US Lawmakers Want Sanctions On Any Country Taking In Snowden 650
An anonymous reader points out this story about the latest effort by the U.S. to get Edward Snowden back in the country. "A U.S. Senate panel voted unanimously on Thursday to seek trade or other sanctions against Russia or any other country that offers asylum to former spy agency contractor Edward Snowden, who has been holed up for weeks at a Moscow airport.
The 30-member Senate Appropriations Committee adopted by consensus an amendment to a spending bill that would direct Secretary of State John Kerry to meet with congressional committees to come up with sanctions against any country that takes Snowden in."
Hey US... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hey US... (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe Snowden should go to China. Now, if the US places sanctions on China, that would be funny.
Re:Hey US... (Score:5, Insightful)
And when think about it, a guy who knows lots of stuff about the way the NSA spies on its citizens would be pretty useful to the PRC.
Everyone will win, except a few senators who'll end up with egg on their faces.
Naming Names (Score:5, Informative)
The specific names are hard to come by right now.
Let's fix that. It was a unanimous voice vote. Here are the names. Contact them and tell them what you will:
RICHARD C. SHELBY (R), Alabama
LISA MURKOWSKI (R), Alaska
MARK BEGICH (D), Alaska
JOHN BOOZMAN (R), Arkansas
MARK PRYOR (D), Arkansas
DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), California
CHRIS COONS (D), Delaware
MARK KIRK (R), Illinois
RICHARD DURBIN (D), Illinois
DAN COATS(R), Indiana
TOM HARKIN (D), Iowa
JERRY MORAN(R), Kansas
MITCH MCCONNELL (R), Kentucky
MARY L. LANDRIEU (D), Louisiana
SUSAN COLLINS (R), Maine
BARBARA MIKULSKI (D), Maryland
THAD COCHRAN (R), Mississippi
ROY BLUNT(R), Missouri
JON TESTER (D), Montana
MIKE JOHANNS (R), Nebraska
JEANNE SHAHEEN (D), New Hampshire
TOM UDALL (D), New Mexico
JOHN HOEVEN(R), North Dakota
JEFF MERKLEY (D), Oregon
JACK REED (D), Rhode Island
LINDSEY GRAHAM(R), South Carolina
TIM JOHNSON (D), South Dakota
LAMAR ALEXANDER (R), Tennessee
PATRICK LEAHY (D), Vermont
PATTY MURRAY (D), Washington
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Naming Names (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Naming Names (Score:5, Insightful)
If you had told someone half a century ago that someone should flee to a commie state for his freedom...
The times sure are a'changing.
Re:Naming Names (Score:4, Interesting)
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.
Re:Naming Names (Score:5, Insightful)
So, a man stands up for his beliefs, defies the will of the country with the most powerful military in the history of creation, one that can barely disguise its intentions to throw him in a dark hole never to be seen again, all while armed with nothing but a keyboard, and you call him a coward?
Interesting. What do you want him to do, Chuck Norris his way through the Pentagon?
Re:Naming Names (Score:4, Informative)
What on earth are you talking about and however did you get modded up to +5? Economic sanctions may come about in times of war, granted. But to claim they're an act of war is to cheapen and trivialize the horror that is such a conflict as to be named a war.
Economic sanctions can be as minor a thing as import tariffs. They're a part of everyday international business.
People here are getting way too emotional and need to grow up.
Re:Naming Names (Score:5, Insightful)
America has been waging a "War on Drugs" for many years, and now is waging a "War on Terror" (by sending an army of robotic birds out to kill foreign nationals in their homes, no less).
But slashdot is "cheapening and trivializing" war.
Re:Naming Names (Score:5, Insightful)
Out of all the problems the world faces, drugs are the least important, and I'm very tired of drug addicts ceaselessly bringing up the War on Drugs like it was the single most pressing issue our nation has ever faced.
The ease of implementation of the post-9/11 surveillance state, the increasing militarization of police forces, the fact that "the land of the free" has the highest incarceration rate in the world ... all of them trace back quite directly to the War on (Some) Drugs. So while it obviously isn't the most pressing issue our nation has ever faced, you could make a pretty good argument that it's among the most pressing issues we face right now.
Re:Naming Names (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about the right of 'potheads' to 'self-injury' through drug-'abuse'. It's about the rights of 'potheads', who abuse and injure themselves far less than 'boozeheads' or 'tarheads', to be free of the threat of government violence if they don't report themselves to prison. We shouldn't be violent to people just because they don't conform. This sort of thing is really important. How would you like it if government locked you up because of some way in which you didn't conform (without doing harm to anyone else)?
It's racism to STOP sending minorities to prison for failing to conform? That's a good piece of doublespeak you've got there.
Here are some examples of actual racism for you:
500K prisoners != the "least important" problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
Out of all the problems the world faces, drugs are the least important
Keep telling yourself that mate, don't look at actual figures [wikipedia.org] that say an American is 7x as likely as a Chinese or a European to be locked up. And don't dig down [wikipedia.org] to find that one reason for the appealing lead America has in incarceration rates is the war on drugs*. Ignore the fact that there is a heavily armed swat team knocking down your neighbor's door with a battering ram because someone smelt a wiff of the joint he was smoking. So yeah close your eyes and ears and everything will be just fine and dandy in the land of the free (from drugs) and for god sake don't investigate what happens to the children of the 500K pot smokers you have locked up. Don't inform yourself, just lock em all up and let god sort it out, eh?
