Venezuela, Bolivia offer asylum to U.S. intel leaker Snowden | Hacker News Reader

Venezuela, Bolivia offer asylum to U.S. intel leaker Snowden

cnn.com

125 pointsesalazar62 comments

It really is the most wonderful irony that the US's apparent heavy-handed actions over Morales' plane ended up biting them in the ass.

As an American, I really do want to know, though -- who are the ham-fisted officials in charge of overseeing Snowden's prosecution? Who was the actual official who made the decision to tell France and Spain not to let Morales land? And who are the officials in France and Spain who decided to obey? (And are they still denying it?)

I mean, regardless of what you think about Snowden, the level of American incompetence here, the way our officials are simply disrespecting other governments and peoples of the world, is really astounding. It's shameful, and I wish I knew who the bumbling officials actually are.

I don't know why many assume the U.S. was behind this. France and Italy have their own spy programs and the less said the better, so blocking him could have forced Snowden back to Russia to accept Putin's terms (stop talking) or cause his capture.

Well that's why I said "apparent". But it is awfully hard to believe that a country would independently take the seemingly unprecedented step of dening landing privileges to a sitting head of state, "just because" -- when Snowden has had nothing to do with either France or Spain.

And it's even harder to believe that two countries both would.

I had assumed the U.S. was behind it, but P.J. Crowley doesn't think so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv0AOpfeN6k#t=428s

Austrian officials (the country where Morales had to land) told the press that the US ambassador in Vienna (William Eacho) informed our government that Snowden is on that plane and we should stop and search it.

And France said it was all a big misunderstanding and he could have crossed. After the fact, when the spin control kicks in.

These decisions are being made in the Oval Office-- President Obama is directly supervising the manhunt. He's even talked publicly about his approach in a press conference.

Any chance of a link?

I've lived in Bolivia for a year when Evo Morales was already president. I've also been to Venezuela.

Assuming the CIA won't try to actually abduct him there and Morales will stay in power, Bolivia is a perfect choice in many ways. Morales is totally trustworthy. The country is very safe and less militarized than Venezuela. Policy is somewhat more moderate, basically based on social democratic ideas as they are seen in Europe. There is a history of corruption, but this is mostly in the lower layers of government and police and elections are probably not affected.

Venezuela, however, can actually protect him once he is inside the country. Bolivia probably can't.

    Venezuela, however, can actually protect 
    him once he is inside the country. Bolivia 
    probably can't.

Why do you think Venezuela can protect him better than Bolivia?

I am bolivian and live in Bolivia, this is one of the most accurate comments about my country I've read from a foreign.

If you have questions about how is here, I will try to be as objective as I can. (Disclaimer: I am not into politics, I am a geek/hacker :) ).

It's so good that at least two states have the balls to stand up to the USA and offer asylum against what is obviously a political manhunt.

As a Norwegian, I'm ashamed that our government and bureaucracy is too scared to stand up for our moral values. If Snowden was from Somalia, we would have granted him asylum with no further discussion. It's ridiculous that a (former) "banana republic" is the only nation that dares take this issue seriously. They may have their own agenda, but facts are facts.

Honest question, as I'm not familiar with the country: Isn't it still a "banana republic"? (In the democratic sense - as I suppose it's what you meant.)

"Banana Republic" means to me a country which government is at the service of foreign corporations. Under this definition, no, neither Venezuela or Bolivia are banana republics.

Is Venezuela a healthy democracy? Well, we have one of the best electoral systems in the world, so at least you can be sure that the people elected are the ones who got more votes. More than 70% of turn out in non compulsory elections. Probably you've heart differently, and that's because Venezuelan have the bad habit to vote for people not liked by western interests. Venezuela has been criticized for attacking the media too. That brings the idea of hundreds of reporters imprisoned and rampant censure. What it really means is that the current and previous president dared to criticize the media monopoly that was, among other things, accomplice in at least two attempts to overthrow the constitutional government.

Venezuela isn't a paradise of institutionalism, but at least I can say that today we are freer than 20 years ago when nobody heart about Venezuela in the media. That was the time when the country was sold as an "example for democracy for all Latin America."

> Is Venezuela a healthy democracy? Well, we have one of the best electoral systems in the world, so at least you can be sure that the people elected are the ones who got more votes.

