Snowdon is a dummy

C'mon, Walter. You guys have had some bad times with your government...and now you seem to be trusting them more than is wise.

I am not accepting the governments explanations for why they are doing some of the things they are doing...I am part of the chorus demanding that they do it.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am not accepting the governments explanations for why they are doing some of the things they are doing...I am part of the chorus demanding that they do it.

So you agree with the general presumption of guilt of any foreigner ...

I do not see how you get that supposition from what I wrote, Walter.

I do not think there is a general presumption of guilt of foreigners...and if there were, I would not agree with it. I do not see how you get that supposition from what I wrote, Walter.

Well, you want to fund out, if someone of us (= all but US-citizens) might consider something something bad which could perhaps be against the safety of the USA.

I do. A lot of us were always under the assumption that America viewed us as allies, now we know that's definitely not the case.

I don't think that is going to help in this particular instance as both are on the same side.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not see how you get that supposition from what I wrote, Walter.

I do. A lot of us were always under the assumption that America viewed us as allies, now we know that's definitely not the case.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not think there is a general presumption of guilt of foreigners...and if there were, I would not agree with it. I do not see how you get that supposition from what I wrote, Walter.

There has been espionage between contries.
And it has always been a criminal act ... in the country, where the spying went on.

Since everyone was doing, it has been a zero-sum situation, and international law neutral about it.

But now, it's something different, a totally new situation. It'snot that countries are spied at but citizens. And not just a certain "species of citizen" but all.
And the reason? Well, you want to fund out, if someone of us (= all but US-citizens) might consider something something bad which could perhaps be against the safety of the USA.

And that certainly is general presumption of guilt of foreigners.

The UK and Germany are allies to us...

In the case of Edward Snowden and the secret surveillance abuses that he has exposed, it's us against them. But who is "us" and who is "them?"

This started out as a story of government spying programs exposed by a daring whistleblower, akin to the famous Pentagon Papers of 1971. This clearly pitted "us", the citizens and residents of the United States, against "them", an abusive, unaccountable government violating our rights and our constitution in secret. The citizens of other countries who had their rights violated by NSA spying, such as in Europe and, now we learn, Brazil, also became part of that "us".

But over the last few weeks powerful media outlets, mirroring the efforts of the US government, have shifted the narrative to more convenient terrain. "Us" now means "America", led by our national security state, which – if possibly overzealous sometimes – is trying to protect "us". "Them" is our adversaries – terrorists, of course, but also any government that is independent enough to be branded as "anti-American". And Edward Snowden – the "fugitive leaker" at best, or "traitorous spy" at worst – has, in some unexplained manner, helped "them", and seems to be getting help from "them" (in this case, governments that are "anti-American"; that is, independent of Washington).

Never mind that even Russia didn't want to get involved in the whole thing, and insisted that Snowden could only stay there if he would "cease his work aimed at damaging our American partners", the cold war rhetoric is too irresistible for journalists steeped in its patriotic fervor. Like Mike Meyers' Austin Powers, who woke up after a decades' long nap and didn't know that the cold war was over, they are ready to do battle with America's "enemies".

One of the most influential human rights organizations in the world, Amnesty International, didn't buy this media narrative. Last Tuesday, it accused the US government of "gross violations of [Snowden's] human rights", for trying to block him from applying for political asylum. Amnesty declared:


"It appears he is being charged by the US government primarily for revealing its – and other governments' – unlawful actions that violate human rights …

"No one should be charged under any law for disclosing information of human rights violations … Snowden is a whistleblower. He has disclosed issues of enormous public interest in the US and around the world."

The leading media outlets virtually ignored this voice and the legal issues that it raised.

The media can often determine what most people think on most issues, if given enough time and insufficient opposition. So, it is not surprising that the number of people who think that Snowden "did the right thing" has fallen over the past few weeks.

At this point, there is only one person who can turn this around: that is Edward Snowden himself. He has recorded only one interview, the one with Glenn Greenwald in which he took responsibility for the disclosures. It was a brilliant interview: he was crystal clear – morally, politically, and rhetorically.


"I'm no different from anybody else. I don't have special skills. I'm just another guy who sits there day to day in the office, watches what's happening and goes, 'This is something that's not our place to decide, the public needs to decide whether these programs and policies are right or wrong.'"

The sincerity of his appeal convinced millions that he was "us" – and that the people who now want to put him behind bars for life are "them".

It is understandable why he hasn't given any media interviews since then. He didn't expose these programs, despite some ridiculous punditry to the contrary, to promote himself. He wants the focus to be on the crimes committed in secret by government, not on him. But sometimes, there is no avoiding center stage.

Snowden is the only person right now who can reach hundreds of millions of people with a truthful message. The media is currently hungry for his words; they are eager to ignore most of the other truth-tellers, like Amnesty International; or to disparage them. They have demonized Julian Assange, who has yet to be even charged with a single crime, not even a misdemeanor. They will eventually destroy Snowden if he does not forcefully speak out and defend himself.

This has practical, as well as political, consequences. On Friday, Venezuela and Nicaragua offered asylum to Snowden, followed by Bolivia on Saturday. And there are an unknown number of other countries – including Ecuador – that would almost certainly grant him asylum if he showed up there. There are a number of ways for him to fly to these places without passing over any country that takes orders from Washington. But will the US government violate international law again, and risk innocent lives, by trying to force down a plane in international air space?

This decision may depend on the Obama team's forecast of how the media would portray such a crime. If Snowden explains to the world why his actions were a legitimate and eminently justifiable exposure of government criminality, the White House may think twice about further illegal and possibly forceful efforts to block Snowden's right to political asylum.

The Obama team did not comment on the offers of asylum. This was very smart, since it was a safe bet that the media would respond for them, framing the issue not as one of independent governments exercising their right and obligation to offer political asylum to a whistleblower, but rather "them" trying to poke a finger in the eye of the United States.

But there are millions of Americans, and many more throughout the world, who can see through this crusty cold war retread. Snowden can reach many millions more with the truth. He needs to speak – not only to save himself, but also future whistleblowers whom the Obama administration wants to silence by punishing him. What is at stake is the whole cause of human rights, especially the right to asylum. The citizens of the world need to see that triumph over the intimidation from those who believe that raw power is all that counts.

The UK and Germany are allies to us.

You don't treat allies like that.

Instead of posting such a long script which will put off a lot of people, why don't you just cut and paste the key points and post a link to the article?

Your screeds have resulted in many of those dozen folks ignoring you.

You seem to be of the opinion that discussions on A2K matter or that they will somehow have some influence on how Americans see themselves in the world.

You stated recently that you'd bet that none of the people I have regular contact with openly debate or discuss US foreign policy. I said you'd lose that bet. My discussions tend to be elsewhere, primarily because I think that discussions of this type are irrelevant here.

But you thought that these things that have an immediate impact upon Americans are worthy of discussion.

Quote:

There used to be a sizable group of folks here who were willing to debate subject of political and/or international interest. Most of those people have left.

The facts are such that they point up very very serious crimes. The facts are such that they are "indisputable", not because they are all indisputable, but because no one wants to dispute the facts just the messenger conveying those facts.

What more does one need to realize that these things do need to be discussed?

I have always been disappointed in Dys, at least a bit more so than others, because he knew full well about these issues, he, by his own admission, engaged in these "issues".

Why do people, honest people, stay silent about such serious issues?

Did these folks "debate" or "dance around the issues"?

Quote:

I've said this all before. The 10-12 people who will read this post have seen me say it here before. Saying it two, or ten or a hundred times won't influence the people who disagree with me and what's the point of preaching to the choir?

You've ended up with a +5, so considering the possible vote downs and those that don't vote, there may well be 20 people who read your post.

But seriously, the A2K literati didn't address these issues any better than the A2K non-literati.