Senate Diplomatic Firestorm

Well, clearly what I'm doing to that end is engaging in half-hearted and biologically inaccurate quipping with an Australian national.

I do have to say that I appreciate the precision with which you wield the English language, and the completeness of the character you have created on the boards. If it pleases you to know, I am more than broadly aware of how America's ideals are used as a facade in our politics. In fact, I am quite specifically aware of the process by which it has happened. Doesn't mean that I can't like the ideals as an individual citizen, or that I need to wear rose-tinted glasses to do so.

 

Of course not! As GK Chestfield lamented, true progress would mean matching the world to our vision of it. In practise, we instead change the vision. But, if you are not part of the problem, and not part of the solution, then what are you?

 

off-topic

 

off-topic

 

Which is what I said. Even mentioned two regimes by doing so. Of course we're not as authoritarian as Russia. But I would disagree about if we are or are not. There are trade offs. We are mildly authoritarian for a reason. There's not some cabal scheming to take over. We have just responded to overseas crises and economic difficulties over the years and it has led to increasing bureaucratic and centralisation of power in some areas, especially the executive. That's it.

I don't think that's a evil thing. I think we've done it out of a sense of necessity in some cases.

 

off-topic

 

off-topic

 

off-topic

 

off-topic

 

off-topic

 

off-topic

 

off-topic

 

off-topic

 

@Ender Sai
One more off-topic post or ad hominem insult in the Senate and you will be banned.

 

@Rogue_Ten:
One more off-topic post or ad hominem insult in the Senate and you will be banned.

 

off-topic

 

On a slightly different note, how does everyone think the potential granting of temporary asylum to Snowden by Russia will affect US-Russian relations? I'm thinking that perhaps the United States will potentially revisit the shelved missile-defense system in Poland.

I can't imagine there not being some kind of 'tit-for-tat' here; at the very least, if the shoe is on the other foot in the future, I'm sure America will happily grant a Russian Snowden some kind of protection.

Peace,

V-03

 

Frankly I'm surprised Russia (and the rest of the anti-U.S. bloc) is so reluctant to grant asylum to Snowden. I wasn't aware we had that much leverage on these countries. Maybe we have dirt on foreign governments and use it to blackmail them on occasions such as these? And if we have leverage on foreign governments, I'm surprised we're using it...Snowden must really be important.

I do have to wonder though what would happen if a Russian Snowden defected in the opposite direction. If Russia gives up Snowden to us, would be we obliged to return the favor? Obviously a Russia-to-America defector would invoke Russia's poor human rights record as reason why he shouldn't be sent back, but Snowden also tried to do the exact same thing. Even if Russia actually does have a poor human rights record and Snowden's comments about America and human rights is probably baloney, it would still look extremely awkward to the world if we demanded Snowden's extradition but refuse to do the same with defectors from other countries.

 

Compared to the oligarchs ruling Russia, where he seeks asylum, his comments about the US are baloney. But, it does put us in a bind diplomatically if we demand extradition.

 

When I say emerging I mean we're not quite there yet, but with http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/%E2%80%9Cwhy_did_you_shoot_me_i_was_reading_a_book_the_new_warrior_cop_is_out_of_control/]Police[/url] militarization and an ever growing http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/02/u-s-prison-population-seeing-unprecedented-increase/]prison[/url] population plus you add the spying on citizens, the cameras being in every location that are used to track you (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht-23prison.12253738.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0]link[/url]). Then I'd say we're well on our way to authoritarianism. And no, I don't think we're completely there, but the executive branch holds too much power and the judiciary helps to keep corporations as 'people' with congress effectively acting as a cheerleader for all of these abuses; I'd say any American who's actually paying any attention to all of this has a right to be suspicious about NSA spying.

It's not paranoia or anything of the like to worry about the state of how our government is acting as it affects everyone--including people overseas who we regularly spy on and treat with mistrust.

 

Well... that must have been an interesting discussion earlier on this page.

Russia does seem like an odd place to seek asylum for someone who committed an offense that would have been dealt with very severely if it had occurred there. Maybe there are details of the story that haven't yet come to light which will better explain that.

 

I'd still hesitate to use the word authoritarian. I think the main characteristic of an authoritarian government is one that uses its power to harass or suppress political opponents. The issue of police militarization seems to me to be more of a case of excessive force and bureaucratic stupidity, while the growing prison population is a result of the prison-industrial complex as well as our stupid "tough-on-crime" politics gone way too far. These issues are of concern, but they don't amount to authoritarianism. Security cameras everywhere seem to me to be a product of the "age of terrorism"...you could argue over whether it is or isn't justified, but I think the most you can say against it is that it's overzealous and excessive (and probably benefits somebody in the security-industrial complex)...but I still wouldn't use the A-word.

If the security apparatus begins to be turned towards suppressing political groups though, then I would consider that to be authoritarian. If a political group is spied upon by the government, or if the threshold for "disturbing the peace" is lowered such that members of a political group suddenly and conveniently start being arrested in large numbers...then that would definitely be authoritarian. Right now what we have is a national security state...it's not healthy for democracy in the long run because it decreases accountability and concentrates power in the executive, but it's also important to distinguish it from an authoritarian state. The national security state might have some legitimacy in times of emergency, while an authoritarian state has no legitimacy at any time.

You'll get no argument from me on that. I'd be worried if we didn't worry about that

 

So, what does everybody think of Sen. Lindsey Graham's call for the US to boycot the 2014 Olympics if Russia grants Snowden aslyum like we did in 1980?

 

Senator Graham wanting to win re-election in South Carolina next year.

 

That and likely another way for him and his Tea Party allies to prove Obama 'soft' on the Snowden affair.