Funny how the prominent left politicians (not citizens) are coming out and showing who they really are: Neocons.<p>The only thing 'deeply troubling' is that both sides are labeling a whistleblower as a 'leaker' and 'traitor' when all he's done is expose that U.S. citizens info is collected without warrants, a likely constitutional violation.
> A frustrated Secretary of State John F. Kerry said he was troubled by the apparent refusal of fellow world powers China and Russia to respond to espionage charges the United States had filed against Snowden, who leaked top-secret documents about U.S. surveillance programs.<p>This is kind of a strange statement. On what grounds could/would China or Russia "respond to espionage charges" in the absence of extradition treaties with the US?<p>Its also somewhat strange the US would expect any other country, especially these two, to care deeply about leaks against it that expose massive US/British spying against basically the whole world.
I wonder how those reporters feel signing up for a 12 hour flight to Cuba now for nothing. I have to confess I chuckled with the "they locked the doors and he's not on the flight!" tweet. Rountrip to Cuba for nothing.
This is ironic.<p>Snowden is able to pass through Russian territory because, according to the law of Russia, it is allowed. This, says Mr Kerry, is deeply troubling.<p>However, blanket monitoring of internet activity, which according to the law of the US, is allowed, is not deeply troubling?
>He cited U.S. refusals to extradite bankers convicted in crimes in Ecuador, saying Quito was now free to exercise its “sovereignty” in the same way.<p>Way to go Ecuador!<p>>“There is no small irony here,” Kerry added, posing the hypothetical question of whether Snowden sought refuge in China and Russia “because they’re such powerful bastions of Internet freedom.”<p>No sign of shame or embarrassment. Disgusting.
Hm. His passport was revoked. Reminds me of the communist era here in eastern Europe when people were not allowed to hold passports, unless the state decided that it's safe to let them travel abroad.
> [Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.)] added: “These are countries that violate press freedoms every day. And yet [Snowden]’s seeking political asylum in those very countries where . . . if he were to pull a Snowden in these countries, they’d jail him immediately.”<p>...exactly as the US has attempted to do, on trumped-up espionage charges no less? The _only_ reason that didn't happen in this case is because he learned from previous leakers and was smart enough to protect himself by fleeing the country beforehand.
>“Ecuador puts its principles above its economic interests,” he said.<p>Something about this statement made me wonder: is Ecuador just collecting political fugitives so that it can cut some nice deal with the US in the future? This isn't a country with a stellar human rights record. I'm not sure how comfortable I am with them accumulating a stable of high profile asylum-seeking bargaining chips.
From the article: <i>The flight from [Moscow] was packed with journalists who had purchased tickets believing that Snowden would be on the flight.</i><p>It would be hilarious if Snowden and his companions tried to get seats on that flight, but could not, because it was already fully booked by these proactive journalists.
“It would be very disappointing if he was willfully allowed to board an airplane,” said Kerry, who was traveling in New Delhi. <i>“There would be without any doubt . . . consequences.”</i> [emphasis mine].<p>What is he insinuating by saying something cryptic like this?
> "if he were to pull a Snowden in these countries, they’d jail him immediately."<p>This is the first time I've noticed this usage of "Snowden". Anyone noticed it earlier?
> “The bottom line is very simple,” Schumer said. “Allies are supposed to treat each other in decent ways, and Putin always seems almost eager to put a finger in the eye of the United States, whether it is Syria, Iran and now, of course, with Snowden. That’s not how allies should treat one another, and I think it will have serious consequences for the United States-Russia relationship.”<p>And spying on so many of the citizens of so many allies is somehow perfectly ok?
The tone of this article suggests Snowden is nothing more than a pawn in someone else's game.<p>Why should anyone care so much about him? We've heard repeatedly that what he has disclosed - a massive amount of spying on Americans and other nationals - was already known by everyone.<p>Who was that person who said: If you are worried about someone discovering your "secret" activities, then maybe you
be doing those activities in the first place.<p>Maybe the sooner politicians accept that "frictionless sharing" is the future, the better off we'll all be? What do you think?<p>Other commenters have pointed out that most users outside HN do not care about data privacy. So why should politicians care? Are they a special case? I thought they represent the views of their constituents.
These politicians are increasingly sounding desperate. Like the parents of a teenager who realize that their power is not limitless and is in fact evaporating.
How is Snowden pulling this off? Can anyone elaborate on the balance of power that has allowed him to stay free and travel? This seems to be quite a feat, but I can't read between the lines enough to sort out why these foreign powers are staying out of his hair.
From a politics standpoint, this is really really poor diplomacy, giving a public tone which makes us look weak and forcing us into a position where the US looks servile to other countries. It's just sloppy.<p>Why can't we have Clinton back as Secretary of State?