People became ambivalent. Snowden fled eventually to Russia. Some people viewed him less relevant over time as the archive merely trickled out. When he fled to Russia, he looked less like a martyr and more like a national security information leaker or spy like Robert
A lot of what sounded extraordinary in 2013 is now baked into everyday discussion like metadata and mass surveillance. He is also available less for interviews because he is in Russia.
He didn't flee to Russia. He had booked tickets to Ecuador going through Russia. The Obama administration revoked his passport, rendering him stateless and unable to leave Russia. Please do not regurgitate propaganda.
He actually fled the US before the leaks became public to Hong Kong but it was a calculated risk because Hong Kong has extradition treaty with the US. So he was fleeing already.
He could have returned to the US however he would have most certainly faced arrest. So he asked and was granted temporary asylum in Russia. If my passport is voided for whatever reason then I am returning to the US. I am still a citizen and so was he.
But naturally he didn’t want to be arrested so by definition became a fugitive.
That just feels like a slightly different false equivalence - and having said that, I may be making yet another version of it by saying this:
If a person has a 'state', but that state would immediately jail the person for treason upon their return, is that materially different to stateless?
That feels like the reason that many countries allow 'political asylum'.
He wasn’t stateless. Stateless means no country recognizes you as a citizen. He just faced arrest if he returned. Same as any other fugitive. People seeking asylum still have a country and citizenship. Also he wasn’t facing treason charges. He was charged under the Espionage Act and with theft of government property. There were others in similar situations that faced up to 45 months in prison and Eric Holder was willing to make a deal in 2015.
when the secret being leaked is that the united states is spying on its own citizens and violating the 4th amendment.
i find it weird how many Russians, Chinese and Americans are weirdly protective of their own government's oppressive behaviours in the name of patriotism.
Again you are missing the point. Nothing was proven in violation of the 4th amendment. Ninth Circuit didn’t even latch on that argument nor express it. Courts agreed that the metadata collection program went beyond what was approved by the FISA courts. But he leaked a whole host of foreign spying programs that had nothing to do with Americans.
Just as some Chinese people want Ai Weiwei to rot in prison, some Russians wanted Navalny to rot in prison and some Americans wanted or still want Snowden and Assange to rot in prison.
I see what you’re saying, but true stateless people often have a different problem on their hands, because most countries won’t allow them entry at all unless they can get refugee status, and they will often be denied basic rights.
Some people actually voluntarily seek statelessness, but they’re either crazy or have enough resources to fly under the radar somewhere.
See <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness
Snowden’s status is more of a political exile. Theoretically he could return legally and safely if there was a complete regime change where the new regime was aligned with his beliefs and actions, although the chances of this happening are approximately zero.
Yeah, Snowden was lucky he wasn't, by definition, stateless, otherwise Russia may not have offered him asylum. They got to piss off the US by doing so.
It's not a "false equivalence". Multiple people are trying to explain to you what "stateless" actually means and how's it's materially different than being a fugitive, but you are refusing to listen.
My point is that the definition doesn't matter when faced with Snowden's situation. Not being stateless offered no respite, therefore it's materially no different - to Snowden, in his situation.
No, it won't hold up in court, because definitions exist and the law is an ass, as they say. But you'll never understand human behaviour if that's the only lens you look through.
Does that make my thread of explanations any more clear?
(inb4: No, you're wrong, he wasn't stateless.)
Her default option was to return to her abuser and face more abuse so she went to the only shelter she could access, having no means to access any other shelter.
"Her" is Snowden.
Let's not be so sneaky in how we word things ;)
It's partially propaganda, partially a result of a number of accounts on HN which are unwaveringly sympathetic to the US FedGov no matter what moral atrocities it commits. We know the US IC conducts social influence operations in forums far more obscure than HN, like cryptographic steering committees, it wouldn't surprise me if there's plenty of that going on here, too. That said, having known people who work in the US IC, I'm not entirely sure whether inorganic influence ops are even distinguishable from them "getting high on their own supply" of propaganda.
Thinking the US government wouldn't kidnap and rendition him from Ecuador is an extremely ignorant and uninformed position on how the US exercises power in the Americas. He made a least-bad choice of all possibly horrible choices and chose to stay in Russia.
He couldn't take the trip to Ecuador because his passport was revoked.
Ecuador's offer of asylum to Assange, and the fact that Snowden was traveling with a Wikileaks representative, is the likely reason for Ecuador being the originally chosen destination.
It may be ironic (for the US) and lucky (for Snowden) that he was in Russia when the passport was revoked. Likely one of the few places the US may hesitate kidnapping him from. From a kidnap / rendition viewpoint, Ecuador is just one country on a long list of countries to which the US would probably not hesitate 'arranging a small excursion'.
My point is that even if he did find himself physically in Ecuador he is not stupid enough to think that the US would not rendition him from Ecuador. Therefore making it an unacceptable risk to actually go to Ecuador. I believe it is highly likely that he never planned to go to Ecuador.
At the time and date that he likely came to that regrettable conclusion, he found himself in one of the few places in the world where the US cannot arbitrarily rendition someone from without significant risk and possible consequences.
The passport revocation means nothing, he had nowhere else he could possibly go without high likelihood of rendition even if he had a valid passport or wanted to leave Russia.
firesteelrain · · focus · HN ↗
A lot of what sounded extraordinary in 2013 is now baked into everyday discussion like metadata and mass surveillance. He is also available less for interviews because he is in Russia.
Basically bigger fish to fry
anonym29 · · focus · HN ↗
firesteelrain · · focus · HN ↗
He could have returned to the US however he would have most certainly faced arrest. So he asked and was granted temporary asylum in Russia. If my passport is voided for whatever reason then I am returning to the US. I am still a citizen and so was he.
But naturally he didn’t want to be arrested so by definition became a fugitive.
BLKNSLVR · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
firesteelrain · · focus · HN ↗
BLKNSLVR · · focus · HN ↗
If a person has a 'state', but that state would immediately jail the person for treason upon their return, is that materially different to stateless?
That feels like the reason that many countries allow 'political asylum'.
firesteelrain · · focus · HN ↗
He basically is on self imposed exile in Russia.
BLKNSLVR · · focus · HN ↗
You seem to continue to minimise the seriousness of the situation.
firesteelrain · · focus · HN ↗
pydry · · focus · HN ↗
It's more odd that some people don't give him the same benefit of the doubt they would a whistleblower from Russia or China.
firesteelrain · · focus · HN ↗
kelnos · · focus · HN ↗
firesteelrain · · focus · HN ↗
firesteelrain · · focus · HN ↗
pydry · · focus · HN ↗
i find it weird how many Russians, Chinese and Americans are weirdly protective of their own government's oppressive behaviours in the name of patriotism.
firesteelrain · · focus · HN ↗
pydry · · focus · HN ↗
iamnothere · · focus · HN ↗
Some people actually voluntarily seek statelessness, but they’re either crazy or have enough resources to fly under the radar somewhere.
See <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness
Snowden’s status is more of a political exile. Theoretically he could return legally and safely if there was a complete regime change where the new regime was aligned with his beliefs and actions, although the chances of this happening are approximately zero.
BLKNSLVR · · focus · HN ↗
ShinyLeftPad · · focus · HN ↗
The only problem with getting asylum anywhere while being stateless is proving who you are. And it wasn't a problem for him.
viccis · · focus · HN ↗
BLKNSLVR · · focus · HN ↗
No, it won't hold up in court, because definitions exist and the law is an ass, as they say. But you'll never understand human behaviour if that's the only lens you look through.
Does that make my thread of explanations any more clear?
(inb4: No, you're wrong, he wasn't stateless.)
pepperoni_pizza · · focus · HN ↗
If you decide your words mean something else to the common usage, people will react to that.
brightball · · focus · HN ↗
I thought that’s what I remembered hearing. I think all of his meetings with reporters were in Hong Kong.
firesteelrain · · focus · HN ↗
sentientlaserbe · · focus · HN ↗
"Her" is Snowden.
Let's not be so sneaky in how we word things ;)
firesteelrain · · focus · HN ↗
20after4 · · focus · HN ↗
firesteelrain · · focus · HN ↗
crossroadsguy · · focus · HN ↗
"firesteelrain = Edward Snowden"
Hence established! ^
BLKNSLVR · · focus · HN ↗
anonym29 · · focus · HN ↗
walrus01 · · focus · HN ↗
BLKNSLVR · · focus · HN ↗
Ecuador's offer of asylum to Assange, and the fact that Snowden was traveling with a Wikileaks representative, is the likely reason for Ecuador being the originally chosen destination.
It may be ironic (for the US) and lucky (for Snowden) that he was in Russia when the passport was revoked. Likely one of the few places the US may hesitate kidnapping him from. From a kidnap / rendition viewpoint, Ecuador is just one country on a long list of countries to which the US would probably not hesitate 'arranging a small excursion'.
walrus01 · · focus · HN ↗
At the time and date that he likely came to that regrettable conclusion, he found himself in one of the few places in the world where the US cannot arbitrarily rendition someone from without significant risk and possible consequences.
The passport revocation means nothing, he had nowhere else he could possibly go without high likelihood of rendition even if he had a valid passport or wanted to leave Russia.