HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What RIGHT does the U.S. ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 04:34 AM

What RIGHT does the U.S. have to tell other countries they can't give Snowden asylum?

Whatever you think of the guy and what he did(and I'm still not sure what I think of him myself), on what authority does OUR government have to abrogate the sovereign right of other countries to decide who they may or may not grant asylum to?

Seriously, can anybody site anything legitimate to back up what our leaders are trying to impose on other countries' immigration officials on this matter?

102 replies, 4225 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 102 replies Author Time Post
Reply What RIGHT does the U.S. have to tell other countries they can't give Snowden asylum? (Original post)
Ken Burch Jul 2013 OP
Incitatus Jul 2013 #1
Scootaloo Jul 2013 #13
SamKnause Jul 2013 #2
brooklynite Jul 2013 #28
treestar Jul 2013 #47
Bonobo Jul 2013 #3
ceonupe Jul 2013 #35
Bonobo Jul 2013 #40
ceonupe Jul 2013 #42
Bonobo Jul 2013 #43
tom_kelly Jul 2013 #44
Igel Jul 2013 #90
Lurker Deluxe Jul 2013 #48
Bonobo Jul 2013 #49
Lurker Deluxe Jul 2013 #70
Bonobo Jul 2013 #72
ceonupe Jul 2013 #83
Lurker Deluxe Jul 2013 #86
Bonobo Jul 2013 #88
raccoon Jul 2013 #80
ceonupe Jul 2013 #85
frylock Jul 2013 #96
Douglas Carpenter Jul 2013 #4
HardTimes99 Jul 2013 #68
Douglas Carpenter Jul 2013 #76
Bolo Boffin Jul 2013 #5
Douglas Carpenter Jul 2013 #6
Bolo Boffin Jul 2013 #7
Douglas Carpenter Jul 2013 #9
Bolo Boffin Jul 2013 #11
Scootaloo Jul 2013 #14
Bolo Boffin Jul 2013 #21
Tien1985 Jul 2013 #30
Douglas Carpenter Jul 2013 #32
Bolo Boffin Jul 2013 #59
Tien1985 Jul 2013 #94
Bolo Boffin Jul 2013 #95
Scootaloo Jul 2013 #64
Bolo Boffin Jul 2013 #67
MADem Jul 2013 #101
Ichingcarpenter Jul 2013 #10
Bolo Boffin Jul 2013 #12
Douglas Carpenter Jul 2013 #16
Bolo Boffin Jul 2013 #20
Douglas Carpenter Jul 2013 #26
Ichingcarpenter Jul 2013 #17
idwiyo Jul 2013 #41
Ichingcarpenter Jul 2013 #45
Bolo Boffin Jul 2013 #57
alcibiades_mystery Jul 2013 #61
Bolo Boffin Jul 2013 #62
KharmaTrain Jul 2013 #79
Bonobo Jul 2013 #15
Ichingcarpenter Jul 2013 #18
Bolo Boffin Jul 2013 #19
Bonobo Jul 2013 #22
morningfog Jul 2013 #31
Bolo Boffin Jul 2013 #37
kelliekat44 Jul 2013 #54
micraphone Jul 2013 #8
malaise Jul 2013 #23
gholtron Jul 2013 #24
GeorgeGist Jul 2013 #29
gholtron Jul 2013 #33
randome Jul 2013 #25
djean111 Jul 2013 #38
alcibiades_mystery Jul 2013 #50
djean111 Jul 2013 #55
alcibiades_mystery Jul 2013 #58
djean111 Jul 2013 #69
alcibiades_mystery Jul 2013 #84
Ken Burch Jul 2013 #100
woo me with science Jul 2013 #27
hobbit709 Jul 2013 #34
n2doc Jul 2013 #39
HardTimes99 Jul 2013 #71
randome Jul 2013 #75
HardTimes99 Jul 2013 #77
randome Jul 2013 #81
HardTimes99 Jul 2013 #89
randome Jul 2013 #92
shawn703 Jul 2013 #36
alcibiades_mystery Jul 2013 #53
socialist_n_TN Jul 2013 #65
shawn703 Jul 2013 #66
alcibiades_mystery Jul 2013 #87
MADem Jul 2013 #102
treestar Jul 2013 #46
Progressive dog Jul 2013 #51
allin99 Jul 2013 #52
Violet_Crumble Jul 2013 #56
NM_Birder Jul 2013 #60
Recursion Jul 2013 #63
southernyankeebelle Jul 2013 #73
HardTimes99 Jul 2013 #74
Egalitarian Thug Jul 2013 #78
MjolnirTime Jul 2013 #82
PDJane Jul 2013 #91
Sheepshank Jul 2013 #93
onenote Jul 2013 #97
sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #98
indepat Jul 2013 #99

Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 04:38 AM

1. The biggest bully in the schoolyard doesn't have much trouble getting the other kids on his side.

Or at least staying out of the way. What trade agreements and aid or other favors may be at play, I have no idea. But I do think they want to make an example out of him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Incitatus (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 05:35 AM

13. The trouble with being a bully, though...

Is once someone slips through your guard and pops you in the mouth, suddenly all those people you thought were on your side are suddenly dogpiling you. So there's pressure to stay in peak bully condition, to abuse and cow even more people in the hopes that nobody will even try to catch you like that.

But eventually, someone will, and everything you think you've built crumbles like sand in the rain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 04:44 AM

2. They have no right

They use financial terrorism.

They use sanctions.

They use invasions, occupations and assassinations.

They use every dirty trick in the book to attain and keep power.

The U.S. wants to control the planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SamKnause (Reply #2)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 06:51 AM

28. ...and they're not...

...they DO have the right to point out that a criminal charge has been filed against Snowden, and that many countries have signed a criminal extradition treaty with the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SamKnause (Reply #2)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 07:53 AM

47. Financial terrorism?

What is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 04:46 AM

3. The problem with making promises you can't keep...

is that it destroys your trustworthiness.

One overlooked thing about the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars is that they showed the US to be something of a paper tiger. They had long boasted about being able to fight two full wars simultaneously but ultimately they proved that the best they can really do is bomb the shit out of things. They do not have the power to hold territory.

This is somewhat analogous in my mind. In the end, they CANNOT tell other countries what to do and their empty threats will only further deflate their puffed up image with the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 07:07 AM

35. Belive that if you want

 

We could have destroyed both countries in less than a month if we wanted to.

No other fighting force in the history of the world approaches ours.

The truth is the Iraq and afghan conflicts wernt wars but experiments that ultimately failed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ceonupe (Reply #35)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 07:26 AM

40. Destruction and holding and controlling a territory are different animals.

The US showed it can do one, but not defeat its people. Not by a long shot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #40)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 07:31 AM

42. Dead people are defeated people

 

We proved in WW2 we can defeat a people with death. I have no doubt we could have done far worse far faster in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These wernt wars but huge transfers of wealth and control and they set the stage for the next 50-100 years of control of that region and its mineral wealth.

We mad another frantic move about 60uears ago when we moved away from Iran and strongly back led the Saudis

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ceonupe (Reply #42)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 07:40 AM

43. Only if you kill them all.

US killed 2 million Vietnamese and STILL got thrown out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #43)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 07:47 AM

44. We Get

into war these days for the profit of the MIC which will last decades per the Dick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #43)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 10:57 AM

90. Our former ally got thrown out.

After we refused to help with money and munitions. Congress never has been very good at honoring its commitments.

Otherwise we were handily defeated by the North Vietnamese about a year after we signed a peace treaty with them and pulled our fighters out of the country. There's a nice picture of the Marines evacuating Saigon. They were assigned to the embassy.

It's like Tet. There's reality. There's perception. At some point the fiction is taken as truth and becomes more important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #40)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 07:57 AM

48. tell that to N Korea

Tell the north koreans we can not hold a position ...

They might disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurker Deluxe (Reply #48)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 08:02 AM

49. The 38th parallel was a compromise with the USSR. nt

Also, the US 70 years ago is not the US today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #49)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 09:28 AM

70. So ...

It is S Korea who keeps the 4th largest army in the world at bay?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurker Deluxe (Reply #70)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 09:34 AM

72. If the US army wasn't there, they STILL would not come across.

You're living in 1945 if you think that the US forces there do anything to prevent an invasion.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #72)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 09:59 AM

83. no its our bombs radars drones that keep it in place

 

no its our bombs radars drones that keep it in place to think otherwise is crazy.

We singlehandedly hold that line. If we wernt there and in the ocean right next door i fully believe the north would sacrifice 1 million in invading the south and the south could do nothing to stop it without us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #72)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 10:02 AM

86. Riiiight!

N Korea is just all bluster. Remove the threat of force from the US military and they will just play nice with everyone.

I certainly hope you are not that niave. The forces there are a speed bump to slow an advancing army enough for our air force to get over there and destroy the threat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurker Deluxe (Reply #86)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 10:06 AM

88. Rah rah.

What a load of star-spangled bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ceonupe (Reply #35)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 09:47 AM

80. Elucidate, my dear Watson. You have my interest.


"The truth is the Iraq and afghan conflicts wernt wars but experiments that ultimately failed"


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to raccoon (Reply #80)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 10:01 AM

85. The goal was to go light and strategic and setup a US/Western style system of gov. business and bank

 

The goal was to go light and strategic and setup a US/Western style system of gov. business and banks while ensuring US/Western control of the oil trade by taking out threats to our $$$ intrests. Had Iraq worked better and Afgan not completly failed we would have already taken over Iran with the Saudi's as the front men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ceonupe (Reply #35)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 03:39 PM

96. did you get an erection when posting this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 04:54 AM

4. a potentially a major set back for the Intelligence Industrial Complex to have one whistlebower

get away with it. If others come forward - this could seriously disable their ability to establish full spectrum dominance. The technological ability for the clandestine services to essentially have an eye on almost everyone and almost everything is already there. The political license to do so can only be maintained as long as the public is more afraid of an existential threat than they are afraid of those who are in charge of protecting against the existential threat. This of course requires absolute secrecy to be maintained. In real politic having the right to do something is always less important then having the power to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #4)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 09:24 AM

68. You should build this into an OP and elaborate upon its themes. Very

 

important truths you are laying out.

Might want to add their corollary: Snowden (Manning) is a 'demonstration project' to other putative whistleblowers about the fates that await them, should they dare expose the empire and its secrets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HardTimes99 (Reply #68)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 09:40 AM

76. thank you - I'll have to give that some thought

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 04:59 AM

5. I've not seen that the United States has done this.

I've seen lawmakers of both parties say that whoever gives Snowden asylum is pitting themselves against the United States or statements to that effect. But I've not seen anyone say another sovereign country cannot give him asylum.

Do you have a source for your statement?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #5)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 05:08 AM

6. you're being disingenuous

enough said

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #6)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 05:17 AM

7. No, I am not. There's a very specific charge being laid by the OP.

I want to see where he has seen the evidence for this, because I haven't.

That's not being disingenuous. That's wanting to see the evidence for the allegation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #7)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 05:24 AM

9. I suppose when the Vice President of the United States calls the President of Ecuador

to ask him to deny Snowden asylum that is one clue:

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-urges-ecuador-to-deny-snowden-asylum/1691959.html

The whole incident involving the Bolivia's Presidential aircraft was another clue.

No one - absolutely no one regardless what they think about his issue is not well aware the U.S. is trying to get Snowden and to keep him from obtaining asylum elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #9)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 05:28 AM

11. "ask him to deny Snowden asylum" =/= "says countries cannot offer asylum"

The very fact that Biden is asking Ecuador to not grant asylum is admission that they can.

Maybe you shouldn't count your chickens on the Bolivian presidential plane incident before all the facts are in. And trying to keep Snowden from getting asylum somewhere is not the same as saying no country can offer him asylum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #11)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 05:40 AM

14. Goddamn there are some dense people on DU

Subtext, my friend, subtext. When the Vice president of the United States of America "requests" that a small nation in Latin America do something, it's not actually a "request." It's a demand and implied threat, an unsaid "or else bad things" hanging in the air.

"Hi, I'm calling from the nation that has orchestrated coups in every single nation in your neighborhood - some of them more than once. i'd like to ask a political favor of you..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #14)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 06:14 AM

21. Goddamn you are getting close to the line there, Scootaloo.

If you go over the line and start actually calling me names and insulting me, there will be consequences.

See what I did there? I didn't say you couldn't. You very well could start calling me names and openly insulting me. It's perfectly within your power to do so. But I wouldn't recommend it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #21)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 06:56 AM

30. Actually we would call that

A threat. And it's unacceptable and by most rational people considered close enough to the same as saying "you can't" if the person making the threat is in a position of power over the person being threatened. But keep arguing semantics, if you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tien1985 (Reply #30)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 07:04 AM

32. semantics is all I have heard so far - spying is not REALLY spying, secret is not REALLY secret

illegal is not REALLY illegal - they can't really deny what is happening is happening - they just refute the words used to describe it - as if that was the issue and if we would just change the words then there will be nothing to worry about

like this article from the Atlantic put it:

It is hyperbolic, and even hysterical, to say, as Glenn Greenwald has, that the United States has a secret plan "to destroy privacy and anonymity not just in the United States but around the world."

In fact, the U.S. government is, right this second, pouring untold billions into what is ultimately an effort to monitor all digital communications; scan all mail; amass a fleet of surveillance drones that can hover in the sky for days on end; develop technology to scan all faces in crowds; assemble gigantic databases of biometric data; break all encryption efforts; indiscriminately spy on millions of citizens in friendly countries like Germany and Brazil; and share spy technologies with allies. None of that is in dispute. What's hyperbolic is calling people hysterical because they see the endgame of various plans to impose ever broader surveillance on whole societies. There isn't a government document somewhere titled, "The Plan to Destroy Global Privacy," but that is exactly what Western intelligence agencies will do if adequately funded and left, unopposed, to their own devices. Anyone who can't see that hasn't adequately grappled with the implications of Snowden's revelations, the history of spy agencies allowed to operate in secret, or the radical new capabilities that advances in data analysis and retention have given states (and are likely to give them in the near future if they aren't stopped).


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/the-problem-with-the-privacy-moderates/277561/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tien1985 (Reply #30)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 08:27 AM

59. So the United States cannot respond at all in a negative way to a country

that gives Snowden asylum when he is wanted here to answer felony charges.

Isn't that an assault on the sovereignty of the USA? Please explain why such an assertion is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #59)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 11:57 AM

94. Yes, that's what I'm saying.

Please continue trying to convince the Internet that threatening isn't threatening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tien1985 (Reply #94)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 03:35 PM

95. Threatening a course of action well within America's right to take is threatening, yes.

But saying "should not" does not mean "may not." I don't care how much of the internet says otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #21)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 08:47 AM

64. Yeah, poor little you. We'll start collecting donations for your traumatic moment, there

I'm certain you get the point I'm making, however, even if you choose to spend your time sniffing your toes rather than acknowledge it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #64)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 09:21 AM

67. You need to resist this tendency of making your arguments so close to personal attacks.

My unsolicited advice to you as a parting gift.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #21)

Wed Jul 10, 2013, 03:29 AM

101. The greater the insults, the weaker the argument accompanying them, I have noticed. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #7)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 05:28 AM

10. Washington Warns Snowden May Only Travel to the US (Jay Carney WH Spokesman statement)


Washington Warns Snowden May Only Travel to the US (Jay Carney WH Spokesman statement)



Last edited Tue Jul 9, 2013, 12:28 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Source: http://www.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/13

The White House warned on Monday that former CIA staff Edward Snowden may not be allowed to travel to any other country but the United States.

The US Government keeps in touch through relevant diplomatic channels with all countries Snowden could travel across or choose for his final destination, said White House's spokesperson Jay Carney, EFE reported.

Carney's statement has been the first official US reaction after Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Venezuela recently offered Snowden asylum.

Carney further explained there were sufficient legal arguments for Russia to expel Snowden to the United States, despite the lack of any extradition bilateral treaty

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #10)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 05:34 AM

12. Your link is bad.

Here's a better one.

http://www.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/130708/washington-warns-snowden-may-only-travel-to-the-us

Trouble is, I'm not seeing this anywhere else. Every place I see this leads back to this one article. I don't see a statement at the White House website. I don't see it at any other news site. If Jay Carney put out an official statement like this, why wouldn't it be at the White House?

Perhaps the El Universal reporter misunderstood what Carney said?

ETA: Also, that's not making a claim that no other country can give him asylum. That claim, should it prove to be verified, is that Snowden is only legally able to travel to the United States. Which probably goes to his passport having been revoked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #12)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 05:44 AM

16. if we are going to discuss things here ,, there has to be an element of seriousness

this spying is not spying, secretive is not secretive, illegal is not illegal, trying to deny someone asylum is not trying to deny someone asylum..... come on

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #16)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 06:10 AM

20. No, "trying to deny someone asylum" is not the claim of the OP.

The claim of the OP is "The United States is disregarding the sovereignty of other countries by saying they CANNOT offer Snowden asylum." There is plenty of evidence that the US is trying to deny Snowden asylum in other countries. There is no evidence the United States has said he CANNOT be offered asylum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #20)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 06:40 AM

26. they have not threatend nuclear strike or an invasion and occupation,no...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #12)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 05:50 AM

17. Fair enough

I just checked the daily presidential briefing transcripts and didn't see the statement either.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/08/1222100/-Briefing-with-White-House-Press-Secretary-Jay-Carney-Lots-of-Egypt-a-bit-on-Snowden-Obamacare#

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #17)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 07:30 AM

41. Please see link below for official transcript.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=531178

In the discussion thread: Washington Warns Snowden May Only Travel to the US (Jay Carney WH Spokesman statement)

Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #53)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 10:39 AM

Star Member pinboy3niner (28,554 posts)
54. White House press briefing--excerpt from transcript and video:

Last edited Tue Jul 9, 2013, 10:40 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
Q: Okay. Can we switch to Snowden for a minute? What is the White House’s message to Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua, who have offered or are considering offering asylum to Snowden? And in order to leave Russia, if he were to, Snowden would have to pass through Russian passport control. What message is the administration conveying to Russia about the consequences Russia might pay if they allowed that?

MR. CARNEY: Well, let me say that the United States has been in touch via diplomatic and law enforcement channels with countries through which Mr. Snowden might transit or which might serve as final destinations for Mr. Snowden and we’ve made very clear that he has been charged with a felony, or with felonies, and, as such, he should not be allowed to proceed in any further international travel other than travel that would result in him returning to the United States.
...


More at the link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to idwiyo (Reply #41)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 07:48 AM

45. Stand Corrected he did say it

which is an arrogant and belligerent statement from the white house and not weasel words

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #45)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 08:24 AM

57. No, he did not say "may not"

He said "should not." The OP goes too far. "Should not" is well within the rights of the United States to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #57)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 08:34 AM

61. The US is obligated under international law to accept Snowden's version of events

drop its charges, reinstate his passport, and provide him with a Malibu beach house and a year's stipend to write his experimental indy rock album, Conquistadora, Laura. Obviously. It's right there in Section 29.853c of the International Declaration of Snowden Rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #61)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 08:36 AM

62. Well, when you put it like that

It seems much more reasonable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #61)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 09:47 AM

79. There...

...it had to be said!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #7)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 05:42 AM

15. How about this?

http://www.voanews.com/content/kerry-says-there-are-consequences-for-countries-aiding-snowden/1687952.html

Kerry Warns of 'Consequences' for Aiding Snowden

NEW DELHI, INDIA — U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry says there will be consequences for countries helping former U.S. intelligence analyst Edward Snowden avoid arrest for disclosing secret details of the U.S. government's surveillance of telephone and Internet activities.

Kerry says it would be "deeply troubling" if authorities in Russia or Hong Kong had adequate notice and willfully ignored U.S. efforts to gain custody of Snowden following espionage indictments.

"There would be, without any question, some affect, an impact on the relationship and consequences. With respect to Russia, likewise," he said.

Kerry is urging Moscow to live up to the law because he says that is in everyone's interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #15)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 06:03 AM

18. The diplomatic bullying is apparent to S.A.






BUENOS AIRES, July 8 (RIA Novosti) – Uruguay’s first lady, Senator Lucia Topolansky, said Monday that her country would consider giving asylum to fugitive former US intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.
“This issue should be considered, once a request is filed,” Topolansky said. “Uruguay has traditionally been a country that grants asylum. I think that every country is free to shelter whomever it wants.
“Every country has its own rules and makes its own decisions, and no one is allowed to interfere with the sovereignty of other nations,” she added.
Snowden, who is wanted by the United States for leaking details of a top-secret surveillance program that allegedly targeted millions of Americans, has submitted asylum requests to more than 20 countries.
Most of those requests have been rejected, or the countries have said that the former National Security Agency contractor must be present on their soil to submit such an application.
However, top officials in Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia said over the weekend that their countries were willing to grant asylum to Snowden.


I wonder if they might get together to do a flightilla?

Sorta like a floatilla.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #15)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 06:07 AM

19. That's not the United States saying you can't.

That's the United States saying there will be consequences and an impact on the relationship. What, the United States has no sovereignty in how it conducts its affairs now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #19)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 06:27 AM

22. It is -in diplomatic speak. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #5)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 07:01 AM

31. Here are a few quotes from Carney:

(via Daily Mail)

'The United States has been in touch via diplomatic and law enforcement channels with countries through which Mr. Snowden might transit or which might serve as final destinations for Mr. Snowden,' Carney said.

U.S. diplomats, he added, have 'made very clear that he has been charged with a felony, or with felonies, and, as such, he should not be allowed to proceed in any further international travel other than travel that would result in him returning to the United States.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2358468/Carney-The-White-House-lobbying-nations-Edward-Snowden-asylum-return-U-S-prosecution.html#ixzz2YXqeLetZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #31)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 07:19 AM

37. Thank you for proving my point. Should not =/= may not. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #5)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 08:19 AM

54. It's called International agreements and law. And no, the US isn't "telling" any nation to turn

Snowden over. They are "asking." Just as we have honored requests from other countries in the past for extradition of sought criminals. And make no mistake about it, Snowden is a criminal just as any other person would be who stole state secrets or even business secrets and turned them over to others. If Snowden were a true whistleblower he would not have fled the country. Civil disobedience as some others want to say is what Snowden would require him to stay in the US and even be arrested. That's what true civil disobedience is all about. Believing so strongly in your cause that you are willing to sacrifice your creature comforts, face even jail, and maybe even a death sentence (like.."give me liberty or give me death") in order to correct a civil/social wrong. Snowden is not a hero or a moral civil defector. He is a coward, paid by other cowards, and who are promoting him now as a victim. He betrayed his family and his government and his fellow citizens when it gets right down to it. He has alone helped weakened this nation's ability to deal effectively with our neighbors to the south and other countries around the world. Only time will tell how truly damaged the reputation and power of the US is as a result of his actions to flee. He has signed an oath as an intelligence operator and there were other avenues open to him to protest and blow the whistle that would have been far less damaging to his own country. What he uncovered was that the NSA was actually doing the job they were established to do. And if i recall correctly, the DU and other "progressive" or liberals blasted Condi Rice and GW for not doing a good job with collecting info or using collected info to maybe prevent 9/11. To my knowledge, no one's citizens' "freedom" has been denied by NSA datat collection. And in reality, now that we know about the extent of NSA data collection what Snowden did will not stop the data collection. Why, because since we didn't know about it in the first place, we won't know when it's stopped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 05:24 AM

8. None. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 06:30 AM

23. None whatsoever

This is hegemony on steroids

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to gholtron (Reply #24)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 06:53 AM

29. Haiti ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #29)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 07:04 AM

33. My apologies.

Too early in the morning. I didn't have my coffee yet
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/15mcrm.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 06:37 AM

25. You do understand there are fugitives from other countries roaming the world, right?

They make the same requests of us that we do of them. That's why they have extradition agreements with us.

You seem to think that no fugitive in the world should ever be pursued, which makes no sense.



The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #25)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 07:20 AM

38. Yes. You are right. They have extradition agreements with us.

For instance, Venezuela has requested that the United States extradite Luis Posada Carriles - wanted for actual terrorist activities, bombed airliner, hotels, etc. But the United States refuses to send him to Venezuela.
I am not happy, because I live here, that chickens seem to be coming home to roost. But all countries ignore other countries' extradition requests, when it suits them. England denied extradition requests for Pinochet, who murdered and tortured so many people.
When some countries ignore the extradition treaties and requests when it suits them, then they should expect the same back at them.
Hoist on one's own petard - funny how that happens.
Saying that the U.S. has not requested that other countries not shelter Snowden - asking for links - that reminds me of arguing what the definition of "is" is. Tortuous semantics. The intent seems quite clear, seems to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #38)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 08:11 AM

50. That's certainly correct

And if Venezuela wanted to reduce its trade with the US or establish large tariffs on US goods or prohibit various transactions with the US because the US will not extradite Carriles, that's also well within Venezuela's rights.

It's certainly true that the US cannot obligate any other nation to extradite any other person, even where a treaty exists. It is certainly true that the US cannot obligate any other nation to deny asylum to a legitimate claimant. It is also true that the US is under no obligation to trade with, extend aid to, or cooperate with the requests of other nations if it feels those nations are deliberately harboring US fugitives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #50)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 08:19 AM

55. And therin lies the threat.

We are bigger and stronger.
However, I do not think our corporate-controlled government will do anything whatsoever that affects profits negatively.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #55)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 08:27 AM

58. Exercise of sovereignty

Venezuela exercises its sovereignty, but the US can't exercise its own? Because the US is bigger and stronger it is obligated to lavish aid on a country "sticking its thumb in the US's eye?" I don't really understand that argument. Venezuela (or Nicaragua, or whichever asylum-granting nation state) exercises its sovereign right to grant asylum. The US exercises its sovereign right to cold-shoulder that nation.

I certainly agree that these sorts of things are ultimately decided by trade issues. I'd be more concerned about the business people in the granting country than excited about the buisiness people in the US if I was Snowden, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #58)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 09:25 AM

69. I never said the US has no right to exercise its sovereignty.

We exercise our sovereignty all over the world.
What I am thinking is that there will be more and more push-back, especially since the United States refuses to honor extradition treaties as well. If we do not honor extradition requests, does that mean other countries must do so, just because we can hurt them financially or militarily? We may be seeing a tipping point here. China and Russia can certainly choose to replace aid that we withhold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #69)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 09:59 AM

84. You're right to look at the power angle here

Nevertheless, there is nothing wrong with the US changing its relationship toward a country granting political asylum to US fugitives. Indeed, there's a good case to be made that the US should do so. Indeed, other countries are within their rights to change their relationship toward the US if it does not honor their extradition requests. More power to 'em, in fact. Good for them. And if China and Russia want to come to the aid of a nation that the US cold-shoulders for extradition reasons, more power to them, too. None of this is illegitimate. It's all nations exercising their sovereign rights, and its certainly within the sovereign rights of the US to change its relationship toward nations harboring US fugitives. I see no problem with granting asylum, or changing the relationship with the asylum granting nation, or filling the vaccum of trade/aid from the newly withholding nation, or any of it. Everybody is acting properly in all those scenarios.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #25)

Wed Jul 10, 2013, 02:11 AM

100. There is a difference

between people who are fugitives because they are suspected of committing violent crimes, on the one hand, and people who have done nothing other than release information a government didn't want released.

It's not like Snowden is on the same moral level as Roman Polanski or a Nazi war criminal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 06:50 AM

27. No legitimate right whatsoever, but

that doesn't matter to an increasingly lawless and authoritarian government seeking to punish a whistleblower for exposing its crimes.

Snowden will be hunted to the ends of the earth. They want to make an example of him, to chill other whistleblowers from even thinking of coming forward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 07:06 AM

34. Luis Posada Carriles. The US needs to STFU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #34)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 07:21 AM

39. +1

And many other convicted criminals wanted by other countries. We pick and choose whom we extradite. So may other countries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #34)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 09:32 AM

71. More to the point, many of the countries that have extradition treaties

 

with us also have asylum laws that allow the granting of asylum to those who face the possibility of torture.

Until the U.S. places Bush and Cheney under indictment for torture, I think any intenrational fugitive from U.S. justice can make a plausible claim that he or she faces the possibility of torture. Especially given what happened to Bradley Manning, Jose Padilla and, arguably, John Walker Lindh.

What, the world is supposed to accept blindly U.S. assurances that it does not torture? Fine, then put Bush and Cheney under indictment or STFU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HardTimes99 (Reply #71)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 09:38 AM

75. What, the world is supposed to accept blindly that Venezuala does NOT torture?

http://www.eluniversal.com/2011/06/25/in-venezuela-torture-is-not-at-all-a-matter-of-the-past.shtml

I'm not condoning what went on during Bush Jr.'s reign and I do see forced feedings at Guantanamo to be torture.

But most other countries have far worse histories than ours.



The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #75)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 09:41 AM

77. Pardon me, but if you maintain that the U.S. retains one iota of moral standing

 

after the free pass given Bush and Cheney, then you are left with a Kissingerian philosophy of naked national self interest as your sole raison d'etre. The OP's question (paraphrasing) was 'what right does the U.S. have to tell other countries what to do?" After March 20, 2003, our only 'right' comes at the barrel of a gun, as we have forfeited our moral standing among the community of nations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HardTimes99 (Reply #77)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 09:48 AM

81. We are no better nor worse than any other country.

If you look only at the subject of torture, we come off way better than other countries.



The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #81)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 10:09 AM

89. If you look only at the subject of invading countries without authorization

 

Last edited Tue Jul 9, 2013, 11:02 AM - Edit history (1)

from the U.N. Security Council, we come off way worse than other countries. Remember, the subject of this OP concerned what 'right' (if any) the U.S. had to dictate to other nations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HardTimes99 (Reply #89)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 11:00 AM

92. We did some shitty things in the recent past. No argument there.



Birds. Birds are very territorial.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 07:10 AM

36. They can grant asylum, we can impose consequences

Seems like a simple exercise in weighing consequences of actions that all adults should be expected to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shawn703 (Reply #36)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 08:19 AM

53. No...they give asylum (as many have suggested, to "stick it to the global bully"), and the US is

obligated to act as if nothing has happened.



That a state will not make formal complaints about another state's granting of asylum does not, of course, mean that the state can take no action whatsoever. Indeed, the state seeking the person granted asylum may continue to make extradition requests, basically forever. The other state can continue to deny them. That's it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #53)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 08:54 AM

65. Well, not to personify too much, but as an example....

Just because I can beat the shit out of you (general you BTW), doesn't mean I SHOULD beat the shit out of you just because you become buddies with my enemy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #65)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 09:08 AM

66. I don't think it would come to a conflict of that nature

But I think there may be other consequences, perhaps in the form of trade restrictions. So in that comparison I stop associating with you because you're associating with my enemy. Hopefully you thought it through and decided there were more benefits to associating with my enemy than with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #65)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 10:02 AM

87. Sure, but if my neighbor takes as a house guest the person who burglarized my house

I am not obligated to invite either my neighbor or the burglar over for my next barbecue, yeah? Whether I should is another matter, I suppose. In such a case, though, I don't think I would.

Analogies until the end of time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #53)

Wed Jul 10, 2013, 03:34 AM

102. Not entirely. We don't have to grant them tariff/trade concessions, and we

don't have to do any business at all with them, particularly if a trading partner who isn't being a shithead has the same product at the same price.

In this global economy, we all do business with one another. We don't HAVE to, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 07:53 AM

46. None but diplomatic contacts can talk with others

and it could affect diplomatic relations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 08:14 AM

51. I didn't know diplomacy meant giving orders to other countries

You are asking whether the USA government should do something they haven't done.
Seriously, the USA government cannot impose anything on other countries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 08:16 AM

52. Any country in their right mind would try to stop a country from doing the same...

in a situation like this. Other countries just don't have the bully power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 08:23 AM

56. It's because the US occupies the moral high ground!

It's not like anyone's ever going to see the US refusing to extradite people from other countries who have fled to the US and leaked their countries intelligence stuff like a rusty sieve. No way! The US is far too upstanding and moral for that. As if they'd have the gall to turn around and demand other countries cooperate with them in trying to get their own leaky sieve back if they'd ever behaved like that!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 08:28 AM

60. When you carry the responsibility


of TS clearance, you accept the fact that you are essentially offering a portion of your soul to the access you gain,...and you do it willingly, nobody is coerced into a clearance.

It is a very thin line you walk between the privilege you have as a TS, and the expectations that are placed on you. You give up the right to make decisions that are not within your clearance level, for the opportunity to be included in projects that are not for everyone's eyes. It can be extremely intoxicating.

When a TS "peg" comes loose, those that are in the next level (and there is ALWAYS a next level), exercise policy to recapture "property". It's taken very seriously, and a loose peg, is valued for the cost of loss, not for the human being it was. A peg outside the veil with unauthorized collection will be considered property, a peg knows that ...it's not a surprise. When valued property is lost, the value of the property can be measured by the force applied to re-capture it.

It happens everywhere, and it happens all the time, across all boarders. The rarity is to have one go live in public view. There is no happy ending for Snowden, regardless what he does or doesn't have, he joined a game with no "mulligan's" allowed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 08:43 AM

63. You have an interesting view of how diplomacy works

The US has said we want custody of Snowden. Other countries that he may have dirt on are amenable to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 09:37 AM

73. Ever since WWII america has spread their wealth to help other countries especially

 

rebuilding europe to where it is today. They are getting financial help even today. So america thinks it has a right to tell them what to do. I remember when I was a young teenager my uncle who came to visit us from Italy said something that was very interesting to me at the time. He said america is a great, great country who has helped his country. But what he didn't like was america always reminding his country what they have done for them. He felt when was enough enough and how long must their country toe what america wants. I told him then stop taking our money. But now that am older I can see his point. I mean how would we like it if the shoe was on the other foot. Sadly money talks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 09:37 AM

74. The U.S. has the 'right' to demand things from other countries. Those

 

countries have the right to tell us to go fuck ourselves (or at least to STFU), until we deliver Bush and Cheney to justice.

We forfeited all moral standing among the community of civilized nations on March 20, 2003. "Looking forward, rather than backward" has not restored our moral standing ONE IOTA!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 09:45 AM

78. We Are The Great and Mighty Oz... er... America!

 

Only we have he right to shelter mass murderers and despots.

All those little people and their little countries must be made to quake in their little boots (so they don't notice that we're fat, stupid, and suffer from ED).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 09:53 AM

82. Countries do not live in vacuums. They have to deal with each other.

 

They make certain agreements based on this.
Honoring each others legal systems is part of that.

Snowden is an admitted criminal.

Why should another country not treat him like any other criminal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 10:58 AM

91. Every political prisoner has the right to seek asylum.

That covers Snowden, and the US is just being the US. The US does not follow international law, and doesn't feel it has to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 11:09 AM

93. Little hyperbolic in the op aren't you?

.....on what authority does OUR government have to abrogate the sovereign right of other countries....


No sovereign nation need do anything outside of treaty negotiations. Those treaty negotiations are contractual agreements. If it's in there, they're being reminded that it's in there and asked to comply with the terms of the negotiations. If it's not in there the sovereign rights of a nation cannot be usurped. You don't see anyone forcefully entering a nation to handcuff and drag out Snowden do you?

OTOH, if these nations rely heavily on US good will for financial aid, security, and other much needed services, they do chance damaging that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 04:48 PM

97. Since you posed the question in legal terms

Like any other country, the US has the legal "right" to tell another country pretty much anything it wants to tell another country. Countries have the right (more accurately, the "legal discretion") to take a variety of actions. And other countries have the right (more accurately the legal discretion) to comment on those actions and to attempt to dissuade them from being taken by making clear that there may be consequences if their concerns are not heeded.

There is no indication that the US is asserting any legal "authority" to "abrogate" another country's sovereign right. It is simply jawboning other countries not to do something that they have the discretion to do or not do.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 04:51 PM

98. They don't have any right ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 09:18 PM

99. What right does the US have? The US is the decider in all matters of international

relations. My God, Cuba has not learned this fact, even after 50+ years of being punished for having displeased big brother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread