Reminder: the real reason Snowden cannot walk out of the airport not because of some virtual passport that US "revoked". It is because there are real armed obedient guys on the border who will not let Snowden go his way.
This whole story is not about privacy, spying or politics. It is about your personal inability to choose your phone company, internet provider, or a bank without confronting armed "state" which dictates what is allowed to you. Don't like NSA spying through Verizon? Build your own phone company. Oops, there are feds with an order to "cooperate".
Guns and violence are the problem, not all these abstract things like "rights" or "privacy".
Actually this particular story is just about Snowden, not the details revealed in what he leaked, and certainly not about your personal freedom from government tyranny.
What you're talking about sounds like Max Weber's theory about the state being defined as any entity with the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence.
I think a valid question would be: can a government even exist without the possibility of exercising violence as a means of control? And if that's the case, is there any other means of organizing human beings which would enable this?
I find it very odd that this article, along with most, repeatedly claims that Snowden needs to have a travel document in order to claim asylum. Many asylum seekers have no travel document at all when they enter the country where they seek asylum. In the UK most asylum seekers have no legal way to enter the country, as you technically can't switch from most other types of visa - they simply have to arrive and claim asylum on arrival.
There are two problems: First he'd need to be let onto a flight without valid travel documents. Secondly, he'd need for that flight to actually arrive at a location where he will not be apprehended and handed over to US authorities.
Russian asylum will alleviate both issues: It gives him easier access to commercial flights, and it makes it politically far more difficult for those European states that for example were willing to prevent Morales' plane access on a mere rumour he was aboard to justify forcing down a plane he is on. Consider the political fallout if an Aeroflot plane with someone granted political asylum by Russia gets turned back.. Or for that matter another diplomatic mission with him aboard their plane with asylum status.
There's a simple but significant distinction here - it doesn't work for Air travel. And there's no tunnel from Russia to Bolivia ..
(also noteworthy is that most nations need you to be within their borders before you can apply for asylum. It appears Snowden would much rather have an invite before he arrives. This is ruling out most destinations)
The trouble is that Snowden is not yet permitted to travel out of the Russian airport. He is seeking asylum in Russia because he can't get out of there without their permission.
This is what US wanted. To corner him into taking asylum in a country like Russia. This turns Snowden into a spy in minds of many Americans than a whistleblower (or I like to call public informant).
The stories on media will focus more on, "Spy or whistleblower" instead of domestic spying by NSA. Future whistleblowers are discouraged and the nature of spying is off the front page. Mission accomplished!
The US wants him in custody, and they think he's a criminal. I don't credit the administration for a devious plot here.
The political staff may be agonizing over talking points, but the real chess game is about catching the king. I don't think Obama and Putin were chatting about smearing Snowden, but rather about what the US will give Russia if Snowden is sent home, or prevented from going to South America.
Well, it's effective. If the end result of Snowden's choice to take 3-4 NSA laptops into the two largest strategic competitor nations of the United States is nothing more than exposing the domestic surveillance, then an argument can be made for him being a noble whistle blower, but if the Russians and Chinese image those laptops and it costs lives, then Snowden's choice not to remain in the U.S. and blow the whistle will be viewed as cowardice.
> The stories on media will focus more on, "Spy or whistleblower" instead of domestic spying by NSA. Future whistleblowers are discouraged and the nature of spying is off the front page. Mission accomplished!
That's already happened. I haven't heard much more than a peep about NSA spying since the Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego story took over.
Well, at least he's not stuck in an airport for the rest of his life. Stay in one long enough and even jail begins to look good.
But the problem remains -- what are we going to do about PRISM, or even more to the core of the problem, about the cult of secrecy in our government?
Senators Graham, McCain, and Pelosi would have you believe the cult is for our own good, because we're not informed enough to know what's good for us.
Of course, we don't have access to the information that would help us make up our own minds, so the circular argument closes itself and we have to resort to Plan B -- which is, "If you don't know national security, know those who do."
