Equally he has not been given the penalty of "exile." There is nothing the U.S. would like more than to have Snowden return to U.S. soil.
This stretching of the truth does not engender trust.
This stretching of the truth does not engender trust.
"Exile means to be away from one's home (i.e. city, state or country), while either being explicitly refused permission to return and/or being threatened with imprisonment or death upon return." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exile
Before calling into question the truth of statements made by a public figure please look up the common definition.
Update:
Websters does not use this exact definition, being a more compact format than wikipedia, but if you look under the examples in Websters you will see "Many chose to live as exiles rather than face persecution." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exile
To argue that any person who cannot return to their home country without being arrested is "extralegally exiled" would mean that any fugitive is "extralegally exiled," an absurd result.
1. Threats Made by the US Government: Obama's statements such that Snowden is not worth the effort of an expensive extra-legal killing (“not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker”) by a president that has engaged in many extra-legal killings, at least one against a US citizen, is a threat of extra-legal action. For instance if someone sent a letter that said "I'd kill you but you aren't worth the bullets" would be interpreted by many courts as a threat. Furthermore direct threats of extra-legal killing have been made by other members of the US government.
2. Prior Actions Against Snowden: The fact that Obama has attempted to use trade deals and threats to prevent Snowdens asylum appeals suggests that Obama and the US government is not willing to give Snowden a fair hearing since they are manipulating the international system of asylum to prevent him from getting a fair hearing internationally.
3.Prior Pattern of Action Against Other Whistle Blowers: Obamas illegal treatment of Bradley Manning is part of a pattern going back before Obama of illegal mistreatment of whistle blowers by the US government.
Given this evidence I would argue that the threat of extra-legal punishment is very much real and has been publicly communicated to all involved parties. The reality and communication of this threat to Snowden makes a very strong case for the claim that he has been extra-legally exiled.
If the charges are without merit then one of the very same judges that Snowden feels should be involved in these types of surveillance programs will throw them out.
Snowden's exile may very well be extralegal, but both the exile and the extralegality of it are on Snowden himself.
No, he's chosen to avoid the US explicitly to avoid torture.
There's nothing legal about that.
If so, I would think Snowden would have made that his moral priority to emphasize. There's no reason to fear "turnkey tyranny" (as he said) when we're already living in a torture regime, is there? In that case there's no key to turn, it's already here!
Torturing those who leak information prior to trial is something that the US government has already demonstrated a willingness to do. It's simply disgraceful - a national shame.
And why limit yourself to NSA whistleblowers, a government that has crossed this line has crossed that line in general, not just for some class. All this 'just NSA whistleblowers', 'just whistleblowers', 'just foreigners', 'just enemy combatants' and so on isn't fooling anybody.
Some lines you just don't cross, lest you become that which you claim to fight.
Because the claim isn't that "the USA has tortured people". The claim is that the USA will torture Snowden. Given the wide disparity in justice systems utilized for U.S. citizens, "enemy combatants", and U.S. military, you have to at least make that broad type of distinction to evaluate the probability of the claim that Snowden will be tortured if he returns.
There's no end to the things you can do or refuse to do if your only justification for that action (or lack thereof) is that a government has, at some time, tortured somebody somewhere.
I agree wholeheartedly that the U.S. needs to account for instances where they torture, but that also doesn't completely invalidate the whole government.
Because there are no bored, humorless Marines in charge of whatever Federal prison Snowden would end up in. I would surmise he should expect the same treatment as any other civilian accused of a Federal felony.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_...
By the way you might have to click on "link" to reply; I think the thread nesting is too deep.
I hope I haven't given the impression that I think prolonged solitary confinement is acceptable. But I will say that the idea of someone as infamous as Snowden being put in solitary without actually trying to shank someone is implausible IMHO. Manning's supporters managed to get him transferred out of a military brig, after all, and Snowden's is a much more sympathetic case (with much more international attention to boot).
By the Wikipedia definition above every criminal who flees the country to avoid arrest is by definition in exile. Skipping town because you want to avoid a crime isn't being in exile, it is being on the run.
From Wikipedia: Exile means to be away from one's home (i.e. city, state or country), while either being explicitly refused permission to return and/or being threatened with imprisonment or death upon return.
And no, the use of the word "Torture" is not hyperbole in this case; no matter what technicalities you sugar coat it with; the US Government lacks all credibility on the issue of human rights at this time.
Whether you think he did a good thing or a bad thing, it's clear that Snowden is, by his own acknowledgment, guilty of multiple counts of serious felonies in the United States. The government is acting as expected, given this fact.
That the US government is acting as we might expect rather than allowing a congressional investigation into these clearly unconstitutional programs and the legal smokescreen that was designed to prevent any challenge to their legality; is not an advertisement for it's good faith towards the citizenry.
Yes, absolutely. Are there any English speakers who wouldn't?
Exile means to be away from one's home (i.e. city, state or country), while either being explicitly refused permission to return and/or being threatened with imprisonment or death upon return.
So he's probably not so much worried about whether or not he can return to the U.S., but rather what would happen to him when he did.
"Exile means to be away from one's home (i.e. city, state
or country), while either being explicitly refused
permission to return and/or being threatened with
imprisonment or death upon return." [0]
They haven't revoked his citizenship... just his passport. That doesn't remove citizenship, just the ability to travel abroad.
It's not self-imposed exile if returning to the US is a non-option due to their DEMONSTRATED TENDENCY to deny prisoners their basic human rights.
Still: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5974040
I think effectively it is a bad situation which has been created for him by the United States government. They are definitely manipulating his citizenship for their purposes whether you like the wording or not.
And this isn't about just being questioned. If he is extradited back to the US, expect a lot worse to happen to him...
What he has done is no doubt illegal, but it also strikes me as a positive thing. I disagree with people that say he is a fugitive from justice - I think it's very clear that he is a fugitive from injustice. He has shown us injustices from the US government - and now they wish to have him stand trial in order that they can lock him up for life, sentence him to death or torture him.
Is there a difference between Snowden and other criminals? Yes, Snowden has done the right thing.