Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajross | Hacker News Reader

> Also, Snowden was trapped in Russia by the U.S. government while in transit to South America

Snowden fled to Hong Kong first, then from there to Moscow. He was certainly never "in transit" to anywhere else, nor was any of this under the control (even indirectly) of the US government. He fled to nations which he knew would not extradite him.

It's likely true that he had other destinations in mind. Nonetheless he couldn't get it arranged, and he ended up in Moscow because Putin viewed him as useful and extended an offer of residence that China was apparently not willing to make.

Let's not spin here. Snowden isn't a Russian stooge (though obviously his freedom to speak freely about his host country is extremely limited), but let's not treat with conspiracy theories about this being America's Plan All Along.

View on HN

He was in transit to Ecuador, which was going to grant him asylum. The U.S. government revoked his passport, trapping him in the Moscow airport.

One may believe that Snowden's location at the time the U.S. revoked his passport was chance, but it's obvious that it was then used over and over to smear him as a Russian stooge. And we can see this smearing continues to this day.

"Obviously his freedom to speak freely about his host country is extremely limited"

Do you think the Russian government would prefer that he not say things like this?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/29/edward-snowd...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/world/europe/edward-snowd...

> He was in transit to Ecuador, which was going to grant him asylum. The U.S. government revoked his passport, trapping him in the Moscow airport.

So the American Plan To Trap Snowden In Russia For Propaganda Purposes comes down to.... revoking a passport for a wanted criminal, something we do hundreds of times ever month or whatever? Not much of a conspiracy.

That's not how that works. If Ecuador was willing to grant asylum, Ecuador could easily have arranged transportation or issued their own passport. They still could, today! They didn't, and won't. Obviously you can spin that part too as part of a nefarious American Plan. But... Ecuador didn't want him either. It's as simple as that.

And he's in Russia, equally simply, because Russia was willing (frankly eager) to antagonize US influence and interests.

(FWIW: your last example of Snowden's seeming independence from Russian interference is a half decade stale. Please. What does he think of the shooting war his host country started?)

Just don't spin this. Snowden broke US laws, fled the country, and ended up being hosted by an enemy. No more complexity need exist.

Fidel Narvaez the Ecuadorian consul in London helped Snowden get out of Hong Kong to the Moscow airport on the way to Ecuador with the purpose of getting him asylum (which had previously been granted to Julian Assange).

Joe Biden (then vice president) told the president of Ecuador by phone that relations between the U.S. and his country would "strongly deteriorate" if Snowden was given sanctuary there.

So sure, at that point "Ecuador didn't want him either."

I really don't care whether or not the U.S. planned for Snowden to be in Russia the moment they revoked the passport. The point is that he was trapped there by the actions of the U.S., and this was then used endlessly to insinuate all kinds of things about his motives and distract attention from the substance of the leaks.

You're invoking an ethos argument (appeal to authority). Basically, it's only valid if you accept US law as supreme, which in the very act of leaking documents showing how legislators and executive agencies abused their positions actually invalidates the very rule of law you apparently are so willing to kowtow to.

In a more uncouth context, it's the kind of argument that would lead to one being deemed a "bootlicker", but we can stick with an apophasis to such for now.

Don't kid yourself, by now, Russia is a full-on fascist dictatorship. They don't let him say stuff like this because they have rules about freedom of speech or something, the let him say stuff like this because it is more useful to them that he retains some kind of credibility. It makes it more effective when he later tweets antisemitic caricatures about American Jews fueling the war in Ukraine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com