitive, who was running out of prospects. Nicaragua and Bolivia have chimed in with similar offers. What plans are afoot to spirit Mr. Snowden from his Moscow airport sanctuary—assuming he accepts refuge in Latin America—are of course secret.

Mr. Maduro would have us believe that his gesture is a demonstration of Venezuela's commitment to free speech and its fierce opposition to withholding information from the public. He also wants the world to know that he disapproves of secret government intelligence-gathering operations. Funny that.

Venezuela has expressed no such righteous indignation about information suppression by allies. Take Argentina, which has recently refused to allow its special prosecutor Alberto Nisman to travel to Washington and brief a U.S. congressional committee about intelligence collected on Iranian and Hezbollah terror cells in the Western Hemisphere. Mr. Nisman's 500-page report on the subject is public but in a July 1 letter to the U.S. Congress he said that by order of the Argentine attorney general he has been "denied the authorization to testify before the honorable parliament."

Mr. Maduro's lack of concern about Argentina's information suppression deserves attention.

His offer of refuge to Mr. Snowden is most easily explained as an attempt to distract Venezuelans from the increasingly difficult daily economic grind and get them to rally around the flag by putting a thumb in Uncle Sam's eye. Yet there is something else.

Venezuela has reason to fear increasing irrelevance as North America becomes more energy independent. This makes Iran crucial. Mr. Maduro may be trying to establish himself as a leader as committed to the anti-American cause as was his predecessor, Hugo Chávez, who had a strong personal bond with former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He also needs to establish his own place in South American politics.

Reaching out to Mr. Snowden is a way to send a message to the world that notwithstanding Secretary of State John Kerry's feeble attempt at rapprochement with Caracas last month, post-Chávez Venezuela has no intention of changing the course of the Bolivarian revolution. Rather, as the economy of the once-wealthy oil nation deteriorates, Mr. Maduro is signaling that Venezuela wants to become an even more loyal geopolitical ally and strategic partner of Russia and Iran.

Mr. Maduro's presidency is still viewed as illegitimate by roughly half of the Venezuelan electorate, who voted for challenger Henrique Capriles in April. The official rate of the currency known as the "strong bolívar" is 6.3 to the dollar. But a shortage of greenbacks has forced importers into the black market where the currency trades at somewhere between 31 and 37. There are price controls on just about everything, producing shortages of food and medicine. Even so, inflation is now hovering at around 35%, which means that some vendors are skirting government mandates.

In a free society with competitive elections, economic chaos generally prompts a government response designed to mitigate hardship. Venezuela needs liberalization. But that would threaten the profits of the military, which is largely running the country. When the nation ran out of toilet paper in the spring, it was the perfect metaphor for the failed state. But Mr. Maduro's foreign minister, Elias Jaua, responded by scolding Venezuelans for materialism, asking, "Do you want a fatherland or toilet paper?"

If the government is saying that it doesn't give a damn about the economic death spiral, this is because it believes it has the nation in a head lock. State control of information—by a president who has now become the world's foremost defender of Mr. Snowden—is almost complete. The last large independent cable television station was finally sold in April and the independent print media market is shrinking.

Another tool of repression, which Mr. Snowden supposedly abhors, is the ability to spy on citizens. Chávez had no compunction about recording the conversations of adversaries, and the practice continues under Mr. Maduro. Competing factions inside the government may even be getting into the act. Two recent high-profile cases—one involving a well-known government insider alleging crimes by members of the government in a conversation with the Cuban military, and another targeting an opposition politician—have increased the feeling among citizens that there is no such thing as a private conversation.

Yet even a government that locks down the press and spies on its own citizens without answering for it needs allies. No nation can survive in full isolation, especially when its economic power collapses.

Latin despots get this. Argentina is depositing goodwill in its account with Iran by blocking Alberto Nisman's trip to Washington. Venezuela, by offering refuge to Edward Snowden, is undoubtedly making a similar offering to the enemies of its enemies.

Quote from: Zanza on July 08, 2013, 01:26:21 PM
The role of the German government in this is really pathetic. Far from trying to actually protect our privacy, they prefer to not anger the American partner and probably secretly just get a copy of the data anyway. Spineless unprincipled fucks. :ultra:

Quote from: DGuller on July 08, 2013, 01:37:08 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 08, 2013, 10:54:17 AM
There are no valid grounds for Snowden to seek asylum.

He does not have a well-founded fear of persecution based on any of the eligible categories.

Fear of being prosecuted for breaking the law is not a valid basis for asylum.

:huh: Surely it has to be more complicated than that.  Revealing wrongdoing by any government is almost assuredly going to break some law of the country doing the wrongdoing.

Quote from: Savonarola on July 08, 2013, 01:37:56 PM
I'm not quite sure I follow the logic in this column.  What does Iran have to offer Venezuela?

Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2013, 01:41:59 PM

Quote from: Zanza on July 08, 2013, 01:26:21 PM
The role of the German government in this is really pathetic. Far from trying to actually protect our privacy, they prefer to not anger the American partner and probably secretly just get a copy of the data anyway. Spineless unprincipled fucks. :ultra:

How does giving Snowden asylum protect your privacy?

Quote from: Zanza on July 08, 2013, 01:56:25 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2013, 01:41:59 PM

Quote from: Zanza on July 08, 2013, 01:26:21 PM
The role of the German government in this is really pathetic. Far from trying to actually protect our privacy, they prefer to not anger the American partner and probably secretly just get a copy of the data anyway. Spineless unprincipled fucks. :ultra:

How does giving Snowden asylum protect your privacy?

I was talking about the NSA spying in general, not Snowdon's fate in particular. Whistleblowers have a value to society, but it is not my role to determine if he was right to give away those secrets or not. I guess this is a good case where a jury of his peers should determine whether he is guilty of a crime or not. Maybe it would even be a good thing if this became a huge publicity trial where the court hopefully looks into his allegations of government wrongdoing as much as the governments allegation that he did wrong...

QuoteI'm not quite sure I follow the logic in this column.  What does Iran have to offer Venezuela?   

Quote from: KRonn on July 08, 2013, 02:11:31 PM

QuoteI'm not quite sure I follow the logic in this column.  What does Iran have to offer Venezuela?   

I assume partly because of their push to power in the region, further their like cause, going against the US and the West. Plus being friendly with Iran and Russia will likely get them some cash and financial backing, which they need given the downward spiral of the Venezuelan economy.

Quote from: DGuller on July 08, 2013, 01:37:08 PM
:huh: Surely it has to be more complicated than that.  Revealing wrongdoing by any government is almost assuredly going to break some law of the country doing the wrongdoing.

Quote from: Savonarola on July 08, 2013, 02:40:14 PM

Quote from: KRonn on July 08, 2013, 02:11:31 PM

QuoteI'm not quite sure I follow the logic in this column.  What does Iran have to offer Venezuela?   

I assume partly because of their push to power in the region, further their like cause, going against the US and the West. Plus being friendly with Iran and Russia will likely get them some cash and financial backing, which they need given the downward spiral of the Venezuelan economy.

Is Iran in good enough financial shape to offer support to Venezuela?

The author casually slips Russia into her article at one point seeming to make the point that Russia and Iran are linked.  Is this actually the case?  Is benefitting Iran enough to gain a nation the financial support of Russia?

Quote from: Savonarola on July 08, 2013, 02:40:14 PM
Is Iran in good enough financial shape to offer support to Venezuela?

The author casually slips Russia into her article at one point seeming to make the point that Russia and Iran are linked.  Is this actually the case?  Is benefitting Iran enough to gain a nation the financial support of Russia?

Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2013, 01:59:55 PM
A Jury of his peers would be a fine thing, and fitting with the concept of civil disobedience.  Sadly Snowden decided that wasn't for him.   What do you want the German government to do?

Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2013, 02:45:43 PM
With declining oil prices, are any of those three countries in any shape to help anyone else out?

Quote from: Zanza on July 08, 2013, 02:54:15 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2013, 01:59:55 PM
A Jury of his peers would be a fine thing, and fitting with the concept of civil disobedience.  Sadly Snowden decided that wasn't for him.   What do you want the German government to do?

Making sure the Americans, French, British etc. don't spy on us wholesale anymore. And most of all, I want to make sure that our own intelligence agencies don't use similar technologies as Snowdon described to spy on us. That's obviously the biggest concern for me.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2013, 03:10:35 PM
And how exactly would you like the German government to facilitate this? 

Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2013, 03:10:35 PM
And how exactly would you like the German government to facilitate this?  There is not a great deal of leverage Germany Germany has vis-a-vis the US.  Angering the US and possibly preventing trade deals in unlikely to prevent the US from spying on Germany.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 08, 2013, 03:19:44 PM
There's plenty the German government could do.

I would like it noted for the record that I, an American, am not completely comfortable with the programs disclosed by Snowden.

Quote from: Zanza on July 08, 2013, 03:18:27 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2013, 03:10:35 PM
And how exactly would you like the German government to facilitate this?  There is not a great deal of leverage Germany Germany has vis-a-vis the US.  Angering the US and possibly preventing trade deals in unlikely to prevent the US from spying on Germany.

I doubt that. The diplomatic fallout and endangering future cooperation is too high a price just to keep up this data collection.

If you read the news, you would know that Obama has already promised to hold talks on this with the German government.

Furthermore, attitudes to privacy seem to shift at least a bit in Germany's ruling coalition, so there is hope that the topic becomes more of a focus in our elections and domestic politics as well, which would increase the pressure on the German government to act too. This is actually the main thing that needs to happen. If Germany's government was really pissed off about all of this, the US would act. However, they are very complacent, mostly because they also benefited from this under German law illegal data collection.

QuoteSnowden has enough information to cause US government worst damage in history, journalist says

National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden possesses enough information to cause more damage to the United States government than "anyone else has ever had in the history" of the country, according to the journalist who first reported the former contractor's leaked documents.

Glenn Greenwald, a columnist for The Guardian newspaper who first reported on the intelligence leaks, told Argentinian newspaper La Nacion that the U.S. government should exercise extreme care with Snowden because he has the potential to do further damage to the country.

"But that's not his goal," Greenwald told the newspaper. "His objective is to expose software that people around the world use without knowing what they are exposing themselves to, without consciously agreeing to surrender their rights to privacy. He has a huge number of documents that would be very harmful to the U.S. government if they were made public."

Greenwald also told The Associated Press that disclosure of the information in the documents would "allow somebody who read them to know exactly how the NSA does what it does, which would in turn allow them to evade that surveillance or replicate it."

Greenwald said "literally thousands" of documents taken by Snowden constitute "basically the instruction manual" for how the NSA is built.

"In order to take documents with him that proved that what he was saying was true he had to take ones that included very sensitive, detailed blueprints of how the NSA does what they do," said Greenwald, adding that the interview took place about four hours after his last interaction with Snowden.

Greenwald believes the disclosure of the information in the documents would not prove harmful to Americans or their national security, but said Snowden has insisted they not be made public.

"I think it would be harmful to the U.S. government, as they perceive their own interests, if the details of those programs were revealed," said Greenwald, who has previously said the documents have been encrypted to help ensure their safekeeping.

On Friday, Snowden, 30, emerged after weeks of hiding in a Moscow airport and said he was willing to meet President Vladimir Putin's condition that he stop leaking U.S. secrets if it means Russia would grant him asylum until he can move on to somewhere in Latin America.

Snowden is believed to be stuck in the transit area of Moscow's main international airport, where he arrived from Hong Kong on June 23. Although he has had asylum offers from Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia, the logistics of reaching whichever country is complicated since his U.S. passport has been revoked.

Despite his predicament, Snowden remains "calm and tranquil," Greenwald said.

"I haven't sensed an iota of remorse or regret or anxiety over the situation that he's in," said Greenwald. "He's of course tense and focused on his security and his short-term well-being to the best extent that he can, but he's very resigned to the fact that things might go terribly wrong and he's at peace with that."

Greenwald said he worried that interest in Snowden's personal saga had detracted from the impact of his revelations, adding that Snowden deliberately rebuffed nearly all requests for interviews to avoid media scrutiny. He also said he's  "concerned" about Snowden's personal safety.

Greenwald said the U.S. has shown it's "willing to take even the most extreme steps if they think doing so is necessary to neutralize a national security threat."

Asked about a so-called dead man's pact, which Greenwald has said would allow several people to access Snowden's trove of documents were anything to happen to him, Greenwald replied that "media descriptions of it have been overly simplistic.

"It's not just a matter of, if he dies, things get released, it's more nuanced than that," he said. "It's really just a way to protect himself against extremely rogue behavior on the part of the United States, by which I mean violent actions toward him, designed to end his life, and it's just a way to ensure that nobody feels incentivized to do that."

Greenwald has also co-authored a series of articles in Rio de Janeiro's O Globo newspaper focusing on NSA actions in Latin America. He said he expected to continue publishing further stories based on other Snowden documents over the next four months. Upcoming stories would likely include details on "other domestic spying programs that have yet to be revealed," but which are similar in scope to those he has been reporting on. Greenwald did not provide further details on the nature of those programs.

It remains unclear whether Russia will take Snowden up on his latest request for asylum, which could further test U.S.-Russia relations. Following Friday's meeting between Snowden and human rights activists, U.S. officials criticized Russia for allowing a "propaganda platform" for the NSA leader.

White House spokesman Jay Carney — who said the former NSA contractor is not a human rights activist or a dissident — said Russia should instead send Snowden back to the U.S. to face the felony charges that are pending against him.

"He is accused of leaking classified information, has been charged with three felony counts and should be returned to the United States," Carney said.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 15, 2013, 12:53:18 PM
Why don't the asylum-offering countries just offer him one of their passports?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 15, 2013, 12:53:18 PM
Why don't the asylum-offering countries just offer him one of their passports?

QuoteEdward Snowden possesses enough information to cause more damage to the United States government than "anyone else has ever had in the history" of the country

QuoteGreenwald said "literally thousands" of documents taken by Snowden constitute "basically the instruction manual" for how the NSA is built.

QuoteNew Utah NSA center requires 1.7M gallons of water daily to operate

More secrets, more water? The NSA data center in Bluffdale could require as many as 1.7 million gallons of water per day to operate and keep computers cool.

Initial reported estimates suggested the center would use 1,200 gallons per minute, but more recent estimates suggest the usage could be closer to half that amount.

"Our planning is anywhere from 1,000 acre-feet per year to 2,000 acre-feet per year, and that represents - if it was 1,000 acre-feet per year, that would be about 1 percent of our total demand," said Jordan Valley River Conservancy District assistant general manager and chief engineer Alan Packard.

Packard said that amount of water - while large - could be easily accommodated and was on par with industrial operations such as soft drink bottling plants.

"At build-out, it will be several years before the data center uses that amount of water, so we have the opportunity to prepare for that through both conservation and developing new supplies," Packard said.

Packard said the district was actively working to develop the new supplies - including those at the Southwest Groundwater Project, the Central Utah Project and additional groundwater development in the Salt Lake valley.

"It's no more than we were already planning," Packard said. "Our normal activities are designed to accommodate this kind of demand on our system."

Bluffdale City manager Mark Reid described the NSA project and the new water and electrical infrastructure around it as a significant benefit to the city.

Reid said Bluffdale otherwise wouldn't have had the resources to improve the land all the way to the south end of the city limits. Instead, the government funded $7 million in infrastructure to the data center, and an additional $5 million in infrastructure back from the site that will allow a third of the water used at the facility to be recycled.

The water would be used at the city park and on some of the city's lawns, Reid said.

Reid said the city was now pursuing other technology business to relocate to the south end of Bluffdale.

"We're looking to try and combine with Salt Lake County to make that a jobs area," Reid said.

Upon hearing the initial estimates of the NSA center's water use, some residents were skeptical.

"We live in a desert and so it seems like an excess," said Barbara Ericksmoen. "Am I concerned about it? On the fence."

Terry Keddington said he didn't see a problem with the water use or the growth.

"Compared to what it was when I moved out here 30 years ago, it's just grow, grow, grow," Keddington said. "It doesn't surprise me that it's going to grow a little bit more."

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 15, 2013, 05:32:19 PM
Fracking just uses up too much water. :(

QuoteFugitive Edward Snowden applies for asylum in Russia

Fugitive US intelligence leaker Edward Snowden has applied for temporary asylum in Russia, officials say.

The Federal Migration Service confirmed he had completed the relevant paperwork at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport, where he has been for the past three weeks.

Mr Snowden is wanted by the US for leaking details of government surveillance programmes.

He has no travel documents, so has been unable to take up asylum offers from a number of Latin American states.

"He reached the conclusion that he needs to write an application for temporary asylum, and this procedure has just been done," said Anatoly Kucherena, a lawyer with strong links with the Kremlin who helped Mr Snowden with the paperwork.

"For now he is not going to go anywhere. For now he plans to stay in Russia," he said.

Meanwhile the White House reiterated its position that the fugitive should be expelled and face trial in the US.

"Mr Snowden should not be allowed to engage in further international travel except as necessary to return to the United State," spokesman Jay Carney said.

"He is not a human rights activist. He is not a dissident. He's accused of leaking classified information."

'Not Putin's decision'

Mr Kucherena said the fugitive had stated in the application that he faced possible torture and execution if he returned to the US.

If his application is accepted, he will be free to work and move freely in Russia, said the lawyer.

Russia's Interfax news agency quoted Mr Kucherena as saying he had asked Mr Snowden whether he would observe a request from President Vladimir Putin to not harm US interests if he is able to leave the airport.

"He replied: 'I will observe this condition'," Mr Kucherena told the agency.

Officials said Mr Snowden might be moved to an airport facility for accommodating refugees while his application was being processed, which should take no more than three months.

A presidential spokesman told Interfax that Mr Putin had not yet responded to the asylum request, and that the decision on whether it would be granted was not his to make.

But although the Russian government insists the decision will be made by a relatively junior official, the person in charge will be in no doubt what his boss would like him to do, says the BBC's Daniel Sandford in Moscow.


President Putin is clearly aware of the sensitivities involved, and the issue risks overshadowing talks with US President Barack Obama who is due to visit Russia in September, our correspondent adds.

Mr Snowden arrived in Russia on 23 June, having left Hong Kong, from where he had issued his leaks to the media.

He held a news conference at the airport on 12 July, where he said he was seeking asylum in Russia.

He has sent requests for political asylum to at least 21 countries, most of which have turned down his request. However, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Venezuela have indicated they could take him in.

But he is unable to leave the transit zone as he currently has no asylum documents or Russian visa, and the US has revoked his passport.

Some European countries are likely to close their airspace to any plane suspected of carrying the fugitive.

Mr Snowden's leaking of thousands of classified US intelligence documents has led to revelations that the National Security Agency is systematically seizing vast amounts of phone and web data.

The documents have also indicated that both the UK and French intelligence agencies allegedly run similarly vast data collection operations, and the US has been eavesdropping on official EU communications.

QuoteDaniel Sandford

BBC News, Moscow

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If there is a chance to grant Edward Snowden temporary asylum and then move him on to Latin America before September, that may be the best route for Russia.

But if that proves impossible, President Vladimir Putin will have to make a decision - does he continue to rub salt into America's wounds, or does he encourage Edward Snowden to leave quickly by making it clear that the asylum request is not going to work out.

What is still unclear is the extent to which the Russian intelligence agencies have been able to pump Edward Snowden for information, or even for the secret files themselves.

If they still want the information, there may be a trade-off involved - he gives the Russians what they desire and gets to leave the airport, and they decide that a poorer relationship with the US is the price they will have to pay for Mr Snowden's secrets.

Quote from: Zanza on July 08, 2013, 02:54:15 PM
Making sure the Americans, French, British etc. don't spy on us wholesale anymore.

QuoteI like how Snowden has now changed from moral crusader to "don't fuck with me bros, you'll be sorry."

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2013, 10:05:00 PM
Guller doesn't drink that much.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2013, 10:07:41 PM
I don't get it.

QuoteNSA Joke: US Military Intervene over Facebook Event

As a joke, a German man recently invited some friends for a walk around a top secret NSA facility. But the Facebook invitation soon had German federal police knocking at his door. They had been alerted by the American authorities.

Normally, Daniel Bangert's Facebook posts tend to be of the serious variety. The 28-year-old includes news items and other bits of interest he encounters throughout the day. "I rarely post funny pictures," he says.

Recently, though, he decided to liven up his page with something a bit more amusing -- and decided to focus on the scandal surrounding the vast Internet surveillance perpetrated by the US intelligence service NSA. He invited his friends on an excursion to the top secret US facility known as the Dagger Complex in Griesheim, where Bangert is from.
He described the outing as though it were a nature walk. He wrote on Facebook that its purpose was to undertake "joint research into the threatened habitat of NSA spies." He added: "If we are really lucky, we might actually see a real NSA spy with our own eyes." He suggested that those interested in coming should bring along their cameras and "flowers of all kinds to improve the appearance of the NSA spies' habitat."

Perhaps not surprisingly, not many of his friends showed much interest in the venture. But the authorities did. Just four days after he posted the invitation, his mobile phone rang at 7:17 a.m. It was the police calling to talk about his Facebook post.

'I Couldn't Believe It'

Bangert's doorbell rang at almost the exact same time. The police on the telephone told him to talk with the officers outside of his door. Bangert quickly put on a T-shirt -- which had a picture of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden on it along with the words "Team Edward" -- and answered the door. His neighbor was outside too so as not to miss the fun.

The police wanted to know more about what exactly Bangert had in mind. "I couldn't believe it. I thought: What? They are coming for such nonsense?"

Bangert says he answered all of the questions truthfully, saying that, yes, his intention was that of heading out to watch the spies. "The officers did smirk a bit," he notes.

How, though, did the police get wind of Bangert's planned "nature" walk? A spokeswoman for the police in nearby Darmstadt told SPIEGEL ONLINE that the US Military Police had found the Facebook post and passed it along to German officials. The Military Police are responsible for security within the Dagger Complex, but outside the fence, it is the Germans who are in charge.

Not long later, Bangert got another call asking him to report to Central Commissariat 10 of the German federal police. They too then sent an officer to his home. "The wanted to know if I had connections with (anarchist groups) or other violent people," Bangert says. He told the officers that he didn't, repeating over and over that he "just wanted to go for a walk."

Ignoring the Police

The officers, says Bangert, were unimpressed and called him a "smart aleck," before hinting strongly that he should obtain a demonstration permit before he embarked on his outing. They then told Bangert not to post anything about their visit on the web.

Bangert took their first piece of advice, registering his "demonstration" even though, as he says, "it wasn't supposed to be one." But he ignored the police's second suggestion and reported on their visit on his Facebook page. "How much more proof do you need," he wrote. "Everyone says that they aren't affected. But then I invite people for a walk and write obvious nonsense in the invitation and suddenly the federal police show up at my home."

