Wikileak's Sarah Harrison, Snowden asylum assistant now in exile

[Luminous Animal]

in Berlin.

Her statement upon her safe arrival:

http://wikileaks.org/Statement-by-Sarah-Harrison-on.html

As a journalist I have spent the last four months with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and arrived in Germany over the weekend. I worked in Hong Kong as part of the WikiLeaks team that brokered a number of asylum offers for Snowden and negotiated his safe exit from Hong Kong to take up his legal right to seek asylum. I was travelling with him on our way to Latin America when the United States revoked his passport, stranding him in Russia. For the next 39 days I remained with him in the transit zone of Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport, where I assisted in his legal application to 21 countries for asylum, including Germany, successfully securing his asylum in Russia despite substantial pressure by the United States. I then remained with him until our team was confident that he had established himself and was free from the interference of any government.

Whilst Edward Snowden is safe and protected until his asylum visa is due to be renewed in nine months’ time, there is still much work to be done. The battle Snowden joined against state surveillance and for government transparency is one that WikiLeaks – and many others – have been fighting, and will continue to fight.

WikiLeaks’ battles are many: we fight against unaccountable power and government secrecy, publishing analysis and documents for all affected and to forever provide the public with the history that is theirs. For this, we are fighting legal cases in many jurisdictions and face an unprecedented Grand Jury investigation in the United States. WikiLeaks continues to fight for the protection of sources. We have won the battle for Snowden’s immediate future, but the broader war continues.

Already, in the few days I have spent in Germany, it is heartening to see the people joining together and calling for their government to do what must be done – to investigate NSA spying revelations, and to offer Edward Snowden asylum. The United States should no longer be able to continue spying on every person around the globe, or persecuting those that speak the truth.

Snowden is currently safe in Russia, but there are whistleblowers and sources to whom this does not apply. Chelsea Manning has been subject to abusive treatment by the United States government and is currently serving a 35-year sentence for exposing the true nature of war. Jeremy Hammond is facing a decade in a New York jail for allegedly providing journalists with documents that exposed corporate surveillance. I hope I have shown a counter example: with the right assistance whistleblowers can speak the truth and keep their liberty.

Aggressive tactics are being used against journalists, publishers and experts who work so courageously to bring truth to the world. Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Jacob Appelbaum are all in effective exile. Barrett Brown is indicted for reporting on unethical surveillance practices. My editor Julian Assange has asylum over US threats, but the United Kingdom refuses to allow him to fully exercise this right, violating the law. The UK government also detained David Miranda under the UK Terrorism Act for collaborating with Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald.

The UK Terrorism Act defines terrorism as the action or threat of action "designed to influence" any government "for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause". It prescribes actions that interfere with the functioning of an "electronic system" (i.e. the NSA’s bulk spying program) or which the government alleges create a "risk" to a section of the public. It should be fanciful to suggest that national security journalism which has the purpose of producing honest government or enforcing basic privacy rights should be called "terrorism", but that is how the UK is choosing to interpret this law. Almost every story published on the GCHQ and NSA bulk spying programs falls under the UK government’s interpretation of the word "terrorism". In response, our lawyers have advised me that it is not safe to return home.

The job of the press is to speak truth to power. And yet for doing our job we are persecuted. I say that these aggressive and illegal tactics to silence us – inventing arbitrary legal interpretations, over-zealous charges and disproportionate sentences – must not be permitted to succeed. I stand in solidarity with all those intimidated and persecuted for bringing the truth to the public.

In these times of secrecy and abuse of power there is only one solution – transparency. If our governments are so compromised that they will not tell us the truth, then we must step forward to grasp it. Provided with the unequivocal proof of primary source documents people can fight back. If our governments will not give this information to us, then we must take it for ourselves.

When whistleblowers come forward we need to fight for them, so others will be encouraged. When they are gagged, we must be their voice. When they are hunted, we must be their shield. When they are locked away, we must free them. Giving us the truth is not a crime. This is our data, our information, our history. We must fight to own it.

Courage is contagious.

Sarah Harrison, Wednesday 6 November 2013, Berlin

[riderinthestorm]

1. Wow! Powerful read .Big K&R nt

[Blue_Tires]

2. For all the talk about protecting those who speak truth to power

and preserving the press freedoms of journalists, why does Russia (among other nations) *never* get mentioned?

She realizes journalists there have literally been gunned down or 'disappeared' in broad daylight, right??

http://cpj.org/2013/02/attacks-on-the-press-in-2012.php

[sabrina 1]

8. You haven't followed Wikileaks work, have you? No one has been spared from Whistle Blowers

who brought their leaks to Wikileaks. But thankfully, a majority around the globe were familiar with Wikileaks and their work to expose corruption no matter where it was reported, so your barb falls very short of the facts.

A few examples of Wikileaks role in exposing corruption in Russia:

WikiLeaks Joins Lebedev's Moscow-Based Newspaper Novaya Gazeta To Expose Corruption in Russia

Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, which publishes secret government and corporate documents online, has materials specifically about Russia that haven’t been published yet and Novaya Gazeta will help make them public, the newspaper said on its website today.

Novaya Gazeta says it has agreed to join forces with WikiLeaks to expose corruption in Russia.

Bank raid could have been warning against planned WikiLeaks Russian corruption expose

So yes, Wikileaks has most certainly treated Russian corruption the same way they treat all countries.

It's fine to criticize an organization like Wikileaks, but it's always better to do it with facts. Wikileaks has never spared anyone once they received information about corruption on any Country.

[stevenleser]

9. Crumbs compared to the scale of it there. Also, why aren't Greenwald, Snowden and Assange

talking about it on a daily basis.

I know why, because they don't feel like adding Polonium to their diet. Or lead.

[sabrina 1]

21. BS, they publish what they get from Whistle Blowers, they can't manufacture what they

don't receive.

And maybe it didn't get the attention the Snowden leaks got because Russia essentially IGNORED it, rather than call them TRAITORS and issue WARRANTS for arrests, and call for the death penalty, etc, etc. Maybe Russia understood that the more ATTENTION you give to these revelations, the more you ATTACK THE MESSENGER, the more you CREATE A DIFFERENT STORY.

And when you attack messenger after messenger that BECOMES the story. And the question arises 'what are they so desperate to hide'.

Maybe the US could take some lessons on how not to draw International Attention to themselves, eg, by not running Gulags where torture is rampant, or not invading countries that have done nothing to warrant those attacks.

Or not going after Whistle Blowers and instead, conducting investigations into CORRUPTION, such as Wall St Corruption, and War Crimes.

We just 'move on' from all these crimes and corruption here in the US and as a result, we have lost any moral authority to lecture anyone else on these matters. And we have so many apologists for our failure to address these horrific crimes committed in OUR names.

[stevenleser]

72. Grantcart did the research and called BS on your links downthread. They arent interested in

whistleblowing. They have an anti-US agenda they are attempting to prosecute.

[sabrina 1]

73. You have demonstrated beyond doubt how little you know about Wikileaks.

Which is fine, just don't expect to be given much credibility on the subject.

Put it this way, before you ever heard of them, which was apparently after the Manning leaks, and this is what makes me laugh at what you just said, they were accused of the OPPOSITE of your 'theory'. They were accused of working for the US Government, why? Because they had exposed corruption in so many governments, but nothing on the US.

When asked WHY they seemed uninterested in the US they responded, 'no one has leaked anything on the US, if they do, we will publish it'. The CTs didn't believe them of course, accusing them of being run by the CIA!

I love the fairy tales I read here sometimes. At the very least they are amusing.

As for Grantcart, if he is in agreement with you, he too has zero knowledge of the history of Wikileaks and their record of providing a place for Whistle Blowers from all over the world.

