Snowden Leaves Hong Kong on Commercial Flight to Moscow | Hacker News Reader

Snowden Leaves Hong Kong on Commercial Flight to Moscow

scmp.com

324 pointsbendoernberg200 comments

Man, how times have changed. I was born in the 70s and the US was the country you would run to to escape retribution for whistleblowing you did back home. (†)

For Snowden to be running to Russia to escape extradition from Hong Kong (!) is just fucking bizarro world for me. It is actually quite jarring. I don't trust Russia at all. But even thinking about it forces one to ask whether one trusts the USA. The answer to that is pretty jarring, too.

(†) I'm not making a right/wrong judgement about his actions. He blew a whistle, a whistle he thought needed to be blown. In my opinion that is a necessary check on state power and is a defence in and of itself.

Really, they haven't. Daniel Ellsberg, the leaker of the Pentagon Papers (1971), was also also charged with espionage. In his case all the charges against him were dismissed. Not, to be clear, because of any contriteness on Nixon's part. Instead, it was because the government was found to have illegally bugged his phone and broken into the office of his psychiatrist in order to find material with which to discredit him. Several of those involved were later convicted as part of the watergate trials [0].

If you think things were better in the 70s, you really weren't paying attention.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg#Trial_and_mistr...

> because the government was found to have illegally bugged his phone

Man, how times have changed. Now espionage charges apply when someone leaks that the government bugged everyone's phone.

Because the lovely government has declared it legal under secret 'patriot' laws.

Uh, here you go: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ56/pdf/PLAW-107publ...

Yes. And that is unfortunate.

I wonder where the Govt found this opportunity and grabbed it without delay..was it the new way of terrorism? First propagating Islam-phobia and then bring in the restrains slowly - one by one? What was it exactly?

> If you think things were better in the 70s, you really weren't paying attention.

Yeah, well I was 3.

Even so I don't seem to recall Ellsberg fleeing the country to escape absolute certain injustice. I don't recall his video interview with a foreign paper while he hid in China. Do you?

Something has definitely changed.

Imagine how things might have turned out differently for Bradley Manning if he had a day or two to get out before his arrest.

Manning was a PFC in the Army. He wouldn't have been able to afford fleeing to Hong Kong or Moscow making less than $30,000 per year. He would have had a much more difficult time evading arrest.

How much money could such a fleeing really take? I mean, 30k isn't much at all, but would he even have been paying for rent or food while enlisted? If he managed to save up a few thousand for a few plane tickets and maybe a few days in a hotel on his own wallet, then that would be enough. I don't think a few thousand is a particularly unreasonable ask.

You're basing all this on a sample size of two.

How many famous whistleblowers are there?

For a broader sample base, you just widen your category a tiny little bit to Edward Snowden, Jeremy Hammond, Aaron Swartz, Bradley Manning and Jacob Appelbaum.

Aaron Swartz was a whistleblower?

That sample set would still be statistically insignificant.

I think the point is not that one should use larger samples, but rather than the conclusion is wrong since the sample is too small. Iow, there's no proof that the situation really changed in the US on the discussed topic.

You must mean, ones who are/were made public right?

>"because the government was found to have illegally bugged his phone and broken into the office of his psychiatrist

Can this not be actual legal precedence AGAINST the entire NSA debacle to begin with?

Seriously, can an IAMAL comment on if this could be used?

IANAL. My understanding of how these things work, however, is that the case against Ellsberg was dismissed by the trial judge, and therefore does not establish any precedent. If he'd been convicted, and the conviction overturned on appeal (and the conviction's having been overturned was upheld in any appeals thereof), then precedent would have been created.

The reason it works this way is that trial courts are venues for finding facts, while appellate courts are vehicles for addressing questions of law surrounding those findings of fact. It's how those questions of law are resolved, so-called "case law", that creates precedents.

IANAL; corrections welcome.

Ellsberg has been saying that things were in fact better back then. He was arrested, released on bail, and spent the next couple years able to tell his story to the media. Manning was arrested and kept in solitary for almost four years before his trial, isolated from the outside world.

Ellsberg was a civilian, employed by the RAND Corporation [1] when he leaked the Pentagon Papers, which was a political report commissioned by a politician (Secretary of Defense McNamara). [2]

Manning was serving in active military duty when he leaked actual military data (albeit historical). There is a huge difference there. When you do something like that in the military, you get court-martialed, which is a different set of rules than civilian court. I do think that 4 years of solitary confinement is beyond excessive, but the military has to court-martial him. I'm guessing it's all spelled out in the military handbook, and I don't think anyone would have expectations otherwise.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_papers

Snowden was a civilian contractor. If caught, do you think he would be treated more like Ellsberg or Manning?

I know how I'd place my bet.

Two thoughts: Russia has already offered Edward Snowden asylum. And we don't have independent confirmation that he's on that flight that lands in about 4 hours; we have just the SCMP report, and the destination isn't mentioned in the HK government statement. I wouldn't be surprised if some if it were misinformation.

> Two thoughts: Russia has already offered Edward Snowden asylum.

Do you have a source for this?

I trust you tried Googling "Russia Snowden asylum?" :) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/edward-snowden-r...

While I like your friendly answer, I would really prefer sources to be mentioned alongside statements in HN discussions. Saying "just google it if you do not believe me" places the burden of verification on the reader, whereas it should be the author's duty to ease such verification. When I find 'Source: guardian.co.uk/...' in a discussion, this gives me the warm, fuzzy feeling of being able to easily verify your claims - even if I do trust you.

Why should it be the author's duty to guess at what level of "verification" is enough to satisfy you?

I agree that some people may want to see more evidence than others. Of course, there is no clear boundary between "obvious" and "needs proof". However, I found that most people are quite able to judge whether it would be helpful to include a source for a statement. I think that within most discoursive communities there is an implicit consensus on when a statement needs an explanation or a supporting source for it to be accepted [1].

Regarding the author's "duty": Maybe I should have called it 'courtesy' instead. On the other hand, if I am not completely mistaken, HN was intended as a forum for constructive and thoughtful low-noise discussions. As I want to profit from these discussions, I personally see it as my duty to make my comments as helpful as possible. I would argue that including source for statements more often is beneficial to a discussion than not. Therefore, I prefer to see sources.

[1] sorry, no source but my own experience as a member of some scientific communities and online forums.

A thought experiment, I imagine.

    1) Would it piss off the USA a whole lot if Russia offered Snowden asylum?

    2) Yes

    3) Russia offered Snowden asylum

I'm confused at how this is a "source."

You could say the same about North Korea, but it wouldn't make it mean they actually offered asylum.

I was being humorous.

Ironic, people used to seek asylum in US from persecution in other countries. How times have changed? Now people run to other countries for asylum to avoid persecution in US. More and more land of the free is becoming land of tyrants.

> Ironic, people used to seek asylum in US from persecution in other countries. How times have changed? Now people run to other countries for asylum to avoid persecution in US. More and more land of the free is becoming land of tyrants.

Lol. Russia is a place where journalists are routinely murdered, where governors are appointed like local fiefs, where Putin has rigged elections and brutally intimidated opponents.

If you think Snowden is going there to avoid "persecution" I don't know what la-la-land you live in. He's going to run from the law, and he's going there because Russia is still geo-political public enemy #1, and they are giving him asylum not because he is some champion of human dignity (he lost that when he fled to China and revealed a whole lot more that was unrelated to surveillance), but because he has valuable information and having him in their possession obviously advances some political goals for them.

>>not because he is some champion of human dignity (he lost that when he fled to China and revealed a whole lot more that was unrelated to surveillance)

He didn't lose shit. He revealed the fact that the USA targets and wiretaps non-military targets (universities, civilians, etc.) in China and Hong Kong. This is still whistleblowing, and these revelations make me think even more highly of him.

Now, if he had told them which military targets the USA was spying on, he would have stepped into traitor catagory. But targeting non-combatants is illegal under multiple international treaties that the USA has signed. As such, the USA is breaking the law and Snowden has the duty to reveal that.

Just curious, do you have the same indignation that China does the exact same thing?

I don't, because China doesn't CLAIM to not do so. And doesn't try to drum up disapproval of the USA for doing it. By contrast do you remember the CIPSA nonsense?

Russia isn't Snowden's final destination. Moscow is just his layover.

Right, Cuba or Venezuela is his final destination. Does this change my point at all?

We don't know yet what his destination is. Some people claim Iceland or Ecuador.

I'm choosing not to give him the benefit of the doubt since his intermediaries so far have been HK (a free society, but still under the clutches of PRC and not totally free) and Russia (need not say more about its trampling of human rights).

Even if I agree in your labeling of HK and Russia, I don't think Snowden had a better choice.

Can you suggest something different Snowden could have done?

20,000-40,000 people per year seek asylum in the US; we're discussing one person who has fled the US to avoid prosecution. Let's not overreact.

yeah guys. let's all calm down. the status quo is just fine. this guy is just an aberration.

Uh, he is, though. How many people try to seek asylum from the US each year?

> I was born in the 70s and the US was the country you would run to to escape retribution for whistleblowing you did back home.

I assume you meant "your home" != USA. But even now many people still seek asylum in the USA.

As for Russia, it is certainly more free than in 70s, but a lot of people run from Russia because of prosecution for political reasons.

Did Assata Shakur find a safe haven here in the U.S. in the '70s? Read her autobiography. I don't think "times have changed" so much. There's just a larger number of political dissidents now (as there should be). The Internet and 24/7 sensationalism in the media have made exposing government lies more scandalous, too.

Assata Shakur? The terrorist? Of course she did not "find a safe haven here in the U.S." while she and her Black Liberation Army were shooting people and blowing up buildings. The police were trying to put her in jail.

Deleted comment

"just"? The BLA was shooting people and blowing up buildings, no scare quotes needed, they actually did that. That is why the police were after them: they were breaking the law in a serious way. How confused do you have to be to say that they should not have been investigated for these crimes because they were doing something else also?

Russia will not risk a fairly good relationship with the US because of a "rogue" NSA contractor. They will readily hand him over at the first request (if not voluntary). I'd say it's a risk for Snowden to even land in Moscow. Possibly, it was the lesser evil on the way to safe haven in Cuba or some place else.

have you been paying attention? Putin has shown quite a bit of disdain for Obama for many years and this year he just about dismisses him. When has Russia done much of anything recently to show its earnest co work with us?

If anything the past years have reset a lot of relationships and not for the better.

This is strange, because there are no scheduled nonstop flights between Moscow (any airport) and Iceland. There are flights which make a connection in Europe, e.g. Helsinki, but then there are already nonstop flights to Helsinki from Hong Kong, so what does he gain from an additional landing in Moscow?

(Assuming Iceland is where he is trying to go).

http://matrix.itasoftware.com/

http://flightaware.com

(Note that the hub in Iceland is Keflavík (KEF), not Reykjavík (RKV) which mostly does domestic).

Furthermore, in Russia, he will have to go to the Danish embassy or consulate to get asylum in Iceland. I am not sure how this helps or disadvantages him, but I thought I'd mention that Iceland themselves don't have an embassy/consulate in Russia, but is represented by Denmark.

Dane here. Our politicians will hand him over to the US if they can, but by law they can't if he faces the death penalty or if he is likely to be treated inhumanely.

Bradley Manning’s inhumane treatment would set a precedent in these matters I guess.

The US can guarantee to waive the death penalty in exchange for an extradition. I've read some lawyers think the US is likely to try this.

For some reason the fact that he can be facing death just struck me after seeing you mention it.

Well, he's being charged with treason isn't he? I know treason doesn't really sound that serious to many people any more, but historically it is one of the "big three" that could earn you the death penalty, even in progressive countries that don't like the death penalty. The others being espionage, and of course, murder.

"...For treason turns out to be unique in American law. It is the only crime that the Constitution forbids Congress from defining. It is the only crime to which a court may never accept a confession given to the police. It is the only crime for which restrictions are laid down on how much evidence juries must hear. The Constitution itself underscores that the Founders feared treason law.

...a person has to do one of two things to be a traitor: either levy war or adhere to (form an attachment to, the Supreme Court once said) our enemies, giving them not only aid but also comfort. The two-witness rule has also made treason cases rare in American history."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732468840457854...

"…Snowden’s disclosures may have helped the nation’s adversaries (though I’m skeptical as to how much), but treason requires more than that. It is not enough to release important national security information and consort with the nation’s rivals. Snowden may be prosecuted one day. Barring significant new disclosures and developments, it won’t be for treason."

http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/19/snowden-did-not-commit-trea...

No, so far he's not been charged with treason. The US allows the death penalty for divulging certain types of classified information - for example information directly concerning nuclear weapons, and communications intelligence.

I don't think any progressive countries impose the death penalty at all, but I suppose this depends on what countries you would include in that category.

I don't think any progressive countries impose the death penalty at all

Would you consider Canada progressive?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanao_Inouye

I didn't mean it is necessarily like this today, but rather that even progressive countries continued to execute for treason at least partway through their history of progressiveness. It took longer for that piece (death for treason) to die out than most other pieces (like, I dunno, denying women suffrage?). It's sort of an awkward idea to express.

I could start listing, but you should really just peruse this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_convicted_of_tre...

Really? Is this really possible? It's bad enough that this is still on the books, but I'd be pretty damn sure that there would be international relations damage clean up to do for the next decade if that happened.

High treason means you sold out your entire country to an enemy. E.g. if a soldier switched sides in a war, or a spy betrayed his own side to the other. It will probably be the last thing to ever have a death penalty, since it harms so many people and the state directly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_treason

Yeah federal promise papers are't worth the paper they are written on.

There's a pretty strong incentive not to lie here (namely that no country would ever extradite anyone based on promises from the US ever again).

Yes, but I am also convinced that Denmark (I am a Dane myself) must respect Iceland's wishes when they are representing Iceland. Besides, Denmark can make no arrest of him in Russia. I imagine the worst thing that Denmark can do is to simply deny him access to the premises.

Denmark cannot arrest him in Russia, but the Danish Embassy is legally Danish soil. So here he could be arrested.

Trivial to work around. U.S. formally pledges not to execute Snowden (just life in prison!). Then extradition can happen, assuming it actually goes this far.

Why the Danish embassy and not the Icelandic embassy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_Iceland_in_Moscow

I recall researching how to apply for a visa to Denmark from Russia, and I found this statement on the Danish Embassy's website:

> Denmark in Russia represents Iceland, so visa applications for Iceland can be submitted at the Visa Application in centres.

Although, technically, it does not state that you cannot use the Icelandic Embassy, I just assumed they did not, since it said 'Denmark in Russia represents Iceland'. I concede I might have been misguided.

http://rusland.um.dk/en/travel-and-residence/menu-1/where-to...

Possible private plane arrangements?

Also: He might have had to get on a plane IMMEDIATELY which probably limited his choices.

The Pirate Party in Norway is claiming he will land in Oslo en route to Iceland.

https://twitter.com/PiratPartiet_No

*However the only OSL-KEF flight today leaves in 20 minutes (16:05 local)

Google translate: Snowden has landed in Moscow on the way to Oslo, Gardermoen. Pirate Party mobilizes support in Oslo when he arrives.

https://twitter.com/PiratPartiet_No/status/34878871367489945...

The is an Icelandair flight from Oslo to Keflavik leaving at 21:55 local time.

My bad, you are indeed correct.

The PP.no claims they are scheduled to meet him, something I have my doubts about.

Could be just a misdirection. See you in Russia! Lands in Iceland.

Deleted comment

I edited my comment to include all of Moscow's airports, not only SVO. Although transferring airports, meaning going through Russia's border police and entering that country, seems an even stranger idea.

Is Iceland definitely his final destination?

No. Nothing has been reported that claims it is definite.

Yeah, as you guessed, the current speculation is something like SVO-HAV-CCS.

>Moscow will not be his final destination. Possible final destinations are either Iceland and Ecuador, according to previous media reports.

I first thought that Ecuador would be more likely, since had Iceland been his final destination, he probably would have taken the Icelandic businessman's offer to hire him a chartered flight. But then I realized that perhaps Snowden places more trust in a commercial flight and not being detained in Moscow than a stranger's chartered flight which could potentially backstab him and hand him over to US authorities.

Iceland hasn't exactly been very vocal about supporting him, so Ecuador might be the best choice. Russia I think was pretty vocal, but maybe they just wanted to make fun of US, and aren't really serious about protecting Snowden. Plus, they support US's surveillance state, so there's little reason why they'd want to protect him, other than being vengeful against US for whatever reason.

Ecuador so far has been pretty good for Assange, and they might continue to want to be seen as "the country that stood up to US", but nobody really knows how far they are willing to go to do that. At least Assange hasn't even been charged with anything by US, yet.

The Icelandic domestic minister (which handles asylum requests) has announced that Snowden will be treated like any other asylum seeker[1]. That is not good news for Snowden since Iceland's take on asylum seekers is usually to not handle their case at all, or turn them back[2].

However Hanna Birna (the minister) has been highly criticized for her take on the issue, since it clearly contradicts the IMMI initiative (https://immi.is/). And hopes are that the Parliament will handle his case. But in short, the Icelandic government is not going to do anything about Snowden.

[1] http://www.visir.is/engin-sermedferd-fyrir-snowden/article/2... (icelandic)

[2] some statisstics here (http://redcross.lausn.is/Apps/WebObjects/RedCross.woa/swdocu...) in icelandic too.

Putin didn't really say they support the US's surveillance state, he said surveillance is necessary but you need a warrant.

Yeah, careful with that guy. A lot of people who didn't get on with him seem to die in strange ways. But don't talk about it - especially not Pussy Riot style as dissent isn't ok.

You know, I find it puzzling that, even though USA has proven itself to be literally on the same level as the "communist" countries(read: China, Russia), people still apply selective blindness.

People die in strange ways in the states too. Michael Hastings much?

> though USA has proven itself to be literally on the same level as the "communist" countries

And people wonder why I complain about seeing political discussions on this site. How can you have a serious discussion with bizarre comments like the above? And just so it's clear: one can simultaneously hold in one's mind the view that there are some serious imperfections and injustices in the US, and that there are a lot of worse places - and some that are probably better.

If by serious imperfections and injustices you mean the violation of fundamental human rights, including freedom of speech, that America flaunts right and left.

"What makes America the greatest country in the world? re: Freedom and freedom, and let's keep it that way."

And you've got your blinkers on if you think that's really the worst it can get, or if you think Putin "really isn't that bad".

That's not at all what I said. The difference is that Putin doesn't spread propaganda through every news channel about how Russia is a truly democratic country and everyone has their freedoms according to the law. Everyone KNOWS he is a tyran, and he doesn't do much to change that.

Now let us observe the american media - 1)America birthplace of freedom? check. 2)America greatest country in the world? check. Despite not leading the world in a single category(besides defense spending). 3)Ideologically and officially different but pragmatically similar political parties? check. America - the birthplace of hypocrisy and the God complex.

So this is you being one of those Americans who thinks America is the center of everyone's world. Putin, doesn't broadcast on American networks, in America, because they're American.

What do you think happens in Russia?

I'm eastern european, meaning I do have some inside knowledge on how Russia operates, especially since it's still trying to regain political power in the post-soviet countries 23 years after its fall. Everybody knows Russia wants its old empire back.

I do believe my perception of the american media is accurate as well. You're free to dispute that.

Here in Russia we have our own PRISM since 90-s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SORM

SORM is used for selective surveillance (by adjudication) and not even close for total monitoring programs like PRISM.

Can you elaborate on this or offer a link?

I agree that PRISM is worse since they spy on almost all the world Internet traffic and phone calls, but I wouldn't trust Russian Government to only spy with a warrant.

I'd rather not lump whole country together and rather refine to US Federal Government executive branch and their services.

>I first thought that Ecuador would be more likely

Ecuador? I don't see that happening. It's a remote, third worldish place, where state officials could be bribed to hand him over, or he could be abducted or worse by any small team, including paid local thugs.

Iceland, as a country with an actual rule of law et al, and closer to Europe, it will be far more difficult.

Because all "third world-ish" places are the same. Also, because Ecuador doesn't have an actual rule of law, hasn't been holding Assange in its embassy for years and isn't easy to disappear in.

>Because all "third world-ish" places are the same.

They more or less are from that aspect.

The "third world" status is mostly a result of corruption, foreign influence and/or colonial history. And it implies impoverished locals and a not very powerful state.

All of these things point towards easy reach for a powerful foreign country.

>Also, because Ecuador doesn't have an actual rule of law, hasn't been holding Assange in its embassy for years and isn't easy to disappear in.

Not the same thing at all.

For one, Assange is a heroic figure for far more people, including in the US -- whereas a lot of people have been convinced Snowden is a "traitor" (with him being a US citizen AND a secret services employee et al). So it's a lot more difficult to publicly prosecute Assange, and the US is probably content to let the thing linger than extort full pressure.

Second, an embassy, and one in London, nonetheless, is easier to secure than a whole country. For Assange to "disappear" or be delivered from there, it would mean either a direct and open attack (affecting both Ecuador and UK) or Ecuador's government open collaboration.

Whereas someone can "disappear" or found dead INSIDE a country like Ecuador with not many problems.

Case in point:

http://www.news9.com/story/22638726/foreign-authorities-assu...

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/09/2012930929311...

http://latinamericacurrentevents.com/ecuador-foreign-couple-...

Downvote? Because somebody thinks a Latin American country makes for a good shelter for him?

Don't be too upset over downvotes. Sometimes people disagree and sometimes people hit the wrong button by mistake. In either case it's not possible to change the vote after it has been cast.

> In either case it's not possible to change the vote after it has been cast.

... which can be really annoying, especially on phones where the accuracy of positional input is ... often low.

Has HN ever said whether this is intentional for some reason, or just a matter of "not implemented yet"?

No idea. Perhaps you can email PG.

Or, he could have bought the ticket to moscow and went to HKG with the ticket to board the commercial flight to Ecuador via moscow and then boarded the private plane to KEF

(unlikely - but fun to think about)

It seems that he got help from Wikileaks' legal team:

>FLASH: WikiLeaks has assisted Mr. Snowden's political asylum in a democratic country, travel papers ans safe exit from Hong Kong. More soon.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/348724514135347200

>FLASH: Mr. Snowden is currently over Russian airspace accompanied by WikiLeaks legal advisors.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/348732325909102593

Wikileaks legal advisers - he's flying to a country that is putting a dead whistleblower on trial in order to demonise him and cover up government corruption.

Relying on the legal process in Russia is a really good way to find out how different it is from America, however much certain people would like to think differently.

Because that dead whistleblower - he was a lawyer.

This story is part of the ongoing propaganda war between the USA and China. The only thing we know for certain is that the Chinese say he has boarded a plane to Moscow, he may or may not have done. He may or may not still be alive. The Chinese may even have secretly handed him back to the Americans. We don't know and it is probably best to be sceptical about everything you read until a journalist and film crew meets him face to face.

It seems he's definitely left HK - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5926668

WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) tweeted at 11:20am - 23 Jun 13:

FLASH: Mr. Snowden is currently over Russian airspace accompanied by WikiLeaks legal advisors. (https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/348732325909102593)

Edit: Oops sorry, somebody posted this already. Anyway, interesting news!

For those who want to hypothesize: Here you can check the departures from Moskow after 17:15h

http://svo.aero/en/timetable/today/

I think destinations in Russia, EU and Asia can be safely filtered out.

Thanks for that link. Seem to be a few flights out to Havana. That would be an interesting destination.

Seems he is heading to Venezuela through Cuba.

We'll at least he'd be safe from NSA spying there, seeing as the whole island is air-gapped.

This is only for Sheremetyevo, at least Domodedovo also has international connections.

I'm not sure which is a worse fate, spending eternity in guantanamo bay, or spending an eternity in moscow traffic

Yes, but his plane arrives at Sheremetyevo. However, he could still go to Domodevo, but this might be risky for him.

Maybe he talked to Russian representatives before flying to Russia. This might buy him a few days.

"I don't want public attention because I don't want the story to be about me. I want it to be about what the US government is doing."

"he fully expects the US government to attempt to use all its weight to punish him. 'I am not afraid,' he said calmly, 'because this is the choice I've made.'"

http://m.guardiannews.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-n...

People interested in this might also want to read the Guardians latest GCHQ revelations. Worryingly they seem to have been gathering more data and there is an interesting section on NSA involvement.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5926608

I'd be happier if he weren't putting himself under the control of governments that can reasonably be regarded as US adversaries. Thus, I'm with Assange that Ecuador or something was the way for Snowden to go.

Yes, there would be a risk to him of regime change in any such place, but so be it ...

I'd like to see what your actions would have been if you were facing life in prison under solitary confinement like Bradley Manning does (or even worse - torture & execution)

Any government that isn't a US adversary would surely extradite him, so it seems reasonable to me that he was in China and now travels through Russia.

Chinese dissidents do the same thing, they flee to Chinese adversaries (like the US)

> or even worse - torture

All studies that I know of show that solitary confinement is torture after a few weeks.

I absolutely agree with you.

You mean reasonably regard as adversaries based on what you hear on the TV spouting pro-american propaganda.

Who cares, honestly. Nobody's going to try and extract secrets from him. 1) he's clearly a true patriot 2) if he were to suddenly disappear in some "enemy" country, it would surely create huge public uproar. It's all public now. 3) As the comment above said it - the only ones that can fight the us are, mostly, its adversaries and truly independent countries.

Yep. Since I put that comment up, the news has suggested he's doing the right thing after all. China & Russia don't seem to have a better play here than letting him in and out fast enough to make it clear he didn't have to spill secrets to them in private conversation in return for aid -- thus preserving his credibility to generally embarrass US intelligence.

Snowden is going to land in Oslo airport, Norway and meet with the leader of our Pirate Party, before going on to his final destination which is supposed to be Iceland. Source, in Norwegian: https://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/Piratpartiet-Snowde...

There's a flight for OSL that leaves from SVO in 1 hour 40 mins (18:45 local time):

http://info.flightmapper.net/flight/Aeroflot_SU_2534?date=20...

Amazing publicity, there are still a few hours before he lands in Norway then. Sunday is the best day to travel for him propably...

Here is Google Translate of the above article: http://bit.ly/14RbV5Y

I wonder if this was an intentional leak. This was reported by the leader of Norway's Pirate Party on Twitter. With the misdirection regarding Cuba and Venzuela, I'm wondering whether he is actually headed for Iceland or somewhere else. Seems weird that they would publish something like this.

Oslo seems like a risky place to land since Norway has historically been very open to requests from US officials. Is anyone able to get in touch with someone involved and see if the leak was intentional, and if not get in touch with Snowden's Wikileaks entourage? (I'm from Norway, btw).

The latest flight leaving Oslo for Reykjavik today is Icelandair's FI325 at 21:55 local time.

The flight can be followed in real time on FlightRadar24: http://fr24.com/AFL213

Not only his leaks, even his itinerary makes the US look bad.

Republican media: "Now he's aiding all the enemies, not just China!"

Because in their minds China and others are actual "enemies".

You could have just left this at 'american media'

Nope, it's just GOP media, GOP executive branch, GOP congress that are behind the largest crackdown on whistle-blowers in U.S. history~

Isn't Obama to blame for this too?

Sarcasm. I even used the ~ sarcasm terminator from usenet.

I didn't know ~ meant sarcasm.

Don't for a second think this is a partisan issue. There are just as many liberal media organizations doing this type of reporting on Snowden.

Republican? Well, the USA is a republic, but I assume you meant Republican as in, aligned with the Republican party. That is strange: as others mentioned, on this issue, media is not split according to the party lines.

I agree with your overall sentiment, but we are far beyond partisan politics at this point. Now all they serve to do is divide us and weaken our position. All of the democrats and republicans who play a role in this spying operation or who advocate it need to go.

Deleted comment

He's not going to Russia; he's going through Russia. TFA's second sentence:

It is understood the fugitive whistle-blower boarded the Moscow-bound flight earlier on Sunday and will continue to another country.

Seems like this is where his carefully considered plan gets much more improvisational. Bad optics, just the same - even if he is on his way to Iceland.

Why is Iceland such a bad idea?

Iceland's fine. It's going via Moscow that's the problem, at least in terms of the surrounding debate. It'll give a lot more ammunition to the "he betrayed his country" people, which won't be good for the exceedingly overdue conversation we were starting to have about secrecy and surveillance.

Yup. I'd say Russia is probably third on the list of worst places he could go, after defecting to China and Iran, in that order.

My guess is that Iceland would probably bend to the US's will pretty easily, especially over such a high profile individual.

It always puzzles me how people, especially citizens of Murrica think everyone will bend over and let U.S. have their way.

Small countries? Maybe. See case of latvian hacker Deniss Calovskis http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/u-s-charges-three-w...

Now Latvia is widely regarded as a country that will definitely follow US's whistle. And this extradition case has been going on for, eh, 9 months now?

Think about what independent and "ballsy" countries will do.

I'm not so sure. Consider the case of Birgitta Jónsdóttir.

Imho, given the publicity of the issue, there's no way the current US judicial system could find Snowden guilty of treason without creating a huge domestic and international scandal. Politically, this would turn into an enormous backlash. To maintain the image of a state of law, the US has no other choice than prosecute, but the outcome will turn out as either:

- a mistrial, followed by a strong attempt at burying the case somehow (probably with other events)

- a non guilty verdict, with spin doctoring to display the whole thing as a demonstration of the fact that the US constitution and overall legal system is sound,

- a "guilty" verdict, but with so much attenuating circumstances than there will be no significant sentence

However, for Snowden, I doubt that he will be able to find a job again in his line of work, after breaking the "ethic rules". What security company would hire a (skilled even) security analyst (or whatever Snowden was actually doing) if he cannot keep it shut on the internal practices? The scope could widen to any entreprise actually.

“As the HKSAR government has yet to have sufficient information to process the request for provisional warrant of arrest, there is no legal basis to restrict Mr Snowden from leaving Hong Kong.”

I think Washington will wake up with a bitter taste in their mouths…

After he spent the last two weeks releasing info that helped both Hong Kong and China - I don't think they'll be all that surprise he was granted the ability to leave the country.

He also released info that helped US citizens, as we are being kept in the dark in regards to the country's unconstitutional surveillance programs.

his fellow passengers are going to be rather annoyed if he causes this flight to be detained on the tarmac for hours.

Actually it would be awesome to sit next to Snowden on this flight.

I wish Snowden good luck, but I wouldn't like to be in the same flight with him. I would be that such flight would have a higher risk of "an accident".

or suffer "mechanical failure"

Let us hope that the plane arrives :\ ..

https://www.google.com/search?q=Aeroflot+SU213

Or watch it live here: http://www.flightradar24.com/#!/AFL213

It won't arrive.

idk, I'd probably happily put up with it if I knew that the hold up was Snowden related. Then again, I doubt that'd be made public in the aircraft.

Didn't he say that he intended to fight any extradition in the HK courts?

Cool website. This is what I see: http://i.imm.io/1a7pX.jpeg

Running away from lucifer to fall in the arms of beelzebub?

Weird world.

Not sure why he just didn't go to China initially and then use the Phoenix to fly wherever he wanted?

In the modern era you can't really hide so he might as well be as public about it as you can be.

Russia is definitely an interesting move, and Putin has been playing the whole thing very smart. I wonder what he knows that the Russians don't, or what they can now reveal having found out through Snowden rather than the usual sources.

It seems to me the value in Snowden is mostly making public what everyone already knew.

> making public what everyone already knew

I can't find a link, but there has been a "meme" graphic going around with, I think, a very insightful caption.

For years, you go around trying to raise the alarm, and you're a crazy conspiracy theorist.

Then when you finally get conclusive proof - it's old news, everyone knows, you've been saying it for years!

Welcome to rhetorics 101

Eschelonitis

>It seems to me the value in Snowden is mostly making public what everyone already knew.

There must be some value to be able to say "no, look at these" to those who would have just cried "conspiracy theory" and then laughed in your face.

Never heard that we've implemented visa-on-arrival scheme.)

No visa necessary if he doesn't leave the airport and gets on another flight within 24 hours.

Let's not get cute here.

If the United States wanted him extracted (on the way to Hong Kong) or worse, killed during his sojourn in HK, Snowden would have already faced a fate several orders worse than Alexander V. Litvinenko.

It isn't a huge tab for the U.S. to foot in the way of deploying deep cover teams to "take care" of Snowden - for what had been alleged to be the biggest U.S. intelligence leak in a generation - in the least suspicion-arousing manner long before Greenwald ever published his story.

For a nation that outspends the next ten defense budgets combined (even with the off late sequestration cuts accounted for) this is not much of a task.

The top brass could have taken care of this in a manner several orders more believable than the 2006 killing of Alexander V. Litvinenko in which the uber rare, and thus strictly available to only government bodies, Polonium-210 was used.

They could have made it seem like a forlorn affair of unrequited love with that dancer-acrobat girlfriend of his.

It is acutely nonsensical to assume that movements of sensitive personnel, like Snowden, are not tracked, especially to far-flung locations like HK given that he is not a field operative of any kind.

The NSA and other assorted intelligence/military organizations probably have a protocol for dealing with these things,in conjunction with the Justice department.

If they didn't before, Manning's case would have elicited the need for one.

Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/world/europe/03russian.htm...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinen...

http://nation.time.com/2012/09/25/comparing-defense-budgets-...

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2009/06/polonium-210-and...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mbvd/this-might-be-the-girlfriend-ed...

