HKSAR Government issues statement on Edward Snowden
info.gov.hk
info.gov.hk
I hope Snowden finds asylum and can live a reasonably comfortable life. He's a patriot. I'm a US citizen and I'm pro-US but this bullshit has to stop.
I'm all in favor of espionage, but only against companies we are actively hostile with.
I'm really curious if he is going to produce damning evidence of deep, active, ongoing espionage against any of the other four of the five eyes (Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand).
How so? For the past 10 days we have been hearing non-stop reports of the infamous extradition process that will drag on for 10-15 years in HK, providing asylum to Snowden. Turns out a mere day after espionage case was filed Snowden is allowed to leave HK. Do you seriously believe Snowden thought, wow it was great living in HK for 10 days but now I need to go to Venezuela or Cuba (via Russia) since they are havens of freedom and human rights? Snowden put HK in a very tough position this is literally the best way they could get the US off their backs. The strong language in the press release is all show, look at what people do not what they say.
Have we? I didn't read those. I also didn't expect HK to grant asylum and I don't think there's any precedent for a US citizen seeking asylum in or being extradited (or not) from HK.
HK's track record with asylum seekers isn't that great (around 10% are granted asylum) and the bulk of those cases involve people from the region. HK doesn't have its own laws in place regarding asylum seekers and instead defers to the UNHRC for those decisions.
Did Snowden leave HK because they asked him to? I don't think there's any evidence of that. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) What they did do is refuse to arrest him at the request of the US and refuse to treat him like anything other than an American tourist. I'd say they did all that could be expected of them.
> Snowden put HK in a very tough position this is literally the best way they could get the US off their backs.
I think you might be overestimating how much HK & China care about what the US wants. The US isn't in a position to dictate policy to Beijing.
That was an optimistic assessment, best case. Either Snowden has received advice leading him to reconsider his course of action, and/or HK has expressed to him that they are not confident in their ability to, or haven't the will to resist the US/China in a diplomatic battle over his extradition, or maybe they just aren't confident that they can assure his safety. If one of the latter is the case then it is gracious of them to provide an opportunity for Snowden to leave unmolested.
FTFY
US = good, China and Russia etc. = bad
Not a very eloquent way to put it but it's true.
HK govt would just listen to the officials in China on this matter. In the same time, it has to respect the judicial system (if he applies to be asylum seeker). A very careful line must be struck between the two.
Daniel Ellsberg is a patriot.
Edward Snowden crossed the line a long time ago when he fled to China to reveal more than domestic surveillance but foreign intelligence activities.
I'm probably just as indignant as you are about the domestic surveillance, but the activities of Snowden started out as patriotism, but very quickly crossed into defection.
tldr - champions of human rights don't flee to china & russia. Those places are where defecting spies go.
BTW here's why I disagree - apart from the widespread domestic surveillance already admitted the NSA has used dragnet foreign surveillance from other five eyes nations like the UK to spy on American communications with no suspicion of wrongdoing, and has attempted dragnet surveillance in other nations like China (text messages). All of those things deserve debate - even on foreign surveillance the NSA should not have a free hand IMHO - they're supposed to target enemies of the US, not engage in blanket surveillance - that's a dangerous and massive expansion of their powers and in the hands of a president like Nixon would be truly terrifying. It also undermines the position of the US in the world and allows nations like China to indulge in cyberattacks with absolutely no moral high ground for the US.
Re where Snowdon goes, I think that has far more to do with pragmatism that his wish-list of most desired countries - from his own words I think he would have preferred to stay in the US and fight this if he felt he'd be given a fair trial, but that has been made impossible by the calls of traitor from the current administration (what they mean of course is traitor to the NSA and administration, not to the country, but those two are confounded).
The alternative interpretation of his actions is that a champion of human rights has been obliged to flee the US and seek refuge with enemies of the US, because he risks imprisonment without bail, torture and indefinite detention at home (all of those have been used in the war on terror in the last decade). It is quite credible that he wouldn't be allowed to state his case or argue his defence as Ellsberg did, and in fact Ellsberg agrees with him on that, and the treatment of Manning justifies his fears. So maybe champions of human rights do now flee the US?
On your first point, I barely disagree with you at all.
The second point is where I feel like no one is paying much attention: For me personally, the irony of criticizing the US on unethical activities from the patronage of countries that routinely and violently trample the human rights of their citizens completely destroys and legitimacy of the broader point he's trying to make.
And your third point is also disturbing and true. I don't disagree.
Edit: BTW, my above post all day long has been hovering between +5 upvotes to -5 votes. It's the wildest ride I've seen on an HN thread ever :)
Interesting. For me, it doesn't destroy credibility and legitimacy at all. Nor does it smell of defection. The irony, however, is what is most tangible. If we have, through the actions of our intelligence agencies, reached a point where American citizens must flee the country and take refuge in a traditionally maligned foreign power to effectively protect the Constitution and the People, it is a clarion call for the need to make a full stop, publicly work out these problems, and get ourselves back on the right track. If protecting constitutional and human rights requires one to flee a nation that champions those causes publicly, but prosecutes their defenders privately, we have a serious problem.
While it would be admirable to remain and try to fight the administration in spite of their policies on Manning and calls of traitor, I do understand his choice to try to remain free.
What does one have to do with the other?
Don't look at it as separate points. You have to understand the situation as a whole and that if you prized the US and had been in his situation and didn't want to rot in jail forever, you'd have done the exact same.
EDIT: Or, you know what? Perhaps you're smarter than me. What would you have done different? It's easy to criticize but you'll have to come up with solutions. For the US, they could've just obeyed their own law and requested warrants wherever there was probable cause. But for Snowden? What could he have done different while preserving his own life?
Foreign intelligence activities are not necessarily legal and I am pretty sure quite a few of the revealed NSA foreign intelligence activities are illegal. This whole US-citizens-vs-foreign-country-citizens-thing really pisses my off - people are people no matter where they live. Spying at them without suspicion is illegal. And even if it would not be illegal it would still be wrong.
"Ellsberg also shared the documents with New York Times correspondent Neil Sheehan under a pledge of confidentiality. Sheehan broke his promise to Ellsberg, and built a scoop around what he'd received both directly from Ellsberg and from contacts at IPS."
No, Ellsberg got duped. He also went into hiding afterwards (although briefly). He never deliberately put it all on the line.
Snowden made this information public and shortly thereafter admitted to it -- knowing full well that it would end his life as he knew it. That's the act of a patriot.
>I'm probably just as indignant as you are about the domestic surveillance
No, you aren't. Snowden hasn't (doesn't appear to have) revealed conduct that other governments were unaware of. Most of these thing have been leaked before. He's merely outed that conduct publicly, at a time when the press was under attack from the DOJ. If it weren't for that fact, and or maybe his flight from the US, I suspect we may not even still be talking about any of this.
tl;dr Don't be trollbait.
There's a great irony going on that I think few people here are appreciating. Snowden "blew the whistle" on illegal and unethical government programs and surveillance. This is a noble deed for a citizen. There is little disagreement there. And he make these revelations precisely because governments shouldn't do illegal and unethical things.
And then it turns out he's seeking refuse in places that have (less sophisticated, but) much more violent and brutal intelligence and police arms. Not to mention countries that have completely rigged elections (Venezuela, Russia) or no elections at all (Cuba, HK to some extent), and countries in which journalists are routinely murdered (Russia) or forbidden (Cuba).
So now I'm confused to what his point is? (I need to flee from a country that spies on its citizens.... to a country that terrorizes its people, but hey, as long as it's not me it's cool.) What is your point? (Nevermind the thousands of political prisoners etc in these countries, at least they are a place for US whistleblowers to seek refuge)?
Why couldn't he have gone straight to Iceland, Norway, Switzerland... any number of countries for which extradition to US may be difficult but at least have nominal respect for human rights. Perhaps it's also asking too much, but - IMO - if he really wanted to make a statement with full moral authority he could have just pulled a Socrates and stood trial here in the US.
tldr - while sitting comfortably in his seaside villa in Cuba or Venezuela, I'll regain respect for Snowden when he criticizes his host country as vocally and forcefully as he criticizes the US intelligence apparatus, but I think he's too much of a hypocrite/coward to do that.
Well, there is the recent statement from Birgitta Jónsdóttir that asylum in Iceland would be a difficult achievement. Beyond that, you seem to be having difficulty understanding (and passing judgment on) Snowden choosing to act in a way that you wouldn't. This is hardly a judgment against Snowden. He's not necessarily making moves to maintain a good PR story. One might be justified in the assumption that he is making necessary and strategic choices.
> Perhaps it's also asking too much, but - IMO - if he really wanted to make a statement with full moral authority he could have just pulled a Socrates and stood trial here in the US.
That's a curious judgment of 'full moral authority'. Humans are an imperfect creature. Full moral authority is not derived from actions alone, but also from the intentions behind those actions. Who knows, perhaps Snowden will pull a Socrates when he has completed his current mission of strategically releasing information until his cache is exhausted.
1. Edward Snowden has revealed unethical behavior by his home state.
2. Edward Snowden has fled to a foreign state that itself does unethical things.
3. ????
4. Edward Snowden has crossed the line from being a wistleblower and activist, to basically being little better than a defecting spy. He should not be praised the way he is around here.
I guess that's sarcasm. That's fair. I called you trollbait. I think you're taking the propaganda campaign against Snowden at face value, and perhaps not considering the limits of Snowden's real alternatives.
>There's a great irony going on that I think few people here are appreciating. Snowden "blew the whistle" on illegal and unethical government programs and surveillance. This is a noble deed for a citizen. There is little disagreement there. And he make these revelations precisely because governments shouldn't do illegal and unethical things.
I'm glad we can agree on that.
>And then it turns out he's seeking refuse in places that have (less sophisticated, but) much more violent and brutal intelligence and police arms.
I'm ashamed to have to say it, but I disagree that a US citizen can make such a claim after the disclosure that our country has rendered prisoners to Jordan, Syria, Egypt, who knows where else, with the knowledge and intention that they'd be tortured. Also, the obvious point of the continued operation of the Guantanamo Bay facility, and the known treatment of prisoners there. Also, the carelessness with which our gov't carried out those operations, that has allowed the torture of so many now known to be unrelated to any warfighting, terrorism, or otherwise aggressive actions against the US. We have no room to talk, in fact it is much worse that we are both barbarian thugs and hypocrites.
>Not to mention countries that have completely rigged elections (Venezuela, Russia) or no elections at all (Cuba, HK to some extent),
Don't look now, but elections in this country don't pass the giggle test. Electronic black box voting machines which have no ability to audit them? In one case manufactured by a partisan businessman who promised victory to a presidential candidate?
> and countries in which journalists are routinely murdered (Russia) or forbidden (Cuba).
No comment.
>So now I'm confused to what his point is? (I need to flee from a country that spies on its citizens.... to a country that terrorizes its people, but hey, as long as it's not me it's cool.)
Maybe every move he makes is not made with the intention of making a point? Maybe, it's the adversarial nature of those relationships that he is depending upon to protect his safety. Can you give me a list of countries that you'd approve of Snowden fleeing to, that have the political/economic clout to resist US demands? Oh, btw, WE the USA, our country terrorizes its people, how else do you explain people confessing to crimes which they did not commit in order to avoid a trial? How else do you explain attorneys giving their clients that advice?
>What is your point? (Nevermind the thousands of political prisoners etc in these countries, at least they are a place for US whistleblowers to seek refuge)?
What about the prisoners in our country? What about the treatment that people receive from our own country?
>Why couldn't he have gone straight to Iceland, Norway, Switzerland... any number of countries for which extradition to US may be difficult but at least have nominal respect for human rights.
I don't know.
> Perhaps it's also asking too much, but - IMO - if he really wanted to make a statement with full moral authority he could have just pulled a Socrates and stood trial here in the US.
Come on, I thought we were having a mildly serious chat. Binney, Drake, Radack, Edmunds, Tice, Manning, Tamm, Leibowitz, every one of these people and more have suffered terrible consequences for whistleblowing. Most used official channels, none fled to adversarial jurisdictions. Most support Snowden's flight, none have condemned him for it.
>tldr - while sitting comfortably in his seaside villa in Cuba or Venezuela, I'll regain respect for Snowden when he criticizes his host country as vocally and forcefully as he criticizes the US intelligence apparatus, but I think he's too much of a hypocrite/coward to do that.
You expect saintly impeccable behavior from critics of our government? Saintly people are busy feeding starving children, they have no time for a job at the NSA. And who cares how much you respect Snowden? Why does it matter? Look man, the "rule of law", our constitutional principles, it's a sham. The Emperor has no clothes. Why would you be surprised if the naked Emperor tried to discredit anyone who reported his nakedness?
> Binney, Drake, Radack, Edmunds, Tice, Manning, Tamm, Leibowitz, every one of these people and more have suffered terrible consequences for whistleblowing. Most used official channels, none fled to adversarial jurisdictions. Most support Snowden's flight, none have condemned him for it.
Anyway, I do appreciate the continued response. You got to convincing me with your point before, but now that you have fleshed it out more I am stepping back. If, underlying your argument, is that the rule of law "is a sham", then we have nothing further to talk about. Our universes are a little too different.
Maybe sham is too strong of a word. How about eroded?
Why wouldn't he go to a country that is less likely to release him back to the US? Of course he has to go to an country that has conflict with the US.
They really didn't want to have to make a decision about anything, and now they won't.
I maintain that Snowden had engaged in activity that is beneficial to the citizens of his country, and to the ideals of the Constitution of his country, and is therefore very deserving of the title of "patriot".
Never?
>Question: when does dumping secrets of the US stop being patriotic?
When the US' conduct approaches the conduct it professes?
FTFY
Interestingly, "lapdog" appears to be an Americanism.
Going by headlines in British newspapers, the equivalent British expression appears to be "poodle."
The Economist: "Tony Blair is not George Bush's poodle. It's much worse than that."
The Guardian: "Special relationship is over, MPs say. Now stop calling us America's poodle."
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me.
edit: It's also a brilliant commentary on the rule of law, and due process rights.
More like a great deal of autonomy, for the time being. Except for military and foreign affairs (and perhaps immigration? not sure) in which areas China has authority, outside of those HKSAR is highly autonomous.
It's rich that you bring this up when it now turns out that the NSA is doing espionage on everyone.
Ah well OK you're right..
[1] see footnote three- http://www.americanpopularculture.com/archive/film/wayne.htm
Not sure if intentionally or accidentally ironic..
Sounds like they took the NSA's line right out of their mouths: "Many of the requests that you forwarded to this office do not contain a complete mailing address. Therefore, we cannot respond to those requests..." (http://www.mynsarecords.com/blog/2013-06-21-nsa-please-stop-...)
The Chinese do not want to set the precedent that governments should ignore extradition treaties and thus harbor fugitives wanted on national security issues.
I don't blame the HK gov - just question some of the responses here.
Ah, but Hong Kong is not like any other small country. It is an autonomous region of China, which just happens to be the second most-powerful country in the world.
The United States can put an unlimited amount of diplomatic and economic pressure on a small country. They can keep ratcheting up the pressure until the small country has no choice but to give in. So you might as well give in right away, and avoid upsetting the Americans.
In contrast, the United States can only put a limited amount of pressure on Hong Kong. If the US were to go too far, then Beijing could intervene.
Do you mind citing your source(s)?
Asking for sources is completely inane.
But the criminals in the US government are finally, finally being made to sweat a little, and more is on the way. This is like porn to me. There may actually be some real hope and change under Obama. And "no such agency" may become a reality. Go! Go! Go!
That paragraph, included in this very same release, says all they need to say about how he got out of the country. HK knew it couldn't offer safe harbor for him given the economic ties of itself and China to the US, but they obviously offered him safe passage. Snowden's strategy of letting his host country know what we had done to them actually worked.
However, your responses are not new or novel. During the second world war the Nazi government took anti-war protests in the US to mean that public opinion was firmly against any intervention. What they did not count on was the fickleness of public opinion.
I suspect many of you here will, in case a real war breaks out, be heading for a recruiting station. People are funny things.
What Snowden has showed is that USG has been commited in acts which are illegal for mere mortals to commit. Somehow NSA is all good doing this though -- on what moral grounds? Who can honestly claim that its not morally shady to put governmental instiutions above the law, and let it violate the rights of foreigners who have absolutely no power against it, not even the slight bit of political power via voting? Somehow acts against them is all easy to accept without evaluating the ethics, after all they Chinese are some commies and "idk lol".
How is military surveillance reasoned during peace time and when it targets civilians? The fact that "others do it too" is no justification.
Nobody here is supporting a war or encouraging conflict. We support transparency and our own constitutional right to privacy. If anything, the sentiment here is admiration for Hong Kong's response and their willingness to let one of our own go freely.
In their defence, however, I'd argue that the American public was against intervention before Pearl Harbor. Still, should have been predicting that one as well.
Lastly, I doubt a conventional war is about to break out. I doubt either side is interested in a war of this size. And besides; a world war the Germans didn't start?!
[0] Examples of German diplomacy at its finest: Japan in August 1914, the Zimmermann Telegram and U-boat raids in the Atlantic (during both world wars prior to US entry).
Especially since a lot of it seems to be poorly considered, unethical, and somewhat intended to benefit a few at the expense of the many.
I'm not a US citizen but I am a UK one. My government is allegedly doing far worse.
Look - the fact is, this guy publicised some information supposedly politically beneficial to a foreign power [0] and this happened hours before he left Hong Kong unscathed. Looking at what has been done to Bradley Manning I think you would have to be fairly ignorant to expect anything different if he had not done this.
What Snowden has done is pro-freedom, pro-individual-privacy and anti-government-secrecy. Even if you are not courageous enough to do so yourself, you should be glad that there are still people willing to risk themselves for the values that made your country the greatest in the world. It honestly seems like you rationalise against it for some reason?
Without people willing to make a stand you are on the way to total corruption; the few will benefit and the mass will lose. And then your only option to regaining power will be revolution and blood-shed.
[0] I would assume that the Chinese government would have been well aware about this already due to having their own spies. (I wonder how many foreign powers had direct access to Prism?) All it has allowed is sabre-rattling due to redefining the public space.
I don't think that's an inconsistent position.
As a sidenote, I was interested that my total Karma went down by more than the negative votes I can see on the comments here. I don't care about the Karma, I was just curious how this could happen. Do you have an idea? Are motivated people going through my other comments on the site and downvoting them?
Like slashdot, HN, has become a slightly more vicious place, or maybe I just notice it more!
It makes finding more mature people here more valuable.
You think a low-level sysop is really revealing stuff the Chinese didn't know?
In that light I guess Snowden will be a major detriment to US public relations worldwide.
You are speaking to the "Me Me Me Generation" as Joel Stein puts it.
"Lazy, entitled, selfish and shallow."
Snowden is the poster child for this generation.
"A narcissistic young man who has decided he is smarter than the rest of us", as Bob Schieffer called him.
The only thing that separates this generation of whistle blowers, if they were to take after Snowden, from the previous ones would be their insincerity of purpose and a distinct lack of selflessness.
Instead of being lauded for standing firm and facing consequences they will be known for their penchant for fleeing and bolting to foreign lands that they find hospitable to their ill-thought-out missions.
Character and how its reflected doesn't change with the times.
On occasion, history fails to take note of certain heroes.
However it also tells us that cowards have never brought about ground swells or changed human events.
Source:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2143001,00....
The ludicrous idea of calling someone who has just given up the chance of a normal life for years to come, maybe forever, "lazy, entitled and shallow" is something that takes a substantial disconnect from reality to come up with.
"I don't see any alternative to trying to track all these groups around the world who are trying to wreck the ordinary operations of life in America and probably kill a lot of people. I am not persuaded that they (NSA) have done more harm than good"
Source:
Two wars, thousands dead, trillions of dollars spent, indefinite detainment of people in Guantanamo, a government takeover of airport security, FBI drones flying in the US, rubberstamped warrants for spying on Americans, the list goes on for quite a while. At what point is it proper to say the "cure" is worse than the disease?
Because the Gov't treated all of the other NSA whistleblowers that used official channels as heroes, by firing them and trying to charge them with crimes? Either no one in the NSA has any character and people today are so different from yesterday, or the way the US treats whistleblowers has changed and people have adapted.
Who cares if Snowden isn't a perfect human being and martyr? It matters more to me that he was concerned with the safety and privacy of all Americans.
I agree here. If Snowden had a) stayed in the US and or b) stayed on message ("The US govt. should not spy on US citizens") he would have been credible to me.
I lost respect when he started to make statements re: the NSA's activities counter China, especially when he was hiding in China at a time when China/US talks re: espionage were taking place.
That's when I began to think, this guy is a pawn.