Edward Snowden to give evidence to EU parliament, says MEP.

[dipsydoodle]

Source: Guardian

The European parliament is lining up Edward Snowden to give evidence by video link later this month, in spite of resistance by British Conservatives, a Green MEP has announced.

German Green Jan Philipp Albrecht said MEPs wanted Snowden to appear before the assembly's committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs (LIBE).

Albrecht said it would represent a "great success" for the parliament's investigation into mass surveillance of EU citizens. "Half a year after the first publications from his collection of numerous NSA documents, the truth of which has not so far been refuted, there are still consequences as far as political responsibility is concerned," he said.

"The basic political will is there," he said on Sunday "Now we will need to see if we can get a formal majority for a hearing and hope that Snowden can keep his promise to answer question on the affair."

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/edward-snowden-nsa-evidence-eu-parliament-surveillance

[cosmicone]

1. yay for Snowden n/t

[deurbano]

2. I second that....

[ronnie624]

3. His views on civil liberties and justice are well worth hearing.

[Divernan]

4. Steps will be taken to prevent a drone attack!

As per the final paragraph from the OP's link below, the organizers and/or Snowden did not feel it safe to have this evidence provided "live" or real-time. Now why would that be? They could always have him go temporarily to a broadcast location away from wherever he's living. Except . . . is there some rogue country out there which could possibly launch a drone at him "real-time"? If anyone has any other explanation of the dangers of a real-time broadcast, feel free to jump right in and share same on this thread!

The LIBE committee would most likely want to seek questions on what role other European information services have played in gathering data for the NSA, as well as whether servers and data networks in the EU were used as part of the process.

Albrecht claims Snowden had expressed an initial interest via his lawyers in July, and that recent communications had firmed that up. In October, Green party MEP Christian Ströbele travelled to Moscow to meet Snowden in person.

Sources within the European parliament considered it likely that committee members would vote in favour of a Snowden hearing, with the only vocal opposition represented by British Conservative MEPs. Since the Tories are no longer part of the European People's party alliance of centre-right parties, however, one MEP described their reluctance as "not crucial".

Since a real-time video testimony could allow Snowden's location to be pinpointed, the committee would send questions to the US whistleblower and then play back pre-recorded answers in front of the parliament.

[cstanleytech]

9. If he is still inside russia I dont see there being much if any chance of a drone strike being

authorized not to mention he isnt wanted for conducting terrorist acts nor for leading or working for such an organization but rather for the criminal act of breaking the law regarding the handling of classified material which I dont recall there ever being such a strike authorized for.
Now if he was a Russian who pissed off Putin and he was living in another country he might have something to fear from say Polonium poisoning.

[Ace Acme]

11. What terrorist acts did Abdulrahman al Awlaki commit? I forget.

He was an American citizen, 16 years old.

[cstanleytech]

13. None that I am aware of and its a tragic death that his father could have avoided

by leaving him at home with his wife and their other children rather than dragging him around knowing that the US was after him.

[Ace Acme]

15. What makes you think his father was dragging him around? nt

[cstanleytech]

18. So then you have other information to explain why a 15 year old boy was hanging

around his fathers associates?

[Ace Acme]

22. How do you know who he was hanging around?

Or do you just make up the facts, as the Obama administration does, to support your claims.

The Obama adminstration declares that any military-aged male killed in a drone strike is by definition a militant.

[cstanleytech]

25. What? You think they went and targeted the kid on purpose? If so then I am going to have to ask

you to provide some evidence to back that claim up please because as far as I know the kid wasnt the target but rather the associates of the kids father were the target.

[Ace Acme]

26. IOW, you have no idea who he was hanging around.

You assume that if they're dead, they must have been bad guys.

How does some joystick-jockey in Nevada know who he's killed? Do they send a flying monkey down to scoop up DNA samples?

[cstanleytech]

29. Do you have any proof that shows otherwise or are you merely trying to stir the pot?

[Ace Acme]

31. Thanks for demonstrating yet again that you have no idea who he was hanging around. nt

[cstanleytech]

33. Ahhh ok thanks for answering it makes it easier to understand your real goal now. nt

[Ace Acme]

34. My goal was to show that you make up your facts. QED nt

[cstanleytech]

43. Uh huh sure it is. nt

[hack89]

19. Who was in the company of terrorists wanted by America

He was not the target. He was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Ace Acme]

23. How do you know who he was in the company of? nt

[hack89]

24. Because we know who he was killed with?

Do you follow the news by any chance?

[Ace Acme]

27. How do you know who he was killed with?

"The news", coming from an anonymous internet poster, is hardly a source.

[hack89]

30. So you didn't follow the story when it happened?

Didn't read the numerous DU threads?

[Ace Acme]

32. Oh, so "numerous DU threads" is your source. nt

[hack89]

35. You are right - Obama simply wanted him dead

he likes killing 16 year old Americans.

[Ace Acme]

36. I didn't say that. I asked how you knew he was in the company of terrorists.

And it appears that you can't answer that one.

[hack89]

37. Don't play dumb

This was a big story that was discussed in depth here. I refuse to play your silly game.

[Ace Acme]

38. But you can't remember what was the source for the claim that Abdulrahman al Awlaki

"was in the company of terrorists".

How do you know who he was in the company of? Who said? Who did an investigation? How do they know?

You can't remember? All you remember is that it was "nothing to see here, folks, move on--national security terrorist stuff"?

[hack89]

39. Ok. Nt

[Ace Acme]

42. If already discussed, why can't you support claim that he was in the company of terrorists? nt

[cstanleytech]

44. The issue isnt what he can support its that if you can support the claim that you are raising that

he wasnt.
If you have some factual information that totally refutes the governments claims and can prove that the kid was not near such people by all means share it otherwise put a sock in it.

[Ace Acme]

45. I'm not raising any claim. You are claiming you know who he was hanging around with

... and "hack" is claiming Abdulrahman was associating with terrorists. My requests for your sources of information have resulted in 19 posts that are hijacking the thread and I STILL haven't gotten any answers. All I get it demands that I prove that he wasn't hanging around terrorists. YOU made the claim. YOU back it up.

[cstanleytech]

46. Incorrect. The government did that. And yes by your tone that is precisely what you are trying to

raise and your claims of innocence are transparent.

[Ace Acme]

49. Oh, and you are blindly repeating the government claim?`

What information did the government provide?

[cstanleytech]

50. "What information did the government provide?" More than you but hey continue on this path and

you will join dfk eventually.

[Ace Acme]

51. I'm not claiming I know who he was hanging out with. You are, and you're claiming the gov't knew.

I'd like to know how you know the gov't knew. Where do you get your information?

Or do you just make stuff up, and tell us that the gov't told you?

[cstanleytech]

52. I'm not making anything up I am pointing out that facts that the news media reported

based upon what the government told them.
Now do you or do you not have any shred of evidence to disprove the stories? Yes or no Ace.

[Ace Acme]

53. It's not my job to disprove anything.

It's your job to prove your claim that Abdulrahman was hanging out with his father's associates. You don't say how you know that.

[cstanleytech]

59. Oh so we have to prove what the media the media and government say but

you expect a free pass.
Hate to burst your bubble there but I refuse to allow you to have a free pass so like I said either prove your own claims or put a sock in it finally.

Edit: That or continue on this course and maybe end up joining dfk, the choice is yours.

[pangaia]

5. This COULD be interesting.

[snot]

6. K&R'd

Go, whistleblowers!

[SoapBox]

7. Comrade Snowden, the former American

speaks.

What's the matter Traitor Eddie? Been out of the spot light too long? And being Putin's lapdog, he's letting you off leash? Guardian circulation down?

[Comrade Grumpy]

8. Pathetic bile. n/t

[Turbineguy]

10. Sssh!

Edward Snowden is totaly believed and his and others involved motives are completely pure.

[Wilms]

12. Don't take it so personally.

He only did it because he HATES OBAMA!1!

OK. He wanted to piss you off, as well. And it worked.

Go shine your boots.

[idwiyo]

62. +1

[last1standing]

14. I would think there would be a point when you'd be embarrassed to post such drivel.

Doesn't it make you a little sick inside knowing your on the wrong side of history?

Or is your need to praise Obama and attack his "enemies" so strong that it blots out all other considerations?

[Psephos]

16. Snowden restored my conviction that true heroes still exist.

No one I can think of has spoken Truth to Power with more impact.

We all realize you have relatives working at NSA, Soapbox, so we look the other way as you give the spy criminals at Fort Meade a tongue bath.

[Ace Acme]

17. Your web belt has verdigris in the eyelets, Cummings. nt

[BlueInPhilly]

20. Snowden is a traitor

And I don't understand the DU worship. He should be in the US to face treason charges.

[Ace Acme]

28. I suppose you feel the same way about Daniel Ellsberg? nt

[JoeyT]

40. If Obama had been president?

Yes, yes they would. They'd refute your accusation but they're too busy posting in threads about what hypocrites Republicans are.

[randome]

61. Ellsberg had proof. All Snowden has is personal distaste.

His 'testimony', if it ever comes to light, will be something like this: "Here is how I tricked my coworkers into giving me their passwords."
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[BelgianMadCow]

21. Greens in Euro Parliament are rather awesome

about the only ones succesfully holding power's feet to the fire. The social democrats for sure have been coopted.

[2banon]

55. restores faith there's intelligent life on this planet, at least enough to have a voice when it

matters most. I suspect it will be at least century or longer before we have a shred of any here in the u.s..

most everyone here seems to be pretty much vested in the status quo.

[wildbilln864]

41. k & r for Snowden. n/t

[Blue_Tires]

47. So as it turns out he *CAN* testify by web video...

I'd made this suggestion months ago...Why is it just now happening?

[cstanleytech]

48. Because he had a deal with putin to keep his mouth shut.

Question is though if he testifies will it nullify the safe haven deal?

[defacto7]

54. I would suppose it would depend

on what he says. I doubt there's a effective political body looking over Putin's shoulder.

[cstanleytech]

58. Which is why snowden might decline to testify as he might fear Putins reaction and we all

have seen how people who tick off Putin are dealt with as in the case of Alexander Litvinenko.

[Douglas Carpenter]

56. knr

[nilesobek]

57. Is he technically a traitor or not?

That's for courts and history to decide but for me its deliciously satisfying to watch the apparatus that's been running wild since 9/11 to squirm and whiteknuckle each new Snowden release.

[cstanleytech]

60. Legally? Probably or atleast if we follow our own laws which lets face it

the government and those in it have a habit of not following.

[idwiyo]

63. k&r