Russia extends Snowden residency by three years
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
[0] haven't seen anything yet on nytimes or wp.
[1] http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http...
The bad thing is that embargoes (and counter embargoes) hit ordinary people hard, not politicians. Prices have increased by ~15% since January (and will increase more because of new embargoes). Many idiotic laws has been adopted. Other countries hate us. And so on.
Russia is now isolated from civilized world. And our government escalates this isolation.
I'm going to migrate to Australia/New Zealand/USA etc. But now it feels much more difficult to move to another country.
Majority of population do not like to think. It is better to turn on TV - and here are all answers!
Do elaborate. Which people in Russia have nothing to eat?
Average pension in Russia is about 7000 - 11 000 RUR (~$220 - $300).
(bigger TVs, though, probably)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_in_the_European_energy_s...
You don't want to be living in Finland and rely on natural gas for example. (To be honest I don't know how much and how Finland is using its natural gas)
Really, this guy is not doing well on the world stage, he almost seems to act like a petulant child at times with his comments.
Why shouldn't Russia do this, it causes embarrassment to a country who for the last few years has show contempt for anything Russia does. Its like the pot calling the kettle black.
The world is a flipping mess and two countries who could work together to fix it are having the equivalent of a playground spat.
there aren't soldiers yet. Special agents, mercenaries and volunteers - yes. Including 200+ Serbs volunteers/mercenaries (Russians helped Serbs back in similar way in similar war in 199x)
>the actions of Russia are without question much worse than any of the actions taken by the US.
not really. Both countries regularly engage in proxy wars. US used real soldiers btw in Afganistan and Iraq.
3 weeks before MH-17, rebels captured a full Ukrainian military installation containing a number of BUK missile systems and parts storage for them. They were able to repair one BUK launcher. There is no need for an electronics professional like Kerry suggested because Russian military system like BUK is repaired by swapping whole blocks (sourced from other launchers or from parts storage). A BUK launcher is only part of the system. It has smaller, less capable fire control radar (lesser range, only 120 degree instead of 360, lesser resolution) than the main BUK radar (which is a large radar on a separate vehicle, has full acquiring/identifying/tracking/targeting capabilities, and rebels didn't have a working one). Basically BUK launcher alone is a super-large glorified "Stinger". Using the repaired launcher, 2 weeks after capture, the rebels downed 2 Ukrainian transport planes and week later they celebrated, for half-an-hour, until the first people reached the crash site, the supposed downing of the 3rd transport plane.
Russia obviously doesn't want the public confirmation because it was Russia supported rebels who downed the plane. US/Ukraine don't want it because it was a BUK captured from Ukrainians, and Ukraine hadn't close the airspace and was accepting the civilian airliners' flight plans through the war zone (basically each time declare it safe to fly) even though the Ukrainian military were regularly flying the combat missions in the airspace, receiving anti-aircraft fire and losing planes to it, lost a number of BUK systems to rebels, after that lost 2 cargo planes to surface-to-air missiles at the heights not reachable by MANPAD missiles - and still didn't close the airspace and were still explicitly accepting civilian flight plans... This is why all this propaganda theories about a ghost lone Russian BUK launcher almost every night crossing into Ukraine territory and crossing back again.
It's not cause the West "hundreds of innocent civilians dying because …" that you need to drag hundreds of OTHER innocent people into your conflict conflict.
If you say the Western public is guilty just cause they live or cause we vote, then believe me - nobody here votes for politicians based on what their policy on the Ukraine is.
Ukraine shot down Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 in 2001, the US shot down Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988 and the French probably shot down Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870 in 1980. The Russians do have form on this with shooting down Korean Air Lines Flight 007 in 1983.
Unless it is a deliberate act, then it is generally treated as regrettable collateral damage, but is not usually considered an act of war. For the obvious reason that the world is already intentionally dangerous enough without us taking too much umbrage at any of the inevitable fuckups that constantly occur alongside the everyday business of blowing the shit out of each other.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UU6ZFN9Tx6xh-skXCuRHCDpQ&...
it takes a while to write a couple hundred words sometimes.
FYI -- the women behind these sanctions, Victoria Nuland, used to be a senior aid of Dick Cheney. Prepare for shit to get a lot worse and last a lot longer than anyone expects.
"Accordingly, Edward Snowden was given a three-year
residence permit," which will allow him to move about
freely and travel abroad, Mr Kucherena said.
The Crimea is probably the safest place he could travel to at present!
He cannot risk flying. The Bolivian incident showed just how powerful the US is when it comes to Snowden and flying. They forced down a presidential jet for god's sake! They were willing to risk a massive diplomatic incident and outcry (toned down) by doing so.
He could travel by boat somewhere quietly, but (in my opinion) countries that have offered him some degree of asylum, such as Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela are not stable or strong enough to oppose the will of the United States of America. If I was Snowden I couldn't imagine anything worse than landing in Bolivia, only to find that two years later a pro-US president miraculously wins the election. The US-CIA have a rather impressive record of subverting elections in South and Central America, so he would be a fool to risk it.
Therefore, he is confined to Russia until Russia finds a reason to become the USA's best friend. He can travel overland to any country that is pro-Russia and protected by Russia. That's about it. Most of them are (ex)war zones.
Considering the current geo-politics, that scenario is highly unlikely. The status quo is likely to remain, as long as oil, gas, and other natural resources are fought over by the world's major league countries.
The US has little (in comparison) natural resources, whilst Russia has more than any other country. Long term, the power scales will tip. The only thing that may change that is a pro-USA Russian government.
Oh, and pigs might fly over the Kremlim before that happens.
The US could rapidly turn Cuban relations around if they wanted something like say 'A Snowden'.
He is probably safer in Russia than anywhere else, until he pisses them off. The smart money says he isn't about to do that of his own volution.
Granted, a boat trip is longer, which is more time for things to (be made to) go wrong, but if a ship is traveling through international waters, are there any grounds for another country to board it and seize its passengers?
(With a follow up: is there a sea route between Russia and Friendly Country X which doesn't pass through waters claimed by another country?)
Legal grounds? Does it matter?
Suddenly, pirates, out of fucking nowhere.
EDIT:
Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if some "random" thing happened to Snowden if he tried to go by a boat. Just like Assange became an sex offender out of the blue the moment he seriously pissed off the US government.
I think the issue was, what was considered rape in Sweden was basically just being a misogynistic douche in other countries.
However, he would have known this well before going into the country, it's not like they created a new law just for him.
I doubt the US is so subtle as to use pirates. People seem to have these grand conspiracies about how the government is like a ninja...it's not.
They will simply send the police around and arrest him. Seriously, why are they going to bother with cloak and daggers for? This isn't a Bond movie. They will simply arrest him, and charge him with espionage charges since...err..that's sort of what he did?
Pretty much the best way to travel under the radar.
http://thediplomat.com/2011/10/chinas-overhyped-submarine-threat/
>The Song-class vessel, displacing 2,200 tons, was close enough to hit the Kitty Hawk with one of its 18 homing torpedoes. None of the carrier’s roughly dozen escorting warships detected the Song until it breached the surface.
And:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqFVOL7mLd4#t=9m58sMy point was that if Snowden were to travel by plane then there is a high probability that it could be forced to be grounded and Snowden captured then sent to Gitmo.
But if he were to travel by submarine, he would be untouchable from the US Navy.
It's silly to think the US would get into a military engagement with Russia just to capture Snowden. At this point, he's not that valuable to either side, except as a propaganda tool. Hell, Putin would probably do a happy dance if the US were stupid enough to do something like that. The sabre rattling in the Ukraine has made him very popular - one can only imagine what a revived cold war rivalry would do for him; in the short term, at least.
Vladivostok, which is very close to Japan, and would be nearly impossible to not go through either South Korean or Japanese waters. Neither of which are friendly to him.
Sevastopol, Which requires going through the Turkey, and then either through the straights of Gibraltar or Egypt.
St Petersburg, Which requires passing through Denmark.
If I were in his shoes, I'd probably try to charter a Jet coming out of Vladivostok. If that wasn't possible, I think I'd choose the Sevastopol/Gibraltar route by sea.
But it was a reasonable guess given that Snowden had been in Russia for a week and Evo Morales was talking about offering him asylum.
It's harder to guess right when Snowden could (in theory) board any plane leaving Moscow on any day this year or next, or the year after that.
Tracking his day-to-day movements, even if he should arrange to get to an airport in secret? Extraordinary. Do you have a link for that?
What I meant was the has a much broader choice of flights and even airports now. The odds seem to more in his favour now, should he wish to move.
Though actually, why would he? I don't see any advantage for Snowden from relocating to the same show, but in Venezuela or Argentina.
Both tasks should be business as usual for such huge secret service.
CIA had a lot of time between them and now. It also have a lot of resources and his movements are likely to be top priority for them. Them knowing he boarded a plane is real risk for him.
I do think that would be an achievement while he's under the wing of the Russian government. But what do I know?
What's really extraordinary is that gpvos knows for sure that it's not only doable but is actually happening; and is willing to share this intel with us. Or they seem to know; no citation to support the claim has been provided yet. It could just be internet BS.
For the rest: what watwut said in a nearby comment. I'm just extrapolating from things like the Evo Morales incident.
Submarines would be too expensive. He's not worth that much to Russia, Argentina or any other country.
Some non-Russians who visit Russia need an exit visa. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/exit-visa.asp
------ My original post was getting heavily downvoted, even after the first edit. Here it is, with the first edit. I've ROT13d it to stop people down-voting the (now corrected) mistake.
Fbzr angvbaf erdhver gurve pvgvmraf gb trg crezvffvba gb yrnir gur pbhagel. Ehffvn vf bar bs gurfr pbhagevrf.
RQVG: V jbeqrq guvf ernyyl onqyl. Ehffvn hfrq gb erdhver vgf pvgvmraf gb trg rkvg ivfnf. Ohg Ehffvn qbrf fgvyy erdhver aba-pvgvmraf gb unir rkvg ivfnf. uggc://jjj.vairfgbcrqvn.pbz/grezf/r/rkvg-ivfn.nfc
The only exception if you work for government and have some sort of security clearance.
But you are right in Snowdens case, since foreigners resident in Russia need an 'exit visum' to be allowed to do trips abroad, and clearly Snowden is one of those.
So Snowden needs permission to be allowed to leave.
No, Russians don't require a permission to leave the country.
You are just babbling some made-up factoids.
Sincerely,
A Russian citizenMaybe this is different matter for some flights (for example, to Israel or the USA), where the airline does additional checks on you, but you fly out to Europe and most other destinations unchecked (despite needing a visa to enter).
i.e. Russians need a visa to enter country X, you don't have one.
I've traveled quite a lot, and I'm always asked if I have authorization to enter the country I'm flying to.
Maybe they do a fast peek at your passport when letting you to board in the very end, but they can only check if some visa is physically there, since it takes them around 5 sec.
Now that every single person has rights, accepting them in your country also gives you a responsibility towards them.
My point was that identity controls predated travel controls and were a prerequisite for a "papers please" kind of society. Each state chooses (either directly or by will of its voters) what responsibilities it owes to non-citizens in its territory. Those responsibilities can range from almost nonexistent to very generous, but it is ultimately the choice of the state, and not the visitors to that state.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_U.S.%20new...
Snowden should have never been charged. Snowden is a hero, one who took his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, with all seriousness, at great personal risk, and now his good name is tarnished and his freedom is restricted, and the people who violated their oaths and broke the law are free.
Shame, shame.
All other european nations have declined to host him, that is until now.
So much about being independant countries...
It's worse for UK residents[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_trea...
* Snowdon revealled much about GCHQ so you can't really expect the UK government to be any more supportive of his activities than the US one was. I don't know enough detail but suspect other countries were implicated too. In those cases they're not in thrall to the US, they're simply responding according to their own interests.
* For European countries not specifically mentioned, why would any government antagonise the US when they're probably doing similar things themselves.
* Let's not kid ourselves what the Russians are really doing. This is basically trolling on an international government scale. Putin certainly doesn't believe Snowdon is a freedom fighter, and his actions around support for Snowdon are hypocritical in the extreme given the sorts of activities Russia are almost certainly engaged in themselves.
It's unrealistic to assume any government will support Snowdon as a matter of principal. They'll do so if it is popular enough with the people of their country but to me at least this doesn't feel like something that your average person is going to get worked up about compared to more domestic issues such as jobs, the cost of living and Kim Kardashian's ass.
Not only that, but you also have to ignore the things the current Russian government could, would, and has done to people like Snowden to think this has every been some altruistic move on their part.
Generally dissidents have more in common with the country they're fleeing to than the one they're fleeing from but that's not the case with Snowdon. He's not a communist sympathiser, he's closer to being an American patriot who has done something his government may disagree with because he wants his country to be better. Simply put he's in Russia because it's there or Guantanamo Bay.
On the Russian side Putin has no sympathy whatsoever with the principals Snowdon stands for. Putin is a former spy with a penchant for locking up or oppressing those who oppose him. His logic runs no further than my enemy's enemy is my friend. If Snowdon was had revealed similar information about Russian intelligence Putin would be first in line to have him locked up or worse.
For one thing, Putin don't seem to have the ambition to dominate the world like the US does and for which the NSA's global eavesdropping is an important tool.
If you rewind back, the US reaction to Snowden staying in Russia was remarkably disproportionately mild. For an incident that made an unprecedented damage to the US image, it was very un-US like to just let it go. So tearing Ukraine away from Russia and pissing all over Russian political image fits right in. These two events just cannot not be connected.
When did that happen? Did we watch completely opposite news for the last couple of months?
Right before Russia started attempting to tear Ukraine back again. With mixed results.
More like trying to turn people who are life-long friends into blood enemies. It's an inherently same culture, similar language, mentality and drinking habits, same religion. If you look at the beginning of the rebel conflict, you'd see a great deal of resistance on both side to engage in active hostilities. On more than one occasion Ukrainian troops were talked into turning back. People don't want to fight, but they are being actively coalesced into it. There's no simmering feud, no age-long hatred, no real reasons for fighting except for high-level geopolitics, which is why I think that Ukraine's anti-president revolt didn't happen in isolation, but as a response to something that happened earlier, of which Snowden seems to be the simplest explanation.
We didn't have to convince most of the Eastern Bloc, they came running to us with open arms. Why would Ukraine be any different? Sure, some of them speak Russian, but that doesn't mean they want to be Russian.
Also, to be fair, I'm not sure it's true Ukraine is "life-long friends". They've been dominated by Russia for centuries. Given the chance to be independent, I wonder if they'd take it.
I don't have to like spheres of influence to believe there is some reality to them.
1. I believe Ukrainians would rather be EU citizens and would rather be politically closer to the EU than Russia.
2. I believe the US and other nations have been yanking Putin's chain for various reasons.
There is no contradiction between the two.
That, but mostly because Russia stopped USA from bombing Syria. Remember when USA really really wanted to, and then Russia just sent some of the best anti-air defense system, (S300?) to Syria, as well as pulled that "we will ask Assad and oversee that he removes the chemical weapons" - thus taking the main argument for punishment/bombing from under USAs feet.
After that event, I remember Kerry or someone else said "Russia will pay for this".
Even if we forget about the US/Europe thing, remember that Yanukovych was previously ousted from power in another revolution 10 years before: the Orange Revolution.
Given the scale and duration of Euromaidan the chances of it being a spontaneous phenomenon are zero. It had to be centrally coordinated and directed to last this long. It could've been coordinated by activists, but then somehow all their organizational skills disappeared right after Yanukovich was gone. Just look at the mess that followed. Someone else was directing.
The US was unquestionably involved in both, not sure why you think otherwise...
Are you joking? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa
This is how virtually every revolution goes.
I don't think it's a conspiracy that US successfully managed to get Ukraine out of Russia's hands. A good thing, some might say.
However, I think it's nonsense to suggest it's some massive US/EU plot to get revenge on Russia. It was spontaneous and reacting to something completely unrelated to Snowden or Syria.
Next, there is a speech where Nuland brags about "investing" $5 billion dollars in Ukraine to help it "achieve its European aspirations" [3]. And here is an article [4] about part of the money going to unknown recipients or political parties and NGOs.
[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
[2] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25896786
[3] http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2013/dec/218804.htm
[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/07/us-foreign-aid-ukra...
Occam's razor, and all.
[1] https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2013/12/if-snowden-r...
[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/would-an...
In an ideal world we might have stronger whistle-blower protections in the Espionage Act, but for the moment it works like most other laws: the reason you violated the law may mean the prosecutor decides not to pursue the case or mean you get a light sentence, but the trial is not about why you did it, but whether you did it.
What specific crimes could we use to prosecute specific people? What the NSA is doing might be illegal and unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean there's a legal framework in place for punishing people specifically. I believe there are cases still moving in the judicial system to prove NSA actions were illegal and/or unconstitutional and to put an end to those actions.
>If there's no surprise or outrage, that just means the nominal raison d'être of the founding fathers / US Constitution is so far dead that it doesn't matter anymore. Sadly, this is most likely the case.
Calling it nominal is certainly the right usage. The founding fathers/US constitution offered the majority of the population no power whatsoever within the system. And the ink was hardly dry on the paper before the same founding fathers were flagrantly violating the rights of even propertied white men with, e.g., the Sedition Act. People went to prison for the crime of criticizing John Adams.
I'd say we're much better off now. Rather than saying it's "so far dead that it doesn't matter anymore", I'd say it's entering the prime of its life in the long view.
The context of the Espionage Act absolutely matters. Daniel Ellsberg, Drake, Manning were not able to speak for themselves at trial. Lawyers would point out that a law from 1917 is wildly being taken out of context by US prosecutors. In all of these leaker cases, including Snowdens, the government was revealed to be involved in incredible immoral and illegal activities, and sometimes even atrocities. The US Prosecutors think that is irrelevant. To an amoral society it is.
They absolutely were. Both Russo and Ellsberg testified about their reasons for leaking the Pentagon Papers and their experiences in Vietnam. Manning, whose case much different since it was tried by the military's judicial system, also got a chance to speak for himself. Manning pleaded guilty to ten charges and gave a long statement, in part explaining why he did it. There was also substantial testimony during the trial for the remaining charges explaining why he did it. Drake never went through the full process because the government dropped the charges.
> Why absolutely is relevant. If there is a dead man in your home, did he break in and threaten you or was it someone who you invited in and then killed?
That not a "here's why I broke the law", that's a "I didn't actually break the law, it was self defense and not first degree murder."
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it
793(e) is similarly worded. It's not that the government doesn't need to show damage - they can't. It's not applicable to the charges. The law is written in favor of the leaker - so long as he or she believed that what they were disclosing would not cause harm to the US, they can't be found guilty under this law. They could reveal nuclear launch codes to the Russians and in the process destroy the entire state of Ohio; so long as they didn't believe that what they were doing would cause harm, they're not guilty under Section 793. Snowden could easily take the stand and say "I didn't believe this would cause any harm. On the contrary, I believe what I leaked was of benefit to the US." The problem for him is that it would probably be hard to find a jury who believed that.
798(a)(3) is ambiguously worded[3] (emphasis mine):
Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information...
... (3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government...
I'm not sure how the courts would decide to interpret the statue. Is it "(communicates...|publishes|uses) in any manner..." or "(communicates...|publishes|uses in any manner...)"? In the former case, the US government does indeed need to show damage; in the latter case they don't. Since there's not a whole lot of case law on this, it's tough to say. I'd imagine Snowden's defense (if he ever faces trial) would probably push to have it interpreted the first way. Note also that this law only concerns specific types of classified information, while 793(d) is more broad in what it covers.
It's also worth noting that the whole "Snowden couldn't get a fair trial" meme is being pushed by Glenn Greenwald (the primary beneficiary of the Snowden leaks) and people close to him. In the case of your article, Trevor Timm is a co-founder and board member of the Freedom of Press Foundation; Greenwald is also a founder and board member. And, incidentally, Edward Snowden (who would benefit the most from public perception that he couldn't get a fair trial) is also a board member[4].
[1] http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_U.S.%20new...
[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
Got a bit of entitlement there do we?
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/edward-snowden-asylum-stateme...
He did his part to spread awareness about U.S. government's unforgivable hypocrisy so I suppose that just about cancels out in terms of impact on the world, eh?
He obviously knows that Russia is using all of this to limit freedom of speech and human rights on the internet and in the country however there's nothing he can do.
This is a fight the Russian people will have to fight for themselves.
Because if he does not get himself involved in freedom of all countries in the world, then his own message about freedom in country he is actually citizen of does not count. Because he should voluntary spend the rest of his life in small box to prove his is not hypocritical, right?
>Instead, you are complaining about Snowden not instantly becoming Russia freedom activist and general expert on Russia freedom.
Oh, I could compare him to actual Russian freedom activists who didn't run away from their country when things got tough, and went to prison for their beliefs. But that comparison would be unfavorable to Snowden. Did anyone in the world care when Russian whistleblower Alexei Navalny got arrested? Was it on Hacker News front page? Oh, and Snowden was around here when that happened. He most certainly knew it happened (it was big news here in Russia). He didn't even say a word about his fellow whistleblower. This is the shit that drives me up a wall.
Also, for the record, he has openly criticised censorship in Russia -
I’ve been totally open about the fact that I disapprove of the majority of the recent laws in Russia on internet censorship and surveillance. I think it’s entirely inappropriate for any government in any country to insert itself into the regulation of a free press.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/18/-sp-edward-snow...
That said, that's not Snowden fault. Yes, he's an hypocrite, but so what? Are you judging him by the same standard as you judge yourself, or your friends? Or are you blaming him for the indifference of the whole Western population? He's just a guy.
Did anyone in the world care when Russian whistleblower Alexei Navalny got arrested? Was it on Hacker News front page?
Well, you didn't submit it. See my point about measuring others by a different standard? :)
Those who don't, get to "fight" everything and everyone.
Have a good day "fighter"
He's got him by the balls and can make him dance like a puppet if he wanted to.
That doesn't make his past actions any less heroic.
Whether you agree with his actions or not, he's certainly no coward. He's also unlikely to be in possession of any information about Russia that isn't widely known.
Surely it'd be crazy to risk his only refuge when he has neither power, nor information, nor responsibility.