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.
Where do you suggest (in reality) is a less “ironic” place for Snowden to find asylum in a world where a corrupt, United States military-industrial complex is turning the screws on any nation that grants it to him?
Enlighten us.
Once again, Venezuela was never a first choice. Maybe if it had been, then you’d have a point. But it wasn’t, and you don’t.
You almost have to work at it to be that misinformed. Are you being purposefully obtuse?
Are we talking about the “ironic” quality of Snowden future place of residence, or about the reasons behind the author to write what she wrote? I thought it was the latter…
Regardless of your thoughts (or mine), or regardless of Snowden’s intended (and original) destination, the fact that Snowden going to Venezuela is ironic. It’s ironic if you consider his “I don’t want to live in a country that does that thing to its citizens” statement… Because he is now going to live in a country that does exactly that to its citizens. And then some.
No, not actually. They are giving away part of what they are doing (not all, we don’t know the full extent of their activities)… But yes, I will agree with you on that one: Venezuelan intel service is incredibly stupid, since they are putting everyone on guard. Most of the public persons (in politics, and the media) assume right out that their phones are tapped, and take precautions about it… Well, at least most of the time…
Well he could be used by both sides in Venezuela if wanted - why not use him as a rallying point for domestic change, challenge the current government to live up to the standard they say they are embracing by granting asylum. As an Icon he could be as much a liability as an asset for the current Venezuelan government.
[quote=“Ion, post:84, topic:2974”]
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.
[/quote]I offer that as one of countless examples of how the culture which allowed those abuses to happen started at the very top. Clearly “let’s make sure to respect basic human rights here” wasn’t exactly the directive being shouted down the chain of command. Hell, Cheney sought to define “torture” so narrowly that it became nearly impossible to commit.
Isn’t that question part of my interrogation package?
What a good hearty laugh that is. The only people who get to decide if something brutally violates the constitution is maybe a secret court with no adversarial process and, unlike a normal civil court, approved every single thing the government has asked for 99.9% of the time (their numbers, not mine). On the other hand, when the ACLU and the EFF tried to try these in a REAL court, they suddenly got cold feet and lied, saying that there is no proof that the people in question were being spied on when they knew in fact that they were.
What a fucking joke. Thanks to Snowden, these assholes will actually have to defend themselves in court now.
Regardless, it doesn’t matter if the courts somehow twist this mass domestic spying as somehow not being a thorough skull fucking the fourth amendment. The courts could find mass domestic spying by a military agency perfectly legal and it would still be cowardly and pathetic, and any American with a spine should still be pissed.
You can call it name calling, I call it an accurate description. If you have another name for people willing to piss away trillions of dollars and liberty on protecting against a threat that ranks up there with ‘attack by bathtub’, please do enlighten me. It is certainly far more objective to call someone defending this shit a coward than to speculate that maybe the person to expose it is really insert your conspiracy theory here.
Show me the person calling for trillions of dollars and the surrender of basic liberty in defense of attack by bathtub. You can’t find any such person, and even if you could find someone that craven and delusional, I think we would all agree that they are a fucking coward. I can show you an army of fucking cowards who want to piss away trillions and liberty in the name of defending against terrorist, of which you are most certainly a member of.
That is already being considered (and mentioned) in Venezuelan media, specially since at the very same time of the Snowden asylum hoopla, Venezuelan journalist Nelson Bocaranda is facing prosecution from Venezuelan State officials, still angry about Bocaranda’s disclosures of Chavez health back in late 2012 and early 2013. The question some are doing is on the line of "If Snowden deserves to be protected from prosecution for his disclosures (that were against his contractual obligations) why not then protect Bocaranda, that was just doing his job?
live in a country that does exactly that to its citizens. And then some.
And then some? At least Venezuela is more transparent about it. And, let’s not forget that Manning is being tortured, threatened with death, life-long imprisonment, etc. here in the glorious USA.
Once again, it might be ironic if Venezuela was Snowden’s first choice, but it wasn’t and it isn’t.
Transparent? For that quote alone I can tell how little you know about Venezuela’s rule of law (or lack of it) when it comes to those “surveillance” programs. Transparent… hilarious!
It’s ironic, whether Venezuela was his first choice, or his last choice. Period. Deal with it.
BTW, and as a commentary on the side: Wasn’t it naive, on his part (Snowden) to assume that the Europeans, most of them allies of the U.S. or with key interests to preserve with the U.S., would be willing to give him sanctuary? I don’t work on the field Snowden works (for sure), but even I can assume the rights and wrongs of a situation like this, and who do I have to run to, if I want to be protected. If I wanted to run from Venezuela, who are the countries more probable to get refuge of? Venezuela’s allies, Ecuador, Argentina, Bolivia? Or perhaps Venezuela’s self-imposed enemies, like the U.S.?
If Snowden was a little bit realistic, he should have known he didn’t stood any chance whatsoever of getting help from the Europeans (with the exception of Russia, but that’s a big maybe, as we have seen)
You’d need to go to the UK for that.
