The Student Room Group

Snowden Granted Temporary Asylum In Russia

US intelligence leaker Edward Snowden has thanked Russia for granting him temporary asylum, allowing him to leave the Moscow airport where he has been holed up since June.

In a statement, Mr Snowden also accused the US government of showing "no respect" for international law.

The US has charged Mr Snowden with leaking details of its electronic surveillance programmes.

Washington has expressed its "extreme disappointment" at Russia's decision.

Russia's Federal Migration Service later officially confirmed that Mr Snowden had been granted temporary asylum for one year, Interfax news agency reported.

In a statement issued on the Wikileaks website, Mr Snowden said: "Over the past eight weeks we have seen the Obama administration show no respect for international or domestic law, but in the end the law is winning.

"I thank the Russian Federation for granting me asylum in accordance with its laws and international obligations."

President Obama and President Putin had been scheduled to meet on the sidelines of a G20 summit in early September in Saint Petersburg.


Glad someone has had the balls to stand up the Americans, and that he's been given temporary asylum. I hope he's gets a permanent status and Putin tells Obama to go **** himself.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
The man committed a crime. Like Manning, he should be put on trial. He knew what he was doing, he knew it was illegal.
If he was truly a whistleblower, he'd have taken his information to a member of the Congress/Senate and then had the relevant protections.
Reply 2
how long til he has an "accident"?
Reply 3
Original post by Drewski
The man committed a crime. Like Manning, he should be put on trial. He knew what he was doing, he knew it was illegal.
If he was truly a whistleblower, he'd have taken his information to a member of the Congress/Senate and then had the relevant protections.


Oh my days. :facepalm:
Reply 4
Original post by Drewski
The man committed a crime. Like Manning, he should be put on trial. He knew what he was doing, he knew it was illegal.
If he was truly a whistleblower, he'd have taken his information to a member of the Congress/Senate and then had the relevant protections.


So if reporting a crime is illegal he should be put on trial? He was doing what any liberty loving citizen would have done - if he's a criminal for taddling on his country then America should be a criminal for spying on several nations, including their allies. I have nothing but contempt for American foreign policy, and Snowden exposed what most people already thought was happening.

Congress/Senate would have had him locked away in some government warehouse with his balls attached to a car battery, knowing the Americans. If he'd said nothing he'd probably have been found out that he'd known about the information. His only option for getting this information was telling the public, and I am thankful he did.

America believes it is above international law, which is evident from Snowden's leaks, so if he is to be prosecuted then so should Obama.
Reply 5
Original post by Ras17
Oh my days. :facepalm:


Are you suggesting he hasn't committed a crime?
He's undoubtedly committed a crime, the only debate is whether it was morally right to wrong.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 7
Original post by Kiss
So if reporting a crime is illegal he should be put on trial? He was doing what any liberty loving citizen would have done - if he's a criminal for taddling on his country then America should be a criminal for spying on several nations, including their allies. I have nothing but contempt for American foreign policy, and Snowden exposed what most people already thought was happening.

Congress/Senate would have had him locked away in some government warehouse with his balls attached to a car battery, knowing the Americans. If he'd said nothing he'd probably have been found out that he'd known about the information. His only option for getting this information was telling the public, and I am thankful he did.

America believes it is above international law, which is evident from Snowden's leaks, so if he is to be prosecuted then so should Obama.


I am not condoning what the US has done in any way, shape or form.

But two wrongs don't make a right. Yes he exposed an illegal activity but he did so by breaking the law.


And by the by, considering that well over half the Congressmen/women and Senators - from both sides of the aisle - are up in arms about it, I don't think that (the part about other politicians putting him up against the wall) would be the case.
Reply 8
Original post by Drewski
Are you suggesting he hasn't committed a crime?


It was the entire comment more or less that was facepalm worthy but this segment "If he was truly a whistleblower, he'd have taken his information to a member of the Congress/Senate and then had the relevant protections" definitely takes the cake.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 9
Original post by Drewski
Are you suggesting he hasn't committed a crime?



Original post by rakusmaximus
He's undoubtedly committed a crime, the only debate is whether it was morally right to wrong.


Posted from TSR Mobile



Marital rape isn't a crime in China, but it is in the UK - the fact you can phrase something 'a crime' is irrelevant, what the 'crime' in question entails matters. And in this case he did what any freedom loving man would have done.
Reply 10
Original post by rakusmaximus
He's undoubtedly committed a crime, the only debate is whether it was morally right to wrong.


Posted from TSR Mobile


I'd go along with this.

It's a crime, but it was an "acceptable crime". It was a murder to prevent someone breaking into your house. Killing a person is still wrong, even if you can see why he did it.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 11
Original post by Drewski
Are you suggesting he hasn't committed a crime?


Why is it even illegal to point out that something is unconstitutional in the first place? Something is clearly wrong there.
Reply 12
Original post by Drewski
I am not condoning what the US has done in any way, shape or form.

But two wrongs don't make a right. Yes he exposed an illegal activity but he did so by breaking the law.


And by the by, considering that well over half the Congressmen/women and Senators - from both sides of the aisle - are up in arms about it, I don't think that (the part about other politicians putting him up against the wall) would be the case.


Many figures like Gandhi and Martin Luther King agreed that if the law does not support the rights of the people, then the law must be broken.
By all means, he has still committed a crime that is serious enough to be considered as treason by the US government, as Snowden has technically betrayed the NSA by leaking classified information to the general public. However, the morality of said crime is highly debatable, as has been mentioned previously on this thread. Yet I find it somewhat ironic that he has decided to seek asylum in Russia, a country that has been severely criticized for its continuous violations of human rights and has just put a ban on the legality of LBGT relationships.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 14
Original post by Tabzqt
Why is it even illegal to point out that something is unconstitutional in the first place? Something is clearly wrong there.


That bit isn't the illegal bit. And that bit I have no issues with whatsoever.

The revealing classified documents to people is the illegal bit. What the documents are are, in many ways, irrelevant to that. We have the same in this country with the Official Secrets Act. 99% of the things that are covered by it are entirely innocuous, but revealing them is still illegal (as long as the classification on them exists).
Reply 15
Original post by Juichiro
Many figures like Gandhi and Martin Luther King agreed that if the law does not support the rights of the people, then the law must be broken.


While this is an abstract - and largely conceptual/theoretical - aspect that's worthy of it's own thread, how do you determine the difference between something that's supportive/helpful in the longterm, but in the immediate term may be damaging? The term "for the greater good" is bandied about a lot and can sometimes be taken out of context, but does work in some cases.
The US hasn't exactly handled this or the manning case well. They have pretty much set the tone, if you want to whistleblow don't bother going through decent channels, you might as well head to Russia and sell it in exchange for asylum because you aren't going to be able to go home. Way too much emphasis on tracking the whistleblower than on what they exposed.

I think he was right to do what he did, if something is unconstitutional stamping it with classified doesn't mean it shouldn't be shown until the government decides its okay that people know they are doing things wrong. That's clearly a stupid system in which all manner of illegal activity is fine and dandy, until we decide to declassify it.
Reply 17
Original post by Drewski
That bit isn't the illegal bit. And that bit I have no issues with whatsoever.

The revealing classified documents to people is the illegal bit. What the documents are are, in many ways, irrelevant to that. We have the same in this country with the Official Secrets Act. 99% of the things that are covered by it are entirely innocuous, but revealing them is still illegal (as long as the classification on them exists).


But those classified documents have been obtained in contradiction to the fourth amendment. If American politicians really loved the constitution as much as they say then they would not want any revealing of unconstitutional activities to be illegal, regardless of how many classified documents are leaked. I think it's hypocrisy at its finest.
Reply 18
Original post by Tabzqt
But those classified documents have been obtained in contradiction to the fourth amendment. If American politicians really loved the constitution as much as they say then they would not want any revealing of unconstitutional activities to be illegal, regardless of how many classified documents are leaked. I think it's hypocrisy at its finest.


Not denying that.

Obtaining them was a crime, revealing them was a crime.

My point is, they're both wrong. They're both illegal.
Reply 19
Original post by Drewski
While this is an abstract - and largely conceptual/theoretical - aspect that's worthy of it's own thread, how do you determine the difference between something that's supportive/helpful in the longterm, but in the immediate term may be damaging? The term "for the greater good" is bandied about a lot and can sometimes be taken out of context, but does work in some cases.


I am guessing you can't make a general procedure to determine all cases but when you have particular cases, you can determine whether or not problems like colonisation or racial segregation are problems which will require the law to be changed. Unfortunately, the law will not always change for good but it is always better than a law system set in stone that does not change.

Quick Reply

Latest