Edward Snowden Loses Norway Safe Passage Case (bbc.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from BBC: Edward Snowden's bid to guarantee that he would not be extradited to the U.S. if he visited Norway has been rejected by the Norwegian supreme court. The former spy contractor filed the lawsuit in April, attempting to secure safe passage to Norway to pick up a free speech award. It had already been rejected by Oslo District court and an appeals court. Mr Snowden's lawyers have previously said if he were extradited to the U.S., it would be "a foregone conclusion" that he would be convicted and jailed. Mr Snowden has been living in Russia, out of reach of the U.S. authorities, since the leaks in 2013. He had hoped to travel to Oslo to receive the Ossietzky Prize, for "outstanding efforts for freedom of expression." The award was due to be presented earlier this month. But the Norwegian Supreme Court said it could not rule on the legality of any move to extradite Mr Snowden as the U.S. had so far made no such request.

Comments

Well duh!

[Anonymous Coward]

A court can't guarantee safe passage, only the government can.

Re:Well duh!

[Calydor]

I didn't realize the courts were private companies in Norway.

Re: Well duh!

[AuMatar]

It's a common view among European countries that the government is the current administration, and that the legislature and courts are separate entities.

Re:Well duh!

[mrclevesque]

I guess there's more than two options

Re:Well duh!

[terjeber]

They are not, but at the same time, they can not disregard the law. Sadly the current law in Norway is that he gets extradited unless he risks capital punishment. Most countries are the same, and I doubt the government can overrule that.

Re:Well duh!

[Rei]

I don't know the procedure in Norway, but I assume it's similar to the Swedish one.

1) A request for extradition is received.
2) The court takes up the case.
3) In the proceedings, a (nonbinding) opinion from the government is sought.
4) The court rules, on their own about the case.
5) If the court blocks the extradition, the person may not be extradited.
6) If the court approves the extradition, the government may still block the extradition.
7) If both the court and government approve, then the person must be extradited.

The courts cannot rule on a request that they have not received, and the government is not allowed to usurp the courts by making pledges on a case that the court hasn't yet ruled on.

Snowden really should get used to the fact that he's not going anywhere until his case gets resolved.

Re:Well duh!

[Rei]

Extradition isn't that simple. There's a lot of constraints to extradition cases - for example, dual criminality (what the person is charged with has to be a crime in both countries).

Re:Well duh!

[quenda]

Sadly the current law in Norway is that he gets extradited unless he risks capital punishment. Most countries are the same,

There are a whole bunch of conditions for extradition. It has to be a serious offence in both countries.
In Australia we have a bunch of objections that the court might be asked to rule on, including "a person’s extradition is sought for a political or military offence".

But of course the Australian gov't would turn him right over. We've had innocent Australian citizens sitting in Guantanamo for years without help.
Mamdouh Habib was finally released without charge, and David Hicks was tortured and offered "plead guilty and get released, otherwise stay locked up in Cuba".
Australia did nothing for him.

Re: Well duh!

[Anonymous Coward]

And pray tell, why should a responsible government jeopardize important political and economical ties and agreements over some dipshit?

Re:Well duh!

[GameboyRMH]

Snowden really should get used to the fact that he's not going anywhere until his case gets resolved.

Which will happen only when he dies or when the US elects some kind of civil libertarian who will grant him a pardon.

Re: Well duh!

[quenda]

Some people still consider old-fashioned concepts of moral principles to be sometimes more important than diplomatic pragmatism.

Re: Well duh!

[minstrelmike]

And pray tell, why should a responsible government jeopardize important political and economical ties and agreements over some dipshit?

I spose it depends on how you define responsible. Some folks think it's okay to torture people if they are dipshits; other countries (which also call themselves responsible) think each person has inalienable rights.

And this is over and above the complete uselessness of torture to actually gain information. A scientific government/military would use techniques that work. That approach seems to fit the definition of "responsible govenment" imo. Your mileage apparently varies.

Re:Well duh!

[Coren22]

Technically, he does face capital punishment. Treason in times of war are considered hanging offences, and I believe there was a war going on when he committed his treason.

come get your free prize

[frovingslosh]

Ossietzky Prize, for "outstanding efforts for freedom of expression."

