A Young Man In Moscow

neilmcgowan
Guest

A Young Man In Moscow Jun 23, 2013 14:31:20 GMT -5

Quote

Post by neilmcgowan on Jun 23, 2013 14:31:20 GMT -5

The whereabouts of a young American, in Moscow for just 24 hours, are a closely-guarded secret at present. But a group of protestors has gathered - across the 8-lane highway - outside the American Embassy.

Few people can look as professionally hopeless as the widely-hated American Ambassador, Michael McFool.

McFool has no diplomatic training or background - he is mainly a loudmouth and bar-room lawyer who has been a hanger-on, 'consultant' and general American lackey in Moscow for the past decade. He made an unsuccessful attempt to become editor of the Moscow Times. Eventually Mr Barracks O'Bomber made him Ambassador.

McFool is allegedly 'frantic' to locate Snowden, who has arrived in Moscow under his nose - reinforcing the general impression that McFool is a hopeless klutz who couldn't find his own way out of a paper bag, with a map printed on the inside.

We wish Mr Snowden well. We wish Mr McFool ill.

The Moscow authorities remain tight-lipped on the Snowden case - since the thugs who maintain the 'security' of the US Embassy might feasibly attempt to "render" him. Yet it appears so far that Moscow is just a safe transit spot for a day or so, until his eventual destination becomes clear.

Yet one thing is quite clear - one cannot simply "turn up" in Moscow as an American, because one needs a visa. Mr Snowden clearly has one, and he must have obtained it in Hong Kong at the Russian Consulate. He has left the airport, so he is not 'in transit' as reported. Which all suggests that he is the most willing guest of the Russian Federation, who have arranged his visa and admitted him to the country knowing full well who he is.

Last Edit: Jun 23, 2013 14:35:36 GMT -5 by neilmcgowan

Gerard
Full Member

Posts: 218

A Young Man In Moscow Jun 23, 2013 20:18:31 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Gerard on Jun 23, 2013 20:18:31 GMT -5

I found particularly striking the statement issued by the Hong Kong government (and reproduced by the Guardian). It - particularly the final paragraph - shows what a giant crack is in the process of opening up right now. How Downing Street's feathers will be ruffled!

The HKSAR Government today (June 23) issued the following statement on Mr Edward Snowden:

Mr Edward Snowden left Hong Kong today (June 23) on his own accord for a third country through a lawful and normal channel.

The US Government earlier on made a request to the HKSAR Government for the issue of a provisional warrant of arrest against Mr Snowden. Since the documents provided by the US Government did not fully comply with the legal requirements under Hong Kong law, the HKSAR Government has requested the US Government to provide additional information so that the Department of Justice could consider whether the US Government's request can meet the relevant legal conditions. As the HKSAR Government has yet to have sufficient information to process the request for provisional warrant of arrest, there is no legal basis to restrict Mr Snowden from leaving Hong Kong.

The HKSAR Government has already informed the US Government of Mr Snowden's departure.

Meanwhile, the HKSAR Government has formally written to the US Government requesting clarification on earlier reports about the hacking of computer systems in Hong Kong by US government agencies. The HKSAR Government will continue to follow up on the matter so as to protect the legal rights of the people of Hong Kong.

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

A Young Man In Moscow Jun 24, 2013 2:34:21 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2013 2:34:21 GMT -5

Good morning to you all! To all those who survived the weekend, what a weekend it turned out to be! Much ado about nothing? Congratulations to all! 'The Guardian' leads this week with some editorial comment on civil liberties: guarding the guards. Both the revelations of undercover police spy Peter Francis and NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden speak directly to the issue of trust between citizen and state.

"The people in our house were all black," said Doreen Lawrence. "The people who killed my son were white. Why should the police be so interested in who was in the house?" Now we have a possible explanation. Even as they grieved for their son Stephen, the Lawrence family may have been victims of covert surveillance. For them, it would be another personal low. It would also mark a new low in the history of undercover police operations. The apparent excuse: that frustration with the police inquiry among the family's friends and supporters might have spilled over into public disorder. This is the kind of thing that happens when, without adequate legal restraint, fears for security are allowed to take priority over privacy.

This sort of undercover policing has been going on for 45 years. And it's still going on. According to the Metropolitan police – in response to questions from the Guardian journalists Paul Lewis and Rob Evans – one day a generation of officers will have to account for their actions. But not yet. So this secret band of officers, as we have reported over the past two years, can carry on creating fake identities to make friends among ordinary people involved in legal activism and protest, and then spy on them. These victims are the kind of people described by one judge as acting from the highest intentions, "decent men and women with a genuine concern for others". It is a grotesque betrayal of love and friendship which would amount – in the words of another judge – to the "gravest interference with their fundamental rights". 'The Guardian' defends thus:

" ... Many of the same questions are also raised by the Snowden revelations. Both have depended on a whistleblower, in this case Peter Francis, who came to believe that operations in which he was involved were wrong and who wanted information about them in the public domain so that ordinary people could judge for themselves. The surveillance both described took place in an environment where the legal framework was ill-defined, the targets nebulous and accountability inadequate. They were fishing expeditions, anticipating wrongdoing regardless of the evidence, and an invasion of privacy entirely disproportionate to the threat. The enormity of, say, spying on the recently bereaved Lawrence family might be easier to grasp than the revelations of the vast anonymous data-mining operation described by Mr Snowden and operated by GCHQ and the NSA. But speak directly to the issue of trust between citizen and state."

I propose some toast: to trust! Three cheers from kleines c and the gang (Monday morning breakfast coffee)!

Last Edit: Jun 24, 2013 2:35:05 GMT -5 by Deleted