That's because we live in a world where there is no country that's good at media freedom. We have the US, which is interested in exposing Russia's crimes and hiding its own; Russia, which is interested in exposing the US's crimes and hiding its own, various somewhat less powerful countries that are effectively allied with one or the other, and various significantly less powerful countries that don't have the ability to anger either.
What country do you think he should have taken refuge in?
No, there's no shortage of countries that have good media freedom:
>"We have the US, which is interested in exposing Russia's crimes and hiding its own; Russia, which is interested in exposing the US's crimes and hiding its own,"
Please name one crime that the US media hid from the American people? Everything and everyone in the US is fair game.
>"What country do you think he should have taken refuge in?"
That's not the point, the point is he emigrates to Putin's Russia and then becomes President at @FreedomofPress. And for a refresher on the state of media freedom in Russia:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/03/23...
Cute list, Sweden at #2, I suppose Assange should go to Sweden as well?
What you say is completely and utterly irrelevant in the context where the United States of America would use extradition agreements to get Snowden back on US soil, for example by basing themselves on this ridiculous law [1]. Notwithstanding that Snowden did a service to the countries in your list.
Germany did not pardon Snowden, so he didn't go there.
Bottomline is, such a list is secondary to Snowden's personal freedom, his primary interest (don't confuse that with your lack of care about his personal freedom). His personal freedom is [somewhat] protected in Russia, but not in Sweden, Germany, or The Netherlands because the claw of the US government reaches that far. TL;DR he'd have been an utter idiot if he went to the EU.
Every time you are confronted with facts and you shift the focus to something else. Now you are discussing Julian Assange? But since you brought him up, he is another one who has taken up refuge in a country where censorship is rampant and press freedom is abysmal:
https://knightcenter.utexas.edu/blog/00-17891-attacks-freedo...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Ecuador
>"Bottomline is, such a list is secondary to Snowden's personal freedom,"
How very selective for both Snowden and Assange that being a pawn of corrupt regimes that have no respect for press freedoms is acceptable as long as you have another bogeyman to point at.
So it's OK for them to condone the behavior of those governments provided that both of them are recipients of their favors? They are both principled where and when it's convenient for them. I didn't think principles were something that could be selectively applied. I'm sure they both appreciate that your doing their bidding though.
Newsflash Sherlock: Reporters Without Borders credibility isn't related to extradition laws with the USA. Those 2 variables are not affecting each other, yet the latter is very much relevant here for the freedom and perhaps even life of Snowden.
I already told you this once in my previous post, and you carefully dance around that cause it doesn't suit your agenda. What you say regarding RWB is irrelevant, as Snowden wouldn't be long in that country. He'd have been send a one way ticket to the USA instead, and he'd have gotten a secret trial. What matters is looking at the situation and facts as they occurred and being practical. Now you are going to tell us which country Snowden should've fled to instead of Russia. Go ahead, share the magic faerie-tale country which would've been better according to your one criteria of Reporters Without Borders. Then I will tell you 1) the plane from Ecuador didn't stop at that country (and Snowden got stuck in Russia thanks to US action). 2) Furthermore, he wouldn't been long in said country as I already described.
> I'm sure they both appreciate that your doing their bidding though.
And I am sure the US government is pleased you're doing theirs with your baseless character assassinations.
1. I said US (as in the government), not US media.
2. You, uh, realize we're in a thread about Edward Snowden, right? Are you familiar with what he did?
> the point is he emigrates to Putin's Russia and then becomes President at @FreedomofPress.
So? What is this point relevant to?
His destination wasn't Russia. He went from Hong Kong to Ecuador and got stuck in transit at Sheremetyevo International Airport because the US government revoked his password while he was flying from Hong Kong. Efforts to get him to Germany (with pardon) failed.
As for media freedom in our Western so-called free world, look at what happened with news agency The Guardian, how they had to discard material which was in the interest of the general population of the UK and the world.
It wasn't an actual question it was rhetorical. I've seen the documentary, I don't buy it all. I find his sincerity questionable. Similarly his Twitter profile shows he is the President at @FreedomofPress, yet he takes refuge in a country that that is one of the most deplorable in terms of media freedom.
>"Semantics, both are entwined in case as GPG."
No it's not semantics and if you want distort it like that, both security and privacy are under assault by that same NSA.
>"Not a statement of much, if any, value."
But sighting a Hollywood movie as evidence of accuracy is? Sure, right that makes a lot of sense.