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.
Probably has a bit more weight if the award comes from a country other than Russia. Plus if the court lets him go, than he probably can increase his travel options generally.
The Ossietzky price is awarded by the Norwegian branch of PEN. Carl von Ossietzky was the first Nobel Peace Prize recipient who wasn't able to receive his prize in person (he was ill and imprisoned in Nazi Germany), so it's a symbolic point for them to award it in the same place Ossietzky would have received his price, i.e. in the town hall of Oslo.
There's a gradient between 'free' and 'held against his will', I'm sure there are plenty of ways Snowden can be discouraged from taking a chance like that.
Actually the better question is why would they care about Snowden leaving (or not leaving) Russia? Or why wouldn't Putin let Snowden leave? Snowden is a minor liability for Russia.
With roads north of the arctic circle. It looks like it would be difficult to do that without crossing into either Sweden or Finland too, which would be an issue for Snowden.
He could also fly to Murmansk and cut the drive in half. Personally I'd fly to Murmansk, drive a couple of hours to Kirkenes, and spend a few lovely days taking the boat down the coast to Bergen before grabbing a train to Oslo.
Many things can happen on a small boat in the Atlantic at night.
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'.
In Norway on my last few domestic flights or flights to Scandinavian countries I was not asked to present any ID. Ticket on a mobile screen was enough. But on some domestic flight in 2014 I was asked for ID.
> In May 2015, Snowden's lawyer Ben Wizner said that Snowden's main source of income was speaking fees, which sometimes exceeded $10,000 per appearance.[308]
If he would be safe in Noway I think the transportation issue is easy solvable. Wonder if the US would feel like they could kidnap him from the streets, and maybe Norway would promise to look the other way.
The plane would not have to go over international waters and/or other countries, but usually do.
A team of Marines showing up is not very likely; while most Norwegians don't care too much about Edward Snowden (Edward who?), soldiers of a foreign power executing an operation on Norwegian soil would create an outrage that would definitely topple our government. For starters.
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.
Russia shares a tiny bit of border with Norway. Even if Finland, Sweden and the Baltic states don't want to cooperate, as long as Russia and Moscow agree, the plane could simply take a detour through the far north.
But there's no international waters between Moscow and Oslo. The Baltic isn't that big, and even if there is a patch of international waters (which I strongly doubt), it'd be easily avoided.
Sounds like a great way to get nabbed by a CIA snatch-and-grab operation. Even if his FSB protection plans the field trip and accompanies him, it's still a huge risk. It also provides an ample opportunity for Russia to divest themselves of Snowden should they wish, making the West look bad in the process.
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.
The whole process is probably an attempt to get Norway to grant him asylum by the backdoor. I can see the rationale but I don't think I'd trust any place where the executive isn't fully committed.
Norway does at lot of intelligence gathering around Svalbard/North Atlantic against the russians due to the large fleet base at Murmansk. The ships used is typicly equipped in the US before entering service.
there was at one time talk of expanding the 'five eyes' community to seven or nine, countries such as norway, denmark and germany would have been the top candidates for inclusion.
So many threats along the way: 1) kidnap before reaching the airport 2) not be allowed to leave Russia 3) be intercepted between Russia and Norway 4) be caught in Norway after arrive 5) be caught in Norway before departure back to Russia 6) be caught during travel back to Russia 7) not be allowed to go back to Russia at all 8) be caught after arrive in Russia 9) be caught before going back to his apartment 10) be caught soon after arriving on his apartment 11) be caught later on
Numbers 1 and 9 through 11 are not really relevant for this discussion. Or is there evidence that he is restricted to his apartment (either by his own choice or by force)?
Remember Anders Behring? He was sentenced for 21 years for his terrorist attack in 2011. I find it hard to believe a country that has the most humane prison system in the world would extradite Snowden back the the US...
It's Anders Behring Breivik. Also, Norway has an extradition treaty with the United States since the 80s. Not to be harsh (really), but it doesn't matter what you believe.
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.
He is de facto sentenced to life in prison. And Snowden is a US citizen and will be extradited. Unless the this case the thread is about gives him a win.
The Norwegian government is too entangled with US interests, due to our defense doctrine and role in NATO ("hold out for 24 hours while the rest of NATO mobilizes"). Although many Norwegian politicians probably have personal sympathies for Snowden's legal situation, it's very doubtful that anything short of a Supreme Court ruling would prevent Norwegian authorities of cooperating with the US when it comes to arresting and extraditing Snowden.
> it's very doubtful that anything short of a Supreme Court ruling would prevent Norwegian authorities
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.
I think if the US can have a President's plane redirected, forced to land, and searched, with that President on it, they wouldn't have much trouble getting Norway to look the other way for a few minutes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Morales_plane_i...
The forced landing of Morales' plane was probably one of those moments I felt most ashamed to be a European. It was an absolute disgrace and nobody seemed to care.
Sadly, I have to agree. In Germany, some people demand that the government should offer Snowden asylum, but while I would appreciate the gesture (not that the government would seriously consider doing something like that), if I were in Snowden's place, I would not set foot in a country that is so deeply in bed with the USA (not to mention the US military bases in Germany).
Which does not leave many places where Snowden could go and be safe.
One thing yo remember is Norway isnt partnof NATO, which makes quite a bit of difference in this. Still not sure what the end result will be, but good luck to Snowden and I hope Norway does it. If only so I dont have to hear any more ignoramouses talk about how Snowden went to Russia on purpose.
Sorry everyone, I was wrong about that as is pretty obvious. I was remembering the story about google building a datacenter in Finland confused it with Norway.
Although technically Russia and Norway share a land border, you would have to drive thousands of miles through extremely remote arctic areas, where the major routes are single-lane roads and the nearest settlements may be hours apart. If one is worried about underhanded tactics by the US, this seems quite a dangerous way to go.
Possibility, yes, but realistically no. I don't see them kidnapping him as a way to bring him before US courts. If I were him I'd be a little more worried about local gangs with little to do and one too many crazy ideas knowing who he is and trying to kidnap him and avail him at some price.
What makes you think he would be brought before US courts if he were kidnapped? Given the US intelligence services' track record it's far more likely a kidnapping would result in his disappearance -- alive or not.
I'm aware that the US doesn't always make the best geopolitical decisions, but alienating every single European ally you have in order to eliminate one high profile, non-dangerous violator of official secrets acts seems like a fairly unlikely course of action for them to take...
Why is that unlikely? We have seen documents about CIA rendition across Europe, and Europe has even forced presidential planes to the ground on behalf of the USA. I don't share your optimism that Europe cares so much about Snowden that it would respond differently in his case.
That is IMHO exaggerating a bit; yes, the arctic parts of Norway are definitely sparsely populated, but it is only a 20-minute drive or so from the Russian/Norwegian border post Storskog to the airport in Kirkenes, Norway - where you can jump on a domestic flight to wherever.
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.
The US government isn't going to kidnap Edward Snowden at any point. He's too high profile and the press would eventually find out. And I don't think Putin will let him leave Russia unless it would hurt the US in some way. If Snowden really wants to leave, he can probably leave. But the Russian government won't make it easy for him.
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.
You can't present a real defense in espionage cases. It's a question of whether you performed actions that qualify as espionage or not in court, motivation is not allowed to enter the equation. It's very likely he'd spend decades in solitary, a la Manning.
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.
Well that answers my question about rationale, proponents for the music option are immediately distracted with the thought of a man in green tights dancing around with a pan flute. Oh and if I remember the story correctly, the piper was unpaid for ridding the city of rats - so he drowned all the children. So who are the rats, children and murderous flautist in the current context?
>I've never heard that phrase used but to describe the consequences of a malevolent action.
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.
>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.
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).
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.
>My point exactly - your brain skips right over reckless or accidental and goes straight to malice.
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.
NSA's setup isn't simply SS7 though, and it's probably entirely passive at that.[0] They operate on an industrial scale and have every facet down to a science.
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.
Well it can't be entirely passive for time-sensitive/comprehensive monitoring, because telemetric data won't cross one of their numerous tap points unless the target is roaming or the target's carrier is being queried by a roaming partner (or partner of a partner of a...). I'm sure they've got taps inside of major carriers, but I doubt they're inside every network. Considering how regularly ss7 is abused for criminal/commercial activity, they may not have to do much active probing for intra-network monitoring - but the barrier to entry is so low that it would be silly for them not to front a carrier with direct access. I can accept the excuse that ss7 was designed for a world with a few trusted carriers, but the latest stuff (that isn't even backwards compatible) has the exact same class of security flaws. The only rational explanation for the obviously insecure standard defining LTE RRC connection setup (base station control, no mutual auth, no crypto, identifying info in the clear - often with lat/lon) is intentional design. So the argument that the leak had any operational impact sounds pretty silly to me, but I won't deny that it caused serious embarrassment to people who really don't take criticism well.
>I'm interested to hear a rational explanation for why anyone would think that Snowden's whistleblowing was anything but altruistic.
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.
That has nothing to do with his intent though, altruistic vs malevolent.
> 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.
> 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.
The only thing that changed is that there's the NSA Untersuchungsausschuss, which is "investigating" the NSA spying affair.
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).
"he could probably get away with five years at worst"
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.
Whatever we can speculate about the ifs and hows of this situation, let's keep in mind that incredibly courageous people like Snowden have to endure what they endure because people like us, citizens, don't seem to stand up to corrupt governments anymore.
From a recent interview with Snowden by Reason magazine
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.
How is it courageous to safely live (and have permanent residency) in Russia and criticize the US? This is basically what every pro-Putin Russian politican does every single day.
Well, why do you think? He's stuck in Russia because of his NSA whistleblowing, and Putin isn't exactly the most tolerant about criticism. He's playing the cards he's dealt the best he can.
But why don't you do something? Is Snowden the only person responsible for criticizing all the wrongs in the world? He's already done, and sacrificed, way more than the vast majority of people. Why is that still not good enough? What have you done and sacrificed for others?
Many people are already highly critical of Russia (see, for example, yourself); what could Snowden add to that, and would it be worth the cost?
Before Snowden's leaks, those critical of the NSA could be shrugged off as paranoid tinfoil hats; Snowden not only brought that criticism into the public light, but provided hard evidence to back it up. That was a great contribution, and one he thought was worth the (also great) cost.
Would you and the HN staff consider disabling captchas on HN when the user is not logged in? Some users read HN over tor, and have to cycle through circuits just to get passed the captcha. HN is read-only when the user is not logged in, so I am not sure what benefit the captcha brings there.
Sorry about replying to a random comment rather than emailing you.
How hard does the US government want him back, now that the cat is out of the bag? Obviously, the US don't want to appear "soft" on the matter - the interest of the administration is to avoid future whistleblowers by having a tough posture.
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?
At this stage I'm certain one of three things will happen if the US can get a hold of him:
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.
1) Would demand a lot of creativity. "Plausible deniability" when you are the prime suspect is hard to achieve.
2) I don't believe that for a second. Not because the US are not willing to kill people, but because of the level of scrutiny.
3) He would certainly go to trial. I don't know how that'd turn out, but I don't see that advancing the political career of anyone (that said, I'm not American, maybe I'm misjudging the American public).
Agree. With Assange I think it's even more obviously the case that it wouldn't actually be in US government interests to bring him to trial in the US. He's a skilled communicator, has a similar and even more fanatically loyal following, is a civilian holding the passport of of an allied state, and it's by no means certain what they could charge him with never mind how they could secure a conviction that looked like justice to the average voter.
I bet security chiefs were besides themselves with glee when allegations completely unrelated to his day-to-day activities emerged, and even more delighted when his response was to refuse to defend himself against the allegation on the basis that it must be part of a coordinated dirty tricks campaign against his freedom of speech.
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.
I assume Norways laws work similar to Swedens, meaning there can be no guarantees of non-extradiction (because preempting a legal decision usinga a political one is illegal, and the extradiction would be handled only when it is requested - which can only be done once he is actually in norway).
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.
They can circumvent it pretty easily by not saying "We will not extradite Edward Snowden" but simply doing by making a very clear statement of two facts: i) "We do not extradite anyone who would risk a death penalty" and ii) "We believe it is clear that Edward Snowden would risk a death penalty in the US".
Having said those two things (which they can), they have implied the what he wants to know, without breaking any laws.
It's also a myth that Sweden can't do the same for Assange (although one defended by certain lawyers for political reasons).
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.
> The courts can only stop extraditions, not non-extraditions.
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.
If the government can see beforehand that they would not agree to extradition, I think it's just a waste of money to ask the courts whether it would be legal.
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.
Even if Snowden gets this assurance from the Norweigans, how can he be sure they're not lying?
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.
First of all because extradition is handled in the courts, not the parliament. And given how popular he is in most of Europe it would surprise me if any politician want to touch it. Helping the US would ensure political suicide.
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.
130 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 78.3 ms ] threadHe 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.
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'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#2015
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.
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...
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.
Which does not leave many places where Snowden could go and be safe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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).
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.
But why don't you do something? Is Snowden the only person responsible for criticizing all the wrongs in the world? He's already done, and sacrificed, way more than the vast majority of people. Why is that still not good enough? What have you done and sacrificed for others?
Still, blind guess, it's safe to say that he is more corageous than you.
Before Snowden's leaks, those critical of the NSA could be shrugged off as paranoid tinfoil hats; Snowden not only brought that criticism into the public light, but provided hard evidence to back it up. That was a great contribution, and one he thought was worth the (also great) cost.
Would you and the HN staff consider disabling captchas on HN when the user is not logged in? Some users read HN over tor, and have to cycle through circuits just to get passed the captcha. HN is read-only when the user is not logged in, so I am not sure what benefit the captcha brings there.
Sorry about replying to a random comment rather than emailing you.
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.
Imagine if all countries in the world were stooges of America. Scary.
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.
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.