Fascinating. I certainly was surprised so few countries would grant
him asylum.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/world/europe/edward-snowden-russia.html?_r=0
-- Owen
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
