Snowden withdraws Russian asylum bid after Putin says he must 'stop harming' US | Hacker News Reader

Snowden withdraws Russian asylum bid after Putin says he must 'stop harming' US

worldnews.nbcnews.com

95 pointsjoshfraser56 comments

As an outsider looking in, I don't really see it as harming the US, just the US government, by exposing how the US government are harming its people. I think this is how Putin has worded it too, he hasn't said "harming the US" but "US partners". It's horrible that there is such a distinction because the ideal should be the government is the equivalent of the people.

Arguably, revealing the details of cyber attacks on Chinese targets harms the US in the ongoing cyber warefare between the two.

I do think Snowden harmed the US somewhat with the leaks. By revealing what the government is doing, he made the US less popular with the world, and made companies and foreigners (and US citizens) less willing to do business with US based companies, for fear of the NSA. In the medium/long term, I have little doubt that Snowden helped the US, but short term, it is reasonable to say he did harm.

Most nationalists, and certainly all government employees, do not make such a distinction.

> If #Snowden can't find asylum, it will be depressingly clear that the US not only eavesdrops on the world but runs it.

- @JPBarlow https://twitter.com/jpbarlow/status/351937848217317380

I am trying to imagine what leverage we have over Russia.

> I am trying to imagine what leverage we have over Russia.

It's not about leverage, it's about the rules of the game.

Russia and the US manage to be on fairly good diplomatic terms whilst both spending large amounts of money spying on the other. Because it's important to both countries that the diplomatic channels don't collapse completely certain 'expectations' have evolved around intelligence gathering and espionage.

Case in point: if you happened to work for the CIA/FBI and walked into the Russian embassy to try and defect there's a very strong chance the Russians would shop you back to the US (this happened to Robert Hannsen after the fall of the USSR - it was only because of a FBI screw-up he wasn't caught).

It's just not worth the pain for Russia. They almost certainly already have better intelligence on the NSA than Snowden could provide. It's naive to imagine they don't have any human intelligence already in place on that front.

Snowden is nothing more than a pawn for Russia. They will grant him asylum if it suits their needs. If Russia think they can gain more from handing over Snowden than granting him asylum/sending him off to another (friendly) country they will. He has become a pawn in the political game, unsurprisingly.

Is it worth more to annoy USA or reaping potential benefits from handing him over for Russia? I don't know, time will tell.

The U.S. and Russia are still large strategic and economic partners. There's other political balls being juggled around, like the ongoing conflict in Syria. It's not necessarily "leverage"

> I am trying to imagine what leverage we have over Russia.

Russians don't want a cold war again

It never ended, at least not in the eyes of governments.

I was thinking about this, and maybe they have recorded Putin et al admitting fraud in the last Russian elections?

Why would they need to have that? Everyone (especially the Russians) know it's faked already...

They are slapping the Russians where they hurt most - their wallets. They are probably threatening to lock or freeze Russian head honcho's accounts.

Russia wants to have him as a possible tool to press the USA in the future - that is why they want him to stop the leaking now - when all is leaked he'll be of no value to them.

By rejecting these terms Snowden shows character - but he is now in a really bad situation. Requesting asylum in Poland (where one of the secret CIA prisons was located) was an act of desperation.

Please. Snowden was never going to be a tool for Russia. He is nothing but an inconvenient annoyance to them. They have all the leverage they need simply by having veto power on the UNSC.

It is more a case of Putin being in an untenable position. If he capitulates and hands him over to the US then he will be seen internally as weak. But he needs to maintain and strengthen relations with the US. So allowing him to stay but telling him to shut up is the best compromise they can come up with.

That is pure speculation on your part. The other side could be that Snowden wants to continue leaking information and thus "harming" the United States.

There yet another side to this: by signing that he "stops harming the US", Snowden would sign that he "is currently harming the US".

Speculation - sure, what else can we do now - but I don't really understand why 'Snowden wants to continue leaking' is incompatible with any one of my theses, this is probably his motivation and this is why he is rejecting the Russian offer. But still I am sure he also understands that if he stays in Russia he'll be subjected to all kinds of pressures.

Possible reason why Poland was among those countries: The wave of anti-ACTA protests was the strongest in Poland of all European countries. We are historically a rebellious, freedom-loving nation (just think of the the anti-communist movement, many uprisings against foreign occupants). So Snowden might be hoping for some public support from Poland's youth.

But yeah, if you remember how stupidly long the Polish government held out in their support of ACTA (despite its having few advantages for Poland), you have to realize that the US Government can be very persuasive.

> Russia wants to have him as a possible tool to press the USA in the future

Have you been following what's going on? It's becoming clear that Russia wants nothing to do with him.

And it's understandable: harboring Snowden would damage their relationship with the US considerably, and the US and Russia are too close allies to let this happen, especially since there is very little for Russia to gain from Snowden.

> Have you been following what's going on? It's becoming clear that Russia wants nothing to do with him.

Citation needed!

Yes, from all countries in the region, Poland is probably the closest to the US.

Snowden withdraws Russian asylum bid after Putin says he must 'stop harming' US

This title strongly implies that he seeks to harm the US. Let the media marauding begin. I really don't feel that Snowden looked to harm the US, but rather hold the country he was serving accountable for what it was and still may be doing.

I still fail to see how revealing intelligence actions by the USG against other countries helps hold them accountable, especially when it is the same sort of thing every other country takes part in.

Other countries weren't built on our constitution and bill of rights. I understand why the surveillance was implemented under the Bush admin, since we were fighting an elusive collective (terrorism). What needs to be held accountable is the overreach into violating our civil privacy rights.

At the very least he was indifferent to harming the US government. Despite the opinions of many commentors on HN this is not the same thing as defending the interests of US citizens (or indeed citizens of the world).

When I read that title and the source, to me, it just looked like NBC trying rally the general public to defame Snowden's character and view him as having his own interests at heart.

I agree with you that Snowden's actions was to reveal what the administration was doing and overreaching in its power. How do you protest our government's action without evidence, reputation, and without being dragged in the general media....it's not possible without looking like a conspiracy theorist.

This is why I respect Snowden. He gave up everything... safety, great pay, family... for what he believes in.

Prism has done more harm to the USA that anything Snowden did. Let's not shift the blame away from the guilties. And the guilties are those who abuse their power in the name of security, along with those who let it happen ( the entire executive branch and congress basically ). Or would you prefer not to know anything about it ?

Obama says there are "checks and balances", there are none. Given the situation today , it's not difficult to imagine what the situation will be 10 years from now. And putting republicans in power wont make a difference.

Frankly i dont know if there is any solution to that problem. Politicians never give up willing the power they steal from the people.

Good luck america.

> Prism has done more harm to the USA that anything Snowden did.

We don't know that.

And if we were to speculate, we could observe that there have been very few terrorist attacks on the US in the past ten years. I'm not trying to equate correlation and causation here, just pointing out that very few people on the planet are able to assess whether PRISM is beneficial or detrimental to the security of the US.

> And if we were to speculate, we could observe that there have been very few terrorist attacks on the US in the past ten years.

Is that accurate? The list I found on Wikipedia indicates it is not but perhaps you have a better source of information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

> Prism has done more harm to the USA that anything Snowden did.

PRISM is nothing more than subpoena and warrant compliance in a digital age.

Stuff like the mass collection of all internet traffic is far more concerning, but that isn't what PRISM does.

Can't see Snowden harming America. Pretty sure America is harming itself.

It would be funny if people realized that Snowden giving himself up will cause harm to America (or more precisely its reputation). I just laugh at the absurdity of Putin's statement in that light.

All these page-long news articles published in the last couple of weeks usually consist of one bit of useful information - in this case the first paragraph - and then the same things over and over again. It doesn't even cite the source, let alone name it (no, "a government spokesman" is not a source). I feel like many news websites just use the issue to throw out as much content containing the word "Snowden" as possible these days, and I'm finding it hard to gather new information in this ocean of entropy.

I wonder if it's as simple as the old rule of the streets being at play here? That is, if the USA and Russia are rival gang members, they would each look poorly on "snitches" even if they are from the other side.

There's something to that thought -- the phrase "I love treason but hate a traitor" is from Shakespeare, and has been attributed to many leaders (such as Julius Ceasar) but captures the essence of the point.

I find it incredible that Snowden can't seem to find asylum; does the process take longer than I thought, or is there something deeper going on?

It appears to my untrained eye that rather than force a state to hand him over, the U.S. is simply pressuring them to deny (or stall) his asylum requests. It's a face-saving neutral ground for the nations in question, but it still gets the U.S. what it wants.

My government has a history of treating whistleblowers harshly when they embarrass either the government or the government's corporate masters. Our laws applied to whistleblowers are much harsher than in other countries (at least in the UK and most of Europe) so our government has powerful weapons to intimidate possible future whistleblowers.

I think Snowden knew his life would effectively be over before he started this.

Well if true then the move makes no sense. Why would he ruin any chance of getting out of the airport if that's where he is? Also, if he really is there then why have no photographs of him been taken? Surely there is at least a couple (sarcasm) of people that go through the airport each day? Where is this guy and why don't we see his face anymore?

More than likely he is holed up in a special area of the airport, detained or guarded by Russian special services.

He could be testing waters to see how different countries react, just to see what their true colours or at least public ones are.

Well , there is no freedom of speech in russia , but there is none in most European countries neither. He should chose carefully where he wants to go. I'd suggest him to avoid France and UK. Dont know about other european countries.

Here is an example though not related to the Snowden/NSA affair.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2013/06/a-gross-...

In what sense there is no freedom of speech in Russia?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/gay-propagand...

It doesn't make any sense. Gay propaganda is considered to be a crime and it is normal to restrict this crime. Meanwhile one could discuss is it correct to consider such a thing as a crime or not.

I think what air was saying is that in the US, propaganda, of any sort, cannot be a crime, due to the 1st amendment to the US constitution. That is freedom of speech.

Well, it could be so de jure in USA. But de facto we see opposite. Snowden mentioned unconstitutional violation of human rights of US citizen. And now he is hunted by US government, seriously hunted.

Russia is way more open in this perspective.

He did more than just 'mention' it, he stoled government property and disseminated classified information to the public. I'm not saying what he did was 'wrong', but it is illegal and not particularly a free speech issue.

I'm not sure how anyone could say Russia's 'way more open' with a straight face[1].

[1]: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/24/world/europe/russia-free-speec...

These people didn't negotiate this meeting. This is the formal reason.

Informal reason is that they are often organized by the institutions which funded by other countries, institutions, which aim is definitely not a prohibition of Russia.

May be it is a good idea to avoid judgements about countries/cultures, which you don't understand?

>Gay propaganda is considered to be a crime and it is normal to restrict this crime

You asked about freedom of speech, but can't see a problem with what you've said? By your apparent logic, merely declaring something a crime is all the justification you need to restrict freedom of speech.

This is how law based states work, do you love it or not.

I think appropriate analogy is anti-segragation laws in US.

Segregation is not, strict speaking, always illegal in the U.S. though. Nor is taking action to segregate people normally considered "speech".

I meant you could be sued for public racial statements (corresp. gay propaganda). But you could talk about admissibility of such a statements.

That's just it. Being a racist/bigot and saying racist/bigoted things is not illegal in the U.S. Witness the Ku Klux Klan, or the Westboro Baptist Church.

Inciting violence against specific groups is illegal, but inciting violence in general is illegal already anyways.

Perhaps you should educate yourself a bit about US civil and criminal laws prohibiting hate speech, before posting.

Here, I'll save you the trouble: there aren't any.

In Canada, where I live, your comparison would be correct (though not in the US). I happen to disagree with the way Canadian law works in this regard, too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com