[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Resistance See other Resistance Articles Title: Snowden's Russian Sojourn: Moral Failure? Not hardly, says Justin Raimondo Edward Snowdens flight to freedom is being watched the world over as a contest of wills between one very determined person and the mightiest empire in world history: so far, Snowden is winning. His personal victory, however, may be short-lived, as he runs up against what may be an insuperable wall: Vladimir Putins Russia. Blocked by the US which has revoked his passport from traveling to countries in Latin America which have offered him sanctuary, Snowden is reduced to applying for temporary asylum in Russia, a country not exactly known for its civil libertarian atmosphere. Even before his temporary asylum application, Snowden was being attacked for even going to Russia: Aha! He must be a Russian agent! We were told the Russkies have almost certainly "drained" his laptops (the Chinese, too). In an email to one of his more prominent American supporters, Snowden debunked this canard, which is being pushed by both the Fox News/neocon types and the MSNBC crowd: "No intelligence service not even our own has the capacity to compromise the secrets I continue to protect. While it has not been reported in the media, one of my specialization[s] was to teach our people at DIA how to keep such information from being compromised even in the highest threat counter- intelligence environments (i.e. China). "You may rest easy knowing I cannot be coerced into revealing that information, even under torture." Looks like Putin will have to keep a close watch on the Guardians web site in order to get the latest lowdown on Americas global surveillance project, just like the rest of us. Okay, Snowdens not a Russian spy, or a Chinese one, either so, hes in the clear, right? Well, not exactly: not if youre a British journalist, that is. Because, you see, in spite of the Guardians key and very admirable role in reporting this story, the British media is militantly anti-Russian, and viscerally hostile to the Putin regime. This reflects the policies of the British government: although the Brits wont give political asylum to Snowden, they have provided sanctuary for Russian "dissidents," including Chechen terrorists and thieving oligarchs who fled after stealing as much as they could and hiding it in British banks. I wont go into the long list of incidents in recent years, but one, the Litvinenko affair, was such an egregious and obviously trumped up campaign of vilification aimed at Russia that I doubt it wouldve been taken seriously by anyone if its target had been any country. In any case, I suppose it was inevitable that the Guardian newspaper the paper that broke the Snowden story to begin with would raise objections to Snowdens flight to Russia, and Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor at the Observer, the Guardians sister paper, has risen to the challenge, writing: "Perhaps it was no more than being naive, but to list Putins Russia, as Snowden did, among his little list of countries for being the first to stand against human rights violations suggests a dangerous moral relativism. "Far from being a champion, Russias record on human rights violations is a grim one. Snowdens meeting with human rights groups in Moscows Sheremetyevo airport was preceded by another piece of human rights news the posthumous conviction of whistleblower Sergei Magnitsky, who was tortured in a Russian prison and denied medical attention that might have saved his life." Only in the England of 2013 would elementary manners be considered evidence of "a dangerous moral relativism." After all, Snowden is being pursued relentlessly by the most powerful nation on earth: other nations, considerably less powerful, are offering him aid and assistance. Why shouldnt he thank them? If you were drowning, and someone jumped in the water to save you, and that someone turned out to be a person whose moral integrity was less than stellar, would you stop him (or her) before being lifted out of harms way in order to harangue them with a stern lecture? Of course you wouldnt and shouldnt. As for this question of "moral relativism": what can Beaumont possibly mean? It isnt Snowden whos practicing moral relativism, its the Obama administration and its European allies who hypocritically vaunt their support for "freedom," "transparency," and "civil society," while charging a man who revealed his own governments secret violation of the Constitution with "espionage" and preventing him from claiming his internationally-recognized right to political asylum. It is Snowden and the governments of Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua upholding these rights, and the Americans who are denying them. Beaumont subjects us to the usual litany of Russias alleged sins, from the much-discussed Magnitsky case to the "Pussy Riot" ladies, but all these talking points have one thing in common: extreme murkiness. For example, the Magnitsky case seems to have been a case of simple tax evasion by a British company, which was somehow turned into a narrative about Russian "gangsters" allegedly "stealing" the company Magnitsky worked for, Hermitage Capital Management, and somehow using it to get a tax refund from the Russian government. How this is possible, given that the Russians accuse Hermitage of tax evasion, Ill leave to the US State Department to explain. It is they, after all, who are enforcing the provisions of the recently passed "Magnitsky Act," and have published a list of Russian officials said to be involved in Magnitskys "persecution" who are not allowed to set foot in the United States. And theyre whining that the Russians wont extradite Snowden! The Magnitsky narrative is a convoluted, and, ultimately, a not very credible sounding tale, which, even if every jot and tittle of it is true, could easily have happened in the United States, or any Western country. To single out Russia, and this case, as examples of a unique corruption is patently ridiculous, and typical of the sanctimonious hypocrisy that is the leitmotif of Western "liberal" thought. As for the "Pussy Riot" provocateurs: their very name condemns them, and their tactics limn their title: they go into Russian churches, throw off their clothes, and insult churchgoers, all the while screaming obscenities and political slogans. They have clear connections to the US-supported Russian "opposition," which enjoys close to zero support inside Russia but has a large and loud constituency in the Western media and among Western government officials. If these ladies arent an asset of some Western intelligence agency, then they are certainly auditioning for the part. Russia today is hardly a libertarian utopia, but for a country that has only recently emerged from the worst dictatorship in modern times a genocidal regime that murdered millions and imprisoned its entire population in the vast penitentiary that was Soviet Russia its progress toward an open society has been breathtakingly rapid. In 1980, the Russian gulag was still holding millions: by 1991, the country was in the midst of holding its first presidential election. Russian media are subservient to the political class, and their ownership is intermingled with the interests of the financial and governmental elite much like our own media, here in the "Free World." In short, from a historical perspective, Russia is moving in the direction of more freedom. Contrast this with the US and Britain, both of which are moving away from their own liberal political tradition and toward a more authoritarian model. That, after all, is the main lesson of the Snowden revelations: that the US and its allies have constructed an "architecture of oppression," and they have done it in the dark. Under the guise of "fighting terrorism," they have constructed the foundations of a police state, one capable of tracking our movements, personal affairs, political opinions, financial status, and virtually everything else worth knowing. The architects work is finished: all thats needed to "legalize" this sinister Panopticon is for a few building inspectors from Congress to come around and give the structure a cursory once-over. Having deemed it "democratically" correct and "safe," and after having made a few cosmetic changes, theyll give the system their stamp of approval and the two- hundred year old experiment started by the Founders will have ended in failure. So please spare us any more nonsense about how any and all countries Snowden sets foot in must be held up to some libertarian ideal. If I were a British journalist concerned with government repression, I would focus a lot more on the fact that my own government is arresting and jailing people for "speech crimes" for tweeting than I would on the depredations of the Russian state. But then again, thats just me
. A final note: I wouldnt assume the Russians will grant Snowdens asylum bid: indeed, I wouldnt be the least bit surprised if Putin got tired of the whole airport show, and decided to hand him over to the Americans in exchange for some favor. In that case, I wonder if those who are now caviling over Snowdens Russian sojourn will hold the American government to the same high civil libertarian standards they insisted on applying to Snowden. Here, after all, is the leader of the so-called "Free World" employing the assistance of an alleged autocracy in apprehending Snowden and delivering him into the waiting arms of the FBI. Indeed, the reputed "leader" of the "Free World" personally called Putin, and asked for his assistance in returning the famed whistleblower to the US. Oh, but that kind of collaboration with tyrants is just fine and dandy, because
Ooops! Ive run out of space! And Im fifteen minutes past my deadline. Looks like Ill have to leave that last sentence for my readers to finish in the comments section below. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|