US Promises Not To Kill Or Torture Snowden 616
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "The WSJ reports that Attorney General Eric Holder promises Edward Snowden won't be tortured or face the death penalty in a new letter hoping to persuade Russia not to grant him asylum or refugee status. Holder's letter, dated Tuesday, notes that press reports from Russia indicated Snowden sought asylum in part based on claims he could be tortured or killed by the US government. It is common for the US to promise not to seek the death penalty against individuals being sought in other countries, because even America's closest allies won't turn over suspects if they believe that person might be executed. The United Nations special rapporteur on torture found Bradley Manning's detention was 'cruel and inhuman'." Update: 07/27 13:15 GMT by T : Several readers have noted that change.gov, established by the Obama transition team in 2008, has recently (last month) gone offline; among other things, it contained language specifically addressing the protection of whistleblowers.
Because they will kill AND torture Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
Get it? They said OR, so that's not a lie.
Re:Because they will kill AND torture Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
I would consider imprisonment and ruining his life just for doing the right thing to be a form of torture.
Eric Holder (Score:5, Informative)
Eric Holder is well known to lie while under oath. Now when he is not under oath, Snowden is supposed to believe him? Give me a break.
Fuck Eric Holder, a fuck this whole god damned completely corrupt administration.
Re:Eric Holder (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Eric Holder (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll just put him in prison with a bunk mate that is a total psychopath and let him torture/murder Snowden - plausible deniability!
Bunkmate? You think he'll have a bunkmate? No, he will be put in solitary confinement after he is captured "for his own safety as well as security of the nation because of what he knows", found guilty in a trial that will be neither open nor fair because he will not be able to introduce the witnesses or evidence he'd like because of the classified nature of what he revealed, then sent to USP Florence ADMAX [wikipedia.org] where he will continue to be housed in solitary confinement for the rest of his life where he will have Robert Hanssen [wikipedia.org], the Unibomber [wikipedia.org], and various terrorists such as the shoe bomber [wikipedia.org] and the underwear bomber [wikipedia.org] as neighbors although he'll never meet them.
Solitary confinement IS an effective form of psychological torture. It does permanent psychological damage. Eric Holder is a liar. Mr. Snowden will be tortured; there is no doubt of it. It's just that he, unlike the rest of the world, doesn't consider things like solitary confinement and water boarding to be torture.
Re:Eric Holder (Score:5, Insightful)
Why bother, everyone knows according to bullshit American Politicians, it isn't torture it's enhanced interrogation techniques. As far as the US is concerned, if it doesn't involve 'PERMANENT' organ damage it isn't torture, so eyeballs, testicles, are free range as long as it ain't permanent, same goes for any imaginable form of sexual assault and rape as well as of course the indiscriminate use of chemical and electro schock weapons and of course heating and cooling have a totally different meaning to the US military, more like freezing and burning. Of course listening to music takes on a whole new meaning when it comes to US government interpretations.
US don't torture, that's has to be the most laughable document imaginable. I fucking suppose the drone missile program is also designed to be utterly painless. The Uncle Tom Obama painless 'Hellfire Missle' no with local anaesthetic coatings. As for even pretending to hold fair trials, I have never heard of any government to be as ignorantly stupid as to position military police behind each and every reporter at a trial and claim it to be fair. Seriously the US has long ago drifted into the realms of autocratic Nazi style military law, when it comes to who is innocent and who is guilty, a total fantasy.
Seriously what US politician would be so stupid, so publicly shameless as to put their name to a document like that and not expect to be laughed at globally.
Re:Eric Holder (Score:5, Insightful)
This brings up a curious point.
How many people here that are complaining about the government's actions voted for President Obama? How many voted for him twice?
Of those who voted for him, especially in 2012, how do you like what he's doing to your rights under the Constitution?
Re:Eric Holder (Score:4, Insightful)
I voted for him twice and am disappointed, but have to admit he is still better than the alternative.
Re:Eric Holder (Score:5, Insightful)
You people make me wanna puke! Ew! he is still better than the alternative... How the hell are you going to know that if you never vote for an alternative?? And fuck your lesser evil crap. There is no 'lesser' evil amongst democrats and republicans. They are a single evil on the same team.
Re:Eric Holder (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a reason Jimmy Carter said we have no functioning democracy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're just watching a show of 'opposition'. Try looking behind the facade. One side works to scare you into voting for the other. Back and forth it goes. In fact, in North Carolina the similarities are even more pronounced. Differences are superficial, at best.
Re:Eric Holder (Score:5, Interesting)
It was only a year ago that we had "the other side of the coin." They didn't cut teachers and teachers' salaries, curtail early voting, force nearly all the abortion clinics to close, and reduce corporate taxes even further. Are they similar in some ways? Yes, I'd say regardless of party the donor class gets fed first. But one is willing to let a few more scraps hit the floor. If that sounds like less than a ringing endorsement of the Democrats, you're reading me right. But to say there are no differences between them is to wrapped up in your own thought experiment, with no regard to the empirical data easily available by taking a look out your window.
Re:Eric Holder (Score:4, Insightful)
"Compare either or both of them to say, the Libertarian party and you'll see what actual differences are."
Yes, the first two look sane. Libertarians are the flip side of Marxists. Nice dorm-room wankfests, but utter train wrecks in the real world.
Re:Eric Holder (Score:4, Interesting)
And if you didn't vote because "all politicians are corrupt", you're as much a part of the problem as anyone else.
Every time I see the above statement my blood boils. Making an informed decision requires actually being informed. Making a decision based on what you know are lies and misinformation is stupidity. This is especially the case when that decision involves who is going to control the most powerful government this planet has ever experienced.
That statement is the epitome of stupidity and is one of the essential drivers of the status quo.
Re:Eric Holder (Score:5, Insightful)
Life is full of decision points where you have to make choices based on incomplete or suspect information. You prepare for them as best you can, and inform yourself as best you can. And sometimes delaying the decision is the best choice you can make. However the latter is never true when it comes to voting - if you haven't prepared for voting on voting day, by researching the available candidates as best you can, then you have failed to discharge your responsibilities as a citizen.
Re:Eric Holder (Score:4, Insightful)
However the latter is never true when it comes to voting - if you haven't prepared for voting on voting day, by researching the available candidates as best you can, then you have failed to discharge your responsibilities as a citizen.
If the information needed to make an informed decision is withheld from me I can't prepare nor can I make an informed decision. Again I reiterate, making a decision based on known bad information is stupidity. It's willfully blindly following the status quo. It's also radically different than making a decision based on incomplete or suspect information. Present me with a candidate with some credibility and maybe I'll vote for them. Hell, at this point I may even vote for them based on that alone even if I disagree with what they support. Obama preached for government openness and transparency when we was running for election. He pledged to increase protection for whistle blowers who exposed government malfeasance. Like a perfect example of Orwell's Double Speak all those pledges have disappeared from where he had them published.
I posit that the above quoted statement proves my point. A good citizen votes for someone. Even if all the choices are all pretty much equally bad. That's buying into the propaganda.
A hereditary monarchy is better than a democracy based on lies and propaganda. At least then you have a chance of getting a good government.
Hitler was initially voted into power. That's how things can turn out when you vote based on misinformation and propaganda. Sadly it's really starting to look like the US may be heading down that same road.
Re:Eric Holder (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is, if you don't show up, your "vote" will be read as apathy and passive consent.
No, the point is by showing up and voting you're providing active consent and support for a system that I believe is no longer working. I'd rather have some delusional simpleton misinterpret my actions than perform actions that actively show support for their delusions.
You do realize, the Soviet Union had and China, Cuba and North Korea all have elections. And voter turnout is higher than it is in the US (100% in North Korea). There are reasons [jstor.org] for having elections where governments rule by fiat. Voting isn't some magic power. Not voting in a system where voting doesn't really effect the system is a form of dissent. Voting is showing support for the system.
Re:Eric Holder (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the point is by showing up and voting you're providing active consent and support for a system that I believe is no longer working.
You are actively supporting the system by actively stepping aside and letting others make the choice. You are worse that the person who votes for a 3rd party they really don't want as a "none of the above" vote. If everyone disgusted with the system voted nest vote for anyone other than a Republicrat, then the system would change in a few months. If everyone disgusted with the system stayed home, the system would *never* change. That's sufficient proof that your method is broken.
Re:doing the math (Score:5, Insightful)
If a third party candidate in the US got 10% of the vote, the entire political campaign system would shift into a new gear and start trying to pander directly to those 10%.
Re:Eric Holder (Score:4, Insightful)
I voted for him once, but wised up (and voted third-party) the second time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What does voting have to do with politics? If voting could affect politics somehow it would have been outlawed a long while ago.
Voting is in the US what it had been in the USSR for as long as it existed: A show event to pretend that the population had some sort of say. Only that the US are a damn lot better at putting on a good show.
Re:Eric Holder (Score:5, Interesting)
The people that wrongly declare that there were only two choice are a major part of the problem. Thats you, a major part of the problem.
I live in the state of Connecticut. We have a history of taking "the third choice" in local and statewide elections. The two most major cases include when the Republicans nominated John G. Rowland over Lowell P. Weicker as candidate for Governor of the state. Weicker ran independent and won the election.
Interestingly, Weicker was running for Governor because he lost his Senate seat to Joe Lieberman. Years later, Joe Lieberman failed to get the Democrat nomination for the seat he was holding. The Democrats instead nominated Ned Lamont, so Lieberman ran independent and won that election.
Your claims that their are only two choices falls on very deaf ears when speaking to someone from Connecticut. Stop voting to increase evil. Now.
Re: (Score:3)
If you take the long view you're not throwing your vote away. The more people vote for the third choice this election, the more that will vote the third choice next election, and so on, until eventually the candidate has a real shot of getting in.
Re:Eric Holder (Score:5, Insightful)
Holder is unquestionably the sort of human garbage that belongs in our prisons a great deal more than probably anyone he has helped put there. The larger is though is not Holder's credibility its our nations credibility in general. Why should any anywhere accept the word of the United States government for any reasons other than the threat of force at this point?
I mean really:
We don't give money to governments resulting from military coups....but we can decide to not bother and determine if a coup has happened.
We only go to war when a plurality of elected Congress persons and Senators agree...Well unless is just a kinetic military action.
No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...Except when a secret court issues them and then something less than reasonable suspicions appears to be good enough.
We afford the accused a speedy trial...unless you happen to be held at GitMo
We have a free press, which can protect its sources... unless someone says "national security" than all bets are off.
You protected from cure and unusual punishment ... unless your name is Manning or you were sent to a CIA black site.
Zeror fucking credibility.
Re:Eric Holder (Score:5, Informative)
He said he would provide the investigation materials the DOJ collected after Brian Terry was killed. That was what Congress was after, what the DOJ found in its research of the incident, they never asked for anything before that time from the program. When it came down to it, Holder refused to turn over those materials to Congress and because of that was held in Contempt of Congress.
In addition: He told Congress that fast and furious was a continuation of a Bush administration policy (a talking point in the NYT a lot). Congress was intrested and asked for information that showed it was a continuation and Holder returned to say it was not a continuation and a new program under Obama.
In addition: Holder said he hadn't heard about fast and furious before June of that year. Two weeks later Obama gave a speech saying he talked to Holder about the Fast and Furious program back in April.
Thats at least 3 lies to Congress, under oath, about fast and furious alone that Holder has made. One he got held in Contempt of Congress for.
Re:Eric Holder (Score:4, Insightful)
Technically, it's also possible that Holder lied twice and Obama lied once.
Re:Because they will kill AND torture Snowden (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's pretty fucking sad when the US is obliged to promise explicitly, on a recurring basis, not to torture people.
Re: (Score:3)
Most countries will not extradite someone if there's a chance of them getting tortured or executed. Even if the prospect is very unlikely, defendant lawyers will be able use it to block an extradition. A signed letter from a head of state/justice from a country prevents this from being used as a defence.
Extraditions can take a decade if someone has unlimited resources to fight them in the courts, prosecutors need to be really exhaustive i
Re:Because they will kill AND torture Snowden (Score:5, Interesting)
It's sad that you're arguing what the non-torture promise is actually for. If the USA was actually a free and civilized country, it would be so outlandish a thought that they could torture anyone, that an extradition would actually be doubtless.
The whole situation says a lot about "The Land of the Free" when a communist country known for not-so-democratic behaviour has to protect a citizen from a so-called western democratic country.
Why Americans aren't using their 2nd amendment rights already to get rid of all these corrupt fucks is beyond me.
the USA is a lost cause now (Score:5, Insightful)
Because for the majority of them, nothing is wrong. For the majority of them, as long as they got their food, their work, their entertainment, all is fine. The giov reassure them, "we willg et the traitor!". Snowden is the one disturbing them , he is shaking the status quo, making them see stuff they don't want to see. So they when psyop poo-poo snowden for some minor stuff, "his girlfriend is strange and some sort of stripper" then they forget the main point and dismiss snowden. Or Manning. or anybody disturbing them in their comfortable status quo. Mind you the US is not the only one in that situation. But it is the most flagrant in the US, after they were caught torturing, killing their own citizen, spying on the whole world, lying, lying and lying even more.
The only way the american will revolt, is if the middle and lower class get so much economic pressure that normal life get for them unviable. Then they will revolt. And their politics overlord might be stupid enough to let plutocrate of all ilk really destroy the middle and lower class enough that this will happen. But it will take at least a few more catastrophe like what happenned with the banks or 2 more decades of stagnation for the middle / low class.
Re:Because they will kill AND torture Snowden (Score:5, Interesting)
Why Americans aren't using their 2nd amendment rights already to get rid of all these corrupt fucks is beyond me.
People just like to feel like they have big balls, as far as most are concerned the 2nd ammendment is just the right to post pictures of themselves holding their Glocks in a menacing pose on Facebook.
It's a facade, if the time came to rise up against a tyrannical government for the security of a free state, most of them would be locked in the cellar.
Re:Because they will kill AND torture Snowden (Score:5, Informative)
The US officially supports torture as an interrogation method. Doesn't even hide it, but admits to it openly, much to the chagin of Amnesty International. Gitmo is currently tube feeding prisoners who are treated like dogs. Abu Ghraib. That can't possibly have anything to do with the need for this letter. We gave up the high road years ago. Your attempt to deny it is laughable. There are very real reasons for us to have to deny that we will use torture. It isn't merely a technicality.
Re:Because they will kill AND torture Snowden (Score:4, Informative)
This is the legalese "a chance", the same legalese that can make tapping someone on the shoulder 'assault'. It doesn't need to be a realistic prospect or even slightly likely, there just needs to be a faint glimmer of a hint of a chance that he may face torture.
You're missing his point. The truly sad thing is, it is far more than "a faint glimmer of a hint of a chance that he may face torture" as recent history has demonstrated.
Re:Because they will kill AND torture Snowden (Score:4, Informative)
Sadly, that is not an accurate characterization. Federal officials have stated flat out that we do things such as long term solitary and waterboarding. Things the civilized world calls torture.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Who in their right mind would believe such a promise though? If you suspect a country would resort to torture or execution of a simple whistleblower, you're already way past assuming they'd do something comparatively mundane such as lying.
Re:Because they will kill AND torture Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
Most countries will not extradite someone if there's a chance of them getting tortured or executed. Even if the prospect is very unlikely, defendant lawyers will be able use it to block an extradition. A signed letter from a head of state/justice from a country prevents this from being used as a defence.
All that is required is certainty that the person won't be tortured. That should not need a special letter each and every time- there should be a letter saying that we promise to never torture anyone ever, which can be used in any circumstance.
EU countries have that- no EU country has ever been asked to sign a letter promising not to torture someone, because it is understood that extant Human Rights legislation already covers that with gusto.
The GP is expressing sadness because the US really should be in that category. The Constitution is supposed to promise exactly that. However, it is widely understood around the world that modern America partakes in what the rest of the world defines as torture- whether it be waterboarding, or the bizarre naked-solitary-confinement that Manning has had to endure. It is, therefore, a very sad thing that despite what the US Constitution says, there is no automatic guarantee that a prisoner of the United States will not be tortured. The President now needs to "Scout's Honour" promise it on a case-by-case basis.
(And don't get me started on the death penalty. But that's a well trodden flamefest that I don't think we need to restart here and now...)
Re:Because they will kill AND torture Snowden (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Because they will kill AND torture Snowden (Score:4, Interesting)
It's kind of sadder that we can never expect the US to keep any promises, and that its principles (as opposed to its interests) are a complete illusion.
Sad...and pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's pretty fucking sad when the US is obliged to promise explicitly, on a recurring basis, not to torture people.
Worse it's a pointless exercise. When your definition of torture excludes things like water boarding and sleep deprivation any promise not to torture is clearly meaningless.
That depends on your definition of torture (Score:5, Insightful)
Waterboarding was torture in Vietnam.
But not anymore!
Re:That depends on your definition of torture (Score:5, Informative)
"Prolonged mental harm" is months or years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, they're flip-flopped on that one just a couple of days ago. Check out this headline from July 9, 2013:
FBI Nominee Agrees: Waterboarding Is 'Torture' And 'Illegal'
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/07/09/200529915/fbi-nominee-agrees-waterboarding-is-torture-and-illegal [npr.org]
Re:That depends on your definition of torture (Score:5, Insightful)
But not anymore!
What I find amazing is that the charge sheet hasn't changed: Treason. Section 3, Article 3, of the US Constitution prescribes a very specific punishment for that accusation, which to my knowledge the US Attorney General can't countermand. But that aside, it would not be without precident to say that once a political prisoner is lured out of hiding, they Darth Vader the agreement... just about every country has done that.
