Hacker News Reader

Comment by flexie | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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?

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

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

> (...) 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com