Snowden's Asylum: 'It's the law, stupid' | Hacker News Reader

Snowden's Asylum: 'It's the law, stupid'

aljazeera.com

332 pointsfilipmaertens187 comments

Obama's cancellation of the summit with Putin over Russia's granting of asylum to one individual must be the most impotent foreign policy action for a quite a while.

To maintain a bit of American dignity, at least Obama could have pretended that catching a 30 year old hacker was less important than improving the relationship between the two largest military powers on the planet.

I can only see the move explained as internal American politics.

You do realize that is only one if the many reason why the meeting was canceled? Theres a long laundry list of other, and more important, reasons. Also, Putin has canceled the three previous meetings including two when he was in the US.

No, flexie doesn't realize that, and neither does 99.9% of the rest of the worlds population. Which is exactly why it's such a stupid action.

Politics and diplomacy are all about perception. And the perception of the US throwing a major tantrum over one hacker is the impression that will stick.

Obama has just increased the damage to the image of the US, nothing else.

Also, I don't quite buy the "laundry list". He could have cancelled sooner.

99.9% of the rest of the world doesn't even know who Snowden is, what he did, or that Russia granted him temporary assylum. On top of that they probably don't even care that this meeting was canceled.

That isn't true. Part of what makes the Snowden story so significant is that a huge, huge number of people do know who he is and (at least very generally) what he did and why he is being hunted by the USA.

I don't think anybody has the numbers, but I'd bet close to one in ten adult humans alive today know who he is. Certainly hundreds of millions have heard of him, at least; the story's been on prime time TV and prominently positioned in textual news sources across Japan, Europe, Canada, and most of the democratic world, and also in totalitarian states like China and Russia.

Correction: Russia is not a totalitarian state. At least not yet. The regime is softer and closer to authoritarian. Very far from totalitarian Soviet Union.

Update. Authoritarian state does whatever it wants, but doesn't touch most people (those who don't interfere with the state). Totalitarian state does whatever it wants too, but also "cares" about all people, intervening with their movement, ideology, religion, education, job, property, family, freedom etc. Think Soviet Union or Nazi Germany.

Very far from totalitarian Soviet Union, but not far from non-totalitarian Soviet Union. Which was which?

Remember that a lot of people in the former Soviet Union remember it fondly (at least over certain periods, or places) and would not agree that it was "totalitarian," where this is understood as derogatory.

Otherwise, Putin would not be able to maintain such a persistent hold on the country.

I was using "totalitarian" as an actual property of the state, not as a derogatory term. The fact that a lot of people were okay with the regime is irrelevant here.

As for non-totalitarian Soviet Union. I think only the last few years of Gorbachev rule can be described as non-totalitarian. The control was being relaxed on many fronts: freedom of speech and press (glasnost), freedom to be elected, steps to legalize business activities (cooperatives), freedom to leave the country (May 1991), cultural freedom. Many even say that speech during glasnost was more free than today.

I'm sorry to tell you, Snowden has been big news on the rest of the world.

I'm from Uruguay, and I can personally attest that people in Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil are fully aware of Snowden (and rooting for him and against the U.S. government in this case).

It has been front page news on almost every country I know of, including all the big ones (friends and family in most countries of Europe, India and China and the UAE have confirmed this).

The person on the street here knows who Snowden is, how the U.S. spies on everybody (well, most suspected already, but it's now confirmed), etc...

European here.

My extended family is far from tech-savvy, and it's the first time I had some of them contact me to get a better understanding of what was going on, and what did that mean for them. Also, his case was debated on parliament, be it at a national or European level.

>I'm from Uruguay, and I can personally attest that people in Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil are fully aware of Snowden (and rooting for him and against the U.S. government in this case).

That's because your government pretends that it can taunt the bull that is America in order to manipulate its people into thinking its government is somehow decent. The only government that does not spy on its populace is that which is too meek to pull it off.

Don't assume all governments are tyrannical as the US.

Brazil once fired a bunch of people from intelligence AND police after they found out they cooperated, with warrants, to wiretap a known big criminal. The population was outraged, but it was clear, intelligence was not authorized to wiretap Brazilians, in fact the punishment for that was the actual removal of all.wiretapping equipment from the agency ( I think it is stupid that punishment... )

I am very sure our intelligence have no crazy ass large scale espionage like US is doing to its own citizens.

So was the 'crime' of the intelligence agents wiretapping Brazilians, or wiretapping anybody? Because to hear it on HN you'd think the U.S. would never be allowed to engage in foreign surveillance at all.

Well, our government is far from perfect, but I vastly prefer it over the one in the U.S.

You might want to read on President Mujica :) , I often disagree with him, but I do believe he's honest and he strongly defends his principles.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20243493

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mujica

Also, being a smaller country gets us more accountability and participation. I even ran for parliament :) (and for an opposing party to Mujica's, but I still respect him a lot).

Uruguayan here. We have had multiple dictatorships in our short history. We know what the government is capable of, not in theory, but in our bones.

We root for Snowden, because we share his pain.

Indeed, that is very true - though it holds much more so for the generations before mine.

I didn't live the dictatorship, but it's a big part of our lives - we have as prominent figures for political parties both President Mujica who was a guerrilla fighter, and the son of Bordaberry, the president that led to the dictatorship.

I am from Brazil, and I see even cleaning ladies talking about snowden and curious.

Also lots of people I talked think Obama is a idiot asshole ( different from Bush, viewed as a evil asshole ).

Also our government even invited Greenwald to give explanations on our Senate, our senators are very concerned.

That's an argument that could fit any set of facts. Just say "most people don't know that, and it's the optics that matter" and you can shoot down any policy.

I see your point, but I would say that if the general population sees it that way, then your "optics" truly do matter. Speculation can be extremely damaging, and that's why the president has an entire press corps to manage that image.

"Optics" do matter. I think this move was made to a greater number of political points at home than fewer ones abroad. In any case, it shouldn't be too big of a surprise since the US administration has been very clear about Snowden and their intentions from the very beginning.

For whatever set of reasons, going to summit would have made Obama and the administration look weak at home.

> For whatever set of reasons, going to summit would have made Obama and the administration look weak at home.

That is the reasoning precisely. Some of the news stories noting the cancellation are merciless in their insults to Obama: e.g. "Finally, a red line that is actually red".

it shouldn't be too big of a surprise since the US administration has been very clear about Snowden and their intentions from the very beginning.

Obama said that he was, “not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker” during a press conference in Senegal. That was a pretty straight-forward signal that he was not going to make a big deal about Snowden. Other people in the USG have been losing their proverbial shit over the situation, but Obama himself deliberately downplayed it.

Bizarrely, the US decided to flex its muscle to ground Evo Morales' plane, on the suspicion that Snowden may be on it.

Actions speak louder than words. This is obviously a much bigger issue to the Obama administration than they are saying.

Can you support that argument with evidence, or do you simply think it's self-evident that no country would disrupt Morales' flight unless the USG had pulled strings?

"While Spain said it gave Morales’ plane the go-ahead to fly over the Iberian peninsula after receiving assurance that the NSA leaker was not on board, the European nation’s foreign minister did admit that a U.S. request had led it to delay approving the over flight."

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/07/10/bolivia...

Huh! Interesting. Thank you! I hadn't seen this.

It doesn't look downplayed to me; it's a complete sentence in the White House's press release on the summit. A pretty big deal diplomatically (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/07/statem...):

Russia’s disappointing decision to grant Edward Snowden temporary asylum was also a factor that we considered in assessing the current state of our bilateral relationship.

Matter to whom? The optics for Obama in the U.S. matter because U.S. citizens can vote him or his party out of office. And, generally, this is non-issue in the U.S.

The optics internationally are very different; influence depends on military and economic levers. Summits exist to show those levers getting pulled; if neither side is willing pull anything, there's no point in having a summit.

> For whatever set of reasons, going to summit would have made Obama and the administration look weak at home.

I dunno. Cancelling a meeting doesn't exactly look strong either.

I don't see your point. It's not an argument, it's an observation: "outside of your bubble, the rest of us see this clearly". Pretty much the opposite of what you are objecting to.

99% of the world's population is in a bubble, and you see yourself as part of a fortunate 1% that can see clearly. Seems legit.

bowlofpetunias' observation: "You are in a very small bubble. The rest of us 99.9% see it clearly." Look at some of the other comments in this thread. The entire rest of the world is talking about Snowden and the bad US behavior that he revealed.

Really? I assumed the proxy war in Syria was a much bigger concern.

> the perception of the US throwing a major tantrum over one hacker is the impression that will stick.

Whose perception is this, and why is that perception important to US interests?

Whenever the US complains about something like the treatment of some political dissident in Russia, Russia has some little response like shutting down adoptions of Russian orphans. Each side has the sovereign right to do these things. Diplomacy has worked like this for ages. It's not at all particular to the US, or to the modern era.

It is an insult to the political progress to cancel a meeting because of tension. That is exactly the most important time to have a meeting. Should we only ever talk to a few close friends? These men should have to stand up in public and explain to the world why they can;t get along. Instead they will continue to talk in secret and hold the public in contempt.

They have not cancelled all meetings, they have cancelled a meeting between the country's respective leaders. Those meetings are held to announce the completion of deals, not to work out the details.

Right. I do think the timing suggests that if Putin had caved to the pressure Obama would have granted him an "Obama in Kremlin" photo op.

Obama wanted to brand Snowden as a traitor, ignoring the detail, subtlety and nuances involved in the case. Black and while, Snowden is a traitor. Yes?

Now, Russia gives Snowden temporary asylum, so in retaliation, Bush.... sorry, Obama cancels meeting with Putin. Black and white, yes? Let us, wipe out the detail and nuance. That is the rules, right?

So if Snowden is to be branded a traitor, Obama can be branded a petulant, entitled, pampered, sulky, embarrassed, teen-aged child who is used to getting his own way, and will throw toys out of the pram when mommy says "no".

Point being, this business of dirty tricks PR bites both sides. If Obama and co want us to see Snowden as a black and white traitor, we are perfectly entitled to state that the Putin meeting is canceled because of the Snowden asylum, and ignore and of the other details.

Or US politics could grow up. The US gov could admit over reach. It could thank Snowden and hail a new era of openness. It could redefine its role with people, all people not just precious Americans, (we are all equal, right?) and stop defaulting to treating them all like potential criminals, communists, terrorists, drug dealers, pedophiles.......

If exposing information to public is being a traitor, what is public to US then?

>"Now, Russia gives Snowden temporary asylum, so in retaliation, Bush.... sorry, Obama cancels meeting with Putin"

Oh ho ho, what a clever ruse, pretending to confuse Bush with Obama.

>Or US politics could grow up. The US gov could admit over reach. It could thank Snowden and hail a new era of openness.

Your command of politics and reality is astounding.

Politics often has a tenuous connection to reality.

"Oh ho ho, what a clever ruse, pretending to confuse Bush with Obama."

Firstly, I actually did. Bush went through my mind as I was typing. I realized as I was typing. I was about to delete back, but I thought it was quite interesting to leave the typo. Also, I often do leave typos. Sometimes they say more than what I intended. No, not a normal thing to do and perhaps confusing to the reader, agreed. And yes, it makes me weird.

Next... from a UK perspective, Bush and Obama are both "far" (not trying to align US "right" with the fascist notion of "far right") right in comparison to the main UK right wing party. From my POV, Bush and Obama are(1) essentially the same. From my perspective the US simply does not have a "left". Just "far" right and even more right. Its an extreme right wing country. The US has no left of center political party at all, let alone socialist, and heaven forbid, communist.

Understand, I make no value judgement there. The US being an extreme capitalist right country is required to balance with extreme left countries like Russian and China.

You final part is sadly mere childish ignorant assumptive insult. I'll leave you to that.

(1)BTW, see that word "are"? I slipped and typed "asre" by mistake. Nearly "arse". Had that been mis-typed as "arse" I might well have left it in. See how my insanity works? See the mystical power of the typo? Definitely something Freudian going on there, right?

FWIW Obama's cancellation of the summit is getting rave reviews from basically every major paper I've looked at. Conservative-leaning ones think Obama should go farther, liberal-leaning ones seem to acknowledge that Obama has gotten nothing from trying and it's time to quit proving Einsteinian insanity correct.

All of them note that there was way more going into this decision than Snowden; his was the proverbial straw on the camel's back.

Except that, as the article indicates, this particular straw does not in fact carry any weight, apart from Russia's unwillingness to break their own and international laws for the sole purpose of pleasing the US.

I guess Russia doesn't feel like they are breaking the law when they are beating and murdering journalists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_R...

Yes, Russia isn't particularly well-behaved when it comes to human rights, okay, I don't think many people disagree.

But please explain how, them breaking laws in self-serving, corrupted or even arbitrary circumstances, is relevant to their unwillingness to break it again just to please the US?

(there's also some very interesting implications if the US would bring up the argument you sketch)

I guess my point is that breaking the law isn't a huge deal there. Russia is characterized by "weak rule of law and the high corruption levels." [1],[2] Putin stole some guys super bowl ring in broad day light. [3] I just don't think their would be a lot of outrage from Russian citizens if Snowden were to be extradited. They have other stuff to worry about.

I think "rule of law" is not the constraint here. Not say the Falk is wrong.

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-28/russia-s-corruption... [2] http://www.cnbc.com/id/100805382 [3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-21/putin-makes-super-b...

Sounds all a bit "USA, USA, USA", rather than any sort of intelligent logic. I think the article this thread is based on pretty much explains that.

Any US folk considered how hard it is for the rest of the planet to reconcile US political and international posturing with normal international relations and the idea of the rule of law?

Rule of which law?

I don't understand how you determined that the appropriate jurisdiction to settle the facts of the Snowden case lies outside the US.

International law is founded on multilateral agreements, with each country deciding its relations to others.

> idea of the rule of law?

The idea that you think Russia's actions have to do only with the rule of law, but that the U.S.'s actions have nothing to do with the rule of law, is kind of surprising in my view.

Russia could have legally opted to decline the asylum request without extraditing Snowden. I.e. "We won't arrest him but he has no permission to leave the transit zone. Good luck convincing him to fly home".

In the same vein, even if you agree that all of Snowden's disclosures are in the public interest he still broke the law, and knew he broke it.

If I were to take it upon myself to have shot Ariel Castro, for instance, I would likely still be charged with murder or manslaughter, even if I had known he was kidnapping women.

But let's say that Snowden should be completely pardoned for leaking PRISM. The U.S. government would still have grounds to charge him for leaking details about hacking in China, which certainly did not benefit the American public.

And that, at this point, is all we're talking about. Charges to be sorted out, and if some of those stick, sentences to be determined by factoring in mitigating circumstances. That is hardly evidence of a government rampaging through the international scene, as that is all quite standard material for extradition negotiations. Things like grounding Bolivia's jet are examples of roughshodding! But not this here.

But that's the thing. This isn't strictly about rule of law. This is about Putin using the club of anti-Americanism to improve his stature at home. If Putin really cared about "human rights" then why is Pussy Riot still in prison? Why is it illegal to mention the idea of homosexuality to those poor impressionable Russian youths?

It's not about human rights. It's about politics, just as much as Republicans used to beat the drum of the "welfare queen" to advance their own position.

Accordingly, American papers are not very happy to see America used as a convenient punching bag to advance Russian interests, even where they support Snowden's overall point about surveillance, because they realize that the world is not binary.

I live outside the USA and there's two messages to be heard out of the USA: - "We'll catch this guy and kill him" and - "Give him up, or else..."

The US administration sounds like a foaming-at-the-mouth psychopath to the rest of the world, a psychopath who's still holding the Obama agenda to "protect whistleblowers" in their hands even while they make threats and act crazy.

Meanwhile inside the USA the highly predictable campaign to discredit the source is underway, with all the media happily participating, and nobody asking any questions.

We expect these things from a country like Russia or China. We don't expect them from the beacon of democracy, the USA. It means the USA pretty much _is_ Russia right now. Maybe a little less bad - fewer dissidents get killed (Hastings, anyone?). But overall, same thing.

Putin knows this and they play exactly that angle. Idiotic behavior on the side of the US administration makes that just soooo easy.

> The US administration sounds like a foaming-at-the-mouth psychopath to the rest of the world

No offense but if this is really what you hear then there is absolutely nothing the U.S. could do or proclaim that would change your mind, or that of the world.

So in that regard why worry about what the world thinks anyways? The world will hear what they want to hear, nothing more or less.

You need only look at the people comparing American human rights to Russian ones, or saying that the NSA is evil when they spy but the German BND "are not actually spying domestically and besides, they're incompetent".

The world has already decided, but let's not act like it's a completely evidence-based decision that was made.

"FWIW Obama's cancellation of the summit is getting rave reviews from basically every major paper I've looked at"

The NSA is out of control, and calling the shots. The government is run by a cozy coalition of secret services and big business. Secret courts rubber-stamp away the constitution.

But that's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that the media - and by that I mean ALL media - is more or less a propaganda channel for the government and the powers behind it. That means Americans are not adequately informed. Rather, they're bombarded with "talking points" that very effectively tell them what to think.

The absence of an independent news media is the biggest crisis. We have FOX news and FOX News in green; we have the WJS and the WSJ in green (the NYT). The exact same message comes in different flavors - do you want Vanilla, or Chocolate, want a right-wing view or a left-wing view, your choice! Oh it comes in libertarian, too.

Stewart and Colbert serve as emotional outlet for the dissatisfied without changing anything or straying too far from the course. As much as I love watching Colbert he's basically the government-approved court jester.

If you want to know whether the USA has independent news media, ask yourself this: Which US newspaper or TV channel would print Snowden's leaks in the way the guardian in the UK does? Answer: None. They all protect the government because they're owned by the same business interest that's also running the government.

See also how almost all of the government's and white house's comments have been about Snowden, not the actual issue of them spying on us.

Could you clarify your position with regards to a "new era of openness"? Is it that the U.S. should be "open" with military intelligence?

> Obama can be branded a petulant, entitled, pampered, sulky, embarrassed, teen-aged child

Entitled? What's he entitled to?

Only one reason was named explicitly, unless you consider the phrase "progress in our bilateral agenda" to be anything other than generic place-holder text.

"Following a careful review begun in July, we have reached the conclusion that there is not enough recent progress in our bilateral agenda with Russia to hold a U.S.-Russia Summit in early September, Russia’s disappointing decision to grant Edward Snowden temporary asylum was also a factor that we considered in assessing the current state of our bilateral relationship."

Oh don't be naive.. When was the last time a standing American President canceled a meeting with the standing Russian president?

> (...) catching a 30 year old hacker (...)

That is a hilariously disingenuous summary of the story.

It's a summary I took from president Obama himself when - asked by a reporter what he would do to catch Snowden - he replied:

"No, I’m not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker".

1 minute, 26 seconds in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwFyDYh9a5o

And he was right. He waited till after his birthday.

Well, come on:

a.) he didn't scramble jets

b.) he didn't get him

Fair point. Jets (as far as we know) were not scrambled when Evo Morales plane was searched, they just banned the plane from entering certain airspace, something which if disobeyed generally leads to scrambling jets.

> I can only see the move explained as internal American politics.

and Putin's decision is explained as internal Russian politics. What a surprise!

"In the age of digital wonders, more than ever we are dependent upon the vigilance of citizens of conscience to protect us against Orwellian scenarios of those many wannabe Darth Vadors lurking in the murky depths of the governmental bureaucracy..."

This is probably the most sober assessment of the current situation which is both optimistic and depressing simultaneously. The technology has reached a point to make a snooper's wildest dreams come true but at the same time there are more and more ways to get information about wrong-doing out into the open and to discuss it which hopefully results in action to correct it.

The awkward part of the Surveillance Age is that permanent vigilance is very difficult to sustain and any lapse or general complacency will be immediately taken advantage of. Keeping governments in check now appears to be a 24/7 task.

you know what would be extremely helpful? If a reading list was put together concerning how citizens could become better at vigilance, information gathering, investigative journalism, etc. By complaining I feel like I am a spectator in matters not under my control. By learning and applying new knowledge I feel as if I am actively protecting myself and my ideals. So where would I start? Ethics? Psychology? Investigative journalism?

stallman.org may not train you with all the skills you need to do investigative journalism and uncover conspiracy, but it _does_ cover the bare minimum you should do before you get started.

rms has been telling us for decades that hackers needed to get our act together politically, and it seems like this is the last "I told you so" he needs to finally get us to start looking.

"The technology has reached a point to make a snooper's wildest dreams come true but at the same time there are more and more ways to get information about wrong-doing out into the open and to discuss it which hopefully results in action to correct it."

Yes, but the cost for the whistle blower is everything while Darth Vader gets promoted.

Maybe I am an eternal optimist but in my opinion, it's impossible to keep all that crazy stuff under wraps for long - information wants to be free, and it will get out one way or another.

The USA is in a very bad situation thanks to the media's lock-step with the government, and all is controlled by big business. You'd think there is no way out. But at the same time, certain rights like the right to free speech do not go away.

In times of great despair, great help arrives. This is why I think new channels of communication apart from TV and newspapers will arise. New channels that will not be owned by big business. HN readers will probably laugh at the notion - hey, maybe the ...internet? Yeah I know - but it seems like mass media still has a huge influence and, now, in 2013, still defines "public opinion". What's on TV is what's true.

We have all the tech to change that, and I think it will change. Even though it hasn't so far. Some new way of determining AND making the public opinion will arise. I look forward to it (and if I can help enable it, I will)

>Maybe I am an eternal optimist but in my opinion, it's impossible to keep all that crazy stuff under wraps for long

It was kept under wraps for a long time. Those IRS training materials which mentioned DEA/SOD intercepts were from 2005-2007. Each of the little pieces needed to understand what's going on has been available for a long time, but we all collectively failed to put it together[1].

>In times of great despair, great help arrives.

In comic books.

[1] Some of of us managed to put it together, but they were crazy tinfoil-hat types.

>>Maybe I am an eternal optimist but in my opinion, it's impossible to keep all that crazy stuff under wraps for long

It just needs to be kept under wraps long enough. After that, momentum takes care of the rest.

I do believe that we are past the event horizon on the subject of surveillance, and things will only get worse from here.

I'm not particularly pro- or anti-Snowden, and I'm no fan of the Russian government, but I think this article is correct.

Imagine the reverse case - a Russian government agent reveals massive and pervasive, questionably legal surveillance by the FSB approved by secret courts and without proper political oversight. Said Russian arrives in the US and applies for political assylum. It would be appalling not to grant it, while obviously allowing Russia to pursue normal legal channels to apply for extradition.

What this episode has shown, is that a surprising number of Americans (also commenters here in Hacker News) seem to lack that kind of sense of symmetry.

EDIT: Also some people responding to this comment (whoa).

Which in turn just shows how successful is American propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism

Honest question here. Isn't "American exceptionalism" the same kind of view that people of global superpowers throughout the ages would have had? "All roads lead to Rome" comes to mind, but there are probably a few others.

Even the creation myths of a number of different civilizations consider the natives to be blessed somehow e.g. descended from the gods (compare this to how Americans see the Constitution and the Founding Fathers).

EDIT: Actually, maybe a better example is legend of how Romulus and Remus (the founders of Rome) were raised by a she-wolf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_and_Remus.

Or atrocities committed by organised religion, even though such action is considered a horrific sin according to the same religion's scripture. (it doesn't always have to be nation states - the size of the tribe doesn't seem to matter)

The justification invariably seems to be that the oppressed are inferior in some way. Belief in the wrong god, wrong skin colour, whatever.

I think it's probably a fundamental mechanism in the human psyche for coping with the cognitive dissonance of the "do as I say, not as I do" attitude that seems to come naturally as a consequence of power, unless consciously, actively and continuously worked against. Maybe yet another "passing on your genes" instinct?

You are on to something but it seems that american exceptionalism was there from the very beginning and before it was a global superpower :

From wikipedia:

Jefferson envisaged America becoming the world's great "empire of liberty"--that is, the model for democracy and republicanism. He identified his nation as a beacon to the world, for, he said on departing the presidency in 1809, America was:

"Trusted with the destinies of this solitary republic of the world, the only monument of human rights, and the sole depository of the sacred fire of freedom and self-government, from hence it is to be lighted up in other regions of the earth, if other regions of the earth shall ever become susceptible of its benign influence."[37]

Off-topic: that wp [1] page states that american decline started at the end of the eighties. It makes an interesting read as I think the mass media put it around 9/11. Happened before 9/11 but that event crystallized that decline.

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

Edit:

1. The US declared independence in 1776 and were recognized in 1783. Is 30 years between this and Jefferson statement too much to say "it was there from the beginning ?"

2. What about 1600's and 1700's US religious people and their own beliefs when they established themselves in that new promised land ? How does it relate to "American ideology, "Americanism", based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, republicanism, populism and laissez-faire." (from the first paragraph of that wp page) ?

I agree that American exceptionalism was there from the very beginning, but I think that concept was used to justify a narrower set of long-term goals. Those goals changed as some were achieved and the original message being adapted in the face of new challenges.

The idea seems related to start-up culture as well (think "two guys in a garage", and "we're different" as well as "war stories from back in the day" during shareholder meetings).

Time will tell if setting ourselves apart sets us up for failure in the long-term.

>You are on to something but it seems that american exceptionalism was there from the very beginning and before it was a global superpower

Maybe 'global superpower' wasn't a metric early America used to inform its (yet unnamed) notion of exceptionalism. Your quote from Jefferson speaks of an "empire of liberty."

This could make sense if you think about it. Young America had just accomplished the almost unthinkable feat of winning independence from the Globe's biggest superpower of the time. In winning this liberty, the young nation began its life by defining itself through this hard won liberty.

In a sense, America's view of what made it special might have been a response to and departure from the concept of a superpower (which it had just cast off).

The characteristics he lists:

>monument of human rights...freedom and self-government...it is to be lighted up in other regions of the earth if other regions of the earth shall ever become susceptible of its benign influence.

His dialogue doesn't involve power or might, but rather rights and example. Even the hopeful spread of America's influence is framed as something to be willingly adopted and benign.

I'm not a student of American history, so I don't know how consistent this interpretation is with the other writings and beliefs of the day, but it's really sad to me how far we've fallen from this ideal. The modern American practitioners of American Exceptionalism seem to have perverted it beyond recognition. Especially when you look at how many of these same administrations prop up dictators when it serves our perceived interests.

Whilst I acually agree with simonh's point, there's nothing like an actual symmetry here. Russia is, and always has been, a far more oppressive state than the US ever has been.

Have you any evidence to back up this claim? I would wager that the list of countries attacked, invaded or 'freed' as they like to say, is way higher for the USA than Russia. That in my book makes the USA much more oppressive than Russia.

Yes, my evidence is the whole history of Russia from the Tsars, through communism, to post communism, plus the history of the US from the War of Independence onwards.

