Snowden needs "world's protection", says Venezuelan President
reuters.com
reuters.com
I wonder what would happen to an officer of the SEBIN (venezuelan inteligence agency)if they came out with details about how they record every political opponent movement. I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up being just another statistic in the homicide rates.
They even had a late night TV show (La Hojilla) where a guy would play back cell phone recordings and emails of the opposition politicians.Live. On TV. He had carte blanche to insult,record anyone he wanted live on TV. Chavez would often call in to the show to congratulate him.
They even had a Congress session where they played recordings of the cell phone calls of the most prominent opposition members and their family. And that was live on TV again!
Hipocrysy at it's best.
If not, then how can any individual whistle blow against a country with the power and reach of the US? We have the aggrieved party, a whole state, hunting down an individual for exposing its wrong doing. Its a little bit one sided.
Although the problem with the UN is that its loaded with US allies and money.
But there should be some safe harbour, with fair process, for people who speak out, where ever they come from and from who ever they are exposing.
"In journalism, jet set was a term for an international social group of wealthy people, organizing and participating all around the world in social activities unreachable to ordinary people. The term, which replaced "café society", came from the lifestyle of traveling from one stylish or exotic place to another via jet plane."
I'm pretty sure that tern doesn't apply to Snowden, a man who said he's fleeing because he's afraid of spending the rest of his life in some "torture dungeon" off the grid.
Fair process. Counties with nothing to hide....
Yes most countries might have a problem with it, when considered alone. But, if all countries knew that it equally applied to all, and that there is a fair process of sorting out what is reasonable to "blow" and what should happen, it could benefit all.
So, in this case, an independent review might separate out what is public interest and what it not, and what should happen to Snowden. It could benefit the US.
Such an organisation should be the place the whistle blower goes to, not runs to after the "damage" is done.
No, I don't have it all worked out. I am not a lawyer. Yes I can see how difficult it would be to get it right. However, that does not negate the idea and value of having a structure to do this with in. Of course it will never ever be perfect, but I say something is better than nothing. Whistle blowers could still do their own thing and take what ever risk the like. No UN organisation will stop that unstoppable freedom.
>>> Although the problem with the UN is that its loaded with US allies and money.
UN has China as a veto-power member and dozens of countries where you can be murdered for mere disagreeing with the government or choosing wrong religion to follow are voting members. And you say US is the problem with UN?
That's my problem with current critics of the US policies in the US. They think since US government is overreaching and shows signs of corruption, there's nothing worse than it and they are ready to go to everyone - including organisations hundred times more corrupt and having infinitely lower standards of human rights - because there could be nothing worse than US government. Please believe it, there can be something much, much worse - and the UN is chock full of it.
I remember seeing anti-government graffiti late at night one night, and the following afternoon it had been replaced with a portrait of Chavez. The people who I talked to who were members of the opposition party were uncomfortable talking about voting against Chavez. Admittedly this was way back in 2006, but it still points to Venezuela not being the most free country.
I went in expecting a dictatorship and left feeling that it was a democracy. Or at least much more than a hopeless dictatorship as all the articles I read made it sound. There did exist fear about expressing anti-Chavez sentiment in and around the barrios[1], but this was mainly due to fear of the people in these areas being dangerous and potentially lashing out. And in fact, many people were just scared of the barrios period.
[1] Poorer, temporary-turned permament housing throughout the city, if anyone isn't familiar.
It also means there are informant systems which keep an eye out for 'troublemakers' (opposition ideas) and people don't open up completely about their dissatisfaction.
Christopher Anderson[1],[2] is left of center and he felt disappointed to put it mildly, at what he saw in VZ.
[1]http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essay/capitolio
[2]http://5b4.blogspot.com/2009/08/capitolio-by-christopher-and...
He essentially sacrificed the economic stability of the country to win elections. While its not a nice thing to do for the future of the country its understandable that you could win an election legitimately using such a tactic.
Let's be realistic: at this point, the only countries that would offer him asylum at the cost of defying the US are enemies of the US, such as Afghanistan, Iran or Cuba.
That's one reason I think the Bobby Fischer asylum was easier for Iceland: he was wanted by the U.S. for a one-time thing, violating sanctions by playing a for-profit chess match in Serbia. There was not much chance he would be an ongoing thorn in the side of US-Icelandic relations post-asylum, since he could hardly continue to violate US sanctions from Iceland. The main risk was just that he would say embarrassingly antisemitic conspiracy-theory stuff, which he got sort of a pass on because people expect chess prodigies to be nuts.
> "He deserves the world's protection. He has not asked us for it yet. When he does we will give our answer," Maduro told Reuters during a visit to Moscow.
Now I think he has some sensitive information and he's auctioning it and he has raised his profile to avoid being removed.
That would make him a full-blown traitor.
Since the USA is not -- legally -- at war and none of the "terrists" the military is pursuing are able to offer asylum, it would not be treason.
It would surely be espionage, though. And that's bad enough.