If only Gaddafi and Saddam were still alive, Snowden would have two more friends in the world

13 Replies

Let’s see…

First, that bastion on transparency and respect for privacy China protects Edward Snowden in Hong Kong, and lets him leave.

Then, Vladimir Putin insists it has no control over who comes and goes there. I liked the way the WSJ’s Bret Stephens underlined the absurdity of that claim: “When the Russian government wants someone off Russian soil, it either removes him from it or puts him under it.”

Of course, at each stage of his picaresque journey, Snowden’s had is being held by Julian Assange’s organization. Julian Assange, who makes it his business to shut down communications among U.S. security organizations, taking us back to the pre-9/11 condition in which information was kept in silos and not shared to prevent terror attacks.

So where might he go next? The late Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela has been mentioned. Rafael Correa of Ecuador, already happy to be harboring Assange in London, would be delighted to cock another public snook at the United States and its allies.

I’m sort of feeling bad for Evo Morales in Bolivia. You know he’d love some of this kind of action, but I haven’t heard that he’s on Snowden’s potential itinerary. Snowden and Assange should at least throw the guy a mention, just to keep peace in the anti-Yanqui clubhouse.

If only Moammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein were still around. Snowden would have two more friends in this cold, cruel world…

13 thoughts on “If only Gaddafi and Saddam were still alive, Snowden would have two more friends in the world”

  4. Phillip

    The saddest thing about all of this is that all the media coverage has shifted to this “drama” of where Snowden is or isn’t, who will or who won’t cooperate with the US in turning him over, etc. The actual issue that is of much greater importance to the American people, the fundamental matter of NSA data-mining and the lack of transparency about the oversight mechanisms involved, that’s receding in terms of media focus. A much less glamorous story. If Snowden really wanted to accomplish what he claimed to want to accomplish by releasing this information, his playing into the hands of Putin, Correa, and others who really are just using him for their own ends, is defeating his original purpose in a big way.

    And the Obama Administration may want to be careful about what they wish for. If they do get Snowden and put him on trial, the focus will return to the real issue at hand.

    Reply ↓
    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      Phillip: “The actual issue that is of much greater importance to the American people, the fundamental matter of NSA data-mining and the lack of transparency about the oversight mechanisms involved, that’s receding in terms of media focus.”

      The issue is not new. We’ve known these programs existed for years. Most people are either OK with it, or don’t care one way or the other. That’s what we saw in terms of reaction to the coverage of what Snowden revealed — which was basically details of what was already known in general outline. In other words, specific, classified information (particular FISA warrants, etc.) that no one needed in order to have an opinion about these programs, and which Snowden clearly violated the law in revealing.

      The “Where’s Waldo?” story of Snowden changes every day, and has serious diplomatic and national security ramifications (Snowden is supposedly carrying laptops full of secrets to, let’s see, China and Russia, so far). That makes it news.

      As for the existence of the programs. Well, that got huge play the first couple of days, even though we’d known for years that the programs existed. What do you want the media to do, repeat the same information day after day until people do what they haven’t done so far — get mad about it?

      You can read The Guardian, which keeps touting new details about NSA programs and playing them bigger than actual news, such as the immigration bill passing, and the Tsarnaev charges.

      It reminds me of something that’s always worried me about investigative reporting. Sometimes a newspaper gets so wrapped up in what it is revealing, so excited about it being an exclusive, that it loses all sense of proportion. You’ll see banners across the front page, played over much more important developments, when the information in the story is really only worth maybe mid-page on the Metro front — just because it’s a scoop. And to me, one of the most valuable things that newspapers ever did was present the day’s events within a context, and in relative proportion to each other, that helped people quickly see what they most urgently needed to know. Of course, I’m prejudiced because I was a front-page editor for years, and I have strong opinions about relative play.

      Reply ↓
  6. Red

    You are insane if you think “everyone is either OK or doesn’t mind one way or another with the NSA data mining and spying.” My government has all the info they need without going through my private email. What sort of terror makes spying in your own tax paying life force “OK”? The question isn’t whether Snowden is or isn’t a criminal. We would be completely ignorant of the workings of our own government, founded by the people for the people, if not for this single man. He’s a hero. You’re mental.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *