These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless.

Are people really not bothered at the irony in this sentence? Russia, as a country that stands against abuse of the powerless by the powerful?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/world/europe/russian-court...

If the posthumous prosecution of Sergei L. Magnitsky, the lawyer who was jailed as he tried to expose a huge government tax fraud and died four years ago in a Russian prison after being denied proper medical care, seemed surreal from the moment the authorities announced it, the verdict and sentencing on Thursday did not disappoint.

By all accounts, it was Russia’s first trial of a dead man, and in the tiny third-floor courtroom of the Tverskoi District Court, it took the judge, Igor B. Alisov, more than an hour and a half to read his decision pronouncing Mr. Magnitsky guilty of tax evasion.

It doesn't matter if it is hypocritical of an American like me to point this out, when it goes on in my country/government as well - but I find it willfully ignorant to label the Russian government as a defender of human rights like this.

edit: here is some more reading on Russia and this topic: http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/04/24/russia-worst-human-rights...

It's very odd both that the US government would use Human Rights Watch to convey messages (which are essentially threats or warnings) to Mr. Snowden, and that Human Rights Watch would feel the need to agree to convey messages of that nature on behalf of the state apparatus that is targeting Mr. Snowden.

It was also odd when I earlier read that Human Rights Watch was the only agency which received an invitation from Mr. Snowden which felt the need to release the message in advance to the media, including the time and place of the meeting.

To see the problem with these events, consider it in any other situation where a political prisoner who is in hiding, let's say a North Korean, is meeting with representatives from human rights agencies. How would it be perceived if one of those human rights agencies announced the location in advance and took the opportunity to deliver a personal threatening message they had privately received during a personal conversation with Kim Jong-un.

The US Govt illegal activity couldn't have been exposed by a nicer guy. He's self-less and motivated by altruistic goals that serves everyone's interest but the US Govt's (and other Govt's they can influence).

It certainly helps our cause that he's both intelligent and articulate.

The fact that the US Govt can continue operating at full will irrespective of legal and constitutional boundaries shows just how much power and influence they already have.

Whomever is speech writing these statements (or editing them) is doing a great job. Not only does Snowden make the US out to be a corrupt and despotic nation, willing to subvert its own laws and principles to shut one person up, it manages to position the US' character below that of countries run by South American dictators and ex-KGB colonels.

It is my sincere hope that this event ends the political careers of a number of US politicians, and engages enough voters to disrupt the status quo.

Not only is Snowden brave, and smart enough to outwit (so far) the most powerful institutions of our day, he's also an excellent writer.

To David Brooks and all the others who mock him for not finishing high school, take this statement as a model of clarity and forthrightness.

Anyone asking him to come back and face trial under the current conditions is either naïve or a fool. However, I think that he should at least put conditions on the table under which he would return to the US to face trial.

The most important condition would be strict adherence to the 8th amendment, which means no possibility of solitary confinement or other cruel and unusual punishment and reasonable bail, so he is afforded the same rights that Daniel Ellsberg was after leaking the Pentagon papers.

The other required condition would be changing the jurisdiction in which charges are brought back to where they should have been filed, which is Hawaii, not Virginia. Cherry-picking a jurisdiction where many of those that will be on the jury may work in the IC community or have close ties to the IC community is not justice. In fact, it is a perversion of it.

Lastly, (and I know this would never happen), but I would love to see a Frost v. Nixon type debate involving Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden, Barack Obama, Gen. Keith Alexander and James Clapper live on national TV unrehearsed.

The Human Rights Watch representative...had received a call from the US Ambassador to Russia, who asked her to relay to Mr Snowden that the US Government does not categorise Mr Snowden as a whistleblower and that he has broken United States law.

That's just...hilarious, and absurd. What purpose does that call serve; what goal is it working toward? Is it some sort of legal requirement? Can we just do without the inane posturing, for once?

Edit: apparently there is some dispute as to whether this conversation actually took place.

Thank you Edward Snowden. You are a true hero.

I would have a lot more regard for what Snowden is claiming about United States government actions if he would come back here to the United States and stand trial. More and more of what is being said in his statements to the press (which plainly are receiving editing help, at least, from Wikileaks) are not making sense in the overall context of how different countries behave in the community of nations.

When all the smoke is cleared away from Snowden's allegations, and there have been congressional investigations into the data-gathering and surveillance practices of United States government agencies and private companies, most Americans will still be quite supportive of their federal government (in the usual complaining United States way) and tens of millions of people around the world will still desire to settle in the United States.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/161435/100-million-worldwide-drea...

To date, I am persuaded that United States government programs related to foreign intelligence need more effective oversight--not least because they hire snafus like Snowden. I am also persuaded that most countries with governments subject to the discipline of a free press and free and fair elections largely are willing to cooperate with the United States in the kind of programs the NSA intends to run, because there are genuine threats from terrorist plotters in those countries.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Boston+Marathon+bombing&sour...

I'd be glad to see NSA programs reviewed by Congress, and possibly curtailed in their operation to ensure their lawfulness. I'd also be glad to see Edward Snowden go on trial according to United States law to weigh his actions against any defenses he may be able to assert at trial. I've lived elsewhere twice for long stays in my adult life, and after talking to people from around the world about this, I'm still glad to be living in the United States at the moment, and still mostly glad that the United States system of rule by law operates as it does.

Hmm, what he said about the grounded plane made me wonder: What if he (or a supporter) falsely tipped off US authorities that he was on that plane to see whether he could travel to South America securely, or if the US would somehow intercept the plane?

A dry run, as it were.

Now hopefully Russia will do the right thing and at least let him leave the damn airport. There are a number of routes from Russia to Venezuela that don't cross over Western European or US airspace -- can't VZ just send a private plane with a military escort over there and bring him back?

> The Human Rights Watch representative used this opportunity to tell Mr Snowden that on her way to the airport she had received a call from the US Ambassador to Russia, who asked her to relay to Mr Snowden that the US Government does not categorise Mr Snowden as a whistleblower and that he has broken United States law.

Am I the only one who found this whole statement pretty odd?

Let's see. A "whistleblower" is a term for someone who blows a whistle. This is generally meant to indicate someone who is making some kind of loud noise to report a crime; someone (maybe a cop, maybe just someone who is a victim of a crime) trying to get attention that a crime has been committed.

Now, when reporting a crime, do you generally expect the perpetrator of that crime to be the appropriate person to determine whether or not a crime has been committed, and thus whether or not labeling the person a "whistleblower" is appropriate?

The whole idea of whistleblower laws that don't protect someone from reporting to the public about crimes committed by the administration is laughable. What the hell is the point of any kind of whistleblower laws or protection if you can't actually blow the whistle on your bosses?

I regularly read reader comments on NYTimes regarding NSA/Snowden affair, and this is the first time that vast majority of highest-rated comments there are negative toward Snowden. Previously, the majority was overwhelmingly pro-Snowden. Very curious. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/13/world/europe/snowden-russi...

In all seriousness, is there even a single HN commenter who doesn't support/worship this guy? Is the diversity of thought that nonexistent on this subject? I'm just sorta curious and ask the question sincerely.

In semi-related news that I can't post because I get the hacker news "please slow down" warning -- hacker takes over website of VZ daily El Nacional and warns govt not to give asylum to Snowden or face leaks of corruption/bribery/etc

https://knightcenter.utexas.edu/en/node/14126

The Western European countries are actively standing in the way of him going to Venezuela, and are actively opposing his asylum.

So what do we do now?

Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker purports that the US Ambassador to Russia is denying the conversation stated in the 1st paragraph ever occurred: https://twitter.com/RyanLizza/status/355717218895536129

I don't find Wikileaks as a credible source on this topic in general.

The fact that the US doesn't recognize Snowden as a whistleblower doesn't prove persecution or anything at all. He broke the law. He and others may not like it or agree and they don't have to but its still clear he broke the law. What has Snowden told us that we didn't alreay know since 2006? He gave us classified documents and the names and operations of classified programs. Programs we already knew about but just didn't know the name of or how they worked. Hell, even with what he did give us we still don't actually know how they work. But we sure as hell always knew our calls and Internet activity were being monitored.

I'm not a fan of what the NSA is doing but I don't think Snowden is even remotely close to a hero either. Did you know you can take that position? That there's a difference between ones position on NSA spying and whether Snowden is a whistleblower? I'm of the opinion that Snowden and the NSA are criminals.

Is there anyway we, as a people, can help other than just support? Is there a petition running to the UN?

granting asylum to Snowden will just influence relations between US and Russia,and is not done to be coherent with previous standings of the country on the topic of human rights,almost always different.Russia and others clearly try to challenge the rest of the world to increase their power in times of crisis, how nice,the sooner world leaders realize that the internet is an early glimpse at the future of society and start researching and doing things together the sooner things will improve,for everyone.

Every individual has the particular interest to live in a healthy society,and not to have his possibilities limited by his country of birth if you ask me.

I wonder why he can't travel to Latin America. Is it just the issue of not being able to transit through Western Europe or U.S. airports and the lack of direct air connection? Why Mr. Assange does not arrange a private jet flight for him? Moscow to Caracas is under 10K km so it should not be a problem. Even if that's expensive (maybe $200-250K), a few months of living in Sheremetyevo will eat up as much money, or more.

Next few days will be interesting to see what Russia will do there.

They do not have the best track record in terms of privacy or human rights, but helping him will make them look good internationally.

"I also had the capability..."

I would have revised this sentence to say: "I, acting under the authority of the Executive branch of my government, had the capability..."

The Constitution exists for the protection of citizens against the overreaching of their government, not for the protection of citizens against their fellow citizens.

The question is whether it has any teeth left with regard to unreasonble search and seizure performed by the government (or its agents, like Mr. Snowden).

Look, I understand that government spying through technology is an issue that belongs here. Every time Snowden eats a sandwich is not. There are a million places you can discuss this that are not here. Can we please stick to technology and hacking?

Wikileaks is using him as a meat puppet and now he is totally fucked, whatever shred of credibility he had is lost by praising Russia for their dedication to human rights. I suppose you can defend their record but you will be fighting uphill.