Snowden’s whereabouts unknown
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
The only thing 'deeply troubling' is that both sides are labeling a whistleblower as a 'leaker' and 'traitor' when all he's done is expose that U.S. citizens info is collected without warrants, a likely constitutional violation.
But words have meanings. Would you mind explaining how exactly they are neocons, other than you feel they are somewhat sinister?
I think you've just uncovered the fact that both parties are really just two sides of the same coin. It may appear that they're engaged in some kind of tug-of-war struggle, but if so, we are the rope.
In fact, both DEMs and GOPs agree on the vast majority of issues, the only differences are in fine details. They're both quite happy with the form and function of today's government.
Personally I also equate American Republicans with fascists, whom spout rhetoric about patriotism and some measure of ethnocentrism.
Remember where the neocons originated: these were Democrats who became frustrated by the post-Vietnam anti-war sentiments in the Democrat party (the 5 minutes that the Dems were an anti-war party).
Let's not forget that guys like Hitchens were some of the biggest cheerleaders for war post-9/11. Fake "liberal" and "conservative" labels that are more about Jesus and abortion than real politics are almost entirely meaningless. When someone says they are a liberal nowadays, it means nothing more to me than if they said they were a Yankees fan. I know it's going to be yet another indoctrinated statist.
Perhaps their driving motive is not politics at all, but something else (such as social change or well-being) and the politics required are simple a means to an end? Perhaps it's just that you don't understand their motives, or any number of other possibilities?
Your off-hand dismissal does nobody any good.
Yes, it's called narcissism.
Having been involved in politics at one point and being around elected politicians and aspiring politicians (at least at the state level), I can tell you with absolute certainty that the overwhelming motivation for public office is narcissism. This is also the reason I abandoned my interest in politics - some of the worst human beings I've ever been around.
Snowden has gone far beyond simple whistleblowing about US citizen's information being collected. He has specifically detailed hacking attempts by the US against Chinese universities and cell phone companies. This is clearly a different form of leaking and it is something the majority of the public is strongly against.
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1266821/us-hacks-chin...
Who exactly are you referring to? There are almost no politicians holding high office that can be called "left wing." At best, you have centrists.
(For what it's worth, I primarily take issue with the words 'liberal' and 'reality'.)
'Deeply troubling' is diplospeak.
This is kind of a strange statement. On what grounds could/would China or Russia "respond to espionage charges" in the absence of extradition treaties with the US?
Its also somewhat strange the US would expect any other country, especially these two, to care deeply about leaks against it that expose massive US/British spying against basically the whole world.
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zxxx/t1049546.shtml
China's new President has made it a high priority to improve relations with the US which is why many were surprised Snowden was let out of HK quite so easily.
The US knew what the answer was going to be before they even asked the question.
And probably trying to persuade their editors that they should stay on Cuba for a few days just in case nudge nudge
Snowden is able to pass through Russian territory because, according to the law of Russia, it is allowed. This, says Mr Kerry, is deeply troubling.
However, blanket monitoring of internet activity, which according to the law of the US, is allowed, is not deeply troubling?
Way to go Ecuador!
>“There is no small irony here,” Kerry added, posing the hypothetical question of whether Snowden sought refuge in China and Russia “because they’re such powerful bastions of Internet freedom.”
No sign of shame or embarrassment. Disgusting.
...exactly as the US has attempted to do, on trumped-up espionage charges no less? The _only_ reason that didn't happen in this case is because he learned from previous leakers and was smart enough to protect himself by fleeing the country beforehand.
Something about this statement made me wonder: is Ecuador just collecting political fugitives so that it can cut some nice deal with the US in the future? This isn't a country with a stellar human rights record. I'm not sure how comfortable I am with them accumulating a stable of high profile asylum-seeking bargaining chips.
The same could be said of the US. Surely you know this. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opinion/americas-shameful-...
I assume when the US shelters human rights activists you will question its motives in a similar manner, no?
Also, cute how you jump to that reasoning first. Surely there is no other reason a sovereign nation would need a bargaining chip with the USA.
Yes, but the US has much bigger guns in the game of diplomatic bargaining than Ecuador - including actual guns. Handing over political refugees would be an unnecessary sacrifice of reputation for the US when there are so many other tools at its disposal. Other nations already mostly do whatever the US tells them to, and when they don't, a minor play like that wouldn't make a difference.
Ecuador does not have such clout, so political refugees are a far more useful bargaining chip.
My point is that that reasoning does not necessarily hold for Ecuador. This is why it's not necessary to suspect that the US is collecting refugees as future bargaining chips, while it is necessary to consider that Ecuador might be.
If you still think I'm suggesting that the US is handing over refugees, please point out where I said anything of the sort, and I will clarify.
It would be hilarious if Snowden and his companions tried to get seats on that flight, but could not, because it was already fully booked by these proactive journalists.
What is he insinuating by saying something cryptic like this?
This is the first time I've noticed this usage of "Snowden". Anyone noticed it earlier?
And spying on so many of the citizens of so many allies is somehow perfectly ok?
So it's not just the spying on citizens, it's also the...uhm...spying in general.
Why should anyone care so much about him? We've heard repeatedly that what he has disclosed - a massive amount of spying on Americans and other nationals - was already known by everyone.
Who was that person who said: If you are worried about someone discovering your "secret" activities, then maybe you be doing those activities in the first place.
Maybe the sooner politicians accept that "frictionless sharing" is the future, the better off we'll all be? What do you think?
Other commenters have pointed out that most users outside HN do not care about data privacy. So why should politicians care? Are they a special case? I thought they represent the views of their constituents.
Why can't we have Clinton back as Secretary of State?