HRW: Countries Should Consider Snowden’s Asylum Claim Fairly

[RedCappedBandit]

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/07/03/countries-should-consider-snowden-s-asylum-claim-fairly

(Washington, DC) – Edward Snowden’s disclosures about the massive surveillance of communications data by the United States and the United Kingdom point to a serious infringement on the right of privacy. If true, these disclosures indicate that data is being collected about the communications, associations, and movements of millions of ordinary people who aren’t suspected of wrongdoing or considered a threat. This indiscriminate collection of data is intrinsically overbroad and cannot be justified by some future hypothetical usefulness against potential threats to these countries.

...



As a result, Snowden could base a claim for asylum on the grounds that, if he were returned to the US, he would face serious harm on account of his political opinion – his view that the public must be informed of massive government intrusion on privacy rights. He could contend that since the law provides no reliable protection, defenses, or exceptions for whistleblowers, the prospect of prosecution, and possibly harsh sentencing, would cause him serious harm, as required under international refugee law.

In addition, US prison conditions for both pre-trial detainees and people serving sentences can be onerous, including prolonged solitary confinement and other communication restrictions. Any country considering an extradition request from the United States would have to assess whether Snowden would be at risk of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment if he were returned to the US for trial.

...


Any country that speaks up in Snowden’s defense should also guarantee the free speech rights of its own citizens, critics, and whistleblowers, and the right of its own people to freedom of information. The US should also keep in mind that for many decades it has offered political asylum to people who suffer severe penalties for criticizing their governments. It should not apply a double standard by working against other governments that might extend asylum in this case.

[morningfog]

1. Well, of course they should. But the US just sent a very loud message that will prevent that.

[RedCappedBandit]

3. I like how they addressed that in the final paragraph.

We are looking awfully hypocritical.

[think]

2. K&R /nt

[ProSense]

4. This is great, and it states

exactly why Snowden isn't a whistleblower:

The law often criminalizes the disclosure of secrets by employees or agents of a government. But international law recognizes that revealing official secrets is sometimes justified in the public interest. In particular it may be necessary to expose and protect against serious human rights violations, including overreaching or unjustifiable surveillance. International principleson national security whistleblowers outline various circumstances under which governments should protect people from punishment if they disclose information of public concern.

US whistleblower protections fall far short of these standards for people who disclose abuse in the national security arena. US law simply does not provide national security whistleblowers with adequate protection from retaliation or punishment for disclosures in the public interest.

There is more at the embedded link.

The case is being made for other countries to consider, but in this country, Snowden is subject to U.S. laws.

Several countries have already rejected this case.

Norway: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023170165

[Th1onein]

6. Prosense? You are not making any sense.

Simply because our laws do not protect whistleblowers very well in the national security arena doesn't mean that Snowden is not a whistleblower. Your logic is faulty; your argument falls short.

Sorry. Snowden is a whistleblower, just as Manning is. Manning was tortured and so will Snowden be, if they manage to catch him.

I hope they don't. Any decent human being would not wish that on him.

[ProSense]

8. No

"Prosense? You are not making any sense. Simply because our laws do not protect whistleblowers very well in the national security arena doesn't mean that Snowden is not a whistleblower. Your logic is faulty; your argument falls short."

...I making perfect sense. The law states that he isn't a whistleblower so he has no legal protection. He failed to take advantage of the one avenue afforded him.

Fleeing the country and his actions overseas means he's screwed.

[Th1onein]

9. Sorry, you're wrong. Again.

Whistleblower PROTECTIONS not being strong in an area does NOT mean one is not a whistleblower.

And by the way, the LAW says that it is okay to have secret courts, secret laws, secret warrants, and secret interpretations of the law, but that doesn't make something moral, OR constitutional.

We're getting screwed by our government; they are spying on us on a massive scale. Snowden blew the whistle on them; he's a whistleblower.

And, for what it's worth? I don't blame him AT ALL for running like hell. He saw what happened to others, before him. No sane person would let themselves in for rendition and torture. And shame one anyone that would condemn him for running under those conditions.

And shame on YOU for trying to say he's not a whistleblower just because he ran from the torture.

[RedCappedBandit]

11. +1

It's not cowardice to flee torture. The US is known to torture. Not much more to it.

[Chan790]

14. It's a miscomprehension.

He's not provided whistleblower protections not because of a shortfall in the law...he's a member of a explicitly-excluded class. The law says he can't be afforded whistleblower protections. It's an intentional decision, not a shortfall of protection.

That is, he's not unprotected because the law falls short by "not protect(ing) whistleblowers very well in the national security arena". He's not protected because the statute is explicitly-written to exclude whistleblower protections for persons like him unless they follow a specific chain of procedure that he failed to adhere to--intentionally, I might add, as they would have deprived him of the ability to go public, keep his job or maintain access to the information.

the LAW says that it is okay to have secret courts, secret laws, secret warrants, and secret interpretations of the law, but that doesn't make something moral, OR constitutional.

Actually, it does. Make it Constitutional, that is. The law is the sole arbiter of legality and constitutionality. I'm not touching the morality of any of this though.

[Th1onein]

15. Lol. You can have a law and that law is not necessarily constitutional. Come on now.

[Chan790]

16. It is when it has been upheld by the courts.

That's what being the arbiter means...it means their opinion and only theirs, not mine or yours, determines what is legal and constitutional.

[Th1onein]

17. The secret courts, you mean? LOLOLOL

And the secret laws? In a non-adversarial court?

What a fucking joke.

[ProSense]

18. No, I'm not wrong.

HRW:

The federal Whistleblower Protection Act exempts from its protections whistleblowers in the intelligence community, including defense contractors. The most legal protection on which such employees can rely is the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, which provides a channel for whistleblowers to take matters of “urgent concern” first to the inspector general of the Department of Justice and then to a congressional intelligence oversight committee. However, this law does not provide any legal right of action for such whistleblowers to protect themselves against retaliation for reporting their concerns in these ways, and in practice, even continuing access to congressional committees can be thwarted by agency heads, who usually can identify the whistleblower concerned.[11]In October 2012, the Obama administration released a Presidential Policy Directive (PPD-19) intended to bolster protection for national security whistleblowers; it requires agencies to establish a process by which whistleblowers can seek review of prohibited retaliatory actions. The directive was widely criticized as window-dressing, however, because it explicitly denies whistleblowers the ability to obtain legal enforcement of any rights or procedures set forth under the directive.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/18/us-statement-protection-whistleblowers-security-sector#_ftnref5

He has no protection under the WPA, and failed to use the channel available to him.

Why did he go out of his way to put himself outside any protection?

Snowden planned to commit this crime for a specific reason. He fled for a specific reason.

He intentionally planned to steal the information, making the decision even before he had access to the information. He then stole it and misrepresented the program and other details via Glenn Greenwald.

The entire Snowden incident has become an international tug of war by design. Snowden left the country intentionally to shift the focus. The goal was never a debate about the NSA. Snowden and Greenwald's goal was to embarrass the United States and the President and create an international incident.

Fleeing to Hong Kong didn't help his case: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023162351

NYT editor's blog: Snowden’s Questionable New Turn
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023034825

[Comrade Grumpy]

10. No, it shows exactly why crappy US laws don't consider him a whistleblower.

US whistleblower protections fall far short of these standards for people who disclose abuse in the national security arena. US law simply does not provide national security whistleblowers with adequate protection from retaliation or punishment for disclosures in the public interest.

Do you even read what you post?

Or you really going to argue that's he's "not a whistleblower" because US law, criticized in your own link, doesn't provide protections for whistleblowers in the national security sphere?

That's kind of like saying black people were really over 3/5 of a person because that's what the law said then. We know what a whole person looks like and we know what a whistleblower looks like.

[RedCappedBandit]

12. Excellent analogy.

[Cleita]

5. I was thinking the same. He could claim he is in great danger of

being harmed or even killed. I think that would improve his chances of being granted asylum. I wonder why he hasn't applied to any African nations? They might extend a helping hand.

[Catherina]

7. The problem is going to be getting him anywhere :(

He has most of the 99% on his side. Surely someone make something happen.

[struggle4progress]

13. European Endorsement for Tshwane Principles on National Security and Right to Know

June 24, 2013 Open Society Justice Initiative
European Endorsement for Tshwane Principles on National Security and Right to Know

New global principles on the balance between legitimate national security concerns and the public’s right to access government information have been endorsed by a committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), in an important first step towards broader governmental acceptance of the standards.

A resolution of PACE’s legal affairs committee, passed unanimously on June 24, encourages the Council of Europe’s 47 member states to align their laws with the Tshwane Principles on National Security and the Right to Information, which were launched earlier this month by a group of experts, civil society organizations, academia and national security practitioners.

The Open Society Justice Initiative facilitated the drafting of the principles, based on consultations with over 500 experts from 70 countries over a two year period. They provide guidance to those engaged in drafting, revising, or implementing laws or provisions relating to the state’s authority to withhold information on national security grounds or to punish the disclosure of such information.

The principles are based on international and national law, standards, good practices, and the writings of experts ...

http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/press-releases/european-endorsement-tshwane-principles-national-security-and-right-know