I'd really like to see Wikileaks devoting more of its time, energy, and fund-raising into breaking news about government-operated surveillance programs in the last two countries where Edward Snowden has been located, namely China and Russia. As an American citizen and voter, I'm still mulling over what I think should be the correct policy response to the revelations about NSA claims about NSA data-gathering programs, but I have deep ties to China as a speaker and reader of Chinese and a long-time student of the language, culture, and history of China, and I have similar connections, less thoroughly developed, to Russia. People everywhere just wanna be free. We ought to be hearing a lot more about all the various governmental data-gathering and surveillance programs, everywhere in the world, and of course we should also be learning more about the actions of private business corporations to gather data on all of us. That Wikileaks tells us much more about the United States federal government than about any of those other entities tells me something about Wikileaks, and perhaps tells me something favorable about the United States.
If you really want to be an idealistic but hard-headed freedom-fighter, mobilizing an effective popular movement for more freedom wherever you live, I suggest you read deeply in the publications of the Albert Einstein Institution,
remembering that the transition from dictatorship to democracy described in those publications is an actual historical process with recent examples around the world that we can all learn from.
AFTER EDIT: Good catch by the readers who noticed the non-American English in the Wikileaks press release here (mentioned in other comments in this thread). The press release kindly submitted here is plainly not Edward Snowden's verbatim words, but more self-publicizing from Wikileaks.
>I'd really like to see Wikileaks devoting more of its time, energy,
>and fund-raising into breaking news about government-operated
>surveillance programs in the last two countries where Edward
>Snowden has been located, namely China and Russia.
I cannot speak for China, but majority of Russians lack a natural compass/taste for civil liberties and human rights: they haven't had the time to develop one. Their version of PRISM is called SORM-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SORM) - it was launched with a complete lack of secrecy and, predictably, was met with public apathy. There are no news to break. :(
So you offer some things Wikileaks could change, and then you offer some criticism of Snowden's statement.
Why exactly are we still talking about the messenger(s)? How is this productive?
The goal is to make the world better. Nitpicking about Snowden, his associates, his travel, his criminal behavior or lack thereof, Wikileaks, Assange, and all of this other stuff is completely orthogonal, soap-opera bullshit that has nothing to do with that goal.
We should be focusing now on how to a) spread the word about the constitutional abuses and systemic coverup being perpetrated by NSA and b) working toward building a legal environment wherein these types of circumstances are not only legally prohibited but also cannot be re-engineered in practice either.
>> "AFTER EDIT: Good catch by the readers who noticed the non-American English in the Wikileaks press release here (mentioned in other comments in this thread). The press release kindly submitted here is plainly not Edward Snowden's verbatim words, but more self-publicizing from Wikileaks."
Is it not possible he dictated it and WikiLeaks typed it and published it? Or someone at WikiLeaks checked for typos using a British-English spell checker and corrected a few US-English spellings?
Wikileaks has released documents from governments around the world, and at different times the leaks have caused scandals in almost every country out there. You may have heard more about leaks that affect United States because of the news you read.
Wikileaks is generally reactionary, i.e., they rely upon others to bring them leaks which they publish. The organization steadfastly denies going out to acquire the information themselves.
> I'd really like to see Wikileaks devoting more of its time, energy, and
> fund-raising into breaking news about government-operated surveillance
> programs in the last two countries where Edward Snowden has been located
The big deal is that the US is no longer the shining beacon of hope-/change-y-ness or freedom that it claimed to be. We, the US, need to keep that beacon BRIGHTLY LIT. Those states which don't follow the lead will be pressed by the press or dissenters to follow or will repress freedom. [Yes, I acknowledge that the beacon-lit thing is dramatic and too-large, but that's the US for you.]
Lose that and we join a race to the freedom-bottom the US founders would be shocked to learn we have undertaken.
tokenadult, that is a loaded expectation that Wikileaks is disempowered from fulfilling, since they simply publish what is received after anonymizing and verifying where possible.
In fact, back in 2009, Assange told me personally he was surprised not to have received more information from China.
> I'd really like to see Wikileaks devoting more of its time, energy, and fund-raising into breaking news about government-operated surveillance programs in the last two countries where Edward Snowden has been located, namely China and Russia.
I don't know about Russia, but in China it's pretty well known by everyone that the PRC is watching you; China doesn't claim to be a democratic republic either. It's not a secret or revelation to even people in the West. The only people who aren't really familiar with it in Western countries, are people who only stick to reading mainstream consumer news.
> People everywhere just wanna be free. We ought to be hearing a lot more about all the various governmental data-gathering and surveillance programs, everywhere in the world, and of course we should also be learning more about the actions of private business corporations to gather data on all of us. That Wikileaks tells us much more about the United States federal government than about any of those other entities tells me something about Wikileaks, and perhaps tells me something favorable about the United States.
While I agree that surveillance happens everywhere, USA is in unique position of power to do it, considering how much of internet traffic moves through US-based companies. That said, I also agree that the very fact of existence of outrage caused by PRISM is telling about the US citizens and government, people in Russia, for example, assume that tchekists from FSB are already watching every their step or at the very least able to do so.
> That Wikileaks tells us much more about the United States federal government than about any of those other entities tells me something about Wikileaks
I don't find that's the case. Living in the US, it's not surprising that most of what you hear from WikiLeaks is about the US. Take a look at their homepage (http://wikileaks.org) for example, most featured stories are not about the US.
Not a bad idea in general, but Wikileaks is resource constrained (remember, they are being actively investigated by the FBI/DoD and have a banking blockade going against them), and it's not unreasonable for them to focus (at least right now) on the jurisdiction primarily responsible for what happens to Gmail, Android, Cisco IOS, Apple iOS, Facebook, and AWS.
I share your concerns, IMHO it would be awesome if we had ten Edward Snowdens from ten countries. But we don't so I don't think it's fair to put it against Wikileaks for not leaking something that was not given to them. Seems like they should be a receptacle not an institution that does investigative journalism.
Perhaps showing support for Snowden will help other content come out, but looking at the huge effort President Obama and Vice Clownshoes Biden have put together to get this guy into the brig, not fucking likely. They have done a good job of isolating Snowden and making future whistle-blowing less likely.
Both countries especially CHINA has a bad reputation on communication regulation (network shutdown on some occasions) and censorship. There is no need for WikiLeaks to break anything new here.
US government has been riding a high horse and teaching everybody about internet freedom, and now they are caught pants down. That's a lot of more worthy of news than exposing already known bad guys.
I find it deeply troubling that majority voices in USA are now accusing Snowden / WikiLeaks of damaging USA reputation or things like that.
It's probably too late now, but I feel like it was a mistake not to release a public encryption key along with his initial effluence of records. I for one believe that this was written by Snowden, but it seems like an obvious use of some basic form of identity signing.
Edit: It now seems like there is some reasonable doubt that this notice was forged. I still remain confident this is no forgery, but the point I'd like to make is that there may in fact be an identity question -- and that is a problem with a technical solution that unfortunately seems not to have been leveraged.
He used 'have' after United States of America, which is a Britishism. To Americans, 'United States of America' is singular and would use "has" in this particular sentence:
For decades the United States of America have been one of the strongest defenders of the human right to seek asylum.
Maybe I'm overanalyzing but I don't think this is a verbatim statement from Snowden.
I was actually just about to ask... how do we know Snowden had anything to do with this statement at all? It's not as if he's likely to publically challenge Wikileaks if they decide to make a sockpuppet out of him for their own ends.
It's almost as if he's deliberately provoking the most rabid response possible from the United States Government.
Regardless of what happens to him; he is writing himself into the pages of history.
His actions have opened the possibility of Western Europe defecting from the US led coalition that has dominated world affairs for the past 70 years. Which is not a result anyone could have predicted.
> His actions have opened the possibility of Western Europe defecting from the US led coalition that has dominated world affairs for the past 70 years. Which is not a result anyone could have predicted.
What changed compared to previous US spying scandals? (e.g. Echelon and the 2003 European council wiretaps from the US)
It occurs to me that there is a kind of deep hypocrisy for those who make the rules to claim that someone broke the rules. Rules require focus and diligence to apply, and they favor those that apply them regularly, vs those to whom they are applied.
I suspect that the Obama administration broke may of their own rules rushing through the a change in status that fast - a bureaucracy the size of the US doesn't process anything quickly without breaking the rules.
The Russians are clearly using Snowden as a pawn, probably because Russia is threatened by people like Snowden just as much as the US is. Snowden threatens those who make the rules, and then apply them fully to others and not at all to themselves and their cohorts.
For the third time in my life (the first two courtesy Bush Jr.) I'm deeply ashamed of my government.
I'm not taking sides here but Snowden is wrong on the facts about passport revocation. It is perfectly within the established law to revoke the passports of fugitives with federal arrest warrants. It doesn't make you a "stateless person" or "exile" you -- you're still welcome to return voluntarily.
There are several interesting aspects to this story.
The first is obviously the revelations about NSA "overreach".
The second is that this guy could've remained hidden but he put his name behind the revelations rather than choosing the far safer path of being an "anonymous source". This lends his revelations more credence and you have to respect the guy for standing by his convictions. Maybe he would've been found out had he stayed in the shadows but he certainly didn't try to do that.
The third is that the US is very much two-faced here. It seems clear that the surveillance is being justified by a technical ruling to do with US vs foreign persons, a classified ruling no less. While this might be a fine legal argument, it doesn't engender support amongst foreign powers when you tell them you have every right to spy on their citizens but oh, by the way, can you do us a solid and hand over that fugitive?
In what world does the US think they'll get cooperation from anyone when they aren't treated not even as equals but with simple decency? So the foreign policy apparatus resorts to bullying tactics.
The fourth is that both China and Russia were blatantly thumbing their noses at the US. I see no world in which Russia hands the guy over so the actions of the US have done little more than force a guy in possession of Top Secret information to be harboured by a rival. Congratulations on that statecraft, Obama, Biden and Kerry.
What's more it's made the US appear internationally weak.
The last is that the various players on Snowden's side do seem to have screwed the pooch on this one by both issuing a letter of safe passage and not having some kind of contingency when the US did the predictable thing and revoked his passport. This could hardly have been an unprecedented move.
So good luck to you, Edward Snowden. I hope your sacrifice hasn't been in vein. The optimist in me hopes that a future president will pardon you and otherwise reverse this self-destructive course the US is on.
He's not still complaining about his passport, is he? Did Assange tell him to say that too?
A passport means that the host nation is comfortable with the person traveling abroad. For what should be obvious reasons the U.S. would rather he be back home (to stand trial). Even if you disagree with everything the NSA has done or will do, he technically broke the law. If the U.S. considers itself to observe the rule of law, then they have to pursue him as much as they'd pursue anyone else.
The U.S. has stripped persons of their citizenship for things as mundane as fraud, so this is hardly a made-up case for Snowden.
In fact, it's so not made up that there are existing procedures for when a passport may be revoked [1] [2]. Note that despite the foia_reading_room in the URL of [1], it is simply the U.S. Attorney's Manual, which is accessible directly from http://www.justice.gov/usao/index.html .
Edit: Also, since when did a conversation without an exchange of consideration or an agreement to perform certain actions become "wheeling and dealing"? This is the kind of stuff that has turned me off from Assange a long time ago; he's just as willing to distort as a government, as long as it suits his purpose.
I find it most interesting, and perhaps frightening, that Snowden's passport was revoked. I've been thinking quite a bit about it since that bit of news broke, and since it's referenced in this statement, it's back in my head.
I winced a bit at the claim of being a stateless person, as I'd previously understood that to mean lacking citizenship anywhere, not being without a passport for travel. Perhaps I've been wrong about that all these years.
I'm still researching, but so far, I've found the following passport-revocation authorities:
1. Obtained illegally or through fraud
2. Altered or misused (no definition yet on 'misused')
3. Issued to persons whose citizenship is cancelled
4. Non-payment of child support
5. Non-repayment of repatriation loan
6. Persons convicted of sex tourism
7. Persons convicted of drug trafficking
8. [based on comment below] Standing warrants for arrest (and other standing legal/court orders against the bearer)
Interestingly enough, 22 USC § 2721 states that:
> A passport may not be denied issuance, revoked, restricted, or otherwise limited because of any speech, activity, belief, affiliation, or membership, within or outside the United States, which, if held or conducted within the United States, would be protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
I've yet to find an authority to revoke a passport from a citizen who is openly seeking political asylum.
However, there is 22 USC § 217a:
>A passport shall be valid for a period of ten years from the date of issue, except that the Secretary of State may limit the validity of a passport to a period of less than ten years in an individual case or on a general basis pursuant to regulation.
So, there's that. Perhaps this is one such individual case.
Additionally, the law requires the DOS to send the passport owner written notification of revocation. I wonder if the US is considering a press statement to be such written notice?
Any lawyers versed in passport issues know whether revoking a passport in a situation like this runs afoul of law or established precedent?
Accusing the United States of depriving him of the right to seek asylum seems like a tautology to me. If the United States wasn't attempting to bring him back to the US for a trial, he wouldn't need to seek asylum.
Does this mean every country who attempts to prosecute people who subsequently seek asylum is violating "a basic right"?
Obama is saying "You broke the law. We want you back. We won't wheel and deal for you with any country who wants to use you iike a pawn to win some other concession or just enjoy sticking it to us. Take him in at your own risk" Nothing new here or deceitful. Pretty standard operating procedure.
I very much doubt that the United States government is afraid of me. Snowden is a real drama queen.
I don't think that he deserves asylum either. I think he should come back to America, have a public trial with media coverage, and then we can firmly establish if what he did was wrong.
Edit: It appears that I'm unable to reply to the various comments on this, so I'll try to refine what I'm saying:
I do think that whistleblowers are necessary, especially in large, secretive organisations. But I think that Snowden's limbo isn't providing the requisite closure on the matter. I think that he should be compelled to explain his actions in court. I think all whistleblowers should, just as I think that anybody who kills somebody under a make-my-day law should still have their actions examined. Whistle blowing isn't something that somebody does lightly, and i think that should be doubly true for matters of national security.
Additionally, trying to vilify the government in a press statement is silly. Let their actions speak for them, and let your own actions speak for you.
Damn, we live in a shitty world. And the comments in here are not much better. I wish him the best. It's sad that Ecuador is wavering. What a joke their leader is. First, they're posturing and puffing out their chests, now they look like fools.
> 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.
One thing that concerns me is that many Americans are adopting what is essentially a Tory/Loyalist attitude towards these events, without understanding the Tory/Loyalist political philosophy of dissidence, which differs from 'civil disobedience' and 'non-violent resistance' (those are the other guys).
Don't get me wrong -- we can't all be Patriots and Revolutionaries -- but our history has ill-fitted us to be good at being Tories and Loyalists. Those were the bad guys in all our grade-school stories ... and now we are those bad guys.
The classical Tory theory of dissidence is called "Passive Obedience." This doesn't mean bending over and being a wimp. It means being obedient to higher authority (God and Constitutional Law), while seemingly disobeying usurpers and tyrants, who are themselves violating the higher Law -- constitutional, moral, and natural. The "Passive" part is an old word meaning suffering (like the Passion of Christ).
Edward Snowden has given us a very good example of Passive Obedience -- if he is correct the programs are indeed unconstitutional. He certainly is suffering for his beliefs, and is fleeing, not resisting or rebelling against the State. Failure to obey the commands of usurpers and tyrants, or to obey bad law in defiance of the dictates of one's conscience, are not required even of Loyalists and Tories.
The fact that Tories and Loyalists, which the American people have become, are condemning his actions, shows only that we have forgotten how to be good Redcoats, as well as most certainly having forgotten how to be good Patriots.
As good Tories (not good Patriots though), Loyal to the American State, we have the right to petition our sovereign -- the American People, not its representative Government -- i.e., to request a constitutional convention to strike down these Star Chamber courts, redress the alleged tyranny, and end the usurpations against our Sovereign's previously constituted declarations, and granted Bill of Rights.
As far as Snowden's flight is concerned, Sir Thomas Hobbes gives a very clear explanation of both Passive Obedience and the right of the dissident to flee, in an attempt to evade the sure punishment he would otherwise receive with or without justice (however if he is caught he must meekly accept his Passion and martyrdom, without resistance -- Civil Disobedience and Resistance are the contrary of the Tory doctrine).
Time to pick sides -- but if we are going to be Tories all, let us not be bad ones. These are the times that try men's souls.
Article 14 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
It reflects strongly on the state of our world now that I was more concerned about the fallout from visiting wikileaks.org than I was by the latest information coming from Snowden.
[+] [-] tokenadult|12 years ago|reply
If you really want to be an idealistic but hard-headed freedom-fighter, mobilizing an effective popular movement for more freedom wherever you live, I suggest you read deeply in the publications of the Albert Einstein Institution,
http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsde07.html
remembering that the transition from dictatorship to democracy described in those publications is an actual historical process with recent examples around the world that we can all learn from.
AFTER EDIT: Good catch by the readers who noticed the non-American English in the Wikileaks press release here (mentioned in other comments in this thread). The press release kindly submitted here is plainly not Edward Snowden's verbatim words, but more self-publicizing from Wikileaks.
[+] [-] old-gregg|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sneak|12 years ago|reply
Why exactly are we still talking about the messenger(s)? How is this productive?
The goal is to make the world better. Nitpicking about Snowden, his associates, his travel, his criminal behavior or lack thereof, Wikileaks, Assange, and all of this other stuff is completely orthogonal, soap-opera bullshit that has nothing to do with that goal.
We should be focusing now on how to a) spread the word about the constitutional abuses and systemic coverup being perpetrated by NSA and b) working toward building a legal environment wherein these types of circumstances are not only legally prohibited but also cannot be re-engineered in practice either.
[+] [-] k-mcgrady|12 years ago|reply
Is it not possible he dictated it and WikiLeaks typed it and published it? Or someone at WikiLeaks checked for typos using a British-English spell checker and corrected a few US-English spellings?
[+] [-] guelo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marshray|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CoffeeDregs|12 years ago|reply
Lose that and we join a race to the freedom-bottom the US founders would be shocked to learn we have undertaken.
[+] [-] contingencies|12 years ago|reply
In fact, back in 2009, Assange told me personally he was surprised not to have received more information from China.
[+] [-] chaostheory|12 years ago|reply
I don't know about Russia, but in China it's pretty well known by everyone that the PRC is watching you; China doesn't claim to be a democratic republic either. It's not a secret or revelation to even people in the West. The only people who aren't really familiar with it in Western countries, are people who only stick to reading mainstream consumer news.
[+] [-] xentronium|12 years ago|reply
While I agree that surveillance happens everywhere, USA is in unique position of power to do it, considering how much of internet traffic moves through US-based companies. That said, I also agree that the very fact of existence of outrage caused by PRISM is telling about the US citizens and government, people in Russia, for example, assume that tchekists from FSB are already watching every their step or at the very least able to do so.
[+] [-] reledi|12 years ago|reply
I don't find that's the case. Living in the US, it's not surprising that most of what you hear from WikiLeaks is about the US. Take a look at their homepage (http://wikileaks.org) for example, most featured stories are not about the US.
[+] [-] sneak|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mscarborough|12 years ago|reply
Perhaps showing support for Snowden will help other content come out, but looking at the huge effort President Obama and Vice Clownshoes Biden have put together to get this guy into the brig, not fucking likely. They have done a good job of isolating Snowden and making future whistle-blowing less likely.
[+] [-] chj|12 years ago|reply
US government has been riding a high horse and teaching everybody about internet freedom, and now they are caught pants down. That's a lot of more worthy of news than exposing already known bad guys.
I find it deeply troubling that majority voices in USA are now accusing Snowden / WikiLeaks of damaging USA reputation or things like that.
[+] [-] kintamanimatt|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gasull|12 years ago|reply
https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:China
[+] [-] dreamfactory|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baby|12 years ago|reply
People there know there is an extreme censorship and corruption.
IMO the higher government needs to take extreme measure against corruption.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lmm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cuttooth|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eblume|12 years ago|reply
Edit: It now seems like there is some reasonable doubt that this notice was forged. I still remain confident this is no forgery, but the point I'd like to make is that there may in fact be an identity question -- and that is a problem with a technical solution that unfortunately seems not to have been leveraged.
[+] [-] qwertzlcoatl|12 years ago|reply
For decades the United States of America have been one of the strongest defenders of the human right to seek asylum.
Maybe I'm overanalyzing but I don't think this is a verbatim statement from Snowden.
[+] [-] marshray|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josscrowcroft|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PhearTheCeal|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krapp|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] olefoo|12 years ago|reply
Regardless of what happens to him; he is writing himself into the pages of history.
His actions have opened the possibility of Western Europe defecting from the US led coalition that has dominated world affairs for the past 70 years. Which is not a result anyone could have predicted.
[+] [-] tonfa|12 years ago|reply
What changed compared to previous US spying scandals? (e.g. Echelon and the 2003 European council wiretaps from the US)
[+] [-] jusben1369|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] merraksh|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] javajosh|12 years ago|reply
I suspect that the Obama administration broke may of their own rules rushing through the a change in status that fast - a bureaucracy the size of the US doesn't process anything quickly without breaking the rules.
The Russians are clearly using Snowden as a pawn, probably because Russia is threatened by people like Snowden just as much as the US is. Snowden threatens those who make the rules, and then apply them fully to others and not at all to themselves and their cohorts.
For the third time in my life (the first two courtesy Bush Jr.) I'm deeply ashamed of my government.
[+] [-] abalone|12 years ago|reply
The relevant U.S. law is 22 CFR 51.70 and 51.72 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-1999-title22-vol1/xml/CFR-1...
He does have a point that restricting travel does make it harder for you to seek asylum. But that's nothing new.
[+] [-] cletus|12 years ago|reply
The first is obviously the revelations about NSA "overreach".
The second is that this guy could've remained hidden but he put his name behind the revelations rather than choosing the far safer path of being an "anonymous source". This lends his revelations more credence and you have to respect the guy for standing by his convictions. Maybe he would've been found out had he stayed in the shadows but he certainly didn't try to do that.
The third is that the US is very much two-faced here. It seems clear that the surveillance is being justified by a technical ruling to do with US vs foreign persons, a classified ruling no less. While this might be a fine legal argument, it doesn't engender support amongst foreign powers when you tell them you have every right to spy on their citizens but oh, by the way, can you do us a solid and hand over that fugitive?
In what world does the US think they'll get cooperation from anyone when they aren't treated not even as equals but with simple decency? So the foreign policy apparatus resorts to bullying tactics.
The fourth is that both China and Russia were blatantly thumbing their noses at the US. I see no world in which Russia hands the guy over so the actions of the US have done little more than force a guy in possession of Top Secret information to be harboured by a rival. Congratulations on that statecraft, Obama, Biden and Kerry.
What's more it's made the US appear internationally weak.
The last is that the various players on Snowden's side do seem to have screwed the pooch on this one by both issuing a letter of safe passage and not having some kind of contingency when the US did the predictable thing and revoked his passport. This could hardly have been an unprecedented move.
So good luck to you, Edward Snowden. I hope your sacrifice hasn't been in vein. The optimist in me hopes that a future president will pardon you and otherwise reverse this self-destructive course the US is on.
[+] [-] mpyne|12 years ago|reply
A passport means that the host nation is comfortable with the person traveling abroad. For what should be obvious reasons the U.S. would rather he be back home (to stand trial). Even if you disagree with everything the NSA has done or will do, he technically broke the law. If the U.S. considers itself to observe the rule of law, then they have to pursue him as much as they'd pursue anyone else.
The U.S. has stripped persons of their citizenship for things as mundane as fraud, so this is hardly a made-up case for Snowden.
In fact, it's so not made up that there are existing procedures for when a passport may be revoked [1] [2]. Note that despite the foia_reading_room in the URL of [1], it is simply the U.S. Attorney's Manual, which is accessible directly from http://www.justice.gov/usao/index.html .
[1] http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit...
[2] http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/info/info_870.html
Edit: Also, since when did a conversation without an exchange of consideration or an agreement to perform certain actions become "wheeling and dealing"? This is the kind of stuff that has turned me off from Assange a long time ago; he's just as willing to distort as a government, as long as it suits his purpose.
[+] [-] bobwaycott|12 years ago|reply
I winced a bit at the claim of being a stateless person, as I'd previously understood that to mean lacking citizenship anywhere, not being without a passport for travel. Perhaps I've been wrong about that all these years.
I'm still researching, but so far, I've found the following passport-revocation authorities:
1. Obtained illegally or through fraud
2. Altered or misused (no definition yet on 'misused')
3. Issued to persons whose citizenship is cancelled
4. Non-payment of child support
5. Non-repayment of repatriation loan
6. Persons convicted of sex tourism
7. Persons convicted of drug trafficking
8. [based on comment below] Standing warrants for arrest (and other standing legal/court orders against the bearer)
Interestingly enough, 22 USC § 2721 states that:
> A passport may not be denied issuance, revoked, restricted, or otherwise limited because of any speech, activity, belief, affiliation, or membership, within or outside the United States, which, if held or conducted within the United States, would be protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
I've yet to find an authority to revoke a passport from a citizen who is openly seeking political asylum.
However, there is 22 USC § 217a:
>A passport shall be valid for a period of ten years from the date of issue, except that the Secretary of State may limit the validity of a passport to a period of less than ten years in an individual case or on a general basis pursuant to regulation.
So, there's that. Perhaps this is one such individual case.
Additionally, the law requires the DOS to send the passport owner written notification of revocation. I wonder if the US is considering a press statement to be such written notice?
Any lawyers versed in passport issues know whether revoking a passport in a situation like this runs afoul of law or established precedent?
[edit: formatting failure on my part]
[+] [-] Kylekramer|12 years ago|reply
Does this mean every country who attempts to prosecute people who subsequently seek asylum is violating "a basic right"?
[+] [-] jusben1369|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] webghost|12 years ago|reply
Nicolas Maduro, president of Venezuela is in Russia right now. He flies not the national presidential airplane but a cuban plane.
Rumor has it, he visited Russia with the intention of giving Snowden a ride back to Venezuela.
We'll see.
[+] [-] jgrahamc|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kapura|12 years ago|reply
I don't think that he deserves asylum either. I think he should come back to America, have a public trial with media coverage, and then we can firmly establish if what he did was wrong.
Edit: It appears that I'm unable to reply to the various comments on this, so I'll try to refine what I'm saying:
I do think that whistleblowers are necessary, especially in large, secretive organisations. But I think that Snowden's limbo isn't providing the requisite closure on the matter. I think that he should be compelled to explain his actions in court. I think all whistleblowers should, just as I think that anybody who kills somebody under a make-my-day law should still have their actions examined. Whistle blowing isn't something that somebody does lightly, and i think that should be doubly true for matters of national security.
Additionally, trying to vilify the government in a press statement is silly. Let their actions speak for them, and let your own actions speak for you.
[+] [-] mililani|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brown9-2|12 years ago|reply
Isn't it common to revoke a passport of someone you want to try of a crime and have extradited?
Does one expect the government to assist in your asylum attempts?
I don't believe one has the right to not be charged with a crime, especially one you have admitted to.
[+] [-] sneak|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jgoodwin|12 years ago|reply
Don't get me wrong -- we can't all be Patriots and Revolutionaries -- but our history has ill-fitted us to be good at being Tories and Loyalists. Those were the bad guys in all our grade-school stories ... and now we are those bad guys.
The classical Tory theory of dissidence is called "Passive Obedience." This doesn't mean bending over and being a wimp. It means being obedient to higher authority (God and Constitutional Law), while seemingly disobeying usurpers and tyrants, who are themselves violating the higher Law -- constitutional, moral, and natural. The "Passive" part is an old word meaning suffering (like the Passion of Christ).
Edward Snowden has given us a very good example of Passive Obedience -- if he is correct the programs are indeed unconstitutional. He certainly is suffering for his beliefs, and is fleeing, not resisting or rebelling against the State. Failure to obey the commands of usurpers and tyrants, or to obey bad law in defiance of the dictates of one's conscience, are not required even of Loyalists and Tories.
The fact that Tories and Loyalists, which the American people have become, are condemning his actions, shows only that we have forgotten how to be good Redcoats, as well as most certainly having forgotten how to be good Patriots.
As good Tories (not good Patriots though), Loyal to the American State, we have the right to petition our sovereign -- the American People, not its representative Government -- i.e., to request a constitutional convention to strike down these Star Chamber courts, redress the alleged tyranny, and end the usurpations against our Sovereign's previously constituted declarations, and granted Bill of Rights.
As far as Snowden's flight is concerned, Sir Thomas Hobbes gives a very clear explanation of both Passive Obedience and the right of the dissident to flee, in an attempt to evade the sure punishment he would otherwise receive with or without justice (however if he is caught he must meekly accept his Passion and martyrdom, without resistance -- Civil Disobedience and Resistance are the contrary of the Tory doctrine).
Time to pick sides -- but if we are going to be Tories all, let us not be bad ones. These are the times that try men's souls.
[+] [-] jpdoctor|12 years ago|reply
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
http://www.ichrp.org/en/article_14_udhr
[+] [-] cpursley|12 years ago|reply
You can get buy one for $135,000. This is what Derek Sivers did. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3944339
https://sivers.org/comfort
http://www.sovereignman.com/lifestyle-design/how-to-obtain-a...
[+] [-] snicklepuff|12 years ago|reply
IMHO, he should not have run. I don't think he would have any trouble convincing 12 people that what he did was the right thing. Running was bad form.
I don't like this guy, and I don't trust him.
[+] [-] falcolas|12 years ago|reply
It reflects strongly on the state of our world now that I was more concerned about the fallout from visiting wikileaks.org than I was by the latest information coming from Snowden.
[+] [-] krapp|12 years ago|reply