It's interesting how people ignore the irony of the nature of Snowden's new home -- odd pairing for a 'whisteblower' to seek refuge under the wing of a country led by the former chief of the KGB. Snowden's supporters certainly wax eloquently when they condemn the history of the Western world. Where are all the pithy insights regarding the history of human rights and liberty in Russia, and that of the KGB?
Its not irony. Snowden is an embarrassment for the US Government, so it works to Putin's advantage. One of those cases for Snowden where the enemy of my enemy is my (temporary) ally.
What hypocrisy? Nobody is turning a blind eye to Russia's offences.
The issue is America's hypocrisy -- we claim to be a shining beacon of democracy and shout down from our ivory tower. We impose restrictions on Chinese exports across the world by advocating preemptive defense against state-sponsored cyber-attacks, and yet we have our own tendrils constricting the world in the same manner. We claim it's to fight terrorism, but it's the same manner of economic and political espionage that China is so guilty for.
The Russian government is upfront and honest about being despotic but our representatives spread calculated lies and half-truths, and play legal games with what "collect" and "spy" mean.
The US government even has the gall to engage/infiltrate security research organizations to manipulate and degrade the quality of security for their own benefit. We are maliciously undermining the information security of the world.
His presence in Russia may look like tacit complicity of Russian practices, but he hasn't expressed such a thing so it would be imprudent to make such assumptions. It's like choosing between living in a lion's cage or swimming in shark-infested waters -- would you risk swimming with the sharks to prove a point about how deadly the sharks are, especially when you just threw some chum at them?
If anything it makes the US look even worse. When you find a tightly oppressive regime to be preferable to the place you fled, what does that say about the US (other than the obvious fact that living there is no longer an option for fear of having an "accident").
Snowden isn't living in Russia because he is unaware of its human rights abuses. He is living there because if he lives anywhere else his ass will get deported.
The guy met his martyr quota already, he doesn't need to go to jail.
I've always been curious if he would be okay if he could get to a country like Iceland. I know traveling to Iceland by plane is a no-go because of passenger manifests and the US government's willingness to down any plane to check if he is on board. However, I don't get why he hasn't attempted to get smuggled out of the country by boat via a northern port along Russia's huge coastline. With enough sympathetic supporters, I would imagine that this is a very workable plan since surveilling ocean ports and ocean vessels is an order of magnitude more challenging than surveilling air transport.
I've encountered very little ignorance of the irony; rather, I thought it was generally understood that Snowden's presence is tolerated out of political expedience (and as a bargaining chip) rather than any lofty ideals.
"I don't say this very often but I don't think people are as dumb as you think they are. People who think Snowden is a traitor would feel the same if he were in Iceland or something right now."
Snowden's only other option was to go back to the U.S. If you think he was hypocritical for not choosing that, fine -- make that case, and don't neglect to point out how everyone with credibility as a whistleblower (Ellsberg, Drake) seems to disagree. But to end up in Russia as his only alternative was obviously not an endorsement of Russian policy. Calling that hypocritical is like criticizing someone for jumping out of a burning building. Did he revoke his own passport?
Your other objection has a simple answer too: as Westerners it behooves us to get our own house in order. Suppose I told you "Our house is a mess, let's clean it up," and you became indignant and said, "Where are all the pithy insights about the neighbor down the street? Their living room is a pig sty!" That would be an absurd misdirection.
It's interesting how people ignore the irony of the nature of Snowden's new home
If the world was Snowden's oyster – if he had the luxury to choose to live freely anywhere in the world and yet he still chose to live in Russia – then pointing out the irony and hypocrisy would have merit.
As it stands, he had little or no luxury of choice. What country would have taken him that wouldn't put him within the reach of the force from which he is fleeing?
>Snowden's supporters certainly wax eloquently when they condemn the history of the Western world. Where are all the pithy insights regarding the history of human rights and liberty in Russia, and that of the KGB?
Well, perhaps they'd rather hear about a worldwide operation run by the number one superpower (the US), and with tons of also complicit powerful allies all around the world, than about what some second rate, provincial ex-power does at 1/10 the scale.
Snowden did not choose to stay in Russia as a political statement or out of some sort of ideological endorsement. He is there because he is not safe anywhere else that he can get to, and throwing himself upon the fire would do nothing to further his cause (and even if it would, he has done more than we could ask of him already. It would not be reasonable to ask more of him.)
If he had a choice, I think he would've chosen another country. But as it is - better free in Russia than incarcerated in the US (or any other country).
I am afrair Putin never was chief if the KGB. He was quite the ordinary ranked officer located in Germany. Hence the funny parallel with Lenin, who was also accused to be the Geman spy during the WW1.
Either that, or its just <doubly ironic> that this is where he is forced to end up...which certainly also puts the snide insinuations in this commet in a different light, no?
Why is this in the top of Hacker News? I live in Russia, this may be a big concern for me, but even in Russia it's not the top news of the day, this media, which was dissolved, it always was pro-government, the funding came from state etc. It's easier to say that it just was renamed and will now make more propaganda than real news. But how is this local political news about one media from one single country is something that is of any interest for Hacker News?
There are not much political news of this type about USA on Hacker News (if this is not something about Snowden, which has direct influence on IT). Do not overestimate this media event, it's nothing but another Russia Today, which already exists. And this event is definitely has nothing to do with fascism, because this media already was government media in the first place.
That's not a big issue, I think, as Putin had control over it before. The strange thing is, even "Novosti" workers got known about transformation today(my friend works there).
Many tyrants live amazing lives as incredibly powerful individuals and die heroes to their people. Unless you believe in some kind of after-death consciousness, it certainly seems a win for the tyrant.
Admittedly, the survey and statistical data on Tyrants and their beliefs / trends is a little weak, but it does seem the natural progression of "I'm now the Tyrant of this Country".
It's gone well for him so far. He's assassinated dissidents, whistleblowers, and reporters before, with seeming impunity. He colludes with other tyrants who are butchers and oppressors and is lauded for it. The west still treats him with kid gloves and more often than not fall prey to his machinations like the naive idiots they are.
He had an OpEd in the new york times and people ate up his phony ass rhetoric with a goddamned spoon.
Remember when Mitt Romney said that Russia was perhaps the greatest geopolitical threat to the west and everyone laughed in his face, said the cold war was over, and called him an idiot? People seem to have a vested interest in deluding themselves that Putin isn't a bad guy, and that a bad guy in charge of one of the most geoplotically active nations in the world with an enormous nuclear arsenal is somehow not a big deal.
>It's gone well for him so far. He's assassinated dissidents, whistleblowers, and reporters before, with seeming impunity. He colludes with other tyrants who are butchers and oppressors and is lauded for it.
So, he pretty much did what most western powers do with umpunity since age immemorial? Minus threatening, controlling and/or invading non-neighborhouding countries?
No. And let's stop with this moral equivalence bullshit.
Let's draw some stark fucking lines here.
Assassinating your avowed enemies in a time of war, that's one thing. Assassinating your home grown political opponents, that's another thing entirely.
Using the legal system to pursue whistleblowers who probably should be protected, again, that's one thing. Killing whistleblowers, that's another thing entirely.
If you can't recognize the difference then you are actively providing support for some of the most evil and repressive regimes in the world by making fuzzy what should be clear-cut moral boundaries.
>Assassinating your avowed enemies in a time of war, that's one thing. Assassinating your home grown political opponents, that's another thing entirely.
And both have happened. Check out a 20th century history of the Western Europe and/or the US.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Check out the colonial and post-colonial histories of Latin American, the Middle East, Africa and Asia for reference.
Hitler was a small time crook (and Putin an insignificant insect) compared to what the other western powers did (and still do) in such places, from the Congo to Chile.
