> Reporters Without Borders is a 35 year old non-profit institution that promotes and defends freedom of information and freedom of the press around. It's incredibly respected and has local watch-dog offices all over the world. 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:

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.