Given that drug abuse is endemic amongst low-income minorities in America, I can't help but think that drug legalization is a covert form of racism
Now that's irony with a capital "I" - the American prohibition on dope was promoted by the government of the day as a way to get "lazy Mexicans" back to work.
Your hate for junkies and potheads is clearly and democratically expressed in those numbers, but the facts of life are such that prohibition has never worked and never will, all it does it create a huge black market and what that delivers to society is misery in the form of oppression [wikipedia.org] (note the date on the bend), violence and corruption. Those who are still ignorant enough to support it are the moral criminals in the war on (some) drugs, the fact they are a "well meaning" democratic mob is of little comfort to the victims.
you should be ashamed of yourself
Why? I'm a proud grandfather of three, I'm a degree qualified professional and have not been out of work since 1981, I currently earn around twice the national average wage and live on the shores of port phillip bay. I've been a responsible pot smoker since 1977 but it's none of yours or the government's dammed business how or why I abuse my own lungs in my own home. And yes I'm sure my employer and the US government read my slashdot posts, thing is at 54 I'm too old to be ashamed of my behavior and will happily admit to, and defend, my pot smoking (although I don't normally tell people like you, for obvious reasons).
So next time you're at a work party sipping on your free grog, have a look around. One in five of those people will be a responsible pot smoker and according to you they should be locked up, their children made into wards of the state, and their family home/farm sold by the state as an illegally acquired asset (regardless of where the money actually came from or the fact that there was only a couple of plants in a well lit closet).
* - Not sure if the following stats are on that page, but here is your "non problem" in a nutshell..
-The 27 nations of the EU have a population of 500M and a total prison population of 600K.
-The US has population of 300M, a total prison population of over 2M of which 500K are locked up for victimless drug crimes.
Re:Naming Names (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Naming Names (Score:4, Insightful)
If war is an extension of politics, and it is ...
War is the failure of politics not an extention of it.
Not if you are doing it right.
.... They conquer by strategy."
"Thus those skilled in war subdue the enemy's army without battle
Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
Re:Naming Names (Score:5, Insightful)
It depends. If you, your company, refuses to do business, it's your problem. If you are a country that not only represents a sizable international economic factor but also has the leverage to pressure others to follow your example, you're essentially dealing a serious blow to another economy. Take a look at your country's economy and realize that it highly depends on imports and exports. It depends on you being able to import food, machinery and/or other products and export your surplus. Inability to do so leaves you at a disadvantage in your economy's development.
So please don't tell me economic warfare doesn't exist. It does. At the very least if you're an important global player. What do you think would happen if any trade between China and the US suddenly ceases?
Re: (Score:3)
I just want to point out that Senator Merkley (D-OR) has been really clear about being against broad and secret surveillance. http://www.opb.org/news/article/sen-merkley-wants-debate-patriot-act-rules-extension/ [opb.org]
This committee action is NOT about the NSA program. It is about threatening Russia, who finds itself once again positioning itself as an anti-US power with their support of Assad, and weapons they gave Syria having been transferred to Hezbollah.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes because using the name 'Snowden' explicitly has clear links to the Syrian conflict.
Re:Naming Names (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Naming Names (Score:5, Insightful)
No it's about finding ways to increase M.I.C. spending by creating friction between rival states.
Mod this guy up, he has hit it on the head.
It seems to be that any escalation of tension that doesn't result in actual war is the preferred foreign policy outcome. US politicians don't want a war with Russia or China or any country who's soldiers have equipment more advanced than rifles.
But they do want a climate of exaggerated fear which justifies increased spending to the companies that their mates run, or to allow public servants who are their cronies to build their little empires.
Take this whole NSA spying on email/voice communications thing. They don't really care what the general public are saying to each other. And any terrorist who is serious at all can set up their own linux postfix/asterisk email/voip server for about $100 in about an hour, and which can't really be spied on if done properly. They can even install a torrent client on it and start downloading episodes of "Game Of Thrones", so that encrypted peer-to-peer traffic hitting that server is from all over the world, and any communication they do via it is lost in the noise. For all the money the NSA is spending, their spying program won't pick this up at all, and the terrorists are safe.
So why are the NSA building huge data centers to store innocuous traffic? So a bunch of public servants can feather their nests, increase their operating budgets and build little empires. So a bunch of politician's mates can charge ludicrous contracting fees to build it all.
Of course, the unfortunate side effect is that if the US ever really does end up with an authoritarian dictator some time in the future, he is going to have all the tools need to subjugate the american people pre-built.
Re:Naming Names (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Naming Names (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole Prism program Snowden leaked is proof enough that We The People really don't have shit to say in any government matters. It's those assholes in power who are running the show and twisting everything to their own desire. I also seriously doubt many people would give a damn enough to "call our senators, congressmen, presidents, popes, PTA members, florists, undertakers and anyone else that will list, and demand he be given a full pardon." You seriously overstate the intelligence of the average American. He's really better off just staying away from this country, because there is no way here in the "land of the free" (I mean... prison/surveillance state...) he will get his rights to due process and a speedy and fair trial. That's why he left in the first place and it was a good call.
Re:Naming Names (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Naming Names (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is what they did wrong?
They are defending the government's right to do whatever the government wants and keep it a secret.
When this happens in other countries, we call it for what it is: totalitarianism.
"Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a term employed by some political scientists to describe a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life whenever necessary."
Instead of dealing with that fact, these cowards would rather pretend there isn't a problem.
Money has corrupted everything (Score:5, Insightful)
This is really the central issue. There are few American values outside of money any longer, and this moral hazard is in the process of destroying the country.
In this case, we have a whistleblower providing evidence that
1) The American government is spying on American citizens without obtaining any warrants, unless you count secret court orders that have no judicial oversight*
2) This program is even kept as a secret from other parts of the government
3) Parts of the government have been lying to congress about what the spying program is about, who they have collected information on, and how they go about collecting it
*(This is a hugely important point. One of the favorite tricks of a totalitarian regime is to legitimize anti-democratic activity by simply making it legal. But if the constitution says we are free from unreasonable searches and seizures, a secret law passed by a secret court shouldn't hold sway. The only difference between our government and despotism is that they get more than one person to declare the government's will, pass it around in secret to co-conspirators who share the same backwards worldview, and then pretend that the theater they just acted for has some legitimacy.
The stark reality is that our government is corrupt and therefore does whatever it wants. As Nixon famously stated: When the President does it, it's not illegal. Then the question has to be asked: if that's the case, what is the difference between a President and a King?)
In essence, there is a part of our government that has approved its own spying program in a process that the public has no chance of knowing about.
So, why aren't we hearing about this in the media? Why are we instead hearing about his girlfriend, or his personal life? Because American media is no longer tasked with seeking the truth. Their primary concern is profit, and covering the birth of a British child is a lot more profitable than hiring skilled journalists to do journalism. Additionally, the Executive routinely threatens to cut off access to their staff for any news organizations that step out of line. For organizations like the Guardian, that risk is minimized, since they don't depend on empty stories to fill the vacuum of the 24 hour news cycle. For someone like CNN or Fox, the only thing that matters is the ratings, and that's best achieved by cheap, exasperated, stupid television. They can fill the airtime with "breaking news" about celebrities, or cat videos, or whatever pretend journalism is the cheapest to produce, but they feel like they need access so they can continue presenting the strained theater of left versus right. Every headline screams out: "Obama 'slams' GOP Leadership" or "Boehner threatens retaliation for 'nuclear option.'"
Boehner and his counterparts are barely able to communicate with regular voters, but that's because they have no idea what it's like to be a regular voter. They probably don't know what a loaf of bread costs, because they have servants and assistants who do that sort of thing for them. Half of congress is made up of millionaire lawyers, and the result of that is a bunch of outrageously overwrought laws that have nothing to do with helping anyone but their rich friends. Even now while they are discussing what tax breaks to keep, they have demanded that the proposal be kept a secret for fifty years [cnn.com]. The reason is because if the truth were known, you could go down the line and see the leashes traveling from the election year donors to the politicians they have bought and paid for. Which would be great to know during the next election, but again, you don't matter. You don't exist, as far as they are concerned.
Back to the media... taking on the US government is expensive, and not only are the producers (who couldn't give two shits about our rights) not invested in the truth, but there's also probably an army of lawyers worried about getting entangled in expensive
Re:Naming Names (Score:5, Insightful)
Excuse me?
I was just at the Chinese embassy this week to obtain a visa.
I didn't realise it was a Chinese custom to encourage enemy aliens to visit their country.
And I guess I'll have to tell my fiancée to move out and that the wedding's off. Wouldn't want to marry an enemy national, now, would I?
Come to think of it, we had guests from Russia stay with us for a week or so last summer.
Man, I've been consorting with enemies left and right, haven't I?
Whatever am I going to do?
Hm, I'll have to think about it, but I am pretty sure the solution to my dilemma lies in determining that you are an idiot.
(In best "Soup Nazi" voice:) No postcards of the Great Wall for you!
Re:Naming Names (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is what they did wrong? Snowden should be held accountable for his actions and he should be tried on all charges they want to throw at him. They are doing their job to ensure that he is.
They are only pretending to do their job as long as they don't hold Clapper accountable for perjury before congress and the NSA accountable for overstepping their mandate to the degree that they are violating the constitutional protections of U.S. citizens.
Before they start doing something about the traitors and enemies of the constitution at home, actionism against Snowden is just smokescreen. They can easily render him harmless by making sure that there is nothing that he can blow the whistle about any more.
Re:Naming Names (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is what they did wrong?
Completely ignoring all questions of the rightness or wrongness of Snowden's actions and the rightness or wrongness of the government actions he exposed, Snowden is just one fugitive. One single person seeking political asylum. One single person whose security breach was, frankly, pretty minor. The embarassment from that breach might be massive, of course, but the actual breach wasn't materially damaging. So, what they're doing is wrong simply because they are going to extreme measures to try to get at him. They're failing to recognize that other nations have their own sovereignty and could quite reasonably grant Snowden asylum. The US has granted asylum to plenty of people who have done far, far worse things than the worst interpretation of Snowden's actions.
He may as well do it here and let US citizens stand by him, or crucify him, as it is nominally our interests he was trying to protect. By running and hiding with our enemies, he looks very guilty.
Please. This story is about a unanimous vote to seek sanctions against any country that wants to grant him asylum. No sane person would take the risk of a "fair" trial in the US in such a situation.
Also, on a side note: "our enemies"? Speaks for itself really.
Re:Naming Names (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is what they did wrong?
Because threatening countries with sanctions if they grant asylum to dissidents is wrong, as it is interfering with the internal affairs of foreign countries. Apparently, following through on it would also be against WTO treaties.
Snowden should be held accountable for his actions and he should be tried on all charges they want to throw at him. They are doing their job to ensure that he is
There is a procedure for how to do this. It includes extradition requests once the suspect is in the country, not threatening with sanctions before any asylum request have been made.
His life is a wreck no matter where he hides he knew that when he made his decision. He may as well do it here and let US citizens stand by him, or crucify him, as it is nominally our interests he was trying to protect.
Why should he go to a country that has shown callous disregard for due process in every step of this case, to spend the rest of his life in prison (you don't actually believe he has any chance of being pardoned, do you?), which may have outlawed torture of inmates, but has in reality outsourced it [wikipedia.org]?
By running and hiding with our enemies, he looks very guilty.
Speaking of how actions make you look, this move makes the US look like bully that doesn't care about sovereignty and treaties. Is this really in the best interest of the country? Is his crime really henious enough that this amount of grandstanding is appropriate?
Re:Hey US... (Score:4, Interesting)
With Snowdon we're just seeing a failure due to a very stupid way of funnelling money out of the taxpayers hands into the pockets of friends of the powerful. Doing it that way instead of in-house means an almost total lack of oversight over tens of thousands of people that could have leaked like Snowdon. I wonder how many of those are already on the payroll of foreign powers? There used to be rumours of US agencies asking Mossad to tell them what other US agencies wouldn't tell them, I wonder if the sprawl has got so bad that the Russians or Chinese could be asked as well?
Re:Hey US... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hey US... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm thinking that Snowden really must know way too much. I wouldn't be surprised if he had an accident if he does get asylum. Maybe hit by a bus, fall down some stairs. He could also have a heart attack. For a bunch of Dems and Repubs to agree unanimously to try to get his ass back means he's screwed. When both political mafias agree on anything that means the real rulers of the government are speaking.
Re:Hey US... (Score:5, Interesting)
Except he sent encrypted thumb drives to undisclosed number of journalists by personal courier all over the world.
If he dies or gets disabled or locked up and can't convincingly communicate with any number of other undisclosed fail safes, these people will all contact the journalists or otherwise publicly publish the encryption keys.
Then all hell breaks loose.
Re: Hey US... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hey US... (Score:5, Insightful)
I 'd love to see how the CIA deals with the fact that blank thumb drives are a dime a dozen, and most computers these days have more than one USB slot.
I am pretty sure that if I were one of the journalists who received one of Snowden's little insurance policies, I'd be setting up a few of my own.
Re:Hey US... (Score:4, Insightful)
When you say "both" you appear to be suffering under the misaprehension that you have two political parties and a functioning democracy. Do don't. You have one party with two brands, and they all are given their marching orders by their funders. There is no more freedom in the United States than in China. The only difference is the mechanism by which the people are controlled. Tomorrow I protest against the corrupting influence of the United States in my own country.
Re:Hey US... (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe Snowden should go to China. Now, if the US places sanctions on China, that would be funny.
The sanctions law will probably be so hastily/poorly written that if Snowden ever returns to the US, the US will have to sanction itself :-)
[ If we could ever harness the power of all our politicians' knees jerking, all our energy problems would be solved... ]
Re:Hey US... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hey US... (Score:5, Insightful)
Those were really specific tariffs, though, only on solar panels, which are not really essential to the U.S. economy. The problem with general trade sanctions is that we get all our stuff from China, so we can't afford to ban importing it. If there were even a temporary blanket import ban, almost all U.S. computer manufacturers would have to suspend sales. You probably wouldn't even be able to buy a toaster.
Re:Hey US... (Score:5, Informative)
The gp understands the reality that with the exception of Cuba, N. Korea and perhaps a few others, no nation on Earth will risk trade troubles with the US over Snowden. The US is the biggest single sovereign importer of finished goods in the world and therefore holds an economic trump card over every other nation.
One more reason why the US being the planet's trade whore is bad for everyone.
And no, sanctions for harboring Snowden won't violate any trade laws. This is "national security" and every trade agreement you can think of has a great big national security exception [ssrn.com]. The President can invent a trade sanction against anyone at any time for anything plausibly related to "national security."
Re: Hey US... (Score:4, Funny)
Hell yeah, Putin's been having a ball with this.
His only difficulty being that he likely to had to practise saying, "He is welcome to stay in Russia if he promises to stop giving out American secrets," several times before he could do it without laughing for the next 5 minutes or so.
Pretend you're Putin, and try saying it yourself with a straight face.
Re:Hey US... (Score:5, Interesting)
No shit. I hope most of South America bands together and gives the US the finger. If the US sanctions one country, every one should sanction the US back. The existence of Snowden is 100% the fault of the US (for violating rights and for not controlling security). But the only way they can hide their human rights abuses is to attack another country.
Re:Hey US... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
i think most americans would agree with you that the US government is retarded
I highly doubt that.
Re: (Score:3)
It's as the US is trying *really really* hard to isolate itself from the world. Sadly, I'm getting closer to the point of saying "good riddance" in response :/
Re:Hey US... (Score:4)
Ow wait, the US prisons are worse now. You are more likely to die by murder in a US prison than in the worst crime ridden slums in the US. And that's under 24-hour supervision. We joke about 3rd world prisons, but ours are worse now. Though as long as the meals are not bad, we'll ignore the rapes and beatings.
Welcome to the new United States! (Score:5, Insightful)
Papers please! Here's a nice star for your chest. Cattle car number 13 please. This won't hurt a bit.
Re:Welcome to the new United States! (Score:5, Funny)
Welcome to the United States! [dailymotion.com]
Our of their minds... (Score:5, Insightful)
Are these imbeciles serious? Do they think for one second about the repercussions of an action like this? If I were Russia, I'd grant him asylum just to watch the US government look like even bigger morons than they already do.
1) US enacts sanctions against Russia ...
2) Russia, and half the world return the favor.
3)
4) No profit.
It's time for the people of this country to stop voting mainstream and replace the complete morons running this circus. There are just no words.....
Right of asylum cannot be assumed (Score:5, Informative)
While I can't claim to be intimately fimiliar with the relevant international law: the UN CRSR (1951) [wikipedia.org] probably applies. It specifically doesn't apply to "War Criminals", but I'm not sure what else.
Business Insider have a somewhat cynical take on Snowden's asylum claim [businessinsider.com] which I think is worth reading.
Re:Right of asylum cannot be assumed (Score:4, Insightful)
Business Insider have a somewhat cynical take on Snowden's asylum claim which I think is worth reading.
JavaScript required. Not worth reading.
Re:Right of asylum cannot be assumed (Score:4, Informative)
You realize this is the 2013 version of the internet right?....
You know that is exactly why you need to turn off javascript, right?
In 1992 we didnt have Reveton.
Re:Right of asylum cannot be assumed (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it is. Which is why we've moved beyond the days of "this site is best viewed in Internet Explorer at 800 x 600 resolution" to the days of creating sites that are intelligently designed to work on multiple browsers and obey the principles of graceful degradation if a given browser doesn't support some wizzy feature you like.
At least, that's the theory. Some sites still suck.
Re: (Score:3)
But considering how much of the web requires javascript these days, its hardly something to complain about in a comment.
Most of the Web gracefully degrades. At least you see enough to decide if you are still interested in the site or not, and how dangerous it looks like.
I don't want to enable JS to just read some dumb text - or worse, get a video playing "YOU HAVE BEEN 0WN3D!" in fullscreen mode. Most people would call it paranoia, but the Slashdot crowd is somewhat more aware of what lurks out there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Business Insider have a somewhat cynical take on Snowden's asylum claim which I think is worth reading.
The article is worth reading, but in claiming that [Snowden] "is asking for asylum in a country that continues to openly squash dissent", it neglects to mention that at this point, his options are becoming limited.
Even assuming any other nation were to offer him asylum, recent history has shown that the US is extremely unlikely to allow him to get there [guardian.co.uk]. So his only option might be to stay where he is, and make the best of it.
Re:Right of asylum cannot be assumed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Our of their minds... (Score:4, Insightful)
If I was an peak oil exporting country I'd take him [wikipedia.org].
After that any of the top trade partners of the US [census.gov]
Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, Germany, South Korea
Re:Our of their minds... (Score:4, Informative)
Not Australia though.
Just in case that troublesome citizen we have hauled up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in the UK has any aspirations of coming home, we changed our laws to facilitate extradition to the states for 'terrorists' without any of that annoying red tape.
http://castancentre.com/2012/03/07/extradition-and-mutual-assistance-changes-slip-in-under-the-radar/ [castancentre.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, I'd love to see Congress do something stupid like this and the rest of the world to call their bluff, or better just ignore us outright. Yeah, they'd hurt a bit as the flow of money from our country was cut off, but as they pick up trade with each other and just ignore the U.S. they'll recover and continue. (Not sure how plausible this is as I don't know what, if anything, the U.S. is the sole exporter of, and a quick Google doesn't help.)
Really, as an American citizen, I'd love to see the world s
Ugggh. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like watching a 5-year old having a temper tantrum.
These clowns don't have anything more important to work on?
Re:Ugggh. (Score:5, Insightful)
These clowns don't have anything more important to work on?
Yeah, they do, that's why they are doing this. Classic misdirection 101. Can't fix the economy? Can't do your job properly? Do something loud, big that gets noticed and likely eaten right up by the average Joe-Shmo living in Nowheresville, Mediocrity. Get into the news for being the "Good guys" after the "dangerous treason-ous US-hating, communist/socialist/terrorist". Then when (and in the unlikely case of IF) people ask why you didn't do what you were supposed to do, you can cheerfully say that you were too busy keeping the US safe.
Re:Ugggh. (Score:5, Interesting)
that's why they are doing this. Classic misdirection 101
I'd go as far as to suspect that Snowden is actually a plant and the whole debacle has been staged as a distraction. But it also brings secret information out into the public without the CIA / NSA / ??? having to own up to it. What's had me wondering since this whole Snowden thing blew up is .. why is he getting so much attention? There are hundreds upon hundreds of whistleblowers (search youtube for 'CIA whistleblower') out there .. but ONLY Snowden gets publicity.
.. the NEOCON's philosophy is to unite a people by pointing out a common enemy (real or ficticious) around which to rally. And never forget that these NEOCON's don't respect your intelligence .. they expect you to be blind, obedient and well programmed by the media. What happens when Russia falls? Generate a new 'threat' ... invisible terrorism! If that fails? Invisible cyber war! If that fails? Setup a circumstance for Russia to be the big bad enemy again!
... right???
Snowden works for the CIA, he comes out publically as a 'whistleblower' with information that is already public, the media promotes him, it takes attention away from the failing government and their clandestine manipulation of the populace. And what happens? OH Russia gives him 'Asylum' where he is of course trusted and bam! He's in Russia, talking with the secret police groups over there and once again, Russia is the big bad enemy which the US HAS to beat! The red enemy rises again!
Always remember
It worked before, it's bound to work again
Re:Ugggh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly! How about government being
a) accountable
b) honest
c) transparent
So this bullshit about government over stepping its Constitutional Authority doesn't happen in the first place.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course. No doubt right now someone is drafting directions to rename the "Black Russian" to the "Black Freedom" at all congressional events.
Re:Ugggh. (Score:5, Informative)
Psst... I live in Massachusetts, where we have had Obamacare since back when it was Romneycare (but after it was Bob Dolecare). The sky has not fallen. Initially there has been some supply pressure as people who were priced out of the market for certain services (adolescent mental health care was a biggy) lined up to get services they could now afford. That's a problem, but not an entirely a bad thing.
People always piss and moan about change, but change was coming in health care, even without Obamacare. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend change wasn't coming, but health care spending as a percent of GDP rose from about 5% of GDP in 1960 to 17.9% of GDP in 2009. That's twice what socialist paradise Sweden pays. Do you think things would remain the same when spending reached 25% of GDP? 30%? Or even remained at 17.9%?
Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
This is completely insane, made by people who are also completely insane. This is calling burning bridges and not looking back, one day in the not so distant future U.S it self might find it self on the other end of a sanction (after U.N headquarters are moved, or U.N itself is disbanded).
In any case, this is both stupid and insane by the U.S congress doing this. I wonder what threats NSA did bring to the table to get this through.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder what threats NSA did bring to the table to get this through.
Never doubt that the NSA / CIA has coercive data on any politician they need to threaten to get insane crap done. They're tapping phones, using cameras to record citizen's actions and monitoring internet activity. Do you think the politicians are excluded from that targetting?
Politicians are prime candidates for total monitoring. If John Kerry farts, the NSA knows the time, smell and cause.
How can I get citizenship in a country with laws? (Score:5, Insightful)
This "United Spies of America" with their OWN legal system and their OWN courts and Constitution...
THIS is essentially why the Revolutionary War was fought, freedom from this kind of authoritarian nonsense.
US needs to back the fuck down (Score:5, Insightful)
before the rest of the world decides to put trade sanctions on them. Few countries are as reliant on imports as the united states, the world would get along just fine, your people however would starve to death or die of dehydration
keep pushing assholes the world doesn't give a fuck about your pathetic ultimatums
It's all posturing (Score:5, Insightful)
Few countries provide the kind of consumers with disposable income/available credit and an insatiable desire to buy shit like the US. You don't close the door on your biggest client. This posturing is aimed at the central and south American countries, not at Russia.
And it's unlikely that Russia will decide to take in Snowden. Remember - they have leakers and political refugees, too. We (the US and Russia) are fare more similar than dissimilar. Like flirting with the waiter/waitress at a restaurant in front of your significant other, it's being done for amusement, and everybody gets their jollies out of it. Getting the phone number of your server and then shacking up isn't on the menu for either side in this dysfunctional but stable relationship.
Re:US needs to back the fuck down (Score:5, Interesting)
your people however would starve to death or die of dehydration
These politicians don't care about the people. They're only in it for their self interests. If imports fail, who gives a fuck .. the wealthy elite will be fine, only the people dependent upon them will starve to death. And there's nothing the people can do .. the people are even shouting for citizen disarmament while the politicians build up more and more armed power for the state.