The US played a huge role (though not quite as much as Americans would like to think!) in freeing Western Europe from Nazism, freeing Asia from Imperial Japan and freeing Eastern Europe from communism. It played a huge role in reconstructing Europe after WWII and I guess the same is true of Japan.

Unfortunately the HN mix of American libertarians and European liberals is rather myopic on this issue.

Sure, US played a huge role in freeing Europe from Nazism.

Which doesn't mean they played a bigger role in it that URSS.

EDIT: >> However I am grateful I am from a country that fell under US influnce than one that fell under USSR influence.

As a Western European, I can relate. I am just pointing that picking WW2 intervention is not the best way to crown US over URSS.

That is indeed true. However I am grateful I am from a country that fell under US influnce than one that fell under USSR influence. YMMV. Still, many of those who are now lauding Russia here will actually be glad they didn't grow up in the former Eastern Bloc, and that strikes me as a somewhat inconsistent viewpoint.

Not sure why you edited your post rather than replying to mine, but ... [EDIT: Perhaps it's because the 'reply' link seems to take a while to appear. If so I always get around that by clicking on 'link' and then replying there!]

> As a Western European, I can relate. I am just pointing that picking WW2 intervention is not the best way to crown US over URSS.

It's not the intervention per se, but the spirit of the intervention, what its aims were and what it led to. Those of the US were far superior to those of the USSR from my point of view.

Couldn't find the reply button (new account, first post, after two years as a leacher)

With my limited knowledge in history, I can't objectively compare the spirit/motivations of USA/URSS intervention.

Also, being raised in Western europe, I may be prejudicied, because of the "winners write history" stuff.

> Also, being raised in Western europe, I may be prejudicied, because of the "winners write history" stuff.

That doesn't invalidate the possibility that the winners might have actually been in the right though. It just means you cann't use the fact that a nation won to implicate that the nation was therefore morally right.

Well, the big difference is is that the US didn't retain defacto control of the part of Europe that it drove the Nazis from in the way the USSR did.

Those are some pretty solid achievements, so uh, USA! USA! I guess.

But, I think that historical lens you are looking back through time to the War of Independence with might have a little smudge on it obscuring that whole deal with the negroes and the injuns...

I'm well aware of that whole deal. I don't believe the USA is a beneficient entity in any absolute sense. I was making a comparison to Russia.

Speaking of myopics, are you including the large number of Indian nations that the US conquered and stole the land of - sometimes even signing a treaty that they later ignored? Or the huge swathes of Mexico they annexed? The bits of Spain they nicked? All the puppet governments installed?

That slavery in Russia was abolished 50 years before the US even existed - and even then that was only indentured servant-type slaves, as mass-agricultural slaves were banned 50 years before that?

I don't agree that Russia is less oppressive than the US, but you are cherry-picking your moments in history.

EDIT: forgot to mention the modern-day economy of benefitting greatly from illegal alien workers while ostracising them. And the immense incarceration rate, which is almost 50% higher than Russia's (which is also really high)

As I said in my reply to veidr[1] I am indeed aware of all that. One doesn't have to be blind to the massive abuses that the US has committed to still come out in its favour regarding a comparison to Russia.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6178285

One doesn't have to be blind to the massive abuses that the US has committed to still come out in its favour regarding a comparison to Russia.

One wonders why you cherry-picked then, instead of presenting a more balanced view.

I didn't expect my argument to be taken in such bad faith.

You pointed to a 20-year highlight period of US history as being representative, and handwaved away criticisms as 'I'm aware of all that'. As it stood, your presentation of US history was extremely one-eyed and selective, and then you had the gall to call the rest of this community myopic. Your argument was presented in bad faith.

> freeing Western Europe from Nazism

Here I was thinking it was "World War II" not "America saves the world II".

> freeing Asia from Imperial Japan

Yeah Russia had NOTHING to do with that one (except for pushing them out of china, and being as pivotal as the US bombing of Japan in it's ultimate surrender).

> freeing Eastern Europe from communism

Because communist are evil and all that other crap US propaganda teaches us.

> It played a huge role in reconstructing Europe after WWII and I guess the same is true of Japan.

Well yeah, it played a huge role in destroying them as well...

Any more cherry picking you'd like to ad to that list? Invented freedom perhaps?

As much as I think it's futile to respond to details when it's the big picture that is far more relevant ...

> Here I was thinking it was "World War II" not "America saves the world II".

America had a huge role in this, not as significant as Americans like to think, but huge nonetheless.

> Yeah Russia had NOTHING to do with that one

Russia declared war on Japan one week before the war was over.

> Because communist are evil and all that other crap US propaganda teaches us.

No need to build a strawman. Just ask yourself whether you would have preferred to live in Western Europe or a Soviet satellite.

> Well yeah, it played a huge role in destroying them as well...

Err .. what?

The USSR/Warsaw Pact was evil. I don't think you can even debate that, unless you want to claim Hitler and Pol Pot were misunderstood as well.

I've got some bad news for you about the US and Britain. I assume you know about Churchill's prefered method for dealing with 'uncivilized tribes', poison gas?

I don't understand the line of argumentation that, because one entity is (partly) very bad it can't be much better than another entity.

I’ll just leave this here. "The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan... Stalin Did" http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/29/the_bomb_di...

> Yeah Russia had NOTHING to do with that one (except for pushing them out of china, and being as pivotal as the US bombing of Japan in it's ultimate surrender).

The USSR defeated the Kwantung Army in Khalkin Gol in like 1939 and then sat on their ass with regard to Japan until August 1945.

Certainly the declaration of war came as a shock to Japan, but Japan would have been much better prepared for war with the USSR had the U.S. not been pushing the Empire back to the Home Islands for the 3.5 years preceding that!

What you're saying here is like saying that Italy had anything to do with defeating France just because they managed to declare war and get some troops across the mountains into France before France finally capitulated to Germany.

Ironic that you bring up WWII for how the US is better than the Soviets. The Soviets won that war. We helped, some.

American contributions were certainly significant, but it's not the same magnitude. Without American involvement, the Nazis still lose. Without Soviet involvement, we're all speaking German.

Sigh... and without the US involvement, we in West Europe would at best have learned Russian in school just like they had to in the enslaved East Europe.

Not even the Nazis were uniquely evil.

(For instance, I have been in Romania a bit and have heard/read the stories about how they were broken, after the WW. They had it easier even under the Nazis a few years earlier.)

But you knew all that.

Edit: My point was that if the Soviets really had won the war themselves, as mikeash wrote, we in West Europe would have lost -- more or less as badly as if the Nazis had won.

I wonder if that would have happened in a hypothetical world where the US didn't enter the war. It's impossible to say for sure, but the Russians may not have had enough left in them to take over the continent.

In any case, the point would be better made to say that the US prevented a Soviet takeover of Western Europe, not that the US defeated the Nazis.

Russia's just put a dead lawyers on trial to cover up government corruption.

Like to admit it or not but the USA still has a functioning system of laws and an independent judiciary. Disagreeing with those laws or the judiciary is very different from living in a state like Russia.

Aaron Swartz, Eric Snowden, Bradley Manning et al all knew the laws they were breaking and the likely consequences. Those laws are harsh yes, but they chose to fight them by breaking them - they didn't have to. There are legal avenues for whistleblowing, regular criminal prosecutions of government corruption etc.

It's also blissfully ironic that this article praises Russia "following the law" when it comes to refugee status, yet the UK's similar stance re Assange and why he's being kept inside the embassy is lambasted on here.

> Like to admit it or not but the USA still has a functioning system of laws

Sure, if you ignore the secret courts and global spying, that no one seems to be able to challenge in "functioning system".

No one has been able to bring down those (illegitimate) parts of the system yet, but some are trying. Although I have been defending the US in this thread but I know there are many, many things about it that need challenging. I am (for some reason) optimistic enough that its citizens will challenge it, and change it for the better.

"Secret courts" - no, there aren't. The FISA system is about surveillance warrants not trials. It's nothing like the "secret courts" in countries that have given term its meaning.

Again men established those laws and run the "global spying" system. The USA isn't like Russia in terms of the state security apparatus controlling elections. Indeed Hoover's FBI days even managed to pale into comparison with what the Russians are up to today.

FISA and surveillance could be voted out by the elected representatives at any point, indeed it almost happened.

> The USA isn't like Russia in terms of the state security apparatus controlling elections.

Yeah they are controlling other countries elections instead. Great high moral ground there ;)

Well, the USSR is currently criminalising a whole class of people based on what they chose to do with their genitalia in private. That sounds pretty oppressive to me.

We're not too far removed from that, here in the US.

The last time I checked USSR stopped existing about 20 years ago. Also:

> is currently criminalising a whole class of people based on what they chose to do with their genitalia in private.

I do not think you know what you are talking about.

He is I suppose referring to this: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/opinion/homophobia-in-russ...

State homophobia in Russia is becoming a thing really fast these days.

I will refer to my comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6173274

It is probably a bad law, but it certainly not criminalizing people for what they are doing with their genitalia in private. He was probably thinking about Saudi Arabia or Iran, but there is strangely little outrage against them.

Oh, they're worse. They hang gay people in Iran.

What happen in Saudi Arabia and Iran sure is bad, but it's not new (which excuse nothing).

In Russia, there is a big crackdown on everything LGBT-related, by the government and the church, and its getting worse every day.

A bit more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia

Typo. I'm sure Putin would like to get back to the USSR days though.

There are a lot of people in the US who'd like the US to be equally oppressive. Really, not the best of examples here.

On the whole, it seems that the US is somewhat less oppressive than Russia, but a lot more than most European countries. Particularly disgusting is that many European countries haven't condemned US behaviour regarding Snowden, and even seem willing to act as US vassals.

That's certainly been the prevailing assumption.

And perhaps the assumption holds out, but the secrecy of both governments makes comparisons difficult. Anyway, even if Russia is Orwell's 1984, the US must surely be Huxley's Brave New World.

I certainly see a lot of truth in this

http://www.prosebeforehos.com/image-of-the-day/08/24/huxley-...

Oppressive to their own citizens? You are probably right (though US have a higher incarceration rate, still uses capital punishment etc.) But oppressive to the humanity as a whole? US is by far the worst in this regard, just think of Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Edit: I'm comparing past 20 years specifically, not the cold war era

If you restrict yourself to the last 20 years then the argument in favour of Russia is easy to make, as it has essentially been neutered in terms of foreign intervention. However if you look back a bit further you'll have to take into account global communism when judging how oppresive Russia has been to humanity as a whole, and I don't think the comparison will end up favourable to Russia.

They are equally oppressive, only difference is that Russia is oppressive inwards, while USA is more oppressive outwards (i.e. Russia commits most of its atrocities inside borders, while USA commits them outside its borders).

But the US is becoming increasingly oppressive. The Snowden case is just one of many examples of that.

>> a surprising number of Americans (also commenters here in Hacker News) seem to lack that kind of sense of symmetry.

Russia is quickly turning away from [Edit: the road to] democracy, the state seems to become integrated with organized crime. And Russia support some of today's worst mass murderers/torturers.

That is a large lack of symmetry... which you are fully aware of, but ignore yourself.

And no, I'm not arguing that USA, or any other place, is perfect. But there are grades of grey.

Subjects like this, where lots of believers have knee reflex reactions and just hate, don't work on HN or on any non-moderated discussion board. (And that is even before the trolls come out to make fun of the fanatics.)

> Russia is quickly turning away from democracy

You're very generous to suggest they've ever been anything like a democracy.

> Subjects like this, where lots of believers have knee reflex reactions and just hate, don't work on HN or on any non-moderated discussion board

Indeed.

In my view, the US is also quickly turning away from democracy, along with many other western nations. They are becoming more and more integrated with organized crime (banks, military complex, surveillance business, cyberattacks, ...). And they are some of today's worst mass murderers (Afghanistan, Iraq) and torturers (Guantanamo, Manning).

> And Russia support some of today's worst mass murderers/torturers.

Are you arguing for or against symmetry? The US has gotten much better since the end of the Cold War, but we still prop up the House of Saud, for example.

Maybe you should consider reading this by Catherine Austin Fitts, an former Assistant Secretary of Housing - Federal Housing Commissioner, Bush I.

"The dependence of the U.S. economy and the federal finances on war and organized crime is significant and to date enjoys the popular support of the general population.

I have written about the federal governments involvement in narcotics trafficking and financial fraud, and support in the general population for that involvement. Here are four excerpts:

.....

One of the dirty little secrets behind the housing bubble is the long standing partnership of narcotics trafficking and mortgage fraud and the use of the two in combination to target and destroy minority and poor communities with highly profitable economic warfare. This model is global. It is operating in counties throughout the world as well as in US communities."

Other excerpts can be read here:

http://solari.com/articles/beyond_the_fiscal_cliff

In essence, the US government (not it's people) could be regarded as the global bully. It's probably because bullying works and is economical. It makes sense for them and the world where the US would have to apologize for it's behaviour is not the world we live in, no matter how much we would want to.

But isn't it also a slight sign of weakness? Comparing to China, it's apparent that US more often resorts to bullying tactics. Especially if you count in military operations in that spectrum. If the US were an economical power the bullying would not be more economical than a more long-term, silent and behind the scenes overtaking of the global economy. Which is what China is engaged in and US has been in the past.

Basically every great power has been described as a bully. The USA is no real exception.

Historically speaking, it's hard to find a nation that with broad power outside its own borders that has not used that power to bully others.

And also historically speaking, nations with the kind of relative power that the United States has have behaved far, far worse towards other countries. There are things the US could improve upon, but the bar has been set impressively low by those who have held power before (including the United States of years past).

If and when China is at the same level of military capability as the US, do you believe it will refrain from "bullying" to protect its national interests?

Given what China has done to Tibet over the past few decades it is safe to say the difference is night and day between the levels of "bullying" that occur.

US treatment of American Indians? Slavery in America?

Oh, if we're allowed to go that far back in history, why don't we take a stopover to, say, 1939-1945 or so?

Japanese internment?

Yes, that happened. Was anything else going on in the world, perhaps more irreversible? One of the American internees later captained USS Excelsior, after all.

Well spit it out. What's your point?

Oh, just that maybe the USA is not the world's worst example of tyranny that you seem to make it out to be. Especially in comparison to Russia, but even in comparison to some of the "more advanced" European states.

After all even with slavery, it was something America inherited, instead of going out of their way to do. Much of Europe, on the other hand, chose to murder their undesirables, and far after when America was able to finally free their slaves.

> After all even with slavery, it was something America inherited, instead of going out of their way to do.

Its true that the slave trade predates American independence, but its not as if it wasn't largely driven by the interests of wealthy Americans; it really had very little other point, which is why after the US was independent, England first both suppressed the Atlantic slave trade, and then, decades before the US did (and without a civil war) abolished slavery entirely.

> Much of Europe, on the other hand, chose to murder their undesirables, and far after when America was able to finally free their slaves.

So did the US. The Indian Wars were a real thing, after all, and ended long after the abolition of slavery.

> The Indian Wars were a real thing, after all, and ended long after the abolition of slavery.

Absolutely, but none of us can go back in time and undo the bad things that America has done, or that Britain has done, or that Germany has done, or that Russia has done, or what anyone has done.

But people do not apply the same standard to, say, Germany or Russia, that they apply to the USA.

You can bring up slavery every day, and America will have been wrong every time. Does that, itself, taint the blood of 2013 Americans?

Certainly American can and should make corrections and pay penance how they can, and at least partially they do (e.g. affirmative action programs, equal opportunity laws), just as Germany atones for the actions of the Nazis, and just as Japan still maintains only a "self-defense force" in consequence of wars from decades ago.

Certainly we can compare America of today with other countries of today. America won't always win that comparison (e.g. Germany has much better laws regarding data privacy and data protection) but nor will America be the worst nation on the Earth. Certainly they look OK as compared to Russia.

But if one's argument against the USA will inevitably come back to what a bunch of assholes were doing back in 1790-1920 then it's not unfair to also widen the scope of comparison for those nations that are being compared against the USA.

>Absolutely, but none of us can go back in time and undo the bad things that America has done

We could work a little bit harder at not continuing to cheat Native Americans as soon as tomorrow. http://www.buffalopost.net/?tag=minerals-management-service

>But if one's argument against the USA will inevitably come back to what a bunch

That's not the argument. The argument is that governance is an imperfect tool, will always be imperfect, and that none of our governments are beyond reproach.

> That's not the argument. The argument is that governance is an imperfect tool, will always be imperfect, and that none of our governments are beyond reproach.

Hey, finally something we both fully agree on! I just wish you'd have phrased it as such earlier. :)

Hey, you're the one that made argument that other countries are worse thanthe US because they kept doing bad things after the US abolished slavery.

Now you are moving the goalposts once it is pointed out that that applies to the US, too.

My argument was not that other countries are worse than the U.S. because of things done after slavery.

My argument is mainly that if we're going to go back through the totality of the mists of time, that the U.S.'s hands are not exactly the ones with the most blood dripping off of them.

Calm yourself. I haven't made out the US as "the world's worst example of tyranny". I would like to point out the hypocrisy though, of those who criticize a person for seeking refuge from the US in Russia, because he didn't instead choose "Unicornlandia" or some other similarly perfect utopian bastion of freedom and human rights.

I'm from the US, and I am proud that we ended slavery, (a little embarrassed that it took a war, but I had no control over that), but, I am not under the impression that the US is perfect, or without the potential for improvement. Critical self-reflection is an important step on the path to self-improvement. I criticize my country because it is the one that I personally have the potential and the responsibility to affect positive changes within.

> I would like to point out the hypocrisy though, of those who criticize a person for seeking refuge from the US in Russia, because he didn't instead choose "Unicornlandia" or some other similarly perfect utopian bastion of freedom and human rights.

Is it hypocritical to at least ask that he pick a nation comparable to, if not better than, the U.S.? Apparently this should be the easiest task in the world.

I've argued here before, and I'll repeat it again, that I would have no problem at all with Snowden asking for asylum in Russia (or even North Korea, China, etc.) as long as he makes it clear he's simply trying to 'beat the rap', as they say.

But Snowden doesn't do this, and in fact goes farther to claim that Russia is doing this to support human rights and tickle doves with angel feathers and even encourage privacy (which is just beyond ironic, but whatever).

That is either a flat-out lie to appease his host, or stupidity. And we all know he's not stupid...

> Critical self-reflection is an important step on the path to self-improvement. I criticize my country because it is the one that I personally have the potential and the responsibility to affect positive changes within.

We're going to 100% agree twice today! Wonderful progress. :)

>Is it hypocritical to at least ask that he pick a nation comparable to, if not better than, the U.S.? Apparently this should be the easiest task in the world.

I'm sure he would go to Unicornlandia if he knew how to get there. And, yeah, it is pretty silly to ask him to expose himself by travelling through places where the US arguably has enough control to cause his detainment/extradition.

>But Snowden doesn't do this, and in fact goes farther to claim that Russia is doing this to support human rights and tickle doves with angel feathers and even encourage privacy (which is just beyond ironic, but whatever).

I don't really care what symbolic gestures he makes when he may be under duress.

>That is either a flat-out lie to appease his host, or stupidity. And we all know he's not stupid...

It's arguably true! A person has the right to asylum from political persecution. Only a few other countries have the willingness to oppose the US. We both know that Russia's motives probably aren't rooted in an altruistic commitment to human rights, but as I have said before Snowden isn't in a position to look gift horses in their mouths.

>We're going to 100% agree twice today! Wonderful progress. :)

Let's not make it a habit. If we both agree all the time, that means one of us is redundant!

> A person has the right to asylum from political persecution.

Except it's not political persecution. He's not being charged with being a Communist, or anarchist, or libertarian here.

I'm assuming you disagree with the law (though even figures like Schneier agree that there is a legitimate need for government to protect secrets), but disagreement with the law doesn't make it a political prosecution.

For that matter, the laws against theft and misappropriation of public property have a long and proud history. I'm assuming you don't intend to introduce a loophole in those laws that would permit the politicians to abuse the Treasury even worse than they already manage?

Well, Manning was not charged either.

You can say all you want it was security detention, it's a warning send to other wannabe whistleblower, and it's torture to me.

(and if it's not a political decision, I wonder how it is called)

Well given that even Snowden was careful to emphasize how different his behavior was from Manning's, I'm not sure why you think invoking Saint Bradley helps your point.

The point is that Japanese internment was bad, but wasn't as bad as what other countries at the time were doing.

China is also a big bully, just the bullying is restricted to areas around china. US on the other hand is a global bully

"Areas around China" suggests perhaps Chinese waters, or a limited distance from them - rather than India, the Koreas, half the Pacific, all of Southeast Asia...

The people of the US know we're considered a "bully" and intentionally elect people to federal government so as to maintain that status.

A label you use derisively is a point of pride in the American psyche.

ot to a point, I will be real curious if Time gives serious consideration to Snowden as its man of the year.... let alone the boys in Sweden.

back ot

I said awhile back, Snowden fate is purely up to Putin, disclaim it all he wants but if Putin found advantage to shipping him home it would happen. Russia is far worse than the US when it comes to rights, but the US deserves the embarrassment it receives from this to include the obvious snub of the White House by Putin. The people who should be most embarrassed of their behavior are the press, but they are so in bed with politics now that reporting like that occurred with the Washington Post in the seventies cannot occur today.

> I said awhile back, Snowden fate is purely up to Putin, disclaim it all he wants but if Putin found advantage to shipping him home it would happen.

Yes, and the americans take every opportunity to bash the russians on the abuse of power of their politicians and the generally weak rule-of-law. Makes it even more laughable that in this specific instance, they want Putin to make an extra-judicial decision to extradite him.

The Nobel peace prize is actually given out by a committee nominated by the Norweigian parliament. Alfred Nobel did'nt trust his countrymen in this matter.

... or that he knew that the prize was a complete joke and gave it to the Norwegians for us to laugh at.

It should be noted that Norway and Sweden were in a personal union at that time – a union that wasn't dissolved until 1905.

> Russia is far worse than the US when it comes to rights

To be fair year after year the US fails to cover itself in glory when it comes to rights itself.

Abuse of PoW's in Iraq, extraordinary rendition, seemingly indefinite imprisonment without charge in Guantanamo, access to call records and internet usage of citizens without a warrant. I wonder about these Drone strikes which the US seems to able to do in any non-western sovereign country.

It has reached a point where you wonder what will happen next.

The mystifying thing is how passionate US citizens are about their right to vote. The massive rally's etc etc. And yet it seems politicians are almost always guided by big campaign contributors than the need's of the people they represent.

I am somewhat stumped by the faux-rage of the press and politicians. It seems that the US shitting over civil liberties isn't even a story. Instead it is all about Snowden and Russia. Realistically if a Russian named Snowdenoff fled to the US after doing something similar to Russia there is no way the US would have handed him over.

America has done some really crappy things over the years, but you know about them, they come out and get reported.

In Russia the journalists who report these things get killed, those who speak out get assassinated overseas or put on trial for things they haven't done (as opposed to the act of leaking). Political opponents of the regime who announce their intention to run for office get hounded into exile.

America it at least a democracy, the public just don't care enough to change it. In Russia the people can't change it.

So what is the difference if the results are the same?

Because you can engage voters to change their minds in the USA, or indeed just engage politicians, whereas in Russia such activity can get you murdered, sent to prison (often a death sentence anyway) or exiled.

Look at things like SOPA where a large userbase was motivated to spread the word, tech companies got involved and the public were informed enough to convince politicians to change.

Will SOPA ever come back in a minimally modified form? It it really dead? Or will they just find another way to ram it through? Is there a real victory? Are the politicians now going to leave it well alone? Or will the media money eventually get its way?

Even here in Europe, referendums are routinely ignored. So, have a referendum on EU membership, and if its a result to leave, you get another referendum.... until we vote "correctly".

The results are exactly the same? Are you certain? Can you substantiate that?

The idea of protesting the Olympics in Russia while we merrily went to China would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

Many bad things the Russians do, we do right here. If it's a contest for stupid, evil behaviors, we would only come out slightly ahead, certainly not win any race for humanity.

And by the way, Russia has nuclear weapons still pointed at us - thousands of them. Canceling ANY kind of talks is a bad idea, you never know the mentality of someone behind the button.

>Russia has nuclear weapons still pointed at us - thousands of them. Canceling ANY kind of talks is a bad idea, you never know the mentality of someone behind the button.

Wow, talk about a Cold War throwback.

I do know their mentality: very much the same as ours. The Russians weren't "irrational crazies" after WWII, and they aren't now.

Wasn't even implying they are crazy, after all USA also has thousands of nukes pointed all over the world too.

I am saying any two countries with such powerful weapons pointed at each other's citizens should always be talking.

Summits between presidents do not exist to begin talks. They exist to ratify talks that lower-level diplomatic staff have already achieved agreement on.

Cancelling a summit merely shows that the diplomatic staff have not achieved agreement on anything big enough for presidents to shake hands on.

In 5 years time Snowden will get fed up of the constant games and finally gives himself up to the US government out of sheer boredom. Then he will get shoved into a small cell, Kevin Mitnick style for 15 years. After great expense will it have been worth it ? I mean for the American people ? All those tax dollars wasted.

Why isn't anyone holding the government to account for all the bad things that Snowden told the truth about ?

Are you kidding me, why would he give himself up?

History is not on your side, most exiles or refugees live all their lives in exile.

I think you'll find that there is a big difference between the people who planned and willingly went into exile and those who had no choice.

Of course he wouldn't want to give himself up.

You've missed the point though. The US government is directing the world media on the chase for Snowden and keeping them distracted; no one is remotely close to being held accountable for the things that Snowden leaked about.

"You told everyone that we had done something wrong, and now you're going to have to go to jail to make up for it".

Sen. Wyden and Sen. Udall don't count?

How'd that defunding work out?

Honestly? A lot better than I really expected it to. That the vote was close at all (let alone close to passing) was something I was impressed to see.

It didn't come close to passing - the vote count has nothing to do with how widely supported it was in reality.

I wish that somebody (Michael Moore perhaps?) would make a great documentary on the topic of the surveillance state that everyone watches. (And on the seemingly broken American political system, as well.)

This is one of the best articles I have read on this subject yet.

Yeah. A breath of fresh air, as they say.

This about sums it up, yes.

> and a moral and political duty not to do so, especially in the circumstances surrounding the controversy over Snowden.

What? Moral duty not to do so? Howso?

Snowden's future directly affects us all. If he was incarcerated against the will of other powerful countries, it would send a strong message that personal freedom is a thing of the past, and that if you do the right thing at the expense of the government, you will be hunted down and punished.

I would really like to see Snowden being more vocal and discussing his beliefs more. I think he could be a very powerful leader in the fight for privacy and policies that restrict the government's snooping activities.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com