Your suggestions are far too cute, actually. By going public, and periodically reminding everyone that he could be targeted for assassination, Snowden has created a strong incentive for FedGov to keep him very much alive.

I was referring to the fact that had they wanted they could have scuttled his efforts even before he arranged to speak to Greenwald and Poitras.

If the NSA or BAH were to submit that they were unaware of Snowden's whereabouts or movements when he arranged these interviews, they would in all likeliness be resorting to feigning ignorance.

It's the height of silliness to suggest they were clueless about Snowden's motives before his junket began.

Source:

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/10/qa_with_laura_poitras_the_wo...

You seem to forget that, as has been proved,especially when it comes to government contractors, the US intelligence agencies are hilariously inefficient at what they do. That is what makes this sentence so funny: "For a nation that outspends the next ten defense budgets combined (even with the off late sequestration cuts accounted for) this is not much of a task."

Stop with the U.S. god complex already.

They want him extradited, they don't want him killed so I'm not sure how the rest of your comment about a different government's actions is relevant.

Cool story bro

Deleted comment

If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

I might agree that this may not apply to all threads about this subject. But it also doesn't apply to so many things that are regularly posted here and nobody ever hears a peep about, often minor iteration of some shallow cosmetic "technology", and generally ads thinly veiled under bad writing. I mean, if the standards are that low, why not simply declare that humans are biological machines, and therefore all human interest stories are technology stories? But don't pretend there is consistency and actual adherence to the guidelines, I just don't see it. Maybe the problem is that it would require us first to define "good hacker". What is that? I'm thinking of the Chaos Computer Club guys, or Cult of the Dead Cow, not of Silicon Valley. But surely that isn't it, so what is it...?

I would love to see a "main section" restricted to big ideas or questions, instead of news of the day, something that strictly tries to adhere to those guidelines -- but I would still want to have an area where we can discuss Snowden, or some random thing that existed for ages predictably being converted to js now, in a format that is purely focused on the words, and with people that are generally extremely smart. And if we can't do it here, I wish we could make that place, instead of just shutting up whenever it gets remotely serious.

Thanks for the reply and sorry for deleting the original comment. At the time I was getting down-voted without any feedback so I figured it worthless to keep it. But to your comment, I completely agree.

For what it's worth, I actually wanted to upvote you, because I don't like all this silent downvoting business either.. but by the time I had finished writing my reply, it was already gone. Anyway, cheers :)

Snowden running is not something to be confused with an admission of guilt, but at the same time, it does prove that he is not a patriot. With his worldwide recognition: the safest course would be for him to publicly turn himself in to a US police station or deliver himself to a courtroom. He would have a very public trial and would have an even farther reaching message in this country. By running he shows that he has no faith in this country and no longer considers himself a citizen. Not only that but he opens himself up to a ridiculous amount of risk by being wide open in foreign countries where things are semi-expected to happen to travelers by this country. If something happens to him while he's in the legal system of this country, the people responsible for him would be crucified by the media and everyone else. Granted he could be silenced and have his reputation destroyed by the media while incarcerated in this country but I believe a patriot works with the system or fights within it, only a coward runs.

He can't deliver himself to a courtroom because he knows he would be found guilty. Just like bradley manning he clearly and obviously broke the law and has no recourse but to plead guilty and get sent to jail (or to his death, but they wouldn't do that as it would make a martyr out of him). The issue is not whether he would be convicted, because surely he would be, it's whether the laws are just to begin with.

OK, maybe he could have gone to prison "nelson mandela"-style to be a symbol of a movement, but I don't think it's an act of cowardice if you don't quite live up to that ideal. There is a huge gap between being a hero and being a coward. In Snowden's own words he is neither (just by revealing what he revealed he has already imprisoned himself to a degree).

Hey thanks for replying,

I agree that he would easily be found guilty of the charges if he were to present himself to a courtroom. But what I was trying to suggest was that if he admitted himself to the court system, and was found guilty, there is a much larger chance that there would be a lot more question as to whether or not the law was just (not to mention that if he stayed in country, espionage charges would make a lot less sense).

By running, he invites the comparison to being a spy. It will be a major talking point in the news to come. And it's generally unsafe. If he is still alive and well, he opens himself up to a lot of mortal vulnerability by travelling.

I wasn't trying to say that he wasn't a hero. In fact I think him one of sorts. I was just trying to say that he wasn't a patriot. A patriot does not fight against his country from a foreign country or abandon his land. I just believe that there is a major difference between being a patriot and being a national hero.

Anyone seeing what happened to Manning would be insane to turn themselves in to the US.

Manning violated military law, which is fat different than our civilian laws.

you're wrong, but whatever I guess. shall I tell you why? if you want to call out patriotism, you can justify Snowden as more of a patriot than anyone else in the NSA. Because if they are lying and disobeying the constitution, only a true patriot would speak out against it.

The other thing is. When he did his whistle blowing story, he had left the U.S., but wasn't charged at that point. But in his mind, he could do the most good by not sitting in a jail cell.

A coward? Whatever man. He's probably not afraid of being tortured or killed in prison. More like the endless boredom and how hopeless it would be. I totally understand why he would prefer to leave. Especially if he thinks it's a lost battle, The constitution I mean. It may well be.

爱国不爱党

loving one's country is not the same as loving one's government.

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate feedback over a superficial down-vote. However I don't understand how I suggested that being a patriot is loving one's government.

I didn't down-vote you, I'm too new for that. :p (edit: not that I would have down-voted you, I agree with the comment in your other thread that this silent down-voting is harmful)

You suggested that in order to be patriotic he should have stayed behind to face justice, administered by the same government whose "checks and balances" have so far failed to prevent the thing he's protesting. Why take his chances? Would you call a Chinese dissident unpatriotic for leaving China?

(perhaps I should have given a more specific translation rather than a literal one, you can read "trusting the government" instead of "loving". short Chinese phrases have a lot of leeway in meaning which is usually implied from the context)

Thanks again infinity0,

I did not mean to suggest that he should stay behind to face the justice system which could be corrupt, I meant to say that he should stay behind and trust himself to the American populous, a lot of which considers him a hero.

When you are travelling around and running from something, things can happen. I've had a few friends die/be murdered while travelling in foreign countries so I have a personal reason to sort of understand when something happens or somebody dies while travelling. But at large in this country people have seen Taken or Hostel or some other anti-traveling movie that has conditioned them to think that travelling in inherently unsafe. By travelling you open yourself up to whoopsie-daisy style deaths in which it is just understood that you died because you were being incompetent in some fashion.

In the American legal system however, the jail which you are held in is responsible for your well being. And with somebody as high-profile as Ed Snowden, if something were to happen to him while he was in jail, everyone would know about it and some people would have to answer questions.

And if he were convicted of espionage while he was staying in this country, 1) His charges as a spy wouldn't make sense because it would be understood that he still considered himself a US citizen so he would have nobody to be accused to be spying for aside from the people of the US and 2) if he was convicted, imprisoned, executed or whatever could be the case, the laws and the legal system that did it would be under immense scrutiny by the ACLU, the EFF and anyone else the actions pissed off and would probably face extremely harsh repercussions.

"Movement is life" - Brad Pitt's character in World War Z :p

Bradley Manning has been tortured and there has not been outrage on the level that would be enough to protect him. When Edward Snowden blew the whistle, he had no reason to think that he would have been more successful. Perhaps you would have done differently, but at this point I think it boils down to personal differences in evaluating a situation, so I wouldn't go as far to claim he is unpatriotic.

You know what? I agree. I think now it was wrong of me to suggest he was unpatriotic at all. He is a patriot and he is equally afraid of the consequences for being so. It is not my place to judge what level of commitment defines a patriot. This man has definitely served his country (I have never questioned his heroism) and his actions have cause international discussion. His actions will always be up for dispute whether or not they were the right course of action, but nobody will question the man who stopped the "big brother is watching you" argument from being a conspiracy theory into being a public fact that must be dealt with. The man is a world-wide patriot in that regard.

Right, because the United States justice system works so well when its (the US) ass is on the line. Just ask this guy:

http://www.saveamericafoundation.com/2013/06/21/top-us-journ...

How on earth is that in any way credible? Most of the article is predicate on exacting details from a supposed GRU report that is never shown and doesn't seem to exist anywhere else aside from regurgitation from whatdoesitmean.com.

If he was travelling to the Israeli Consulate, he should have turned west at Santa Monica / Highland and stayed there most of the way. Instead he was traveling perpendicular by going south on Highland (spotted on the dashcam at Santa Monica / Highland and crashed south of Melrose / Highland). Roadwise, that takes him further away from the consulate, not closer. Even as an alternate route, he should have taken Sunset, which still would have meant going north or west from that point instead of south.

I also like how the article is so resolute on how there is no impact damage and how it had to have been hit by a drone / missile when the video and eyewitnesses say otherwise.

I liked his work and am sad that he is gone, but how is a drone strike more plausible than him possibly falling off the wagon and drunkenly crashing his car, which by his own admission, he's done before?

This was a man who was running before facing a trial or even charges. Not a man in the justice system. Who knows what really happened to him? Nobody. Because he was being secretive about his actions. He has allowed nothing but conjecture to his fate. I have been under investigation by the FBI; it doesn't mean they're going to kill you.

Just the fact that the US President can order an extra-judicial killing of any US citizen, if he deems it fit, should be enough to raise your ire, citizen. With such tyranny allowed, justice is no longer possible in US society.

While I can see the point you're trying to make - give himself in for the sake of publicity, I also think you are making very far-fetched conclusions.

1)Running away from certain prosecution is not unpatriotic. He is a patriot of his country, not of his government. If they jailed him, he wouldn't be allowed to do anything to change the course of the trial(see Bradley Manning).

2) The government has already proved that it will go against the public opinion by officially charging him with espionage and treason. If they have not started doing damage control up until now, why should they after they jail him?

Hey insuffi,

Thanks for the reply. To your response:

1) I am not trying to say that he should have stayed in the country to begin with necessarily because his act could obviously be construed as treason and be silenced immediately if jailed. I was also not trying to suggest that he is not a hero to this country (because by many accounts, he is) but rather I was trying to suggest that a patriot does not abandon the country to which he claims patriotism [because that would be completely illogical].

Now, Snowden is a very public international figure. If he were jailed, people would be watching his case very closely. Snowden's situation is different from Bradley Manning's because when a judgement is made, everyone will care because he did in fact give himself enough time to find refuge in another country and spread a full story and reveal himself to the world. He is now a popular culture figure for many countries.

However, the reason he invites claims of espionage is that he claims refuge in other countries. A patriot does not need to turn himself over to the government but must turn himself over to the people of the united states. By running he only makes himself appear more guilty in many people's minds. And by running he also opens himself up to a lot of conjecture as to why he's running.

2) The government is doing damage control by charging him. They have an unanswered opinion that can be broadcast to most of the country because he is fleeing (this old adage still applies to many people: An innocent man has nothing to hide). He is ruining his patriotic reputation by running from the country because he is giving everyone a chance to step back and insight any opinion they may about his patriotism, mental stability or really anything.

As a patriot I would agree he is justly afraid. But what I meant to suggest that by running, he is proving himself as a saboteur or spy to people who agree with many media streams and is leaving many things up to justifiable question.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com