Snowden Seeks Assurance from Norway It Won’t Extradite Him
wsj.com
wsj.com
Norway's NIS maintains a friendly relationship with U.S. intelligence.[0] NSA documents leaked by Snowden refer to Norway as a "Tier B" country.[1] The only thing higher is "Tier A"—Five Eyes member nations.
[0] http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KW_21XnezyY/Usdezt9SifI/AAAAAAAABH...
[1] http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NRWNh0OgZwQ/UrEBhQltzrI/AAAAAAAABF...
I mean again, this sort of political direction gets
beyond my expertise so I don’t like to talk too much
about. You know you brought up an interesting point
there about Russia that I think is actually important
to contextualize. There’s a lot of fair criticism
that’s like, “Hey, this guy’s in Russia.”
It’s important to understand that I never intended to
end up in Russia. Originally I was hoping to get to
Iceland. After that, Latin America when Iceland fell
through. But the State Department cancelled my
passport, trapping me in Russia when I was initially on
the move, as soon as they heard I was in the air.
Despite the fact that I’ve asked several times, they’ve
refused to reinstate it, which is quite interesting.
The United States of course criticizes me for being in
Russia but at the same time they won’t let me leave.
Which does not leave many places where Snowden could go and be safe.
So the same thing might happen to Snowden that happened to Assange - no guarantees up front.
The best they can do in that case is make broader statements that e.g. "we do not extradite anyone who faces political charges and/or risks the death penalty". It's safe to say Snowden fits into both categories.
Having said those two things (which they can), they have implied the what he wants to know, without breaking any laws.
The courts can only stop extraditions, not non-extraditions. Politicians like to pretend their hands are tied because they would like to blame the bureaucracy for unpopular decisions, but they have full freedom to interpret their own bilateral treaty obligations. If the Norwegian government says he's a political refugee, he is as far as Norwegian law is concerned.
Not sure what you are implying by that. An extradition is tried in a court (if the person to be extradited does not want to be extradited). The supreme court tries the extradition against the legislation and then hands it to the government for decision [1].
I think you may be thinking about this passage from[1]:
"Anser Högsta domstolen att det finns hinder mot utlämning, får regeringen inte bifalla framställningen. Regeringen kan dock neka utlämning även om Högsta domstolen inte har motsatt sig en utlämning; i lagen anges nämligen att en person under vissa förutsättningar "må" utlämnas - inte "ska" utlämnas."
It says that if the courts find that extradition is NOT legal, then the government may not extradite, but if the court recommends the extradition (i.e. find it legal) then the government can still deny it.
So while it is true that the govrenment CAN in any situation reject any extradition - it is out of the question for a government to forego the court process. This would be known as "Ministerstyre" (an action by a member of a government or a cabinet, which is to be interpreted - or can be interpreted - as dictating, or interfering with, the daily workings of a government agency, court of law or similar.).
One can call that "bureaucracy" but the fact remains - the swedish government would just not do that.
[1] http://www.regeringen.se/sveriges-regering/justitiedeparteme...
There's nothing legally stopping the Swedish government, at best notions of procedural propriety that are not binding. Truth is even so, ministries meddle with the departments - or are accused of it, with varying degrees of reasonableness - all the time. When the case against Assange was revived (the first prosecutor dismissed it in unusually clear terms), that was as I see it far more pernicious meddling than pre-rejecting extradition of a political refugee would be.
Imagine if all countries in the world were stooges of America. Scary.
But Snowden has a pretty massive following worldwide, on a scale that Assange and Chelsea Manning don't have. Wouldn't a trial be a terrible PR move, on top of raising embarrassing question about the activities of the NSA and their legality?
1) he will be secretly disappeared in a way that gives the US plausible deniability.
2) he will die in an "accident".
3) he will be taken to trial and put away for life, most likely in solitary confinement ("for his own safety").
It is obvious nobody actually cares about the activities of the NSA and their legality at this point. There has been some bad PR around it but all in all the American public hasn't revolted and the allies are still under control and don't want to risk it. Also, to this day, Snowden is routinely referred to as "a leaker" and US politicians' calls for his death and branding him as a traitor have been met with nary any criticism.
