The article seems neutral about Snowden, but this characterization of events is bad reporting.
He did not fly with the intent of staying in Russia. He was grounded and his passport revoked by the US gov. mid travel, stranding him in Russia, in the airport, for over a month.
Eventually Russia granted him long term status there.
Could the buyer be liable for dealing with Snowden? e.g. abetting a fugitive?
Criminal liability is not absolved by making a donation..
From my memory: his passport was revoked when he was in China (I think Hong Kong). A confusing sequence of events followed, and then he ended up in Russia somehow.
That fact that this is legal is... sketchy. Same with Shamima Begum, for that matter.
Maybe people could disagree on specific examples, but the principle seems fine. US passports say in them that they can be revoked for a variety of reasons.
As far as it’s predecessor my guess if you are referencing the League of Nations rather than the international military tribunals that conducted the Nuremberg Trials that hung 10 Nazi’s with ropes to short to break their necks and choked them to death.
Assange is an Australian citizen, and the US want d to lock bim up for publishing leaked information, while Snowden id an US citizen and leaked the info by himself.
He was charged with espionage while in Hong Kong. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-ch...
China didn't want Snowden in Hong Kong but also did not want to appear to acquiesce to US demands, so Snowden tried to get to Ecuador, which would grant him asylum. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-hongkong-idU...
Then he got "stuck" in Russia, which suited Putin just fine. Russia doesn't care about Snowden's travel documents being revoked and would happily fly him to Ecuador if it matched their interests.
The article's timeline of Snowden flying to Russia after being charged with espionage looks correct.
> He initially flew to Hong Kong and tried to gain asylum there by sharing details of Chinese network targets.
this accusation is unsubstantiated in the link you provide
What’s the deal with airplane passports?
This one aspect of the Snowden saga has always intrigued me. What mechanism actually led to Snowden stuck in Moscow, an airline’s boarding procedure?
Edit: I can't respond due to downvotes: Tell me why you think he released a list of compromised Chinese systems and when they were compromised while he was in China. Tell me why you think he chose to flee to Hong Kong and talk to reporters there. It seems obvious to me why, but maybe you have another explanation.
what neither of them say, and what you are accusing him of, is that he tried to trade intelligence for asylum.
Not sure why it's so important for Snowden people to push the narrative that it was some fortuitous accident. It obviously was strategized in some way, even if it were just some sort of backup country.
[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-admits-early-snowden-cont...
The intention is completely different.
Keep telling yourself that. The dude has been a Russian asset from the start.
Now you might next claim he was probably doing that and he fled as he was about to be caught by the NSA, but if they had suspicions of espionage and was about to arrest him, they would've gone to the press, that a (suspected) Russian mole had escaped and shown their evidence...
If he were really a Russian asset, he wouldn't have made a claim that he has since had to stop claiming (instead playing up phone metadata collection for reporters), or he would have admitted that he was wrong to gain credibility. Instead, he looked like a fool and just stopped talking about it out of embarrassment.
What do you mean by this? I read the article, or at least skimmed it. Is it because everyone siphons everyone's data and the fact that the gov is doing it is unremarkable?
Since then, transparency reports from the companies confirmed it.
To this day, you'll only ever hear Snowden and Greenwald talking about phone metadata collection because they were so ridiculed about their PRISM claims.
Where have you seen that the government is siphoning Americans' data via PRISM? The slides clearly show it js a data integration project to get data from the FBI's DITU. Claiming otherwise as you have is the conspiracy theory because it is based on no documents released either by Snowden or the government, and if it is happening, there would have to be a vast conspiracy to keep it secret when even something as simple as phone metadata collection is illegal.
The documents clearly state that PRISM ingests Section 702 content, not NSL metadata, so that just shows a gross misunderstanding not only of the actual primary documents but of Greenwald's initial misreporting of them as well.
Edit: Response to comment below due to rate limiting. If you want to learn something and clean up the formatting of this thread, upvote my comments, so I can put this in a new comment in the correct part of the thread:
No, I said very specifically that PRISM was a non-story, despite what Snowden clearly believed.
NSL letters [sic] are for metadata collection. Of those, Snowden released documents about a single illegal program using NSLs, which was phone metadata collection. If he had understood the documents he was releasing, he would have pushed that story instead of PRISM.
"It's because the government isn't siphoning everybody's information"
which is a blanket statement, and now you're limiting that statement to being via PRISM, which is a tightening of the requirements you were talking about. The link you posted states that the government is siphoning Americans' data via NSL letters and the like, which is true. I do not know enough about PRISM to say one way or another, but I can see in the last few comments you're thrashing on this.
NSL letters [sic] are for metadata collection. Of those, Snowden released documents about a single illegal extant program using NSLs, which was phone metadata collection. If he had understood the documents he was releasing, he would have pushed that story instead of PRISM.
Why?