Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy China United States

Wikileaks Aiding Snowden - Chinese Social Media Divided - Relations Strained 629

Posted by samzenpus
from the in-today's-smowden-news dept.
cold fjord writes "Despite the US cancelling his passport, Edward Snowden continues his travels aided by Wikileaks, and is leaving a trail of strained diplomatic relations in his wake. It appears China gifted the issue to Russia. From Yahoo: 'Lawyer Albert Ho, ... a Hong Kong legislator ... told reporters he was approached by Snowden several days ago, and that the American had sought assurances ... whether he could leave the city freely if he chose to do so... Snowden later told Ho an individual claiming to represent the Hong Kong government had contacted him and indicated he should leave the city, and wouldn't be stopped ... Ho said he believed the middleman was acting on Beijing's orders.' From the NYT: Julian Assange, ...said in an interview ... 'that he had raised Mr. Snowden's case with Ecuador's government and that his group had helped arrange the travel documents.' From WSJ: 'Edward Snowden has generated more than a million posts on one of China's biggest social media platforms... Sina Weibo, a popular Chinese microblogging service, exploded with activity on Sunday as Mr. Snowden left ... Mr. Snowden was hailed as a hero ... last week, but posts on Sunday and Monday were divided... "All crows are black," said a number of users, citing an Chinese old saying, to describe both American and Chinese government's surveillance programs. ... "Snowden has helped China so much. Why did we let him go?" said one ... Some suggested that China should keep Mr. Snowden as a weapon against repeated accusations of China hacking U.S. companies. More extreme users complained that China is "too soft on the U.S." "Russia is a real strong country to accept him," ... Another popular term: "hot potato," reflecting relief that Hong Kong wouldn't have to stand against U.S. efforts to take him into custody. Some users criticized Mr. Snowden for fleeing.' From the Guardian: 'Snowden's escape from Hong Kong infuriated US politicians, while China focused on condemning Washington over his latest disclosures, which suggested the NSA had hacked into Chinese mobile phone companies ... Moscow was also drawn into the controversy after it emerged that Snowden's passport had been revoked before he left Hong Kong and he did not have a visa for Russia. But Russia appeared indifferent to the uproar, with one official saying Snowden was safe from the authorities as long as he remained in the transit lounge at the city's Sheremetyevo airport. Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, said: "I know nothing."' From ABC: Snowden registered for the flight to Havana that leaves Moscow on Monday..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wikileaks Aiding Snowden - Chinese Social Media Divided - Relations Strained

Comments Filter:
  • by Smivs (1197859) <smivs@smivsonline.co.uk> on Monday June 24, 2013 @08:59AM (#44091313) Homepage Journal
    Snowden has alerted the whole World that our freedom is a sham, and that our governments treat our privacy with total contempt. I hope he survives this episode and will be seen in the future as somebody who did more for regular people than any politician.
    • by Dunbal (464142) * on Monday June 24, 2013 @09:02AM (#44091335)
      No, he just alerted the US. We here in the rest of the world have known that American "freedom" is a sham for quite a while now.
      • by SirGarlon (845873) on Monday June 24, 2013 @09:07AM (#44091397)
        People say that all the time, but if you know of a country that offers citizens stronger assurances and greater practical liberties, we'd love to hear about it. (Preferably, those liberties should extend to immigrants as well as natives.)
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          ...just pick a random european country

          • by MaWeiTao (908546) on Monday June 24, 2013 @09:42AM (#44091743)

            If you actually lived in any random European country I doubt you'd be making that claim. I know quite a few people who DO live in a number of European countries and they'd disagree with you. Not that it's necessarily worse than the US, but it's definitely no better.

            • by gl4ss (559668) on Monday June 24, 2013 @10:07AM (#44092029) Homepage Journal

              If you actually lived in any random European country I doubt you'd be making that claim. I know quite a few people who DO live in a number of European countries and they'd disagree with you. Not that it's necessarily worse than the US, but it's definitely no better.

              Immigrating to Europe is a lot easier and there are no secret courts either. And if you're unemployed you're pressed to go to state paid university while on state paid welfare - boohoo! and if you want to talk about practical liberties take a look at Germany and Portugal. but saying that it's definitely no better or worse is just weasel words.

              So.. still burnt. of course unless you pick Belarus, Russia or count Turkey as an European country(which you could technically do). if you just make a blanket claim you should give some examples of countries. the major thing limiting European freedoms and human rights is that some european leaders assumed that USA would act like a good boy and not mistreat people turned over to them and wouldn't abuse our airports for transfers of illegal prisoners (which is as good reason as any to deny returning Snowden to USA if they have to land midway).

              of course there's some tighter limits like you can't go on acting like the Westboro baptists.

              • by AthanasiusKircher (1333179) on Monday June 24, 2013 @12:01PM (#44093145)

                Immigrating to Europe is a lot easier

                Are you serious? Yes, it's generally easier to move from one EU nation to another. But if you're coming from outside the EU, be ready for some significant obstacles. To go to Germany [wikipedia.org], be ready to satisfy similar conditions to the U.S. in terms of being a "highly skilled worker," and for some countries, like the Netherlands, you may even have to pass an exam in Dutch and on the culture of the country [wikipedia.org] before even being allowed in.

                And once you're there, be prepared to meet anti-immigrant discrimination and stereotypes that are often stronger than those in the U.S. In many European countries, numerous polls suggest that the majority of the population would prefer to stop immigration altogether. (I've heard this sentiment from European friends, who are otherwise quite "liberal" compared to U.S. political standards.) The anti-immigrant discrimination is incredibly well-known, particularly for certain groups in certain countries like the Turks in Germany [wikipedia.org], or Muslims in France [wikipedia.org]. Opposition to immigrants from such groups has often lead to major demonstrations and occasionally even large-scale rioting [wikipedia.org]. There are also some mainstream political parties [wikipedia.org] in European countries that are known for opposition to immigration.

                For some EU countries, it may be a little easier to immigrate from a non-EU country than it would be to come to the U.S., particularly if you are a skilled worker or have family already in the country. But the amount of discrimination and hatred against immigrants in general in many EU countries is probably much stronger than in the U.S., despite the fact that expressing such views is officially dismissed as "racist" or even criminal in many countries.

                And in terms of "human rights," I suggest you spend just a minute or two Googling French prison conditions. Every 2-3 years, there's usually a big "expose" about how terrible French prisons are, all of the English-language media is suitably "shocked" that this is happening in a "civilized" country, and then everyone goes back to drinking wine and eating their Brie, while nothing ever changes.

                Are EU nations better than the U.S. in protecting some rights? Sure. But it's not just the Westboro Baptists the U.S. is protecting -- freedom of speech is protecting against potentially abusive laws that try to legislate "civility," such as in Germany where you can be taken to court for insulting someone or flipping them the "bird."

                So yeah, on the whole I agree with the GP -- the EU in general is probably no better or worse than the U.S., though yes, YMMV in individual countries.

                • by toutankh (1544253) on Monday June 24, 2013 @01:52PM (#44094371)

                  As a French living in Austria I have to agree with you: there is racism in Europe, this cannot be overstated.

                  I do not believe, like your link to the 2005 riots in France on wikipedia says, that the riots from 2005 had a racial motivation. The situation with the French suburbs is complicated and people's origins are a part of it, but just a part of it. The French version of the same wikipedia article mentions suburbs with poverty, unemployment and lack of safety as the context where the English version mentions "a series of riots by Muslim, Arab and North African immigrants". Both might be true (although they were definitely white non-muslim people in there too) but as you know there is a difference between correlation and causation.

                  It is also true that in many European countries we have political parties mainly focused on racism (let's call it as it is).
                  These parties are usually not one of the two main parties though. In the USA you have the republican party, which as you know is one of the two main parties. Here's what they've done [wikipedia.org].

                  On a related note, I have to remind you about segregation in the USA. You probably know about Rosa Parks. Let's not forget lynching, which apparently lasted until the 1960's [wikipedia.org].

                  Since that's already a long time ago, maybe you want to look at the recent presidential election in the USA [wikipedia.org].
                  Funny how black people vote for the black candidate and white people vote for the white candidate. If that's not racism, I don't know what is. Interestingly, the black candidate also has the majority for all non-white demographic subgroups. Look at it any way you like, you will always trace it back to racism.

                  I could go on, I won't, some people already have, it's here [wikipedia.org].

                  I agree that the USA are better than Europe at protecting freedom of expression, by the way. I really wish we had a similar freedom of expression in Europe. But if you want to say how the USA are better than Europe for some things, maybe you shouldn't mention racism: both Europe and the USA are awfully racist in their own way.

            • by Cenan (1892902) on Monday June 24, 2013 @10:15AM (#44092151)

              Currently living in a random European country, I will most certainly make that claim.

            • by jopsen (885607) <jopsen@gmail.com> on Monday June 24, 2013 @11:06AM (#44092673) Homepage

              If you actually lived in any random European country I doubt you'd be making that claim.

              I'm living in a random European country and would certainly make that claim.

              There's a degree of logging, but the logs are held by the ISPs and may only be queried with normal court order.

              Granted I'm actually in the process of relocating to the US (why? don't know), but I'm not afraid of the NSA. I'm sure they couldn't care less about my personal correspondence...
              I'm not saying I don't think it is a serious violation of human rights, only that it probably has limited practical implications for me.

              There always differences, also in healthcare, but given that I'm not poor or ill, it'll probably have few implications for me.

          • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Monday June 24, 2013 @10:28AM (#44092261) Homepage Journal

            ...just pick a random european country

            OK:

            England.

          • by MrMickS (568778) on Monday June 24, 2013 @10:38AM (#44092415) Homepage Journal

            The UK. Oh, wait we are subject to the same program the NSA is running and we have less oversight and resort to underlying law than the US.

            GCHQ (UK equivalent of NSA) is monitoring 600m telephone events a day. That's pretty much every phone call in the country. Our politicians say its all above board and legal. We don't have a written constitution to refer to the best bet being the European Convention on Human Rights.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 24, 2013 @09:15AM (#44091473)

          People say that all the time, but if you know of a country that offers citizens stronger assurances and greater practical liberties, we'd love to hear about it.

          Every country in Scandinavia. [wikipedia.org]

        • by jbssm (961115) on Monday June 24, 2013 @09:18AM (#44091515)
          Err.. Netherlands? Switzerland? Norway? Finland? Iceland? Sweden? Denmark? Germany? France? Portugal? Slovenia? Ireland? Australia? New Zealand? Canada?
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by ShanghaiBill (739463)

            Err.. Netherlands? Switzerland? Norway? Finland? Iceland? Sweden? Denmark? Germany? France? Portugal? Slovenia? Ireland? Australia? New Zealand? Canada?

            Yes, all free ... unless your opinions on the history of WWII differ from the "official version". Or if you are muslim, and want to wear observant clothing. Or if you have a reason to defend yourself. Etc.

            • by Dunbal (464142) * on Monday June 24, 2013 @09:47AM (#44091799)
              Well what do you know: Different countries have different laws. Water is wet, and grass is green also. BUT that does not alter the fact that America is a surveillance, police state, and has been for a while. Your freedom is as illusive as a soap bubble. And I can cite many stupid little things that America cites as "criminal acts". That's not the point.
            • by jbssm (961115) on Monday June 24, 2013 @09:52AM (#44091863)

              Yes, all free ... unless your opinions on the history of WWII differ from the "official version". Or if you are muslim, and want to wear observant clothing. Or if you have a reason to defend yourself. Etc.

              I think that you don't undsertand the concept of comparisons. I was not stating that these countries are perfectly free. I was stating that they are freer than the USA.

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by Yomers (863527)
                "All crows are black"
                • Uh hum, even albino crows? Anyway, the statement is true; all governments are pretty much shit. They start out fine with a small number of people but aren't flexible enough to handle the iceberg of people hiding underneath. If you're under a government, you're in a sinking titanic with a drunk captain patching holes and trying to pacify us by giving away free buckets to use against the oncoming rogue wave.
            • by theduk3 (2598409) on Monday June 24, 2013 @09:59AM (#44091943)

              unless your opinions on the history of WWII differ from the "official version"

              This statement does not make any sense, in no country in Europe it is illegal to debate about history.
              In Germany and Austria there are laws against denying the (well documented and absolutely non-desputable) crimes of the Nazi's ( in Austria it's the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbotsgesetz_1947 [wikipedia.org]).

              This has nothing to do with "disagreeing with the official version", the was passed shortly after WW2 and was/is there to prevent the spreading of lies and misinformation that and pro Nazi propaganda.

              Regarding your other points, yes, there is racism in any country, and the European ones are no exception,
              but compared to the US, the situtation is a lot better in a lot of European countries.

              And now that was enough time spent responding to flaimbate ^^.

              • by ShanghaiBill (739463) on Monday June 24, 2013 @10:14AM (#44092135)

                In Germany and Austria there are laws against denying the (well documented and absolutely non-desputable) crimes of the Nazi's

                Who gets to decide what is "absolutely non-disputable"? Once you start arresting people for expressing their opinions, the path from "you cannot praise the Nazis" to "you cannot criticize the government" is steep and slippery.

              • by Clsid (564627) on Monday June 24, 2013 @10:25AM (#44092231)

                Hmm, I don't know, Europe has a lot of good things but I do consider racism is less of an issue in the US, especially the east coast than what some friends of me had to endure in the Netherlands, Spain and Germany. They are wonderful countries but talk to any immigrant that does not look European and that knows both sides of the pond. I guarantee you most responses will favor the US.

            • by AmiMoJo (196126) * <mojo @ w orld3.net> on Monday June 24, 2013 @10:07AM (#44092035) Homepage

              Depends on your definition of freedom. In those countries you could argue that children are free from religion imposed on them by their parents while they are at school, that women are free from the oppression of being forced to cover their faces, and that people are mostly free from the threat of violence so don't need to train themselves to kill and carry weapons.

              Even banning holocaust denial could be argued to be similar to banning people shouting "fire" in a packed theatre. Both can lead to disastrous consequences.

              Europe has a different idea of what freedom is. The US does not have a monopoly on the definition.

              • by SecurityTheatre (2427858) on Monday June 24, 2013 @10:37AM (#44092395)

                While I agree with your premise, I always dislike this phrasing you're using.

                It's not freedom if it's followed by "from" or "to not be".

                Freedom FROM something is just a restriction. Unless it's freedom from the government, it's not much of a freedom.

                Think carefully how to word your freedoms. Some of them can be worded (or structured) differently and then mean exactly the opposite thing.

                For example, "women are free from the shame of having their face exposed". See, that's easy.

                Now write one without the "from" and see how it comes out.

                Women are free to wear no head coverings.

                Women are free to wear head coverings.

                Women are free to choose what to wear.

                Women are free to have someone tell them what to wear

                Women are free to have the government tell them what they cannot wear.

                No such thing "freedom from" is just a weaselly of saying "prevention of"

            • by orzetto (545509) on Monday June 24, 2013 @10:08AM (#44092043)

              Norway here. There are minor antisemitic far-right groupings (Vigrid, Norgespatriotene), though modern far-right ideology is much more anti-immigrant that anti-Jewish. Muslims in their observant clothing in Oslo are far more common than in NY (yes, I have been there), some middle-easterners I know joked that parts of Oslo look like Lahore (and thank the flying spaghetti monster for that, at least there is some decent food around!). Norway has a murder rate 8 times lower than the US, and in one place where you need to defend yourself (Svalbard, from polar bears) you are handed a shotgun after getting off the plane.

              I also lived in Germany, and while neo-Nazis are ostensibly banned they do have their stores (Thor Steinar chain) and their not-so-well-disguised party (NPD), plus some others. Also there, muslims wear what they want, and the murder rate is 6 times lower than the US.

              • Not evolved (Score:5, Funny)

                by Frankie70 (803801) on Monday June 24, 2013 @11:05AM (#44092665)

                Norway has a murder rate 8 times lower than the US.
                (In Germany,) the murder rate is 6 times lower than the US

                All this shows is that the freedom to murder is not as evolved as in the US.

          • by ckhorne (940312) on Monday June 24, 2013 @09:39AM (#44091711)

            The question is... if these countries had the budget (err... were willing to put themselves into huge amounts of debt), would they eventually create the same programs as the US? In other words, are the freedoms a result of the will of the people or from more limited resources?

          • by FriendlyLurker (50431) on Monday June 24, 2013 @09:42AM (#44091747)
            I see you left Britain off that list, as it should be. Even the majority of its press is cowed and subservient [guardian.co.uk] these days. Should probably strike off Australia as well it is well on the way down the slippery slope [slashdot.org], NZ is on the knife edge... Oh, and forget Sweden while your at it - what a corrupt, shady country it has become [professorsblogg.com].
            • Most of NZ's problems come from the fact that it is willing to be a filthy scat-crackwhore for foreign business. If not for that it would be near the top of my "best places to live" list.

          • by cold fjord (826450) on Monday June 24, 2013 @09:44AM (#44091765)

            Europe and the Anglosphere can be a bit uneven about some things.

            The Sordid Origin of Hate-Speech Laws [hoover.org]

            All western European countries have hate-speech laws. In 2008, the eu adopted a framework decision on “Combating Racism and Xenophobia” that obliged all member states to criminalize certain forms of hate speech. On the other side of the Atlantic, the Supreme Court of the United States has gradually increased and consolidated the protection of hate speech under the First Amendment. The European concept of freedom of expression thus prohibits certain content and viewpoints, whereas, with certain exceptions, the American concept is generally concerned solely with direct incitement likely to result in overt acts of lawlessness.

            Yet the origin of hate-speech laws has been largely forgotten. The divergence between the United States and European countries is of comparatively recent origin. In fact, the United States and the vast majority of European (and Western) states were originally opposed to the internationalization of hate-speech laws. European states and the U.S. shared the view that human rights should protect rather than limit freedom of expression.

            Rather, the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.

            As Americans, Europeans and others contemplate the dividing line emerging on the extent to which free speech should be limited to criminalize the “defamation of religions” and “Islamophobia,” launched by the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (oic) since 1999, they should bear this forgotten history in mind. However well-intended—and its initial proponents were anything but well-intended—the Western acceptance of hate-speech laws severely limits the ability of liberal democracies to counter attempts to broaden the scope of hate-speech laws under international human rights law, with potentially devastating consequences for the preservation of free speech.

            We can save the discussion about the US 2nd Amendment rights for another time. There may be more.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by AmiMoJo (196126) *

              The European concept of freedom of expression thus prohibits certain content and viewpoints, whereas, with certain exceptions, the American concept is generally concerned solely with direct incitement likely to result in overt acts of lawlessness.

              The author misunderstands the European situation. Our laws are supposed to be the same as the US ones, i.e. they prevent incitement likely to result in overt acts of lawlessness. We just place the bar for that differently, IMHO too low, but the intention is the same.

              Some states go further than required by EU, which complicates the situation and leads to the kind of misunderstanding that we see here. The author confuses the two. We are not like the US, we don't have federal laws. The EU can create directives

        • People say that all the time, but if you know of a country that offers citizens stronger assurances and greater practical liberties, we'd love to hear about it. (Preferably, those liberties should extend to immigrants as well as natives.)

          Finland. Nuff said.

        • One law for all (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Roger W Moore (538166) on Monday June 24, 2013 @09:52AM (#44091855) Journal

          Preferably, those liberties should extend to immigrants as well as natives.

          The US is the only place I have ever been where that is apparently not the case. I was quite shocked to hear politicians and government officials on the news at one point explaining that the protections of the US constitution did not apply for foreigners in the US. While it is understandable that things like voting and extended habitation rights do depend on citizenship laws concerning the rights of someone accused of a crime, or freedom of speech have to be the same for everyone - it's fundamental to justice. They are called human, not US citizen, rights for a reason.

        • by Clsid (564627)

          Panama and Costa Rica. Being some of the stables countries in Latin America you truly have a level of freedom that needs to be lived in order to know that is real, without the crazy issues of having corrupt authorities on your ass. They truly are immigrant friendly plus Panama has pretty good levels of infrastructure. Those countries might feel like a small town sometimes but honest to god, they are truly wonderful places to live if you are able to secure a decent monthly payment.

        • People say that all the time, but if you know of a country that offers citizens stronger assurances and greater practical liberties, we'd love to hear about it.

          Perhaps the problem is that you're looking for liberties from mechanisms that are designed to infringe liberty. The 18th Century version works better than the 12th Century version, but one would expect more Slashdotters to demand a 21st Century upgrade.

  • Snowden is not on the plane to cuba.
  • by alen (225700) on Monday June 24, 2013 @09:06AM (#44091387)

    29yo SWM seeking girl for serious relationship

    no high school diploma
    walked away from a job with one of the world's premier consulting companies
    being charged for espionage by the US Government and can never return to the USA
    may spend the rest of his life in jail
    on the run
    living on handouts from foreign governments

    i'm sure the girls are backstabbing each other to get to him

  • Vietnam (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PGillingwater (72739) on Monday June 24, 2013 @09:11AM (#44091435) Homepage

    My guess: he's off to Vietnam, where he will join the entourage of the Ecuadorian foreign minister for the return to Quito this week.

  • by Advocatus Diaboli (1627651) on Monday June 24, 2013 @09:13AM (#44091461)
    I would like to point out that Edward Snowden not only has a physical resemblance to the' Gordon Freeman' character in the Half-Life Game Series, but has effectively become 'Anti-Citizen One'- in real life.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 24, 2013 @09:20AM (#44091547)

    Seeing all the implicit (eyes being turned) and explicit (ecuador, wikileaks, others) help he's getting, one could almost get the impression that the US Government (not people) is seriously unpopular around the world.

    And getting revenge on a bully is always particularly sweet.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Or perhaps the people of the world don't like getting spied on, and are willing to look the other way if the man who notified them is passing through.

  • by nimbius (983462) on Monday June 24, 2013 @09:22AM (#44091563) Homepage

    Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, said: "I know nothing."'

    Who wrote this, summary William, Shatner?

  • by De Lemming (227104) on Monday June 24, 2013 @09:26AM (#44091601) Homepage

    This page [piratetimes.net] at the Pirate Times provides live updates.

    Last two updates at the moment:

    14:45 (CEST) Ecuadorian Ambassador in Vietnam states confirms that Edward Snowden has requested asylum and mentions that the USA often refused to extradite criminals including bankers.

    13:10 (CEST) A plane bound for Cuba with a booking for Snowden and another person has left Moscow but with Ed Snowden apparently not on board according to Russian Television English Service [rt.com]

  • Passports and Visas (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 24, 2013 @09:32AM (#44091643)

    Is it just the USA that doesn't understand the traditional use of Passports and Visas?

    A Visa was only required to 'Enter' the destination country. As Snowden was never going to enter Russia (transit lounges are no-mans land) he didn't need one. No reason to prevent him flying to Russia.

    A Passport should not be needed to leave a country. Afterall, you are LEAVING, what cause to stop you?
    On arrival in Russa, he's not entering the country, therefore no need for a Passport again.

    I'm not aware of any other country that has destroyed the free travel rights of people as much as the US. Even to fly from Canada to Cuba the US has the 'aquired' the right to deny you flights, because it's close enough to their airspace. And as the airlines are so terrified of loosing landing rights to US international airports they comply.

    • by xelah (176252) on Monday June 24, 2013 @09:50AM (#44091827)
      In any case, no country is actually obliged to require a visa or passport. The US cancelling his passport isn't an instruction to Russia not to let him in (and I'm sure Russia would absolutely love to ignore a US instruction anyway). After all, Russian border control is no business of the US. It's not like he needs a passport to prove who he is or where he's from anyway.
  • by sageres (561626) on Monday June 24, 2013 @09:36AM (#44091677)

    It is my personal opinion that Snowden (and even Assange) will only be safe as long as Correa is in power in Quinto.
    But as a history of Equador (and frankly entire Latin America) predicts from the past -- it will not be too long before the power will change due to hunta (as 1972-1979), or removal from the office (like Abdalá Bucaram) or a continues power struggle (Rosalía Arteaga / Fabián Alarcón).
    Either way, Equadorian history predicts that the next government will be pro-American.

    • by Maow (620678)

      It is my personal opinion that Snowden (and even Assange) will only be safe as long as Correa is in power in Quinto.
      But as a history of Equador (and frankly entire Latin America) predicts from the past -- it will not be too long before the power will change due to hunta (as 1972-1979), or removal from the office (like Abdalá Bucaram) or a continues power struggle (Rosalía Arteaga / Fabián Alarcón).
      Either way, Equadorian history predicts that the next government will be pro-American.

      You've expressed my fears and even expanded on them.

      South American sanctuary can't be more than fleeting. And refuge in Cuba pretty much guarantees Castro will expire immediately and upheaval will happen.

      Not liking his chances.

      Not to mention, any flight that has to have a routing to the States in case of emergency means a) he's refused onto the flight, or b) flight is "mysteriously" diverted to US.

      And most modern airline protocols mean they can't plot routes with > 4 hours from an airport, I believe. C

    • by Uberbah (647458)

      But as a history of Equador (and frankly entire Latin America) predicts from the past -- it will not be too long before the power will change due to hunta (as 1972-1979), or removal from the office (like Abdalà Bucaram) or a continues power struggle (RosalÃa Arteaga / FabiÃn AlarcÃn).

      Certainly possible. But there's also the recent trend of Central and South American countries getting sick and tired of America's bullshit. Even if a CIA stooge takes power in Ecuador, Snowden might have e

  • by MarkvW (1037596) on Monday June 24, 2013 @11:45AM (#44093017)

    The Bradley Manning case has demonstrated that Snowden can expect the most extreme prosecution and punishment possible.

    Is such extreme punishment warranted?

How many QA engineers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? 3: 1 to screw it in and 2 to say "I told you so" when it doesn't work.

Working...