At this point it's no longer about what secrets Snowden can reveal, it's just about neutralizing what the US government (as in: politicians and state officials) considers a threat to its interests (as in: their interests, not those of the nation). And to make an example of him, obviously.
It's great to get the chilling effect on those most likely to be motivated to expose government wrongdoing without actually having to do anything, never mind do something that the average voter might think is going too far.
If flying is out for any reason, I agree it would be a more cumbersome undertaking getting down south.
Then again, nothing stopping the PEN and Snowden from turning it into a PR spectacle by handing over the price at the border crossing - with Snowden in Russia and the PEN crew in Norway, bridge of spies style. Would highlight the absurdity of it all.
Yeah, all those famous Norwegian kidnapping gangs. /facepalm
Inside Russia, I would expect his transport to be Putin-approved, which is probably the safest you can get.
But Norway is a Nato country so it's a trap. Don't go there.
With current pressure from Russia even neutral counties like Finland would probably gladly extradite Snowden to US.
[1] https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir/Moscow,+Russia/Oslo,+Norwa...
[2] https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=weather+olderfjord [3] https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=murmansk+weather+10+day+fo...
Sure, but nothing that can't also happen in a car on a small backcountry road at night. And anyway if he takes a passenger ferry he'll be constantly surrounded by hundreds of other people which is a hell of a lot more collateral damage to take into consideration if you're genuinely concerned about someone causing an 'accident'.
He also needs assurance the flight between Russia and Norway won't be grounded or redirected on route.
What isn't clear to me from the article is why he'd risk it for an award from a group of writers who have branches in Russia..
It would be powerful. It's actualy shameful that Assange and Snowden are so constrained, especially for telling the truth. Ironically, Roman Palanski plead guilty to raping a 13 year old. Later, he was detained in Switzerland but they denied a U.S. extradition request.
It's sad basic travel would send a powerful message, just because that means many assume that these constraints are a foregone conclusion.
Through international or territorial waters of third countries? Not unless he's hitching a ride on RFS Bespokoynyy.
E.g. the US tells Norway they should say "yeah sure we won't arrest and extradite you," then go back on their word and arrest him as soon as he enters the country. The US makes some under-the-table bribes or threats to be sure Norway goes along with this scheme.
Something along the lines of "It sure would be a shame if we tanked your economy by making it illegal for US businesses to operate in Norway...those juicy Internet taps Snowden claims we have, well we can't confirm or deny them, but we might or might not know certain delicate things that were said in private by Norwegian politicians, and we might or might not know about certain financial relationships between certain wealthy Norweigans and high-ranking politicians, and it sure would be a shame if the things we might or might not know became public and had unfortunate consequences for your party's political position...now let's talk about how you're going to handle this Snowden situation..."
Also as other posters have pointed out, the US could simply send a CIA team to kidnap or murder him. Norwegian counterintelligence is presumably a lot weaker than Russia's, and their politicians presumably a lot more afraid of the US, so it's probably a lot less risky for the US to run an op like that in Norway than in Russia.
And come on, snatch and grab inside a sovereign state, that is a close ally and with all the media attention his has. You don't really need to be an intelligence service to notice a guy like Snowden suddenly disappearing.
Ask Israel how much we like it when foreign states interfere within our borders. They are still more or less out in the cold after they executed the wrong guy. A Norwegian citizen, within Norwegian borders. You just don't do that.
Edit: Breivik will never be released btw. Also, court found yesterday that elements of his incarceration violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Considering how international laws are now completely ignored by our imperial masters (see Abu Omar, rendition flights, the raid on Kim Dotcom, etc etc), I would say it's very doubtful anything short of a couple of panzer divisions would prevent any US-friendly authorities from helping out.
US fighters and/or ships could _arguably_ intercept a civilian aircraft in international waters and force landing in another country.
The plane would not have to go over international waters and/or other countries, but usually do.
A chartered flight (light or mid-sized jet) would be around $30k USD.
I really can't see our (US-friendly) government allowing such an operation, knowing full well it will make them look terribly bad and in all likelihood cost them their jobs AND their reputation.
And the US deploying Marines in Norway without the government's explicit consent? That is called an invasion, and not likely to go down well, either.
Snowden should just come home and face the music. He'll probably get a pro bono all-star legal team and have 50/50 odds with a jury of his peers. With sufficient lawyering he could probably get away with five years at worst, and then go back to life in America as even more of a hero.
I've never heard that phrase used but to describe the consequences of a malevolent action. I'm interested to hear a rational explanation for why anyone would think that Snowden's whistleblowing was anything but altruistic. Some may say that the good intentions were misguided, but again - I've never heard the phrase used that way. The man wearing full plate armor, while trying to save a horse caught in a flash flood, ended up facing the music and drowning... doesn't sound right does it?
> ...50/50 odds...
You must have very little regard for your own freedom if you don't see that as being super bad advice to give.
It also applies to the consequences of reckless or negligent behavior.
Of course, "facing the music" would pretty much guarantee a life sentenced served at ADX Florence, so he'd be insane to even try it.
>I'm interested to hear a rational explanation for why anyone would think that Snowden's whistleblowing was anything but altruistic.
It could very well be narcissism masquerading as altruism. There's a small chance he's even been been working for a foreign intelligence agency the entire time.
Regardless of his intentions or motivations, the end result was massive damage to U.S. foreign policy.
Snowden facilitated the release of classified methods, capabilities and operations that fell squarely under the NSA's charter of gathering foreign intelligence. A significant portion of the operational details released didn't even relate to operations within other western democracies, but to nations or groups with questionable human rights records.
While Snowden's actions did spark a large media frenzy and subsequent debate—if only because of the dramatic circumstances surrounding the leaks, and the fact he had document proof—the revelations themselves were largely nothing new.
Numerous highly credible whistleblowers (e.g. Binney, Tice) had been advancing far more shocking revelations related to domestic wiretapping for approximately a decade prior. Despite having their careers ruined and weathering some even nastier retaliation attempts, they're still free today.
> It also applies to the consequences of reckless or negligent behavior.
It does, but is rarely used that way. The man wearing a sausage link necklace went on a nature walk and faced the music when bears showed up. I'm just pointing out that the phrase is heavily biased to the point of being a dog whistle.
> It could very well be narcissism masquerading as altruism.
While possible, it is very unlikely that such a trait would manifest at this point in his life. I see no evidence of it in what little I know about his history, and a narcissist would be busy filling that gap. Also, and I recognize the value of a stranger's personal experience, but in my experience: the background checks conducted for security clearance above secret (for military personnel) will filter a lot of narcissists out - as their story fails to match up when you go a hop beyond their provided references.
> There's a small chance he's even been been working for...
So small that it is as equally likely that he is a quadruple agent still acting under the orders of the USG.
> ...the end result was massive damage to U.S. foreign policy.
Eh, I'm not a fan of the original sin concept - but the USG might share some of the responsibility. As far as the classified methods - you are spot on with the observation of the fact that there was nothing new. There were two classes of people before the leak: those who knew that USG had the technical ability and the disposition for a global dragnet, and those who didn't. Aside from posturing (commercial and political) there has been no change, which means the leak of operational details has had no operational impact (likely because it was already well known). So the leak did no harm to the security apparatus, but served to inform those who did not understand the USG's disposition on the matter of domestic and foreign surveillance.
That assumes the man did not first violate the sausage factory's trust by breaking numerous agreements pertaining to sausage use.
>I'm just pointing out that the phrase is heavily biased to the point of being a dog whistle.
Agreed; I dislike the phrase as well. It however doesn't absolve Snowden of responsibility.
>I see no evidence of it in what little I know about his history, and a narcissist would be busy filling that gap.
My read is he's a bit self-aggrandizing and narcissistic at times. I'm not a professional, so that's only as good as any other lay person's assessment.
>So small that it is as equally likely that he is a quadruple agent still acting under the orders of the USG.
Or worse, the sausage factory.
In all seriousness though, I'd classify the chances of him being a foreign intelligence asset as low—but not low enough so as to be non-trivial.
>... which means the leak of operational details has had no operational impact (likely because it was already well known).
I wouldn't be so sure:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9508191
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M#t=20m39s (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver)
My point exactly - your brain skips right over reckless or accidental and goes straight to malice.
> ...doesn't absolve Snowden of responsibility.
Not my intent, just pointing out the use of the phrase betrayed a thinly veiled hope for some federal pound me in the ass prison time.
> ...foreign high-level leadership targets...
If you are referring to NATO allies, then I think the lack of actual response beyond grandstanding indicates that they were aware already.
> ...clandestine hardware implantation in transit...
This was already well known, supply chain security isn't a new concept. The consumers were the only ones surprised by this revelation.
> ...co-traveler inference as a method...
Funny you should mention this. Check drudge, where you'll find "Ex-CIA officer faces 'unprecedented' extradition..." [0] The Italian police used this technique to identify 22 individuals alleged to be part of a CIA snatch team, in 2005. [1] So not a big hit to lose a secret surveillance method that had been widely used by foreign governments for at least a decade prior to the leak.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ex-cia-officer-faces-ex... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case
No, I was just trying to illustrate that the analogy is absurd given the context. Snowden was not unwitting and made explicit choices that had consequences, regardless of underlying motivation.
>Not my intent, just pointing out the use of the phrase betrayed a thinly veiled hope for some federal pound me in the ass prison time.
Agreed. Though, on the bright side the incidence of rape is probably nonexistent in a place like ADX Florence. You unfortunately just go crazy from solitary instead.
>This was already well known, supply chain security isn't a new concept. The consumers were the only ones surprised by this revelation.
Yeah, but it's still solid confirmation that a specific actor is doing a very specific thing—one which involved extremely sneaky custom hardware modifications with very fast turnaround times.
>The Italian police used this technique to identify 22 individuals alleged to be part of a CIA snatch team, in 2005.
This is actually apples and oranges. Cell phone surveillance has been around forever, and the Italians were leveraging the cellular networks in their own country at that.
What I'm referring to is automated co-traveler inference in foreign countries to protect friendly personnel. In other words, analyzing massive amounts of data in real-time to detect previously unknown persons based on movement alone. A prerequisite for doing that is first compromising the entire telecommunications network of whatever country you're operating in.
You are making a distinction without a difference here. The ss7 network has been known to be broken forever, and all the carriers sell their customer's historical data - so the Italians could have applied the same technique anywhere in the world.
> ...automated co-traveler inference...
That is exactly what they did, only instead of protecting in real time they ran models after the fact. Real time would actual be easier, because instead of dealing with the carrier - you just poll the ss7 network. There is nothing novel about the tracking methods, the inference, or the combination of the two.
Granted, field operatives who carry active cellphones with them while conducting a tail are probably bad at their job to begin with, so you're probably right in that the damage isn't much.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/12/10...
He divulged a lot of information about America's foreign intelligence operations as well. Spying on other countries is the original and core mission of the intelligence services. There's no question as to its legal legitimacy and he directly undermined it by revealing the nature and extent of our capabilities. It also caused serious diplomatic and political problems, with Germany for example.
It didn't really look like a serious problem from within Germany. Our administration is as pro-US as before. We've stopped sharing some information, but I doubt that has caused the NSA much trouble.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany–United_States_relation...
It's pretty clear that the investigations will not yield anything we don't already know and will have no consequences on US-German relations. Our NATO membership alone is enough to make us avoid upsetting the US at all costs (just as we've been turning a blind eye on Turkey all this time).
> There's no question as to its legal legitimacy...
Well maybe if you ignore the whole domestic surveillance part. There is also the moral and practical issue of intentionally weakening security infrastructure and standards.
I think the expression has something to do with "Paying the piper" who of course plays music.
I like it.
But I don't think that Snowden should indeed face it.
For better or for worse, federal prison sentences do not work this way. There are sentencing guidelines, for one thing.
Chelsea Manning is serving a 35-year prison sentence at Fort Leavenworth; prosecutors asked for 60 years. Manning is eligible for parole after serving one-third (I recall) of that sentence.
You're calling for a man's certain torture and possible death. What the hell is wrong with you.