201–210 of 231 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it me, or does anyone else think that the really surreal thing here is not that Anna Chapman "proposed" to Snowden on twitter but that Chapman is even on twitter in the first place?
Why not, she is now a celebrity in Russia that is hosting a TV show and works as a model. As such it would seem natural to me that she is using social media. What is surreal to me is that a spy turned into a celebrity in the first place.
I'm curious how Snowden has been living in this airport. Is he literally sleeping in the terminal or is there an airport hotel he is staying in?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He applied to Germany and was rejected due to "missing requirements". No official statement was given what requirements exactly were missing. Probably, because you have to be on german ground (or very near) to apply. The application itself is declared confidential due to privacy reasons. Essentially, our government does not want Snowden to enter Germany.
So, it's obvious that it's not politically convenient for Germany (or most other western countries) to grant Snowden asylum, even if they wanted to. But legally, he doesn't have a very clear-cut case: The 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees which is the legal framework for asylum, defines the criteria as having a well-founded fear of persecution because of one's race, religion, nationali…
Getting a fair trial in court most certainly involves prosecution:
prosecution n. 1) in criminal law, the government attorney charging and trying the case against a person accused of a crime. 2) a common term for the government's side in a criminal case, as in "the prosecution will present five witnesses" or "the prosecution rests" (completed its case). (See: prosecute, prosecutor)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Snowden will halt the revelations abruptly. He would be a fool to break the agreement with Putin. Putin is a man of his word, and expects the same from Snowden. Information may continue to leak, but not from Snowden. His part of the show is finished (and luckily for him, he's not even bruised!).
My guess is that Putin would be happy to have Snowden break the agreement, as long as he doesn't go to the press and take credit for it. Putin's government has been working constantly to undermine America's foreign influence, and these leaks go a long way towards doing that.
Can you elaborate on that? Any concrete examples of how they were doing this?
From the same Putin's regime we hear the same about the US, although just guesses, no facts. I'm curious how the west sees that.
Guess relations between Russia and the US aren't as important after all. Always found it odd (possibly ironic?) that he left to countries infamous for not being well known for their love of free speech. Then again as one poster here put it, where else would he go that isn't as restrictive and doesn't have an extradition treaty with the U.S.? Wonder if this will inspire whistle blowers in Russia now?
Unfortunately, the story here in the media has boiled down to international spying scandal, the original statement - that it violates some US constitution amendment - has been forgotten.
Well I think this is more to do with Russia thumbing it's nose at the US rather than protecting an individual from tyranny. But fair play to Snowden, it's good news for him. But If I were Snowden, I'd be quietly sneaking out of Russia very soon lest the political winds change and he suddenly finds he's a very valuable pawn in a very dangerous game that he can't win.
My high school history teacher taught us something that politicians know: "My enemy's enemy is my friend". I'm sure there's a concise Russian saying for this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tried searching for the charges that the US brought against Snowden and then the penalty for those charges. According to Yahoo[1] (which isn't a great source but it is the best I could find in the short time I have), the charges brought carry a max of 30 years in prison, along with fines. That is a whole lot more than just 2 years. On top of that, you can bet that US government is going to go for broke on that case…
Max sentence is unlikely. Libby and Kiriakou both got 30 months and they exposed covert agents which Snowden did not (I know Libby served no time, but he was still sentenced). If Snowden is brought home to face charges, he will probably get a worse sentence now because he fled.
There's an inch thick of delicious, buttery irony spread over a slice of Onion-tasting bread here. Asylum granted by a state that once sent 14 million people, primarily those who didn't agree with the authorities, into forced labor camps with millions meeting their deaths from malnutrition, exposure, and summary executions.. and which is still attempting to outlaw homosexuality. Out of the frying pan, into the fire!
Just want to point out that what you're talking about was past, and a different government. It's like saying America is the country where black people were slaves when talking about America's decisions in recent events.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/russia-law-banni...
And black people are certainly still widely discriminated against and treated unfairly in the United States. Have you ever heard of Trayvon Martin? The incarceration rates of blacks versus whites? The Republican Party? Its leader, Rush Limbaugh? Voter suppression? The Southern Strategy? I could go on and on. Do you believe that racism is no longer an issue in the United States, because your glorious leader Rush Limbaugh told you so?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wars don't end until the underlying issue is settled. In this case it is very much as it was in 1914, which is "which large conglomerate of regional interests will rule the world," with participants being Russia, Europe and the USA. In the intervening years, we have added China, India and South America to the competition. But otherwise... "same as it ever was."
War is politics by other means. When a war ends without the politics being settled, the seed of conflict remains. However, most either people lack this longer term vision and falsely perceive a physical wins as an ultimate "victory", or don't care because they won't be around then. "This isn't a peace, it's a twenty year truce!" - Ferdinand Foch, regarding the Treaty of Versailles As an aside, the U.S's failure to pr…
Foch was proven right. It must have been maddening for him to know the truth of the situation, but be over-ruled by popular sentiment toward ending a disastrous and suicidal war.
This makes me want to reconsider all of my own knowledge of course, because as your examples illustrate, it's possible that there is something worse than being wrong, and it is to not notice something important.