[mpyne]

Oh, just that maybe the USA is not the world's worst example of tyranny that you seem to make it out to be. Especially in comparison to Russia, but even in comparison to some of the "more advanced" European states.

After all even with slavery, it was something America inherited, instead of going out of their way to do. Much of Europe, on the other hand, chose to murder their undesirables, and far after when America was able to finally free their slaves.

[fnordfnordfnord]

Calm yourself. I haven't made out the US as "the world's worst example of tyranny". I would like to point out the hypocrisy though, of those who criticize a person for seeking refuge from the US in Russia, because he didn't instead choose "Unicornlandia" or some other similarly perfect utopian bastion of freedom and human rights.

I'm from the US, and I am proud that we ended slavery, (a little embarrassed that it took a war, but I had no control over that), but, I am not under the impression that the US is perfect, or without the potential for improvement. Critical self-reflection is an important step on the path to self-improvement. I criticize my country because it is the one that I personally have the potential and the responsibility to affect positive changes within.

[mpyne]

> I would like to point out the hypocrisy though, of those who criticize a person for seeking refuge from the US in Russia, because he didn't instead choose "Unicornlandia" or some other similarly perfect utopian bastion of freedom and human rights.

Is it hypocritical to at least ask that he pick a nation comparable to, if not better than, the U.S.? Apparently this should be the easiest task in the world.

I've argued here before, and I'll repeat it again, that I would have no problem at all with Snowden asking for asylum in Russia (or even North Korea, China, etc.) as long as he makes it clear he's simply trying to 'beat the rap', as they say.

But Snowden doesn't do this, and in fact goes farther to claim that Russia is doing this to support human rights and tickle doves with angel feathers and even encourage privacy (which is just beyond ironic, but whatever).

That is either a flat-out lie to appease his host, or stupidity. And we all know he's not stupid...

> Critical self-reflection is an important step on the path to self-improvement. I criticize my country because it is the one that I personally have the potential and the responsibility to affect positive changes within.

We're going to 100% agree twice today! Wonderful progress. :)

[fnordfnordfnord]

>Is it hypocritical to at least ask that he pick a nation comparable to, if not better than, the U.S.? Apparently this should be the easiest task in the world.

I'm sure he would go to Unicornlandia if he knew how to get there. And, yeah, it is pretty silly to ask him to expose himself by travelling through places where the US arguably has enough control to cause his detainment/extradition.

>But Snowden doesn't do this, and in fact goes farther to claim that Russia is doing this to support human rights and tickle doves with angel feathers and even encourage privacy (which is just beyond ironic, but whatever).

I don't really care what symbolic gestures he makes when he may be under duress.

>That is either a flat-out lie to appease his host, or stupidity. And we all know he's not stupid...

It's arguably true! A person has the right to asylum from political persecution. Only a few other countries have the willingness to oppose the US. We both know that Russia's motives probably aren't rooted in an altruistic commitment to human rights, but as I have said before Snowden isn't in a position to look gift horses in their mouths.

>We're going to 100% agree twice today! Wonderful progress. :)

Let's not make it a habit. If we both agree all the time, that means one of us is redundant!

[mpyne]

> A person has the right to asylum from political persecution.

Except it's not political persecution. He's not being charged with being a Communist, or anarchist, or libertarian here.

I'm assuming you disagree with the law (though even figures like Schneier agree that there is a legitimate need for government to protect secrets), but disagreement with the law doesn't make it a political prosecution.

For that matter, the laws against theft and misappropriation of public property have a long and proud history. I'm assuming you don't intend to introduce a loophole in those laws that would permit the politicians to abuse the Treasury even worse than they already manage?

[bausson]

Well, Manning was not charged either.

You can say all you want it was security detention, it's a warning send to other wannabe whistleblower, and it's torture to me.

(and if it's not a political decision, I wonder how it is called)

[mpyne]

Well given that even Snowden was careful to emphasize how different his behavior was from Manning's, I'm not sure why you think invoking Saint Bradley helps your point.

[dragonwriter]

> After all even with slavery, it was something America inherited, instead of going out of their way to do.

Its true that the slave trade predates American independence, but its not as if it wasn't largely driven by the interests of wealthy Americans; it really had very little other point, which is why after the US was independent, England first both suppressed the Atlantic slave trade, and then, decades before the US did (and without a civil war) abolished slavery entirely.

> Much of Europe, on the other hand, chose to murder their undesirables, and far after when America was able to finally free their slaves.

So did the US. The Indian Wars were a real thing, after all, and ended long after the abolition of slavery.

[mpyne]

> The Indian Wars were a real thing, after all, and ended long after the abolition of slavery.

Absolutely, but none of us can go back in time and undo the bad things that America has done, or that Britain has done, or that Germany has done, or that Russia has done, or what anyone has done.

But people do not apply the same standard to, say, Germany or Russia, that they apply to the USA.

You can bring up slavery every day, and America will have been wrong every time. Does that, itself, taint the blood of 2013 Americans?

Certainly American can and should make corrections and pay penance how they can, and at least partially they do (e.g. affirmative action programs, equal opportunity laws), just as Germany atones for the actions of the Nazis, and just as Japan still maintains only a "self-defense force" in consequence of wars from decades ago.

Certainly we can compare America of today with other countries of today. America won't always win that comparison (e.g. Germany has much better laws regarding data privacy and data protection) but nor will America be the worst nation on the Earth. Certainly they look OK as compared to Russia.

But if one's argument against the USA will inevitably come back to what a bunch of assholes were doing back in 1790-1920 then it's not unfair to also widen the scope of comparison for those nations that are being compared against the USA.

[dragonwriter]

Hey, you're the one that made argument that other countries are worse thanthe US because they kept doing bad things after the US abolished slavery.

Now you are moving the goalposts once it is pointed out that that applies to the US, too.

[mpyne]

My argument was not that other countries are worse than the U.S. because of things done after slavery.

My argument is mainly that if we're going to go back through the totality of the mists of time, that the U.S.'s hands are not exactly the ones with the most blood dripping off of them.

[fnordfnordfnord]

>Absolutely, but none of us can go back in time and undo the bad things that America has done

We could work a little bit harder at not continuing to cheat Native Americans as soon as tomorrow. http://www.buffalopost.net/?tag=minerals-management-service

>But if one's argument against the USA will inevitably come back to what a bunch

That's not the argument. The argument is that governance is an imperfect tool, will always be imperfect, and that none of our governments are beyond reproach.

[mpyne]

> That's not the argument. The argument is that governance is an imperfect tool, will always be imperfect, and that none of our governments are beyond reproach.

Hey, finally something we both fully agree on! I just wish you'd have phrased it as such earlier. :)