Smatra se da je Hitler imao hipnoticku moc nad masama. Staljin se pred masama uopste i nije pojavljivao i retko je javno nastupao, a njegova “hipnoticka moc” ni u kom slucaju nije bila manja. Tu nije stvar u nekoj licnoj sposobnosti vodje vec u samoj masi, u njenoj sposobnosti, u datoj situaciji, za “samohipnozu”. Ako je masa izabrala nekoga za “hipnotizera”, ovaj moze da cini bilo sta – da govori, cuti, vice, sapuce, da vrska, govori s akcentom… i sve ce imati efekta. Tek post factum izgleda kao da se izabranik sam probio “u vrh” i zaveo mase. U stvari, same mu mase dodeljuju ovu ulogu i prinudjuju ga da igra istorijsku ulogu. Upravo ulogu. Upravo da igra. On postaje adekvatan masi koja ga je izabrala. Staljin je bio ovaploceno “MI”.

Postoje neka opsta pravila po kojima se ljudi izdvajaju za vodje. Jedno od tih pravila na prvi pogled izgleda fiktivno. Ali ono je u najvecoj meri delotvorno. To je prezir prema ljudima. Staljin je od samog pocetka znao cenu ljudi, znao je kakvo je to smece – narodne mase, znao je da su price o visokom nivou svesti kao uslovu za komunizam susta besmislica. Staljin se ponasao prema ljudima u skladu s njihovom realnom vrednoscu. Njegove su mu represalije donele vise harizmatskog obozavanja nego beznacajna godisnja smanjenja cena namirnica. Staljin je znao ko smo mi, a mi smo znali da on to zna. U dubini duse priznavali smo da je sve sto se dogadjalo primereno nasoj ljudskoj prirodi. Cudno, ali to je bio najsnazniji izraz nase teznje da se uzdignemo do bozanskog nivoa. Bili smo bogovi u svom nistavilu. Ukoliko nadjes objasnjenje za ovu cinjenicu, razumeces i sve ostalo.

Aleksandar Zinovjev, Polet nase mladosti, Prosveta

Nemaju samo učenici problem sa razumevanjem složenih iskaza, dužih tekstova i shvatanjem ideja i argumenata. Slične probleme ima i dobar deo njihovih nastavnika koji su se i sami obrazovali u jednom neefikasnom sistemu koji je ignorisao funkcionalno znanje i logičke sposobnosti. Testovi sa poznatim pitanjima su bili katastrofalni populistički ustupak činjenici da učenicima celokupno bazično osnovno obrazovanje nije dovoljno da se suoče sa ozbiljnom proverom stečenog, ali ne i ‘obrađenog’ znanja. Što se tiče odgovornosti, nemam mnogo toga da dodam. Problem Žarka Obradovića i ekipe oko njega jeste u tome da ne priznaju svoju odgovornost za stanje u sektoru, dakle za nečinjenje u situaciji kada su mnogo toga morali da učine. Mislim da kompletna ekipa koja se poslednjih nekoliko godina bavila osnovnim i srednjim obrazovanjem, inspekcijom škola i razvojem sistema obrazovanja mora da ode bez obzira na to čiji su partijski pripadnici, kafanski ili porodični prijatelji ili rođaci. Sa punom odgovornošću tvrdim da je to jedna mračna skupina ekstremno nesposobnih ljudi i da će se razmere štete koju su načinili tek videti.

                                                                                                                                                 .

Vigor Majic, direktor Petnice, NIN

Presao iz URS-a u SNS da ne bi morao da ide na koncert Djordja Davida

Clan Opstinskog odbora Ujedinjenih regiona Srbije u Ljuboviji Nikola Papkovic presao je iz ove stranke u Srpsku naprednu stranku kako ne bi morao da postupi po nalogu vrha stranke da prisustvuje koncertu Djordja Davida i njegovog benda “Death saw” u tom mestu.

“Svasta sam morao da radim po nalogu partije do sada, ali neke granice ipak postoje”, kratko je izjavio sada vec bivsi clan URS-a Papkovic.

Njuz.net, 20. jul

I am honored to be with you today at your commencement from one of the finest universities in the world. I never graduated from college. Truth be told, this is the closest I’ve ever gotten to a college graduation. Today I want to tell you three stories from my life. That’s it. No big deal. Just three stories.

The first story is about connecting the dots.

I dropped out of Reed College after the first 6 months, but then stayed around as a drop-in for another 18 months or so before I really quit. So why did I drop out?

It started before I was born. My biological mother was a young, unwed college graduate student, and she decided to put me up for adoption. She felt very strongly that I should be adopted by college graduates, so everything was all set for me to be adopted at birth by a lawyer and his wife. Except that when I popped out they decided at the last minute that they really wanted a girl. So my parents, who were on a waiting list, got a call in the middle of the night asking: “We have an unexpected baby boy; do you want him?” They said: “Of course.” My biological mother later found out that my mother had never graduated from college and that my father had never graduated from high school. She refused to sign the final adoption papers. She only relented a few months later when my parents promised that I would someday go to college.

And 17 years later I did go to college. But I naively chose a college that was almost as expensive as Stanford, and all of my working-class parents’ savings were being spent on my college tuition. After six months, I couldn’t see the value in it. I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life and no idea how college was going to help me figure it out. And here I was spending all of the money my parents had saved their entire life. So I decided to drop out and trust that it would all work out OK. It was pretty scary at the time, but looking back it was one of the best decisions I ever made. The minute I dropped out I could stop taking the required classes that didn’t interest me, and begin dropping in on the ones that looked interesting.

It wasn’t all romantic. I didn’t have a dorm room, so I slept on the floor in friends’ rooms, I returned coke bottles for the 5¢ deposits to buy food with, and I would walk the 7 miles across town every Sunday night to get one good meal a week at the Hare Krishna temple. I loved it. And much of what I stumbled into by following my curiosity and intuition turned out to be priceless later on. Let me give you one example:

Reed College at that time offered perhaps the best calligraphy instruction in the country. Throughout the campus every poster, every label on every drawer, was beautifully hand calligraphed. Because I had dropped out and didn’t have to take the normal classes, I decided to take a calligraphy class to learn how to do this. I learned about serif and san serif typefaces, about varying the amount of space between different letter combinations, about what makes great typography great. It was beautiful, historical, artistically subtle in a way that science can’t capture, and I found it fascinating.

None of this had even a hope of any practical application in my life. But ten years later, when we were designing the first Macintosh computer, it all came back to me. And we designed it all into the Mac. It was the first computer with beautiful typography. If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts. And since Windows just copied the Mac, it’s likely that no personal computer would have them. If I had never dropped out, I would have never dropped in on this calligraphy class, and personal computers might not have the wonderful typography that they do. Of course it was impossible to connect the dots looking forward when I was in college. But it was very, very clear looking backwards ten years later.

Again, you can’t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.

My second story is about love and loss.

I was lucky — I found what I loved to do early in life. Woz and I started Apple in my parents garage when I was 20. We worked hard, and in 10 years Apple had grown from just the two of us in a garage into a $2 billion company with over 4000 employees. We had just released our finest creation — the Macintosh — a year earlier, and I had just turned 30. And then I got fired. How can you get fired from a company you started? Well, as Apple grew we hired someone who I thought was very talented to run the company with me, and for the first year or so things went well. But then our visions of the future began to diverge and eventually we had a falling out. When we did, our Board of Directors sided with him. So at 30 I was out. And very publicly out. What had been the focus of my entire adult life was gone, and it was devastating.

I really didn’t know what to do for a few months. I felt that I had let the previous generation of entrepreneurs down – that I had dropped the baton as it was being passed to me. I met with David Packard and Bob Noyce and tried to apologize for screwing up so badly. I was a very public failure, and I even thought about running away from the valley. But something slowly began to dawn on me — I still loved what I did. The turn of events at Apple had not changed that one bit. I had been rejected, but I was still in love. And so I decided to start over.

I didn’t see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. It freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life.

During the next five years, I started a company named NeXT, another company named Pixar, and fell in love with an amazing woman who would become my wife. Pixar went on to create the worlds first computer animated feature film, Toy Story, and is now the most successful animation studio in the world. In a remarkable turn of events, Apple bought NeXT, I returned to Apple, and the technology we developed at NeXT is at the heart of Apple’s current renaissance. And Laurene and I have a wonderful family together.

I’m pretty sure none of this would have happened if I hadn’t been fired from Apple. It was awful tasting medicine, but I guess the patient needed it. Sometimes life hits you in the head with a brick. Don’t lose faith. I’m convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did. You’ve got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking. Don’t settle. As with all matters of the heart, you’ll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it. Don’t settle.

My third story is about death.

When I was 17, I read a quote that went something like: “If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you’ll most certainly be right.” It made an impression on me, and since then, for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: “If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?” And whenever the answer has been “No” for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.

Remembering that I’ll be dead soon is the most important tool I’ve ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything — all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure – these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.

About a year ago I was diagnosed with cancer. I had a scan at 7:30 in the morning, and it clearly showed a tumor on my pancreas. I didn’t even know what a pancreas was. The doctors told me this was almost certainly a type of cancer that is incurable, and that I should expect to live no longer than three to six months. My doctor advised me to go home and get my affairs in order, which is doctor’s code for prepare to die. It means to try to tell your kids everything you thought you’d have the next 10 years to tell them in just a few months. It means to make sure everything is buttoned up so that it will be as easy as possible for your family. It means to say your goodbyes.

I lived with that diagnosis all day. Later that evening I had a biopsy, where they stuck an endoscope down my throat, through my stomach and into my intestines, put a needle into my pancreas and got a few cells from the tumor. I was sedated, but my wife, who was there, told me that when they viewed the cells under a microscope the doctors started crying because it turned out to be a very rare form of pancreatic cancer that is curable with surgery. I had the surgery and I’m fine now.

This was the closest I’ve been to facing death, and I hope it’s the closest I get for a few more decades. Having lived through it, I can now say this to you with a bit more certainty than when death was a useful but purely intellectual concept:

No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don’t want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.

Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.

When I was young, there was an amazing publication called The Whole Earth Catalog, which was one of the bibles of my generation. It was created by a fellow named Stewart Brand not far from here in Menlo Park, and he brought it to life with his poetic touch. This was in the late 1960’s, before personal computers and desktop publishing, so it was all made with typewriters, scissors, and polaroid cameras. It was sort of like Google in paperback form, 35 years before Google came along: it was idealistic, and overflowing with neat tools and great notions.

Stewart and his team put out several issues of The Whole Earth Catalog, and then when it had run its course, they put out a final issue. It was the mid-1970s, and I was your age. On the back cover of their final issue was a photograph of an early morning country road, the kind you might find yourself hitchhiking on if you were so adventurous. Beneath it were the words: “Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.” It was their farewell message as they signed off. Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish. And I have always wished that for myself. And now, as you graduate to begin anew, I wish that for you.

Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.

Thank you all very much.

Text of the Commencement address delivered by

Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Computer and of Pixar Animation Studios,

on June 12, 2005.

Dojučerašnji prvi žandar Srbije, na vest o smeni, zavapio je: “Građani Srbije, braćo i sestre, očigledno je da nekome smeta moj starosrpski način ophođenja i moje izjašnjavanje kao Srbina u svojoj i našoj zemlji Srbiji. Doći će vreme kada će se i to promeniti.” To je izjavio Bratislav Dikić za B92 i automatski se kandidovao za eksponat u Etnološkom muzeju.

Tu bi mogao da demonstrira “starosrpski način ophođenja”, ma šta to značilo. Već samom tom izjavom narečeni se preporučio za Noć muzeja gde bi jednom godišnje demonstrirao takvo ophođenje. S vrata bi još, u zavisnosti od situacije, govorio “Ljubim ruku, gospođo” ili “Gde se guraš, marvo”, a u praktičnom delu programa mogao bi vaspitno da raspali ponekog po turu.

Drugo nešto, međutim, zanimljivije je od “starosrpskog ophođenja”. To je uobrazilja svakog ko se dočepa vlasti, makar bila i žandarska, a svaka je pomalo takva, da je postao neka vrsta oca nacije, pa nam se i Dikić obraća retorikom kojom se javnost obaveštava o početku rata, državnog udara ili neke druge opšte nesreće. Šta mu znači ono: “Građani Srbije, braćo i sestre?” Ta patetika plaćenog činovnika jednog ministarstva govori o veri te vrste ljudi da kad se dočepaju neke sile misle da su bogomdani i da sa njihovom smenom počinje i smak sveta, mada Dikić, sudeći po izjavi, veruje da će “doći vreme kada će se i to promeniti” pa će žandari biti nesmenjivi, ukoliko vole Srbiju, ma šta Srbija mislila o njima.

*  *  *

Povodom moje prošlonedeljne kolumne, dela koji se odnosi na nasušnu potrebu srpskih privrednika da s Bogom sklapaju rezervni strateški plan, javio mi se čitalac koji me je upozorio da sam izostavio važan deo saopštenja o poseti patrijarha Irineja srpskom Poslovnom klubu “Privrednik.”

Tačno je i evo dopune saopštenja: “Njegova svetost patrijarh srpski gospodin Irinej se podsetio i na značajnu pomoć koju su kompanije članova Kluba pružile u akciji prikupljanja pomoći za obnovu Hilandara 2004, kao i na doprinos članova Kluba radu Skupštine Društva za podizanje Hrama Svetog Save, u kome aktivnu ulogu imaju gospoda Miodrag Babić, Miodrag Kostić, Slobodan Petrović, Dušan Stupar, Milan Beko, Zoran Drakulić, Milija Babović, Obrad Sikimić i Ilija Šetka.”

Zašto je ovaj deo saopštenja važan. Zato što je izostavljen Miroslav Mišković, najveći pojedinačni donator Srpske pravoslavne crkve i inicijator Društva za podizanje Hrama Svetog Save.

Čitalac me pita: Nije li to licemerje i bezobrazluk? Eh, gospodine moj, mislim se, kad bi barem jednom bili u prilici da Boga koji sve vidi pozovemo za očevica, makar kao “zaštićenog svedoka”, sve bi bilo jasnije.

Dragoljub Zarkovic, Vreme, 18. jul

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Passed by Congress September 25, 1789

Ratified December 15, 1791

I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

II

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In an article published in several European newspapers, the WikiLeaks founder and the Director General of Reporters Without Borders call on European states grant asylum the whistleblower who exposed the NSA eavesdropping, for the sake of freedom of the press and of information.
.
.

On 12 October 2012, the European Union won the Nobel Peace Prize for contributing to the “advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe”. The EU should show itself worthy of this honour and show its will to defend freedom of information, regardless of fear of political pressure from its so-called closest ally, the United States.

Now that Edward Snowden, the young American who revealed the global monitoring system known as Prism, has requested asylum from 20 countries, the EU nations should extend a welcome, under whatever law or status seems most appropriate.

Although the United States remains a world leader in upholding the ideal of freedom of expression, the American attitude toward whistleblowers sullies the first amendment of the US constitution.

In 2004, the UN special rapporteur for freedom of expression, as well as his counterparts in the Organisation of American States and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe issued a joint call to all governments to protect whistleblowers from all “legal, administrative or employment-related sanctions if they act in ‘good faith'”. Whistleblowers were defined as “individuals releasing confidential or secret information although they are under an official or other obligation to maintain confidentiality or secrecy”.

More recently, the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe resolved in 2010 that “the definition of protected disclosures shall include all bona fide warnings against various types of unlawful acts”. The assembly’s resolution 1729 concluded that member countries’ laws “should therefore cover both public and private sector whistle-blowers, including members of the armed forces and special services”.

Traitor or whistleblower?

Some are calling for a manhunt for Snowden on the grounds that he is a traitor, and others are trying to cloak the issues he raised in legalistic complexities. But what serious person can deny that Edward Snowden is a whistleblower?

The digital communications specialist’s revelations have enabled the international press, including The Washington PostThe Guardian and Der Spiegel, to shine a light on a surveillance system that tracks tens of millions of citizens, Europeans among them.

Targeted by an apparatus that threatens their sovereignty as well as their principles, the EU countries owe Snowden a debt of gratitude for his revelations, which were clearly in the public interest.

This young man will remain abandoned in the transit zone of the Moscow airport only if the European countries abandon their principles, as well as a major part of the raison d’etre of the EU. Expressions of diplomatic outrage will be empty gestures if the person responsible for the revelations is left isolated and abandoned.

Beyond the necessity of providing a legal shield for whistleblowers, the protection of privacy is a matter of clear public interest, especially in the realm of freedom of information. Frank La Rue, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression, noted in a report last June that “arbitrary and unlawful infringements of the right to privacy … threaten the protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression”.

The confidentiality of written and oral exchanges is essential to ensuring the exercise of freedom of information. But when journalists’ sources are compromised, as happened in the case of the Associated Press; when the United States abuses the Espionage Act, a 1917 law that has been invoked a total of nine times against whistleblowers, six of these cases under the Obama administration; when the government tries to silence WikiLeaks by imposing a financial embargo on the organisation and by subjecting associates and friends of Julian Assange to abusive searches when they enter the United States, when the site’s founder and his colleagues are threatened with US prosecution, more than American democracy is threatened.

Indeed, the very model of democracy that the heirs of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin are responsible for upholding has been robbed of its essence.

Only eloquent words?

By what right is the United States exempt from principles that it demands be applied elsewhere?

In January 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a historic speech in which she defined freedom of expression as a cornerstone of American diplomacy. She reiterated that position in February 2011 inanother speech in which she said that “on the spectrum of internet freedom, we place ourselves on the side of openness.”

Eloquent words. They may have brought encouragement to dissidents in Tehran, Beijing, Havana, Asmara, Ashgabat, Moscow and so many other capitals. But how disappointing to find that the skyscrapers of American surveillance have reached a size to match China’s technological Great Wall.

The White House and State Department message of democracy and defence of human rights has lost considerable credibility. One sign of widespread concern – Amazon has reported a 6,000 per cent increase in sales of the George Orwell classic, 1984.

Now, with Big Brother watching us from a Washington suburb, the key institutions of American democracy must play their assigned roles of counterweight to the executive branch and its abuses. The system of checks and balances is more than a slogan for avid readers of Tocqueville and Montesquieu.

American leaders should realise the glaring contradiction between their soaring odes to freedom and the realities of official actions, which damage the image of their country.

Members of Congress must be capable of holding back the tide of security provisions of the Patriot Act by recognising the legitimate rights of men and women who sound the alarm.

The Whistleblower Protection Act must be amended to ensure effective protection for whistleblowers who act in the public interest – an interest completely separate from immediate national concerns as intelligence services interpret them.

Press Europ / Le Monde, July 5th

Bucka1

Svetlana Bubanja Bucka, frizerka i vlasnica salona koji se nalazi na Obilićevom vencu, ispričala je pred sudskim većem da je videla kako Bris Taton sam skače.

Ona je kazala da je stajala ispred salona i ispraćala mušteriju kad je videla uplašenog mladića kako trči prema stepeništu i u zaletu skače u ambis dubine 20 metara. Potom mu je prišla, videla da je povređen i odmah pozvala Hitnu pomoć, koja je ubrzo došla na mesto nesreće.

Bubanja je kategorično tvrdila da Brisa Tatona niko nije gurnuo, već da je skočio sam i da je to scena “koju nikad u svom životu neće zaboraviti”.
Ovi svedoci su saslušani iza zatvorenih vrata, jer izviđajne radnje (koje se vrlo retko susreću u praksi suda) nisu otvorene za javnost.

Cecina frizerka medju “novim” svedocima ubistva Tatona: “Francuz sam skocio sa ograde”

Blic, 16. jul

raging-bull

You know, I’m not a philosopher or anything like that but I been around a little and the way I look at it is… We’re, all of us, lookin’ for the same thing: a shot at the title. No matter what you wanta be… you wanta shot at bein’ the best. Well, I had mine and it’ll always be in the record books… it don’t make no difference what happens to me from here on in… I got my shot and that’s a fact. Some guys weren’t that lucky… like the one Marlon Brando played in ‘On the waterfront’… an up and comer who is now down and outer. You remember.. there was this scene in the back of the car with his brother Charlie, a small-time racket guy, and it went somethin’ like this… It wasn’t him, Charlie. It was you. You ‘member that night in the Garden you came down my dressing room and said ‘Kid, this ain’t your night. We’re going for the price on Wilson’.You ‘member that? ‘This ain’t your night!’ My night… I coulda taken Wilson apart So what happens. He gets the title shot outdoors on the ballpark, and what do I get? A one-way ticket to Palookaville. I never was no good after that night. It was like a peak you reach. Then it went downhill. It was you, Charlie. You was my brother, Charlie. You shoulda looked out for me a little bit. You shoulda taken care of me just a little bit so I wouldn’t have to take them dives for the short end money…. you don’t understand! I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody… instead of a bum, which is what I am.  Let’s face it. It was you, Charlie.

Hello. My name is Ed Snowden. A little over one month ago, I had family, a home in paradise, and I lived in great comfort. I also had the capability without any warrant to search for, seize, and read your communications. Anyone’s communications at any time. That is the power to change people’s fates.

It is also a serious violation of the law. The 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution of my country, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and numerous statutes and treaties forbid such systems of massive, pervasive surveillance. While the US Constitution marks these programs as illegal, my government argues that secret court rulings, which the world is not permitted to see, somehow legitimize an illegal affair. These rulings simply corrupt the most basic notion of justice – that it must be seen to be done. The immoral cannot be made moral through the use of secret law.

I believe in the principle declared at Nuremberg in 1945: “Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring.”

Accordingly, I did what I believed right and began a campaign to correct this wrongdoing. I did not seek to enrich myself. I did not seek to sell US secrets. I did not partner with any foreign government to guarantee my safety. Instead, I took what I knew to the public, so what affects all of us can be discussed by all of us in the light of day, and I asked the world for justice.

That moral decision to tell the public about spying that affects all of us has been costly, but it was the right thing to do and I have no regrets.

Since that time, the government and intelligence services of the United States of America have attempted to make an example of me, a warning to all others who might speak out as I have. I have been made stateless and hounded for my act of political expression. The United States Government has placed me on no-fly lists. It demanded Hong Kong return me outside of the framework of its laws, in direct violation of the principle of non-refoulement – the Law of Nations. It has threatened with sanctions countries who would stand up for my human rights and the UN asylum system. It has even taken the unprecedented step of ordering military allies to ground a Latin American president’s plane in search for a political refugee. These dangerous escalations represent a threat not just to the dignity of Latin America, but to the basic rights shared by every person, every nation, to live free from persecution, and to seek and enjoy asylum.

Yet even in the face of this historically disproportionate aggression, countries around the world have offered support and asylum. These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless. By refusing to compromise their principles in the face of intimidation, they have earned the respect of the world. It is my intention to travel to each of these countries to extend my personal thanks to their people and leaders.

I announce today my formal acceptance of all offers of support or asylum I have been extended and all others that may be offered in the future. With, for example, the grant of asylum provided by Venezuela’s President Maduro, my asylee status is now formal, and no state has a basis by which to limit or interfere with my right to enjoy that asylum. As we have seen, however, some governments in Western European and North American states have demonstrated a willingness to act outside the law, and this behavior persists today. This unlawful threat makes it impossible for me to travel to Latin America and enjoy the asylum granted there in accordance with our shared rights.

This willingness by powerful states to act extra-legally represents a threat to all of us, and must not be allowed to succeed. Accordingly, I ask for your assistance in requesting guarantees of safe passage from the relevant nations in securing my travel to Latin America, as well as requesting asylum in Russia until such time as these states accede to law and my legal travel is permitted. I will be submitting my request to Russia today, and hope it will be accepted favorably.

Thank you!

Edward Snowden, Moscow airport, July 12th

Edward-Snowden

Edward Snowden: “My name is Ed Snowden, I’m 29 years old. I worked for Booz Allen Hamilton as an infrastructure analyst for NSA in Hawaii.

Glenn Greenwald: “What are some of the positions that you held previously within the intelligence community?”

Snowden: “I’ve been a systems engineer, systems administrator, senior adviser for the Central Intelligence Agency, solutions consultant, and a telecommunications informations system officer.”

Greenwald: “One of the things people are going to be most interested in, in trying to understand what, who you are and what you are thinking is there came some point in time when you crossed this line of thinking about being a whistleblower to making the choice to actually become a whistleblower. Walk people through that decision making process.”

Snowden: “When you’re in positions of privileged access like a systems administrator for the sort of intelligence community agencies, you’re exposed to a lot more information on a broader scale then the average employee and because of that you see things that may be disturbing but over the course of a normal person’s career you’d only see one or two of these instances. When you see everything you see them on a more frequent basis and you recognize that some of these things are actually abuses. And when you talk to people about them in a place like this where this is the normal state of business people tend not to take them very seriously and move on from them.”

“But over time that awareness of wrongdoing sort of builds up and you feel compelled to talk about. And the more you talk about the more you’re ignored. The more you’re told its not a problem until eventually you realize that these things need to be determined by the public and not by somebody who was simply hired by the government.”

Greenwald: “Talk a little bit about how the American surveillance state actually functions. Does it target the actions of Americans?”

Snowden: “NSA and intelligence community in general is focused on getting intelligence wherever it can by any means possible. It believes, on the grounds of sort of a self-certification, that they serve the national interest. Originally we saw that focus very narrowly tailored as foreign intelligence gathered overseas.”

“Now increasingly we see that it’s happening domestically and to do that they, the NSA specifically, targets the communications of everyone. It ingests them by default. It collects them in its system and it filters them and it analyses them and it measures them and it stores them for periods of time simply because that’s the easiest, most efficient, and most valuable way to achieve these ends. So while they may be intending to target someone associated with a foreign government or someone they suspect of terrorism, they’re collecting you’re communications to do so.”

“Any analyst at any time can target anyone, any selector, anywhere. Where those communications will be picked up depends on the range of the sensor networks and the authorities that analyst is empowered with. Not all analysts have the ability to target everything. But I sitting at my desk certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a Federal judge to even the President if I had a personal e-mail.”

Greenwald: “One of the extraordinary parts about this episode is usually whistleblowers do what they do anonymously and take steps to remain anonymous for as long as they can, which they hope often is forever. You on the other hand have decided to do the opposite, which is to declare yourself openly as the person behind these disclosures. Why did you choose to do that?”

Snowden: “I think that the public is owed an explanation of the motivations behind the people who make these disclosures that are outside of the democratic model. When you are subverting the power of government that’s a fundamentally dangerous thing to democracy and if you do that in secret consistently as the government does when it wants to benefit from a secret action that it took. It’ll kind of give its officials a mandate to go, ‘Hey tell the press about this thing and that thing so the public is on our side.’ But they rarely, if ever, do that when an abuse occurs. That falls to individual citizens but they’re typically maligned. It becomes a thing of ‘These people are against the country. They’re against the government’ but I’m not.”

“I’m no different from anybody else. I don’t have special skills. I’m just another guy who sits there day to day in the office, watches what’s happening and goes, ‘This is something that’s not our place to decide, the public needs to decide whether these programs and policies are right or wrong.’ And I’m willing to go on the record to defend the authenticity of them and say, ‘I didn’t change these, I didn’t modify the story. This is the truth; this is what’s happening. You should decide whether we need to be doing this.'”

Greenwald: “Have you given thought to what it is that the US government’s response to your conduct is in terms of what they might say about you, how they might try to depict you, what they might try to do to you?”

Snowden: “Yeah, I could be rendered by the CIA. I could have people come after me. Or any of the third-party partners. They work closely with a number of other nations. Or they could pay off the Traids. Any of their agents or assets. We’ve got a CIA station just up the road and the consulate here in Hong Kong and I’m sure they’re going to be very busy for the next week. And that’s a fear I’ll live under for the rest of my life, however long that happens to be.”

“You can’t come forward against the world’s most powerful intelligence agencies and be completely free from risk because they’re such powerful adversaries. No one can meaningfully oppose them. If they want to get you, they’ll get you in time. But at the same time you have to make a determination about what it is that’s important to you. And if living unfreely but comfortably is something you’re willing to accept, and I think it many of us are it’s the human nature; you can get up everyday, go to work, you can collect your large paycheck for relatively little work against the public interest, and go to sleep at night after watching your shows.”

“But if you realize that that’s the world you helped create and it’s gonna get worse with the next generation and the next generation who extend the capabilities of this sort of architecture of oppression, you realize that you might be willing to accept any risk and it doesn’t matter what the outcome is so long as the public gets to make their own decisions about how that’s applied.”

Greenwald: “Why should people care about surveillance?”

Snowden: “Because even if you’re not doing anything wrong you’re being watched and recorded. And the storage capability of these systems increases every year consistently by orders of magnitude to where it’s getting to the point where you don’t have to have done anything wrong. You simply have to eventually fall under suspicion from somebody even by a wrong call. And then they can use this system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you’ve ever made, every friend you’ve ever discussed something with. And attack you on that basis to sort to derive suspicion from an innocent life and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer.”

Greenwald: “We are currently sitting in a room in Hong Kong, which is where we are because you travelled here. Talk a little bit about why it is that you came here and specifically there are going to be people…people speculate that what you really intend to do is to defect to the country that many see as the number one rival of the Untied States, which is China. And that what you are really doing is essentially seeking to aid an enemy of the United States with which you intend to seek asylum. Can you talk a little about that?”

Snowden: “Sure. So there’s a couple assertions in those arguments that are sort of embedded in the questioning of the choice of Hong Kong. The first is that China is an enemy of the United States. It’s not. I mean there are conflicts between the United States government and the Chinese PRC government but the peoples inherently we don’t care. We trade with each other freely, we’re not at war, we’re not in armed conflict, and we’re not trying to be. We’re the largest trading partners out there for each other.”

“Additionally, Hong Kong has a strong tradition of free speech. People think ‘Oh China, Great Firewall.’ Mainland China does have significant restrictions on free speech but the people of Hong Kong have a long tradition of protesting in the streets, of making there views known. The internet is not filtered here more so then any other western government and I believe that the Hong Kong government is actually independent in relation to a lot of other leading western governments.”

Greenwald: “If your motive had been to harm the United States and help its enemies or if your motive had been personal material gain were there things you could have done with these documents to advance those goals that you didn’t end up doing?”

Snowden: “Oh absolutely. Anyone in the positions of access with the technical capabilities that I had could suck out secrets, pass them on the open market to Russia; they always have an open door as we do. I had access to the full rosters of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community, and undercover assets all over the world. The locations of every station, we have what their missions are and so forth.”

“If I had just wanted to harm the US? You could shut down the surveillance system in an afternoon. But that’s not my intention. I think for anyone making that argument they need to think, if they were in my position and you live a privileged life, you’re living in Hawaii, in paradise, and making a ton of money, ‘What would it take you to leave everything behind?'”

“The greatest fear that I have regarding the outcome for America of these disclosures is that nothing will change. People will see in the media all of these disclosures. They’ll know the lengths that the government is going to grant themselves powers unilaterally to create greater control over American society and global society. But they won’t be willing to take the risks necessary to stand up and fight to change things to force their representatives to actually take a stand in their interests.”

“And the months ahead, the years ahead it’s only going to get worse until eventually there will be a time where policies will change because the only thing that restricts the activities of the surveillance state are policy. Even our agreements with other sovereign governments, we consider that to be a stipulation of policy rather then a stipulation of law. And because of that a new leader will be elected, they’ll find the switch, say that ‘Because of the crisis, because of the dangers we face in the world, some new and unpredicted threat, we need more authority, we need more power.’ And there will be nothing the people can do at that point to oppose it. And it will be turnkey tyranny.”

Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald’s 1st interview – I don’t want to live in a society that does these sort of things

* * * * *

Glenn Greenwald: Have you given thought to what it is that the US government’s response to your conduct is, in terms of what they might say about you, how they might try to depict you?

Edward Snowden: I think the government’s going to launch an investigation, I think they’re going to say I’ve committed grave crimes, I’ve– you know, violated the Espionage Act. They’re going to say, I’ve aided our enemies in making them aware of these systems but that argument can be made against anybody who reveals information that points out mass surveillance systems, because fundamentally they apply equally to ourselves as they do to our enemies.

Greenwald: When you decided to enter this world did you do so with the intention of weaseling your way in and becoming a mole so you could one day undermine it with disclosures or what was your perspective and mindset about it at the time that you first sort of got into this whole realm?

Snowden: No, I joined the intelligence community when I was very young– sort of the government as a whole. I enlisted in the army shortly after the invasion of Iraq and I believed in the goodness of what we were doing, I believed in the nobility of our intentions to free oppressed people overseas. But over time, over the length of my career, as I watched the news and I increasingly was exposed to true information that had not been propagandized in the media that we were actually  involved in misleading the public and misleading all publics not just the American public in order to create a certain mindset in the global consciousness and I was actually a victim of that. America is a fundamentally a good country; we have good people with good values who want to do the right thing, but the structures of power that exist are working to their own ends to extend their capability at the expense of the freedom of all publics.

Poitras: Can you talk about what you think some of the most important primary document are and what they reveal?

Snowden: The primary disclosures are the fact that the NSA doesn’t limit itself to foreign intelligence. It collects all communications that transit the United States There are literally no ingress or egress points anywhere in the continental United States where communications can enter or exit without being monitored and collected and analyzed.

The Verizon document speaks highly to this, because it literally lays out they’re using an authority that was intended to be used to seek warrants against individuals and they’re applying it to the whole of society by basically subverting a corporate partnership through major telecommuncations providers and they’re getting everyone’s calls, everyone’s call records and everyone’s internet traffic as well.

On top of that you have got Boundless Informant, which is sort of a global auditing system for the NSA’s intercept and collection system that lets us track how much– how much we’re collecting, where we’re collecting, by which authorities and so forth. The NSA lied about the existence of this tool to Congress and to specific congressmen in response to previous inquiries about their surveillance activities.

Beyond that we’ve got PRISM, which is a demonstration of how the US Government co-opts US corporate power to its own ends. Companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft– they all get together with the NSA and provide the NSA direct access to the back ends of all of the systems you use to communicate, to store data, to put things in the cloud, and even to just send birthday wishes and keep a record of your life. And they give NSA direct access that they don’t need to oversee so they can’t be held liable for it. I think that’s a dangerous capability for anybody to have but particularly an organization that’s demonstrated time and time again that they’ll work to shield themselves from oversight.

Greenwald: Was there a specific point in time that you can point to when you crossed the line from contemplation to decision making and commitment to do this?

Snowden: I grew up with the understanding that the world I lived in was one where people enjoyed a sort of freedom to communicate with each other in privacy without it being monitored, without it being measured or analyzed or sort of judged by these shadowy figures or systems anytime they mentioned anything that travels across public lines.

I think a lot of people of my generation, anybody who grew up with the internet– that was their understanding. As we’ve seen the internet and government’s relation to the internet evolve over time, we’ve seen that sort of open debate, that free market of ideas, sort of lose its domain and be shrunk.

Greenwald: But what is it about that set of developments that makes them sufficiently menacing or threatening to you that you are willing to risk what you’ve risked in order to fight them?

Snowden: I don’t want to live in a world where everything that I say, everything I do, everyone I talk to, every expression of creativity or love or friendship is recorded. And that’s not something I’m willing to support, it’s not something I’m willing to build, and it’s not something I’m willing to live under. So I think anyone who opposes that sort of world has an obligation to act in the way they can. Now I’ve watched and waited and tried to do my job in the most policy-driven way I could, which is to wait and allow other people, you know– wait and allow our leadership, our figures, to sort of correct the excesses of government when we go too far. But as I’ve watched, I’ve seen that’s not occurring. In fact, we’re compounding the excesses of prior governments. And making it worse and more invasive, and no one is really standing to stop it.

Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald’s 2nd interview – The US government will say I aided our enemies

081011_RonPaul-lg

PIERS MORGAN, HOST: Ron Paul is a former congressman and former presidential candidate. He’s now chairman of the Campaign for Liberty. Ron Paul, thank you for joining me. You are a supporter of Edward Snowden and his actions. Why?

RON PAUL: Well, from what I hear and what he’s done, I mean, he’s done a great service because he’s telling the truth and this is what we are starved for. The American people are starved for the truth. And when you have a dictatorship or an authoritarian government, truth becomes treasonous. And this is what they do. If you are a whistleblower or if you’re trying to tell the American people that our country is destroying our rule of law and destroying our Constitution, they say they turn it on and say, “Oh, you’re committing treason.”

So this is a big problem. And to expect any changes without an announcement like this, things keep getting worse. They’ve gotten worse steadily for the past ten years. So essentially there is no Fourth Amendment anymore. And for somebody to tell the American people the truth is a heroic effort. And he knows that it’s very risky. He knows he’s committing, you know, civil disobedience, and he knows that he could get punished. But he believes very sincerely, I’m sure, I’ve never met the man, but he believes very seriously that what our government is doing to us is so serious that somebody has to speak out.

And I think the large majority of the American people are sick and tired of hearing how many people are having surveillance on them, whether it’s their phones, their internet, and e-mail and everything else. Matter of fact, I think the president ought to send him a thank you letter, because the president ran on transparency, and we’re getting a lot of transparency now. So, finally we’re getting the president to fulfill his promise about transparency. So that’s pretty exciting for me, because I believe in transparency.

But we have our government turned on its head. The government is supposed to be open and we’re supposed to have our privacy, but we don’t have any privacy and the government’s totally secret. And then they combine this with what they do with the IRS? Maybe that’s how they line up their targets in the IRS. They modify, you know, they check on our phone calls and find out what kind of business deals we’re doing so we can audit them and do all these kinds of things. It’s just totally out of control.

MORGAN: I’m going to go to Ron Paul to put a different question to him. Ron Paul, if you had been president, which you could have been, you ran for office this time, and you could have won. If you had been president, are you in all seriousness telling me that you would have stopped all of this tracking of data in the way that the NSA has been doing it?

PAUL: An awful lot of it, but it wouldn’t be stopped. You would still have your, you would, you would still have your transparency. I mean, you would still have your intelligence gathering, but it would be done under the law. You would have probable cause and you would have courts. This idea that you can go to the FISA court and get a warrant, that’s ridiculous. That’s like the monitoring of the president saying, “Oh, well we’re going to pick and choose who we’re going to assassinate, American citizen or not. But we have monitors, we’re going to study this.” That’s the rule of law? What he’s doing is repealing the Magna Carta. You can’t just do these kind of things. And this one is not only repealing the principles of liberty, but it’s destroying the Constitution.

So my question should be, to all of you who defend this nonsense is, “What should the penalty be for the people who destroy the Constitution?” They’re always worrying about how they’re going to destroy the American citizens who tell the truth to let us know what’s going on, but we ask the question, what is the penalty for the people who deliberately destroy the Constitution and rationalize and say, “Oh, we have to do it for security?” Well, you know what Franklin said about that: you end up losing, you lose your security and you lose your freedoms too.

So I think we’ve embarked on a very, very dangerous course. The American people are with us on this. It’s totally out of control. And I would say if you’re confused about what we should do, just read the Constitution. What’s wrong with that? You know, that gives us pretty good guidelines. If you don’t like it, get people to repeal it and change the Constitution, but not just to deny it.

I mean, we go to war without a declaration. We totally ignore the Constitution. That is what our problem is today. We have no rule of law, and people say, “Well, just let secret courts do this, and the government to know everything, and the American people to have no privacy.” I mean you’re, that reflects an intimidation. People are insecure, and think that we need more authoritarianism. You’re justifying dictatorship is what you’re doing.

Piers Morgan interviews Ron Paul: Obama Should Send Snowden a Thank You Note – We’re Getting Transparency He Promised

Bolivia’s Vice-President Alvaro Garcia Linera, Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro, Bolivia’s President Evo Morales (L) and Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa listen to the Bolivian national anthem during a welcoming gathering in honour of Morales, in Cochabamba, on July 4, 2013

An emergency UNASUR meeting has demanded the governments of France, Portugal, Italy and Spain apologize for forcibly halting President Morales’s plane in Austria due to suspicions Edward Snowden might have been aboard.

The Cochabamba Declaration issued at the summit also denounced “the flagrant violation of international treaties.”

Tensions flared at the UNASUR summit in Bolivia, with the country’s president Evo Morales saying that his “hand would not shake” if and when he “closes the US Embassy,” following the forced stop of presidential plane in Austria.

Spain has spoken out in response, stating that it has no reason to apologize to Bolivia. “Spain doesn’t have to ask pardon in anyway because its airspace was never closed,” Reuters quoted Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo as saying.

Ahead of the summit, the Bolivian President has expressed appreciation for the support he has received so far from Latin American countries.

“Apologies from a country that did not let us pass over its territory are not enough,” Morales said before talks in the central city of Cochabamba. “Some governments apologized, saying it was an error, but this was not an error.”

Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa pointed out, “We are here to support Bolivia.”

Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro stressed“Violation of international law against Evo Morales is against all of us.”

Cristina Fernandez, who came to Bolivia a bit later than her counterparts, indicated, “It is curious that those who speak of human rights committed this violation.”

Jose Mujica of Uruguay and Desi Bouterse of Suriname are also attending the summit.

Not all the regional leaders attended the summit. The presidents of Colombia, Chile and Peru, who are considered to have strong ties to the US, were not present. However, the delegations of these countries expressed their solidarity with Evo Morales as well.

The meeting of South American leaders takes place after President Morales’s plane was forced to stop in Austria on Tuesday.

It happened due to suspicions that NSA leaker Edward Snowden was on board. The plane was searched by Austrian authorities, but they found nothing.

All in all, the President’s layover in Vienna lasted for about 14 hours.

Morales received a hero’s welcome at the airport in Bolivia’s capital of La Paz Wednesday night.

morales.si

Premijer Dačić dočekao me je u svom kabinetu vrlo prijateljski. Slično je bilo kad smo se sreli prošle godine. U međuvremenu, on je napravio nekoliko velikih političkih poteza i pozitivno iznenadio publiku. Što da ne kažem, i mene. Ne ustežem se da mu čestitam na hrabrosti, naročito onoj koju pokazuje u dijalogu sa Prištinom, i hvalim Briselski sporazum koji je napravio sa Tačijem. Činjenica da mi je njegova partija pre dvadeset godina lomila kičmu ne sprečava me da mu kažem da ide u odličnom pravcu. Paniću, ja sam Vas i tada potajno voleo, kaže mi. Nije to loše čuti, posle svega.

Prenosim mu da mi je jedan američki diplomata iz regiona nedavno rekao da Tači na sličan način govori o toj prošlosti. Glasao je za mene, seća se dobro nekih naših susreta, posebno je diplomati ukazao na značaj moga nedavnoga autorskog članka u Danasu kada sam u piku briselskog pregovaranja snažno istakao potrebu da se prihvati realnost i potpiše sporazum. Da je podržan Panić, mnoge bi se tragedije izbegle, rekao je Dačićev prištinski kaunterpart.

* * * *

Volim Ameriku! Uprkos svim njenim nesavršenostima. Samo jedna od njih: bilo je vreme kad kao imigrant nisi mogao ući, na primer, u Kalifornija klub! Rekao sam to predsedniku Niksonu kad je od mene tražio mišljenje – šta da uradi da dobije naše glasove. On je to promenio, Amerika je zemlja koja se uvek iznutra usavršava. Danas se obeležava Dan nezavisnosti, i 150 godina ključne bitke Građanskog rata kod Getisberga. Žao mi je što moji Srbi ne mogu da vide i osete atmosferu u zemlji: ovo je ponosna nacija, čiji sam adaptirani pripadnik, koja slavi radosno, poletno, bučno, sa vatrometima. Naročito omladina. Sa posebnim sam uzbuđenjem pratio ponovno otvaranje Statue slobode, koju je potrpao pesak uragana Sendi. Ovo je zemlja imigranata, i mnogi su Ameriku prvi put ugledali upravo kad su stigli na Elis Ajlend, gde dominira ponosna Ledi. Jedan sam od njih: za doprinos koji sam dao Americi dobio sam medalju sa imenom toga magičnog ostrva. Medalja Elis Ajlend kaže mi da sam napravio dobar izbor. U zemlji otvorenih mogućnosti ja sam svoju iskoristio.

Milan Panic, Danas, 07. jul

We’re ending our live coverage of the diplomatic crisis over the Morales flight. Our latest news story has just been published and can be red here:

Here is a summary of events today.

• A jet carrying the Bolivian president is on its way home after being forced to land at Vienna airport because of the refusal of some European countries to let it pass through their airspace. Eva Morales was returning from a visit to Moscow. He called it “an excuse to scare, intimidate and punish me”.

• The US government has admitted that it had been in contact with other nations about potential flights involving Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower. The State Department would not comment on whether it had made any specific respresentations over Morales’s flight.

• Bolivian and Austrian authorities insisted Snowden was not on the plane. The extent to which the Austrian police officers searched the jet was unclear.

• An Austrian official told AP that Morales’s aircraft asked controllers at Vienna airport to land because there was “no clear indication” that the plane had enough fuel to continue on its journey. This tallies with audio posted online purporting to be of a conversation between the jet pilot and the control room at the airport.

• Bolivia’s UN ambassador has said that the country will file a formal complaint with the United Nations over the “kidnapping” of Morales. A number of South American leaders voiced outrage at the incident, including the Argentinian president Cristina Kirchner and Rafael Correa, the president of Ecuador.

• Ecuador’s foreign minister Ricardo Patino says Ecuador has found a hidden microphone inside its London embassy, where WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is living, and it would disclose who controls the device. Patino described it as “another instance of a loss of ethics at the international level in relations between governments”.

Guardian, July 3rd, Bolivian president’s plane leaves Austria after enforced diversion

* * *

People have been tweeting that Snowden should flee to the one place where he can guarantee he will be safe from prosecution by the Us government – Wall Street!

Richard Byrne, FB comment