Putin: Russia can't turn over Snowden • Hacker News Board

Re: Putin: Russia can't turn over Snowden

#31

Post by codex » Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 4:58 PM UTC

vinceguidry wrote: post #22

mikeyouse wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In other words, considering how US has promised to treat him You mean the promises to arrest him for releasing confidential information? I'm honestly confused why people don't think he should be arrested. If he had released weapons designs instead of NSA documents, would you support his galavanting across HK and Russia? The question, "Is the NSA program unconstitutional?" is a far different one than "Should those wh…

> I'm grateful that he shed some light on a very troubling program, but that doesn't just grant him immunity from prosecution. This doesn't seem like a rational position. Either Snowden performed a service or he committed a crime. He can't have done both. The fact that it's really a subjective call speaks to its political nature. As such, there is no dishonor in absconding to a country with more favorable politics.

Someone murdered your parents, to 100% certainty. They're found not guilty in court, and cannot be retried. They are 100% certain to kill again. You kill them and are found guilty of murder. You've performed both a service and committed a crime.

The law is a system. For the system to work, it must be enforced fairly and without political considerations.

Re: Putin: Russia can't turn over Snowden

#32

Post by columbo » Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 5:09 PM UTC

mikeyouse wrote: post #14

throwaway10001 wrote: post #5

Also, "Ex-CIA official: Snowden probably questioned by Russians “The likelihood that there’s either been no conversation with him or they haven’t downloaded stuff from his electronic gear is about zero,” Philip Mudd, a former CIA deputy director of counterterrorism, told Matt Lauer." http://www.today.com/news/ex-cia-official-snowden-probably-q... In other words, considering how US has promised to treat him, Snowden h…

>In other words, considering how US has promised to treat him You mean the promises to arrest him for releasing confidential information? I'm honestly confused why people don't think he should be arrested. If he had released weapons designs instead of NSA documents, would you support his galavanting across HK and Russia? The question, "Is the NSA program unconstitutional?" is a far different one than "Should those wh…

> You mean the promises to arrest him for releasing confidential information?

Being arrested and facing a fair trial isn't anyone's fear.

Being arrested, placed in solitary confinment for months on end, subjected to technically-not-torture-torture, threats against your family all the while having your entire character destroyed thread by thread until the day you stand in front of a show room to argue why you should only receive 50 years of prison time instead of 500 is another story.

If we truly lived in a fair and free society I would be championing his arrest, if anything simply for the truth to come out. As it stands it is hard to believe a truly fair trial is something that even exists anymore.

Re: Putin: Russia can't turn over Snowden

#33

Post by mikeyouse » Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 5:10 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #25

mikeyouse wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In other words, considering how US has promised to treat him You mean the promises to arrest him for releasing confidential information? I'm honestly confused why people don't think he should be arrested. If he had released weapons designs instead of NSA documents, would you support his galavanting across HK and Russia? The question, "Is the NSA program unconstitutional?" is a far different one than "Should those wh…

> You mean the promises to arrest him for releasing confidential information? I'm honestly confused why people don't think he should be arrested. If the government believes that he still has valuable intelligence potentially damaging to national security that may not have already been released, and if the government's primary concern with his actions is addressing the national security impact (which all public statem…

This train of logic doesn't make any sense.

    the primary goal of the government should be preventing foreign powers,
    potentially hostile ones, from getting access to the secrets he possesses.

    Publicly threatening to arrest and try him for serious and potentially
    capital offenses like espionage while he is in territory not subject to
    the US or any close ally that would be likely inclined to cooperate given
    the circumstances is, from that perspective, quite foolish.

If the government were to take that tack, it would only encourage leakers and 'spies' to grab the most valuable documents possible, in essence blackmailing their way out of prosecution.

If you're the US government, your default assumption must be that Putin has a hard drive with everything that Snowden took. If that's the case, it makes absolute sense to publicly threaten to arrest him and charge him with the most severe of consequences.

Look at it from a game theory perspective; the US government 'lost' the first game to Snowden. The only reason they are still engaging with him is that the US is playing a repeating game. They need to make the penalty for leaking high enough to persuade other potential leakers to stay quiet.

Re: Putin: Russia can't turn over Snowden

#34

Post by JulianWasTaken » Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 5:12 PM UTC

codex wrote: post #31

vinceguidry wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm grateful that he shed some light on a very troubling program, but that doesn't just grant him immunity from prosecution. This doesn't seem like a rational position. Either Snowden performed a service or he committed a crime. He can't have done both. The fact that it's really a subjective call speaks to its political nature. As such, there is no dishonor in absconding to a country with more favorable politics.

Someone murdered your parents, to 100% certainty. They're found not guilty in court, and cannot be retried. They are 100% certain to kill again. You kill them and are found guilty of murder. You've performed both a service and committed a crime. The law is a system. For the system to work, it must be enforced fairly and without political considerations.

The law is a service, not a system. Or at least that is the position that someone making the argument you're responding to probably holds.

No one cares what the law says. Decide whether what he did was good and if so it wasn't a crime. If the law says it was then do what it takes to avoid injustice.

Same goes for your analogy.

Re: Putin: Russia can't turn over Snowden

#35

Post by narcissus » Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 5:16 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #26

mpyne wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Russia couldn't detain him for questioning, let him out of the car, now he's touched the native soil and can be arrested on immigration charges and nicely deported to the U.S. embassy. Really seems like one of things where "if there's a will, there's a way".

> Well, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Russia couldn't detain him for questioning, let him out of the car, now he's touched the native soil and can be arrested on immigration charges and nicely deported to the U.S. embassy. It wouldn't surprise me if, on paper at least, being compelled by the government to pass out of the area not requiring a visa was not an immigration offense. It also isn't surprising to me that…

"It wouldn't surprise me if, on paper at least, being compelled by the government to pass out of the area not requiring a visa was not an immigration offense."

So I'm not entirely sure how this squares up with my anecdote, but flying from Sydney, Australia to Vancouver, Canada (did, at some point) require stopping in Honolulu to refuel and take on passengers.

At that point in the journey, passengers were (are?) required to get off the plane and pass through US immigration to continue their flight on to Canada. I know of at least one passenger that was refused passage through US immigration at that point (even though she was forced to go through it and her final destination was not the US) and so she was not allowed to continue.

Like I say, I don't really know how that quite squares up with your comment, but I thought it was "interestingly similar", maybe?

Re: Putin: Russia can't turn over Snowden

#36

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 5:20 PM UTC

mikeyouse wrote: post #33

dragonwriter wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You mean the promises to arrest him for releasing confidential information? I'm honestly confused why people don't think he should be arrested. If the government believes that he still has valuable intelligence potentially damaging to national security that may not have already been released, and if the government's primary concern with his actions is addressing the national security impact (which all public statem…

This train of logic doesn't make any sense. the primary goal of the government should be preventing foreign powers, potentially hostile ones, from getting access to the secrets he possesses. Publicly threatening to arrest and try him for serious and potentially capital offenses like espionage while he is in territory not subject to the US or any close ally that would be likely inclined to cooperate given the circumst…

I think you are confusing two different issues: publicly threatening to arrest and prosecute him for capital offenses while he is outside of the practical reach of the US government and seeking to arrest and prosecute him.

You can do the second without doing the first; indeed, the first can be actively counterproductive to the second, since he cannot be arrested and prosecuted without first being brought within the practical reach of the US government, which the public threats to him (and the public threats to other sovereign states) have made less, not more, likely.

> Look at it from a game theory perspective; the US government 'lost' the first game to Snowden. The only reason they are still engaging with him is that the US is playing a repeating game. They need to make the penalty for leaking high enough to persuade other potential leakers to stay quiet.

Making public threats that make acheiving the stated goals of those threats less likely, thus demonstrating impotence, is not a particularly effective method of doing that.

Re: Putin: Russia can't turn over Snowden

#37

Post by mikeyouse » Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 5:23 PM UTC

tymekpavel wrote: post #21

mikeyouse wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In other words, considering how US has promised to treat him You mean the promises to arrest him for releasing confidential information? I'm honestly confused why people don't think he should be arrested. If he had released weapons designs instead of NSA documents, would you support his galavanting across HK and Russia? The question, "Is the NSA program unconstitutional?" is a far different one than "Should those wh…

> If he had released weapons designs instead of NSA documents, would you support his galavanting across HK and Russia? I think you're missing the point. The fact is he didn't release weapons designs; he released information pointing to surveillance programs that violate the 4th amendment. > The question, "Is the NSA program unconstitutional?" is a far different one than "Should those who release confidential document…

Whistleblowers do indeed need protection. Unfortunately for Snowden, current whistleblower laws only protect him if he leaked to his agencies IG;

    Disclosure of information that is required by law or Executive Order
    to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct
    of foreign affairs is unprotected, unless made to the agency’s Inspector
    General, to “another employee designated by the head of the agency to
    receive such disclosures” or to the Office of the Special Counsel.

Obviously these laws need to be improved, but selective enforcement leaves a ton of room for politics to infiltrate the whistleblowing. It was only a few years ago that Bush's special council at the OSC was arrested for doing precisely that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Counsel#Scott...

Re: Putin: Russia can't turn over Snowden

#38

Post by mikeyouse » Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 5:30 PM UTC

columbo wrote: post #32

mikeyouse wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In other words, considering how US has promised to treat him You mean the promises to arrest him for releasing confidential information? I'm honestly confused why people don't think he should be arrested. If he had released weapons designs instead of NSA documents, would you support his galavanting across HK and Russia? The question, "Is the NSA program unconstitutional?" is a far different one than "Should those wh…

> You mean the promises to arrest him for releasing confidential information? Being arrested and facing a fair trial isn't anyone's fear. Being arrested, placed in solitary confinment for months on end, subjected to technically-not-torture-torture, threats against your family all the while having your entire character destroyed thread by thread until the day you stand in front of a show room to argue why you should o…

He's accused of three things[1];

1. Theft of Government Property

2. Unauthorized Communication of National Defense Information

3. Willful Communication of Classified Communications Intelligence Information to an Unauthorized Person

Is there some chance that he's innocent of any of those charges, and will be wrongly convicted? They all seem pretty obvious and there are Federal laws in place to guide penalties and fines.

Why is everyone convinced he won't have a fair trial? Is a result where he ends up in jail an unfair result?

[1] http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-vs-edwar...

Re: Putin: Russia can't turn over Snowden

#39

Post by vinceguidry » Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 5:32 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #29

vinceguidry wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm grateful that he shed some light on a very troubling program, but that doesn't just grant him immunity from prosecution. This doesn't seem like a rational position. Either Snowden performed a service or he committed a crime. He can't have done both. The fact that it's really a subjective call speaks to its political nature. As such, there is no dishonor in absconding to a country with more favorable politics.

> Either Snowden performed a service or he committed a crime. He can't have done both. He actually can have done both. That something has value to the public does not mean it is not within the scope of prohibition of a criminal statute. (Further, even if there was a blanket "public service" exception to the applicable criminal laws, its quite possible that some of the information he absconded with and released could…

I'm aware that the law can prohibit actions that are ultimately good for society. That doesn't make it rational.

Re: Putin: Russia can't turn over Snowden

#40

Post by vinceguidry » Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 5:33 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #28

vinceguidry wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm grateful that he shed some light on a very troubling program, but that doesn't just grant him immunity from prosecution. This doesn't seem like a rational position. Either Snowden performed a service or he committed a crime. He can't have done both. The fact that it's really a subjective call speaks to its political nature. As such, there is no dishonor in absconding to a country with more favorable politics.

Either Snowden performed a service or he committed a crime. Isn't that what a trial - after arrest and prosecution - is supposed to determine? The problem is not prosecution, it's that a fair trial is hardly guaranteed.

Why submit yourself to prosecution if you've no hope of a fair trial?