Edward Snowden

Wikileaks: Snowden 'Bound for a Democratic Nation Via a Safe Route'

|

Edward Snowden
The Guardian

Ed Krayewski and Matthew Feeney have already noted Edward Snowden's departure from Hong Kong and arrival in Russia. On his journey, he's accompanied by Wikileaks representatives attampting to find him safe haven. According to Wikileaks:

Mr Edward Snowden, the American whistleblower who exposed evidence of a global surveillance regime conducted by US and UK intelligence agencies, has left Hong Kong legally. He is bound for a democratic nation via a safe route for the purposes of asylum, and is being escorted by diplomats and legal advisors from WikiLeaks.

Mr Snowden requested that WikiLeaks use its legal expertise and experience to secure his safety. Once Mr Snowden arrives at his final destination his request will be formally processed.

Former Spanish Judge Mr Baltasar Garzon, legal director of Wikileaks and lawyer for Julian Assange has made the following statement:

"The WikiLeaks legal team and I are interested in preserving Mr Snowden's rights and protecting him as a person. What is being done to Mr Snowden and to Mr Julian Assange—for making or facilitating disclosures in the public interest—is an assault against the people".

There's a lot of speculation now on Snowden's final destination, including Cuba, Ecuador (which has given Julian Assange refuge in its London embassy), Iceland and Venezuela. Iceland would seem to be the most pleasant destination, from a personal freedom and non-horrifying-rulers perspective, but his reception there is uncertain. Where he ends up seems largely dependent on which government is willing to risk — and resist — the wrath of the United States government by taking in the high-profile whistleblower.

The one thing that's absolutely clear, right now, is that Edward Snowden must run to escape prosecution for espionage by the United States government for revealing to the American people, and the world, part of the vast threat to liberty and privacy that government now poses.

NEXT: Sheldon Richman on NSA Spying

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.

  1. Clearly, we must treat this disrespect on the part of the Chinese as an act of war.

    And the Russians, too.

    1. Surely you jest, sir.

      The Chinese and Russians actually have respectable professional military forces. We ain’t goin’ there, no way no how.

      1. New here?

  2. “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

  3. which government is willing to risk ? and resist ? the wrath of the United States government

    I’ll take “Every Nation on the Earth That Is Not the US” for infinity, Alex…

    1. ? Most would hand him over in a heartbeat, I imagine

  4. “Lawyers, Guns and Money” keeps running through my head….the live version from “Stand in the Fire”.

    “THE SHIT HAS HIT THE FAN! HAH!”

  5. It may be a cause for concern that Snowden has gone first to China and now Russia – is he leaking top-secret information on how our intelligence services work to them and thereby putting our cybersecurity at risk? Is Snowden a dangerous criminal not for what he has leaked to the American public but for what he may have leaked to China and Russia?

    I expect the DOJ to be making just that argument, but for national security reasons they are going to be unable to say just what information it was that Snowden leaked. If the US gets its’ hands on Snowden, you are going to see (or, more precisely, not see) a secret trial in a secret court hearing secret testimony supporting secret indictments based on secret evidence of violations of secret laws.

    Why wouldn’t you trust your government to be honest and fair and impartial under these circumstances?

    1. “Why wouldn’t you trust your government to be honest and fair and impartial under these circumstances?”

      Not trumpeting the revolution, but I’d say there’s many more US citizens who fear their own government now than there was a week ago.
      And that’s a good sign.

  6. The whole “civil disobedience means you have to accept punishment” argument is seeming more and more warped to me. Many left-liberals seem to think he did a good thing, but demand that he be punished for it. It’s bizarre

    That whole tactic of peacefully breaking a law and accepting punishment is just that, a tactic. Sometimes it’s appropriate/smart to let the state imprison/beat you, sometimes it’s not.

    1. Yep.

      I don’t think Martin Luther King Jr and his followers, nor many other protestors/civil disobeyers would have been so accepting of arrest or punishment if there was a very good chance that they were going to face secret indictments in a secret court with secret evidence presented

    2. Yep. Civil disobedience only works when you can count on the authorities to be civilized and follow their own laws. Thoreau or Ghandi would have been disappeared in Tzarist Russia or the new Soviet that followed.

    3. Also, Snowden has already suffered a key punishment: Exile from his country. And for the moment, he’s separated from that poledancing girlfriend of his, so unless she wants to share his exile, that will be part of his punishment, too.

  7. Bound for a democratic nation? Which nation could they be referring to? Russia, Venezuela and Cuba are run by personality-cultish chief executives who use government power to punish their opponents…

    Uh oh…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.