Snowden Is Said to Renew Plea for Asylum in Russia
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
A few days ago:
>Edward Snowden has withdrawn an application for asylum in Russia, apparently deciding that he couldn't abide by President Vladimir Putin's insistence that he stop leaking U.S. secrets, a Kremlin spokesman said Tuesday.
http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-edward-s...
First, Hong Kong is a perfect place to avoid extradition. Despite that, he then goes to Moscow. He applies for asylum in Russia, then revokes it, then applies again.
I'm getting more and more skeptical of any claims that all of Snowden's actions are part of some brilliant plan.
Regarding Russia, were Russia going to grant him asylum they would of course want to smooth it to the greatest extent possible, so it's entirely possible the earlier dance was a part of the show (Russia showing itself as a concerned partner, perhaps hoping for some American demonstrations of overreach that would legitimize the asylum request, such as attempt to harm or abduct Snowden). He is in Russia, so neither side has any need to rush things.
Not saying it's all a part of some brilliant plan, but things seldom are as straightforward as they seem.
And the damage was made by US government alone. The leaks were small enough to just let the whole thing die down. But by wasting enormous amounts of diplomatic efforts and capital they managed to lose face in front of the whole world.
I assume he didn't expect US would invalidate his passport that quickly, and get stuck in Russia. He wanted to flee to South America (Ecuador, most likely). But then he got stuck and Russia, and now he needs to adapt accordingly. Getting stuck in Russia wasn't in his plan, I believe.
He should have. In fact, the US were incredibly slow in doing it- they could have stopped him travelling to Russia in the first place.
This is a very dynamic situation. I'm not going to fault the guy for trying, but he is obviously out-gunned. Everyday he avoids U.S. custody is a win. Personally, I think there needs to be greater efforts made at home to protect his status as a whistle blower. The current administration obviously isn't losing their interest in getting him. Perhaps the next one will be different (not holding my breath).
Flag waivers aren't going to mind because the government is "just trying to keep them safe".
This is deliciously ironic timing -- just yesterday, the US Embassy in Russia released a statement condemning the posthumous conviction of tax fraud whistleblower Sergei Magnitsky [2].
[1] https://twitter.com/RyanLizza/statuses/355704161536450562
As a whole, American voters have a really short memory. After 8 years of one party running the country into the ground, they will gladly elect a member of the other party, and then repeat the cycle after another 8 years of the same.
The worst part is that while even a bad plan can achieve marginal success, completely changing course every eight years guarantees failure.
Of the remainder, a lot of people seem to buy the narrative that Obama's hands are in some sense tied, or believe that his judgement should be trusted and that he has our best interests at heart etc etc.
This reminded me of when the NYT helped the Bush administration make a case for invading Iraq.
The writing in the NYT is good and I generally enjoy it, but I want impartial news coverage that seems easier to get by a random sampling from a few international news sources on any story I am interested in.
Loud flushing noise: my cancelled New York Times subscription.
Besides the White House petition, what organized efforts are underway to bring this guy back without rebuke?
Plus, personally, I would rather come back to the U.S. and stand for what I did because (1) South America isn't exactly the most healthy place. (2) The socialist governments are using Snowden to get back at the U.S. and some of the rhetoric the south american officials said upon accepting his request would scare me more than facing a public trial. (3) If it was actually attempting to show the world what the government is doing because its morally wrong part of standing up for what you believe in is looking your enemy in the eye. He's made his point, clearly the rage the world and Americans feel is continuing to grow, festering under the surface. His best chances at survival are actually to come home and face the enemy, than run and get murdered in his sleep or simply disappear.