The other countries of the world understand that you don't judge a country on the quality of its rhetoric, but on its past actions, when predicting what it will do in the current (or future) situations. The US has no credibility these days. It's not even a question of whether I think my own government is sincere or not anymore... it's a question of reputation and perception internationally.
Your post is short, but this is the heart of the matter: Reputation, not law.
Re: (Score:3)
good (Score:5, Interesting)
As an American, it breaks my heart that my fellow citizens are okay with indefinite detention and torture, and with the wiretapping which violates our constituation's 4th amendment.
It's a small comfort that our government is facing trouble abroad because of those policies.
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
Our fellow citizens take an awful lot lying down. I wish they wouldn't. Why are Too Big To Fail banks still in business in one piece, and not broken up? The social conservatives are especially aggravating. Get all worked up over abortion, and even totally fake issues like whether global warming is just a big hoax to get more public funding for climate scientists, and "teach the controversy" over Creationism and Evolution, while failing to see any difference between science and propaganda, and letting these white collar thieves walk.
Education is thought to be crucial for a democracy to function. If these US citizens aren't just plain stupid, they certainly are lacking a good education. To fall for idiotic notions such as the proposal to secure the US-Mexico border with 300,000 guards, after the recent lesson we had in Iraq over the limits of brute, military force... well, we'll never educate everyone well enough to see through such attempts at manipulation, but a few more could be enough to tip the US into taking much better directions.
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
Throughout history you will find that when the American people have been well-informed they have always made the right decision.
It's hard to make good decisions based on bad information.
Re: (Score:3)
Throughout history you will find that when the American people have been well-informed they have always made the right decision.
Bullshit. The American People have always had access to their representatives' voting records, and the majority of people say they want change, but virtually everyone votes for the incumbent which proves they don't. The American people can be exceptionally well-informed as to what their representatives are doing, but they just don't care.
Re: (Score:3)
Having 'access' to good information is not the same as having bad information constantly repeated to you day after day through government and corporate propaganda organs while you struggle on a daily basis to make ends meet and keep your family fed.
Re: (Score:3)
[citation please]
It sounds to me like you've swallowed the American exceptionalism propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
Or did you mean that Americans have never made the right decisions? Ah, logic, it is such a confusing invention.
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, give me a break and tale a look at the statistics of deaths relates to traffic or cancer.
I admit terrorism sound terrifying, but it is not nearly as deadly as the other two.
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:good (Score:5, Interesting)
The deaths on 9/11, while tragic and meaningless
Actually, some of the deaths weren't meaningless at all. The terrorists who attacked on 9/11 were going after the two mechanisms that leaders of the United States use to oppose their will on the part of the world they come from. Their targets were clear: the leaders of Wall Street businesses and the US military. There was nothing random about it. The other plane was probably aiming for Chicago, which would have allowed them to hit commodities markets that control the price of oil.
That's not to say that all the deaths were because of targeting - the people on the planes, the cleaning staff, the firefighters, etc died but were not really the targets. But then again, was the general population of Baghdad really the target of the US attack on Iraq?
I'm not saying the people who died on 9/11 deserved it, but it's worth remembering that terrorists act the way they do not because they are crazy and evil, but because they believe they have legitimate grievances and that their cause is worth fighting for.
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a question then: Do you believe the same thing about residents of, say, rural West Virginia that you do about residents of Saudi Arabia? In West Virginia, the government with nominal control of the natural resources work in lock-step with the owners of the companies doing the extraction to oppress and marginalize their work force, using legal and extra-legal means to prevent the workers from organizing, just like Saudi Arabia. Many religious leaders in West Virginia preach a mutated and particularly intolerant form of their religion that advocates making war on those who don't believe in the same religion, just like Saudi Arabia, and some members of their congregations have gone overseas to try to fight that war. Many residents believe firmly in anti-intellectualism and are distrustful of those who provide scientific explanations for natural phenomena, just like Saudi Arabia.
I think you're getting the point. If you don't have the same views of those West Virginians as you do of Saudis, then your real opinion is about something other than atheism versus religion.
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite simply, Bin Laden made it clear that he wanted to facilitate attacks that would force America to spend itself into oblivion and to completely eradicate our way of life.
He has accomplished both - with the assistance of idiots like the original poster, who is willing to just throw away every fundamental value and freedom of our society, just because some people died in a horrible and tragic event.
Re:good (Score:4, Insightful)
The sad part is you could already save more lives by simply dumping the aforementioned budgets into oblivion, because that funding alone costs more lives than any alleged or real terrorism did in the last few decades together.
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year [wikipedia.org]
In 2001, the same year as 9/11, there were 42,196 deaths from car accidents. 2996 people died from terrorist attacks. That's 14 times more people.
Between 2001 and 2012, 460,536 people died in car accidents in the US. About 3000 people died in terrorist attacks in the US during the same period. That means 153 times more people died in car accidents than in terrorist attacks.
If we really cared about saving lives we would be spending all
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying "the citizens are powerless until money is gotten out of politics" is a red herring. Money, at the end of the day, can't buy you votes without the assent of sheep who vote for whoever has the shiniest TV ad. Money only buys votes with an uneducated electorate.
If voters really wanted to do something about this, they could.
WE promise not to kill or torture Snowden. (Score:5, Insightful)
Extraordinary rendition? (Score:5, Insightful)
The USA does not need to do the torture, it can send the person to another country and have them do it.
Fool me once .. (Score:5, Insightful)
First off we Snowden should get the Nobel of Peace . HIs actions revealed Government wrongdoings like Ellsberg did 40 years ago. .. not Snowden.
They are heroes to the People . The Government is the traitor and criminal here
Second : the fact a Government promises not to torture of kill someone is a sign that things are gone terribly wrong.
Torture and murder are now " normal course of business " for the US Government. Democracy is dead.Government out of control.
Nothing will keep Snowden from assasination.Extreme right wing nutjobs ( yes , right wing republicans ) will subsidise hit men to kill him.
There's few chances for him to stay alive . To be promised not to be murdered or tortured , but a life in jail for blowing the whistle on illegal and reprehensible Government conduct is totally immoral. Democracy is dead in the US . The land of Freedom ? HA ! Let me laugh.
Anyone saying " ok i go back " would be a total fool and idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone saying " ok i go back " would be a total fool and idiot.
He won't say that; Holder is hoping the Russian government will hand him over. They're not hoping Snowden will go back on his own.
He'd be facing a 20 year prison term, even without torture or death sentence.....would you go back to that?
And rescind the prize given to Obama (Score:4, Interesting)
THAT would be a real statement.
hollow promise (Score:5, Insightful)
Our government refuses to admit that waterboarding, sleep-deprivation, and blasting a person with loud music for days on end are "torture". So them claiming they won't "torture" someone is a pretty weak commitment.
Eric Holder's promises ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If you think this is about setting an example, you're giving our leaders way too much credit. It's the "great" American tradition of revenge. If someone makes you a laughing stock, kick the shit out of them. Then do it again, cause it's even more satisfying and manly to doing it to someone who's down and defenseless.
Then thump your chest, so everyone can see what an uncouth ape you are.
Re: (Score:3)
...which is all about setting an example, so that other apes know you will react ruthlessly when confronted with difficulty.
Re: (Score:3)
Eric Holder is a horrible authoritarian shitsack. I remember hearing the news that Obama picked Holder as AG not long after he was first elected, it was the first and strongest sign that Obama's campaign promises were 100% bullshit.
It's sad that this "promise" has to be made. (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of Speech is only one of the freedoms which is gone. People know it. Yet nothing is being done to bring them back.
Snowden is my hero for saying the Truth. Emerson and Thoreau would be proud. Snowden's name is going to come up when I teach Transcendentalism to this year's students.
That last sentence made me thing of posting AC, but I now have the strength to speak the truth also.
The promise is a specific stipulation. (Score:3)
The promise is a specific stipulation. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights bars Britain and the other signatories from extraditing prisoners if they could face capital punishment. There is no death penalty in any of the 15 member nations of the European Union.
This is an attempt to eliminate willing participation of these 15 EU member states, and other states with similar laws and policies, as potential havens for Snowden on the basis of a possible U.S. death penalty or torture of the extra
Define 'torture' (Score:3)
This is an attempt to eliminate willing participation of these 15 EU member states, and other states with similar laws and policies, as potential havens for Snowden on the basis of a possible U.S. death penalty or torture of the extradited person.
Well, speaking as an EU citizen, I would not be happy with any extradition until they promised not to torture him using the definition of torture used in the EU. American and English often have somewhat different meanings for the same word and sadly 'torture' appears to be one of them. Even then frankly I'm not sure I would not trust them to hold to that and not drag up some legal argument that they don't have to hold to their promise or else have an 'accident' occur.
Re: (Score:3)
I sure as fuck watch what I say online, now. I don't make the assumption that anyone would understand (or care) that even my most absurd comments are for humor, satire, or even just the sake of absurdity.
It's embarrassing that it has gone this far. I sent myself an email the other day which contained the string "Letterbomb 1:30". I did that because I've been thinking about the playlist for a marathon that I'm running, decided that I wanted the Green Day song Letterbomb to start playing about one and a half hours into the race, and didn't want to forget by the time I got home.
Now I wonder if I've put myself on a watch list. I also wonder if explaining this on an online forum using the words "marathon" and
Of course not. (Score:4, Funny)
No Torture...No Kill... (Score:4, Interesting)
Fool me once.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, what are the promises of the US worth nowadays?
Making life unpleasant is what the USA govt wants (Score:5, Insightful)
The government of the USA wants to reduce the likelihood of more whistle-blowers exposing what they are really up to. The best way to do this is to show to any potential whistle-blowers that if they do then their life will not be pleasant: a boring, long, incaceration is the best way of doing this; it will put most people off.
Edward Snowden is a celebrity at the moment, being in the public eye will be attractive to some, regardless of the reality of living in an airport (or sofa in the Ecuadorian embassy in the case of Assange). If Snowden is killed or tortured he will be seen as a martyr, again this may be attractive to some. I am not saying that this is for everyone, but it may put some attention seekers off (I am not trying to imply that Snowden is an attention seeker).
Also: by making the no kill/torture promise it raises the bar for Snowden's various applications for political assylum.
Re:Making life unpleasant is what the USA govt wan (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not trying to imply that Snowden is an attention seeker
But you know damn well that he is.
He damm well better be. What's the point in exposing secret bugging on the planet if you're not going to bring it to everyone's attention? Because attention is the kryptonite to people who'd rather remain in shadow.
Liars (Score:5, Interesting)
No torture, right (Score:3)
No torture, neither death penalty, right. They will just send him to jail for the rest of his life, because he dared defend the US constitution against the corrupted (I mean corrupted as ill-behaving) government.
That seems quite enough to grant him asylum.
There are three remarkable points about this (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The US should not have to be in a position where they are making such promises. The Eighth Amendment was created specifically to put a stop to the sort of thing that the US is now promising not to do. It's sort of like announcing, completely seriously, "I swear I'm not a murderer!" - that's usually a signal you're at least involved in something you shouldn't be.
2. Nobody seriously believes those promises after what the US has done to Bradley Manning, Anwar Al-Awlaki, and what they tried to do to Julian Assange. When Julian Assange argued that the US could no longer be trusted to follow its own laws and promises and international commitments, that argument may have seemed ludicrous, but it is increasingly becoming common opinion. Another example of the US's lawlessness is that they convinced France to force Bolivian president Evo Morales to land so they could search his plane for Snowden, violating all sorts of diplomatic rules to do so.
3. The US is going up against Vladimir Putin's Russia in a battle of human rights records, and losing. That's just astounding.
Re:There are three remarkable points about this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:There are three remarkable points about this (Score:4, Interesting)
Why should we care about what motivates Putin? Don't actions speak louder than words? Putin is not a good guy, but at the moment he is doing a good thing. Saving a guys life. Give him some credit for not being a total dick 100% of the time. I wish we could say the same for Obama, but he's been pretty consistent.
it's a joke (Score:3, Insightful)
The U.S. government is already torturing Snowden by revoking his citizenship, by making threats to any country that might let him stay. Most Americans feel that Snowden is a whistle-blower, not a traitor. Yet, the government continues to treat him like a criminal. It's despicable that a government by the people for the people would not have the people's best interest in mind.
Let's face the facts, the government in this country has become corrupt with power, and merely pointing out that the government is corrupt has become some kind of treason, yet nobody is doing anything about it. People are slowly handing over more and more power to their government.
Re: (Score:3)
They revoked his passport.
Born US citizens cannot have their citizenship revoked.
Re:it's a joke (Score:4, Insightful)
The U.S. government is already torturing Snowden by revoking his citizenship, by making threats to any country that might let him stay.
The US government and some allies are already doing a fine job of redefining "torture" to exclude certain acts, don't water it down by trying to include actions that aren't. Revoking a passport and threatening potential host countries are causing stress and sleepless nights, but does not fit the definition of psychological torture any more than hunting down any other high-profile suspect (freezing assets, BOLOs or APBs, pictures on wanted posters).
To qualify as psychological torture, the US would at least need to threaten reprisals against his family, friends or former girlfriend if Snowden didn't return to the US.
Yeah, right.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"US promises not to torture or kill Snowden." Yeah, right. They also promised they weren't spying on their own citizens until Snowden disclosed that they were. They also promise that they don't assasinate their own citizens, but maybe that missle that killed Anwar al-Awlaki fired itself. Numerous groups, including the International Red Cross have charged the US with torturing prisoners at numerous facilities, but the US denies the charges, but not the techniques used. Why? Because they have classified the techniques in question as interregation techniques, but not torture.
So, yes, the US may promise not to torture or kill Snowden, but when the US changes the definition of torture to suit its purpose and has a recent history of outright dishonesty in related matters, why should anybody believe them? And what if Russia does turn Snowden over and the US is lying? Can Russia get Snowden back? No, of course not.
The US may promise not to torture or kill Snowden, but actions speak louder than words. The words of the US say one thing, the actions something totally different.
translation (Score:5, Interesting)
First, the United States would not seek the death penalty for Mr. Snowden should he return to the United States.
Translation: We will not "seek" it, but we don't guarantee that he won't get it. It's up to the judge who does the actual sentencing.
The charges he faces do not carry that possibility, and the United States would not seek the death penalty even if Mr. Snowden were charged with additional, death penalty-eligible crimes
Translation: We haven't yet charged him with treason for "aiding the enemy" yet, as we did with Manning, but we will. However when he is charged with treason it's up to the judge to sentence him to death. The prosecutor doesn't do the actual sentencing.
Confirmation of torturing others? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why such a promise? Can I read this as a confirmation by the USA that they've tortured other people?
Amazing how much Bin Laden changed the U.S.A. (Score:5, Insightful)
He may be dead, but we lost so much to the weak minded choices of our political weenies in Washington (the prior administration coming up with these awful choices and then the current one not stopping them so the become "the new normal" in perpetuity - its amazing what he changed our country into via our politicians.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only do you probably overestimate Gore (who was beholden to the same interests as Bush and would have probably been taking his marching orders from the very same or at most extremely similar sources) you are also giving Obama a pass he does not deserve. Obama has shown no lack of backbone at all - look at him recently threatening to veto the entire appropriations bill rather than see congress defund one illegal operation.
To the contrary, he has shown tremendous backbone, he's expanded all the Bush era n
Re: (Score:3)
When 9/11 happened, every country in the world was on the side of the Americans. A month later, after the Afghanistan invasion, everyone was opposed to the Americans. It takes a special level of incompetence to bungle international relations that badly.
Shameful (Score:5, Insightful)
>"US Promises Not To Kill Or Torture Snowden""
I can't believe how sad it is that such a letter would ever be necessary coming from the USA. I am so ashamed to be an American since 9/11. A land where everyone is treated as a potential terrorist and the government has destroyed the Constitution the country was built on.
Default behavior (Score:3)
Now on the other hand you have to look at their loose definition of torture. Is waterboarding torture? Is 20 years of solitary torture? Are 20 interrogations per day torture? Is putting someone who should be free, in jail torture? According to the white house the answer to all these is probably, no.
No other promises! (Score:5, Insightful)
I note with interest the USG did NOT promise to hold a speedy, fair public trial. And the point is not redundant any more than torture is.
I like to look for "negative knowledge" -- things that could reasonably have happened, and perhaps should have, but did not. Rejected options, certainly. While imperfect, this does yield insight.
Because they'll lock him up in Guantanamo (Score:5, Insightful)
The US administration enabled laws to allow holding people indefinitely without trial.
Congress and the Senate have made it clear that they don't care about the facts of the case: Snowden is guilty in their eyes.
Snowden would be a fool to leave Russia for some small country. Russia has nukes that will make the US think twice before pulling a "Bin Laden" on him.
We used to accuse the Soviets... (Score:5, Insightful)
of oppressing their citizens in just this way. Now, a whistleblower, who can't be proven to have revealed even one explicit state secret (beyond the rather unshocking fact that they were being surveilled) to a foreign power is asking for asylum in Russia.
Times change, don't they.
Promised Not to Torture? (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I the only one here who finds it odd that our government officials specifically pointed out that Snowden would not be tortured? Is that not something that should not have even had to be said? Sounds like anyone who was involved in preparing this public statement should now come under investigation on suspicion of torturing prisoners, since it sounds like they are implying that torture is perfectly normal here despite being a blatant violation of the Eight Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly Snowden is too young to run. But I wonder if he could get some sort of immunity by being elected to Congress? He might be able to win a seat in New Hampshire or some other live-free-or-die sort of state.
Re: (Score:3)
"He stopped being that the moment he revealed classified information that did not concern what he was 'whistleblowing'."
And what material was that, specifically?