And I'd nominate the aforementioned senators, but they seem to know just a little more than I do -- by their own design, the executive branch's reluctance to be honest in hearings, and the judicial branch's own complicity in rubber-stamping requests.
By analogy, if a major US corporation hired whites 99.99% of the time over non-whites, the AG would be all over them.
Given the state we're in today, why did the founders even bother revolting? If you took what some of our senators are saying, replace "national security" with "monarchy", you'd probably have a speech uttered by some Tory back in 1770.
I think Russia is the safest place for Snowden. Any western country is a no-go for obvious reasons. And South America is also questionable. Given how casually the Bolivian presidential plane was grounded and searched, the US may as well send a SEAL team to one of those "second class" countries for a recovery mission.
[+] [-] oleganza|12 years ago|reply
This whole story is not about privacy, spying or politics. It is about your personal inability to choose your phone company, internet provider, or a bank without confronting armed "state" which dictates what is allowed to you. Don't like NSA spying through Verizon? Build your own phone company. Oops, there are feds with an order to "cooperate".
Guns and violence are the problem, not all these abstract things like "rights" or "privacy".
[+] [-] eli|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] topher515|12 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
I think a valid question would be: can a government even exist without the possibility of exercising violence as a means of control? And if that's the case, is there any other means of organizing human beings which would enable this?
[+] [-] jdmitch|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vidarh|12 years ago|reply
Russian asylum will alleviate both issues: It gives him easier access to commercial flights, and it makes it politically far more difficult for those European states that for example were willing to prevent Morales' plane access on a mere rumour he was aboard to justify forcing down a plane he is on. Consider the political fallout if an Aeroflot plane with someone granted political asylum by Russia gets turned back.. Or for that matter another diplomatic mission with him aboard their plane with asylum status.
[+] [-] soneil|12 years ago|reply
(also noteworthy is that most nations need you to be within their borders before you can apply for asylum. It appears Snowden would much rather have an invite before he arrives. This is ruling out most destinations)
[+] [-] enko|12 years ago|reply
> they simply have to arrive and claim asylum
In order to arrive, he needs the travel document.
[+] [-] dkokelley|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] salimmadjd|12 years ago|reply
The stories on media will focus more on, "Spy or whistleblower" instead of domestic spying by NSA. Future whistleblowers are discouraged and the nature of spying is off the front page. Mission accomplished!
[+] [-] andrewljohnson|12 years ago|reply
The political staff may be agonizing over talking points, but the real chess game is about catching the king. I don't think Obama and Putin were chatting about smearing Snowden, but rather about what the US will give Russia if Snowden is sent home, or prevented from going to South America.
[+] [-] euroclydon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baby|12 years ago|reply
I really doubt it. This is not at all a best case scenario for the US. Still better than China though.
[+] [-] brown9-2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MatthewPhillips|12 years ago|reply
That's already happened. I haven't heard much more than a peep about NSA spying since the Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego story took over.
[+] [-] achughes|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rangibaby|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jgrahamc|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] squozzer|12 years ago|reply
But the problem remains -- what are we going to do about PRISM, or even more to the core of the problem, about the cult of secrecy in our government?
Senators Graham, McCain, and Pelosi would have you believe the cult is for our own good, because we're not informed enough to know what's good for us.
Of course, we don't have access to the information that would help us make up our own minds, so the circular argument closes itself and we have to resort to Plan B -- which is, "If you don't know national security, know those who do."
And I'd nominate the aforementioned senators, but they seem to know just a little more than I do -- by their own design, the executive branch's reluctance to be honest in hearings, and the judicial branch's own complicity in rubber-stamping requests.
By analogy, if a major US corporation hired whites 99.99% of the time over non-whites, the AG would be all over them.
Given the state we're in today, why did the founders even bother revolting? If you took what some of our senators are saying, replace "national security" with "monarchy", you'd probably have a speech uttered by some Tory back in 1770.
[+] [-] znowi|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bjoern|12 years ago|reply
It feels like we are focusing on perception and if he will be labeled a 'traitor' or not.
[+] [-] racl101|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]