.. wake the fuck up.
What was once a fine example of shining freedom has devolved into a plutocratic dictatorship. Fine citizens of the USA
Re:US needs to back the fuck down (Score:5, Insightful)
Without imported manufactured goods, the US would be forced to return to full employment. They are not certainly not going to let that happen.
Let them (Score:5, Insightful)
Let this terrorist government burn their bridges. They need the world more than the world needs them. They deserve nothing more than having to crawl on their knees to get back with Europe, Russia and in particular China.
For crying out loud (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For crying out loud (Score:4, Funny)
Re:For crying out loud (Score:5, Interesting)
Ironically, when I managed a drone surveillance related research project, and about a quarter of my budget disappeared, my company blocked my ability to see where it went. My government customer didn't seem to care very much either.
A reason there's less outrage in congress about the NSA spying, is they've grown so accustomed their own corruption that they don't recognize it anymore. They diss Snowden's integrity as moral preening because that's the only explanation for his behavior they can understand.
A better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
What kind of idiot would agree to a deal like that? It'd be like trading a blurry Polaroid of a garden gnome for an original Picasso.
Seriously? What am I missing? (Score:5, Interesting)
So we know that the NSA lied to Congress and about half of the representatives want to stop the spying that Snowden told us about. That would seem to make the implication that Congress has realized that the few people who actually seem to care are in the majority against it. So Snowden shouldn't be that big a fish. We have federal laws against illegal immigration but the feds have decided not to put any effort into enforcement since it isn't popular. We have federal laws against marajuana, but with states making it legal, the feds have decided not to put any effort into enforcement. Now we have one guy and enforcement isn't popular, but yet they're making a big deal of enforcement?
On the one hand, I kinda get it, you have to enforce the laws to keep your secrets safe. On the other hand they're doing that already and have made it impossible for Snowden to return to the US without likely imprisonment. Isn't that more than enough? I'm surprised they'd do something to harm international relations over it.
Is it possible that Snowden has more information they're afraid that he'll turn over to another government? If he does, what could it be to be worth this witchhunt? It reminds me of Assuange which became a much bigger witchhunt than it seemed to warrant. I'm beginning to think that there must be some really ugly skeletons in the closet if Congress is this worried about people spilling secrets.
Re:Seriously? What am I missing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it possible that Snowden has more information they're afraid that he'll turn over to another government? If he does, what could it be to be worth this witchhunt? It reminds me of Assuange which became a much bigger witchhunt than it seemed to warrant. I'm beginning to think that there must be some really ugly skeletons in the closet if Congress is this worried about people spilling secrets.
The answer is simple actually: Snowden makes them look bad. They had their hearings with the NSA, the NSA lied to their faces (probably with the blessing of Congress) and they went along with the lie. By doing so it allowed Congress to appear to be protecting peoples' privacy and listening to their constituents, which helps get them reelected. And that is the key. Congress has no longer become about leading; it is about getting re-elected. At one point politics was a sacrifice: it was something you did not to make yourself rich (granted early politicians in the US tended to be on the wealthy side anyway), you did it because you cared about your neighbors, your state, your country. Politicians held real jobs, as merchants or teachers or lawyers-politician was a side job. But now you have people who are professional politicians. They like the power, the influence, the money. Their goal is not to serve people, or to lead; their goal is simply to get reelected. The best way to get reelected in the US is to do nothing while looking like you are doing something. That is why you have all these sub committees and hearings on everything from steroid use in baseball to whether or not women really need birth control. Ever notice how, in hearings, the person being questioned rarely actually gets asked a question? They aren't about getting answers, they act as a soapbox for the committee members to get soundbites and to allow them to say that they got tough on "current issue or outrage of the month".
Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)
First, let me say that I think Snowden has done us all a service. Setting that aside, however, the Senate has some seriously skewed priorities. One of the real foreign policy accomplishments of the President's first term was the 'reset' with Russia, which helped improve relations after the mistakes made during the Bush era. Among other things, this allowed the supply of our troops in Afghanistan over Russian territory when it hit the fan in Pakistan. I'm certainly not a fan of that war, but if we're going to have soldiers over there it's much better that they be supplied.
Is the Senate really willing to sacrifice the gains made with Russia "to get a 29-year-old hacker" (as he's been termed) who likely has already given away all the information he possesses? Is it worth the strength of our relationship with one of the world's great powers to get at one guy whom Lindsey Graham regards as a traitor? What exactly are the Senate's priorities anyway?
As per usual (Score:5, Insightful)
As per usual the narcissistic US government thinks it runs the world. Fuck you all.
Re:As per usual (Score:4, Insightful)
The Congress and Senate and President of the US are traitors to the United States Constitution that they swore to uphold, not Snowden.
I plan to enact sanctions... (Score:5, Insightful)
I plan to enact sanctions against any US "lawmaker" who pledges to enact sanctions against an entire nation -- purely because that nation is considering a valid request for humanitarian asylum. The United States has tortured and indefinitely held prisoners, and continues to do so. Hell, I'm a US citizen and I'm scared of the raw psychopathy my country's government has displayed these past twelve or so years. Until there are trials and those who tortured are held accountable, the reputation of the United States will continue to suffer worldwide, full stop.
Validates his claim (Score:5, Insightful)
Predictable as it was, this is about the worst US could do in this case. For the first, it indirectly validates many of Snowdens claims about what the US is doing. For the second, it lends support to any request for asylum - after this there can be no doubt that he can not expect a fair trial in the US, when the whole system is so clearly out to get him. It plays directly in Snowderns favor - what he needs now is more publicity and escalation of the matter. Before he was an international incident, Snowden could have quietly disappeared after the noise settled down. Now his disappearance will be noticed, and be front page news, even many years from now.
Good grief. The republicans are nuts and now .... (Score:4, Informative)
Snowden is gone. We should just SHUT UP and allow him to run around for a while. At some point, he will want to come back to the west. We can capture him then. However, if we act this nuts threatening all other nations, then at some point, a Russian or Chinese will run and they will want him back.
This is about as insane as the issue with assanage. The guy is NOT an American, nor did he swear allegience to our nation or to not reveal secrets. As such, we have NO rights to Assanage. To go after him like this is just plain foolish.
Name Names (Score:3)
The Senate Appropriations Committee [senate.gov] supposedly did this unanimously so not a single one of these people can claim it's not their fault:
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI - Maryland
CHRIS COONS - Delaware
DAN COATS - Indiana
DIANNE FEINSTEIN - California
JACK REED - Rhode Island
JEANNE SHAHEEN - New Hampshire
JEFF MERKLEY - Oregon
JERRY MORAN - Jerry Moran
JOHN BOOZMAN - Arkansas
JOHN HOEVEN - North Dakota
JON TESTER - Montana
LAMAR ALEXANDER - Tennessee
LINDSEY GRAHAM - South Carolina
LISA MURKOWSKI - Alaska
MARK BEGICH - Alaska
MARK KIRK - Illinois
MARK PRYOR - Arkansas
MARY L. LANDRIEU - Louisiana
MIKE JOHANNS - Nebraska
MITCH MCCONNELL - Kentucky
PATRICK J. LEAHY - Vermont
PATTY MURRAY - Washington
RICHARD C. SHELBY - Alabama
RICHARD J. DURBIN - Illinois
ROY BLUNT - Missouri
SUSAN COLLINS - Maine
THAD COCHRAN - Mississippi
TIM JOHNSON - South Dakota
TOM HARKIN - Iowa
TOM UDALL - New Mexico
But maybe this was one of those "voice votes" where it wasn't really unanimous. It's being reported as unanimous, though, so the disgraced need to issue press releases disclaiming responsibility immediately, if they want to squirm out of this. I live in NM so I blame you, Tom Udall. Explain yourself.
Next time elect a Democratic president (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember a few years ago this Democratic senator making impassioned speeches for protection for whistleblowers [techdirt.com] and against Bush's wars in the middle-east, gitmo prison and NSA spying on Americans.
I wish I could remember his name.
Yeah that's sarcasm, mod me down.
I'm confused (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me see if I've got this right. An agency of the federal government, with almost no oversight, has been spending billions of dollars spying on US citizens without a warrant or probable cause in violation of the 4th amendment to the US Constitution, the founding document of this republic, as well many other laws and congress is OK with this. However, some low-level contractor tells the American people they are being spied on and congress want everyone to drop what they are doing and use everything they have to go after this guy. This includes forcing an airplane with diplomatic ammunity to land so it can be searched in violation of G*D know how many treaties.
Have I got this right? Well! I'm glad I live in a free country! USA! USA!
I have an idea (Score:5, Funny)
This is what got Napoleon in trouble (Score:3)
Unconstitutional bill of attainder (Score:5, Insightful)
That sounds like an unconstitutional bill of attainder to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder [wikipedia.org]
It is "an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without privilege of a judicial trial." This is prohibited by Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution.
This is your congress (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who doubts the authenticity of Snowden's information, or the level of access he had in his position, need only look at the effort being expended by this government to reel him in to cast all doubt aside.
I would at least applaud them for being internally-consistent, if it weren't for the fact that they're only consistent against the ideals this country is supposed to hold dear.
So, let's get this straight. (Score:4, Interesting)
An American citizen told the rest of the American citizens (and, by extension) the world what their government was up to.
Suppose he goes to (say) Ecuador. So now the American government wants to use force against any American who wants to engage in mutually-beneficial trade with an Ecuadorian, to the mutual harm of both? Neither of them has anything to do with geopolitics -- they just want to trade bananas for tractors, or whatever it is, and really wish their governments would fuck right off and let them do it.
We have governments because they're supposed to make our lives better, but how is this wankery good for anyone?
Re: (Score:3)
They're helping him. That will make Russian speed up the asylum process.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Time for him to go to the United States! (Score:5, Funny)
Rumour has it that Snowden has requested asylum with the one place that the US government can take no punitive actions against whatsoever. A Place the US has no power or authority over...
Wall Street
Re: (Score:3)