They are an award winning Organization, still receiving awards for their work. The US reacted stupidly to the Manning War Crimes leaks, especially since everyone knew most of his leaks were from the Bush era. Makes you wonder why ANY DEMOCRAT who throughout the Bush years longed to see the Bush War Criminals exposed, would be so interested in protecting that criminal regime now.

It pays to know what you are talking about. Especially considering the history that is available to anyone who cares to learn the facts would be interested in protecting that gang of war criminals. Quite a spectacular flip flop from demanding accountability, from supporting other Bush era Whistle Blowers WHILE Bush was still in the WH, to the sudden antagonism AGAINST the exposure of Bush War Criminals. Someone will be writing a study of all of this one day.

So, which is it? Wikileaks worked for the CIA or Wikileaks works for, who is it now? Lol, as I said, when you have been there and watched something grow and then see the CTs emerge, and the obvious biases showing, it is, well, interesting.

Only in the US is so little known about the New Media. Except I have found, among those who care about facts. Thankfully there are quite a few of them around.

[stevenleser]

74. This hearsay you are pushing doesn't amount to anything. I noticed you provide no links

Wikileaks and Greenwald's agendas are pretty clear. They are out to attack the US.

They have a treasure-trove of corruption, spying and other ugliness available to cover in Russia, China and throughout most of the Middle East and Africa.

That's harder work and certainly more dangerous. They're not interested in that. That doesn't suit their purposes. They want to whine about being inconvenienced and their spouses being detained a little longer at airports, or the chance of being arrested.

If they so much as attempt to do what they did to the US to either Russia or China, they will be dead inside of a week along with any whistleblowers they attempt to use. If they are lucky, it will be a quick death but I wouldn't count on it. Alexander Litvinenko found that out the hard way.

[sabrina 1]

78. Their agenda has always been clear. Did you think they were hiding it? Again demonstrating

how little you know about them.

Let me try again to explain what Wikileaks is because you clearly have no clue and are rambling now.

This sentence proves you have no idea what Wikileaks is or you would not have written it:

They have a treasure-trove of corruption, spying and other ugliness available to cover in Russia, China and throughout most of the Middle East and Africa.

One more time. THEY, Wikileaks, do not 'cover' corruption. I'll stop there so you can absorb that part before going to the next part. They do not 'cover' corruption, ANYWHERE.

Now to continue as clearly as I can so you don't make that mistake again.

They can ONLY PUBLISH what Whistle Blowers leak to them!

Here, let me repeat it again.

They can ONLY publish what Whistle Blowers leak to them!

Now to the next part:

IF no one leaks to them, they cannot publish anything!

Is that easy enough for you to understand, and does it make clear why your statement is wrong and so unbelievably incorrecgt?

IF you want them to publish material about corruption ANYWHERE, which the US Pretty much prevented them from doing btw, then you have to encourage someone, a Whistle Blower, to LEAK IT TO THEM! If they get it, and the US stops interfering with them, you can bet they will release it. As they did on the Banks in Iceland eg despite the threats they received. Of course that is why they are being silenced by the US, their threat to release info on the BANKS.

So, let me ask you a question since you are making statements here which I'm sure you hope people will take seriously.

Has anyone in Russia LEAKED Material to Wikileaks BEFORE the US made it impossible for them to release, (is the US protecting Russia?) that they withheld??

I'm not interested in your opinion, I am assuming you would not be making the claims you are making unless you had something credible to back it up with.

One more time just to be sure you finally understand this New Media. Wikileaks does not operate like a news gathering entity. Your comment above shows that you THOUGHT that is what they were.

I hope I have made it clear to you now that you were completely incorrect as to what Wikileaks is.

Wikileaks was solely dedicated to provide a safe place for Whistle Blowers from all the world, to get their information out.

Making your sentence '

[stevenleser]

88. Again, your contentions mean nothing. Provide links to back you up or it means nothing. nt

[sabrina 1]

94. Clearly you are unable to back up your claims. That was obvious to me from the

statements you made.

So I'll ask you since YOU are making the claims, not I.

1) Did Wikileaks receive material from Russian Whistle Blowers?

and ...

2) Did they withhold that material to 'protect Russia'.

These are the ONLY questions that are relevant to an Organization that ONLY publishes Whistle Blower material.

I am unaware of any Russian Whistle Blower leaking material to Wikileaks that they withheld.

If YOU have information that this is the case, then please post it.

And don't forget, they are NOT a news gathering organization that 'covers' anything. Their only function is to publish material leaked to them by Whistle Blowers.

Thank you in advance.

[stevenleser]

96. The claims are yours to back up. I don't have to prove a negative.

Wikileaks and Greenwald are not attacking Russia and that is not their agenda.

It's incumbent on you to prove that it is their agenda. It's not incumbent on me to prove the negative.

[sabrina 1]

101. Again, you have failed to back up your claims and are veering off into

bizarro territory. Wikileaks' ONLY function, which is well known all over the world, is to release material provided to them by Whistle Blowers. That is what you apparently are objecting to re Greenwald, that he did the job of a journalist who was provided with material by a Whistle Blower.

You have failed to provide proof of your claims that Wikileaks is 'protecting Russia' despite being provided by me with the helpful facts that your were wrong about their function and providing you with simple questions which COULD have proven your claims but which you are desperately trying to avoid answering.

1) Did Wikileaks receive material from a Russian Whistle Blower and

2) Did they withhold that material to protect Russia.

If the answer is 'yes' then please provide proof.

If the answer is 'no' then even you must see how ridiculous your claims are.

[stevenleser]

104. On DU, it is widely accepted that one does not need to prove a negative. You need to prove your

contention, I don't here.

All of DU recognizes this. You are discrediting yourself.

[sabrina 1]

127. You made the claim that Wikileaks is not 'covering all the corruption in Russia'. I corrected

your wrong assumption that Wikileak's function is to 'cover' anything without material provided by a Whistle Blower. I asked you if you had information that Wikileaks had received material from a Russian Whistle Blower and secondly, had withheld it. You have not provided anything to even suggest that.

Now that you know finally, what Wikileaks' function actually is, even you must realize how ridiculous YOUR claim was.

Since you have failed, given your new information as to what their function is, to provide some backup that they are not 'covering' corruption in Russia, I take it you have nothing to back it up.

YOU made the claim which anyone can see by simply reading this thread. I corrected the wrong information on which you were basing your claim.

YOU MADE THE CLAIM. Period. There is no point in continuing to deny it. I am perfectly willing to quote you.

I think it's clear you are unable to back up the claim and I am more than willing to leave it at that.

Up to you ...

[Denzil_DC]

147. Both your links were from late 2010.

It's now late 2013. Where were the articles about Russian corruption referred to published?

[sabrina 1]

152. What does that have to do with the false info provided here as to the

function of Wikileaks? Do YOU know what their function is?

I see you are latching on to what has already been refuted as of significance in defending the wrong info provided here which I have now corrected.

The ONLY significance of the dates of those links, and it is not going to help those trying to smear wikileaks at al, is that by 2010 THE US HAD SHUT DOWN Wikileaks! Illegally, preventing them from continuing their work.

So if you are worried about why no leaks were published at THAT time, ask the US why they interfered with Wikileaks. Was the US trying to protect Russia??

Again, do you have information that Wikileaks received information on corruption in Russia FROM A WHISTLE BLOWER. There is no other way that they got info. THAT was their entire function.

And secondly, do you have information that Wikileaks withheld that information?

If you cannot provide that, then you are simply continuing a conversation that I am perfecty willing to have, if that is what you want, but that has been settled already.

[Denzil_DC]

159. This is a whole lot of verbage to fail to answer a simple question.

Despite your bloviating, the stories you yourself linked to as some sort of proof of even-handedness appear never to have materialized, unless you know better and can supply the links I asked for. You pointed to those links as some sort of proof that Wikileaks was working with journalists on stories about Russian corruption. Were those journalists "shut down", too? You made the claim, I didn't. I asked you about it. The burden of proof is on you, so don't bother trying to deflect.

Indeed, has Wikileaks in fact been "shut down" since 2010, as you claim? A quick check of Wikipedia says that it hasn't, and you're wrong about that:

2011–12

Main articles: Guantanamo Bay files leak, Global Intelligence Files leak, and Syria Files

In late April 2011, files related to the Guantanamo prison were released.[167] In December 2011, WikiLeaks started to release the Spy Files.[168] On 27 February 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing more than five million emails from the Texas-headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor.[169]

On 5 July 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing the Syria Files, more than two million emails from Syrian political figures, ministries and associated companies, dating from August 2006 to March 2012.[170]

On Thursday, 25 October 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Detainee Policies, more than 100 classified or otherwise restricted files from the United States Department of Defense covering the rules and procedures for detainees in U.S. military custody.[171]

2013

On April 8, 2013, WikiLeaks published more than 1.7 million U.S. diplomatic and intelligence documents from the 1970s. These documents included the Kissinger cables.[172]

On 5 September 2013 Dagens Næringsliv said that Wikileaks, on the previous evening, had published on its website "the whereabouts of 20 chiefs of European surveillance technology companies, during the last year".[173] This was part of Wikileaks Spy Files 3 project, which was a release of close to[173] 250 documents from more than 90 surveillance companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks

Judging by that, Wikileaks doesn't sound too "shut down" to me, so why do you claim something that's demonstrably untrue? Did you just not know?

I didn't "latch on" to anything. It's a valid question. One you've failed to answer satisfactorily, yet again, despite the squid cloud of words above.

As for continuing this conversation, if all you're going to do in response to a simple question is overreact and try to obfuscate, then save your energy, as it's not convincing.

[YoungDemCA]

108. "anti-US agenda"

Define "the US."

[stevenleser]

111. I didn't say "The US". I said "anti-US agenda" nt

[sabrina 1]

129. You surely are aware that Wikileaks was accused of being PRO US because they

had never published anything negative about the US for several years. They have been accused, due to not publishing anything, until the Manning leaks, negative about the US of being operated by the CIA.

They stated they were NOT PRO-USA but had not received any material from US Whistle Blowers. I guess they were telling the truth back then.

Lol, I guess you weren't aware of them until pretty recently or you would know this. The fact that they have been attacked for NOT 'attacking' the US and are now accused of the opposite, at least proves their previous attackers to have been wrong, just as their current attackers are wrong.

Thank the gods for Whistle Blowers, it takes a lot of courage to do what they do as the attacks from all sides on Wikileaks proves.

[Luminous Animal]

40. As if you would take that chance.

[stevenleser]

71. Of course I would and do. I attack Russia and Putin all the time. nt

[Luminous Animal]

76. And you would have us believe that Russia

Considers your criticism:
1) worthy of notice by the Russian authorities, and
2) likely (as you seem to claim re Snowden) to end up with assassination by said authorities

Your criticisms, aimed to a US audience, has no influence on the internal affairs in Russia. From Russia's point of view, you are spitting in the wind.

Snowden and Greenwald, on the other hand, and IF either had any damaging info on Russia would find themselves in clear danger.

That you compare your situation to theirs is amusing.

[sabrina 1]

81. The US has prevented Wikileaks from releasing anything from Russia or anywhere

else. It is clear from his comments that he does not understand WHAT wikileaks does.

They publish ONLY material they receive from Whistle Blowers. They have published eg, Russian Cables, which apparently no one in the US media has bothered to research. Russia wasn't happy about that, but unlike the US they did not go wild and attack them and threaten them with the Death Penalty, or call them 'traitors' which is laughable, considering they are not US citizens, but we are talking Sarah Palin here. It's interesting how some on the 'left' here are so anxious to cover for Bush War Crimes, which is what most of Mannings leaks were.

Wikileaks can only publish what Whistle Blowers release to them. It is laughable to see someone here claim that Wikileaks has refrained from attacking Russia, (releasing facts is not attacking but that is their interpretation of telling the truth) when they have not provided a shred of evidence that:

1) Wikileaks received documents on Russia exposing corruption from a Whistle Blower and ..
2) That Wikileaks withheld those documents.

For stevenleser's claims to be true, he would have to provide evidence of that the above happened.

He is under the impression from his comments, that Wikileaks is a 'news gathering' organization and they wont' 'cover' the 'news of corruption' in Russia.

That is the MOST incorrect statement about Wikileaks anyone could possibly make and demonstrates that on this subject, he is grossly misinformed.

[stevenleser]

89. You don't even know how ridiculous that sounds. Wikileaks is an international organization

the US has nothing to do with what they can or cannot release.

It is their agenda that stops them from doing it.

[sabrina 1]

97. Their agenda is clear and has never been hidden. What a ridiculous thing to say.

Their agenda is to release material provided to them by Whistle Blowers. The US most certainly has, illegally btw, prevented them from publishing Whistle Blower material by cutting off their funding. The entire WORLD knows this, so it is ridiculous to deny it especially since the US is quite unashamed of doing so.

I am providing FACTS, you so far, have demonstrated a surprising lack of knowledge of this subject despite my attempts to help you understand it.

And there is nothing ridiculous about providing facts so your attempt at personal insult has zero affect on me. I am far more affected by intelligent discussion even if I am proven wrong. So far, all you have done is continue to dig in on where you are so spectacularly incorrect and then resort to ad homs which have zero to do with facts.

[stevenleser]

98. Their agenda is to attack the US. That is clear, definitely. nt

[sabrina 1]

123. If releasing Whistle Blower material is 'attacking' a country, then they have 'attacked'

a huge number of countries throughout their existence. Most of the other countries they 'attacked' took steps, see Iceland, to investigate the leaks and to arrest and prosecute the wrong doers.

Are you claiming they attacked Iceland, Kenya eg? Exposing corruption is an 'attack' on a country?

How strange for someone on a dem forum to view the exposure of corruption as an 'attack on a country'.

And how odd that most other countries Wikileaks has 'attacked' didn't view it that way. Well the corrupt individuals probably did feel 'attacked', but certainly not the countries.

Sometimes it is better to admit to being wrong. You did not understand the function of New Media like Wikileaks and made claims based on a wrong assumption of what their function was, that they 'cover' news when in fact they do not.

I assume you have no information on their actual function to back up your claims that they are 'protecting Russian corruption' since you have not supplied anything to back up those claims. So we'll leave it that you were simply wrong.

[stevenleser]

87. If you don't want to talk about the comparison, don't bring it up.

If Greenwald and Assange are such big men who speak truth to power, then they should seek to expose the corruption and spying in Russia and China.

If they have all this power and influence you attribute to them, it should be no big deal. There are tons of examples of it.

The fact is, they're cowards who picked on the only one country out of the big three that won't kill them for it.

They're nothing. Assange and Greenwald are people who printed things that other people stole that was only news for people who weren't paying attention.

You're right about one thing. I'm nothing like them. I'm not a coward. If I decided my mission in life was to expose the misdeeds of countries and display them internationally, I'd start with the largest and worst offenders. I wouldnt start down on the list with the country that wouldn't pose a danger to my life.

[Luminous Animal]

95. Well, if you are such a big man, you should get on it!

I'm sure you could put aside your FOX news appearances for a few years, load up the Freedom of the Press Foundations encrypted "drop box" system on your website and let it be known that you are soliciting damaging info about China and Russia.

[stevenleser]

100. Not my interest. I don't have to live up to someone else's failed tag line.

If that were my interest I definitely would, but it isn't. My interest is US politics.

[Luminous Animal]

134. And Greenwald's interest for many years has been the US surveillance

state.

Funny that you don't grant him the privilege of focusing on what is important to him that you take for yourself.

[YoungDemCA]

107. +1

nt

[grantcart]

61. I was very intersted in your links.

however it seems that the first is a link to a plan in 2010 to expose corruption and the second one is about speculation about a plan to expose corruption.

Do you have any actual links to actual exposes of Putin, and more to the point any against the Russian Government after Snowden arrived there?

It just seems amazing to me that wiki is so brilliant at getting secret information from all different countries but doesn't bother to leak stories from one of the most corrupt companies where reporters who report on the matter are killed in significant numbers.

You would think that these same reporters would welcome the opportunity to send their information to wiki so that they could avoid getting killed.

[sabrina 1]

75. Have you read any of the Wikileaks cables? Apparently not. Russia wasn't happy

with Wikileaks, going quite a way back, BEFORE you apparently became aware of them, but they wisely mostly ignored them rather than draw attention to what they were revealing.

Wikileaks did NOT 'get secret information' from anyone. Do you know anything about this new media at all?

Let me help you. They NEVER sought information directly. What they did, in reaction mostly to China's suppression of freedom of speech after Tiananmen Sq, remember that, was to determine that Whistle Blowers in countries like China, Russia and many African nations could not safely leak material exposing corruption in their governments.

So they set up a safe service to allow Whistle Blowers to get their material out safely without being turned in by corrupt news organizations.

That is ALL they did. Used the new technology brilliantly to by-pass untrustworthy news media and get information out to the world with full protection for the leakers.

It was a huge success. Corrupt leaders of course hated them and even they were surprised and perhaps not prepared for, the danger THEY themselves found themselves in after exposing some pretty nasty characters.

It is hilarious to see anyone claim that Wikileaks had nothing to say about Russia. Too bad you weren't following them back during the Bush years.

At least let's stick to facts when we go after a free and open press. The model they created cannot be shut down now. We are in a new era of news reporting and while the US tried to silence them, something Russia did not do, wisely as can be seen by the over reaction to try to protect Bush War Criminals (why is this important to Dems, most of Manning's leaks were about Bush, did you know that?) they drew more attention to their own willingness to try to silence the media.

The remark about Russia and Wikileaks was ridiculous to anyone who knows the history.

And that is a fact.

[grantcart]

80. You seem to miss the point.

The point is did Russia become protected by Wikileaks after they gave Snowden refuge.

You allege that they used to be very aggressive against Putin but cannot supply any recent links, which reinforces the question.

Your over the top defensiveness reinforces it.

So I googled Wikileaks and Putin.

Found nothing recent except

WikiLeaks ✔ @wikileaks

We appreciate President Putin's supportive comments on #Assange and #Snowden.

There were relevant links going back to 2010 that seemed to show that Putin was hoarding massive wealth abroad (as much as $ 40 billion)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-vladimir-putin-claims

and allegations that Russia was fundamentally a Mafia state:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-russia-mafia-kleptocracy

Russia is a corrupt, autocratic kleptocracy centred on the leadership of Vladimir Putin, in which officials, oligarchs and organised crime are bound together to create a "virtual mafia state", according to leaked secret diplomatic cables

But even these rather old leaks aren't leaks of Russian cables but American assessment of Putin.

I know that you think that Wikileaks exposure of the corrupt Putin is both well known and obvious so it shouldn't be hard for you to simply provide a clear example of a damaging leak against Russia that Wikileaks has made in the recent future.

And their supplicating appreciative ingratiating groveling fawning slavish tweet doesn't really count.

[sabrina 1]

83. I am missing nothing. I have been aware of and followed Wikileaks and other New Media

since their creation.

For stevenleser's odd claims to be true, he would have to first, understand what Wikileaks is, which it is apparent he does not.


Let me ask you a question the answer to which should answer YOUR questions.

1) Did Wikileaks ever receive material from a Russian Whistle Blower?

and

2) Did Wikileaks not release that material?

You do understand that Wikileaks is NOT a news gathering organization. They publish ONLY material they receive from Whistle Blowers. Stevenleser apparently thinks they are a news gathering organization that they are deliberately not 'covering' corruption in Russia. That totally destroys his claims since they have never 'covered' any corruption anywhere. They have published documents received from Whistle Blowers period.

Now if you can prove that they withheld material from Russian Whistle Blowers, then YOU have a point. Otherwise your entire premise is undermined due to the fact it is based on a FALSE premise.

edited to add:

It's really simple, I am not aware of Wikileaks withholding material they received from a Russian Whistle Blower. I am interested to see stevenleser's evidence that they have, or yours. Otherwise he has no point. And if I were you, I would not want to be associated with such non credible accusations. But we'll see, I've given him a chance to provide evidence of his claims, this time with the knowledge of what Wikileaks actually does.

[stevenleser]

93. That person always misses points that don't go along with her agenda

and she always thinks her say so is an acceptable alternative to links.

[MADem]

144. Here's an interesting theory.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/b876a8bc035a

[Luminous Animal]

145. One day, when Mr. Foust learns how to cry on cue, he'll

be as popular as Glenn Beck.

Interesting.... theory....

[struggle4progress]

85. Since Tiananmen Square occurred 17 years before Wikileaks was founded, it's a bit of a stretch

to claim that Wikileaks was a reaction to Tiananmen Square

[sabrina 1]

90. Unbelievable how little some people know of the history of this New Media.

Are you saying that the Chinese dissidents, jailed and silenced by their government, the censorship that prevailed in China, was just forgotten, that the Chinese people who longed for a free press, 'just moved on' and decided that censorship and oppression and suppression of free expression, was just a few years later?

Is that how you view these egregious violations of human rights? That after a few years, we humans just forget what we used to be so passionate about and accept what we once opposed with our very lives?

Your comment makes me very sad.

Chinese dissidents among many others from around the world were part of the creation of Wikileaks still longing for the freedom they were willing to risk their freedom and even their lives for just a few years before the creation of Wikileaks.

It's stunning to me that anyone would find that funny.

[struggle4progress]

110. Sadly, my experience conversing with you frequently suggests you simply invent your claims,

in part because I seldom can find any evidence supporting things you assert as fact

Wikileaks in 2007 did post a claim Chinese dissidents were planning a Wikileaks-like site, under a headline claiming Chinese 'WikiLeaks' Aids Whistleblower

Apparently, this supposed Wikileaks collaboration with alleged "Chinese dissidents" either did not materialize, or did not last very long, since Assange eventually began attacking them:

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange doesn’t think much of the activists planning a Chinese version of WikiLeaks, blasting them with the kind of vitriol often reserved for him by critics of his document dumps ...
Assange Slams China's WikiLeaks Copycat: 'Very Dangerous To Do It Wrong'
Gady Epstein, Forbes Staff
11/30/2010 @ 6:17AM

Assange's personality actually make him unlikely to successfully collaborate with dissidents. For one thing, he has a reputation for a somewhat careless indifference to their fates: after one leak

... Two Kenyan human rights activists were assassinated in broad daylight — the result, Assange says, of their links to the leaking of the report. The problem, he says, was not that WikiLeaks failed to protect their identities but that they "weren't acting in an anonymous way" ...

And there are quite a few unfortunate indications of his own authoritarian streak, which produced a number of resignations from Wikileaks, and which has been more recently exhibited in the strange matter of the Wikileaks Party preferences in the Australian Federal election, which were directed in accordance with Assange's ideas, despite the contrary decisions of the supposed governing body of the Party, a fact which provoked a number of resignations. It should, of course, be clear that many people fighting against authoritarian regimes are unlikely to seek new authoritarians to direct their efforts

[sabrina 1]

156. Anyone who starts right out with a personal insult, doesn't get much credibility from

me. Kind of a waste of your time also since I am pretty much immune to such behavior having gone to the equivalent of Internet Boot Camp back in the Bush days while arguing with his, to be kind, 'supporters'.

But, back to the issue at hand. You have presented 'links' none of which have anything to do with the founding of Wikileaks, how the idea evolved, or why.



AND THAT is what I was referring to, the concept, the birth of the Org., NOT to the many spin-offs.

Assange, eg, was not one of the original founders. The project was started by people from all over the world, many of them Chinese Dissidents who provided some of the software, according to reports.

It was made up of thousands of people when it began and he was added to the staff, later.

Chinese Dissidents, in 2010 announced they would start their own site and 'keep in touch with Wikileaks'.

The idea of transparency in government, something Dems support as far as I know, has huge popularity around the world since the takeover of the Western Media by Corporations. So naturally there are many sites now imitating them.

The effort to protect the Bush criminals AND the corrupt Bankers has been intense, and puzzling on the Left since the Left for eight years, was calling for prosecutions of War Criminals and Wall St. Criminals. These attacks then on Wikileaks from the Left make little sense. Most of the leaks from Manning were about the Bush War Crimes.

[struggle4progress]

158. Once again, nary a link from you to support the claims you make with apparent certainty

Your assertion that Assange "was not one of the original founders" of Wikileaks, and that Chinese Dissidents" provided "some" of the original software, might (of course) be very interesting if actually true -- but you make this assertion without providing even a trace of evidence to support it, which (unfortunately) strikes me as your standard practice, and my long experience conversing with you suggests that your claims often do not accord with the facts

In this particular matter, I've indicated in my #110 upthread what I can easily find about "Chinese dissidents" and Wikileaks -- which mostly suggests to me that Assange heard rumors about a Chinese version of Wikileaks, tried to associate himself with it, and then (being unsuccessful in that effort) began to attack it

It would (of course) be fine with me if Assange were not the "founder of Wikileaks," but real evidence would be necessary to support your claims, especially now that Assange seems to be universally reported as the founder

Sydney Morning Herald May 17, 2010: ... Julian Assange ... Australian founder of ... Wikileaks ...
Jezebel 9/01/10: ... Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks ...
The New York Times December 27, 2010: ... Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks ...
Politico 1/11/12: ... WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange ...
The Philadelphia Inquirer February 22, 2011: ... WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ...
The Guardian 28 February 2011: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ...
CNN June 19, 2012: ... WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ...
The Independent 29 November 2012: ... WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ...
The New Statesman 06 February 2013: ... Julian Assange ... the Wikileaks founder ...
Democracy Now! May 29, 2013: ... WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ...
Xinhua 2013-05-30 ... WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ...
CBC Jun 03, 2013: ... Wikileaks founder ... Julian Assange ...
The Mirror 11 June 2013: ... WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ...
First Post 25 July 2013: ... Wikileaks founder Julian Assange ...
The Telegraph 31 July 2013: ... WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ...
(Melbourne) Herald Sun August 16, 2013: ... WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ...

[backscatter712]

20. Putin gets brownie points with his political base by giving a neener-neener to the U.S.

Good? Bad? It keeps a pair of heroes from being supermaxed. That's my take.

[SidDithers]

3. ...

Sid

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Exile?

I don't understand. Was the US trying to prosecute her?

How is this exile?

From wikipedia:

Exile means to be away from one's home (i.e. city, state or country), while either being explicitly refused permission to return and/or being threatened with imprisonment or death upon return. It can be a form of punishment and solitude.[1]

Is the DOJ trying to prosecute her?

[Blue_Tires]

6. I was about to ask that, too

I was thinking she meant "self-imposed exile?"

[Luminous Animal]

23. Also from Wikipedia: Exile can also be a self-imposed departure from one's homeland.

Self-exile is often depicted as a form of protest by the person that claims it, to avoid persecution or legal matters...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exile

Funny how that was left out.

[Luminous Animal]

11. She is from England. Her lawyer has advised her not to return at this time.

[Cali_Democrat]

19. Still not 'exile'

Your post title is laughable.

[Luminous Animal]

24. Your truncated snip for Wikipedia is laughable.

[Cali_Democrat]

34. So how do you define exile?

How about Google?

https://www.google.com/#q=exile+definition

Like I said, laughable.

[Luminous Animal]

37. Keep laughing: From the Oxford dictionary:

a person who lives away from their native country, either from choice or compulsion

From the Free Dictionary:
Self-imposed absence from one's country

From Merriam-Webster:
the state or a period of voluntary absence from one's country or home

[Cali_Democrat]

38. BWHAHAHA!!

You're fun!!!

Of course you conveniently skip over the very first sentence in both cases:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/exile?q=exile

the state of being barred from one’s native country, typically for political or punitive reasons

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exile

a situation in which you are forced to leave your country or home and go to live in a foreign country

[Luminous Animal]

39. You really must think that DUers are stupid.

[Cali_Democrat]

36. Oh I almost forgot:

Fuck Ron Paul.

[reddread]

62. I will miss your salience

well, if there were something to miss.

[Cali_Democrat]

64. You're leaving?

Who are you again?

[Mojorabbit]

91. Way to add something intelligent to the conversation! nt

[Cali_Democrat]

99. Any time is a good time for a 'fuck Ron Paul' post

Unless of course you're a libertarian or a libertarian sympathizer.

Then it just might be offensive!

[flamingdem]

118. And his spawn!

The Plagerizer dude

[Luminous Animal]

136. It is the heighth of engaging discourse.

Looking forward to the spirited discussion about how long a pole one would be comfortable with which to fuck him.

DUer 1: "My pole would have to be 10 foot long before I'd fuck him."

DUer 2" Ew dood, your pole would only 10 foot long? My pole would have to be 15 feet long."

DUer 3: "Wow, ya'll are amateurs on pole fucking. It would have to be at least a bazillion feet long with barbs 1 inch apart and I would have to be wearing a suit of armor and an invisibility cloak."

DUers 4-22: "DUer 3 for the win on Ron Paul fucking!"

[Mojorabbit]

153. LOL

There is always one poster guaranteed to post that. I bow before such keen minds and in depth analysis. It makes the board discussions so engaging.
On edit and looking down thread the group has swarmed the thread and disrupted it so that no free flowing conversation can be had.

[Gravitycollapse]

139. If she fears prosecution, then that is absolutely a form of exile.

[geek tragedy]

5. living abroad as an ex-pat is not 'exile' nt

[RobertEarl]

10. Fearless, are you?

When whistleblowers come forward we need to fight for them, so others will be encouraged. When they are gagged, we must be their voice. When they are hunted, we must be their shield. When they are locked away, we must free them. Giving us the truth is not a crime. This is our data, our information, our history. We must fight to own it.

[geek tragedy]

12. I once spent 20 nights in Europe. Criticized Bush while there.

Maybe I should have called it 'exile' instead of 'vacation.'

[RobertEarl]

13. You criticized him?

You probably think you are a hero....

When whistleblowers come forward we need to fight for them, so others will be encouraged. When they are gagged, we must be their voice. When they are hunted, we must be their shield. When they are locked away, we must free them. Giving us the truth is not a crime. This is our data, our information, our history. We must fight to own it.

[Luminous Animal]

14. So, you were worried that Bush would prosecute you, eh?

That was mighty brave of you.

[geek tragedy]

15. No, I was under no threat at all.

Is this woman under threat of prosecution?

[RobertEarl]

16. You are

You'd love to see her prosecuted, wouldn't you?
Be honest.

[geek tragedy]

17. No, I'd oppose prosecuting wikileaks. Would set a horrible precedent. nt

[RobertEarl]

18. Eh?

You want freedom for Assange?

The precedent has already been set. You are quite aways behind the past even. Why should we listen to you at all? Be honest.

[Luminous Animal]

22. Have you read about what is going on in England right now?

With The High Court of Justice conducting a hearing to determine whether or not to designate Greenwald's husband a terrorist?

I do believe she and her lawyer have logically concluded that it is not safe for her to travel to England at this time.

[geek tragedy]

25. What's going on in England is that Miranda (who was released after 9 hours

after a patently abusive detention) has filed suit from the comfort of his home in Brazil. The Brits obnoxiously claimed he was engaged in 'terrorism' per their stupidly overbroad state security laws.

As indefensible as that episode was/is, Miranda wasn't arrested, he was hassled at an airport.

[Luminous Animal]

26. The Security Service advised the police to detain Miranda based on their assessment that he may have

been engaged in terrorist activity. Miranda's case, currently being held, is to determine if whether the Security Service over-reached.

So what if the court decides for the state?

The Security Service assessment was contained in the final draft of a document called the “Ports Circulation Sheet”, a key passage from which was published in The Observer this weekend and which reads (para. 28 of the police defence):

Intelligence indicates that MIRANDA is likely to be involved in espionage activity which has the potential to act against the interests of UK national security. We therefore wish to establish the nature of MIRANDA’s activity, assess the risk that poses to UK national security and mitigate as appropriate. We are requesting that you exercise your powers to carry out a ports stop against MIRANDA.

We assess that MIRANDA is knowingly carrying material, the release of which would endanger people’s lives. Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government, and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism and as such we request that the subject is examined under Schedule 7.

Sarah Harrison is smart to stay away from British airports right now,

[geek tragedy]

27. Well, any self-respecting journalist should be leery of British airports.

But, staying in Germany voluntarily in the absence of indictment or other legal proceedings in the UK is not exile. At most, it's a precautionary measure.

[Luminous Animal]

29. Self-imposed exile to avoid persecution is exile.

[geek tragedy]

30. No it's not, especially when that persecution is purely speculative. nt

[Luminous Animal]

35. From the Oxford dictionary:

a person who lives away from their native country, either from choice or compulsion

From the Free Dictionary:
Self-imposed absence from one's country

From Merriam-Webster:
the state or a period of voluntary absence from one's country or home

You are welcome to make up your own definitions but doing so does not make you right

[geek tragedy]

53. So, there's no difference between exiles and ex-pats? nt

[Luminous Animal]

57. Oxford dictionary says that "exile" is an archaic definition of expatriot.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/expatriate

[geek tragedy]

59. Expat on Main Street doesn't have the same oomph nt

[struggle4progress]

32. Since when has David Miranda been "she"?

[Luminous Animal]

33. The she is Sarah Harrison. The topic of the OP.

[struggle4progress]

44. Ah. Your #22 didn't mention Sarah directly, and I had to do my best to decipher the pronoun

[davidn3600]

56. It is well advised she stay away from Britain and the United States

She helped Snowden escape. She's one of Assange's closest friends and aides. If she steps foot in New York or London, she'd be pounced on by the government. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

[Luminous Animal]

67. Exactly.

[Major Hogwash]

7. "Snowden is currently safe in Russia . . ."

Good.
He can stay for the rest of his pathetic life there, too.

[reddread]

63. would you send Al Gore into exile as well?

I feel like a chimney sweep tonight.

[struggle4progress]

28. Sarah Harrison has a bad habit of misrepresenting facts:

"... Manning ... is currently serving a 35-year sentence for exposing the true nature of war ..."

Um, no. Manning was sentenced for the unauthorized bulk release of approximately 730 000 restricted documents. Manning arrived in Iraq in October 2009 and was arrested in May 2010 -- a period not exceeding eight months. If, for sixteen hours a day during this eight months, Manning had done nothing but read those documents, Manning would have had to read and assess about 200 documents an hour, which is an impossibility The only conclusion is that Manning engaged in an unprincipled document dump

"Jeremy Hammond is facing a decade in a New York jail for allegedly providing journalists with documents that exposed corporate surveillance"

Um, no. Hammond was indicting for hacking. He pleaded guilty in May, at which time he also admitted his involvement in multiple additional hacks, including: the June 2011 hack of computer systems used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Virtual Academy; the June 2011 hack of computer systems used by the Arizona Department of Public Safety, a state law enforcement agency in Arizona; the July 2011 hack of computer systems owned by Brooks-Jeffrey Marketing, Inc., a company based in Mountain Home, Arkansas, and various law enforcement-related websites; the August 2011 hack of computer systems used by Special Forces Gear, a company based in California; the August 2011 hack of computer systems used by Vanguard Defense Industries, a company based in Texas; the October 2011 hack of computer systems used by the Jefferson County, Alabama Sheriff’s Office; the October 2011 hack of computer systems used by the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association; and the February 2012 hack of computer systems used by the Combined Systems, Inc., a company based in Pennsylvania.

Hammond is a troubled man. He has in the past pleaded guilty to battery. In 2006, Hammond pleaded guilty and received a prison sentence for hacking activities and possession of stolen credit card information. In another case, he was convicted participating in a mob action with property damage

"Barrett Brown is indicted for reporting on unethical surveillance practices"

Um, no. Brown's first three indictments were for making an online threat, retaliating against a federal officer and conspiring to release the personal information of a U.S. government employee. Then he was indicted further for possessing stolen credit card numbers and CCVs. His third indictment was for obstruction of justice and concealing evidence

My editor Julian Assange has asylum over US threats, but the United Kingdom refuses to allow him to fully exercise this right, violating the law

Um, no. Assange jumped bail and fled to the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faced prosecution for sexual assault. The legal process for his extradition took about a year and a half, and Assange chose to jump bail, rather than to continue his appeals. There is no reason to think that United States has ever threatened him. There is no universally recognized right under international law to diplomatic asylum in an embassy. Although Ecuador is itself party to some Latin American treaties governing diplomatic asylum between the signatories, the UK does not officially recognize diplomatic asylum and is not party to any such treaty, with Ecuador or anyone else

[geek tragedy]

31. those pesky facts. nt

[Luminous Animal]

41. Surprise surprise.... Sarah Harrison and I agree with her interpretation of the facts...

When I hear that someone is arrested and or imprisoned for drug use, my facts tell me that it is an injustice whereas your facts merely state that it is the law. Well there are a quite a few things that are "the law" but not justice.

[struggle4progress]

42. Nope: there's nothing in my #28 about anybody's drug use.

[treestar]

43. She is under no more danger of persecution than Julian or Eddie

These people are insufferable. Making up their own B movie and expecting everyone else to believe it is real.

[struggle4progress]

45. Folks have a rough life, living out there in Crazy Camp

[Luminous Animal]

46. Really. Edward will not be arrested or prosecuted? Julian assanges is free to travel to the

country that has granted him asylum?

Both are being persecuted.

[treestar]

47. No they are avoiding trials in countries

that are Western countries with standards.

Persecution is where you go to jail without trial or without fair trial with access to counsel, rights to speedy trial, etc. Or the laws are unfair, like different if you are a woman or a minority.

[Luminous Animal]

50. Amazing how many people do not know the meanings of words these days.

I'd say #2 in all three examples applies to both Snowden and Assange.

1) subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of their race or political or religious beliefs:his followers were persecuted by the authorities
2) harass or annoy (someone) persistently:

1) to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief
2 to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities) : pester

1) to subject to harassing or cruel treatment, as because of religion, race, or beliefs; oppress.
3) to annoy or trouble persistently.

And you gotta love those Western standards... indefinite detention, assassination, extra-judicial confiscation of property (drug seizures), stop & frisk, torture, black sites, drone terrorism.

USA USA USA !!!

[treestar]

149. the meaning of persecution

has to do with legal standards.

No one is imprisoned for their race, etc. in the US. Not specifically. Some races may be treated with more suspicion and thrown into the legal system, but that is not built into the law.

Western standards - by that I mean right to counsel, right to remain silent, burden of proof, right to cross examine witnesses, etc., which you well know are features of ours and other systems, which Julian (who is not even under a charge hear) or Eddie or whatever other poser would have the right to.

We don't have extra-judicial anything here once Bush was gone. And even he could be challenged in the courts over it, and lost, and there is case law on that.

[YoungDemCA]

103. "Western countries with standards"

In other words, our culture is superior to "non-Western" societies.

I'm sure you're willing to tell the victims of American military actions-bombings, drone strikes, "collateral damage"-that so-called "Western civilization" is "enlightened."

[treestar]

148. Check out the legal system in Saudi Arabia or any middle eastern country

then explain why western countries are not "better."

[struggle4progress]

48. Persecute

per·se·cute ... To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs ...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/persecute

Persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another individual or group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution

[Luminous Animal]

58. What is it with people who glean only the most advantagous part of a definition and think we are too

stupid to know that many English words have more than one (though most often related) meanings.

And, yes dear, I know the difference. He is being persecuted with the prospect of prosecution.

[struggle4progress]

66. Well, Snowden has said since June he's a victim of persecution, but the facts suggest otherwise

To my knowledge, no one has ever made any case whatsoever that Snowden was persecuted in the US. He had a comfortable job and home life in Hawaii

He doesn't even seem to have been under suspicion when he left for China -- although he did misrepresent where he was going, which to most people will suggest flight to avoid prosecution. No Federal charges against him were filed until he hit the news while in China, at which point US authorities concluded that he had stolen government property and that he was deliberately providing classified information to unauthorized persons, and obtained indictments for the same offenses

When the US routinely revoked his passport, on the standard grounds that he was a wanted fugitive, Snowden promptly claimed -- with a now familiar hyperbole -- that the US had rendered him stateless. Of course, that claim, like many of his others, simply wasn't true. A stateless person, under international law, is a person without any citizenship. Snowden is a US citizen, born in the US; and under the current US constitution, there is no way for Snowden to lose his citizenship, no matter what he might do and no matter what accusations might be brought against him

Snowden hasn't been in the US since first appearing in China. From China, he headed to Russia. The US has rather limited influence in China and Russia: for example, Hong Kong turned down a US extradition request for Snowden, and China and Russia allowed Snowden to fly to Moscow, despite his lack of a valid passport

That hasn't prevented Snowden from continually making claims such as his most recent I have faced a severe and sustained campaign of persecution that forced me from my family and home. But why would anyone take these noises seriously? It wasn't "persecution" that motivated Snowden's flight from his Hawaiian home or family: it was the knowledge that he would be prosecuted for activities easily identifiable as crimes, having a clear statutory basis and with a substantial body of case law. His stay in China seems to have been quite comfortable, and he does not seem to be suffering in Russia either, having been adopted by some rather well-connected figures there, including his lawyer

[Luminous Animal]

77. No he hasn't. In June he made the claim that he would be persecuted

and he has. He never made the claim that he was previously or at that time being prosecuted.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/47355/edward-snowden-interview-transcript-full-text-read-the-guardian-s-entire-interview-with-the-man-who-leaked-prism

Snowden, no doubt was employing the concept of de facto stateless:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness#cite_note-2

A de facto stateless person is someone who is outside the country of his or her nationality and is unable or, for valid reasons, unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country.[2] This can be a result of persecution or a consequence of lack of diplomatic relations between the state of nationality and the state of residence.

[struggle4progress]

122. Statelessness is governed by the 1961 convention, which nowhere regards a valid passport

as an indicator but addresses instead the issue of nationality; see Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (pdf)

Snowden's actual claim was: "The Obama administration has now adopted the strategy of using citizenship as a weapon. Although I am convicted of nothing, it has unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me a stateless person"

Revocation of passports is a routine regulatory action in certain circumstances: A federal, state or local law enforcement agency may request the denial or revocation of a passport on several regulatory grounds set forth in 22 C.F.R. §§ 51.60, 51.61, and 51.62. The principal law enforcement reasons for passport denial or revocation are an unsealed federal, state, or local felony arrest warrant, a federal or state criminal court order or a condition of parole or probation forbidding departure from the United States (or the jurisdiction of the court), or a request for extradition to or from the United States

In Snowden's case, the passport revocation was associated with a request for extradition to the US from Hong Kong

Revocation of a passport is not revocation of citizenship. Snowden, as a person born in the US and a citizen since birth, cannot lose his US citizenship, without himself renouncing it; there is simply no mechanism for it; and the language of the Fourteenth Amendment is entirely uncompromising -- All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ...

The bottom line, of course, is that Snowden was simply bullshizzing when he made thart statement, unsurprising given how often he has bullshizzed on other matters

[Luminous Animal]

125. He defined his statelessness using international standards. Which I provided to you.

And, as as usual, you are unwilling to expand your knowledge base.

[struggle4progress]

140. You merely provided a link to a Wikipedia article, which traces back to a record

of 2010 discussions conducted through UNHCR on various questions involving the evolution of the notion of statelessness. Had you actually read the UNHCR document, you would have found that

... there is an international treaty regime for the protection of stateless persons ... However, there is no similar regime for de facto stateless persons. A number of participants referred to gaps in the existing international protection regime that affect de facto stateless persons ... On the
other hand, some participants expressed the view that the concept of de facto stateless persons
is problematic ...

That is, despite your claim that Snowden was referencing "international standards" and was "employing the concept of de facto stateless", (1) there is at present no consensus on the notion de facto stateless and so no treaty currently discusses the notion; and moreover (2) Snowden's statement referred to his alleged "statelessness" rather than to some alleged "de facto statelessness," which you want to read into the statement

The discussions that you link, indirectly, through Wikipedia, did indicate many participants wanted to define de facto stateless persons as persons outside the country of their nationality who are unable or, for valid reasons, are unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country. Protection in this sense refers to the right of diplomatic protection exercised by a State of nationality in order to remedy an internationally wrongful act against one of its nationals, as well as diplomatic and consular protection and assistance generally, including in relation to return to the State of nationality. However, these participants largely appear to have agreed that The existing universal and regional refugee protection instruments reflect the current consensus of States on what constitute “valid reasons” for refusing the protection of
one’s country of nationality. Persons who refuse the protection of the country of their nationality when it is available and who do not fall under one or more of the aforementioned instruments are not de facto stateless

As remarked previously, these discussions do not establish international standards, but merely reflect discussions. However, it is clear that were a category of de facto stateless persons to win explicit protection under international law at some future time, the protected category would not include everyone "unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection" of their own country, but only as a enlargement of the persons already protected by "existing universal and regional refugee protection instruments"

Any unwillingness by Snowden to avail himself of US protection is at present hypothetical: there is no evidence that Snowden has required or does require diplomatic protection against an internationally wrongful act, nor is there any evidence that the US has or would refuse to offer him diplomatic protection against an internationally wrongful act. In particular, there is no evidence the US would seek to prevent his return to his country of nationality; indeed, the US seeks his return and would facilitate it, though that might also entail in this case a criminal prosecution for which Snowden has little enthusiasm. Snowden's hypothetical unwillingness to avail himself of US protection, against a hypothetical internationally wrongful act, presumably lies in Snowden's unwillingness to submit to criminal prosecution. However, international law provides a principle of non-refoulement only under limited circumstances, and Snowden's mere desire to escape prosecution, on recognizably criminal charges, will alone be insufficient to bring non-refoulement into play

Bottom line: There isn't today a clear internationally-recognized category of de facto stateless persons, -- and if such a category emerged tomorrow, it still wouldn't include Snowden

[Luminous Animal]

141. Yes. It was a discussion and a very interesting one at that but

it doesn't mean that the concept doesn't exist and a human being can characterized as such based on that discussion.

Institutional racism existed as a concept before it was recognized judicially. That does not mean that those who claimed to be victims of institutional racism were wrong.

[struggle4progress]

49. Prosecute

pros·e·cute ... to hold a trial against a person who is accused of a crime to see if that person is guilty ... to work as a lawyer to try to prove a case against someone accused of a crime ...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosecute

PROSECUTION, crim. law. The means adopted to bring a supposed offender to justice and punishment by due course of law ...
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/prosecution

[Luminous Animal]

52. Yes dear, I know the difference. He is being persecuted with the prospect of prosecution.

[struggle4progress]

68. See #66

[struggle4progress]

51. Examples of correct uses of "prosecute":

Sweden intends to prosecute Assange for sexual assault

The US intends to prosecute Snowden for theft of government property, for unauthorized communication of defense information, and for willful communication of classified information to an unauthorized person

[Luminous Animal]

54. What the fuck are you going on about? I understand the difference between the two and I used them

both correctly.

Go buzz around someone else.

[struggle4progress]

69. See #66

[stevenleser]

102. No, you clearly dont understand the difference. nt

[Luminous Animal]

106. Clearly, I do. Snowden is being persecuted for escaping probable prosecution.

[stevenleser]

112. Clearly, you don't. If that fit, any criminal fleeing prosecution could claim it. nt

[Luminous Animal]

117. If what fit? What? You've just wandered off the farm...

FYI, the UN and international treaties distinguish between protection for those sought for political prosecution from those who are sought for criminal prosecution.

And yes. I do understand the difference between persecution and prosecution and have used both words correctly.

[msanthrope]

150. That's not persecution. nt

[randome]

155. Sure it is. Just like Ariel Castro was persecuted.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Union Scribe]

142. Perhaps you should save the English lectures

for when you learn to put periods at the end of your sentences.

[struggle4progress]

143. Meh. Periods are irritating little buggers. One ought to leave them out unless they're necessary

I guess you probably wouldn't like any of my other typographical theories, either -- like my realization that letters in each word should really be arranged in order of increasing height, to avoid harmful strains on a reader's eyes

mI' yprett usre atth if ppoeel eritd ,it yetdh' ocem ot eikl ,it utb oklf get so guacht pu in aoriinttd

[struggle4progress]

55. Examples of correct uses of "persecute"

Both Catholics and Protestants persecuted the Anabaptists in early modern Europe

Persecution of Communists was common in the US during the McCarthy era

[Luminous Animal]

60. Snowden is being persecuted with the threat of prosecution.

No there you go.

Another example: Mary was persecuted by her bullies.

[struggle4progress]

70. See #66

[bobduca]

65. K&R

So many Snowden-bashing authoritarian cowards... full iggy ftw

[woo me with science]

79. HUGE K&R Powerful and important statement that needs to be seen by everyone.

And, of course, the corporate propaganda is thick already in this thread, trying to trash and obscure the critical message here. Governments that build surveillance machines also build propaganda machines.

Please repost, forward, email, tweet, etc. this EVERYWHERE.

[pnwmom]

82. Nowhere in that long, long letter does it say she's in exile.

It says that other people are in exile, but it specifically doesn't list her.

How come, if she's in exile, too?

And Germany would be a pretty dumb place for her to be in exile -- supposedly afraid to go back to the UK -- since Germany has an extradition agreement with the UK. Actually, it's a EU agreement that makes it even simpler for Germany to ship her off to the UK than an extradition agreement.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/framework-decision-on-the-european-arrest-warrant--2

She's just grandstanding.

[randome]

84. Does she have an editor? Maybe HE'S in exile.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Luminous Animal]

92. To fly to a foreign country in order to reside there to escape persecution

in ones own country is what exile is. It might be temporary or it may be permanent as both U.S. citizens Poitras and Applebaum suspect for themselves.

[pnwmom]

109. But she's not there to escape persecution because if the UK asked for her,

Germany would send her right back. She'd have to go somewhere else if her goal was to escape persecution -- rather than just get some publicity.

[Luminous Animal]

114. Not prosecution but rather persecution and on the advice of her

lawyer she is going to avoid flying into her own country. There is no such thing as an extradition treaty in order to persecute.

[pnwmom]

116. If her lawyer were advising her to stay out of the UK for legal reasons,

he'd also advise her to stay out of Germany, and anywhere else in the EU. They have an agreement of cooperation that would mean she's no safer there from "persecution" or "prosecution" than she is in the UK.

[Luminous Animal]

120. There is no such thing as an extradition treaty for the purpose of allowing a

government to persecute. So yes, in Germany, she is safe from UK persecution.

[pnwmom]

126. An attorney wouldn't be advising her about "persecution."

Because "persecution" isn't "prosecution" an attorney wouldn't be advising her on that.

[Luminous Animal]

128. Um. Yes and attorney would. An attorney would advise staying clear

of security agencies who would detain her under any condition they see fit and seize her electronic equipment. Thus, avoiding persecution with no guarantee, based on that detention and seizure that prosecution may result.

[pnwmom]

130. Then she is worried about prosecution, and she's at as much risk

in Germany's airport -- according to everything Wikileaks has already leaked about Germany -- as she is in the UK's.

If she were seriously, seriously concerned about persecution/prosecution/whatever, then Germany would not be a good place for a hideout.

[Luminous Animal]

131. Keep beating that horse. Others who work with wikileaks and Snowden have taken

refuge in Berlin. She likely thought, based on their experience, it was her best bet.

[pnwmom]

133. "Taken refuge in Berlin." These people are into high drama. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

135. Really, Laura Poitras has been interrogated dozens of times and her

equipment withheld and the information therein copied. She has also been threatened with arrest for taking hand written notes.

She is done with traveling to her own country.

Jacob Applebaum has experienced similar with his equipment permanently seized.

He is done traveling to his own country.

They have taken refuge in Berlin.

What would you do if your work regularly necessitated that you travel outside the U.S. and that every time you returned home, you were detained and your equipment confiscated and searched?

I suspect, that if the nature of your work allowed it, you would dramatically, live elsewhere.

[pnwmom]

137. I wouldn't feel safe in Berlin of all places. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

138. I respect your opinion but 2 regularly persecuted U.S. citizens

seem comfortable there. I hope that they can continue living there unmolested.

[idwiyo]

86. k&r

[Lifelong Dem]

105. What happens to Snowden when he breaks a Russian law?

Surprised he lasted this long. Some pampering must be happening.

[bobduca]

113. yeah tech support for a website requires so many criminal acts! n/t

[Lifelong Dem]

115. I was thinking of the hookers he is hanging around with

[Luminous Animal]

124. Oooh. New stupid smear.

[bobduca]

151. Smear merchants

It's almost as if there is a factory somewhere stamping out NSA-loving, Snowden-hating Good-Democrats.

[randome]

146. He ditched his beautiful fiance and had no friends in the U.S.

I doubt he has the social skills needed to 'hang out' with anyone.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Lifelong Dem]

157. On the left, and on the right

And Snowden saying say what?

[flamingdem]

119. It reminds me of running away from home when one is a child

Done for effect and to get attention.

The Germans will probably support her in her tragic stance.
They (counterculture) love that kind of stuff.

[davidn3600]

132. Im sure they will support her especially after the revelations the NSA taps Merkel's phone

It supports Snowden and WikiLeaks claim that America is spying on the entire world.

[Zorra]

121. Doesn't she realize that if governments were transparent, everyone would plainly see that

multinational corporations own them?

The business of governments is business. Jeepers, transparency would lead to democratic revolution!

You'd better watch out
You'd better not cry
You'd better not pout
I'm telling you why

The NSA is comin' to town

They're making a list
and checking it twice
Doesn't matter if
you're naughty or nice

The NSA is comin' to town

They see you when you're sleeping
They know when you're awake
They know what I just what I wrote right here
cuz we live in a surveillance state

So you better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I'm telling you why

The NSA is comin' to town

All the suits in corporate whoreland
Will have a jubilee
They know they'll make more coin and
take away our liberty.

So you better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I'm telling you why

The NSA (is comin' to town)
The NSA (is comin' to town)
The NSA is comni'
The NSA is comin'
The NSA is comin'
To toooooowwwwwn!

[dionysus]

154. oh the melodrama.