"Obama and the Snowman"...

We're being asked to continue the Snowden discussion on another topic I see so I'm just offering this one as per my latest comment re and that Obama has remarked that this might become a "tv movie"? "They" can use my title! No charge!...

> 237 (old thread) -- What obama meant was NOT exactly what he said. What he said was innocuous. It was intended as a threat: o can scramble jets to go after any poor slob who's on board an aircraft in international airspace and bound for another country. If the U.S. finds out Snowden is on any specific flight to any specific destination, that aircraft can be intercepted by American fighter planes and forced to land at the destination of obama's choice (Hint: that destination WON'T be Cuba, Ecuador, Iceland, Bolivia, or Venezuela).

At least -- that's how I read obama's message. If I was Mr. Putin or an Ecuadoran diplomat, that's definitely how I'd read it. The U.S. has done such things before. My guess is that Snowden is still in Moscow because his would-be saviors haven't figured how to get him out of there yet.

Edward Snowden is one mighty hot potato.

The "Snowden" topic asks us I guess to "continue" as another so that's what I'm doing. (Just trying to be cooperative!)

I think that Obama has deliberately downplayed Snowden as a "hot potato" and may not really wish any contretemps with Putin et. al.

The Snowden "revelations" I believe haven't done so much damage re US "security" as they've embarrassed an already much embarrassed administration by revealing to the public what ought to have been long before. I assume Obama has simply "accepted" that and wants it off the front burner AND the "front page."

The supremes helped much this week: supremes BAD!!! -- they negated a major enforcement mechanism of the 1965 Voting Rights act! Supremes GOOD! -- they ixnayed the homophobic DOMA and allowed California to redeem itself!

So -- "'Snowden'? What 'Snowden'? Oh that HACKER guy! So what?"...

The "Snowden" topic asks us I guess to "continue" as another so that's what I'm doing. (Just trying to be cooperative!)

I don't know if you're being serious or not, but in case you aren't...

It's not telling you to do anything, it's telling you what will happen when you click on that blue link, which you apparently didn't do since this topic isn't linked to the previous one.

I was surprised to read that Steve Wozniak {of apple for you youngsters} considers Snowden a hero of sorts for being a "whistle blower" . I think a lot of my surprise comes from being to lazy to review everything that Snowden stole. Just ratting out the existence of the programs, without all the supporting documentation, would have sufficed I thought.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/steve-wozniak-edward-snowden_n_3505727....

I didn't know -- thanks for the info. Yeah I was "serious"; as I say I just didn't know I had to do that...

6> You don't have "to do that". After 200 messages LT gives you the opportunity to do that if you feel like it.

Okay -- as I said I was just trying to be cooperative...

I like this better. Let's stay here.

> 241 (old thread) RE > 237, prosfilaes asks -- "When? The only times I can recall US military aircraft approaching a civilian aircraft with hostility is the Delta aircraft that was guided down on 9/11 and a Northwest jet in 2007 whose pilots went to sleep, both cases where we thought the plane was hijacked. The Soviet Union paid dearly for Korean Airlines Flight 7; the US would probably have to pay at least as dearly. I don't think it's a cost the US wants to pay.

to which question, dekesolomon replies:

Here's the URL: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84265,00.html

Here's the relevant passage:

"The hijacking ended Oct. 9 after Egypt negotiated with the hijackers. Abbas, who helped negotiate the surrender, and the four hijackers were flown out of Egypt on a jet that was intercepted by U.S. Navy fighters and forced to land in Sicily.

"Tensions arose as soon as the plane landed. Armed U.S. and Italian soldiers faced off, each side demanding custody of the hijackers. The situation was only resolved after feverish telephone calls between Premier Bettino Craxi and President Reagan.

"The Italians took custody of the four and promised to try them, but refused to detain Abbas, saying the evidence compiled by Washington was insufficient and that he held an Iraqi diplomatic passport. Within two days, he slipped out of the country.

"Two weeks later, Italian magistrates filed charges against Abbas and issued an arrest warrant, which has remained outstanding.

"In June 1986 he was tried in absentia, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for masterminding the hijacking. The sentence was upheld on appeal."

Sure but the "others" are still on the old stomping ground; my fault I guess for not pushing the "right button" but have we anything more to say about Mr Snowden's Dilemma?

If so please go ahead...

I want to reply to "Miss Ridgeway" (from the previous topic) as per Assange's "tawdry" escape from serious charges of rape in Sweden and Snowden's less "tawdry" (depends on how you see it -- if as "treason" I guess it would just as "tawdry"?) situation.

I understand that Assange's fear is that the Swedes will send him to the US but sure he may "fear" being convicted of what he's charged too. I admit it's a dilemma for those who admire the Wikileaks revelations -- Assange as per say Alfred Hitchcock doesn't HAVE to be a "nice man" in order to have performed a service to "humankind" hmm.

Yeah he ought to "face the music" but he remains a "symbol" as well. Okay the Catholic archbishop (Mindszenty?) stayed in the embassy (Austrian was it?) in Budapest for YEARS and I guess Assange could do the same but then that seems a "punishment" of sorts no?...

Assange can't possibly be guilty of treason because Assange is not a U.S. citizen.

> 13: Good point. Lots of ignorant Americans love to charge those they dislike or those with whom they disagree as "traitors". But, under the Constitution, which defines 'treason' and is/was delibrately narrowly defined, Snowden is also not a "traitor".

Reading the Constitution, we have,

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

On the other hand, there's the Bush Doctrine, of which Assange and lots of conscientious people are guilty, though they remain to be charged, tried and convicted in secret courts:

"You're either with us or you're against us."

Perhaps more interesting (and not really commented on) is how Snowden got possession of all of the information he released.

Right now what is most interesting to me is the question of whether war has been de facto declared on Bolivia.

Venezuela has offered asylum to Snowden.

good