Foreign politicians and officials who took part in two G20 summit meetings in London in 2009 had their computers monitored and their phone calls intercepted on the instructions of their British government hosts, according to documents seen by the Guardian. Some delegates were tricked into using internet cafes which had been set up by British intelligence agencies to read their email traffic.
The revelation comes as Britain prepares to host another summit on Monday – for the G8 nations, all of whom attended the 2009 meetings which were the object of the systematic spying. It is likely to lead to some tension among visiting delegates who will want the prime minister to explain whether they were targets in 2009 and whether the exercise is to be repeated this week.
The disclosure raises new questions about the boundaries of surveillance by GCHQ and its American sister organisation, the National Security Agency, whose access to phone records and internet data has been defended as necessary in the fight against terrorism and serious crime. The G20 spying appears to have been organised for the more mundane purpose of securing an advantage in meetings. Named targets include long-standing allies such as South Africa and Turkey.
There have often been rumours of this kind of espionage at international conferences, but it is highly unusual for hard evidence to confirm it and spell out the detail. The evidence is contained in documents – classified as top secret – which were uncovered by the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and seen by the Guardian. They reveal that during G20 meetings in April and September 2009 GCHQ used what one document calls "ground-breaking intelligence capabilities" to intercept the communications of visiting delegations.
This included:
• Setting up internet cafes where they used an email interception programme and key-logging software to spy on delegates' use of computers;
• Penetrating the security on delegates' BlackBerrys to monitor their email messages and phone calls;
• Supplying 45 analysts with a live round-the-clock summary of who was phoning who at the summit;
• Targeting the Turkish finance minister and possibly 15 others in his party;
• Receiving reports from an NSA attempt to eavesdrop on the Russian leader, Dmitry Medvedev, as his phone calls passed through satellite links to Moscow.
It was a swipe at his initial claims that he only revealed PRISM info because he felt it was a threat to American freedoms. The fact that he's subsequently released other, secret info about our efforts to hack China and now British efforts to spy on summit delegates suggests that he might not be quite the constitutional hero he was initially made out to be.
Did anyone really think other than:
a) that both the UK government and others did all of this stuff, all the time as a matter of course?
b) that every person in a position of power in government doesn't know that it goes on?
The whole thing feels like someone getting busted for copying a CD onto a cassette tape..
Pacific wrote: Did anyone really think other than:
a) that both the UK government and others did all of this stuff, all the time as a matter of course?
b) that every person in a position of power in government doesn't know that it goes on?
The whole thing feels like someone getting busted for copying a CD onto a cassette tape..
I'll answer your questions with some of my own:
1) Do you feel that everyone who has access to classified information should be free to decide on their own what should and should not be classified?
2) Do you believe it's impossible for potential and actual enemies to gain insight about how we go about collecting intelligence - and thus how to go about avoiding the various methods - when leaks like this occur?
3) Do you believe foreign intelligence partners are more or less likely to work closely and share secret information with us when we have one self-appointed jackass running around the globe spilling beans not only on us, but on them?
Another good example of crap like this is our media deciding to run the story, after it had been leaked to them, that we had a spy in a cell in Yemen, and information he provided had allowed us to stop a planned attack. (This is part of what kicked off all the reporter investigating over here that people got so up in arms over.) The real kicker is he wasn't even ours - he was most likely Saudi intelligence, and it's quite possible he got killed. Why would you risk your assets to provide us information if we can't even keep their activities secret?
Just some stuff to ponder while you applaud noted Constitutional scholar, stripper dater, and international fugitive Snowden there.
But if we the government were to keep track of everything related about gun purchases, and kept secret government databases on who owns what gun and where they purchased it, then we would have a problem. Because the government knowing that kind of stuff would lead to abuse, but keeping track of everything else just keeps us safe.
d-usa wrote: But if we the government were to keep track of everything related about gun purchases, and kept secret government databases on who owns what gun and where they purchased it, then we would have a problem. Because the government knowing that kind of stuff would lead to abuse, but keeping track of everything else just keeps us safe.
You'd almost have a decent strawman if PRISM were just a little on the unconstitutional side.
Not that this thread has much of anything to do with PRISM, of course. Funnily enough, neither did Snowden's "whistleblowing" about network operations against the Chinese. I know nearly everyone rushed to put on their shiniest lipstick and drop to their knees the second he leaked the PRISM info, and it's natural to defend that impulse, I suppose, but you might want to step back and ask how his apparent plan to illegally divulge everything he knows actually serves his claimed "public service" motive.
Or, you know, you could just answer the questions above.
There is also nothing unconstitutional about requiring that every gun transaction, including name and address of purchases, be entered into a federal database that can be accessed with a warrant.
d-usa wrote: There is also nothing unconstitutional about requiring that every gun transaction, including name and address of purchases, be entered into a federal database that can be accessed with a warrant.
I see. So your point is that because you don't like the way current gun legislation pushes are going, it's perfectly cool for a guy to decide that federal statutes on secret information don't apply to him.
As cogent as ever. Care to get back on topic, or would you like to continue trying to distract from the attempted defense of the indefensible?
I have nothing to say about the guy that leaked this, I don't think that I have every said that I am defending him.
I'm just talking about your conflicting stance on government databases, and that it seems to be perfectly fine to keep records on anything that people might be doing on a telephone or the internet. But every time anybody else has recommended a database on gun purchases, which would not be against the constitution, you and many of the defenders of the NSA activities start going "OMG, the government can't be trusted with that kind of knowledge!"
So it appears that according to you, the government would never abuse the kind of databases they are currently building. Unless they are about guns.
Pacific wrote: Did anyone really think other than:
a) that both the UK government and others did all of this stuff, all the time as a matter of course?
b) that every person in a position of power in government doesn't know that it goes on?
The whole thing feels like someone getting busted for copying a CD onto a cassette tape..
I'll answer your questions with some of my own:
1) Do you feel that everyone who has access to classified information should be free to decide on their own what should and should not be classified?
2) Do you believe it's impossible for potential and actual enemies to gain insight about how we go about collecting intelligence - and thus how to go about avoiding the various methods - when leaks like this occur?
3) Do you believe foreign intelligence partners are more or less likely to work closely and share secret information with us when we have one self-appointed jackass running around the globe spilling beans not only on us, but on them?
Another good example of crap like this is our media deciding to run the story, after it had been leaked to them, that we had a spy in a cell in Yemen, and information he provided had allowed us to stop a planned attack. (This is part of what kicked off all the reporter investigating over here that people got so up in arms over.) The real kicker is he wasn't even ours - he was most likely Saudi intelligence, and it's quite possible he got killed. Why would you risk your assets to provide us information if we can't even keep their activities secret?
Just some stuff to ponder while you applaud noted Constitutional scholar, stripper dater, and international fugitive Snowden there.
Umm, that's all very interesting.. I wouldn't argue against any of that (except the negative connotations against strippers, outstanding profession that it is) - I was simply saying that none of the news in the OP is in the least bit surprising.
Is it me or does it seem he's trying to find a country that won't extradite his arse to the US? BTW...is Assuage still in the UK holed up in some embassy?
Jihadin wrote: Is it me or does it seem he's trying to find a country that won't extradite his arse to the US? BTW...is Assuage still in the UK holed up in some embassy?
(Washington,DC) - The conviction of President Rafael Correa's critics for criminal defamation violates Ecuador's international human rights obligations and should be overturned on appeal, Human Rights Watch said today. Ecuador should abolish the defamation provisions in its criminal code, Human Rights Watch said.
On July 20, 2011, a judge in Guayas province sentenced each of the four to three years in prison and ordered a total of US$40 million in fines against the men and the newspaper, El Universo, based in Guayaquil. The men are Emilio Palacio, a journalist, and three members of the newspaper's board of directors, Carlos Eduardo Pérez Barriga, César Enrique Pérez Barriga, and Carlos Nicolás Pérez Barriga.
"The criminal conviction of the president's critics is a major setback for free speech in Ecuador," said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. "Punishing a journalist and directors of a newspaper for ‘offending' the president is likely to have a very negative impact on the news media and public debate in Ecuador."
Correa had filed a criminal defamation suit in March contending that an opinion piece by Palacio "on purpose, immorally, and maliciously insults [him], with the only intention of affecting [his] prestige, honor, and good name."
The opinion piece, "No to lies" (No a las mentiras), published in El Universo on February 6, refers to Correa as "the Dictator." It criticizes Correa for considering pardoning those involved in a police rebellion in September 2010 - called a coup attempt by the government - in which Correa was held hostage for several hours in a police hospital. Palacio accused Correa of ordering his forces to fire on the hospital, which was "full of civilians and innocent people." Palacio concluded, "Crimes against humanity, don't you forget, are not subject to statutes of limitation."
In his criminal complaint, Correa accused Palacio and the three El Universo directors of committing libel against public officials (injuria calumniosa contra autoridad pública). Article 493 of the Ecuadorian Criminal Code states that anyone who falsely attributes the commission of a crime to a public official will be subject to a prison sentence of up to three years.
Correa's lawyer said he would appeal the decision, seeking a higher monetary sanction, according to press accounts. El Universo's lawyer told Human Rights Watch they will request a higher court to overturn the conviction.
Under the Ecuadorian Constitution rights protected under international law and treaties, such as the right to freedom of expression, are directly enforceable by the courts. Human Rights Watch said that the convictions should be set aside on appeal as incompatible with freedom of expression as guaranteed by the American Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which Ecuador is a party to.
In the interest of promoting the vibrant public debate necessary in a democratic society, international human rights bodies have long criticized the use of criminal defamation charges in response to allegations involving public officials. The Principles on Freedom of Expression adopted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2000 assert that protection of the reputation of public officials should be guaranteed only by civil sanctions.
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has held that public officials "who have voluntarily exposed themselves to greater public scrutiny are subject to greater risks of being criticized, since their activities are ... part of the public debate." The honor of public officials or public people must be legally protected, the court says, but that must be accomplished "in accordance with principles of democratic pluralism."
The use of criminal proceedings for defamation must therefore be limited to cases of "extreme gravity" as a "truly exceptional measure" where its "absolute necessity" has been demonstrated, and that in any such case the burden of proof must rest with the accuser.
In a referendum held in May 2011, President Rafael Correa obtained a popular mandate to reform the Ecuadorian justice system, a recommendation accepted by Ecuador during the previous UPR cycle. However, the language of the approved reforms could significantly increase the government’s powers to influence the appointment and dismissal of judges.
Other serious concerns not addressed by the UPR recommendations of 2008 include the fact that government authorities have undermined free expression by using criminal defamation laws, by arbitrarily forcing TV and radio stations to air presidential speeches, and by failing to adopt regulations to grant official advertisement. Those involved in protests in which there are outbreaks of violence may be prosecuted on inflated and inappropriate terrorism charges. Ecuador has also harassed human rights defenders, and failed to bring those responsible of police abuses to justice.
II. Human Rights Issues
Judicial independence
The Ecuadorian judiciary has been plagued by corruption, inefficiency and political influence for many years. President Correa’s efforts to reform the system, however, could lead to a significant increase in the government’s influence over the appointment and dismissal of judges. The Recommendation 9 accepted during the UPR in 2008, which would on the contrary have required greater independence of the judiciary, is therefore not implemented by the Government of Ecuador.
Voters in the May 2011 referendum approved a proposal to dissolve the Judicial Council, a body composed of independent jurists responsible for the selection, promotion and dismissal of judges, whose efficiency had been widely questioned. It was to be replaced for 18 months by a tripartite transitional council to be appointed by the president, the legislature (in which President Correa has majority support) and the “Transparency and Social Control Function,” the citizen’s branch established in the 2008 Constitution. This transitional council dismissed scores of judges in August and September 2011.
Also approved in the referendum was a constitutional reform giving the executive branch and its appointees a direct role in a new Judicial Council that would eventually replace the one dissolved. One of the new Judicial Council’s five members would be chosen by the executive; its other members would include the attorney general and the public defender.
In September 2011, at the request of the transitional council, President Correa declared a “state of emergency in the judicial branch,” to resolve the “critical situation” of the justice system. The decree declared a “national mobilization, especially of all the personnel of the judicial branch.” Lack of clarity about the meaning of “mobilization” could threaten judges’ independence by suggesting that they must line up behind government goals or risk dismissal.
Freedom of Expression
The Ecuadorean criminal code includes provisions criminalizing “desacato,” under which anyone who “offends” the president or other government authorities may receive a prison sentence of up to three months (for offending officials), and up to two years (for offending the president). In addition, anyone who commits libel against public officials may be subject to a prison sentence of up to three years. A new criminal code presented by the government to the National Assembly in October 2011 does not include the crime of desacato, but if approved would still mandate prison sentences of up to three years for those who defame public authorities.
Since President Correa filed a criminal defamation suit in 2007 against the director of the newspaper La Hora, several local and government authorities have initiated criminal proceedings against journalists and media owners accusing them of defamation. According to the Fundación Andina para la Observación y Estudio de Medios (Fundamedios), a nongovernmental organization that focuses on free expression in Ecuador, six journalists have been convicted for defamation since 2008, and at least 10 others are under criminal investigation.
In 2011, President Correa took Emilio Palacio, a journalist, and three members of the El Universal newspaper’s board of directors to court for allegedly defaming him. In July, a judge in Guayas province sentenced the four men to three years in prison and ordered them to pay US$ 40 million in damages to the president for an article the judge considered defamatory. In an opinion piece Palacios had referred to President Correa as a “dictator,” and accused him of ordering his forces to fire on a hospital, which was “full of civilians and innocent people,” during the police revolt mentioned above. In September 2011, a three-person appeals court confirmed the prison sentence and the fine by majority vote.
In order to rebut media criticism the government has also used a provision of the broadcasting legislation that obliges private broadcasters to interrupt scheduled programs to transmit government messages known as “cadenas.” According to an independent group, between January 2007 and May 2011, there were 1,025 cadenas totaling 151 hours of broadcasting time, many of which included attacks on government critics and only interrupted the program of the journalist that the cadena was criticizing.
Legislation to regulate broadcasting and print media has been under congressional debate since 2009. In the May 2011 referendum, voters also supported by a small majority a proposal to create an official council to regulate the content of television, radio and print media. Proposals by six ruling party legislators under discussion in the National Assembly in July 2011 would grant broad powers to this council, allowing it to punish media that disseminate “information of public relevance that harms human rights, reputation, people’s good name, and the public security of the state,” terms so vague that they could lead to sanctions against critical outlets.
The national government of Ecuador is the main advertiser in Ecuadorian media. At this writing, there are no clear, public guidelines in place on how to distribute official advertisement. The absence of transparent criteria for allocating government advertising contracts creates a risk of political discrimination against media outlets that criticize government officials.
Misuse of Anti-Terror Laws in Dealing with Social Protests
Prosecutors have applied a “terrorism and sabotage” provision of the criminal code in cases involving protests against mining and oil projects and in other incidents that have ended in confrontations with police.
Involvement in acts of violence or obstructing roads during such protests should be ordinary criminal offenses. Yet Ecuador’s criminal code includes, under the category of sabotage and terrorism, “crimes against the common security of people or human groups of whatever kind or against their property,” by individuals or associations “whether armed or not.” Such crimes carry a possible prison sentence of four to eight years.
In July 2011 the Center for Economic and Social Rights, an Ecuadorian human rights group, reported that 189 indigenous people were facing terrorism and sabotage charges. Most of them were in hiding and only eight had been convicted.
Human Rights Defenders
The Correa administration has proposed to tighten regulations regarding the operation of both domestic and international NGOs in the country, including those working for human rights and the environment. In a draft decree announced in December 2010, domestic NGOs, including those working for human rights, would have to re-register and submit to continuous government monitoring. The decree would give the government broad powers to dissolve groups for “political activism,” and “compromising national security or the interests of the state,” vague terms that could seriously compromise NGOs’ legitimate activities. At this writing, the proposed decree has not been adopted.
Another presidential decree adopted in July 2011 regulating international NGOs with an office in Ecuador allows the government to monitor all their activities and rescind their authorization if they engage in activities different from those described in their application, or “attack public security and peace.” In August, the government announced that it was planning to halt the operations of 16 foreign NGOs because they had failed to provide information about their activities.
In a radio broadcast in June 2011, President Correa accused two nongovernmental organizations, Fundamedios and Participación Ciudadana of trying to destabilize his government, and questioned their alleged receipt of funds from foreign donors. In response to a statement by Fundamedios pointing out that its receipt of foreign funding complied with the law, the communications secretary accused NGOs of implementing “political strategies and military tactics aimed at creating confusion or promoting currents of public opinion favorable to the interests of some of their funders.”
Accountability
Impunity for police abuses is widespread and those responsible for murders often attributed to a “settling of accounts” between criminal gangs are rarely brought to justice. In June 2010, a truth commission created by the Correa administration published a report documenting 68 extrajudicial executions and 17 “disappearances” between 1984 and 2008, and named 458 alleged perpetrators of abuses. According to the commission, few of those responsible for the abuses had been held accountable, due to statutes of limitations, jurisdictional disputes, and procedural delays. In October 2010 the attorney general appointed a team of prosecutors to reopen investigations into cases reported by the commission. As of September 2011, the prosecutors were reported to have renewed investigations into several key cases, but no suspects had been charged.
In a referendum held in May 2011, President Rafael Correa obtained a popular mandate for constitutional reforms that could significantly increase government powers to constrain media and influence the appointment and dismissal of judges.
Those involved in protests in which there are outbreaks of violence may be prosecuted on inflated and inappropriate terrorism charges. Criminal defamation laws that restrict freedom of expression remain in force and Correa has used them repeatedly against his critics. Some articles of a draft communications law in the legislature since 2009 could open the door to media censorship.
Misuse of Anti-Terror Laws in Dealing with Social Protests
Prosecutors have applied a “terrorism and sabotage” provision of the criminal code in cases involving protests against mining and oil projects and in other incidents that have ended in confrontations with police. Involvement in acts of violence or obstructing roads during such protests should be ordinary criminal offenses. Yet Ecuador’s criminal code includes, under the category of sabotage and terrorism, “crimes against the common security of people or human groups of whatever kind or against their property,” by individuals or associations “whether armed or not.” Such crimes carry a possible prison sentence of four to eight years. In July 2011 the Center for Economic and Social Rights, an Ecuadorian human rights group, reported that 189 indigenous people were facing terrorism and sabotage charges. Most of them were in hiding and only eight had been convicted.
Accountability
Impunity for police abuses is widespread and those responsible for murders often attributed to a “settling of accounts” between criminal gangs are rarely brought to justice. In June 2010 a truth commission created by the Correa administration published a report documenting 68 extrajudicial executions and 17 enforced disappearances between 1984 and 2008, and named 458 alleged perpetrators of abuses. According to the commission, few of those responsible for the abuses had been held accountable, due to statutes of limitations, jurisdictional disputes, and procedural delays. In October 2010 the attorney general appointed a team of prosecutors to reopen investigations into cases reported by the commission. As of September 2011 the prosecutors were reported to have renewed investigations into several key cases, but no suspects had been charged.
Freedom of Expression
Ecuador’s Criminal Code still has provisions criminalizing desacato (“lack of respect”), under which anyone who offends a government official may receive a prison sentence up to three months and up to two years for offending the president. In September 2011 the Constitutional Court agreed to consider a challenge to the constitutionality of these provisions submitted by Fundamedios, an Ecuadorian press freedom advocacy group. A new criminal code presented by the government to the National Assembly in October does not include the crime of desacato, but if approved would still mandate prison sentences of up to three years for those who defame public authorities.
Under the existing code, journalists face prison sentences and crippling damages for this offense. According to Fundamedios, by October 2011 five journalists had been sentenced to prison terms for defamation since 2008, and 18 journalists, media directors, and owners of media outlets faced similar charges.
President Correa frequently rebukes journalists and media that criticize him and has personally taken journalists to court for allegedly defaming him. In July 2011 a judge in Guayas province sentenced Emilio Palacio, who headed the opinion section of the Guayaquil newspaper El Universo, and three members of the newspaper’s board of directors, to three years in prison and ordered them to pay US$40 million in damages to the president for an article the judge considered defamatory. In an opinion piece Palacios had referred to Correa as a “dictator” and accused him of ordering his forces to fire on a hospital, which was “full of civilians and innocent people,” during the September 2010 police revolt.
In September 2011 a three-person appeals court confirmed the prison sentence and the fine by majority vote. Correa said in a press conference that he would consider a pardon if the newspaper confessed that it had lied, apologized to the Ecuadorian people, and promised to be more “serious, professional and ethical” in the future.
In order to rebut media criticism the government has also used a provision of the broadcasting legislation that obliges private broadcasters to interrupt scheduled programs to transmit government messages known as cadenas. According to an independent media observation group, between January 2007 and May 2011, there were 1,025 cadenas totaling 151 hours of broadcasting time, many of which included attacks on government critics.
Legislation to regulate broadcasting and print media has been under congressional debate since 2009. In the May 2011 referendum voters supported, by a small majority, a proposal to create an official council to regulate the content of television, radio, and print media. Proposals by six ruling party legislators under discussion in the National Assembly in July 2011 would grant broad powers to this council, allowing it to punish media that disseminate “information of public relevance that harms human rights, reputation, people’s good name, and the public security of the state,” terms so vague that they could easily lead to sanctions against critical outlets.
Judicial Independence
Corruption, inefficiency, and political influence have plagued the Ecuadorian judiciary for many years. Correa’s efforts to reform the system could lead to a significant increase in the government’s influence over the appointment and dismissal of judges. Voters in the May 2011 referendum approved a proposal to dissolve the Judicial Council, a body composed of independent jurists responsible for the selection, promotion, and dismissal of judges, whose efficiency had been widely questioned. It was to be replaced for 18 months by a tripartite transitional council to be appointed by the president, the legislature (in which Correa has majority support), and the “Transparency and Social Control Function,” the citizens’ branch established in the 2008 Constitution. This transitional council dismissed scores of judges in August and September 2011.
Also approved in the referendum was a constitutional reform giving the executive branch and its appointees a direct role in a new judicial council that would eventually replace the one dissolved. One of the new council’s five members would be chosen by the executive; its other members would include the attorney general and the public defender.
In September 2011, at the request of the transitional council, Correa declared a “state of emergency in the judicial branch,” to resolve the “critical situation” of the justice system. The decree declared a “national mobilization, especially of all the personnel of the judicial branch.” Lack of clarity about the meaning of “mobilization” could threaten judges’ independence by suggesting they must get behind government goals or risk dismissal.
Human Rights Defenders
The Correa administration has proposed to tighten regulations regarding the operation of both domestic and international NGOs in the country, including those working on human rights and the environment. In a draft decree announced in December 2010, domestic NGOs, including those working on human rights, would have to re-register and submit to continuous government monitoring. The decree would give the government broad powers to dissolve groups for “political activism,” and “compromising national security or the interests of the state,” ill-defined terms that could seriously compromise NGOs’ legitimate activities. At this writing the proposed decree had not been adopted.
Another presidential decree adopted in July 2011, regulating international NGOs with offices in Ecuador, allows the government to monitor all their activities and rescind their authorizations if they engage in activities different from those described in their application, or “attack public security and peace.” In August the government announced it planned to halt the operations of 16 foreign NGOs because they had failed to provide information about their activities.
In a radio broadcast in June Correa accused Fundamedios and another NGO, Participación Ciudadana (Citizen Participation), of trying to destabilize his government, and questioned their alleged receipt of funds from foreign donors. In response to a statement by Fundamedios pointing out that its receipt of foreign funding complied with the law, the communications secretary accused NGOs of implementing “political strategies and military tactics aimed at creating confusion or promoting currents of public opinion favorable to the interests of some of their funders.”
Key International Actors
In August 2011 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights filed a case accusing Ecuador of violating the right to due process of 27 Supreme Court justices who were arbitrarily dismissed by Congress during a constitutional crisis in 2004.
In October 2011 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights held a thematic hearing on freedom of expression in Ecuador. Addressing the ongoing use of criminal libel laws to prosecute people for criticizing public authorities over matters of public interest, the commission noted that the protection of reputation in such cases must be guaranteed only through civil sanctions. The commission also expressed its “deepest concern” at a government broadcast (which all television and radio stations had to air) seeking to discredit Fundamedios, whose representatives had testified at the hearing.
Head of state and government Rafael Vicente Correa Delgado
Indigenous and community leaders faced spurious criminal charges aimed at restricting their freedom of assembly. The rights of Indigenous Peoples to consultation and to free, prior and informed consent were not fulfilled.
Background
Mass demonstrations and blockades led by Indigenous organizations took place against government proposals on the use of natural resources and to demand the right to consultation.
In August, Ecuador granted diplomatic asylum to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. At the end of the year, he remained in the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK where he had sought asylum after the UK Supreme Court dismissed his appeal against extradition to Sweden to answer allegations of sexual assault. Ecuador granted him diplomatic asylum on the basis that, if extradited to Sweden, he could be extradited to the USA where he could face an unfair trial, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, life imprisonment and the death penalty.
In October, an Ecuadorian court issued an order that froze approximately US$200 million of the assets of the oil company Chevron in Ecuador in order to implement an earlier ruling awarding US$18.2 billion to Amazon Indigenous communities for environmental damage. Earlier that month, Chevron had lost an appeal before the US Supreme Court to stop the plaintiffs from trying to collect the damages awarded. In November, a judge in Argentina embargoed Chevron’s assets in that country to carry out the Ecuadorian court’s ruling.
In September, Ecuador accepted most recommendations made under the UN Universal Periodic Review. These included ensuring the right to peaceful assembly and protest of community activists and Indigenous leaders; undertaking a review of existing and proposed legislation relating to freedom of expression; and decriminalizing defamation. However, it rejected a recommendation to ensure the right of Indigenous Peoples to free, prior and informed consent.
Freedom of association
Indigenous and campesino leaders were subjected to unfounded charges of terrorism, sabotage and homicide; criminal prosecutions; arbitrary arrests; and strict bail conditions in an attempt to discourage them from voicing their opposition to government laws and policies. In most cases, judges dismissed the charges as baseless. However, by the end of the year, three Indigenous and campesino leaders were still involved in court proceedings and subject to bail restrictions and three others were convicted and given short prison sentences.
In August, Carlos Pérez, leader of the Communal Water Systems of Azuay; Federico Guzmán, President of the Victoria del Portete Parish Council; and Efraín Arpi, leader of the Tarqui Parish, were given reduced sentences of eight days’ imprisonment for blocking a road during a protest in Azuay province against proposed legislation. The men claimed the legislation would affect their community’s access to water and was not adequately consulted. Federico Guzmán and Efraín Arpi had stated that they did not directly participate in the protest. Carlos Pérez admitted that he did, but that traffic had been allowed to flow every 30 minutes and emergency vehicles were allowed to pass. By the end of the year a warrant for their arrest had not yet been issued.
Indigenous Peoples’ rights
In July the Inter-American Court of Human Rights confirmed that Ecuador had not consulted the Sarayaku Indigenous community in Pastaza province regarding an oil project to be carried out in their territory. It ordered the state to remove or inactivate explosives buried on Sarayaku territory; consult the Sarayaku regarding future development projects that might affect them; and take steps to make the right to consultation a reality for all Indigenous Peoples, among other measures.
In November bids for oil exploration in the Amazon region went out to public tender amid concerns that Indigenous communities that might be affected had not been consulted.
In a report published in August, the CERD Committee raised concerns at the absence of a regulated and systematic process for consultation with Indigenous Peoples on issues that affect them, including the extraction of natural resources.
Freedom of expression
There were concerns that laws dealing with the crime of insult were being used against journalists in violation of the right to freedom of expression and could deter other critics of government authorities from speaking out.
In February, the National Court confirmed a sentence of three years’ imprisonment and US$40 million in damages against three owners of El Universo and a journalist working for the newspaper. They had been convicted of slander for an editorial in which they described the President as a “dictator” and accused him of giving the order to open fire on a hospital during the police protests of September 2010. The President later granted a pardon to all four men.
d-usa wrote: There is also nothing unconstitutional about requiring that every gun transaction, including name and address of purchases, be entered into a federal database that can be accessed with a warrant.
I see. So your point is that because you don't like the way current gun legislation pushes are going, it's perfectly cool for a guy to decide that federal statutes on secret information don't apply to him.
As cogent as ever. Care to get back on topic, or would you like to continue trying to distract from the attempted defense of the indefensible?
He basically said the exact same thing you said, but in regards to guns, instead of phone calls.
It does not. It related to Breotan's assertion that Putin is somehow playing some elaborate, machiavellian plot with Snowden's leaks as a clever distraction that only Breotan can see. The rest of us are just too damn stupid or blind to see it :(
At least he can say "I told you so" when we're all in some commie gulag.
It was a swipe at his initial claims that he only revealed PRISM info because he felt it was a threat to American freedoms. The fact that he's subsequently released other, secret info about our efforts to hack China and now British efforts to spy on summit delegates suggests that he might not be quite the constitutional hero he was initially made out to be.
Even if he was a three-eyed pedophile and a troll living under a bridge that eats children, it would not make any difference to the question of whether or not it was morally right for him to blow the whistle on the PRISM program.
Seaward wrote:
Pacific wrote: Did anyone really think other than:
a) that both the UK government and others did all of this stuff, all the time as a matter of course?
b) that every person in a position of power in government doesn't know that it goes on?
The whole thing feels like someone getting busted for copying a CD onto a cassette tape..
I'll answer your questions with some of my own:
1) Do you feel that everyone who has access to classified information should be free to decide on their own what should and should not be classified?
Allow me to answer your questions to someone else's questions with questions of my own:
1. Do YOU feel that everyone who has access to classified information should be free to decide on their own what should and should not be classified?
2. Do you feel that everyone who has access to military weapons should be free to decide on their own what should and should not be fire upon?
I'm honestly curious how you answer these two questions.
d-usa wrote: I have nothing to say about the guy that leaked this, I don't think that I have every said that I am defending him.
I'm just talking about your conflicting stance on government databases, and that it seems to be perfectly fine to keep records on anything that people might be doing on a telephone or the internet. But every time anybody else has recommended a database on gun purchases, which would not be against the constitution, you and many of the defenders of the NSA activities start going "OMG, the government can't be trusted with that kind of knowledge!"
So it appears that according to you, the government would never abuse the kind of databases they are currently building. Unless they are about guns.
Where's the conflicting stance? I've said from the beginning that while I don't like PRISM, I doubt it's unconstitutional, and thus illegally leaking information about it is...illegal.
Similarly, I don't like the idea of gun registry databases, but I doubt they'd be found unconstitutional, and if such were ever made into law, illegally not reporting gun purchases to them would be...illegal.
You're conflating actual real-world laws with hypothetical future legislation, and I'm not sure it's serving you as well as you would like.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote: Allow me to answer your questions to someone else's questions with questions of my own:
1. Do YOU feel that everyone who has access to classified information should be free to decide on their own what should and should not be classified?
Of course not.
2. Do you feel that everyone who has access to military weapons should be free to decide on their own what should and should not be fire upon?
What in the name of all that's holy does this have to do with anything? Are you under the assumption that we don't have rules of engagement and the like, and that violation of them can't lead to you getting charged with all sorts of crimes? Do you think we just turn rifleman loose in a war zone with, "Hey, do what you want," instructions?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote: Even if he was a three-eyed pedophile and a troll living under a bridge that eats children, it would not make any difference to the question of whether or not it was morally right for him to blow the whistle on the PRISM program.
True! And it very clearly wasn't, for the record. What it does do, however, is call into question his motives. If he were only interested in making sure the American public was aware of PRISM, why's he leaking everything else he knows that's totally unrelated?
Seaward wrote: True! And it very clearly wasn't, for the record. What it does do, however, is call into question his motives. If he were only interested in making sure the American public was aware of PRISM, why's he leaking everything else he knows that's totally unrelated?
Peregrine wrote: Because if your ethical system consists of more than just legalism it's entirely consistent to be opposed to a wide range of government spying.
If you're attributing that motivation to Snowden, then he made a fething bizarre career choice.
azazel the cat wrote: Allow me to answer your questions to someone else's questions with questions of my own:
1. Do YOU feel that everyone who has access to classified information should be free to decide on their own what should and should not be classified?
Of course not.
2. Do you feel that everyone who has access to military weapons should be free to decide on their own what should and should not be fire upon?
What in the name of all that's holy does this have to do with anything? Are you under the assumption that we don't have rules of engagement and the like, and that violation of them can't lead to you getting charged with all sorts of crimes? Do you think we just turn rifleman loose in a war zone with, "Hey, do what you want," instructions?
No, my point is that you appear to be suggesting that people in the employ of the government are expected to act as automatons in one instance, and as free thinkers in another. I'm curious as to how you reconcile that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote:
Peregrine wrote: Because if your ethical system consists of more than just legalism it's entirely consistent to be opposed to a wide range of government spying.
If you're attributing that motivation to Snowden, then he made a fething bizarre career choice.
Or he made exactly the right one. Depends on how you look at it. Personally, I want the people who watch me while I sleep to act with conscience and critical thought.
azazel the cat wrote: No, my point is that you appear to be suggesting that people in the employ of the government are expected to act as automatons in one instance, and as free thinkers in another. I'm curious as to how you reconcile that.
No. I'll be as clear as possible here: there are no situations in which it suddenly becomes legal to do something that's blatantly illegal in the military. It has nothing at all to do with "free-thinking" versus "automaton." If you wanted to make a more apt analogy, it would be, "Everyone in the military has the freedom to decide their own personal rules of engagement at any time they like." That of course would be as disastrously stupid as, "Everyone with access to classified information has the freedom to decide if it really should be classified at any time they like."
This isn't a difficult concept, and I'm honestly curious why it seems so foreign to you.
Keep in mind he's only divulging all of this because he's concerned about the Fourth Amendment implications.
I am perfectly happy with information like this being leaked given how underhanded the alleged activities are. The only issue that I have is that they are simply allegations, there is no proof.
Palindrome wrote: I am perfectly happy with information like this being leaked given how underhanded the alleged activities are. The only issue that I have is that they are simply allegations, there is no proof.
So you want all intelligence gathering to play fair?
azazel the cat wrote: No, my point is that you appear to be suggesting that people in the employ of the government are expected to act as automatons in one instance, and as free thinkers in another. I'm curious as to how you reconcile that.
No. I'll be as clear as possible here: there are no situations in which it suddenly becomes legal to do something that's blatantly illegal in the military. It has nothing at all to do with "free-thinking" versus "automaton." If you wanted to make a more apt analogy, it would be, "Everyone in the military has the freedom to decide their own personal rules of engagement at any time they like." That of course would be as disastrously stupid as, "Everyone with access to classified information has the freedom to decide if it really should be classified at any time they like."
This isn't a difficult concept, and I'm honestly curious why it seems so foreign to you.
Because I don't operate with the mindset that the only requirement for being "morally right" is to be "not illegal".
So you want all intelligence gathering to play fair?
In a word, yes.
Yes WAAAHHH Russians etc, but given that we are supposed to be bastions of democracy and upstanding upholders of human rights clandestine intelligence gathering on allies is something that we cannot be proud of.
azazel the cat wrote: Because I don't operate with the mindset that the only requirement for being "morally right" is to be "not illegal".
So you have moral objections to western countries attempting to hack Chinese computers?
Either way, you'd do well to remember that your own personal moral code does not allow you to selectively pick and choose what laws do and do not apply to you. The "this is legal, but I find it morally objectionable, so I am going to break the law!" rationale does not work. I'm sure if you thought hard about it, you'd be able to come up with all sorts of diverse movements - most of whom you'd find morally objectionable, no doubt - who've used it as an excuse for all sorts of nasty things.
Ouze wrote: It does not. It related to Breotan's assertion that Putin is somehow playing some elaborate, machiavellian plot with Snowden's leaks as a clever distraction that only Breotan can see. The rest of us are just too damn stupid or blind to see it :(
Ah, cool. I'm with you now.
At least he can say "I told you so" when we're all in some commie gulag.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: If you're attributing that motivation to Snowden, then he made a fething bizarre career choice.
There is, of course, a significant difference between spying on Chinese troop movements, and spying on government officials coming to town for trade negotiations. It's very weird that you don't understand the difference.
sebster wrote: There is, of course, a significant difference between spying on Chinese troop movements, and spying on government officials coming to town for trade negotiations. It's very weird that you don't understand the difference.
Perhaps I'm simply not naive enough to believe that the only legitimate intelligence information the US or its allies could ever need would be purely about troop movements.
Or perhaps I'm referring to the previous article that had nothing to do with either trade negotiations nor PRISM in which Snowden revealed everything he knew, and handed over documents about, the NSA's attempt to get inside various Chinese networks.
Either way, you'd do well to remember that your own personal moral code does not allow you to selectively pick and choose what laws do and do not apply to you
As it happens it does, laws only apply to you if you want them too (and you are willing to accept the consequences o fbreaking them).
Seaward wrote: Perhaps I'm simply not naive enough to believe that the only legitimate intelligence information the US or its allies could ever need would be purely about troop movements.
Or more likely you're confusing 'naivety' with 'principled', and 'want' with 'need'.
azazel the cat wrote: Because I don't operate with the mindset that the only requirement for being "morally right" is to be "not illegal".
So you have moral objections to western countries attempting to hack Chinese computers?
Nope.
Seaward wrote:Either way, you'd do well to remember that your own personal moral code does not allow you to selectively pick and choose what laws do and do not apply to you.
Yes it does. The consequences of such also apply, however.
So, no moral objections to hacking China, but you're also fine with Snowden revealing classified information about it...to China.
Yes it does. The consequences of such also apply, however.
So in other words, the laws don't stop being applicable just because you decide you don't like them.
Out of curiosity, do you champion folks who bomb abortion clinics? It's illegal, sure, but they're just following their conscience. Abortion's perfectly legal, but they consider it immoral, so clearly you've got to come down on their side.
This was in the first year of Obama and the last year of Gordon Brown. I am not surprised that the Uk security services were engaged to do something like this, which hits our credibility as a place to hold discrete conversation, Chatham house rules anyone.
You DON'T invite international delegates to spy on them and if you do your subtle about it.
Whats worse the entire transcript seems to have been for the benefit of the US.
As least I can say this, the security services pulled it off and didn't talk about it. Pity the intel was feed straight to the NSA who cant keep their mouths shut and aren't directly rocked by the scandal if they dont.
So, no moral objections to hacking China, but you're also fine with Snowden revealing classified information about it...to China.
Yes it does. The consequences of such also apply, however.
So in other words, the laws don't stop being applicable just because you decide you don't like them.
Out of curiosity, do you champion folks who bomb abortion clinics? It's illegal, sure, but they're just following their conscience. Abortion's perfectly legal, but they consider it immoral, so clearly you've got to come down on their side.
Isn't that a bit different though? Whether you agree with or not, abortion is clearly legal. Wasn't at least part of the reason Snowden came forward because he thought the PRISM program was unconstitutional, and therefore illegal?
Hordini wrote: Isn't that a bit different though? Whether you agree with or not, abortion is clearly legal. Wasn't at least part of the reason Snowden came forward because he thought the PRISM program was unconstitutional, and therefore illegal?
Before I answer, let me just say this one more time: I'm completely at a loss as to why we're all continuing to pretend that the only classified information Snowden has revealed is about PRISM. PRISM isn't even the majority of it at this point.
Anyway, to the question. Just as believing something to be legal doesn't mean you can't get arrested for it if you do it, believing something to be illegal doesn't make it so. Nor does standing up to an imaginary crime give you leave to commit a whole host of real ones.
Seaward wrote:Anyway, to the question. Just as believing something to be legal doesn't mean you can't get arrested for it if you do it, believing something to be illegal doesn't make it so. Nor does standing up to an imaginary crime give you leave to commit a whole host of real ones.
Sounds like you're moving the goalposts: you're now saying Snowden is a traitor and should be punished because he has now leaked other information about less-illegal activities; however you had already passed judgement on him for the PRISM bit alone.
My take on it:
Blowing the whistle on PRISM was morally right and should be encouraged, and he should be hailed as a hero.
Leaking documents about hacking chinese computers is not as clear-cut and he should be prosecuted for doing so.
It's not a situation where you can take a person and place them into a narrow little definition that encompasses everything about them. One wrong action does not make him wear a black hat and be only capable of wrongdoing.
azazel the cat wrote: Sounds like you're moving the goalposts: you're now saying Snowden is a traitor and should be punished because he has now leaked other information about less-illegal activities; however you had already passed judgement on him for the PRISM bit alone.
Nope. He's a traitor for leaking PRISM, too.
One wrong action does not make him wear a black hat and be only capable of wrongdoing.
Well, he's chosen multiple wrong actions, so I'm pretty comfortable fitting him for a black hat.
To put it another way: if the PRISM program ever gets ruled on by the Supreme Court - it won't - and they find it perfectly constitutional, would your opinion change? Or are we back to you standing up for anti-abortionists who commit crimes due to their perceived need to fight against perceived immorality?
Hordini wrote: Isn't that a bit different though? Whether you agree with or not, abortion is clearly legal. Wasn't at least part of the reason Snowden came forward because he thought the PRISM program was unconstitutional, and therefore illegal?
Before I answer, let me just say this one more time: I'm completely at a loss as to why we're all continuing to pretend that the only classified information Snowden has revealed is about PRISM. PRISM isn't even the majority of it at this point.
Anyway, to the question. Just as believing something to be legal doesn't mean you can't get arrested for it if you do it, believing something to be illegal doesn't make it so. Nor does standing up to an imaginary crime give you leave to commit a whole host of real ones.
Okay, I understand what you're saying, and I know what you mean about Snowden revealing more than just PRISM. Let's set Snowden and PRISM aside for a moment, though. Do you think whistle-blowing is ever okay, and in what kind of situation do you think it would be justified?
Hordini wrote: Okay, I understand what you're saying, and I know what you mean about Snowden revealing more than just PRISM. Let's set Snowden and PRISM aside for a moment, though. Do you think whistle-blowing is ever okay, and in what kind of situation do you think it would be justified?
Corporate whistle-blowing's fine in clear cases of illegal activity. Government whistle-blowing that endangers national security when the argument for illegality is murky at best is not.
People made a knee-jerk "My hero!" reaction when he came out with the PRISM stuff, and now that he's running all over the shop and spilling everything he knows and looking, to even those of the most favorable initial opinion, like a traitorous little douchebag, it seems people want to entrench in their horribly-chosen initial position and defend it rather than going, "Yeah, boy, that sure was a bad call."
Edit: It's also worth mentioning that Snowden wasn't an analyst. He might've had no connection to PRISM at all beyond pulling the slides. The scope of his knowledge on what was gathered, exactly how it was gathered, who had access to it, under what circumstances it could be accessed, what oversight there was, and what rulings had already been made on its constitutionality is...debatable.
Seaward wrote:To put it another way: if the PRISM program ever gets ruled on by the Supreme Court - it won't - and they find it perfectly constitutional, would your opinion change? Or are we back to you standing up for anti-abortionists who commit crimes due to their perceived need to fight against perceived immorality?
That is one hell of a stupid thing to say. It's not even a strawman; it's just asinine.
Would my opinion change: No. It's legal to stone adulterous women to death in some places, that doesn't make it morally right, either. If PRISM were considered legal, then I would consider it an unjust law. (except it's not really a law, but hopefully you get what I mean)
Your abortion stupidity doesn't play, either. Anti-abortion pipebombers are violating laws such as "don't murder other people". I doubt anybody could argue "don't murder" is an unjust law (I can think of a really ironic way of ending that argument, too). The only way your comparison would apply would be if Snowden, in protest of PRISM, planted a bomb in, say, a cell phone store at the mall.
Seaward wrote:To put it another way: if the PRISM program ever gets ruled on by the Supreme Court - it won't - and they find it perfectly constitutional, would your opinion change? Or are we back to you standing up for anti-abortionists who commit crimes due to their perceived need to fight against perceived immorality?
That is one hell of a stupid thing to say. It's not even a strawman; it's just asinine.
Would my opinion change: No. It's legal to stone adulterous women to death in some places, that doesn't make it morally right, either. If PRISM were considered legal, then I would consider it an unjust law. (except it's not really a law, but hopefully you get what I mean)
Your abortion stupidity doesn't play, either. Anti-abortion pipebombers are violating laws such as "don't murder other people". I doubt anybody could argue "don't murder" is an unjust law (I can think of a really ironic way of ending that argument, too). The only way your comparison would apply would be if Snowden, in protest of PRISM, planted a bomb in, say, a cell phone store at the mall.
After reading through this I have come to the conclusion that seaward wants to bomb babies. This is the only logical explanation for his constant remarks.
azazel the cat wrote: That is one hell of a stupid thing to say. It's not even a strawman; it's just asinine.
Just trying to keep up with you guys in that department.
Would my opinion change: No. It's legal to stone adulterous women to death in some places, that doesn't make it morally right, either. If PRISM were considered legal, then I would consider it an unjust law. (except it's not really a law, but hopefully you get what I mean)
No, I don't get what you mean. What you do appear to be saying is that you find it perfectly acceptable to violate a law as long as you feel you have a "moral" enough reason, yet...
Your abortion stupidity doesn't play, either. Anti-abortion pipebombers are violating laws such as "don't murder other people". I doubt anybody could argue "don't murder" is an unjust law (I can think of a really ironic way of ending that argument, too). The only way your comparison would apply would be if Snowden, in protest of PRISM, planted a bomb in, say, a cell phone store at the mall.
Actually, most clinic bombings have occurred while the clinic's empty. If you support one man committing a felony over something he believes to be immoral, why would you not support another doing the same?
Seaward wrote:If you support one man committing a felony over something he believes to be immoral, why would you not support another doing the same?
I don't support one man committing a felony over something he believes to be immoral. I support one man committing a felony over something I believe to be immoral.
And your abortion silliness still doesn't work. If your morality does not allow you to have an abortion, then you can just not have one. The pipebombers are trying to dictate the morality of others, and the felony they are committing is violating the law that says "don't bomb buildings", which nobody would argue is an unjust law. So again, if you wanted to actually use this as an apt comparison, then it would require Snowden to have bombed a Verizon store in protest of PRISM; not become a whistleblower.
Your abortion stupidity doesn't play, either. Anti-abortion pipebombers are violating laws such as "don't murder other people". I doubt anybody could argue "don't murder" is an unjust law (I can think of a really ironic way of ending that argument, too). The only way your comparison would apply would be if Snowden, in protest of PRISM,
planted a bomb in, say, a cell phone store at the mall
.
Um...to me...that says teenagers.....not babies.....cell phone store in a mall....throw in some young adults to.....okay I can see a cell going by a baby stroller...or the cell going off in the car and hits a baby stroller or another vehicle with a baby seat in it...
azazel the cat wrote: I don't support one man committing a felony over something he believes to be immoral. I support one man committing a felony over something I believe to be immoral.
So as long as he's right in your eyes, you're indifferent to the law?
Man. I could swear I've heard that justification used for all sorts of nefarious stuff.
And your abortion silliness still doesn't work. If your morality does not allow you to have an abortion, then you can just not have one. The pipebombers are trying to dictate the morality of others, and the felony they are committing is violating the law that says "don't bomb buildings", which nobody would argue is an unjust law. So again, if you wanted to actually use this as an apt comparison, then it would require Snowden to have bombed a Verizon store in protest of PRISM; not become a whistleblower.
That'd be great and all, except your linchpin is that he's a whistleblower. Whistleblowing requires the presence of illegal activity to blow the whistle on, which does not exist in the PRISM case.
Seaward wrote:
That'd be great and all, except your linchpin is that he's a whistleblower. Whistleblowing requires the presence of illegal activity to blow the whistle on, which does not exist in the PRISM case.
So in the end, he's just a traitor.
And here we have our impasse: you make no distinction between morality and legalism, even in the face of immoral laws.
It seems to me that Seaward is getting himself quite confused on the notion that a person can act out of conscience, be people can respect him for that, while everyone acknowledges he will still very likely face serious legal consequences for his actions.
azazel the cat wrote: And here we have our impasse: you make no distinction between morality and legalism, even in the face of immoral laws.
That distinction stopped being remotely relevant to the conversation the minute your hero decided that he wasn't just going to leak PRISM info, but also anything he'd ever seen before that was classified.
The overriding point I've been trying to get you to understand for several pages now is that your perceptions - "This is moral!" "This is legal"! - do not equal reality. I understand the hilariously self-serving instant amnesia among Snowden supporters over the other leaks he's decided to make after PRISM, but they don't just go away because they take away from is hero of the people status.
You know, Seaward, there's a long history of people breaking the law to stand up for what they believe is right. Law isn't morality. At best, you hope the law is generally aligned with morality. Sometimes, you can come, rightly, to the decision that your moral duty is to break the law.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: You know, Seaward, there's a long history of people breaking the law to stand up for what they believe is right. Law isn't morality. At best, you hope the law is generally aligned with morality. Sometimes, you can come, rightly, to the decision that your moral duty is to break the law.
You can.
You can also be monumentally wrong about that decision. We've discussed such cases earlier in the thread.
But the fervent desire to look at one act in a vacuum is ridiculous. If I killed a guy and said it was self defense, people would go, "Hey, that's fine, fair play." If I then promptly killed three more guys and also claimed self defense, I suspect people would start to go back and re-think that first instance.
Not you folks with Snowden, though. You bought the whole, "I only care about America," crap when he leaked PRISM, and then stuck your fingers in your ears and whistled loudly when he started leaking stuff that had nothing to do with it. So you're welcome to keep claiming the moral high ground, I guess. Dude's a fething traitor. Just like Manning. Nothing moral about that at all.
Seaward wrote:But the fervent desire to look at one act in a vacuum is ridiculous. If I killed a guy and said it was self defense, people would go, "Hey, that's fine, fair play." If I then promptly killed three more guys and also claimed self defense, I suspect people would start to go back and re-think that first instance.
In other words, you believe that because John Lennon went on to record a bunch of terrible songs with Yoko Ono, Hey Jude is therefore also made terrible after the fact.
That's a very strange way of looking at things, but I guess it must help you when the authorities change gears mid-speech and tell you that we have always been at war with Oceania.
Seaward wrote: But the fervent desire to look at one act in a vacuum is ridiculous.
Fervent? How can people posting on the internet be fervent about anything? Its words typed into a little box, posted to a gaming forum. I'm not sure that action could be any less fervent, really.
Anyhow, on the larger point, I think in order to make any kind of case that Snowden's leaking of PRISM was in some way self-serving, you need to form some kind of sensible claim about what his personal benefit might be.
sebster wrote: Anyhow, on the larger point, I think in order to make any kind of case that Snowden's leaking of PRISM was in some way self-serving, you need to form some kind of sensible claim about what his personal benefit might be.
I suppose it's a good thing the claim has never been that it was a self-serving act then, isn't it?
I very much doubt it was self-serving at all, though I'll certainly keep an eye on the outcome of the USIS investigation after it was revealed they royally fethed up his TS/SCI check.
Seaward wrote: I suppose it's a good thing the claim has never been that it was a self-serving act then, isn't it?
So why did he do it then? Pure treason driven from his treasonous heart?
Because without some kind of self serving reason, then the only possible cause is some kind of principle. And if we allow that, while that obviously in no way removes the threat of legal penalty*, it does mean simple calls of 'traitor' become really, really simplistic, and kind of boring.
*And it's kind of sad I have to clarify that but, well, this thread has shown I have to.
So why did he do it then? Pure treason driven from his treasonous heart?
Because without some kind of self serving reason, then the only possible cause is some kind of principle. And if we allow that, while that obviously in no way removes the threat of legal penalty*, it does mean simple calls of 'traitor' become really, really simplistic, and kind of boring.
Only if you follow the absurd line of thought that says as long as someone breaks the law in service to their own personal morality, they can never be wrong.
He's a traitor through stupidity and hubris. He's a not particularly well-educated guy who honestly believed he knew better than thousands of other people, many of them experts on the topic at hand. I understand why that makes him your hero, but it doesn't make him right.
He never be label as a traitor though. I be label as an individual that broke federal law and will be punish under the regular laws of the land. This guy will not die. Manny had a better chance of getting himself executed then this guy,
Jihadin wrote: He never be label as a traitor though. I be label as an individual that broke federal law and will be punish under the regular laws of the land. This guy will not die. Manny had a better chance of getting himself executed then this guy,
Nah, you're right, he's not going to get charged under treason statues, as long as things stay the way they are with his case.
I am interested to find out what they missed in his background check, though. And the fact that he lied on his resume when getting the gig with Booz amuses me to no end.
Seaward wrote: Only if you follow the absurd line of thought that says as long as someone breaks the law in service to their own personal morality, they can never be wrong.
Only if we continue with the nonsense that there's some notion of right and wrong beyond that which each person determines for themselves, and we can even carry on with the nonsense that it is you, Seaward, text removed. Reds8n , who gets to determine what right and wrong is.
Or we can spend some time thinking about the reality that we all have fairly different principles and points of view, we can quickly come to understand that a person who acts bravely in service to their principles has to be admired for their bravery, even if they did something that is illegal, or that we'd don't personally believe was the right course of action.
I understand why that makes him your hero, but it doesn't make him right.
Why he's my what? Where has your imagination wandered off to this time?
sebster wrote: Only if we continue with the nonsense that there's some notion of right and wrong beyond that which each person determines for themselves, and we can even carry on with the nonsense that it is you, Seaward, God of boring internet nonsense everywhere, who gets to determine what right and wrong is.
Oh, I hardly think it's just me. But then, I'm basing that opinion off of actual polling on reaction to the PRISM leak.
But it's good to know you'll never be making another argument about doing something because it's the moral thing to do again.
Or we can spend some time thinking about the reality that we all have fairly different principles and points of view, we can quickly come to understand that a person who acts bravely in service to their principles has to be admired for their bravery, even if they did something that is illegal, or that we'd don't personally believe was the right course of action.
Yeah. Runs off to a non-extradition country, "blows the whistle" on a legal government program, and then starts leaking a bunch of other gak. What a paragon of bravery.
Why he's my what? Where has your imagination wandered off to this time?
Oh, merely back to your posts calling his actions heroic in the initial thread.
Sure, but I'm absolutely certain that the only opinion on the subject that matters to you is your own. That is, if the polling was 70% in favour of what he did, you wouldn't change your mind.
But then, I'm basing that opinion off of actual polling on reaction to the PRISM leak.
But it's good to know you'll never be making another argument about doing something because it's the moral thing to do again.
Yeah. Runs off to a non-extradition country, "blows the whistle" on a legal government program, and then starts leaking a bunch of other gak. What a paragon of bravery.
Sbuh? People who lived in exile weren't brave?
You're either a very weird man with very weird opinions about many historical figures, or you really haven't thought about this at all?
So was Sun Yat-sen a hero?
Oh, merely back to your posts calling his actions heroic in the initial thread.
Oh, so you think that recognising one individual action by a person as heroic means that individual becomes a personal hero?
Well, I guess that kind of explains the very weird approach you've taken to this whole thing.
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's spy agency GCHQ has tapped fiber-optic cables that carry international phone and internet traffic and is sharing vast quantities of personal information with the U.S. National Security Agency, the Guardian newspaper said on Friday.
The paper, which has in recent weeks been publishing details of top-secret surveillance programs exposed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, said on its website that Snowden had shown it documents about a project codenamed "Tempora."
Tempora has been running for about 18 months and allows GCHQ, which stands for Government Communications Headquarters, to tap into and store huge volumes of data drawn from fiber-optic cables for up to 30 days, the paper said.
The Guardian said Snowden had provided it with access to documents about GCHQ's alleged cable-tapping operation as part of his effort to expose "the largest program of suspicionless surveillance in human history."
For decades, the NSA and GCHQ have worked as close partners, sharing intelligence under an arrangement known as the UKUSA agreement. They also collaborate with eavesdropping agencies in Canada, Australia and New Zealand under an arrangement known as the "Five Eyes" alliance.
The latest Guardian story will likely put more pressure on British Prime Minister David Cameron's government to reassure the public about how data about them is collected and used.
Earlier this month, in response to questions about the secret U.S. data-monitoring program Prism, British Foreign Secretary William Hague told Parliament that GCHQ always adhered to British law when processing data gained from eavesdropping.
He would not confirm or deny any details of UK-U.S. intelligence sharing, saying that to do so could help Britain's enemies.
"In line with long-standing practice we do not comment on intelligence matters," a GCHQ spokesman said on Friday.
NSA spokeswoman Judith Emmel rejected any suggestion the U.S. agency used the British to do things the NSA cannot do legally. Under U.S. law, the NSA must get authorization from a secret federal court to collect information either in bulk or on specific people.
"Any allegation that NSA relies on its foreign partners to circumvent U.S. law is absolutely false. NSA does not ask its foreign partners to undertake any intelligence activity that the U.S. government would be legally prohibited from undertaking itself," Emmel said.
INTERCEPT PROBES
The Tempora operation involves attaching intercept probes to transatlantic cables where they land on British shores from North America, the Guardian said.
That was done with the agreement of unnamed companies, which were forbidden from revealing warrants that compelled them to allow GCHQ access, it added.
Snowden made world headlines earlier this month when he provided details of NSA surveillance programs to the Guardian and the Washington Post.
In Washington, Snowden's disclosures have ignited a political storm over the balance between privacy rights and national security, but the NSA has defended the programs, saying they have disrupted possible attacks.
In the wake of Snowden's revelations, U.S. officials acknowledged that the NSA, with cooperation from internet and telephone companies, collected email on foreign intelligence suspects, including counterterrorism targets, as well as masses of raw data on calls made within the United States and overseas by subscribers to major telephone companies.
The content of messages of people in the United States - including U.S. citizens - sometimes are intercepted "incidentally," officials have said, but rules require such intercepts to be purged unless U.S. authorities get court authorization.
Now if Snowden was planning to do this from the get go then sure....max him. Since he's a contractor I cannot see waiting on a specific position to open to do what he did.
The Russia layover doesn't make any sense. No way Snowden thinks he can actually walk onto a plane to Cuba without Putin personally downloading everything he's carrying. If it's all on some server somewhere, encrypted to the nth degree, they're still likely going to get it out of him. He also allowed every CIA employee in Moscow to pick up his trail. I suspect you could've had a fun time in Sheremetyevo when that plane from Hong Kong landed simply trying to spot legitimate passengers in the terminal in the midst of all the CIA and FSB guys.
Well, since he's likely aware he's never going back to his country (a free man, anyway) he might want to make some money out of what he knows. I doubt they could threaten anything out of him since it'd look highly suspicious if he "disappeared" while he's still news.
He's been reported going to several places now, if Snowden's smart he's feeding misinformation out and buying ridiculous amounts of plane tickets everywhere to at least muddy the waters a little bit. Iceland seems like the best run for him so far, the key is getting there while avoiding a fair chunk of Europe.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:He's been reported going to several places now, if Snowden's smart he's feeding misinformation out and buying ridiculous amounts of plane tickets everywhere to at least muddy the waters a little bit. Iceland seems like the best run for him so far, the key is getting there while avoiding a fair chunk of Europe.
if it were me, I'd have converted to Judaism first and obtained an Israeli passport.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: He's been reported going to several places now, if Snowden's smart he's feeding misinformation out and buying ridiculous amounts of plane tickets everywhere to at least muddy the waters a little bit. Iceland seems like the best run for him so far, the key is getting there while avoiding a fair chunk of Europe.
Russia and then fly over the Arctic and hope nothing freezes?
KalashnikovMarine wrote:He's been reported going to several places now, if Snowden's smart he's feeding misinformation out and buying ridiculous amounts of plane tickets everywhere to at least muddy the waters a little bit. Iceland seems like the best run for him so far, the key is getting there while avoiding a fair chunk of Europe.
if it were me, I'd have converted to Judaism first and obtained an Israeli passport.
He could probably cut a nice deal with Mossad now.
I really really hope we didn't really "demand" Russia for them to turn over Snowden....I'm sure we be awhile getting an answer back from them if we did....we have to give them time to recover from the laughter...
People still think Hong Kong is separate from Beijing, China. Beijing played it out nicely by taking their sweet time and having Snowden probably think he was going to get extradited to the US. So when he popped smoke out, CHina literally passed a "hot potato"
And I'm still waiting to see if Seaward thinks Sun Yat-Sen was a coward.... For some reason I suspect that little piece of weirdness will never get resolved.
Jihadin wrote: People still think Hong Kong is separate from Beijing, China. Beijing played it out nicely by taking their sweet time and having Snowden probably think he was going to get extradited to the US. So when he popped smoke out, CHina literally passed a "hot potato"
Well, according to Beijing, it still kind of is. It's still a special economic zone, and there's a stupidly large number of special rules that seem to do nothing but annoy people.
But yeah, on matters like this Beijing is definitely the ones deciding what happens, and their final decision to let him go was letting someone else have the problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: We find out what country he works for yet? For the "traitor" title to really apply....
Is is possible to betray your country for the sake of an ideology? I mean, either by the legal use of term traitor, or by people's common understanding of the term?
I don't blame Beijing for not literally interfering in Hong Kong affairs. Logistic circle Hong Kong is a "Perfect Pearl" meaning that Hong Kong has trade that reaches everywhere and it makes serious serious serious MONEY
azazel the cat wrote: if it were me, I'd have converted to Judaism first and obtained an Israeli passport.
While it'd be great for the comedy, the right of return isn't available to converts. You have to have Jewish ancestry, or be married to a Jew.
Really? I could've sworn that in the early 1990s a bunch of Russian bankers (mobsters) coverted to Judaism so that they could move to Israel and be completely protected from extradition. Huh. I guess the joke would've been on me, then.
Is is possible to betray your country for the sake of an ideology? I mean, either by the legal use of term traitor, or by people's common understanding of the term?
Sebs are you really asking that? Especially considering the examples in America recently of U.S. citizens murdering both their fellow soldiers and fellow citizens in the name of ideology? Whether it's political or religious ideology is a strong motivating factor in the stuff we do as human beings in general. Here's a general explanation of the motivations for espionage/treason.
Motivations for Espionage/Treason:
Money
Ideology (usually gived the addenum: ", patriotism, religion. Malik Hasan is a perfect example of this kind of traitor.)
Coercion
Ego/Self Importance
This completes the "MICE" acronym which is pretty much the go to for picking out motivations.
Other additions to the motivations chart outside of the big four are Excitement, Disaffection/Grudges (I'd argue this fits in under ego, Bradely Manning is a solid example) Personal relations, and of course the darling of the HUMINT game (or at least public fantasies about how that kind of thing works) sex, which was particularly popular with the old USSR, utilizing female agents refered to as "Swallows" (the bird you pervs). Like Disaffection and Grudges fitting under or at least tangentially to Ego, I would argue sex and personal relationships would be connected to or fit under the "coercion" heading in MICE.
No, it was rhetorical. Well, it was meant to be read as rhetorical. But in writing it I thought of expanding out in to a second point, on the difference between legal and common use of the term, and in doing so I think my post ended up reading as something that wasn't clearly rhetorical.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: I don't blame Beijing for not literally interfering in Hong Kong affairs. Logistic circle Hong Kong is a "Perfect Pearl" meaning that Hong Kong has trade that reaches everywhere and it makes serious serious serious MONEY
Yeah, that's why they kept it seperate to the rest of China, as a special economic zone, to leave it alone to continue making loads of money.
But time has a way of creating events that chip away at that independance. Stuff like this Snowden thing, and criminal activity in Hong Kong that impacts China. All little reasons to muddy the theoretically clean division between China and Hong Kong.
Is this really espionage? If not what potential crime has Snowden committed? I suppose this goes back into the legal, textbook and common use definitions of espionage, and since Snowden did provide information to foreign newspapers the case could be made that he committed espionage via passing classified material to foreign hands....
He might have a point if Snowden had only shared a gakload of classified material exclusively with Americans, rather than with everybody in the world. We can probably assume there are some enemies somewhere on the planet.
What Manning was hit with. Snowden going to look different being he doesn't fall under UCMJ
Listed by alleged code violation[edit]
The charges can be broken down as follows:
UCMJ 104 (Aiding the enemy): 1 count. This charge carries a potential death penalty.
UCMJ 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation): 9 counts. Mostly related to computers.[2][3] Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-6(k): Forbids transferring classified info to non-secure systems
Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(3): Modifying or installing unauthorized software to a system, using it for 'unintended' purposes.
Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(4): Circumventing security mechanisms
Army Regulation 380-5: Improper storage of Classified Information
UCMJ 134 (General article): 24 counts. Most of these counts incorporate civilian statutes from the United States Code: 18 U.S.C. § 641: Embezzlement and Theft of Public Money, Property or Records. The government has claimed that various sets of records that Manning transferred were 'things of value' and has thus charged him under this statute.
18 U.S.C. § 793(e): This is part of the Espionage Act. The law forbids 'unauthorized persons' from taking 'national defense' information and either 'retaining' it or delivering it to 'persons not entitled to receive it'. The terminology is rather complicated and often contested in court. 793(e) exists because the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950 modified the original 1917 Espionage Act, partly because of the Alger Hiss/Pumpkin papers case. It is also the same law used against Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo in the Pentagon papers case.[4][5]
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a) 1 & 2: These are from the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. 1030(a)(1) is sometimes called the 'Computer Espionage' law as it borrows much of its language from the Espionage Act. It was modified by the USA Patriot Act of 2001, which added it to the 'Federal Crimes of Terrorism' list, as well as making it prosecutable under RICO (Racketeering) law.[6]
Total number of counts: 34
Listed by document[edit]
Most of Manning's charges are directly related to the alleged transferral of a specific document to another party. These documents are as follows:
The 2007 July 12 Baghdad video
various groups of US State Department cables, unclassified and classified
The "Reykjavik 13" US State Department cable
Records from the CIDNEI database
Records from the CIDNEA database
A Microsoft PowerPoint presentation
Records from a US Southern Command database
Files "BE22 PAX.zip" and "BE22 PAX.wmv".
United States Forces – Iraq email address list
a record from United States Army Intelligence and Security Command[clarification needed]
A memorandum from an intelligence agency
The media has alleged that many of these documents are the same as documents published by Wikileaks, including:
The July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike ("Collateral Murder" video
United States diplomatic cables leak
The Reykjavic 13 cable
Iraq War documents leak (CIDNEI)[7]
Afghan War documents leak (CIDNEA)[7]
Granai airstrike video (BE22 PAX) (alleged by Wired and Marcy Wheeler)[8][9]
Listed in the order given on the charge sheets[edit]
First set of charges (2010)[edit]
The first set of charges came on July 5, 2010. The Specifications (Spec.) are listed below in the same order as they are listed on the charge sheets. To the right of each specification is a description of the related documents or actions.[10]
Charge 1: Violation of UCMJ Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation)[edit]
Spec. 1: Army Reg. 25-2, para. 4-6(k): The 2007 July 12 Baghdad video
Spec. 2: Army Reg. 25-2, para. 4-6(k): 50 classified US Dept of State cables
Spec. 3: Army Reg. 25-2, para. 4-6(k): A classified Microsoft Office PowerPoint presentation
Spec. 4: Army Reg. 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(3): Adding unauthorized software to SIPRNet
Charge 2: Violation of UCMJ Article 134 (General article)[edit]
Spec. 1: 18 U.S.C. § 793(e): The 2007 July 12 Baghdad video
Spec. 2: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(1): The 2007 July 12 Baghdad video
Spec. 3: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(1): The classified US State Dept Cable named "Reykjavik 13"
Spec. 4: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(1): 50 classified US State Dept cables
Spec. 5: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2): The 2007 July 12 Baghdad video
Spec. 6: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2): The classified US State Dept Cable named "Reykjavik 13"
Spec. 7: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2): 150,000 diplomatic cables
Spec. 8: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2): A classified Microsoft Office PowerPoint presentation
Second set of charges (2011)[edit]
The second set of charges came on March 1, 2011, and are as follows:[11]
Additional Charge 1: Violation of UCMJ Article 104 (Aiding the enemy)[edit]
Spec. 1: Knowingly giving intelligence to the enemy through indirect means
Additional Charge 2: Violation of UCMJ Article 134 (General article)[edit]
Spec. 1: (statute not given): Causing intelligence to be published, knowing that it is accessible to the enemy
Spec. 2: 18 U.S.C. § 793(e): A file named "12 JUL 07 CZ ENGAGEMENT ZONE 30 GC Anyone.avi"
Spec. 3: 18 U.S.C. § 793(e): Memorandi from a US intelligence agency
Spec. 4: 18 U.S.C. § 641: 380,000 records from the CIDNEI database
Spec. 5: 18 U.S.C. § 793(e): >20 records from the CIDNEI database
Spec. 6: 18 U.S.C. § 641: >90,000 records from the CIDNEA database
Spec. 7: 18 U.S.C. § 793(e): >20 records from the CIDNEA database
Spec. 8: 18 U.S.C. § 641: >700 records from a US Southern Command database
Spec. 9: 18 U.S.C. § 793(e): >3 records from a US Southern Command database
Spec. 10: 18 U.S.C. § 793(e): >5 records relating to an operation in Farah Province, Afghanistan
Spec. 11: 18 U.S.C. § 793(e): The files "BE22 PAX.zip" and "BE22 PAX.wmv"
Spec. 12: 18 U.S.C. § 641: 250,000 records from the State Dept Net-Centric Diplomacy database
Spec. 13: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(1): >75 US State Dept cables
Spec. 14: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(1): The State Dept cable named "Reykjavik-13"
Spec. 15: 18 U.S.C. § 793(e): A record of a US Army Intelligence organization
Spec. 16: 18 U.S.C. § 641: The US Forces - Iraq Microsoft Outlook / SharePoint Exchange Server global address list
Additional Charge 3: Violation of UCMJ Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation)[edit]
Spec. 1: Army Reg. 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(4): Bypassing security mechanisms
Spec. 2: Army Reg. 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(3): Adding unauthorized software to a SIPRNet computer
Spec. 3: Army Reg. 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(3): Adding unauthorized software to a SIPRNet computer
Spec. 4: Army Reg. 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(3): Using an information system for other than its intended purpose
Spec. 5: Army Reg. 380-5, para. 7-4: Wrongfully storing classified information
Seaward wrote: He might have a point if Snowden had only shared a gakload of classified material exclusively with Americans, rather than with everybody in the world. We can probably assume there are some enemies somewhere on the planet.
How can someone share information with the public without it also being shared internationally? It's impossible in such an interconnected world.
The US government has no right to create such a database nor any right to keep it hidden.
I expect you to descend into condescending legalism in the next few posts, enjoy yourself, but do it too often and you may go blind.
Da Boss wrote: How can someone share information with the public without it also being shared internationally? It's impossible in such an interconnected world.
Yes. Which is why we classify stuff.
I ask this question in all seriousness: is this just entitlement generation mentality writ large? Entertainment should be free, information should be unrestricted, I should be able to find out whatever I want no matter how dangerous the information might be in the wrong hands?
I expect you to descend into condescending legalism in the next few posts, enjoy yourself, but do it too often and you may go blind.
Condescension, absolutely. Legalism's not even really needed any more. There's zero question about the legality of Snowden's actions.
Seaward wrote: I ask this question in all seriousness: is this just entitlement generation mentality writ large? Entertainment should be free, information should be unrestricted, I should be able to find out whatever I want no matter how dangerous the information might be in the wrong hands?
Trying to frame whether the public should or shouldn't know about PRISM as entitlement? That's just weird.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote: Really? I could've sworn that in the early 1990s a bunch of Russian bankers (mobsters) coverted to Judaism so that they could move to Israel and be completely protected from extradition. Huh. I guess the joke would've been on me, then.
Well, you have to have Jewish ancestry, and not be practicing any other religion (a non-practicing Jew is fine, but a Jew who converted to another religion is not). So they might have had Jewish ancestry (or sufficient contacts to make it look like they had Jewish ancestry), but have been otherwise members of some other religion. Converting back to Judaism might then be necessary, I guess.
White house says America will follow all legal channels and respect the rule of law in its attempts to get their hands on Snowden...
I, for one, am grateful that Snowden revealed to the British public the extent of spying that goes on in the UK. It's getting that I'm waiting for the government to give me permission to wipe my ass, such is the intrusion of the government on UK society!
Is this really espionage? If not what potential crime has Snowden committed? I suppose this goes back into the legal, textbook and common use definitions of espionage, and since Snowden did provide information to foreign newspapers the case could be made that he committed espionage via passing classified material to foreign hands....
Could have embarrassing diplomatic repercussions as well, given that a UK newspaper broke the story, and Britain is considered a 'friend' and not an 'enemy.' My calendar says that it's 2013, not 1813!
Britain is always the enemy, this is just the long war .
But seriously, I think this whole thing is a gak storm, and I honestly don't see how the government couldn't follow all legal channels with this. If he gets caught, 2 things might happen. 1) Some weird level of action movie gun fight goes down, and Snowden is killed during the ensuing firefight. The press gets wind of this, and all news stations immediately start to question why were things not done peacefully. 2) Snowden is captured and the news media gets wind of this, and sees him being taken away, or covers the story until such a time as people lose interest, though I doubt people would lose interest in such a case.
But seriously, I think this whole thing is a gak storm, and I honestly don't see how the government couldn't follow all legal channels with this. If he gets caught, 2 things will most likely happen.
1) Some weird level of action movie gun fight goes down, and Snowden is killed during the ensuing firefight. The press gets wind of this, and all news stations immediately start to question why were things not done peacefully.
Seriously? What could prompt you to propose this as a likely scenario? Do you have any non-movie examples of folks charged with similar crimes going down in a hail of gunfire when the feds show up to arrest them?
But seriously, I think this whole thing is a gak storm, and I honestly don't see how the government couldn't follow all legal channels with this. If he gets caught, 2 things will most likely happen. 1) Some weird level of action movie gun fight goes down, and Snowden is killed during the ensuing firefight. The press gets wind of this, and all news stations immediately start to question why were things not done peacefully.
Seriously? What could prompt you to propose this as a likely scenario? Do you have any non-movie examples of folks charged with similar crimes going down in a hail of gunfire when the feds show up to arrest them?
note the "weird level of action movie gun fight" I don't expect this AT ALL to happen because it's not likely to happen, this guy didn't kill cops and hide in the cabin like the guy who went crazy in LA a few months ago, this guy is a computer nerd like yours truly here. The issue is that if he somehow dies in the attempts to capture him, no one is going to know how it went down, and people will press for information.
Edit: What could prompt me to suggest a scenario like this? Probably because this is turning into the plot of a bad action film with each passing day, that and the fact I've been up for almost 3 hours with no coffee.
How does an IT weenie scrape together the kind of cash necessary to hide out in Hong Kong, fly to Moscow, and then live the expat life in Equador? I mean, the guy is only 30 and has literally zero job prospects. I'm also very skeptical of that claim about a $200,000 salary.
Breotan wrote: How does an IT weenie scrape together the kind of cash necessary to hide out in Hong Kong, fly to Moscow, and then live the expat life in Equador? I mean, the guy is only 30 and has literally zero job prospects. I'm also very skeptical of that claim about a $200,000 salary.
It'll be a block buster hit. Putin...bare chested....with Superbowl ring...Lungren accent....it'll be Expendable 3....where half the team gets wrecked in a fist fight with Putin in under 1-2 min. He was in Van Damme Satan gang 2nd in command and protégé...
Seaward wrote: I ask this question in all seriousness: is this just entitlement generation mentality writ large? Entertainment should be free, information should be unrestricted, I should be able to find out whatever I want no matter how dangerous the information might be in the wrong hands?
Trying to frame whether the public should or shouldn't know about PRISM as entitlement? That's just weird.
Not when you look at it in the context of the single most institutionalized person on the forums.
You noticed that too, huh? Not directed at any specific posters, of course, but there's usually a fair amount of irony in the way some posters like to throw around fallacy accusations.
Azazel's was an ad hominem, sure. Sebster's point that he was supporting was most certainly a strawman, though. The question clearly didn't relate only to PRISM, yet he's not (quite) foolish enough to claim that classified information has no place at all in a modern, democratic society, so he opted to punt.
azazel the cat wrote: Not when you look at it in the context of the single most institutionalized person on the forums.
For guys who shriek, "Strawman!" in place of actual argument, you and sebster sure do make use of them an awful lot.
That's not even remotely close to a strawman. I'd be inclined to say that it's more of an ad hominem, except it wasn't meant as an attack; more of an explanation for the source of your very stalwart and predictable viewpoint on the matter. If you prefer, think of it as a dismissive editorialization, on par with your question:
Seaward wrote:I ask this question in all seriousness: is this just entitlement generation mentality writ large?
Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who broke the news about the National Security Agency's surveillance program, says that he has yet to publish most of the revelations contained in leaked documents provided by former security contractor Edward Snowden.
"The majority of revelations that are significant have yet to be made," Greenwald told the Wall Street Journal in an article published on Tuesday.
Greenwald said he is currently working on stories based on leaked documents provided by Snowden, who took responsibility for leaking classified documents to the Guardian and The Washington Post earlier this month.
Asked about the nature of the forthcoming revelations, Greenwald told POLITICO he could not preview any of his reporting before it was ready.
Putin says "No"
1. We've no extradition Agreement with the US
2. No Russian laws have been broken
Snowden and his passport being cancel by the US. Doesn't really work. One can travel under Asylum papers. He's waiting on Ecuador to process and approve the paperwork.
Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who broke the news about the National Security Agency's surveillance program, says that he has yet to publish most of the revelations contained in leaked documents provided by former security contractor Edward Snowden.
"The majority of revelations that are significant have yet to be made," Greenwald told the Wall Street Journal in an article published on Tuesday.
Greenwald said he is currently working on stories based on leaked documents provided by Snowden, who took responsibility for leaking classified documents to the Guardian and The Washington Post earlier this month.
Asked about the nature of the forthcoming revelations, Greenwald told POLITICO he could not preview any of his reporting before it was ready.
I hope Greenwald is double & triple-checking everything he possibly can. Just one slip-up, one error, and it'll taint the validity of everything.
whembly wrote:I get that sense too... otherwise, why sit on a potential bombshell??
Just to play Devil's Advocate, it could be the principle behind a good mix tape: you have to space out the high-impact songs, or else the audience will get bored.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Greenwald is literally in the process of making his career here, one slip up will not be tolerated on his part by himself and his bosses.
...
Good for him.
Prediction time... it's probably some old secret Presidential Order that started this. (didn't start with Obama guys).
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Greenwald is literally in the process of making his career here, one slip up will not be tolerated on his part by himself and his bosses.
...
Good for him.
Prediction time... it's probably some old secret Presidential Order that started this. (didn't start with Obama guys).
Obvious prediction is obvious.
It'd be very easy to assume this is a post-911 Bush order, but I think I'm gonna put my wager on the longer odds and say that the groundwork started with Clinton.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Greenwald is literally in the process of making his career here, one slip up will not be tolerated on his part by himself and his bosses.
...
Good for him.
Prediction time... it's probably some old secret Presidential Order that started this. (didn't start with Obama guys).
Obvious prediction is obvious.
It'd be very easy to assume this is a post-911 Bush order, but I think I'm gonna put my wager on the longer odds and say that the groundwork started with Clinton.
PRISM? We already know where PRISM came from. NSA laid the legal groundwork when they started arguing Fourth Amendment implications on potential PRISM-like programs after 9/11. It was reported, but nobody paid attention. PRISM itself has been reported on multiple times before Snowden, just not by name. Wasn't dramatic enough without the gooey details.
PRISM's a drop in the bucket if he even has half of what he claims to have, because the overwhelming majority of it has nothing to do with protecting American constitutional freedoms, as dubious a claim as that is. The majority of it is NSA operations against other countries.
I think Russia's a bad play for him. I think they'd trade him, no problem. It's one thing to play the part that they enjoy playing but when it comes down to brass tacks I think Russia will be more than happy to do business on this.
Venezuela or Cuba, though - they'd be willing to hang on to him and would never deal. IMO, that is where he should be heading. I guess he could theoretically go to North Korea too, but I imagine the standard of living in an American federal prison is probably better than North Korean freedom.
I may be mistaken, but Jason Bourne (in the movies) didn't actually betray his country. By the time he blew the lid off of Treadstone, the CIA had already tried to kill him numerous times. Also, he was trying to expose Treadstone to the government, not the world or our enemies.
Seaward wrote: Azazel's was an ad hominem, sure. Sebster's point that he was supporting was most certainly a strawman, though. The question clearly didn't relate only to PRISM, yet he's not (quite) foolish enough to claim that classified information has no place at all in a modern, democratic society, so he opted to punt.
Whether its a belief that it is just PRISM, or all information that should be made available, it matters not one fething bit to how bizarre your observation was.
Such beliefs could be dismissed as idealistic or impractical, for sure. Do that and I'd likely agree with you. But to comment that such beliefs are the product of generation Y entitlement is weird. Just a bizarre aside, like that eccentric uncle everyone has that somehow links every conversation to the pinch hitter rule in baseball. Entitlement just has nothing to do with it. And if it did, it wouldn't be gen Y thing - wildly ambitious notions of government are a lot older than gen Y, and if anything the talk about what government needs to keep secret is a lot more grounded in practicality than similar debates in previous generations. And it's even more weird because the major players in this series of leaks aren't even gen Y - if the claim could be sensibly made it would have to be leveled at gen X.
So, to repeat my earlier point, it was just weird, weird question. Though not as weird as speculation about Snowden going down in a hail of gunfire, I'll grant you, but still very weird.
Prediction time... it's probably some old secret Presidential Order that started this. (didn't start with Obama guys).
Which gets back to one of the weirder things of American politics* - everyone hyper-focuses on the president of the day, and whatever happens is immediately laid at his doorstep. Which isn't to say the President shouldn't be accountable for things that happen on his watch, but people take it one step further, and think by complaining about a president, or even voting him out of office they will have any impact on where most decisions and operations are undertaken. The great, unelected bureaucracy carries on operating as it does, and having some guy installed in the top chair doesn't, and can't really change the overall behaviour of a government.
PRISM and the other operations are a product of a bureaucracy, and when they have the stamp of the powers that be within that bureaucracy, then the president will be briefed on those operations in a way that he can't dispute their necessity. Remember that claim that's been floating around about 50 terrorist acts having been stopped because of PRISM, well who the hell knows what constitutes a 'terrorist act' under that definition, or how much double counting it involves. It's a number produced by a political insider, and likely given to the president in a briefing, who has no means to question it, and therefore whether it's Bush, Obama or whoever comes after him, has no real ability to question the policy.
Which is why, I think, these kinds of things need to be made public. The more secret these things are, the more power granted to bureaucrats to control what information is provided to elected officials. And that means these programs become extremely difficult to control.
*Well, actually this seems to hold true for most countries that I'm aware of.
sebster wrote: Whether its a belief that it is just PRISM, or all information that should be made available, it matters not one fething bit to how bizarre your observation was.
Such beliefs could be dismissed as idealistic or impractical, for sure. Do that and I'd likely agree with you. But to comment that such beliefs are the product of generation Y entitlement is weird. Just a bizarre aside, like that eccentric uncle everyone has that somehow links every conversation to the pinch hitter rule in baseball. Entitlement just has nothing to do with it. And if it did, it wouldn't be gen Y thing - wildly ambitious notions of government are a lot older than gen Y, and if anything the talk about what government needs to keep secret is a lot more grounded in practicality than similar debates in previous generations. And it's even more weird because the major players in this series of leaks aren't even gen Y - if the claim could be sensibly made it would have to be leveled at gen X.
So, to repeat my earlier point, it was just weird, weird question. Though not as weird as speculation about Snowden going down in a hail of gunfire, I'll grant you, but still very weird.
I don't believe it is. Even among the anti-war movement in Vietnam, there wasn't this outright wholesale disdain for the notion of "classified information" as a concept. This idea that intelligence gathering agencies should operate only in above-board fashion, making everything they do public, is pretty ludicrous, and it hasn't, to the best of my knowledge, come about before. I don't think it's idealism, either. No one's that dumb.
Jihadin wrote: Good read Seb then I saw the gap and this sentence.......
In Australia right now there's a big push to get rid of our Prime Minister, under the strange belief that if we do so then all the policies of her party will change. This is despite the fact she got the job after ousting the last guy, because people thought if we got rid of him the policies of the party wuold change. And now they're going back to the old guy, somehow expecting this time around he'll be completely different. And it gets even dumber, because in a few months there'll be an election, and it's very likely the government will get booted and we'll bring in the other side, because people are angry over the budget deficits, despite those budget deficits being a product of international conditions and some very long term financial decisions.
In the UK there exists a large number of conservatives who are very disappointed in the Cameron government as they thought voting them in would massively change the nature of government as a whole. When the bureaucracy kept on doing as it did, and Cameron became more or less another part of that machine, people were quite surprised. Just as many left wingers were when they voted in Blair and the same thing happened, and just as many US left wingers were when they voted in Obama and the same thing happened.
Meanwhile, in Japan they're calling it Abenomics, despite it being basically a minor variation on the pork barrelling the Social Democrats always attempt.
It's called attribution error. It's also why sporting teams with long injury lists think the answer is to fire the coach.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: I don't believe it is. Even among the anti-war movement in Vietnam, there wasn't this outright wholesale disdain for the notion of "classified information" as a concept.
First up, you're really mischaracterising the other side, if you think any more than a tiny minority have 'outright wholesale disdain for the notion of "classified information" as a concept'. The majority simply think some things currently classified shouldn't be.
Also, history goes back way longer than Vietnam.
This idea that intelligence gathering agencies should operate only in above-board fashion, making everything they do public, is pretty ludicrous, and it hasn't, to the best of my knowledge, come about before. I don't think it's idealism, either. No one's that dumb.
I'm guessing you've never been to a college political debate. Almost everything said there is a lot dumber than this.
sebster wrote: First up, you're really mischaracterising the other side, if you think any more than a tiny minority have 'outright wholesale disdain for the notion of "classified information" as a concept'. The majority simply think some things currently classified shouldn't be.
That they do. And I'm not at all mistaken in saying that they also believe there's a lot that's classified that doesn't need to be despite not knowing specifically what they're talking about.
Which, again, is why I'm genuinely curious. If your objection is to the "entitlement generation" title than we can just as easily call it the "information age generation."
Also, history goes back way longer than Vietnam.
Sure does. But the anti-war movement during Vietnam is the best and most recent example of a widespread anti-establishment, anti-secrecy, anti-military/security/intelligence movement.
I'm guessing you've never been to a college political debate. Almost everything said there is a lot dumber than this.
It seems as ever that we are talking past one and other. You are focused both on Snowden's character and the general POV that 'military knows best' when it comes to safety. (not attempting to mischaracterise, this is my perception). Whereas I at least am focused on the content of the leaks and the difficulty I have accepting widespread spying of this nature out of fear of an unspecified terroridt bogeyman. I could go on at length about why I think it is uneeded but it's not that relevant. I beliece I feel no more entitled to information than any reasomable person.
Not really. This has little if anything to do with the military. The reality is that we cannot have effective intelligence agencies - which we need - if they cannot operate in secrecy a great deal of the time. If the measure of when to blow the whistle (not that I think that term applies in this case, as it's not at all certain that PRISM was illegal) is simply that some Americans dislike an activity, then we might as well shut them down now, because there's always going to be someone objecting to something.
Whether or not you like PRISM, though, has no basis on the legality or even the morality of what Snowden did. There are ways to inform the public without breaking multiple laws related to the very necessary task of keeping secret information secret. There is certainly no justification for his release of material completely unrelated to PRISM that deals exclusively with our intelligence gathering operations against foreign countries.
Seaward wrote: That they do. And I'm not at all mistaken in saying that they also believe there's a lot that's classified that doesn't need to be despite not knowing specifically what they're talking about.
Well, yeah. People are going to think there's information that they don't know about that likely should be in the public domain. Believing that is just a basic restructuring of the statement 'it is the nature of both humans and human organisations to attempt to keep things private, even when there's a clear public good to that information being made public'.
Which, again, is why I'm genuinely curious. If your objection is to the "entitlement generation" title than we can just as easily call it the "information age generation."
Which removes some of the weirdness of entitlement, but still doesn't get past the strange idea that this unique to gen Y. Once again, Snowden, Manning and Assange aren't gen Y.
No, I had better things to do in college.
You should have gone. It was a great place to pick up. Perhaps if you had you'd be a happier person today.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: It seems as ever that we are talking past one and other. You are focused both on Snowden's character and the general POV that 'military knows best' when it comes to safety. (not attempting to mischaracterise, this is my perception). Whereas I at least am focused on the content of the leaks and the difficulty I have accepting widespread spying of this nature out of fear of an unspecified terroridt bogeyman. I could go on at length about why I think it is uneeded but it's not that relevant. I beliece I feel no more entitled to information than any reasomable person.
I said in one of the earlier threads that one thing the people supporting PRISM will do is attempt to turn this in to a debate on whether Snowden was a good or a bad man for leaking the information, and sidestep the issue of whether PRISM is good and/or needed.
sebster wrote: Which removes some of the weirdness of entitlement, but still doesn't get past the strange idea that this unique to gen Y. Once again, Snowden, Manning and Assange aren't gen Y.
Snowden and Manning are.
You should have gone. It was a great place to pick up. Perhaps if you had you'd be a happier person today.
About the only thing that could make me happier at this point would be lower taxes. It's hard to beat the rest.
I just don't buy that this sort of program, this sort of widespread snooping, is needed.
Other countries have dealt with terrorists without secret courts, extra-national prisons, gigantic spying operations.
The public should be allowed a say in how far the government can go in it's protection. I don't give a fig about Snowden, my view is he's probably a narcissist who undoubtably made a poor career choice. My issue is with espionage and spying being carried out in the name of defense. Surely people will accept a degree of risk for a greater reassurance that money isn't being poured into programs used to spy on them that could easily be put to other uses in the future? It's always easy to justify grabbing more power, it's not always so easy to justify giving it up. To me, your stance on this is almost directly contradictory to your stances on small government in many other cases.
Finally, if I may be flippant, other countries can accept some level of risk without the need for a gigantic spying network, so, time to man up, America.
Da Boss wrote: I just don't buy that this sort of program, this sort of widespread snooping, is needed.
Other countries have dealt with terrorists without secret courts, extra-national prisons, gigantic spying operations.
If they were secret, how would you know?
The public should be allowed a say in how far the government can go in it's protection. I don't give a fig about Snowden, my view is he's probably a narcissist who undoubtably made a poor career choice. My issue is with espionage and spying being carried out in the name of defense. Surely people will accept a degree of risk for a greater reassurance that money isn't being poured into programs used to spy on them that could easily be put to other uses in the future? It's always easy to justify grabbing more power, it's not always so easy to justify giving it up. To me, your stance on this is almost directly contradictory to your stances on small government in many other cases.
It is contradictory to the "all small government, all the time," stance, isn't it? And if it proves to be a constitutional violation, then I'm in agreement with it going. But I'm also perfectly well aware that, as the largest target in the world, we need excellent intelligence, from as many sources as possible.
Finally, if I may be flippant, other countries can accept some level of risk without the need for a gigantic spying network, so, time to man up, America.
If you're talking about our allies, that's because a lot of them know we do it for them. Sort of like with most aspects of defense.
Da Boss wrote: I just don't buy that this sort of program, this sort of widespread snooping, is needed.
Other countries have dealt with terrorists without secret courts, extra-national prisons, gigantic spying operations.
If they were secret, how would you know?
There are secret courts on many things, from those involving classified intelligence material, to family abuse cases. Just because the public is not allowed in or to know what happens in them does not preclude knowing of their existence.
The problem with giving security services carte blanche, is that it makes it very difficult to learn of any flaws in their systems, or of mistakes and abuses they make. It's all well and good for the people who run it to say they're following all relevant laws, but who ensures that they are in fact, actually doing so? It's difficult enough with the police (who do indeed regularly make mistakes and abuses and then try and use their power to hide such things). With intelligence services, you have the same problem trebled, as everything can be hidden under the blanket of 'national security'.
Da Boss wrote: Yeah? You were collecting information on the IRA were you? Wow. And here I was thinking you were supplying them with money!
Jesus, thanks for educating me on that one.
(Yeah, I know, it wasn't the US government policy)
I'm sure all the british intelligence agents will be happy to know they were american all along. Where do they get their passports?
Actually, since my dad did a bit of counter intelligence stuff in his role as a police man, does he get one too?
Don't be so bloody ignorant.
Wait, I'm sorry. Did you just try to use the UK as an example of a country without significant espionage operations? Really? Christ, the extent to which GCHQ is doing stuff similar to PRISM is one of Snowden's revelations.
Jesus, dude, I thought you were talking about Norway or something. But no. You actually meant the UK. I'm not sure where this debate can possibly go if you're genuinely that uninformed.
Also, I know no large scale intelligence gathering of this kind could have possibly existed in the past because, well, we didn't have widespread internet back then. You needed something like the Stasi to do stuff like this, back in the day, and their existence at least was public knowledge. Something like this can be kept secret because the number of people who need to be involved is much lower.
Da Boss wrote: Yeah? You were collecting information on the IRA were you? Wow. And here I was thinking you were supplying them with money!
Jesus, thanks for educating me on that one.
(Yeah, I know, it wasn't the US government policy)
I'm sure all the british intelligence agents will be happy to know they were american all along. Where do they get their passports?
Actually, since my dad did a bit of counter intelligence stuff in his role as a police man, does he get one too?
Don't be so bloody ignorant.
Wait, I'm sorry. Did you just try to use the UK as an example of a country without significant espionage operations? Really? Christ, the extent to which GCHQ is doing stuff similar to PRISM is one of Snowden's revelations.
Jesus, dude, I thought you were talking about Norway or something. But no. You actually meant the UK. I'm not sure where this debate can possibly go if you're genuinely that uninformed.
I am actually fine with "significant espionage", but it's a matter of degrees. And if they're breaking the rules, as they have sometimes in the past, then they need to be found out , and then inquiries need to happen (which they have in the past) and the people who "blow the whistle" need to not be demonised.
I don't know if I can continue having a conversation with someone who so often wilfully misinterprets things in the most insulting way possible, either. Perhaps it would be for the best if I left you alone, because to be honest I find you incredibly annoying and patronising.
Da Boss wrote: I don't know if I can continue having a conversation with someone who so often wilfully misinterprets things in the most insulting way possible, either. Perhaps it would be for the best if I left you alone, because to be honest I find you incredibly annoying and patronising.
You may want to go back and read the post I was responding to, as there's quite a bit of pot calling the kettle black involved all of a sudden.
BRUSSELS/BERLIN, June 30 (Reuters) - The European Union has demanded that the United States explain a report in a German magazine that Washington is spying on the group, using unusually strong language to confront its closest trading partner over its alleged surveillance activities.
A spokeswoman for the European Commission said on Sunday the EU contacted U.S. authorities in Washington and Brussels about a report in Der Spiegel magazine that the U.S. secret service had tapped EU offices in Washington and Brussels and at the United Nations.
"We have immediately been in contact with the U.S. authorities in Washington D.C. and in Brussels and have confronted them with the press reports," the spokeswoman said.
"They have told us they are checking on the accuracy of the information released yesterday and will come back to us," she added in a statement.
Der Spiegel reported on its website on Saturday that the National Security Agency had bugged EU offices and gained access to EU internal computer networks in the latest revelation of alleged U.S. spying that has prompted outrage from EU politicians.
The magazine followed up on Sunday with a report that the U.S. secret service taps half a billion phone calls, emails and text messages in Germany in a typical month and has classed its biggest European ally as a target similar to China.
Revelations about the alleged U.S. spying programme, which became public through documents taken by fugitive former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, have raised a furore in the United States and abroad over the balance between privacy rights and national security.
The extent to which Washington's EU allies are being monitored has emerged as an issue of particular concern.
"If the media reports are correct, this brings to memory actions among enemies during the Cold War. It goes beyond any imagination that our friends in the United States view the Europeans as enemies," said German Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger.
"If it is true that EU representations in Brussels and Washington were indeed tapped by the American secret service, it can hardly be explained with the argument of fighting terrorism," she said in a statement.
GERMANY TAPPED
Germans are particularly sensitive about government monitoring, having lived through the Stasi secret police in the former communist East Germany and with lingering memories of the Gestapo of Hitler's Nazi regime.
On Saturday, Martin Schulz, president of the EU Parliament and also a German, said that if the report was correct, it would have a "severe impact" on relations between the EU and the United States.
"On behalf of the European Parliament, I demand full clarification and require further information speedily from the U.S. authorities with regard to these allegations," he said in an emailed statement.
Some policymakers said talks for a free trade agreement between Washington and the EU should be put on ice until further clarification from the United States.
"Partners do not spy on each other," the European commissioner for justice and fundamental rights, Viviane Reding, said at a public event in Luxembourg on Sunday.
"We cannot negotiate over a big transatlantic market if there is the slightest doubt that our partners are carrying out spying activities on the offices of our negotiators," Reding said in comments passed on to reporters by her spokeswoman.
The European Parliament's foreign affairs committee head Elmar Brok, from Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats. echoed those views.
"The spying has taken on dimensions that I would never have thought possible from a democratic state," he told Der Spiegel.
"How should we still negotiate if we must fear that our negotiating position is being listened to beforehand?"
In unrelated news the current Administration has now equipped all their press staff dealing with questions about the NSA with a smoke bomb and high quality running shoes to help evade any difficult questions.
Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds? Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! Croupier: Your winnings, sir. Captain Renault: Oh, thank you very much.
Seriously, we all spy on each other in the global community, we just don't publicly talk about it out of politeness. So all this shock and outrage is just for show, really.
PORTOVIEJO, Ecuador (AP) — Edward Snowden is "under the care of the Russian authorities" and can't leave Moscow's international airport without their consent, Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa told The Associated Press Sunday in an interview telegraphing the slim and diminishing possibility that the National Security Agency leaker will end up in Ecuador.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has distanced himself from the case since Snowden arrived in Russia last week. But Correa portrayed Russia as entirely the masters of Snowden's fate.
Putin insists the 30-year-old former NSA contractor remains in the transit zone of Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport and that as long as he has not legally entered Russia, he is out of the Kremlin's control.
However, the Kremlin also said Sunday that it will take public opinion and the views of human rights activists into account when considering Snowden's case, a move that could lay the groundwork for him to seek asylum in Russia.
"This is the decision of Russian authorities," Correa told the AP during a visit to this Pacific coast city. "He doesn't have a passport. I don't know the Russian laws, I don't know if he can leave the airport, but I understand that he can't. At this moment he's under the care of the Russian authorities. If he arrives at an Ecuadorean Embassy we'll analyze his request for asylum."
Ecuador's President Rafael Correa, center, jokes as he prepares before an interview with The Associa …
Last week, several members of Russia's Presidential Council for Human Rights spoke out in support of Snowden, saying he deserved to receive political asylum in the country of his choice and should not be handed over to the United States. And a handful of protesters picketed outside the Moscow airport in what appeared to be an orchestrated demonstration on Friday, holding signs reading "Edward, Russia is your second motherland" and "Russia is behind Snowden."
Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Ekho Moskvy radio that while Snowden is not Russia's concern, the Kremlin is aware of the viewpoints of Russian experts and representatives of human rights organizations.
"Public opinion on the subject is very rich," Peskov said in the radio interview. "We are aware of this and are taking it into account."
Correa said he had no idea Snowden's intended destination was Ecuador when he fled Hong Kong for Russia last week. He said the Ecuadorean consul in London committed "a serious error" by not consulting officials in Ecuador's capital when the consul issued a letter of safe passage for Snowden. He said the consul would be punished, although he didn't specify how.
Analysts familiar with the workings of the Ecuadorean government said Correa's claims that the decision was entirely Russia's appeared to be at least partly disingenuous. They said they believed Correa's administration at first intended to host Snowden, then started back-tracking this week when the possible consequences became clearer.
Ecuador's President Rafael Correa, laughs during a interview with The Associated Press in Portoviejo …
"I think the government started to realize the dimensions of what it was getting itself into, how it was managing things and the consequences that this could bring," said Santiago Basabe, an analyst and professor of political sciences at the Latin American School of Social Sciences in the Ecuadorean capital, Quito. "So it started pulling back, and they'll never tell us why, but I think the alarm bells started to go off from people very close to the government, maybe Ecuador's ambassador in Washington warned them about the consequences of asylum for Snowden."
Correa said Snowden must assume responsibility if he broke U.S. laws, but added the broader legitimacy of Snowden's action must be taken into consideration. He said Ecuador would still consider an asylum request but only if Snowden is able to make it to Ecuador or an Ecuadorean Embassy to apply.
The U.S. is seeking the former NSA contractor's extradition for leaking secret documents that, among other things, detail U.S. surveillance of international online activity. On Sunday, German magazine Der Spiegel reported that classified documents taken by Snowden also revealed U.S. spies had allegedly bugged European Union offices.
Correa never entirely closed the door to Snowden, whom he said had drawn vital attention to the U.S. eavesdropping program and potential violations of human rights. But Correa appeared to be sending the message that it is unlikely Snowden will ever end up in Ecuador. He repeatedly emphasized the importance of the U.S. legal process and praised Vice President Joe Biden for what he described as a courteous and appreciated half-hour call about the Snowden case on Friday.
He similarly declined to reject an important set of U.S. trade benefits for Ecuadorean exports, again a contrast with his government's unilateral renunciation of a separate set of tariff benefits earlier in the week.
Ecuador's President Rafael Correa, speaks during a interview with The Associated Press in Portoviejo …
"If he really could have broken North American laws, I am very respectful of other countries and their laws and I believe that someone who breaks the law must assume his responsibilities," Correa said. "But we also believe in human rights and due process."
He said Biden had asked him to send Snowden back to the United States immediately because he faces criminal charges, is a fugitive from justice and has had his passport revoked.
"I told him that we would analyze his opinion, which is very important to us," Correa said, adding that he had demanded the return of several Ecuadoreans who are in the United States but face criminal charges at home.
"I greatly appreciated the call," he said, contrasting it with threats made by a small group of U.S. senators to revoke Ecuadorean trade privileges. "When I received the call from Vice President Biden, which was with great cordiality and a different vision, we really welcomed it a lot."
Ecuadorean officials believe Russian authorities stymied the country's efforts to approve a political asylum application from the former NSA systems analyst, according to government officials with direct knowledge of the case.
Ecuador's President Rafael Correa sings during his weekly live broadcast "Enlace Ciudadano," or "Cit …
Those officials said Ecuador had been making detailed plans to receive and host Snowden. One of the officials said Russia's refusal to let Snowden leave or be picked up by Ecuadorean officials had thwarted the plans. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the case by name.
One of the officials said Snowden had intended to travel from Moscow to the Ecuadorean capital of Quito. The official said Ecuador had also asked Russia to let Snowden take a commercial flight to meet Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino in Vietnam or Singapore, where Patino was on an official trip.
The Russians rejected all of Ecuador's requests to let Snowden leave Moscow, or to let an Ecuadorean government plane pick him up there, the official said.
Asked Sunday about those accounts, Correa responded, without elaborating, "We don't have long-range aircraft. It's a joke."
Snowden's path to Ecuador would have gone through Cuba, which said little about the case all week, including whether it would have allowed him to use its territory to transit.
Cuban leader Fidel Castro praised Correa's rejection of U.S. trade pressure, expressing his "sympathies" for the Ecuadorean leader in a Sunday editorial in the state press.
US intelligence leaker Edward Snowden has applied to Russia for political asylum, a Russian official says.
Foreign ministry consul Kim Shevchenko said the request was made on Sunday night. The Kremlin has made no comment.
The 30-year-old former CIA analyst is believed to be holed up in a Moscow airport hotel. He is wanted by the US.
Earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Moscow "never hands over anybody anywhere and has no intention of doing so".
"If [Snowden] wants to go somewhere and there are those who would take him, he is welcome to do so," he told a news conference.
"If he wants to stay here, there is one condition: He must stop his activities aimed at inflicting damage on our American partners, no matter how strange it may sound coming from my lips."
The US has not yet made any comment on the latest developments.
President Barack Obama, speaking earlier in Tanzania, said Washington and Moscow had held "high level" discussions about Mr Snowden.
"We don't have an extradition treaty with Russia," he said. "On the other hand, Mr Snowden, we understand, has travelled there without a valid passport and legal papers.
"And we are hopeful the Russian government makes decisions based on the normal procedures regarding international travel and the normal interactions law enforcement have."
'Ironclad assurances'
According to Russia's Interfax news agency, Mr Snowden's application for asylum was handed to a consular official at Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport late on Sunday evening.
The application was delivered by Sarah Harrison, a member of the Wikileaks legal team acting as Mr Snowden's representative, Kim Shevchenko was quoted by the news agency saying.
Russia's Federal Migration Service has denied the reports.
The LA Times quoted a Russian foreign ministry official as saying Mr Snowden had applied to 15 countries for asylum.
Mr Snowden has reportedly been in the transit area of Sheremetyevo Airport since arriving there from Hong Kong on 23 June.
He flew there soon after revealing himself to be the source behind the leaking of thousands of classified documents showing the extent of US email and telephone surveillance.
It was thought he had been seeking asylum in Ecuador, whose embassy in London is sheltering Wikileaks founder Julian Assange who is also wanted by the US.
Mr Snowden faces charges of espionage in the US.
His father, Lon Snowden, in a letter to the attorney general seen by the BBC at the weekend, said he thought his son would return voluntarily to the US if there were "ironclad assurances that his constitutional rights would be honored".
'Bugging friends unacceptable'
Meanwhile, Washington is facing the fall-out over claims published at the weekend of alleged spying by the US security services on the embassies and missions of its EU allies, including France, Italy and Greece.
The European Commission called the claims "disturbing news if proven true" and said it expected "clarity and transparency" about the issue from Washington.
A spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel said "bugging friends is unacceptable... We are no longer in the Cold War".
French President Francois Hollande indicated that a major US-EU trade deal - to be negotiated next week - was under threat unless the US could give a guarantee that its surveillance of the EU had ended.
"We cannot accept this kind of behaviour between partners and allies. We ask that this immediately stop," he told journalists during a visit to western France.
Responding to the claims, President Obama said that all nations with intelligence services tried to understand what other nations were thinking, but that if he wanted to know what a European leader was thinking, he would call that person himself.
. Reminds me. I need to start collecting my bank statements.
video
