What in particular is “stupid, petty, arrogant” about attempting to capture a confessed spy in possession of information which could potentially cost lives in the hands of America’s enemies?
The information is gone. It’s not like there is only one copy, Snowden is holding it, and if he is captured, the information is recovered. The purpose here, clearly, is to punish Snowden (pour encourager les autres) and not anything else.
Trying to capture Snowden is not stupid.What they did with the bolivian president is stupid an arrogant.
Which gives us the right to treat him like Joe Blow rather than a head of state?
Y’know, lately I’ve been getting on this Administration in other fora for its ‘kiss up, kick down’ approach to justice. Nice to know it applies to its diplomacy too.
Sounds like you know a lot about Latin America. :rolleyes:
Yep, totally irrelevant to the War on Drugs, national oil security and the shifting US voting demograpic.
Doesn’t a “spy” have to work on behalf of a Principle, and benefit that Principle in return for personal benefit?
The lives of whom? Sounds like you’re an avid absorber of … The Nightly News.
I get that you’re trying to create a singular, permanent personality because then you can dismiss that ‘personality’ as weird or warped, and by doing so distract from the substantive issue/s - like with Snowden but … what are you talking about?
If I may, that poster was simply pointing out that governments (and, to some extent, residents) of different countries tend to see certain events in ways that are partly shaped by the history if the country and its people – especially if that history includes what are perceived as grievous injustices against the country as a whole.
Sure, there are problems with generalizing about attitudes of millons of people who just happen to live within a state boundary line, but the post was a good observation (it’s not so problematic to generalize about the attitudes of governments), and it’s odd that you are taking issue with this. You seem to think it’s somehow taking away from the accolades you think Sniwden deserves, but it shouldn’t matter. Snowden may or may not deserve accolades, but the fact that some governments have their own reasons for assisting him doesn’t affect that.
Right. ‘Bolivia’ is more sensitive about this kind of thing because when it was younger something nasty happened and it’s still in therapy because of that nasty thing. It must be difficult; we shouldn’t pity poor Bolivia, lets try to be understanding.
You could almost think this isn’t actually about the behaviour of the political class governing the empire in the north of the Americas.
In exactly the same way it’s not about mass surveillance and lying to Congress it’s about .. .what is the narrative this week … a college drop out with a grudge harming his own people?
Let’s just focus on everything that isn’t the central issue.
Unenviable in what way? Seems like Russia’s in a pretty good position. They get to thumb their noses at the West over human rights issues for a change all the while America runs around like a chucklehead trying to track Snowden down.
Unenviable in that domestic politics requires some show of resistance to the United States (what you describe above), while both international diplomacy and probably national security counsel for turning him over. Most observers think Putin would be happy to turn over Snowden if it weren’t going to harm his image at home.
This dilemma would be much worse for a country like Spain, where the domestic pressure is as strong or stronger, and the diplomatic and security consequences are more important.
Nah, in Spain there would be no such dilema. PP, he party of the current government is supposed to be all cozy with our American friends; the other large party, socialists PSOE, actually is more in love with the Americans (specially with Republican policies) than PP is.
There would be demonstrations but either party would just merrily hand over anybody the USA asked for.
I agree about Spain, but not about Russia. Whether or not Putin wants to turn Snowden over to the U.S., I don’t see what cost there is to Russia for continuing to let him stay in Sheremetyevo limbo.
ETA: Given that Nava understands Spain far better than I ever will, I retract my comment on Spain.
I suppose I am to infer that having demonstrations in opposition to government action is not a downside in Spain?
Well, it hurts US-Russia relations, for one. There will no doubt be a tit for that tat.
Well, like what? What might Russia want from us that they might not get on account of this?
I see that Obama wants a new nuclear arms reduction treaty that would substantially reduce the number of warheads on each side. Chances are he wants that treaty more than Putin does.
And we don’t give any monetary aid to Russia, nor are any new trade agreements with them being considered (unless they’re one of the countries that would be in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and they’re not going to be treated differently from the others if they are).
I just don’t see where we have much leverage; it seems to lie much more with them.
Like all large countries, there are innumerable ways in which Russia’s interests, large and small, depend on the good will of the United States (and vice versa). The tit-for-tat over the human rights legislation Congress passed, leading to Russia’s restrictions on US adoptions, is just one of the most recent examples.
If Russia could send over Snowden to earn a diplomatic bargaining chip without domestic political cost, I think it would do it in an instant. It would get something for nothing. They can, of course, expressly condition his return on some favor, but that is a much more fraught and risky course.
All IMHO, of course. I don’t know much more about diplomacy than what I read in the papers.
Well, that’s an example of Russia denying us something we wanted. When’s the last time we either gave, or didn’t give, Russia something they wanted?
In that example, what they wanted was for Congress not to pass that law.