Putin wont gift. Putin might trade. When Snowden gets delivered people are going to ask what did Mr. Trump gave in return. It would raise many eyebrows.
Not to mention once Snowden is in USA there will be far more attention to him and his issues in media and public. I will not be surprised of ACLU gets to raise 10X more money because of this event.
All good for liberty but bad to Washington's hatemongers.
Not to mention once Snowden is in USA there will be far more attention to him and his issues in media and public.
If Snowden is brought to the USA, you won't see or hear from him ever again. He'll be whisked quietly to Gitmo without any public announcement.
Does Obama have the option of restoring Snowden's passport just before the inauguration? He could frame it as "I hope he makes the right decision and comes home", and then Snowden silently makes it to Ecuadorian territory.
An interesting comment from a French general: he thinks the best thing that can happen to NATO is actually the US pulling out of NATO. This would preserve the benefits of NATO (interoperability between all western armies) but would force Europeans to take their own defense seriously instead of relying on the US.
Interesting. Also, the EU has been quietly trying to build an army, this would let them leapfrog all the political potholes of doing so and just assimilate NATO as the new EU army.
I would personally see it as a desirable outcome. I think Trump should disband NATO Snowden or not. European nations have for long freeloaded off US taxpayer's money fueling the Military Industrial Complex over an artificial threat of weakened Russia all while badmouthing USA and its capitalistic system.
True enough. But what does this have to do with GP's comment?
I took his point to be simply that, if Putin wants to boost Trump politically, and strengthen the connection between their administrations, then handing over Snowden might make sense. GP was just pointing out this possibility, not endorsing it.
If that was all he had done, it would be easier to support him. Unfortunately he went a little further than that, into territory that arguably is a national security issue.
Arguably, yes. I'd like to hear a real argument, other than "leaking stuff might make us less safe." The leaks are public, so it shouldn't be too hard to find specific instances where people were harmed.
Not necessarily. Human assets can be lost or they can be compromised, methods can be compromised, humint and other intelligence can be set back years so that what goes on in adversarial and even friendly governments is a black box to us (which is not good, given our heft.) so, unless other governments thinking and methods become transparent, this exposure is a real risk.
Unfortunately he went a little further than that, into territory that arguably is a national security issue.
Correct. When the illegal, unaccountable, and extrajudicial surveillance powers documented by Snowden are turned on our elected representatives, which they inevitably will be, the concept of "national security" will be well and truly lost.
That's the real threat, the one that nobody ever talks about.
I agree with you and don't follow the arguments against this – Snowden represents a bargaining chip in Russian international relations, by definition by being "wanted" makes Snowden an asset in the hands of Russia – this isn't a moral thing, beyond the calculus of how Russia's image is affected...
I don't think Trump caters to the libertarian crowd. I can already see him sparkling cables in front of an electric chair on TV while he announces Snowden being returned to the US.
Comments
A Snowden delivered in handcuffs would be a nice gift from Putin to Trump.
Putin wont gift. Putin might trade. When Snowden gets delivered people are going to ask what did Mr. Trump gave in return. It would raise many eyebrows.
Not to mention once Snowden is in USA there will be far more attention to him and his issues in media and public. I will not be surprised of ACLU gets to raise 10X more money because of this event.
All good for liberty but bad to Washington's hatemongers.
Not to mention once Snowden is in USA there will be far more attention to him and his issues in media and public.
If Snowden is brought to the USA, you won't see or hear from him ever again. He'll be whisked quietly to Gitmo without any public announcement.
Does Obama have the option of restoring Snowden's passport just before the inauguration? He could frame it as "I hope he makes the right decision and comes home", and then Snowden silently makes it to Ecuadorian territory.
Snowden will probably end up dumped in the middle of the ocean like "Bin Laden" ostensibly was.
I'm supposing there's a lot of interest in knowing exactly what he took and how he did it. It won't be a quick process.
there doesn't seem any particular point in doing such, and several reasons not to.
How about weakening NATO?
An interesting comment from a French general: he thinks the best thing that can happen to NATO is actually the US pulling out of NATO. This would preserve the benefits of NATO (interoperability between all western armies) but would force Europeans to take their own defense seriously instead of relying on the US.
For those interested in more details, the podcast (in French): https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/lesprit-public/la-def...
That makes me think it may actually happen.
Interesting. Also, the EU has been quietly trying to build an army, this would let them leapfrog all the political potholes of doing so and just assimilate NATO as the new EU army.
Given that NATO has been the most successful alliance of all time, the "best thing that can happen" to it must be pretty good.
I would personally see it as a desirable outcome. I think Trump should disband NATO Snowden or not. European nations have for long freeloaded off US taxpayer's money fueling the Military Industrial Complex over an artificial threat of weakened Russia all while badmouthing USA and its capitalistic system.
Why? Because he exposed the fact that my Bill of Rights is being eroded away to nothing?
There's not an asterisk at the bottom that says the above is null and void in the internet age.
True enough. But what does this have to do with GP's comment?
I took his point to be simply that, if Putin wants to boost Trump politically, and strengthen the connection between their administrations, then handing over Snowden might make sense. GP was just pointing out this possibility, not endorsing it.
If that was all he had done, it would be easier to support him. Unfortunately he went a little further than that, into territory that arguably is a national security issue.
Arguably, yes. I'd like to hear a real argument, other than "leaking stuff might make us less safe." The leaks are public, so it shouldn't be too hard to find specific instances where people were harmed.
Not necessarily. Human assets can be lost or they can be compromised, methods can be compromised, humint and other intelligence can be set back years so that what goes on in adversarial and even friendly governments is a black box to us (which is not good, given our heft.) so, unless other governments thinking and methods become transparent, this exposure is a real risk.
Unfortunately he went a little further than that, into territory that arguably is a national security issue.
Correct. When the illegal, unaccountable, and extrajudicial surveillance powers documented by Snowden are turned on our elected representatives, which they inevitably will be, the concept of "national security" will be well and truly lost.
That's the real threat, the one that nobody ever talks about.
The Bill of Rights is just a piece of paper. What really matters is how the people in various government branches interpret it.
And how the people that vote choose to interpret it. And how the people who adjudicate the constitution choose to interpret it.
Most people who vote prioritize jobs, the economy, and stuff like that. They don't really think about the Constitution so much.
My point (and the point of the article) is rather than Obama is missing a chance to prevent a nice gift being offered to Trump.
I agree with you and don't follow the arguments against this – Snowden represents a bargaining chip in Russian international relations, by definition by being "wanted" makes Snowden an asset in the hands of Russia – this isn't a moral thing, beyond the calculus of how Russia's image is affected...
But Obama is sitting on a cheap option to make this asset worthless and to rob Trump of a small victory.
I'm not sure President Trump wants to have to be in a position where he's required to say what should be done with/about Mr. Snowden.
I don't think Trump caters to the libertarian crowd. I can already see him sparkling cables in front of an electric chair on TV while he announces Snowden being returned to the US.
You must be one of those "patriotic Americans".