Some leaders are under Obama's pressure over extradition: Snowden

Young Journalists Club | Latest news of Iran and world

News ID: 1523
Publish Date: 9:18 - 02 July 2013
Print
Send to firend
Tehran, YJC. -- A Fugitive US intelligence leaker Edward Snowden on Monday accused US President Barack Obama of "pressuring the leaders" of countries from which he has sought protection.
In his first public announcement since fleeing Hong Kong eight days ago, he accused Obama of ordering his Vice President Joe Biden to put pressure on leaders of countries where he was seeking asylum.

"On Thursday, President Obama declared before the world that he would not permit any diplomatic 'wheeling and dealing' over my case," Snowden said in statement issued to the WikiLeaks site.

"Yet now it is being reported that after promising not to do so, the President ordered his Vice President to pressure the leaders of nations from which I have requested protection to deny my asylum petitions," he added.

It also emerged that Snowden had written to Ecuador's President Rafael Correa thanking him for his support in his bid to avoid extradition.

"There are few world leaders who would risk standing for the human rights of an individual against the most powerful government on earth, and the bravery of Ecuador and its people is an example to the world," he wrote in the letter, obtained by Britain's Press Association.
  Correa has said Biden raised the issue of Snowden in a conversation over the weekend, asking him to reject the fugitive computer analyst's asylum request.
  Snowden, in his statement issued from his refuge at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport, said Obama was guilty of "deception" and imposing "the extralegal penalty of exile.

"These are the old, bad tools of political aggression," he continued.

"Their purpose is to frighten, not me, but those who would come after me."

The Obama administration had rejected the US Universal Declaration of Human Rights and had chosen "the strategy of using citizenship as a weapon," he said.

"Although I am convicted of nothing, it has unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me a stateless person," he added.

"Without any judicial order, the administration now seeks to stop me exercising a basic right. A right that belongs to everybody. The right to seek asylum."

Snowden, whose passport has been revoked by the US, singled out Fidel Narvaez, the Ecuadorian consul in London, for praise in helping him evade capture.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange revealed last week that Narvaez had issued Snowden with a refugee travel document, which had allowed him to flee Hong Kong eight days ago as Washington pressed for his extradition.

Correa said on Saturday that the London consul had overstepped his authority in issuing the paper.

As well as seeking asylum in Ecuador, Snowden has also applied for asylum in Russia.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday Snowden was welcome to stay as long as he stopped leaking US intelligence reports.

But in his statement posted to WikiLeaks, Snowden concluded: "I am unbowed in my convictions and impressed at the efforts taken by so many."

AFP

Published: 1
Under Review: 1
Chalermlap
|
FRANCE
|
16:19 - 1392/05/02
Here's some initial thgohuts to be quick. 1. Snowden explains the origin of Cynefin' as meaning place of multiple belonging explained as multiple (and we must assume irreducible) realities, none of which can be fully known. In that sense it makes a similar statement to R-theory. They are both four-way complementarities.2. Definitions are a problem. They all disagree between systems. For example, Snowden distinguishes between sense-making' and categorization' theories. That's a false dichotomy because the two inform each other as part of the complementarity. Sense making as we know it exists in his simple and complicated models, whereas categorical identities exist in his complex and chaotic models. When they are seen as working together you get nature. So, from an integral perspective I don't like separating the causes into presumed different kinds of systems in nature. There is no such thing. They are four aspects that occur for all systems in nature. The in nature qualification here means occurring of its own so we have to make an exception for our strange ability to take things apart mentally. No way around that dichotomy that I know nature is where it is all put together, analysis is where we mentally deconstruct it to figure out a way of understanding. Nature does the same thing, so its really both whole and part at the same time Koestler's holon'. Cynefin seems to divide them up but that could just be the kindergarden version which is all I've seen so far.3. There are positive and negative aspects to his system from my perspective.a. Positive: Anything that gets us out of thinking that everything is a collection of simple systems and we just have to figure out how they are put together is basically a good idea at this stage.b. Negative: How you do that is important. There are many systems that try it and get right back into the same paradoxes because they haven't really escaped. Its like putting new paint on an old car (and its surprising how much better an old car seems to run after being cleaned up, but it is basically the same).4. The theoretical basis of cynefin is not explained. It is probably empirically derived, which is OK but then you have to think through the rational basis to make it consistent, as I tried to do with R-theory. Ken Wilbur did an empirical study of hundreds of native cultures to find a common idea about nature. He nearly gave up then discovered that it groups into four common ideas. Careful observation and open mindedness about any system will get you these four basic kinds of behavior or worldview, and each person who discovers them arranges them a little different. Aristotle identified them as four causalities, or ways of explaining or understanding a phenomenon or existence. R-theory uses a modified version of Aristotle's four causes, brought entirely into nature. You get the same, or at least very similar, four categories (flip his diagram horizontally, and you get the R-theory holon or Rosen's modeling relation). In the case of Cynefin, the similarity would be:Material simpleEfficient complicatedFormal complexFinal chaotic, but that's a very limiting way to look at it.5. Utility of the system may have more to do with how well described it is than how well grounded it is. If it is well established with clear methods, it probably gets down the road because it has the complex elements in there.6. Theoretical quibbles:1. order does not divide neatly (theoretically) into simple and complicated. That's just an expedient. It is all complex and there are many kinds of order. Simple order is mechanism or machine. It is where his simple and complicated systems can entirely describe what you want to describe. Complex is all four; so we have to pick a different word for his complex' category, should be model-based'. Similarly, his chaotic' systems do have a causality, which is exemplar-based'. A system appears complex when it follows multiple models. It seems completely unknowable (but it isn't) when it follows unknown exemplars. The key is to find the exemplars it is following. For example, Ally might start acting quite unusual and you don't have a clue about where it came from until you learn that she is following an example from a schoolmate. That example became a model, so it is both exemplar and model-based but it has very knowable actions (i.e., complicated dynamics) and very obvious states (material results, like locations, cloths, events, etc.). Hence all four systems' which are really causal aspects of all systems. If we all follow the same model, and thus the same prior exemplars, we act like machines simple or merely complicated (a lot of simple interactions) systems (that much agrees with Rosen's definitions).7. He describes complexity as a system without causality . That fits with modern usage and limitation of the term 'cause' to material/efficient causes. But the statement is wrong on both grounds. A complex system is characterized by variation in formal cause, i.e., multiple models that can't be combined into one model. So, technically it is a 'cause' just one of the causes traditional science has tried to eliminate. However, even adopting the modern usage, it is not true that a complex system is without simple and complicated models. It must have them in order to be observed or to interact. It is just not characterized by those models generally.8. He talks about 3 types of system but ends up with four. This is typical because we have characteristically missed the reality of the 4th type and think it is simply emergent. It is just as real as the others. As I wrote above, it is the effect of examples (which if you think about it maps into the former ideas of an external creator, which is why we tried to toss it out of science, giving it instead to Theologians, poets, mystics, and artists, and thereby avoiding beheading). Its a 300 year old myopia. There are 4 aspects, not three. For example, his assessment of chaotic' with regard to the child's party is from the idea that nothing can be known or controlled pure chaos but that isn't at all true. That domain is dominated by exemplars. The drugs and other evils he lists as possibilities all come from prior examples of behavior that children might copy. Place a very charismatic guru or intriguing mystic in the chaos and there will be a tendency for the party to organize around a different example. The scary part for parents is of course unpredictability, so they want material and efficient controls even models seem a bit risky. But with strong exemplars you actually get better following because the entire causality is adopted and the one copying builds their own model for it. What is frightening is the idea that a child's behavior might become random, then anything goes.' But it is actually not possible for any system to behave randomly Einstein was right, randomness is perceived, not real.
Your Comment
Name:
Email:
* Comment:
* captcha: