Bolivian President's plane diverted on flight from Russia over suspicions Snowden was on board

[FoolishOwl]

Did you notice what Snowden was shedding a light upon? Have you been paying any attention at all?

[DennisArmstrong]

@MythicalMe

If Snowden believes that breaking his oath was right, then he should return to the US and face up to the consequences of his actions. Running is just cowardice.

Sometimes an obligation is nullified by a greater obligation.

If I smash a car window in order to rescue an unattended baby which is suffering from heatstroke, I should not be held liable for criminal damage.

Some countries, including my own, even have “whistleblower legislation” which codifes this concept with regard to “leaking”.

[anon15383236]

Indeed. How much longer will the rest of the world tolerate U.S. overreach? Could Snowden become our era’s Gavrilo Princip, assassin of Archduke Ferdinand?

[anon85524460]

We do have whistleblower legislation in the US.

The problem is, it requires three things in the Snowden case (because it’s an intelligence/classified thing)

1. The offense must be illegal
2. The offense must be reported to the Soliciter General or a member of Congress with appropriate clearance
3. The whistleblower must help rectify the situation and aid the sg or member of congress in solving the problem.

Snowden is reporting on something that was not illegal. He did not notify congress or the soliciter general or any superior with clearance. He is not helping to rectify the situation in the eyes of the law.

So he doesn’t fall under whistleblower protection.

[chenille]

@MythicalMe

Running is just cowardice.

People like you keep using that word…I don’t think it means what you think it does. Or if the new definition of coward includes people who have taken huge personal risks on behalf of the general public, as opposed to for instance those who upheld their contracts at the expense of the constitution, I’m afraid it won’t be much of an insult any more.

I’ll ask one more time: who gains anything by watching Snowden be railroaded? The US government has made it very clear it intends to deal harshly with messengers rather than violations, so if not this, what is political asylum for?

[mcv]

@jarrodhenry

Snowden is reporting on something that was not illegal.

Yes it was. It was in direct violation of the 4th Amendment. Previous whistleblowers have addressed this through legal means within the system, and they’ve been charged with a variety of federal crimes as a result.

To anyone paying attention, it’s obvious that Snowden took the only route that the US government left open to him. If the US government would have preferred him to handle this in a different way, they should have allowed that different way, instead of harshly punishing everybody who took it.

He doesn’t fall under whistleblower protection because there simply is no whistleblower protection in the US anymore.

[retepslluerb]

I’ll sum this up: People like you would have told Rosa Parks to stand up … and yield her seat.

Sorry, it’s that simple.

I can understand that you don’t give a fuck about your precious government screwing foreigners. That’s fine with me, I kinda expect it. I’ll reserve the right to view all involved as criminals who should get hit with an European warrant for arrest as soon as they leave a plane.

But what the NSA does doesn’t stop at the border.

[anon85524460]

It was NOT ILLEGAL. I don’t know how else to say this, because Patriot made it legal, and nobody had legally challenged it. If you’re upset at the concept of Judicial review determining the unconstitutionality of things, you need to go back to Marbury v Madison and kick some ass. But the reality is, it’s NOT illegal or unconstitutional until it’s found as such. It’s unethical. Immoral. Likely would be found unconstitutional. But it’s NOT illegal. Yet.

[mcv]

@MythicalMe

Everyone seems to be missing the point.

I’m afraid you are missing the point here. Snowden had no option but to run. Consider the illegal detention and treatment of Bradley Manning. Consider the many other whistleblower who’ve tried to address this within the system and had their lives destroyed with no meaningful change to the policies.

At some point, the only way to inform the public of the crimes committed by their government is to inform the public directly. The government has no interest in obeying the law, and flagrantly violates the law in order to maintain their stranglehold. The only hope to get the US back on the right path is to stay out of the government’s reach and inform the public directly.

[OneofBrunenG]

I am ashamed at the french (halas not surprised, Hollande government is on the exact same mark as his predecesor Sarkozy, ie ending France independance that was once the hallmark of De Gaulle) and ashamed at the US government. Too bad for the auto-proclamed “freedom lighthouses” countrys. Snowden is a courageous man and i wish his acts will help free our minds and rights in the end.

Hoping we find light in the dark universe.

[bzishi]

@Tribune

At this rate they may well piss off some country enough that Snowden gets offered asylum.

Indeed. I would imagine that his probability of gaining asylum in Bolivia has increased exponentially.

[FFabian]

@jarrodhenry

Now I’m not going to bring Manning in on this, because Manning agreed from the outset to be judged under the UCMJ. And that has distinct rules and treatments and EVERY PERSON who breaks the law under UCMJ is treated that way. It’s not just Bradley Manning that had the isolation treatment and all that… even soldiers that get put in the brig in certain bases are also isolated in this fashion.

Manning is a valid example because even if his treatment was legal in the US, something I doubt, it was illegal by international laws - laws the US signed and ratified (what makes them AFAIK national law)!

[anon85524460]

Here’s a little known fact.

Ratification of treaties does not make it national law. Usually after a treaty is ratified , the next step is for congress to enact the laws. But that doesn’t always happen. Manning’s case doesn’t fall under international treaty because Manning’s not a prisoner of war. He’s basically a member of the military that acted against interests and disobeyed standing orders.

[bzishi]

@jarrodhenry

Now ask yourself, if you’re Snowden, are you willing to take that risk, knowing that the current president HAS renditioned Americans, that the current president has executed americans by drone strike, and that the current president has not ruled out drone strikes on american targets IF the circumstances are right?

You miss one important point. If Snowden is convicted, he will almost certainly be imprisoned in ADX Florence, a prison that was designed to psychologically torture its inmates (where solitary confinement is the norm). Fair trial or not, there is no reason he should be subject to such torture. As such, he would be an idiot if he voluntarily returned to the US when such a torture-prison exists.

[starrygordon]

In any case, Snowden’s flight has revealed more about the U.S. imperium than his whistleblowing. We now know (if we didn’t already) that Europe will cave in to anything their master demands, whereas Russia and China still feel able to defy the U.S. (although with caution). Now we will see how the Bolivarians do.

[FFabian]

I quote from wikipedia:

Torture in all forms is banned by the 1948 Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR), which the United States participated in drafting.
The United States is a party to the following conventions
(international treaties) that prohibit torture: the American
Convention on Human Rights (signed 1977) and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (signed 1977; ratified 1992).

On the matter if an ratified international treaty is domestic law I quote the ASIL (http://www.asil.org/insigh10.cfm)

A self-executing treaty provision is the supreme law of the land in
the same sense as a federal statute that is judicially enforceable by
private parties. Even a non-self-executing provision of an
international agreement represents an international obligation that
courts are very much inclined to protect against encroachment by
local, state or federal law.

As far as I understand the legalese the US ratified international treaties banning torture. It’s irrelevant if he is or isn’t a prisoner of war, civilian or not , alien or whatever - it is illegal to torture him. If he were POW he would be protected by ADDITIONAL treaties (Geneve Conventions - btw a treaty the US also ignored ref.: “enemy combatants”).

[MythicalMe]

I’m sure that if Snowden came back to the US he’d have a great defense team now. And, yes, call me naive, but I think that a jury of his peers would not convict him.

[anon67050589]

He’d be allowed to choose his own defense team? Or even have one? And he’d get a jury of his peers?

I’m calling you naive.

[GilbertWham]

Yup. It’s canny broken, like. And the ‘featured comments’ thing has Kinja’s malign influence written right through it like a stick of rock.

[MythicalMe]

OK, I’ve said no such thing. In fact I said, “I applaud Snowden…”

Passive resistance is different from cut and run. There are two parts to passive resistance first is the act of defiance the second is to bring attention by accepting the consequences. Rosa Parks knew that she was going to be arrested and accepted that. Her actions brought attention to the Jim Crow laws and sparked the civil rights movement (which embraced passive resistance).

Second, you’ve assumed that I am writing as a resident of the USA.