What if Snowden was a Russian whistleblower?

Conor Friedersdorf asks us to consider a very instructive scenario.

Imagine that an employee of a secretive surveillance agency in Russia or China landed at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York, somehow called a press conference, and revealed that the leaders of his country were secretly gathering up the private data of all Russians or Chinese in previously unknown ways, and that they were also spying on many Americans.

What would be the right thing to do in that situation? Should Obama return the leaker to Russia or China to face charges of revealing classified information and likely spend the rest of his life in prison? Or would the demands of justice and morality be better served by granting political asylum?

For all the freaking out about Russia granting Snowden temporary asylum, the fact is that all that freaking out is just ritual. The people doing it (at least those in government) have to do it, but it’s doubtful they ever seriously expected any other outcome. Russia will not do something simply because we demand it, for the same reason we do not automatically bend to Russian demands. Some people may not like the outcome, but thems the breaks.

We shouldn’t punish Russia for taking in Snowden, because it’s likely we would do the same if the situation was reversed. The global issues involved in our relationship with Russia are far more important than punishing someone who’s embarrassed the United States.

"To me, the U.S. would be foolish to let the Edward Snowden controversy affect its relationship with a nuclear power or to prioritize Snowden when so many more important issues are at stake," Friedersdorf writes.

Iran agrees to historic face-to-face nuclear talks

New York Times:

The United States and Iran have agreed in principle for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials, setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran.

Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, a senior administration official said, telling their American counterparts that they want to know with whom they would be negotiating.

News of the agreement — a result of intense, secret exchanges between American and Iranian officials that date almost to the beginning of President Obama’s term — comes at a critical moment in the presidential contest, just two weeks before Election Day and the weekend before the final debate, which is to focus on national security and foreign policy.

It has the potential to help Mr. Obama make the case that he is nearing a diplomatic breakthrough in the decade-long effort by the world’s major powers to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, but it could pose a risk if Iran is seen as using the prospect of the direct talks to buy time.

The report goes on to say that, should he win, it’s unclear whether Romney would go through with the talks. Romney’s rhetoric on the subject has been idiotic — basically, “Do as I say or it’s war!” It’ll be interesting to see what position Mitt will take in tomorrow’s foreign policy debate — the warmongering one he’s been pushing for months to please the chickenhawk teabaggers or the sane diplomatic solution that most likely polls a lot better with the general electorate.

Will it be the itchy trigger-finger or Romnesia?

[image source]

Griper Blade: Remember Iraqi Refugees

Today, the President and the President-Elect will meet at the White House to discuss the bloodless change of government that is the genius of democracy. Viva la Revolución Pacífica! The economy is said to be the primary focus, but you imagine the discussion will be pretty broad in its range. Barack Obama has been getting daily intelligence briefings, so we can assume he's up to speed on world events and the status of different "situations" around the globe. He's probably not going to be too interested in advice, although you assume he'll take it graciously. Normally, free advice is worth only what you paid for it, but from a failed presidency, it's worth even less than that. Obama just wants to know if you have to dial 9 to get an outside line. This is about running the physical machinery of the White House and a smooth transition from failure to promise.

There are many problems that President Obama will have to address and many of those are problems that President Bush let fester. In fact, many of these crises were caused by Bush, who's now busy pretending they don't exist. A big reason for the failures of the Bush administration is their addiction to BS; they seem to have a belief that there is no problem that isn't a PR problem. It doesn't matter whether something's going well, what's important is the perception that it's going well. If everyone thinks there isn't a problem, then there isn't a problem. Crisis management, for this crew, consists almost solely of press conferences. There is no problem that can't be talked to death.

And that's the problem with Iraq. While Bush singlemindedly pursues what he calls "victory," he ignores the problems he's caused with his boneheaded invasion of that country. Many will tell you that things are better there than they have been, but few will tell you its better now than it's ever been. Iraq is still a nation defined by instability, violence, and want. The current President wants you to think otherwise, because that's how he solves problems. The President-Elect will have to do better. Contrary to what George W. Bush seems to believe, you can't deny reality forever.

"Many Iraqis tell me that America broke this country and it is still shattered. When they look at their lives they see the lack of electricity, the corruption, the lack of clean water and much more," writes McClatchy Baghdad Bureau Chief Leila Fadel. "Security has improved but everything here is tenuous and violence, which has dropped but not disappeared, may come back."



[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Iraq Reacts to US Spying Allegation

clipped from www.usatoday.com The Iraqi government reacted sharply Friday to published allegations that the U.S. spied on Iraq's prime minister, warning that future ties with the United States could be in jeopardy if the report were true. The allegations appear by a new book, "The War Within: A Secret White House History, 2006-2008," by journalist Bob Woodward, who writes that the United States spied extensively on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, his staff and other government officials. The report emerged as the two governments are in delicate negotiations over the future of American troops in Iraq. Those talks have already extended past their July 31 deadline and have drawn sharp criticism from Iraqis who want an end to the U.S. presence. Critics may well use the allegation to step up pressure on the government not to sign a deal or hold out for the most favorable terms.

Is there anyone the Bush administration isn't spying on?

This reminds me of the time they spied on diplomats at the UN. These people are seriously and dangerously paranoid. Then, as now, the spying caused more problems than it solved. This is pretty much the definition of a disorder.

US, Poland Sign Missile Deal

clipped from news.bbc.co.uk The US and Poland have signed a deal to locate part of the US's controversial missile defence system on Polish soil. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice travelled to Warsaw for the ceremony, after 18 months of negotiations. The deal has angered Russia, which has warned the base could become a target for a nuclear strike. Washington says the system will protect the US and much of Europe against missile attacks from "rogue elements" in the Middle East such as Iran. Speaking during the signing ceremony at the presidential palace in Warsaw, she emphasised that the missile system was "defensive and aimed at no-one". Russia's deputy chief of general staff, Gen Anatoly Nogovitsyn, said last week the plans for a missile base in Poland "could not go unpunished". "It is a cause for regret that at a time when we are already in a difficult situation, the American side further exacerbates the situation in relations between the United States and Russia," he said.

A few points to consider here:

1. This is being put across as a response to the Russo-Georgian crisis, but dumbass moves like this are actually one of the causes.

2. It's a BS system that doesn't work about 99% of the time.

3. Russia's statement that it would be the target of a nuke attack is a statement of fact, not a threat. If Russia ever feels the need to launch an attack on anyone, they'd take out these missile defense systems first, as ineffective as they are. Poland is foolishly painting a big bullseye on their back.

Griper Blade: McCain, Musharraf, and The Ways of The World

John McCain is Mr. Foreign Policy, Mr. Experience, the one candidate who's been in government longer than marble. He's seen leaders come and leaders go, he's seen entire nations fall to history, he's seen wars won and wars lost. And all this experience seems to have gone completely over his head. In all those years in government, John McCain doesn't seem to have learned a damned thing.

The lessons of Vietnam are clearly lost on the Vietnam vet. A war based on lies cannot be won, because the objectives aren't based on truth. Beat the living hell out of it all you want, but your aren't going to get that square peg into that round hole. The hammer of the military has its limitations.

But, like free market moonies who believe that the "genius of the market" can do anything -- including predicting terrorist attacks -- McCain is a military moonie who seems to believe that force is the only way to do anything.

As a result, McCain's choices of international allies reflects Bush's -- and a history of failure that goes back throughout the 20th century. Diplomacy is for wussypants appeasers. Stalin's quote -- "The Pope? How many divisions has he got?" -- could easily be applied to anyone who shares McCain's thinking. Real allies have guns, because only guns have influence. The world is an awful and dangerous place and only the strong are worth knowing. The Dalai Lama is for photo ops and dictators are for actual work. Nowhere is more apparent than in McCain's support for disgraced Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: Keep It Simple, Stupid

I always get some criticism when I look at a conflict someplace in the world, consider the arguments of both sides, and decide that there aren't any good guys in the fight. There's something in American thinking that requires every fight to be a fight of good against evil. We choose sides, cast the conflict in incredibly simplistic terms, and decide that the team we're backing isn't just faultless, but incapable of wrong. For a long-standing example of this, look at the popular conception of Israel vs. the Palestinians. Israel -- despite consistently damning reports by Amnesty International -- is practically angelic in the average American's mind.

These good guy/bad guy narratives have seemed to spring up overnight in recent history. Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait supposedly came out of nowhere. But the truth is that Kuwaitis had been stealing Iraqi oil through "slant drilling" at the Iraqi border. While no one would argue that Hussein's actions weren't excessive, only those who don't know the facts would say they were unprovoked -- which, given the sorry state of our media, would be pretty much everyone. The invasion of Kuwait was never presented as a dictator vs. thieves. For the home audience, it was bad guy vs. good guys.

And we're seeing the same thing in the Russo-Georgian crisis. There aren't any good guys there, no one we should root for on merely moral grounds. In the conflict, there's no real case to make for the legality of Russia's invasion -- it's pretty much unquestionably a crime. But another question is whether Georgia deserves to be seen as heroic. Not every victim of a crime is a solid citizen; criminal on criminal violence is awfully commonplace...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: McCain's Favorite Pork Product

Iran, late in joining us in celebrating the Fourth of July, shot off a few rockets yesterday. They plan to make up for their tardiness by firing off more today. According to the media and the right, the proper response to this news is, "Oh my freakin' God, oh sweet Jesus, we're all gonna die!"

Although some think the big news is that Iran apparently Photoshopped an extra missile in a photo released to the press, the actually story is that Iran shot off some rockets -- that's the big deal here.

In fact, the Photoshop story's not even secondary -- or tertiary or quaternary. It's trivia. "Authoritarian state releases propaganda" is not exactly earth-shattering news. No, the other story was the US presidential candidates' reactions to the Iran's action. Where Obama called for a diplomatic response, John McCain called on the US to shovel more money down a useless rathole...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: Appeasing the Neocons

It's typical of George W. Bush. He goes to Saudi Arabia to get their help in our energy mess and it doesn't go so well. In fact, the headline in the Telegraph was "Oil leaps after Bush's Saudi trip." Bush's mission did not achieve its desired effect. The Saudis agreed to produce 300,000 extra barrels -- a number the report calls "token." And it's only a token if you believe that Bush had any success at all. The Saudis say that decision had already been made and that Bush's visit had no impact.

Associated Press has a telling paragraph:

When Bush first ran for president in 2000, he criticized the Clinton administration for high fuel prices and said the president must "jawbone" oil producing nations and persuade them to drop rates. At that time, oil was nearing $28 a barrel — less than a quarter what it is now.

The Telegraph piece tells us that "investment bank Goldman Sachs [is] predicting an average price per barrel of $141 in the latter half of the year." The price per barrel is now $127.

No wonder Republicans don't see the value of diplomacy -- their guy sucks at it. Which kind of makes Bush's decision to take a slap at Barack Obama's foreign policy ideas a brand-new kind of ridiculousness. In fact, there are a lot of ridiculous bits to Bush's appearance before the Israeli Knesset. Not the least of which is going to the Israeli parliament to talk about Hitler. Doesn't really seem extremely appropriate to me.

For his part, Bush seems to realize that this election cycle is going to be about him and how much he sucks. So Bush has, apparently, decided that if Barack Obama is going to run against Bush, then John McCain should run against Hamas and Iran. McCain has no reason to thank the president for his help. As this campaign unfolds, the White House and Team McCain are going to find out that there are many things more popular Bush -- and that one of those things are Hamas and Iran. The average person is much more concerned with those who would appease Bush...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: Two News Stories. One President. A Whole World of Suck

There were two big foreign policy stories yesterday. The first -- and most widely covered -- is an ambitious effort that's very, very likely to go nowhere. The second is a just as ambitious effort that's all about going nowhere.

Both stories are about the middle east and how the Bush administration seems to believe that the things they do have no effect on other things they want to happen. In the first case, Bush is hosting a meeting with key middle eastern leaders to discuss peace in the region. This was yesterday's big FP story.

The Guardian:

The time is right to relaunch peace talks on the Middle East, George Bush said today at the opening of the Annapolis conference of leaders from the region.

In optimistic comments prepared for delivery to diplomats from more than 40 countries gathered at the US naval academy, the US president struck a positive note about the new peace effort, something his administration had previously shied away from.

The talks are aimed at jump-starting negotiations for creating a Palestinian state, and Bush emphasised that the meeting marked the beginning of a difficult process.

Two problems with this "big story" -- one, Condoleezza Rice, who sucks, will be heading up the effort. She hasn't been able to swing a single consequential deal for the US since she took over from Colin Powell. She's a lousy diplomat and a lousy Secretary of State.

Two, the idea that Bush can succeed where every other president has failed is laughable. This is an administration that seems to value incompetence -- I point you again to Condi Rice...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: If it's not Working, Do More of it

There's seems to be a predictable line of thinking to the Bush administration's approach to foreign policy. I'd say it was a line of reasoning, but let's not aggrandize anything.

First, they come up with a course of action. This action generally involves being a hard ass. This is because the only people in the world who are fully adult are Americans and all anyone else understands is a spanking.

When whatever you're doing isn't working, the problem is that you're not being a big enough dick about it. If whatever you're doing isn't getting you anywhere, it's because you're not doing enough of it. This, after all, was the thinking behind the "surge" -- what we were doing wasn't failing because it was the wrong thing to do, it was failing because we weren't doing enough of it. The only problem with war in Iraq was that the war wasn't big enough.

And, so it is with Iran. The Bush administration's been freaking out about Iran for some time, using bellicose language and an approach to diplomacy that can only be described as "not diplomacy." As this approach failed to get anywhere, the obvious solution was to be bigger asses. When asked about Iran at a press conference last week, Bush answered, "I believe that the Iranian -- if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace. It would -- this is -- we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. And I take this very -- I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously."

Here's a fun game, let's ask our man in Iraq, al-Maliki, what he thinks of Israel. You probably wouldn't get much of a different answer from him than you would from Ahmadinejad. Israel's not the most popular kid in that particular neighborhood...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: Iran, the New Iraq

We're making progress with Iran. That's not a Bush administration talking point and by "we," I mean the international community -- minus the US. Iran, increasingly isolated in the world over it's nuclear research, is finding it hard to go it alone in the world. According to the United Nations, Iran is taking positive steps toward resolving what is at its core a diplomatic problem. The White House, not being huge fans of diplomacy, haven't really been making much progress. In fact, the Bush administration seems to be dedicated to further entrenching enemies.

While Bush is busy trying to freak everyone out over Iran, they're cooperating with the international community.

UN News Centre:

Iran has addressed the questions of the United Nations nuclear watchdog about its past plutonium programme and both parties now consider that matter resolved, according to a statement posted on the UN agency's website.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) yesterday published on its website the text [PDF] of a joint work plan on how to resolve outstanding issues between the agency and Iran after a request to do so from Tehran.

That text states that Iran provided clarifications to the IAEA to help explain all remaining questions it had about its plutonium programme, and that the agency agreed on 20 August that the matter has been resolved.

Don't get too excited. It's uranium that the Bush administration is freaking out about, not plutonium. So, as far as they're concerned, nothing has changed...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Iran Releases British Sailors

See, this whole diplomacy thing actually works. I wonder if Bush is willing to give it a try sometime?

Associated Press:

British Prime Minister Tony Blair welcomed the release of 15 sailors and marines held captive in Iran for nearly two weeks, and said London's measured response to the crisis had been effective.

During a brief statement, Blair thanked British allies in Europe, the UN Security Council and the Middle East for their help in securing freedom for the Royal Navy personnel.

"Throughout we have taken a measured approach, firm but calm, not negotiating but not confronting either," Blair said. "I'm glad that our 15 service personnel have been released and I know their release will come as a relief not just to them but to their families that have endured such stress and anxiety."

Iran: The 'Language of Force' Must End

Looks like Iran's continuing to be frustratingly uncrazy. How's Bush supposed to gin up a war this way?

Associated Press:

Iran's chief international negotiator on Monday called for an end to "the language of force" in the dispute over 15 British sailors captured in contested waters of the Persian Gulf and said there was no need to put the crew on trial.

The comments from Ali Larijani, who last week had suggested that the crew "may face a legal path," came as both Iran and Britain appeared to be seeking a way to soften their approach to the dispute. Earlier Monday, Iranian state radio said there would be no more broadcasts of the detained crew, though it said all 15 captive Britons had admitted illegally entering Iranian waters.

And in London, an official said Britain had agreed to consider discussing with Iran how to avoid future disputes over contested waters in the Persian Gulf. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the dispute.

Larijani said his country's priority "is to solve the problem through proper diplomatic channels."

Larijani made a clear reference to US involvement. "There is a difference of view between the UK government and the Iranian government, and this issue should be resolved bilaterally," he said.

In other words, "Butt out, Chimpy."

Griper Blade: The UK Can be Glad Its Sailors Weren't Captured by the US

Monty Python alumnus Terry Jones puts the recent capture of british sailors by Iran into context -- as only a member of Python could.

The Guardian:

It is [...] unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn't be able to talk at all. Of course they'd probably find it even harder to breathe - especially with a bag over their head - but at least they wouldn't be humiliated.

And what's all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It's time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: they should allow their captives the privacy of solitary confinement. That's one of the many privileges the US grants to its captives in Guantanamo Bay.

Compare how these the british detainees are treated with how the US has been treating detainees.

BBC:

[Abd al-Rahim] Nashiri's testimony was given at a military tribunal held at Guantanamo to determine his status as an "enemy combatant" on 14 March, AFP news agency reports.

"From the time I was arrested five years ago, they have been torturing me," the transcript of his hearing read.

"It happened during interviews. One time they tortured me one way, and another time they tortured me in a different way."

According to his testimony he eventually "confessed" to playing a key role in the bombing of the USS Cole.

"I just said those things to make the people happy," the transcript read.

"They were very happy when I told them those things."

Let me take a turn putting things in perspective -- when it comes to the treatment of foreign detainees, we suffer in comparison to freakin' Iran. What have we become?

For the sake of argument, let's say that Iran was waterboarding these people and drugging them and using other 'aggressive interrogation techniques.' What could we say with any moral authority? We can't argue that torture is wrong -- hell, the US argues that it isn't even illegal. By our own arguments, Iran would be well within their legal rights...

[CLICK TO REAS FULL POST]