dagblog - Comments for "Snowden's Asylum: 'It's the law, stupid' "

On my first point, Falk

Bruce Levine — Fri, 09 Aug 2013 18:21:14 +0000

In reply to On the other hand, on your

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.

On the other hand, on your

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 09 Aug 2013 17:03:26 +0000

In reply to Great link Ack and

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.

Neither China or Russia had

rmrd0000 — Fri, 09 Aug 2013 14:06:23 +0000

In reply to Great link Ack and

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.

Great link Ack and

Bruce Levine — Fri, 09 Aug 2013 12:46:44 +0000

In reply to Falk is being deliberately

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:

My main beef with O'Donnell is not that he wouldn't let me make these 11 points—because, let's face it, that's not what the TV is for—but that he did exactly the same shit Russians did to me when I was in Russia. They assumed that the U.S. and its government was one sleek, well-functioning monolith, that Obama was omnipotent, and that everyone in the world, including other important (and nuclear!) world leaders, act and must act as Russia demands it should, using Russian foreign policy calculus, and with only Russian interests in mind.

Sound ridiculous? Believe me, it sounds just as insane in reverse. The problem is that this was not in the ranting comments section, but was coming from the host of a prime time, national television show. And if you don't have the good sense and education or, hell, the reporting experience to know better, then just let the guests you invited on speak.

Otherwise, don't waste my fucking evening.

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:

The Obama administration totally fucked this up. I mean, totally. Soup to nuts. Remember the spy exchange in the summer of 2010? Ten Russian sleeper agents—which is not what Snowden is—were uncovered by the FBI in the U.S. Instead of kicking up a massive, public stink over it, the Kremlin and the White House arranged for their silent transfer to Russia in exchange for four people accused in Russia of spying for the U.S. Two planes landed on the tarmac in Vienna, ten people went one way, four people went the other way, the planes flew off, and that was it. That's how this should have been done if the U.S. really wanted Snowden back.

Putin loyalists appear to be

rmrd0000 — Fri, 09 Aug 2013 12:35:59 +0000

In reply to Falk is being deliberately

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.

Falk is being deliberately

acanuck — Fri, 09 Aug 2013 08:51:34 +0000

In reply to I am not sure that this is a

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."

Oops..... situation not

rmrd0000 — Fri, 09 Aug 2013 03:18:02 +0000

In reply to If a Russian came to the US

Oops..... situation not intubation

Well, I would think that

Bruce Levine — Fri, 09 Aug 2013 02:22:57 +0000

In reply to If a Russian came to the US

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.

If a Russian came to the US

rmrd0000 — Fri, 09 Aug 2013 02:12:50 +0000

In reply to You're right I did that

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.

You're right I did that

Bruce Levine — Fri, 09 Aug 2013 02:03:03 +0000

In reply to Falk asks us how Russians

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.