It is nice to see Norway honor free speech and protection of citizens from abusive government spying with this great prize and a free trip to the United States (or maybe just Guantanamo Bay).

Snowden

[Anonymous Coward]

Has he even been indicted yet?

Re:Snowden

[ELCouz]

Indictment ? For case like this... you go straight to jail...no possibility of fighting in court.

Re:Snowden

[Anonymous Coward]

No indictment no extradition.

Re:Snowden

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no, they'd make a show of it.
With a jury of his old peers, no less. You know, the ones that got all that egg on their face.

They also won't execute him, but you'd think the capital punishment would include "oh no. you don't GET to die for this. That would be too fast and painless for our fun..."

Re:Snowden

[Anonymous Coward]

You are mistaken. He would have his day in court. His notoriety will shine a big light on the entire process. He has openly admitted breaking some serious laws. Depending on which laws he is charged with he may be prevented from using an affirmative defense that would allow his motives and intentions to be argued in court.

Re:Snowden

[Anonymous Coward]

You are mistaken. He would have his day in court.

I find it more likely that he would be killed in prison by another inmate long before he made it to a courtroom.

Re: Snowden

[Anonymous Coward]

You're mistaken. How often does the collective voice of hundreds of millions fail against a single ideologue? When you're "that guy at the very top of the tree" you don't have to prove a crime. It's not necessary to try anyone here.

Snowden can martyr himself but it'd ultimately be wasted. Those same people will make absolutely sure it's a wasted gesture. They'll also make sure the Geneva convention doesn't apply and he'd be better served floating down the Styx into the pits of hell. If Snowden ever lands in the US they'll peel his skin and throw him in a bag of salted lemon juice, then they'll treat him only so they can do it again and again and again...

So let's not pretend your vote counts, okay? Snowden should stay where he is, at least Russia seems to be a free country.

Re:Snowden

[minstrelmike]

Indictment ? For case like this... you go straight to jail...no possibility of fighting in court.

That is COMPLETELY incorrect. He gets his day in court.
Of course it's a secret court. The kind of court which if run by Saddam or Putin or China would be called illegal but since it is managed by true patriots such as Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama/Trump, then it's okay since we're all Americans.

In the secret court, there are (slightly) different rules:

1. anything you say that cannot be used against you is declared irrelevant.
2. the jurors are not allowed to discuss the case with anybody, including each other.
3. your defense attorney is assigned by the judge and will destroy his career if he actually wins the case

But Snowden would get his day in court and then his life in prison.

Re:Snowden

[Coren22]

If he hasn't made it to court yet, he would be staying in jail, not prison.

Prison is where people who have been convicted of a crime go.

Re:Snowden

[Coren22]

Yes.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com...

Border Dancing

[rectalfeeding]

I can see it now, Snowden doing a little dance on the border. Taunting Trump. Imagine how little the Trump presidency would make sense to us if it weren't for Snowden. What a World.

Re:Border Dancing

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't misunderestimate the spiritual implications -

http://fortune.com/2016/10/09/presidential-debate-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-devil/

Re:Border Dancing

[I75BJC]

Trump? Where did that come from? Sore Loser, much? Obama is the POTUS and the legal action was taken under the Regime of Obama. It has taken some time for the case to wind its way through the courts. POTUS Obama has refused to pardon Snowden – the "he's not been charged with a crime" excuse. But POTUS Obama CAN use the Blanket Pardon in Snowden's case, or in Hill's case, or in MInions' cases that avoids future prosecution. Trump? Please!

Probably under seal

[mysidia]

the Norwegian Supreme Court said it could not rule on the legality of any move to extradite Mr Snowden as the U.S. had so far made no such request.

I would speculate the request order has already been made and approved under seal that prevents the courts even learning that it exists, unless the order becomes effective, which only happens if Snowden comes into the country for the cheese (the prize) and springs the trap designed to catch him.
Naturally, since it's not effective, it hasn't been unwrapped, thus there is no way to challenge it.

Also, i'm sure the order would activate and be executed so swiftly that by the time a challenge were even initiated, Snowden would already be in the US standing before the grand jury.

Re:Probably under seal

[Njorthbiatr]

He could probably avoid this issue if he became a Russian citizen. That would give Russia an excuse to flaunt their authority at the rest of the world by granting him passage to Norway. If the US attempted to extradite him, Russia would have every reason to flex their muscles to defend one of their own.

Re:Probably under seal

[HuskyDog]

Presumably, if he was a Russian citizen then the Russians could - assuming they wanted to - issue him a Diplomatic passport and allow him to travel as an accredited diplomat. Perhaps they could do this even if he wasn't a citizen, I don't know what the rules are there. Clearly, countries could still refuse to allow him and send him back to Russia if they decided too, but I don't see how they could then extradite him somewhere else.

Of course, even if the Russians could do this, there may be no good reason for them actually wanting to.

Re:Probably under seal

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Putin will have Steven Seagal escort Snowden

Or for fucks sake, I am living in a propaganda cartoon drawn in crayola

Re:Probably under seal

[Anonymous Coward]

what type of war sparky?

The US has spent a lot of time smashing up Russian military gear in the past few decades. There is likely nothing that that can surprise us with in the field in a conventional war.

A full-on MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) nuclear exchange probably leaves no real winners... IF Russian has been spending the money maintaining their systems instead of stashing it all in off-shore accounts.

Re:Probably under seal

[BlueStrat]

Also, i'm sure the order would activate and be executed so swiftly that by the time a challenge were even initiated, Snowden would already be in the US standing before a firing squad.

FTFY

I doubt that the US government would allow any sort of public trial, especially not one that had a jury. Snowden publicly outed illegal & unconstitutional actions by the government against it's own citizens. They will kill him if they ever get the opportunity.

In their eyes they cannot afford to NOT kill him as that might embolden other whistle-blowers to out other illegal & unconstitutional actions of the government. They feel it is imperative to make an example of Snowden. I'm actually surprised that they haven't had him killed yet despite Russian security and/or any international repercussions resulting from assassinating someone under Russian protection.

The US is only a representative republic in outward appearance. It is actually an authoritarian oligarchical tyranny and will kill or destroy anyone or anything that gets in their way.

Trump is nothing, he's just the latest clown to fill the shoes of the current scapegoat and be a distraction.

Remember the HHGTTG entry on the President of the Galaxy;

"The President is very much a figurehead - he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it."

Strat

Re: Probably under seal

[Anonymous Coward]

Bring it. You'll do more damage to the USA than they will do to you, but only because they have the excess capacity to roll you repeatedly. They might not all get to buy a new iPhone that year, but the US can crush any three armies in an all out non nuclear war and can strike first and last in a nuclear one. That might let those of US in the southern hemisphere be on top for a while. Even if the hill gets smaller and the cancer rates go way up for a generation or two.

Re:Probably under seal

[MightyMartian]

That the US government committed potentially criminal or unconstitutional acts doesn't somehow mean Snowden wouldn't be convicted. And since he hasn't appeared to have held much back, what is it exactly that he could reveal now that isn't already known?

Re:Probably under seal

[terjeber]

He could probably avoid this issue if he became a Russian citizen

Probably not. As most countries (the US included) Norway does not (typically) extradite its own citizens to a foreign country, however it is bound to extradite to countries who (lawfully) request it irrespective of the nationality of the individual if the individual is not a Norwegian citizen. This is generally the practice all over the world. The Norwegian Supreme Court has just ruled that a wanted Iraqi terrorist who lives in Norway can be extradited to face charges in Italy. He can however not be extradited to Iraq since that government is unwilling to guarantee the terrorist will not be executed.

As HuskyDog points out below, if he gets a Russian Diplomatic Passport, the Norwegian government can't go near him. On the other hand, issuing a diplomatic passport to Snowden might be too pricey even for Putin.

Re:Probably under seal

[BlueStrat]

That the US government committed potentially criminal or unconstitutional acts doesn't somehow mean Snowden wouldn't be convicted.

And that's a problem. Revealing blatant illegal and unconstitutional acts should be an absolute defense and actions taken to accomplish it not prosecutable.

And since he hasn't appeared to have held much back, what is it exactly that he could reveal now that isn't already known?

It's not that he would reveal anything more, it's that the government would not want the optics of the railroading job they'd do to Snowden in any kangaroo-court they frog-marched him in front of. It would also serve as a warning to other potential whistle-blowers that, no matter what, you'll never get a chance at a fair trial and you'll never win.

Strat

Re:Probably under seal

[richardkettle4]

It is astonishing to me that America seems to be slipping down this road. But it is, in Europe, and I hate to say this, but even in Africa, we see America as going backwards.

Re:Probably under seal

[drinkypoo]

He could probably avoid this issue if he became a Russian citizen.

That would compromise his credibility among those who consider themselves American patriots, but are also in favor of transparency, and who are also anti-Russia. I suspect that this is actually a significantly sizable group.

If the US attempted to extradite him, Russia would have every reason to flex their muscles to defend one of their own.

They'd also have to make him a diplomat for that to make sense, which would seem a bit strange.

Re:Probably under seal

[Rei]

Common misconception. You cannot just declare someone to be a diplomat in a foreign country - the foreign country has to approve your request for diplomatic credentials.

Re:Probably under seal

[phayes]

No. One only becomes an "accredited diplomat" when the host country accepts him, generally entail an equal number on each side and are not lightly changed so unless anywhere Snowden accepts him as a diplomat with immunity, it gives him nothing.

Re:Probably under seal

[phayes]

No. You only get diplomatic immunity after the host country accepts your credentials and the number of diplomats is strictly limited by each country having an equal number. Unless the host country accepts Snowden's "russian" credentials and russia pulls out a diplomat Snowden doesn't to wave a magic passport and get immunity.

Re:Probably under seal

[Kjella]

A few points:

1) The "Ossietzky Prize" is awarded by an old organization of "Poets, Editors and Novelists" that have been fighting for freedom of speech for ages. There's not reason to believe that they're not genuine in their support of Snowden and the government could no more stop that than prevent employers naming the employee of the month. I doubt they're trying to trap Snowden and I doubt the legal system is trying to be intentionally obtuse, but when asked to preemptively rule on a hypothetical of what would happen when Snowden were to come to Norway and the US were to file an extradition request that's unreasonable. To say "No matter what charges and evidence the US has, we won't extradite" would be a far more political ruling than "No request has been made so we can't evaluate the merits until it's presented to us".

2) You have no idea how much the Norwegian legal system protects suspects and criminals, for example you could read the case of Mullah Krekar. Brief TL;DR summary: Leader of Islamic organization linked to terror, permanent expulsion order, declared a danger to national security, convicted to five years in prison for death threats but won't be expelled to Iraq where he's likely looking at a death sentence. Why? Because we don't extradite to any country where they might risk a death sentence. Looks like we might finally get rid of him now though since Italy wants him on terrorism charges and they don't have the death penalty. Another case is Anders Behring Breivik, the mass murderer who killed 77 people but the court ruled against the prison that his rights had been violated because the security regime had been insufficiently documented as necessary.

That said, Snowden's actions does seem to violate a lot of US law as written no matter his motivation. So as long as they pinky promise to avoid capital punishment and they dot the i's and cross the t's doing everything by the book, I also strongly doubt the court would say "but that aside it looks like you did it for all the right reasons, request denied". That would typically be for the legal system where he's being trialed to decide if the sentence should be reduced or commuted because of mitigating circumstances. Nor are they likely to shit list a modern western democracy by saying they don't think the US will give a fair trial, we don't even say that about dubious third world countries. He's been granted asylum by Russia because there Putin can simply decide, here we don't have any such authoritarian leaders that is likely to politically overrule the normal process. So while I don't think there's any malice involved, it might be best he stayed there.

Re:Probably under seal

[unixisc]

At this point, his sole priority needs to be to keep himself safe, so if he can get a Russian citizenship, might as well. Also, why exactly does he need to travel to Norway? Are his movements in Russia restricted?

If Trump and Putin did get along, there is little reason for Moscow to keep him: he has only a finite knowledge of what goes on, and by now, they would have milked him for all he was worth. I'm not sure whether the Kremlin considers itself morally obligated to shelter him once their use for him is done. Also, w/ Trump exploring the possibility of replacing America's alliance w/ NATO w/ an alliance w/ Russia instead, he may not have much to lose in terms of PR if he did embrace becoming a Russian citizen

Re:Probably under seal

[BlueStrat]

It is astonishing to me that America seems to be slipping down this road. But it is, in Europe, and I hate to say this, but even in Africa, we see America as going backwards.

You see it that way because that's the reality. Please help Americans who are trying to rein-in US government power by doing all you can to apply pressure to the US to alter course, even if it's only writing letters and emails and posting to social media, and to encourage your own government to help. Of course, economic pressure gets the most results so if you are a foreign business trading with the US do what you can to make them feel the pressure. Please understand, the American people for the most part do not like the way our government has been acting, but we are under siege by our own government and it's propaganda, intelligence, & law enforcement agencies.

TIA

Strat

Re:Probably under seal

[mysidia]

They could make him a member of an existing Russian ambassador to Norway's technical/administrative staff, however, so he doesn't need his own personal diplomatic accreditation.

Under the Vienna convention, the administrative staff members of a diplomat also have some immunity from being detained.

Re:Probably under seal

[Anonymous Coward]

The US has spent a lot of time smashing up Russian military gear in the past few decades. There is likely nothing that that can surprise us with in the field in a conventional war.

And how much it has been current generation hardware and not [at least] one generation behind?

Re:Probably under seal

[MichaelSmith]

Yeah but it allows the Russians to probe the Norwegian intent towards Snowden. Norway can refuse to accept him, or accept him in a non-extraditable form. Either way Snowden is safe.

Re:Probably under seal

[HuskyDog]

the foreign country has to approve your request for diplomatic credentials.

Well, I think that is precisely what I said in my comment "Clearly, countries could still refuse to allow him..". Apologies if I wasn't clear enough.

Re:Probably under seal

[phayes]

Nope. The only countries that would accept Snowden as a "Russian" diplomat are Russian client states. Because I'm sure Snowden would find Minsk so much more agreeable than Moscow...

Re:Probably under seal

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow slashdot... this is a new low.

Re:Probably under seal

[Anonymous Coward]

That said, Snowden's actions does seem to violate a lot of US law as written no matter his motivation.

That's incorrect. The highest law in the land - the US Bill of Rights - protects his actions. Specifically, the 9th and 10th Amendments protect his actions: the right to long term public oversight over government, and the right to privacy both arise under these amendments and are applicable to his actions.

When the Bill of Rights comes into conflict with lessor law - including laws on classification of materials - that lessor law must yield, without exception. The US Congress does not, and has never had, the authority to create laws in violation of the Bill of Rights. Every US lawyer, every government executive, every law enforcement office, and every member of Congress swears an oath to this effect as a precondition of holding a position of public trust.

The problem is getting US government to obey the law.

Though the USA doesn't have the amount of low level everyday corruption found in many parts of the world, the system is extremely corrupt at the upper levels. Worse, most US government officials have learned nothing from the famous historical events at Nuremberg following WW2: they are perfectly willing to enforce illegal laws, which sometimes (as in this case) means US officials are engaging in criminal conduct. For a prosecutor to request, or a judge to issue, an arrest warrant contrary to the Bill of Rights is attempted kidnapping, and very serious criminal conduct.

Further, rights retained by the people being retained by the people by definition - no entity of government can grant immunity or right to pardon to government officials who violate such rights.

But the US legal system has evolved in the direction of ignoring the Bill of Rights. There are lots of special interests groups with a vested interest in this - and they give campaign contributions to the politicians who select judges. Nobody gets selected for high judicial office that is going to rock the boat - and this creates a huge ethical conflict of interest with respect to judges forcing government to obey the law.

A big part of the problem is caused by the US legal profession, which is terrified of the 9th and 10th Amendments - because of another right that arises under these, namely the right to ethical practice of law. Huge portions of US law violate that right, and the lawyers don't want the public aware of how much their profession benefits from illegal stuff, as the public might choose to do something about it. Associations of legal professionals are one of the elements in US society that make large campaign contributions.

In short, by all indications, Snowdon's actions are protected by US law but the government will refuse to acknowledge that, and the unethical members of the US legal profession - the majority - will back the government up by simply pretending otherwise.

Don't the emperor's new clothes look nice?

Re:Probably under seal

[mysidia]

That the US government committed potentially criminal or unconstitutional acts doesn't somehow mean Snowden wouldn't be convicted.

Unless Snowden can prove those criminal or unconstitutional acts committed were life and death violence which Snowden's actions prevented, or committed directly against Snowden himself, then Snowden would probably lack legal standing to even challenge those acts, because of the way the US courts work; only the person who suffers direct damage resulting from the illegal act can make that argument against the government in court.

When's statute of limitations?

[CaptainDork]

Mr Snowden's lawyers have previously said if he were extradited to the U.S., it would be "a foregone conclusion" that he would be convicted and jailed.

Lawyer says this because Snowden's foregone guilty?

Need another lawyer.

Re: When's statute of limitations?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Mr Snowden's lawyers have previously said if he were extradited to the U.S., it would be "a foregone conclusion" that he would be convicted and jailed.

Lawyer says this because Snowden's foregone guilty

AGENT ROGERSZ: "Good evening Otto. This is agent Rogers. I'm going to ask you a few questions. And since time is short and you may lie, I'm going to have to torture you. But I want you to know it isn't personal."

OTTO: "Look Ah this isn't really necessary. I'll tell you anything you want to know."

AGENT ROGERSZ: "Good! Where is the Malibu?"

OTTO: "I don't know. Somebody ripped it from the yard."

[Otto is hit with electric shock and screams.]

LEILA: "I don't think he knows."

AGENT ROGERSZ: "Increase the voltage."

LEILA: "But what if he's innocent?"

AGENT ROGERSZ: "No one is innocent. Proceed."

Re: When's statute of limitations?

[Anonymous Coward]

Statutes of limitation generally require the criminal to remain in the state, gainfully employed and visible, seeming to
necessitate that the criminal remain "catchable." If the authorities fail to discover a criminal living in the open within a
specified amount of time, society has determined that at that point the criminal should be able to live free from the possibility
of prosecution. It appears that this notion is born out of a sense of mercy more than pragmatics: if the criminal is a
fugitive, out of the state in which the crime was committed or otherwise living in hiding, this tolls, or suspends, the statute.
(Once the criminal reenters the state the statute resumes running.) However, if the criminal were living an open, public,
so-called "reformed" life, after a reasonable period of time he is allowed to be free from capture.

Re: When's statute of limitations?

[Sabriel]

The problem, as I understand it, is that the espionage laws - the ones that apply to the crime Snowden is accused of - specifically and deliberately _do not allow an exculpatory defence_.

Basically: You admit you drove over your neighbour in your truck? Sorry, you're going to jail - oh, he was about to shoot your cousin? Well, okay, that's a valid defence, we'll let a jury decide whether you went too far.

Snowden: You admit you told the public that the US spy agency that hired you was violating the constitution? You're going to jail - nope, don't care, you're going to jail.

The lawyer is in fact giving Snowden the best possible advice: stay out of the US, because the system is rigged. The laws were deliberately written to screw whistleblowers. Far as I can tell, at this point his options are basically a Presidential pardon (and Obama has stated he can't pardon Snowden before a trial, despite that being total bullshit; q.v. Nixon's pardon), staying out of the CIA's grasp for the rest of his life, or some kind of legal or political deus ex machina.

We owe him a debt

[richardkettle4]

Any of us, regardless or country, politics or religion owe this guy a serious thanks. It opened our eyes to just how vulnerable we all are in our profession. He has made us up our game.

Can we all agree that this man should be pardoned?

[Anonymous Coward]

He gave up his way of life to inform the people of the dramatic changes that have been serving to erode the very idea of what American life is supposed to be. He gave up his life to inform us that we have ONE last chance to get our system under control. Can't we all just agree that this man doesn't deserve to be in exile just because he could find no other legal means to warn us of the kind of surveillance that we all live under now? Many of us already knew because we knew of contractors that informed us of the tasks that they had been given. Many of them rationalized it as a necessary evil to ensure the nations security, but I think the public is starting to see that the news media, congress, and 3-letter organisations have been ratcheted up so much since 2001, 9/11, that the overreach is now far beyond anyone's control. If we don't come together and fight this thing, we are just going see our liberties erode until something even more horrible happens. Can't you feel it? It is coming.

Oh nevermind, just keep texting and facebook posting. I'm just an old cook who tends to like the forefathers idea of freedom.

Doesn't work like that

[Sycraft-fu]

If you actually study dual citizenship, or if you are a dual citizen (I am) you find out that both nations warn you that they can't do much to protect you from claims of the other nation. You are subject to the authority of both countries, you don't get to pick and choose which as it suits you.

In particular Snowden's case would be pretty cut and dried with any government the US has an extradition treaty with: He broke US law, while a US citizen, and while he was physically in the US. What's more, he did so knowingly, as you have to go through a pretty extensive process and sign NDAs when you have a security clearance. They make it very clear you aren't allowed to release the information you are given access to and it is criminal to do so.

Now you can argue that he shouldn't be charged for this because of the circumstances surrounding it, but you can't argue that it isn't against US law, because it is for better or worse. So it would be quite a simple case for any court considering an extradition request.

Also I think you are confused about Russia's motivations. They aren't trying to be noble heroes here and help this guy out because of the goodness of their heart. This is statecraft. It is well within their interests to have him on the hook so he needs to keep them happy or they can ship him back to the US.

NZ has a special law

[Anonymous Coward]

NZ has a special law that if a foreign government or agency (CIA) request someone be arrested and sent somewhere, the law allows the NZ government to do that,and if anyone reported it they would be arrested as well.

Re:Can we all agree that this man should be pardon

[lannocc]

I'm just an old cook who tends to like the forefathers idea of freedom.

I agree their freedom was good, but slightly undone! Mmm, tasty freedom.

Re:Can we all agree that this man should be pardon

[Anonymous Coward]

Was it a surprise to anyone when all that stuff came out? I wasn't surprised. I had always assumed that level of surveillance was going on.

Re:Can we all agree that this man should be pardon

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot's majority has agreed on this for ages. Why is it necessary for people to keep bringing it up?
The fact is that he won't be pardoned by Obama, and there's no chance Trump will do so.
What do these endless conversations hope to accomplish?

Power Trumps law

[rantrantrant]

The USA is so powerful that it can ignore national and international law. It's illegal to deport or extradite anyone if they are likely to be tortured. The USA is a clear advocate for torture and has a track record of committing torture. This is not a legal problem. It's political.

Re:Power Trumps law

[Anonymous Coward]

The USA is so powerful that it can ignore national and international law. It's illegal to deport or extradite anyone if they are likely to be tortured. The USA is a clear advocate for torture and has a track record of committing torture.

This is not a legal problem. It's political.

Quick, the black helicopters are coming, and only a tinfoil hat can save you!

Sorry to hear it

[aicra]

I really wish he could accept this award in person. If we can't do anything, next best...someone accepts it for him.

Re:Sorry to hear it

[Isendur]

I agree. Putin should go and take the award for him.

Re:Can we all agree that this man should be pardon

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of people were, at they were all disregarded as tinfoil hats.
The difference Snowden made was that you could suddenly discuss the matter without being disregarded as a loon. He gave you credibility and you owe him for that.

Re:Can we all agree that this man should be pardon

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just an old cook who tends to like the forefathers idea of freedom.

You mean like how they pardoned Benedict Arnold and welcomed him back with open arms?

This toad committed a crime and admits as much. He should be tried and convicted. Regardless, he did us (Americans) all a great service by letting us know what was going on behind our backs. That great service should mitigate any punishment. At worst, he should be sentenced to probation. Anything beyond that should be pardoned immediately by the President.