Big Brother is Watching You

[O Really]

Snowden would have been a good "Dennis" in Monte Python's Holy Grail.

[O Really]

And what human rights might be violated here?

[O Really]

"Even me"?? Nope. "Potential"doesn't count. He allegedly committed a crime. He's been charged and if available would be tried in a US court, with all the usual coverage. Whether what he did is a crime or not is up to the court.

[O Really]

...Regardless, if there are no human rights violations why are you and Obama so bothered by allowing Snowden to meet with human rights activists?

Isn't that in the category of "if you haven't done anything wrong, why do you care if they look?"

[O Really]

Additional answer: As far as I've read, there are no specific allegations of "human rights violations" to investigate. Only Snowden, who poked the bear in the eye, now fears the bear will eat him unfairly. And that might be true. But for all that is actually known, Snowden, if caught, would only be subject to normal US judicial process. Since I am obviously so dense, how about a clue as to what human rights violations have been committed?

[O Really]

“No person may be punished on national security grounds for disclosure of information if… the public interest in knowing the information outweighs the harm from disclosure.”...

And who is to determine what outweighs what?

"Russian, Chinese, North Korean, Iranian, Cuban..." Seriously?! You're comparing known and proven practices in those countries (well, at least the form Soviets) to anything alleged or imagined for Snowden?

But sure - the US would keep them probably, and those countries would demand them back. Been that way for spies for years.

[Ombudsman]

Will someone explain to poor Vrede that the horse is dead already?

[O Really]

BTW, the only thing I think Obama and NSA have to be "embarrassed" over is their letting their political opposition define the issue and their failure to defend what they do.

Even in the US, for a person to gain "asylum" s/he has to show some evidence that they really are in some direct risk of harm, and fill out the inevitable form.. http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-589.pdf
If it were as easy as Snowden wants to make it, there wouldn't be a Mexican immigration problem, they'd all just request asylum and say they were scared.

[UnLurker]

Strike three. I'm out.

[O Really]

God help me, but I agree with Vrede on this one. .

No surprise there

[O Really]

There you go with "spies" again, J. Edgar. Spying is worse than anything we know Snowden, the whistleblower, to have done, yet you admit that the US would not return actual spies. Why so tweaked over other nations not returning Snowden?

I'm still curious how in the world a voluntary meeting with human rights activists or a preliminary human rights investigation are akin to involuntary surveillance, search and seizure by armed government agents?

Back to the point, if there are no potential human rights violations why are you and Obama so bothered by allowing Snowden to meet with human rights activists and what "circumstances", other than potential embarrassment to Obama and America, ever make human rights activists meeting with alleged victims objectionable?[/quote]

I don't care who Snowden meets with when he's out running around loose on his own. But he's not. He's hiding in the Moscow airport and the Russians control those to whom he has access. If he wants a lawyer, fine. Anybody else, not so much.

As to the point, I still don't see any difference in that comment and in "if you've got nothing to hide, let them look." Those who believe Snowden is a political martyr are assuming the role of law enforcement, saying, "let us look around your house...maybe we'll find something. If we do find anything, we'll make it look as bad as possible when we announce it on TMZ, and then laugh at any explanation you give." Good tactic maybe; not something I'd want to go along with.

[O Really]

BTW, I know "spy" may not be the best term and it in itself carries a lot of baggage, but it does seem to meet the situation. A person accesses classified information for the purpose (by his account) of disclosing it to others who will likely use it to the detriment of the US. Sounds pretty spyish to me.

[O Really]

You and Ombudsman are in the minority:
...
Not that I would be as snarky and offensive as you in implying guilt by association with Ombudsman.

Oh. I didn't know we were writing law by public survey now. Sorry.

Not snarky for real. Just a gentle chain yank to the "us against the government" team.

[O Really]

It wouldn't necessarily be the group with a stellar 35 year track record that turns it tabloid. On the other hand, let's see what they have to say after their conversation with Snowden:

“Edward Snowden has a serious asylum claim that should be considered fairly by Russia or any other country where he may apply,” said Dinah PoKempner, general counsel at Human Rights Watch. “He should be allowed at least to make that claim and have it heard.”

Snowden has disclosed serious rights violations by the US. But US law does not provide sufficient protection for whistleblowers when classified information is involved. The US has charged Snowden, among other things, with violating the Espionage Act, a vague law that provides no exceptions or defenses to whistleblowers who disclose matters of serious public importance."

Really quick and efficient investigation and report of findings, I'd say.

[UnLurker]

Strike three. I'm out.

[O Really]

Nice quotes. Too bad those guys didn't stick around for the last couple hundred years or so to see if any minor little changes in the world occurred.

[UnLurker]

Strike three. I'm out.

[O Really]

Nice quotes. Too bad those guys didn't stick around for the last couple hundred years or so to see if any minor little changes in the world occurred.

I guess the concept of liberty is too quaint to be taken seriously nowadays. In case you haven't noticed, those "guys" were right.

No argument there. Key word "were." What have they said lately?

[Ombudsman]

"Us against the government" is a fine tradition that was started by the first stars of that team, the Founders.

LOL - You mean the founders of our government? Or were you discussing some different founders?

[O Really]

Revolutionary rhetoric is pretty similar no matter who it is. Henry, Guevara, it's purpose is to motivate the masses, not necessarily to provide guidance for actually running the government after the revolution.