Back

@aral I am deeply sorry that of all the people talking about this story you chose to amplify #snowden. Snowden is not a champion of privacy, he and Assange merely exploit this cause to leverage the interests of an authoritarian regime that respects neither privacy nor other human rights of its own citizens, that invades and subjugates neighboring countries to make sure they don't start respecting human rights, either.
https://angdraug.medium.com/russophobe-is-the-eastern-european-n-word-8b4c1d6c3c86

@aral After the August 2020 election in #Belarus, hundreds of thousands of people fled the contry, tens of thousands were extrajudicially detained, thousands tortured and maimed, hundreds of political prisoners received lengthy prison terms, dozens of journalists imprisoned for doing their work, over a dozen killed, all independent media and NGOs were dismantled. All because at the critical moment as even his own propagandists went on strike, #Russia stood behind #Lukashenka.

@aral And that's just in my old country. In #Ukraine, Russia is waging a war that has already cost tens of thousands of lives and displaced millions. Same in #Georgia and #Moldova. At home and abroad, Russia routinely assassinates dissidents and journalists, the cases of Navalny and Skripal and Nemtsov and Litvinenko and Politkovskaya are just the internationally visible tip of the iceberg of hundreds like them.

@aral Snowden and others like him, from #Assange to everyone who ever worked for #RT and Sputnik, are not champions of privacy and human rights. You can't be a champion of human rights while actively working for the benefit of a government that abuses human rights at home and props up authoritarian regimes abroad.

I've been a member of both #EFF and #ACLU for many years. Their continued support of #Snowden made me cancel my membership. Please reconsider amplifying this fraud.

@aral Everything I said and quoted here about Facebook applies in equal measure to Snowden and Assange:
https://mastodon.social/@angdraug/106716210599946283

Their role in helping the US lose 4 years of the rapidly shrinking window of opportunity to address the coming catastrophic climate change is as significant as that of Facebook (and of FBI, just to keep the whole score).

@boud There's a whole chapter about Snowden in this book I reviewed: https://angdraug.medium.com/book-review-facts-and-fears-by-james-clapper-861fdb59fbca

In my review I explain the reasons I started to take Clapper's (and many others') word of Snowden's (and Greedwald's and Hedges' etc.)

@angdraug

Thanks for the explanation. I'm not convinced, but that isn't of much practical relevance.

BTW, there's an oversimplification in:
https://angdraug.medium.com/russophobe-is-the-eastern-european-n-word-8b4c1d6c3c86

"adoption of the first constitution in Europe in 1791"

* San Marino 1600-present: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_San_Marino

* Corsica 1755-1769: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corsican_Constitution

The PL 1791 constitution had a Montesquieu separation of the three main powers, but it was *monarchical*, and worse, regressed to (intra-dynasty) hereditary monarchy.

@boud That oversimplification is immaterial to the point my mention of the 1791 constitution makes in that article: that it was the reason the notably more despotic empires have chosen to unite to pull the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth apart.

Your designation of that constitution as "Polish" is an oversimplification, too, and an offensive one as it erases the significant roles of Lithuanian and Belarusian peoples in the Commonwealth.

@boud FWIW I am well aware that the history of constitutional law in Europe, just as history of any kind of science snd discovery, is not a straight line.

For example, the nearest functional counterpart to the San Marino constitution of 1600 in the Belarusian history isn't the constitution of 1791, it's the Lithuanian Statutes of 1529 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutes_of_Lithuania). And AFAIU the Corsican constitution didn't introduce suffrage until 1794.

@boud The 1791 constitution's regression to hereditary monarchy and abolition of liberum veto, while unfortunate to the modern democratic sensibility, were a reflection of the contemporary political reality and the primary reason that constitution was deemed unacceptable by Commonwealth's authoritarian neighbors: it aimed to limit foreign interference that's been paralyzing the country for decades.

Ironically, exact same drama is now playing out with Belarusian constitution.

@angdraug

I agree that context-specific rules may be more effectively democratic than standard democratic theory.

The Sudanese transition is especially interesting. Grassroots activists' coalitions have compromised with generals/war criminals in a power-sharing agreement, and are working through a detailed sociopolitical construction and peace process. Very counterintuitive is consensus on delaying elections by 3 years (s/3/5/). The process is "Sudan-owned".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%932024_Sudanese_transition_to_democracy