Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Curious. USG didn't try to get a Red or Blue Notice against Snowden. (Original Post) Recursion Jun 2013 OP
They want to silence Snowden. They do not want to do so publicly. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #1
Thanks for the hint on what a "red or blue notice" is. ManiacJoe Jun 2013 #2
Yes it is very curious... ljm2002 Jun 2013 #3
INTERPOL is forbidden from taking on cases of political nature. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #5
That is interesting... ljm2002 Jun 2013 #7
so by not doing this they are basically admitting it is a political charge, interesting Monkie Jun 2013 #9
Upon further inspection, INTERPOL is forbidden by constitution to intervene in political affairs... Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #4
And the UN is supposed to stop all wars Recursion Jun 2013 #6
That is interesting to know. Thank you. nt 99th_Monkey Jun 2013 #8
They KNOW they are full of shit, that's all. bemildred Jun 2013 #10
Whats USG? US government? darkangel218 Jun 2013 #11

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
1. They want to silence Snowden. They do not want to do so publicly.
Mon Jun 24, 2013, 03:38 AM
Jun 2013

So issuing a red or blue notice through Interpol would be a PR disaster and would only draw more attention to the issue. Walking on egg shells.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
3. Yes it is very curious...
Mon Jun 24, 2013, 03:49 AM
Jun 2013

...and it makes me wonder if there are even more layers to this story than we think. Given the importance of this case, and how publicly it is all playing out, you'd think they would dot their i's and cross their t's...

...but then I snap out of it and go back to taking it (mostly) at face value... i.e. that Snowden is who he says he is, and that he did what he did for the reasons he claims, and that our government really does want to arrest him.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
7. That is interesting...
Mon Jun 24, 2013, 03:56 AM
Jun 2013

...I had no idea there were so many ins and outs to these things.

Thanks for the link.

 

Monkie

(1,301 posts)
9. so by not doing this they are basically admitting it is a political charge, interesting
Mon Jun 24, 2013, 05:20 AM
Jun 2013

very interesting indeed.

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
4. Upon further inspection, INTERPOL is forbidden by constitution to intervene in political affairs...
Mon Jun 24, 2013, 03:50 AM
Jun 2013
http://www.interpol.int/About-INTERPOL/Legal-materials/Neutrality-Article-3-of-the-Constitution

This principle was first introduced in INTERPOL’s Statute in 1948, when the phrase "to the strict exclusion of all matters having a political, religious or racial character" was added to the end of Article 1(1) of the Organization’s Statute, which defined the Organization’s purposes.
 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
8. That is interesting to know. Thank you. nt
Mon Jun 24, 2013, 03:56 AM
Jun 2013

Setting Interpol up that way makes really good sense, and I
can only hope they are following their constitution more
scrupulously than we have been for the past 10-15 years.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
10. They KNOW they are full of shit, that's all.
Mon Jun 24, 2013, 06:00 AM
Jun 2013

This is finally starting to remind me of the 60s and 70s.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Curious. USG didn't try t...