Russia will help him as long as he helps Russia. He helps Russia by doing two things:
And then, Russia will help him. Until Russia wants something from the US. Then Russia will turn him over to the US.
Snowden’s mistake in Russia is that Putin is an opportunist. His mistake in Venezuela may be the same.
Exactly. Maduro doesn’t give a fig about Snowden’s idealistic purposes: He want Snowden for the sheer propaganda value of it. Oh, and the intel info as well…
Transparent? For that quote alone I can tell how little you know about Venezuela’s rule of law (or lack of it) when it comes to those “surveillance” programs. Transparent… hilarious!
So now you resort to taking my words out of context? Sigh… I didn’t say they were transparent. Go back and read what I actually said and try to comprehend it this time.
Oh, and it hasn’t gone unnoticed here that you conveniently ignored my point about Manning’s torture, threats with death, life-long imprisonment, etc. by the USA.
can tell how little you know about Venezuela’s rule of law (or lack of it) when it comes to those “surveillance” programs
Then what you’re saying is Isabel Lara from Venezuela knows very little? She said in her article that the Venezuelan government wiretaps private citizen’s phones and “doesn’t even try to hide it” and “the recordings are made available on government websites”.
Did you not read her article?
Once again, as I already said, in context, Venezuela is at least more transparent about it than the USA is.
That’s reality. Deal with it. 
It’s ironic, whether Venezuela was his first choice, or his last choice. Period. Deal with it.
It’s not ironic when it’s not his choice. Learn to deal with the proper use of the word.
Wasn’t it naive, on his part (Snowden) to assume that the Europeans
You need to educate yourself. Snowden made it clear from the beginning that he thought he was fucked by doing this in the first place.
Have you not read his interviews?
Until Russia wants something from the US. Then Russia will turn him over to the US.
You’re not using much logic here. How long do you think it would take for Russia to extract what they want from him? It would take very little time to clone everything he has and that’s making the ridiculous assumption that he has all the intel on his person.
If their goal was to turn him over to the USA, they would have done that by now.
Snowden’s mistake in Russia is that Putin is an opportunist.
Show me a world leader who isn’t? Or even any leader of any country for that matter.
I think perhaps Snowdens only mistake is putting his ass on the line for ingrates. But, thankfully there’s those of us who actually deeply appreciate his sacrifice.
All your second guessings are the trite ramblings of someone making wild assumptions about the position this man is in after tangoing with the most corrupt military industrial complex the world has ever seen. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Hummm… Exactly how?
Yes, you are saying it. Regarding wire-tapping and all that stuff? Yep, you say that a little down the line:
There.
Oh, and BTW no, it’s not. There is a limited number of wire-tappings available, and these are made available only for the sake of political purposes, smear campaigns (reveal sexual orientation of public figures, corruption and so on). There is an unknown number of unaccounted information regarding wire-tappings (more of them), hacking of emails accounts, twitter accounts financed (and performed directly or indirectly by) SEBIN (Venezuelan intel agency) and a long etc.
They are not disclosing that information for the sake of transparency.
No, I’m saying that you know of Venezuela virtually zilch. Zero. Nada. That’s very different.
And that’s reality. Yours.
This point is addressed above
Yes, I did. Did you?
His original intention (or destination) has nothing to do with the fact that his situation (and asylum destination) it’s ironic. When one considers his previous statements.
Humm you mean, this word?
iron·ic adjective \ˌī-ˈrä-nik also i-ˈrä-\
1: relating to, containing, or constituting irony
2: given to irony
No, this one:
iro·ny noun \ˈī-rə-nē also ˈī(-ə)r-nē\
a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events
and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by
such incongruity b : incongruity between a situation developed in a
drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the
audience but not by the characters in the play —called also dramatic
irony, tragic irony
The incongruity between the actual result (Snowden going to Venezuela) and the expected result (Snowden going to Finland, Poland, Germany, France…) has nothing to do with the “external factors” (i.e. Snowden cut off of his original “roster” of options). Still, is (as a matter of fact) an irony.
Perhaps you should learn to be more polite and less rude first. It would do wonders for you.
Then he knew his choices were limited.
Barely. I have no interest in him.
But I did read the “I don’t want to live in a country that does such things to its citizens” part.
Conveniently? No, I just didn’t care. We are not discussing the Manning case here.
BTW, are you under the impression that there are no torture cases and other kind of HR abuses in Venezuela?
Isn’t it fun how all the governments that are offering protection to Snowden have FAR worse surveillance records that the US?
[citations sorely needed]
Meanwhile, here’s some sources to mull over…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/07/us-usa-security-records-factbox-idUSBRE95617O20130607
Like your assumptions about Venezuela?
The good thing about healthy democracies, is that its excesses and abuses eventually come up to the surface, and are confronted, indicted and judged. In a non-democratic government sadly, this is not possible.
What you seem to forget about this analogy of yours, is that the secret surveillance programs of the governments in non-democratic countries (the shady category of “neither democracy nor dictatorship” that can be applied to Ecuador, Venezuela or Bolivia) are only disclosed if governments decide to come forward. Otherwise, people will never now. And I mean never.
That is quite a difference.
