Just in case anyone was in doubt about what Snowden bought us by basically accepting life long banishment and being hunted to the ends of the earth: The case against NSA for mass spying that was previously thrown out because they couldn’t prove that the NSA was spying? It is now on because they have proof that the government was in fact conducting warrantless domestic spying.
4 Likes
Isn’t it fun how all the governments that are offering protection to Snowden have FAR worse surveillance records that the US? It’s like Snowden (rightly) whistleblows on the leader of the (relatively) “good gang” (you know, western democracies and such) and then goes to seek refuge at the HQ of drug dealers, autocrats and freedom haters (as Fox would call them)… Whose governments of course promptly use him for their anti US/western propaganda to show their oppressed people that naaa, don’t even think about the US way of life, they are not even better than us! Accept our oppression, because there is nothing better, nowhere.
“Oh, but he does it to show the US people what they are living under! Pointing out the corruption of the system! He accepts the ordeal of having to live in Nicaragua because he’s a patriot and a saint!”
Yes, sure, Wouldn’t he go back to US to accept (un)just punishment if he was such a saint and patriot to show the people even MORE how corrupt the system is? And I distinctly remember how the Founding Fathers all made plans to escape to France in case the Revolution failed. Oh wait… no…
There’s something fishy going on here. He’s smart enough and awesome enough to awake us from the slumbering dream of state surveillance and totally fails to see what his looking for refuge among the cove of antidemocrats does to the populations of those countries in their struggle for some rights? If you want to see it or not, most of the struggles for freedom in oppressed countries has been istigated by the promise of western value (and riches). Take that promise of a better life away… Which is what, in the end, Snowden is doing.
That smells vaguely like the usual imperialistic obnoxious trait that the US is always accused of making entire populations of other countries far worse off to make their own people slightly better off. Only this time it’s freedom, so it’s okay, and not oil. But the end justifies the means… Oh no wait. It’s wrong. But only if the republicans do it…
3 Likes
How is scattering government talking points around like birdseed protecting democracy?
2 Likes
If you engage politically against a system you will feel its power, whether it is Snowden or whether it is Lara. This above piece cannot possibly be a case against Snowden. If you are against Snowden, you also justify Venezuelan spying on political opponents – or “adversaries”, as the NSA calls it.
The matter of his escape from prosecution is another matter. People who demand moral standards here and try to expose Snowdens hypocrisy in "choosing" Venezuela are the most hypocritical themselves, true servants of the government`s case, but with self-declared liberal attitude. The notion of a liberal government is a case of contradictio in adjecto.
There’s more to it than that. They created a system that they thought would pass fourth amendment protections. The critics disagree, but it’s not yet set in stone. That said, the fourth amendment isn’t the only bar this has to cross. We still don’t know enough about the accessing of this data.
Yes, you’re name-calling. In casting motives, you’re practically writing a screenplay.
And yes, terrorism kills fewer people than falling in bathtubs (in the U.S., at least). I wonder how many of the NSA’s most vehement critics actually support federal regulation of bathtubs. I suspect it’s a lot.
As a Venezuelan, I’m not either in favor or against Snowden, and I don’t think the author (Lara) is “making a case” against Snowden either. I do find his final destination incredibly ironic (and my guess is the author thinks very much the same as well). For a man that has publicly declared that “he does not want to live in a country that do such things to its own citizens”, now headed to a country that does those very things to its own citizens (and much, oh so much more) the caption “IRONIC” seems to be very appropriate.
Snowden wanted to serve the public interest, I guess, but it will end serving the interests of a failed state: Their propaganda interests. Sad. Really sad.
2 Likes
Oh yes indeed. The discourse of Chavismo is like Rush Limbaugh mixed with Bill O’Reilly in steroids. And with access to intel hush hush material.
Sadly, it does. Whether in a voluntary form, or not, Snowden will endorse (with his asylum, and residence) Venezuela’s policies, and I can guarantee you Nicolás Maduro (and the rest of the Venezuelan government) will make sure of that. They are already using his case (and asylum request) on the official propaganda…
1 Like
I disagree. My feeling as a Venezuelan is that Isabel Lara finds this whole issue about Snowden going to Venezuela incredibly ironic. As I do.
1 Like
Sure, the only ones opposed to Chavez in Venezuela are the rich, and wealthy, and everyone with an obscure interest… Those damn elites!
Oh wait… What about the 7,587,579 Venezuelans that voted for the opposition last April? Are all they rich, wealthy, with an obscure interest?
1 Like
emphasized text[quote=“DaveUK, post:19, topic:2974”]
I’m sure. Journalists do like to pick and chose facts to paint the picture they want.
[/quote]
A tiny detail you are missing: Only Alberto Nolia is a journalist. The other one (Mario Silva) is not…
Elections themselves do not certify any government as a democratic one. Hell, Castro helds “elections” every now and then. The Soviet Union also used to held “elections”…
And sure, “widespread” support: When you are backed by the almighty State apparatus (and your adversaries are fighting to scramble a few pennies to make a decent campaign), it’s kind of difficult to loose. Maybe you should read this:
1 Like
Well, perhaps with that one difference that what Venezuela does in terms of surveillance is/was an open book, whereas the scope of US surveillance was a guess at best and perhaps only graspable to professionals. Now it is all in the open, and I believe that is good.
You really think it’s all out in the open, regarding Venezuela’s surveillance practices? An open book? That’s kind of naive. What they’ve aired and published so far it’s just the tip of the iceberg… Not to mention, absolutely illegal, according to Venezuelan law…
1 Like
Yup. Also, consider that Venezuela might be the best option right now for a number of reasons: maybe he can secure a direct flight over the ocean to it. Maybe he could only book a flight there, or book private transit. Maybe he has other reasons, too. The other thing is that Venezuela might not even be the last stop. It might be the next stop. Bolivia or Iceland or some other as yet unknown place might be a final destination, later. He might be publicly travelling to Venezuela so he doesn’t get shot out of the sky, but he’s going to secretly travel to another place after ducking out of the public eye. I just would not think of Venezuela as his permanent solution, at this point. I know I wouldn’t be, if I were in his shoes. I’d be going to Venezuela and then looking for a place to throw away my vuvuzela and jump into the jungle. That’s what I’d do. I don’t know what this crazy cat is gonna do.
[quote=“Ion, post:55, topic:2974”]
There were several things going wrong at Abu Ghraib, and people tend to mix them up. There were things that were authorized, but not done in the manner approved. There were things that were never authorized, but done anyway. And there were various crimes.
[/quote]And all of them could be traced either directly or indirectly to the highest levels of authority. When the Vice President calls waterboarding an “essential tool” and the Secretary of Defense writes memos asking top military commanders what’s up with all these namby-pamby restrictions on how long prisoners can be forced to stand immobile then there’s gonna be a lot of trickle-down. Is it any wonder that low-level officers might have gotten a little too creative when asked to “soften up prisoners for interrogation?”
America needed to know what was going on in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo because we ostensibly live in a democracy, and a democracy only works if voters and politicians know the consequences of their actions.
1 Like
I might first go for urban jungle, like you suggest. The soul food would be awesome! I could hide like that.
You did not understand: That fact that you can say that it is illegal presupposes that you know what they are doing. By publishing a private telephone conversation, for example, an intelligence agency gives away what it is doing – spy agencies normally don’t do that. This is what I referred to. Since they do it, it means that everybody already knows what they are doing and they don’t need to disguise it - or, alternately, the Venezuelan intelligence service is incredibly stupid. You choose.
Our current president in Argentina, Cristina Fernandez, is also an ally of Iran, yet here i’ve been like a little piggy just rolling around in human rights which I still cannot enjoy in my home country of the US.
Nope. You must have been reading a graphic novel version of the tale.
When Rumsfeld, a 70+ year-old man who worked all day on a standing desk, was told that the limit for detainees on standing was 4 hours, he scribbled a note to the Pentagon lawyers asking about this. You act as though it was typed up and added to the instruction manual.
Democracy would have worked just fine without those pictures. All the pictures added was another opportunity for grandstanding by politicians who pretend to oppose torture.
Bringing it back on topic, I wonder what pictures could have added to the Snowden story. Not really much of substance.
