Privacy and the State

[Serial_Apologist]

Maybe scottycelt can remind us what this has to do with "containing terrorism"? They are spying on their many supposed enemies, but also on their supposed allies, and even on their own citizens, and all seemingly with the connivance of their lickspittles in London. In what way is this making the world safer - apart from safer for the profits of those at the top of the aforementioned complex, who IMO are the most frightening human beings on the planet?

I can't help feeling that those who fail to understand what is happening, including some who post on this forum, do so out of fear that to understand would blow too many holes in their basic assumptions regarding "the ills of the world". Fear makes them stick to their long-held opinions come hell or high water, regardless of all evidences to the contrary, and for them this in turn blocks any possibilities for change for the better, leading to a feeling that solutions can ever only be on the level of the individual and his or her conscience.

Of course, change may turn out in the end to be impossible. The forces in charge may possess overwhelming power to quosh that possibility. One may have to face up to that; but it shouldn't preclude understanding why what is at stake is so, I think.

[Richard Barrett]

regarded it as a compliment to be bad mouthed by Cheney

I respect him more all the time. (Snowden not Cheney.)

[scottycelt]

I can't help feeling that those who fail to understand what is happening, including some who post on this forum, do so out of fear that to understand would blow too many holes in their basic assumptions regarding "the ills of the world". Fear makes them stick to their long-held opinions come hell or high water, regardless of all evidences to the contrary, and for them this in turn blocks any possibilities for change for the better, leading to a feeling that solutions can ever only be on the level of the individual and his or her conscience.

Of course, change may turn out in the end to be impossible. The forces in charge may possess overwhelming power to quosh that possibility. One may have to face up to that; but it shouldn't preclude understanding why what is at stake is so, I think.

Well, of course, it could just be that S_A, Richard Barrett et al are the font of all political wisdom in stark contrast to Obama and those 'lickspittle' Yankee lackeys like Putin and Xi.

Even I'm beginning now to yearn for some government, ANY government, to be wise enough to grant Mr Snowden asylum, and then we idiots can concentrate on really trivial issues like the horrifying abuse scandals in the NHS (strangely deafening silence about that around here) and whether our MPs richly deserve a 15% salary increase in times of 'austerity'

There must be one government wise enough somewhere around the world, surely ... ?

[Richard Barrett]

the font of all political wisdom

Quite clearly, nobody here is claiming to be that; but only that the interests of ordinary people across the world are in "stark contrast" to those of Obama et al., who, amazingly, don't tell the truth about why they do the things that they do. Over Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, they were quite comprehensively found out even before they did it; but they rely on there being just enough credulous people out there who'll swallow their lies for just long enough. Why anyone should believe that they (for thie first time) have the best interests of anyone but themselves and their class in mind when they now pursue this blanket surveillance policy is incredible, and frightening. Almost every foreign policy initiative followed by Bush/Obama and their cheerleaders across the Atlantic has had the effect of generally increasing the threat of terrorism. The effect of this is to instil a generalised fear which "justifies" the surveillance society. And again there are just enough people who don't or won't see what's being perpetrated.

[teamsaint]

Well, of course, it could just be that S_A, Richard Barrett et al are the font of all political wisdom in stark contrast to Obama and those 'lickspittle' Yankee lackeys like Putin and Xi.

Even I'm beginning now to yearn for some government, ANY government, to be wise enough to grant Mr Snowden asylum, and then we idiots can concentrate on really trivial issues like the horrifying abuse scandals in the NHS (strangely deafening silence about that around here) and whether our MPs richly deserve a 15% salary increase in times of 'austerity'

There must be one government wise enough somewhere around the world, surely ... ?

Well I know we are probably coming at this from different angles, and with regard to different issues, but I think you will fins they are pretty much birds of a feather, Scotty.

Obama? do me a favour.

[ahinton]

Even I'm beginning now to yearn for some government, ANY government, to be wise enough to grant Mr Snowden asylum, and then we idiots can concentrate on really trivial issues like the horrifying abuse scandals in the NHS (strangely deafening silence about that around here) and whether our MPs richly deserve a 15% salary increase in times of 'austerity'

Might the fact of that "deafening silence" have something to do with these issues being unconnected with the thread topic?

[Richard Barrett]

I think you will find they are pretty much birds of a feather, Scotty.

On one hand, no government is "wise" enough to offer asylum to Snowden. On the other, governments' protestations that their spying comes from motives pure as the driven snow are believed without question. On one hand, Snowden is compared with Burgess, Philby and Maclean. On the other, this comparison was "never meant to be wholly accurate". On one hand, "there sometimes can be extenuating circumstances when breaking the law may be justified as being by far the lesser of two evils". On the other, this doesn't apply to those who have sworn an oath of secrecy to the US secret services (well-known for numerous illegal activities throughout the world for decades). Hardly any point in arguing with someone who's so prolific at arguing with himself!

[french frank]

Doesn't it boil down to the fact that those in authority may do as they please with impunity: lesser mortals must do as they're told or face the consequences?

[ahinton]

Doesn't it boil down to the fact that those in authority may do as they please with impunity: lesser mortals must do as they're told or face the consequences?

Not quite. What I think that it boils down to is that those in authority believe that the authority vested in them entitles them to do as they please with impunity as and when they consider that it suits them to do so and that, in reality, there are no such people as "lesser mortals" because laws are made by governments that consist of people who are supposed to be subject to those laws just as are the rest of us who are not in government.

[amateur51]

Edward Snowden has withdrawn his request for political asylum from Russia, the Kremlin said on Tuesday, further adding to the uncertainty over the US whistleblower's future.

A spokesman for Russian president Vladimir Putin said Snowden withdrew the request after Putin's statement making clear that he would be welcome only if he stopped "his work aimed at bringing harm" to the United States.

"Snowden really asked to remain in Russia," Dmitry Peskov, the spokesman, said. "Learning yesterday of Russia's position… he abandoned his intentions and his request to get the possibility to stay in Russia."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/02/edward-snowden-nsa-withdraws-asylum-russia-putin

Meanwhile, Ecuador's President Rafael Correa has said that Ecuador is not considering Edward Snowden's asylum request and never intended to facilitate his flight from Hong Kong.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/02/ecuador-rafael-correa-snowden-mistake

It appears that governments around the world are running scared of American retaliation if they are found to have helped Snowden

[ahinton]

The fact that Snowden has now been reported as appearing to have sought to apply to some 21 countries for political asylum with no such arrangement yet agreed between him and any of them is surely evidence in itself of the truth of the final sentence of am51's post above and is thus even more worrying than the circumstances that seems to have brought about this state of affairs. However, the second article to which am51 links includes the paragraphs

The [Ecuadorean] president, speaking at the presidential palace in Quito, said his government did not intentionally help Snowden travel from Hong Kong to Moscow with a temporary travel pass. "It was a mistake on our part," he added.

and

Asked if he thought the former NSA contractor would ever make it to Quito, he replied: "Mr Snowden's situation is very complicated, but in this moment he is in Russian territory and these are decisions for the Russian authorities."

The first of these appears to imply that the Ecuador government did indeed help to facilitate Snowden's journey from Hong Kong to Moscow by issuing him with a temporary travel pass but now alleges to have done so "mistakenly", which has a whiff of "I didn't mean it, guv" about it and seems somewhat suspect in itself.

The second includes a statement by Ecuador's president that Snowden is "in Russian territory" and that his future is therefore in the hands of the Russian authorities, yet those authorities are claiming that, as long as Snowden remains airside, he is not technically "in Russian territory" and, if that is so, it would appear that any decisions made by those authorities are limited by the extent of their jurisdiction over Snowden which, as Snowden is not a Russian citizen, has no visa to enter Russia and is not accused by those authorities of having violated any Russian laws, is surely very limited indeed.

If this all ultimately develops into a situation in which no country declares its preparedness even to grant Snowden an entry visa, let alone political asylum, he will presumably remain stranded airside in Moscow until and unless the Russian authorities decide to deport him to the only country that will have him, namely US, although the technicality on which those authorities are now relying - namely that Snowden is not actually on Russian soil because he's airside - might render the legalities of their deportation entitlement rather more complex than might otherwise be the case, since it is less than obvious that any government authority can deport someone from the country in which they have jurisdiction if the person concerned is deemed not to be in that country in the first place...

It will be interesting to see how this develops; the more countries that refuse to grant Snowden political asylum, the riskier it will almost certainly become for any other country to do so.

[scottycelt]

On one hand, no government is "wise" enough to offer asylum to Snowden. On the other, governments' protestations that their spying comes from motives pure as the driven snow are believed without question. On one hand, Snowden is compared with Burgess, Philby and Maclean. On the other, this comparison was "never meant to be wholly accurate". On one hand, "there sometimes can be extenuating circumstances when breaking the law may be justified as being by far the lesser of two evils". On the other, this doesn't apply to those who have sworn an oath of secrecy to the US secret services (well-known for numerous illegal activities throughout the world for decades). Hardly any point in arguing with someone who's so prolific at arguing with himself!

Leaving the predictably sillier comments aside ...

An oath (or promise) of secrecy is morally binding. There is no point in having an oath otherwise. That's why we swear to tell the truth in court on a Bible (or maybe these days on a copy of Das Kapital, if someone like Mr Barrett prefers). We are expected to honour that promise however much it hurts and is infuriating to others. A Catholic priest refusing to divulge information gleaned in the confessional is a most obvious example. Fortunately authorities in a civilised and tolerant secular society recognise this oath of secrecy and respect it.

We don't take an oath to obey the civil law in each and every circumstance. I suspect most of us (apart apparently from some forum members) can see circumstances where breaking an aspect of civil law can be justified. I have already highlighted some obvious examples.

Civil Law and Moral Oaths of Secrecy/Truthfulness are not the same. Some members appear to be confusing the two, though in at least one case this may be a deliberate tactic to divert attention from the clear paucity of his own argument!

[Pabmusic]

...It appears that governments around the world are running scared of American retaliation if they are found to have helped Snowden

Not sure I agree entirely, Ams. Snowden is being feted (by some) as a sort of Robin Hood/White Knight character; it sounds almost as if it's out of 1066 And All That (Wikileaks is a Good Thing). Well, there's another side to it. All governments, I am sure, have many things they wish to keep secret; no-one but the ultra-naive would be surprised by that. Many are even more ruthless than the Americans (or perhaps more competent than them) at keeping their secrets secure.

I'd therefore be surprised if governments were queueing up to welcome Snowden, with or without threats from the US. His track record of leaking secrets to the general public is quite good. To that extent he is a threat to any government.

[I doubt I'll get a pint for this, but I'm dieting anyway.]

[amateur51]

Leaving the predictably sillier comments aside ...

We don't take an oath to obey the civil law in each and every circumstance. I suspect most of us (apart apparently from some forum members)

Some members appear to be confusing the two, though in at least one case this may be a deliberate tactic to divert attention from the clear paucity of his own argument!

I can't decide if scotty is attempting an impersonation of the Member for Amber Valley or if he's unaware of their gradual merging :erm:

[amateur51]

Not sure I agree entirely, Ams. Snowden is being feted (by some) as a sort of Robin Hood/White Knight character; it sounds almost as if it's out of 1066 And All That (Wikileaks is a Good Thing). Well, there's another side to it. All governments, I am sure, have many things they wish to keep secret; no-one but the ultra-naive would be surprised by that. Many are even more ruthless than the Americans (or perhaps more competent than them) at keeping their secrets secure.

I'd therefore be surprised if governments were queueing up to welcome Snowden, with or without threats from the US. His track record of leaking secrets to the general public is quite good. To that extent he is a threat to any government.

[I doubt I'll get a pint for this, but I'm dieting anyway.]

You finsh your excellent points with " To that extent he is a threat to any government."

Well to any government with a secret track record of spying on other states and/or its own citizens, I'd say. I realise that in practice that may be most of them, but we have Mr Snowden to thank for that information :winkeye:

:ela::ok: it's Spitfire today, Pabs :biggrin: