MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Snowden's Asylum: 'It's the law, stupid'
By A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 08/08/2013 - 12:13pm |Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is also the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights.
URL:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/08/2013841016657318.html
- Add new comment
- 2726 reads
Comments
This is analysis worth considering.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 08/08/2013 - 12:13pm
I am not sure that this is a very interesting analysis, but to some it might be an interesting political speech, of the type that Falk is accustomed to giving. Here's what I think:
1. To the extent we're talking legalities, to my knowledge Falk is correct that there is not and has never been an extradition treaty between the U.S. and Russia (or the USSR).
2. Other than that, it's Falk telling us that if we don't think that Snowden should have been given asylum, we are tools of the media. Indeed.
3. Falk contends, and does so nakedly, that Russia has acted in the ordinary course of international relations. That is something that should be backed up with facts, or law, or something. It is a naked contention.
4. Falk asks us how Russians would feel if we gave asylum to someone who blew the whistle on spying on Russians. My gut is that most Russians would say, huh tell me something I don't know?
5. I think where I might be in agreement--even with Falk--is that while I don't think the U.S./Russian equivalence thing makes sense, I think that we as Americans should be more surprised and concerned and questioning than Russians can or would be expected to be. One is and has always been a dictatorship in one way or another, and we try harder than most to be otherwise, thank heavens.
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 08/08/2013 - 1:51pm
That is a clear misreading of what Falk clearly said. Here are his actual words as written.
So, what Falk says actually questions not how the Russians would feel but how McCain and Graham would feel if the situation were reversed and by obvious extension, how would Americans of a mind with those two or even the proverbial 'average American' feel. My gut feeling is that Falk is correct when he says:
As to the rest, I am not familiar with Falk so I read this piece with a 'beginner's mind' so to speak. I disagree with your tone describing Falk in regards to this one piece but that is a subjective conclusion, not one as obviously objective as the mistake I pointed out.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 08/08/2013 - 9:29pm
You're right I did that wrong, thanks. So what he's doing is comparing Snowden's situation to a hypothetical in which a Russian whistleblower comes to the US and reveals that the Russians were listening in on Washington as well as invading the privacy of ordinary Americans.
First, am I the only one that has no doubt that both the Americans and Russians, among a host of others, are obsessed with spying on one another?
As to the spying on ordinary Americans, is Falk suggesting that the American government is spying on ordinary Russians? Is that what Falk is saying Snowden revealed, i.e. that the American government is spying on ordinary Russians? Is that why Russia declined to extradite Snowden, in Falk's eyes? Seems like more than a stretch IMO.
Finally, I would think that any senator would favor asylum for a Russian whistleblower. I understand the basis for the comparison that Falk asks us to consider, but given the due process in this country to which Snowden would be entitled, as compared to the justice likely to be meted at to a Russian in similar circumstances in his or her own country, it's an apples to oranges comparison--and without significance.
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 08/08/2013 - 10:03pm
If a Russian came to the US with data on Russian surveillance techniques and decided not to share the information, wouldn't the US attempt to retrieve the information? What makes the intubation with the Russians different? Putin was the guy that GW said he could trust because he looked into the man's eyes. Should we believe that Russia is doing nothing to access the information.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 08/08/2013 - 10:12pm
Well, I would think that Russia would be interested in information and my sense is that information, for Snowden, is currency. And I think it would be a fair apples to apples comparison in assuming that the US would also seek to retrieve information.
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 08/08/2013 - 10:22pm
Oops..... situation not intubation
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 08/08/2013 - 11:18pm
Falk is being deliberately provocative, but he comes across as 100% right on the legal aspect. Lacking any legitimate basis to request extradition, the U.S. has resorted to exceptionalist bluster. Putin was never inclined to give in, but now he has much of the world's population supporting him, so he's even less inclined.
Obama's decision to punish Putin by cancelling their summit looks, to me and much of the world, as petulant and frankly ridiculous; it will only boost Putin's stock at home. Here's someone who disagrees with me, in that she thinks Obama was right to cancel the summit. But her other points are well taken: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114234/lawrence-odonnell-yells-julia-...
Her most salient point: "The Obama administration totally fucked this up."
by acanuck on Fri, 08/09/2013 - 4:51am
Great link Ack and well-deserved takedown of O'Donnell by Ioffe. Obama's f...-up is one of the eleven points that Ioffe would have but was unable to make when O'Donnell interviewed her, and she's rightfully ticked off. Here's how she sums up, and she's spot on I think:
On the other hand, on your initial point, I don't agree that Falk really goes beyond the provocative in asserting as he does that there was no basis for extraditing Snowden. Simply put, the lack of a treaty does not preclude the frequent and consensual exchanges of folks in Snowden's position by both counriest. Indeed, that's what I understand to be Ioffe's principal point about Obama's f. . .k up, which is that he was unable to effect the kind of quiet exchanges that have been successful in the past in avoiding the kind of flare-up of tensions that we have here. Here's what Ioffe writes:
by Bruce Levine on Fri, 08/09/2013 - 8:46am
Neither China or Russia had anything to gain by sending Snowden back. The US would have nothing to gain by sending a Chinese or Russian national back under similar circumstances.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 08/09/2013 - 10:06am
On the other hand, on your initial point, I don't agree that Falk really goes beyond the provocative in asserting as he does that there was no basis for extraditing Snowden.
I don't understand what you mean by that sentence but it's not really important that I do. Clarify if you choose.
Simply put, the lack of a treaty does not preclude the frequent and consensual exchanges of folks in Snowden's position by both counriest. Indeed, that's what I understand to be Ioffe's principal point about Obama's f. . .k up, which is that he was unable to effect the kind of quiet exchanges that have been successful in the past in avoiding the kind of flare-up of tensions that we have here.
The lack of a treaty does not preclude transfers but the lack of a treaty means that every cooperative forced move of a person from the U.S.A to Russia or visa versa is on an ad hoc basis. Neither side is under any obligation. The U.S. has a number of people accused by Russia of breaking Russian law which the U.S. will not send home.
Putin could have embarrassed himself and self -proclaimed a lower place on the international pecking order to Obama by responding to Obama's very undiplomatic handling of the situation [kicking up a massive, public stink over it is how Ioffe describes it] with an agreement to Obama's request/demand which offered no quid quo pro that I have heard of. He decided not to do so.
A transfer of Snowden from Russia to America could never have been a quiet exchange and so Ioffe's example of a way to do it is in no way equivalent. In her example Russia received ten people whom it was trying to protect. The U.S. received in exchange four people who were alleged Russian spys working for us. Common sense says that they were or else we wouldn't have traded for them. Neither country was trying to get their hands on one of their own citizens for the purpose of throwing them in prison.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 08/09/2013 - 1:03pm
On my first point, Falk asserts that there is no basis, none, to extradite Snowden, and I think that's just wrong, plain wrong, for the reasons that are wholly consistent with the second argument you make, which relates to the reasons that Russia determined not to extradite Snowden.
by Bruce Levine on Fri, 08/09/2013 - 2:21pm
Putin loyalists appear to be in control of the election process. Putin's party may even be able to decide who can run for election, showing a video of a tank crossing a highway as the author of your link does is not a valid argument that Putin does carry a great deal of power.
Defiance of the West is one of the reasons Putin has popularity in Russia. There was no way that Snowden was going to be released. Canceling the meeting is a way for Obama to show that he is displeased with Putin. In addition Snowden gets tarnished in the US because he selected a country with a record of human rights abuses. The Olympics will highlight the way Russia treats homosexuals.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 08/09/2013 - 8:35am
Coincidentally I quoted the Falk piece and two other AlJazeera pieces this morning. Later this started running through my head:
by Donal on Thu, 08/08/2013 - 3:12pm