The police spokeswoman sought to play down the incident. The officers from Central Commissariat 10 are responsible for public demonstrations, she said. And the fact that the American Military Police reported the Facebook post isn't surprising either, she said. The police, she noted, usually only learn of publicly announced Facebook parties when they are notified by those affected.

More Walks in the Future?

Nevertheless, news of the incident spread rapidly via Twitter and blogs, and the local media reported on it as well. "My grandma was angry with me," Bangert says. "She said: 'You have to be careful or you'll get sent to jail.'"
He wasn't sent to jail, of course. But the added interest in his invitation meant that some 70 people gathered on Saturday for the NSA safari in Griesheim -- along with two police cars, one in front and one behind. "Some members of the group tried to get the NSA spies to come out of their building," Bangert wrote on Facebook afterwards. Unfortunately, they didn't see "any real NSA spies." But they had a good time nonetheless -- to the point that many suggested another walk just like it.

So is he planning a repeat? "I didn't say that and I didn't write it anywhere," Bangert replies. The smart aleck.

QuoteUS, China trade barbs about Snowden case

WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. and China wrapped up two days of high-level talks on security and economy in upbeat fashion Thursday, but not before trading barbs about NSA leaker Edward Snowden and human rights.

The two sides announced more cooperation on combating climate change and their plans to negotiate a bilateral investment treaty.

But Deputy Secretary of State William Burns said the U.S. was very disappointed how authorities in Beijing and Hong Kong handled Snowden's case by refusing to extradite him before he flew to Russia.

"China's handling of this case was not consistent with the spirit of Sunnylands and the new type of relationship that we both seek to build," Burns said, referring to the summit a month ago between President Barack Obama and China's new president, Xi Jinping, at a California resort.

Obama also expressed disappointment about the Snowden case when he met Thursday in the Oval Office with the two leaders of the Chinese delegation, a White House statement said.

State Councilor Yang Jiechi, who was sitting on the same dais as Burns as they closed the talks, retorted in his remarks that the handling of the case by authorities in semi-autonomous Hong Kong was "beyond reproach."

Yang also rejected U.S. criticism of China's rights record in the ethnic minority areas of Tibet and Xinjiang, saying people there are "enjoying happier lives and they enjoy unprecedented freedom and human rights."

He added: "We hope the U.S. will improve its own human rights situation."

About 120 Tibetans have set themselves on fire since 2011 to protest Chinese policies in Tibet and call for the return of the Dalai Lama, their exiled spiritual leader. In the far western region of Xinjiang, minority Muslims are also agitating against Beijing and clashes in recent months have killed at least 56 people.


The stark differences of opinion on those issues did not prevent kind words on both sides too.

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew hailed the "personal approach" of China's new generation of leaders under Xi, who ascended to China's presidency in March in a once-in-a-decade power transition.

China's Vice Premier Wang Yang, whom U.S. officials say has demonstrated a keen sense of humor in this week's talks, quipped that Lew is smarter than he is and they've become good friends.

It's a sign of the importance the Obama administration puts on its relationship with China leaders that the president received the visiting officials and did so in the Oval Office, where more typically heads of government and state are hosted.

Obama welcomed China's commitment to open its economy to U.S. investment in the bilateral investment treaty - a pact that Washington has been urging Beijing to negotiate in earnest on for years. The Chinese also agreed with him on the importance of cooperating to get North Korea to abandon nuclear weapons.

But Obama added that the United States would continue to speak out in support of international norms such as the protection of universal human rights, the White House statement said.

QuoteBut Obama added that the United States would continue to speak out in support of international norms such as the protection of universal human rights, the White House statement said.

Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2013, 02:24:54 PM
Some day i hope that the US can learn from China about human rights.

You have to recognize the audacity of the Chinese though.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 16, 2013, 10:17:48 PM
He's Russian, therefore he's an alcoholic and a communist.
He fantasizes about Obama, therefore he's a homosexual and a communist.

He may not actually be a socially awkward geek, though.  :hmm: