Slashdot Mirror
Non-Binding Resolution: EU States Should Protect Snowden
The New York Times reports that the European Parliament has voted to adopt "a nonbinding but nonetheless forceful resolution" urging the EU's member nations to recognize Edward Snowden as a whistleblower, rather than aid in prosecuting him on behalf of the United States government. From the article:
Whether to grant Mr. Snowden asylum remains a decision for the individual European governments, and thus far, none have done so.
Still, the resolution was the strongest statement of support seen for Mr. Snowden from the European Parliament. At the same time, the close vote — 285 to 281 — suggested the extent to which some European lawmakers are wary of alienating the United States. ...
The resolution calls on European Union members to "drop any criminal charges against Edward Snowden, grant him protection and consequently prevent extradition or rendition by third parties."
Also at Wired, USA Today and many others; Snowden himself has tweeted happily about the news.
This seems entirely contradictory to their stance on Assange.
I wonder why.
At the same time, the close vote — 285 to 281 — suggested the extent to which some European lawmakers are wary of alienating the United States.
Or, maybe European politicians are just sharply divided over the issue. That would be easy to believe, even if it doesn't fit the narrative of the poor little EU always cowering whenever the US clears its throat.
#DeleteChrome
It's really hard to extradite from the EU anyway even for non-politically-connected crimes. It took 8 years even to get Abu Hamza, which was about as open and shut as possible (including convictions in the UK) for about as hateable of a figure as possible for serious of crimes during a period where there was a major push to prosecute said crimes. The ECHR in particular is a major refuge for people arguing political prosecution. The right in many countries like the UK hates them, as they make it hard to prosecute many types of crime and force them to guarantee all sorts of rights for prisoners (like assisted reproductive services for sex offenders and such). In the case of Abu Hamza, they ruled that a variety of conditions in US prisons are "torture" and he couldn't be extradited until the US promised to make all sorts of restrictions on how he would be housed. They also had to agree to not seek the death penalty, and nearly required the US to not seek life in prison either. And if the US would ever break any of their promises, the ECHR would impose a general ban on extradition to the US (as they've done with many other countries), as it's against EU law to extradite to countries who do not have a track record of upholding their pledges concerning prisoners (it was imposed in the aftermath of the Agiza/Alzery case)
Now, this shouldn't be confused with moving people between EU states under the EAW process (surrender, not extradition), which is generally rather easy. EAWs bypass the executive branch entirely, and the automatic presumption is that the warrant is valid and should be enforced rather than the other way around.
Honestly, what would work out best for everyone would be if the US agreed to plea bargain with Snowden. He seems interested in it, the US would still send their message that "you can't run from the law forever", etc.
"Oh, goodness. Look at my wrist, I have to go." "But what about your clothes?" "I don't love these."
given the pre-judgment, the media coverage, the classified data involved and the associated "national security" options to block the use of that data as evidence for or against him, do you think there is even the slightest chance that Snowden could receive anything close to a "fair trial" in the US?! Nope, not possible....