The same cannot be told about the USA, either because of the indirect voting system or because of Florida.

This is a hugely nitpicky thing, seeing as you clearly know at least two languages more or less as well as I know one, but you used 'heart' a couple times when you meant 'heard.'

I find these comments naive. The political leaders of these countries derive significant political capital by whacking the US piñata to cover up for domestic issues. They already have poor/no relationship so there is no loss there. So this is just a cynical ploy to bolster or shore up domestic political support. Therefore we're cheering one sides actions for cynical political gain and criticism others who turn him down for domestic political reasons.

Actions and results matter more than words and intent. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is better than doing the wrong thing for any reason.

My point exactly.

obviously a political manhunt

Are you suggesting that Snowden was charged with a crime for his politics and not his actions?

No, he's suggesting that he's being hunted due to political opinion, which is something the US Govt themselves protect other whistle-blowers from (provided it's not their activity that's being exposed):

> Asylum may be granted to people who are already in the United States and are unable or unwilling to return their home country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

-- http://www.immihelp.com/gc/asylum.html

No. There was probably a crime involved. But Snowden is a classic example of a whistleblower, which the US Government has been harsly persecuting through the legal system. The response is completely out of proportion to the crime - in effect grounding the private plane of a foreign head of state, which would be considered an act of war if it was done to Air Force One. If this was a simple question of a crime, it would be handled through INTERPOL and the normal legal channels. It is currently handled with international diplomacy at the highest levels.

This makes it seem pretty obvious that the prosecution/persecution is due to a fear that future whistleblowers will reveal more illegal activity in the US government and that this attention will cause a backlash from the public. Remember that the programs Snowden revealed are very likely illegal, at the very least violating the US Constitution.

I am claiming that Edward Snowden and similar whistleblowers are political enemies of the US Government (though not necessarily the people of the United States), and that this is why they are treated so harshly.

[Edit: Typo fix.]

The clear difference from your typical wistleblower case is that Snoden allegedly downloaded significant classified material, threatened to release this material, and has traveled to a cointry that would be a primary benefactor of this classified information. So, Snow den created this very unusual case.

Why do you think your government is scared?

Snowden should be called a "public informant", not a leaker, whistleblower, etc. Typically, informants are insiders who help police, etc. "Informant" has a positive connotation. So if the government has their informants: FBI informant, police informant, etc. we the people should have a "Public Informant".

Oddly enough, the term "whistleblower" was coined specifically to avoid the perceived negative connotations of the term "informant": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower#Origin_of_term

Interesting, the negative connotation might have been a legacy of prohibition.

It's unfortunate that people don't feel the same about the war on drugs, simply because it mostly effects minorities.

I don't think so. I have a negative connotation and I am not American. I would more guess it is American propaganda around the war of drugs which is trying to make informant sound like a good thing.

When I hear informant I think of organizations like Stasi.

It's more "collaborator" a bit east from you, "informant" has a more neutral meaning here.

Interesting. While "informant" on its own has negative connotations to me (rat, disloyalty, etc.), "public informant" actually sounds nice, because it's understood to be in the public's interest.

For me, Snowden's actions are beyond mere whistleblowing, and the term sounds restrictive, almost trivial to me. He hasn't revealed a few broken laws or certain instances of corruption. Instead, he's revealing to the public the kinds of fundamental information we should have had all along, in a properly functioning democracy -- and this is far more important.

I like the idea of having an additional term for the likes of Snowden, or those who revealed the Pentagon Papers, and so on.

Heh, as I saw some people commenting, Evo Morales incident only would push the entire South America to end giving Snowden Asylum...

In fact this whole thing is being very interesting, because one guy is managing to create multiple diplomatic incidents, I would not be surprised if this end in some sort of war, or a breakup of alliances or trade zones.

I have a bad feeling, that's how wars are started...

If this become a war, who will be blamed, Snowden? US presidents with their terrible policies? Osama Bin Laden for giving incentive to the terrible policies? US presidents for training Osama Bin Laden in first place? Russia for invading Afghanistan and giving reason to train Osama Bin Laden?

I think it all depends on who wins in the end. Too bad, the common people always lose.

No mention of the people who elect these leaders?

Bin Laden is definitely the Gavrilo Princip, but I disagree with the opinion that our leaders were just innocently and emotionally reacting to 9/11, as most of Bush's cabinet consisted of hardcore, , Team B[1], neoconservative ideologues.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B

I don't think they were innocently reacting, I think that people innocently[1] let them do it, and that this was Bin Laden's intention.

[1] I stopped short of saying dumbly.

History is written by the victors

Not sure this quote is quite as relevant as it used to be, due to the extreme ubiquity of information storage.

History may not be written anymore, but surely is told by the victorious.

If the US (according to Obama) wasn't about to 'scramble the jets' to catch Snowden, then I'm not sure they are willing to start a war over a country granting him asylum.

I don't see US starting the war, I see OTHER COUNTRIES starting the war over US actions...

The entire south america is pissed off for example, and I've seen people here talking about trying to convince europeans to join us in a anti-US war, WWII style (ie: demonize the US and throw the entire world against it).

And it might work, plainly because US policies since WWII mostly pissed everyone off, almost all countries have reasons to want to see US destroyed, and I am pretty sure that with enough incentive, you might end with the entire world attacking the US...

Other possible scenarios are EU civil war, South America vs EU war, or Asian countries starting their own already incoming wars during this chaos, hoping to drag one western country or another to their side.

Are you just being ridiculous right now? Chile, Uruguay, and Mexico for instance are strong U.S. allies. Argentina, Brazil, Columbia, and virtually every other country that hasn't given Snowden asylum would back America in the event of "World War III", which would end fairly fast.

Mexico is not part of South America. I agree about Chile. Uruguay is small, corrupt and almost controlled by the US.

I strongly disagree about Argentina and Brazil backing America. I'm not sure if you know much everyone hates the US in South America. And for good reasons: Just look at the history of the Americas in the 70s, 80s and even 90s.

And what do you even mean by World War III?

I wouldn't count on Argentinia. They seem to be quite unease over the Falkland issue and if the opportunity is right still willing to take on former colonial powers.

Can the world afford to attack the US? I figure there is too much money flowing through the country which would prevent that from happening as they would be alienating US corporations.

This is absolutely, without any doubt, the stupidest, least intelligent and most ridiculous and sensationalist comment ever to appear on the internet, or to be expressed in any other form. What reasons do almost all countries have for wanting to see the US destroyed? What reasons do these countries that hate the US so much have to destroy the entirety of world trade? I can't believe this thought was formed in a human brain.

That will not happen. Whatever the US does, it will only bring the countries of South America even closer together.

It is EU that might breakup, or Nato, and so on... Those that I am refering as broken alliances.

NATO at the moment is basically just "U.S. + anyone else who wants to help"

With the info that NATO has been used to spy on the E.U. I definitely see incentive for a separate European military arrangement.

Which, by the way, would be incredibly important to stabilize the EU.

The death of Arch-duke Franz Ferdinand was a major catalyst for the first World War, quite often these small events (when compared to the scale of a war) can be the little pushes which finally tip a country over the edge.

Sort of reminds me of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Archduke_Franz...

This would never happen. Even Venezuela is not stopping their oil exports to the U.S.

Didn't Bolivia just cancel a free trade agreement with the US?

This is what happens when you push an entire (sub?)continent to feel like they must flip you back for embarassing one of their own

I just wish to believe that this was not an accidental event but well thought out strategy by Wikileaks/Russia.

Two countries led by the some of the most leftist leaders != entire "(sub?)continent"

Judging by those who have not granted Snowden asylum, there are many more who support the U.S. than otherwise.

Not granting Snowden asylum does not mean those countries support the US. It means that the US has significant influence it can hold over them.

It also could mean that they don't care about the whole affair enough to get involved on either side.

I think on of wikileaks misstakes was to apply for asylum in 21 countries. Make it easier for the countries to say no. It is like hichhicking. Chanses of you getting picked up at a road where the drivers of the cars know that there is only one car in one hour is higher then getting picked up at a high trafic road. Same psychology.

You may be correct if getting asylum was the only purpose of the spray and pray request. To me, it seems to have filled another purpose also, to show the people of the requested countries where their governments stand. For example, the French government's come under quite heavy fire for their handling of the situation.

Snowden is playing chess.

The end-game is that he will always be looking over his shoulder, whether it's a new host government that wants to score points with Washington or a contractor collecting a bounty placed on his head. Or, anxiety of previous could get him.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com