Edward Snowden Applying for Asylum Anywhere That’ll Take Him

small world problemsThe GuardianThe NSA leaker Edward Snowden has applied for asylum in nearly two dozen countries according to Wikileaks, which is providing him legal assistance. He has, however, reportedly dropped his bid to apply for asylum in Russia. That news, from a Putin spokesperson, follows the Russian president’s declaration that he’d only consider granting asylum to Edward Snowden if he stopped “his work aimed at damaging our American partners.” It was a more conciliatory tone than Putin had taken earlier, when he called U.S. criticisms of Russia’s handling of Snowden as “ravings and rubbish.”

Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa, meanwhile, said issuing the Ecuadorian travel document that Snowden used to depart for Russia from Hong Kong in the first place was a mistake, shortly after a meeting with Joe Biden. Just a few days before that, Ecuador said Snowden’s asylum application would take months to process. Ecuador previously unilaterally canceled their trade deal with the U.S., ostensibly to prevent it from being used to pressure Ecuador to deny Snowden asylum. Given Ecuador’s new stance, it could well be that the anti-trade Correa merely used the Snowden issue to nix a deal he wasn’t interested in (edit: or one he knew the U.S. wasn't actually interested in).

Other countries’ responses to Snowden’s asylum requests have been similarly lukewarm or negative. Brazil became among the first to reject it, saying officially it won’t answer his request (India, too, said it saw no reason to grant Snowden asylum), while eight European countries (Austria, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Spain, and Switzerland) have said an asylum request would have to be made on their soil. Venezuela’s president Nicolas Maduro has sounded more positive, calling Snowden’s actions “important for humanity” and saying the leaker deserved “the world’s protection.”

Matthew Feeney previously explained how Snowden was seeking refuge in authoritarian regimes not because he supported them but because he is trying to stay out of jail. Snowden’s options seem to be constantly dwindling.

It takes two to defect; if Snowden passed sensitive U.S. information to other countries, wouldn’t those countries presumably be more willing to grant him asylum? That they haven’t suggests that he hasn’t. When the U.S. charged Snowden with espionage and theft of government property they did not mention Snowden passing information to any specific country, only that he transmitted the information to “unauthorized person(s)” (like us?). The NSA has similarly rejected FOIA requests related to the revealed surveillance operations by claiming they would aid unspecified “adversaries” (“our” adversaries was as much detail as the NSA was going to give).

Snowden's difficulty in securing asylum anywhere does show, however, that there's still something U.S. foreign aid buys, other than bigger houses for foreign officials.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Skyping to a friend living in Russian yesterday:

    ME "Putin: "If Snowden wants to stay, he has to stop work aimed at damaging our US partners, no matter how strange this sounds coming from me.""

    HIM "Snowden is undermining Russian operatives in the US?"

  • ||

    Isn't there some Stan he can hole up in? It'd be delicious if it was Pakistan.

  • DJF||

    The Stan’s would sell Snowden by the pound to the highest bidder.

  • Rich||

    Somalia, then?

  • DJF||

    No, too unstable and he has no contacts there among the warlords.

    He might get a European country but he would probably have to fight long court battles and there is a fifty fifty chance he still gets deported

    There is Russia, but they probably don’t want the hassle. Though if as usual the US tries to strong arm Russia then Russia will keep Snowden just to piss of the USA

    There is Belarus, it might take in Snowden as a favor to Russia, that way Russia can say that he is not in their country.

    Ukraine is too unstable with a government which can go back and forth between being a Russian supporter or a Western supporter.

    Cuba/Venezuela/Ecuador are good possibilities but he has to get there from Russia.

    Africa is out, he doesn’t have any contacts. Asia too, though maybe North Korea feels like pissing off the American today and North Korea and Russia have a common border he can cross.

  • ||

    My aunt who worked in Afghanistan mentioned that they didn't have an extradition treaty with the US, but that the US just took who it wanted from Afghanistan anyway, so it hardly mattered.

    Didn't Cuba just send back the Hakkens?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Maybe Putin was threatened with an extended sight-seeing visit from Michelle and the girls and their entourage.

  • Mike M.||

    Yeah right. That would inject like a hundred million dollars of U.S. taxpayer money into their economy!

  • Ken Shultz||

    "It takes two to defect; if Snowden passed sensitive U.S. information to other countries, wouldn’t those countries presumably be more willing to grant him asylum? That they haven’t suggests that he hasn’t."

    I wouldn't assume that.

    We're all just reading the tea leaves, here, but...

    1) He may have already given the baby away. Once they already have the information he has, he has no leverage left to bargain with them.

    2) If both China and Russia don't already have everything Snowden has, then both China and Russia have incredibly incompetent intelligence services.

    Lots of smart people make these simple mistakes in negotiations. No, you don't give up your leverage until you've gotten what you can get for it. It seems pretty clear to me that Snowden probably had no idea how difficult it was for someone in his position to leave for another country--and once he was trapped, and in a position where either China or Russia could put him on a plane back to the U.S. at any moment, in that situation, if he didn't spill the beans and give them everything he's got, then he's super human.

    I will say this. If neither China nor Russia grant him asylum, that would seem to suggest that he wasn't working for them all along. But that doesn't mean he hasn't given them everything he has now that he's there. And if you were Russia and China in that situation, why wouldn't you threaten to send him back to Obama unless he gave you everything he has?

  • kinnath||

    Well, apparently Snowden forgot the Powell Doctrine.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Which part of the Powell Doctrine is that?

    The part about always having an exit strategy before you go in?

  • kinnath||

    yes . .

    So Snowden hatched a plot to get a job; gain access to sensitive data; acquire elicit copies of the sensitive data; and then tell the world how bad the federal government has become. But it doesn't look like he spent much time asking what happens next.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't buy land unless I can resell it somehow--without building--at a profit.

    Most people don't think through these things that way. And I mean a lot of smart people...

    Some of this stuff isn't about smarts. It's like a character thing. It's the kind of thing you look for in people during job interviews.

    Anybody that goes into something like this without an exit strategy...

    He could have just as easily flow to France! They don't have an extradition treaty with the U.S., and the chances of him getting a big chunk of the French people behind him (against extradition) were very high.

    He probably could have gone to Cuba.

  • Hyperion||

    He probably could have gone to Cuba

    Really? How'd that work out for the couple who took flight to there on a boat, not too long ago?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Okay, I guess not.

    Incidentally, when I can't find an exit strategy? I don't do the deal.

    Maybe he could have tried to stay anonymous. Maybe he should have found a better place to land, first.

    Flying to China, spilling the beans in the media and then flying to Russia, though; if that's your exit strategy, you might want to hold off on your whole plan.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    What, Canada isn't good enough for him? Are we chopped liver?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Canada handed over one of their own because he was selling seeds (which was perfectly legal in Canada) to Americans.

    I'm sorry, but if that government sold out one of its own like that, that's not where I'd want to go.

    If I'm a Tamil fleeing...um..."persecution", then Canada's probably my first choice.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Or may be had and it turns out that the story on the ground is much different, or that things were not as they appeared initially.

    You can only plan so much on how to escape from the US government. He couldn't negotiate any of these deals beforehand, and there were no guarantees for what might happen afterwards.

    It seems to me that too many people are playing armchair QB involving a situation in which only a few people in the world have any experience at all. It isn't like people do this shit all the time and there's a tried and true method.

  • fried wylie||

    Once they already have the information he has, he has no leverage left to bargain with them.

    Snowden doesn't watch Burn Notice, apparently.

  • kinnath||

    Well, he watched too many TV shows when his only back up plan was to threaten that he made copies of the data and it would be released if anything bad happened to him.

  • some guy||

    If both China and Russia don't already have everything Snowden has, then both China and Russia have incredibly incompetent intelligence services.

    Not necessarily. A properly encrypted hard drive is impossible to read without the cooperation of the encrypter. China and Russia probably want this data to get out, and they know that will eventually happen so long as he is outside the US. Maybe they aren't willing to give him asylum, but they are willing to not interfere in his attempts to seek it elsewhere.

  • fried wylie||

    but they are willing to not interfere

    I know the intent of your sentence makes this seem like proper grammar, but shouldn't it really be

    but they are not willing to interfere

  • kinnath||

    the two statements are not equivalent

  • pan fried wylie||

    "Maybe they aren't willing to give him asylum, but they aren't willing to interfere in his attempts to seek it elsewhere either".

    That doesn't mean the same thing?

  • kinnath||

    "willing to not interfere" has a different connotation that does "not willing to interfere".

  • Zeb||

    Yes, splitting infinitives can add meaning and nuance. I'm all for it when it serves a purpose.

  • kinnath||

    willing to not interfere {into a situation where they would rightly be expected to interfere}

    versus

    not willing to interfere {into a situation where they would be expected not to interfere}

  • kinnath||

    Just ask a women if:

    willing to not fuck her

    means the same as:

    not willing to fuck her

  • pan fried wylie||

    and, dammit, name changes don't retroactively apply? wth.

  • some guy||

    I think my version sounds better with the previous clause.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    More likely scenario, they got involved after the fact to support what they viewed as his embarrassment of the U.S. government. That's been accomplished. Now, the story's getting old. And he's a thorn in the side of their relations with the U.S.

    What's funny here is, if Snowden does have additional incriminating revelations (as he suggests), his incentive to release them is only magnified by this turn of events.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "A properly encrypted hard drive is impossible to read without the cooperation of the encrypter."

    But the cooperation of the encrypter is easily obtained when the encrypter is completely at your mercy and facing the hateful wrath of Barack Obama.

    They can send him back to the U.S. and he can spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement.

    Negotiations are won by the person with the most leverage. What leverage does Snowden have? When they put the pressure on him, how does he win that negotiation? He's helpless. He's desperate.

    He's been stuck in airport for how long now?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Wasn't the Peanut Gallery predicting Putin would stab Obama in the back?

  • Bardas Phocas||

    He will... just not over a defector ... in fact he already did over Syria, Missle Defense, Iran and generally being a dick.

  • Mike M.||

    He even took Obama butt-boy Robert Kraft's Super Bowl Ring for good measure.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Russia's Scott the Dick is he?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Didn't the Obama Administration willfully violate the Constitutional rights of millions of Americans?

    It's too bad Barack Obama isn't sitting helpless in some Russian airport desperately seeking asylum from anyone that will take him. In a perfect world, after what Barack Obama did to so many of us, that's exactly where he would be.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The PATRIOT Act and FISA Act of 2008 make all this NSA shit legal, you know?

    You should know it anyway.

    Whether it is Constitutional or not has not yet been determined by the SCOTUS.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If the FBI showed up at your house this morning and asked you for a list of everyone you've spoken to on the phone for the last month, and for how long, and then asked you to supply their phone numbers, and then you went and called any random lawyer for advice on what to do--what kind of advice do you think you'd get?

    A) The lawyer tells you to go ahead and tell them everything you know--because that information is compliant with FISA and the Patriot Act?

    or

    B) Tell them to go get a warrant in compliance with the Fourth Amendment and then if they ask you any questions, just take the Fifth?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I'm on your side in spirit.

    But Congress/Bush saw a packet of data on an IP backbone differently than you do.

  • Sevo||

    Yeah, dipshit, and your fave liar has been trying to make it right ever since, but BUUUUUUUUUUUUSH!

  • Ken Shultz||

    Well maybe Congress and Bush were wrong.

    Just because Congress and the president declare something Constitutional, that doesn't make it so.

    Hell, it was once legal to round up American citizens of Japanese ancestry, (men, women, and children) and herd them into the desert to be held in interment camps under armed guard--for the "crime" of being of Japanese ancestry.

    I don't care if it was "legal". It was against the Constitution, not to mention morally disgraceful, and if the American people had chased the president out of the country for it, it would have been a legitimate source of American pride for generations.

    If only the American people would do the same to Obama for what he's done!

    P.S. "Bush did it too" has never, is not, and never will be a justification for anything, ever.

  • Tony||

    We live in a world where the greatest president can also be the president who put Japanese-Americans into camps. Part of me can't disagree with the far lefties who think every president of the 20th century should be tried for war crimes. But a bigger part of me prefers that we distinguish between presidents who not only violated principles, but made the country markedly worse--that's actually the more tangible failure.

    It's not "Bush did it too." It's "Bush did it worse."

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    We live in a world where the greatest president can also be the president who put Japanese-Americans into camps.

    Subjective does not equal objective.

    But a bigger part of me prefers that we distinguish between presidents who not only violated principles, but made the country markedly worse

    Ends justify the means. Yay for authoritarians.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Obama is by far the worst in a long list of mediocre leaders.

    I mean, leaps and bounds.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "We live in a world where the greatest president can also be the president who put Japanese-Americans into camps."

    You live in a world of delusion, where reality can be bent to justify whatever Obama does. Many of the rest of us live in the real world.

    "It's "Bush did it worse.""

    Bush did not do the NSA thing worse.

    If there is any way in which Bush was worse it was:

    1) He did some of this stuff first, which gave Obama an excuse to do likewise.

    But then that isn't really blaming Bush--that's blaming people like you who rationalize the horrible shit Obama does by saying "Bush did it, too!" If you say that, then that fault isn't Bush's. That fault belongs to you.

    2) Bush was worse on torture, apparently.

    But then, who knows? All those terrorist plots Obama claims to have thwarted with his NSA program--if true, then some of those must have resulted in terrorists being captured somewhere. There haven't been a whole lot of new terrorists coming in to Guantanamo, so what's Obama doing with them?

    I don't know. All I can say is that Obama MAY be better than Bush was on torture--given the information we have now. And that's about as faint praise as can be given.

  • WTF||

    When a lefty idiot like 'Tony' says "Bush did it worse" he means it was worse because Bush has an 'R' after his name. Because it's okay when their guy does it, even if he takes it to the next level by assassinating American citizens.

  • Loki||

    When a lefty idiot like 'Tony' says "Bush did it worse" he means it was worse because Bush has an 'R' after his name.

    What's funny is that if Bush had a D after his name, and been pro-choice and pro gay marriage, lafty asshats like Phony would be tripping over themselves to declare him the greatest president ever.

  • sarcasmic||

    What's funny is that if Bush had a D after his name, and been pro-choice and pro gay marriage, lafty asshats like Phony would be tripping over themselves to declare him the greatest president ever.

    The only difference between compassionate conservatism and progressivism is abortion and gays.

  • ||

    "We live in a world where the greatest president can also be the president who put Japanese-Americans into camps."

    Um...no...we don't.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    THIS^

  • Loki||

    We live in a world where the greatest president can also be the president who put Japanese-Americans into camps.

    When did George Washington ever put Japanese Americans into camps? Yeah, yeah, I know, Washington couldn't have been the greatest president. Afterall, he owned slaves and was white, therefore, shitty president, amirite?

  • Loki||

    If only the American people would do the same to Obama for what he's done!

    P.S. "Bush did it too" has never, is not, and never will be a justification for anything, ever.

    I agree that "Bush did it too" is not a valid defense of Obama continueing the program, especially after all the bullshit he spouted about transparency and nice sounding platitudes, which led a lot of people to incorrectly assume he would be better on civil liberties.

    That being said, if you're going to run Obama out of the country, you should run Bush out of the country too. I'd actually have no problem with that.

    Furthermore, every single member of Congress who was briefed on this and never even hinted that there might some secret interpretation of the PATRIOT Act that the NSA uses to justify collecting data on literally everyone, along with James Clapper, General Alexander, and every single NSA employee involved with the program should be forced to flee for their lives as well.

  • JEP||

    "Whether it is Constitutional or not has not yet been determined by the SCOTUS."

    Here's the issue. If it hadn't been for Snowden, then the American public wouldn't have known about the NSA shit, so no one could sue NSA over it, and therefore it would never be brought in front of the SCOTUS for them to determine whether or not it's constitutional.

    Also, there's plenty of historic case law about government obtaining information without a warrant. The NSA can't claim that this was uncharted territory.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Whether it is Constitutional or not has not yet been determined by the SCOTUS.

    Incidentally, that's horseshit.

    The Supreme Court once ruled that, according the Constitution, black people weren't citizens and had no right to assert their rights in the courts.

    The Supreme Court was horribly wrong about that, and they've been horribly wrong about plenty of other things.

    The members of the Court often disagree with each other, and what is considered Constitutional BY THEM in a ruling often depends on who is sitting on the Court at any point in time--as much as it depends on what the document actually says.

    I don't need the Supreme Court to tell me that if the NSA wants my phone records, they need to show some probable cause and get a warrant.

  • Tony||

    I used to demand the same of my mother when she paid for my cell phone and thus could see all of my call and text records on the bill. I don't think so-called metadata (phone records) fall under a reasonable expectation of privacy standard. Feel free to let me know if there is court precedent on the matter.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    The NSA is not my mom and they are not paying for my phone last time I checked. And until the Patriot Act, a (not-so-secret) warrant was required to obtain any phone records.

  • KDN||

    The government invented the internet and subsidized the PSTN, therefore they did pay for it. So shut up.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    The government invented the internet and subsidized the PSTN, therefore they did pay for it. So shut up.

    Well, if you had said Al Gore wanted my data, I would understand.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    The NSA is not my mom

    There is the statist mentality in a nutshell for you. The fact that he chose that metaphor is quite telling.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    I used to demand the same of my mother when she paid for my cell phone and thus could see all of my call and text records on the bill.

    You used to demand your mother show probable cause and get a warrant to open her phone bill? Why did you demand that?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    You used to demand your mother show probable cause and get a warrant to open her phone bill? Why did you demand that?

    Tony's mom isn't as impressive as Obama obviously.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You see a difference between your Mom and the NSA, though, right? Your mom was doing that to you because she paid the bill. You could have gone and gotten your own phone, and she'd never be able to see a thing.

    The NSA is doing it to all of us whether we want them to or not, and there's no escape.

    And again...

    If the FBI showed up at your house this morning and asked you for a list of everyone you've spoken to on the phone for the last month, and for how long, and then asked you to supply their phone numbers, and then you went and called any random lawyer for advice on what to do--what kind of advice do you think you'd get?

    A) The lawyer tells you to go ahead and tell them everything you know--because that information is just metadata?

    or

    B) The lawyer tells you to demand a warrant in compliance with the Fourth Amendment and then tells you if they ask you any more questions, just to take the Fifth.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Ken, logic isn't going to work. He's either delusional or trolling. I can't tell which today.

  • KDN||

    Why does it have to be either? Tony is quite adept at multitasking.

  • Tony||

    There are two separate questions: what is constitutionally allowed, and what should be. On the "ought" side, I tend to favor erring on the side of privacy.

  • ||

    No. There is no difference between what it says and what it should say.

  • ||

    Feel free to point to the part of the 4th amendment that makes an exception for metadata.

  • Tony||

    Same place that makes an exception for garbage bags on your front lawn, perhaps? I'm not a lawyer. Is the reasonable expectation of privacy standard still considered in effect?

  • anon||

    Same place that makes an exception for garbage bags on your front lawn, perhaps?

    Way to equate human rights with trash.

    And yet you still wonder why people might call you a shithead.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Let me ask you this, Tony: if someone published your phone number on this website, along with the phone numbers of everyone you talk to, would you consider that an invasion of your privacy?

  • ||

    Never has been. The constitution doesn't mention anything about a reasonable expectation of privacy. A political justice pulled it put of his ass in order to achieve a political end. In fact, the 4th amendment has NOTHING to do with privacy. It's about search and seizure. It's what the government is allowed to do with your property.

  • anon||

    It's what the government is allowed to do with your property.

    Or, more specifically, when it is allowed to have access to your property for search or seizure.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Per my question above, I think Tony's just more comfortable with who's doing the search when the government does it.

    In other words, it isn't about the act or the right--it's about him trusting the government.

    We're saying the act is wrong; he's okay with it because as long as the act is being done by someone that doesn't bother him, it doesn't really matter.

    It's another way of using the government to impose his own values on other people, really.

    If someone were using the government to discriminate against gay people--that would be disgusting because they're Christians, and Christians shouldn't be allowed to use the government to impose their values on other people.

    But Tony doesn't get that he's doing the same thing those fundamentalist Christians do--and the problem with using the government to impose your own values on other people doesn't go away just because you're not a fundamentalist Christian.

    For Tony, it's okay for the government to violate Francisco d Anconia's Fourth Amendment rights. Because Tony doesn't really care about that. It's exactly like fundamentalist Christians violating the right of gay people to get married.

  • anon||

    For Tony, it's okay for the government to violate Francisco d Anconia's Fourth Amendment rights. Because...

    You could've just summed up Tony and said "cognitive dissonance has rendered Tony retarded."

  • Loki||

    "cognitive dissonance has rendered Tony retarded."

    I don't think it's just cognitive dissonance that's to blame for him.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    That something is law DOES NOT mean that it is legal.

  • Tony||

    So what did the US say to Russia and Ecuador to make them soften up?

  • some guy||

    Ecuador is certainly small enough to be vulnerable to strong-arming. If Snowden gets desperate Moscow might step in to help him, but until then I think they want to sit by and see how it all plays out.

  • Hyperion||

    No way. He can't leave Russia. At least not now.

    He gets on a plane to Ecuador, an hour later, a big sack of dollars will be on the desk of the Prez of Ecuador, and the US authorities waiting there for him when he gets off the plane.

    The only reason any of these banana Republics would offer him asylum is they know about the big sack of dollars coming their way for selling him out.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Ecuador has backed way way off:

    The president, speaking to the Guardian at the presidential palace in Quito, said his government did not intentionally help Snowden travel from Hong Kong to Moscow with a temporary travel pass. "It was a mistake on our part," he added.
    Correa, a standard bearer for the left in Latin America, softened his denunciations of the US over the weekend and praised vice president Joe Biden for a gracious phone call, saying he would consider Washington's request to refuse any asylum claim from Snowden while retaining Ecuador's sovereignty. Asked if he thought Snowden would ever make it to Quito, he said he did not know.

    What defines "gracious" I wonder?

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Gracious like: "Listen you bleeping Eckwerdonians, you back the fuck off or else I'm gonna sodomize Atahualpa and post it on youtube. Here. Take $1 million and focus on your World Cup efforts in 2014. This is the last time I'm gonna call because the long-distance charges fucking criminal! Adios, moooo-cha-chos."

    Don't quote me.

  • Hyperion||

    What defines "gracious" I wonder?

    The big sack of dollars.

  • Hyperion||

    I mean, though, I don't know why I would think that way, only because the US has been buying itself influence around the world, for decades.

  • Tony||

    Maybe after a bit of grousing and eye-poking, they realized, oh yeah, the whole point of this is that the US has the US nuclear arsenal equivalent of a digital spying apparatus. Like, actual overwhelming power. Ecuador surely can be easily strong-armed, but perhaps Russia and China are worried about the relative smallness of their programs being exposed.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    If Russia helps Snowden it will be for strategic reasons. They'll use him as a pawn for something.

    I'm guessing it won't be for liberty and democracy and helping free citizens of another country.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The rose exporters in Ecuador got nervous when trade was threatened.

  • fried wylie||

    an asylum request would have to be made on their soil.

    "...and good luck with that," they concluded.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    "Go ahead and put my penis in your mouth, then we can discuss whether I'm going to ejaculate in it."

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Get your ass to Mars! Or Blueseed.

  • Sevo||

    I would, too.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The PATRIOT Act and FISA Act of 2008 make all this NSA shit legal, you know?

    Yay, Booooosh!

  • The Last American Hero||

    I wonder if Stalin supporters would apologize with a "but Hitler did it too!"

  • anon||

    Worse. "But we meant good! It's just the wrong person was in charge."

  • anon||

    Why does everyone put Snowden's intelligence into question for his actions?

    I'm just curious. I couldn't give a shit less how smart he is; his actions have benefited me.

  • anon||

    Also, if I were Snowden, I'd apply for asylum everywhere and then make a secret, non-public deal to end up where the US least expects.

    But there's no way anyone could do something so simple!

  • Citizen Nothing||

    My wife has offered to hide Snowden in the basement of our compound. True story. I foresee logistical, um, difficulties, however.

  • anon||

    Let us know how that SWAT team tearing your house a new asshole goes...

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I should ask Radley if any of the cops have amphibious assault vehicles yet.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Almost certainly.

    Agencies like The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission have a "Special Operations Group." I'd bet dollars to donuts that they have an amphibious assault vehicle.

  • Brett L||

    So your bid for independent nationhood has not yet been denied.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Like it or not, the last, best hope for freedom remains right here in the good ol' U.S. of A. If we piss it away, it'll be generations, if not centuries, before someone can claw it back. But I remain cautiously optimistic.
    (Which might be due to drugs and/or alcohol).

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement