Posted by
Steve Smith on
Aug 01, 2013; 5:27pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Fwd-Russia-Grants-Snowden-1-Year-Asylum-NYTimes-com-tp7583554p7583563.html
Fascinating.
I certainly was surprised so few countries would grant him
asylum.
I was not surprised that any/all countries not already on our
shit-list were too afraid of us to stand up against us in any way.
We have become the bullies of the world on many fronts (military,
economic, covert-violence). (It is also fair to ask if we have ever
been otherwise?)
That leaves only countries already considered belligerent to us
in other matters to take this on. I was (more?) surprised that
Ecuador couldn't find a way to get both Snowden and Assange into
their country. On the other hand, I suppose the Ecuador Embassy and
the Moscow Airport are pretty secure yet public places. It would
be hard for a bad actor (e.g. Blackwater operatives or "Dog the
Bounty Hunter") to come in and snatch them without causing bigger
problems for themselves.
The promises the US made trying to retrieve him diplomatically had
to be for show they were so pathetic! "Send him home, we promise
not to seek the death penalty..." and "Send him home, we promise not
to torture him...". Since we redefined "torture" against all
common sense "enhanced interrogation techniques" (indefinite
solitary confinement, sleep deprivation through visual and aural
stimulus, forced feeding by nasal tube, and even (for a while?)
waterboarding) were redefined as not being torture. Why not "send
him home, if what he's exposed proves to be both true and well
motivated, we'll give him a hero's welcome!". Or... "We understand
his fear, let us put his allegations to the test and if they appear
real, then we will *welcome* him back" "meanwhile, thanks for
keeping him safe and out of more trouble for us!".
I think Russia is still a superpower in their own mind and can (and
need to for self-image?) stand up to us on principle. I can only
imagine the hours (weeks?) of vodka quaffing and table pounding
(with a shoe) that went on in the Kremlin (is that still where the
deciders do their deciding?) !
I think these are all watershed events (Snowden, Manning,
Zimmerman), not just because they have a high media profile, but
because they simultaneously define the nature of government (ours in
particular, but all in general methinks) and the inherent weakness
in a massive surviellance/security state. When you make it
possible for hundreds or thousands of analysts to access any and all
communication over a long period of time in a wide net, it seems
inevitable that one of them will take offense deep enough to break
an oath and risk some heavy shit with our overt and covert gov't.
Zimmerman is a creature of a different stripe, on principle
representing the same spirit of "taking matters into your own hand
on principle, no matter what the consequence", but in practice not
coming off very righteous despite acquittal.
We will martyr Manning and Snowden (en absentia?) while Zimmerman
rides high on a systemic failure of justice. I *don't* know what
happened between he and Martin but it would be as easy to claim
Martin was "standing his ground" when he dropped his Arizona Iced
Tea and Skittles to respond to Zimmerman's aggression to protect
himself. If the guy walking down the street was responding to an
armed aggressor by resisting him, knocking him down and maybe even
getting a few blows in before he was shot, I'd say HE was standing
HIS ground.
If the "open secret" of total data capture on *all* communication
within the reach of the NSA (most relevantly, that between US
citizens within the borders of the US+territories, completely
against the principles of our constitution and the extant rule of
law) being disclosed (with supporting documentation) is "treason"
then something is amiss. I'm glad that particular secret is out...
I suspected it was true, I'm glad it is made public.
The Manning disclosures were a larger and more complex mixed bag,
but I don't think we made the case that he caused any *actual* harm
and I think it was obvious that he had access to plenty of harmful
material which he did *not* disclose. He disclosed only the
embarrassing and truly whistleblowing material, and then through a
secondary party with some credibility in place and to maintain
around NOT seeking to actually compromise US (or anyone else's)
security, but rather spark and fuel public debate and
governmental/institutional (policy) reform. I'm not completely sure
but I think the material on the Icelandic Financial stuff was
instrumental in the successful criminal prosecution of the Icelandic
bankers who went down in a way our own (criminal) bankers never
will?
</random rant>
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com