I like how Holder says "Despite the revocation of his passport... Snowden remains a citizen" Holder revoked his passport without trial and yet the U.S. still considers Snowden a citizen [1]? How is this so?
Unless you're in transit between countries, it doesn't affect you as much as you might think. I lived in Japan for a year and pretty much only used my passport when I entered and left the country. Same goes with my sisters who moved overseas. They take out their US passport about once every 4 years, when they come back to the USA to visit.
In Russia, it's actually super important since foreigners need to register at the local police station with their passport in any town/city where they state more than a few days. Not registering within the allotted time period, based on dates of transportation tickets like a train ticket or flight stub, makes you the target of police extortion.
Russia is definitely one of those "Ihre papiere bitte" countries.
Revocations
DOS revokes passports that were:
- obtained illegally or through fraud
- Altered or misused
- Issued to individuals whose Certificate of Citizenship
or Certificate of Naturalization was canceled
That link doesn't give all the information about why passports can be revoked. They can also be revoked by court order, if there's an arrest warrant or extradition request.
A federal, state or local law enforcement agency may request the denial or revocation of a passport on several regulatory grounds set forth in 22 C.F.R. §§ 51.60, 51.61, and 51.62. The principal law enforcement reasons for passport denial or revocation are an unsealed federal, state, or local felony arrest warrant, a federal or state criminal court order or a condition of parole or probation forbidding departure from the United States (or the jurisdiction of the court), or a request for extradition to or from the United States. Any such request needs to include a copy of the arrest warrant or criminal court order. Please also be advised that all passport applicants are run through various law enforcement and other databases.
Thanks to you and arbuge I understand this now. irishcoffee added no alternative explanation as to how my comment's source was misinformation. I figured I should give irishcoffee a chance to explain his/her reason for calling it misinformation when the title of the site itself was called answers.usa.gov.
Passports are not the same as citizenship. Many Americans are full citizens and never bothered to apply for a passport in their lives. You were probably passportless until you applied for a passport.
It is really hard for the US government to take away citizenship - generally that only happens to naturalized persons who blatantly lied on their citizenship application. For example, Nazi concentration camp guards in WW2 who hid the role they played there.
Taking away your ability to freely move outside your country of citizenship (i.e. your passport) should be just as hard to revoke as your citizenship.
The Supreme Court has upheld the freedom to move state to state [1]; the freedom to move through other countries outside of the US (if you're a US citizen) is an inalienable right as well (with the permission of the hosting countries of course).
A federal, state or local law enforcement agency may request the denial or revocation of a passport on several regulatory grounds set forth in 22 C.F.R. §§ 51.60, 51.61, and 51.62. The principal law enforcement reasons for passport denial or revocation are an unsealed federal, state, or local felony arrest warrant, a federal or state criminal court order or a condition of parole or probation forbidding departure from the United States (or the jurisdiction of the court), or a request for extradition to or from the United States. Any such request needs to include a copy of the arrest warrant or criminal court order. Please also be advised that all passport applicants are run through various law enforcement and other databases.
Thank you for the information. What you have explained is not as clearly stated in the three bullets in the reasons for passport revocations on the site I linked to.
Surrendering your passport while awaiting trial isn't unheard of though, right? If they think you're a flight risk, your movements will be limited.
In this case they want to talk to him but he's already fled, so by cancelling his passport they're trying to limit further movement by him.
Regardless, having a passport doesn't magically grant you the ability to move around as you wish. It's up to the destination country (and countries you're transiting perhaps) to decide if they want to accept your passport as a form of ID. I'm sure countries have accepted plenty of people without a passport (asylum seekers, people moving around Europe, etc.).
What about people with dual nationality? AFAIK a country can only make you surrender the passport they have issued since the other passports you may possess are property of the governments that issued them.
I guess a judge can impose whatever conditions they want on your bail. "Surrender all the passports you have, or if you don't want to do that you can go sit in jail."
A passport is not a necessary document or even relatively important to most US citizens. I usually get funny looks when I use mine in country as an ID, and have twice been told (in error) that it was not valid as a form of ID.
For example, IIRC US national IDs (passport and green card) are not a form of valid ID for the sake of notarization services in the State of California. However the IDs issued by other states are.
Like "terrorism", it's only "torture" when the other guys do it, while we introduce a fresh new euphemism to describe our own actions. The definitions of the words change each time the US acts.
We may live in an era where people suspect the US will do that, but they've always had to say they won't. Most of Western Europe will not extradite people who face the death penalty (and I assume torture) and in those situations, the US has always given assurances that they will not seek the death penalty.
I don't think the US cares if they're in a 'bad spot diplomatically'... kind of like when the president says some stuff and does the complete opposite... no shame, who cares
Maybe not binding strictly speaking, but we have to keep our word here if we ever expect to be able to get an individual in similar circumstances to be extradited to the US in the future, no?
Since it is the federal government prosecuting Snowden, those statements might be legally binding. Certainly the federalism argument doesn't make the assertions non-binding since it's not a state government.
I may be overreacting here, but if Holder is saying "we won't torture", is this some sort of self-incriminating statement??
Unless in a week or so some whistleblower that is moping blood from underground CIA interrogation rooms speaks up, my thought is that US does not torture, period.
Why would you then have a US Government, DOJ and Attorney General himself to come up and reassure about this?
Manning wasn't tortured either. Waking someone up every 2 hours with bright light and loud music to check if they are "okay" and alive is not a torture. Having them sleep naked for years without a blanket to cover is not a torture either; they were just worry that he may hang himself.
And so what if they did anyways? What would Russia (or anyone else) do about it? I mean, the US government already blatantly lies to their own citizenry with zero consequence, and our foreign relations can't get much worse than they already are. I highly doubt Russia of all countries has any trust in us in the first place.
They're already torturing people in Gitmo, and Bradley Manning, and nothing is being done about that. Whether or not they said they wouldn't beforehand doesn't make any of that any better.
This would probably be a more valuable reassurance if the US didn't have a very well-known recent history of:
1. Committing acts widely accepted as being torture within the definition of international agreements to which the US while denying that they are "torture", and
2. Farming out torture/murder of persons under control of the US to third party states, and
3. Being caught red-handed misrepresenting everything it thinks it can get away with about the Snowden case.
All of which makes it so that, taken together, no reasonable party could trust:
1. Any statement made by the US regarding Snowden that comes without external confirmation or securities.
2. Any commitment of the US not to torture to have any substantive meaning, insofar the US has demonstrated that it has no problem redefining torture to exclude whatever it does.
3. Any commitment of the US not to torture or kill someone delivered into its power to mean that the US will not cause them to be tortured or killed, insofar as the US has demonstrated that it has no reluctance to render persons under its control for torturing and killing.
That's not to say that I think the US government would torture or kill Snowden, because I don't think that that is likely (for reasons unrelated to any guarantees provided by the US government.) But I do think that the US government's word on that matter, given recent history, is absolutely worthless.
I read the most sinister part of this letter to be:
“We believe these assurances eliminate these asserted grounds for Mr. Snowden’s claim that he should be treated as a refugee or granted asylum, temporary or otherwise,”
This seems to be the US setting themselves up to challenge Snowden's standing under international law. Not that we recognize international law, but still.
It seems very sinister to me. "We won't hurt him too bad, therefor his fears aren't legitimate, therefor all you other nations should just send him on home now."
Unfortunately they haven't said that he'd be tried in the jurisdiction the case should be brought in, Hawaii. That's almost as important as the no death penalty and no torture promise.
Trying him in Virginia, the home of the IC community, is pretty much a guaranteed conviction with the most extreme sentence. It's like trying a patent case in East Texas. Any trial in Virginia is just going to be a kangaroo court.
If you take the (possibly extreme) position that I do; namely that the act of violating the oath to support the constitution is an act of treason as well as evidence of deceit, why in the world would anyone give credence to Holder and the administration that supports him? My guess is that if Snowden is foolish enough to leave the highly visible airport surroundings, he will shortly disappear, possibly forever.
53 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 122 ms ] thread[1]: http://answers.usa.gov/system/selfservice/selfservice.contro...
Russia is definitely one of those "Ihre papiere bitte" countries.
A federal, state or local law enforcement agency may request the denial or revocation of a passport on several regulatory grounds set forth in 22 C.F.R. §§ 51.60, 51.61, and 51.62. The principal law enforcement reasons for passport denial or revocation are an unsealed federal, state, or local felony arrest warrant, a federal or state criminal court order or a condition of parole or probation forbidding departure from the United States (or the jurisdiction of the court), or a request for extradition to or from the United States. Any such request needs to include a copy of the arrest warrant or criminal court order. Please also be advised that all passport applicants are run through various law enforcement and other databases.
It is really hard for the US government to take away citizenship - generally that only happens to naturalized persons who blatantly lied on their citizenship application. For example, Nazi concentration camp guards in WW2 who hid the role they played there.
The Supreme Court has upheld the freedom to move state to state [1]; the freedom to move through other countries outside of the US (if you're a US citizen) is an inalienable right as well (with the permission of the hosting countries of course).
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Guest
http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/info/info_870.html
A federal, state or local law enforcement agency may request the denial or revocation of a passport on several regulatory grounds set forth in 22 C.F.R. §§ 51.60, 51.61, and 51.62. The principal law enforcement reasons for passport denial or revocation are an unsealed federal, state, or local felony arrest warrant, a federal or state criminal court order or a condition of parole or probation forbidding departure from the United States (or the jurisdiction of the court), or a request for extradition to or from the United States. Any such request needs to include a copy of the arrest warrant or criminal court order. Please also be advised that all passport applicants are run through various law enforcement and other databases.
In this case they want to talk to him but he's already fled, so by cancelling his passport they're trying to limit further movement by him.
Regardless, having a passport doesn't magically grant you the ability to move around as you wish. It's up to the destination country (and countries you're transiting perhaps) to decide if they want to accept your passport as a form of ID. I'm sure countries have accepted plenty of people without a passport (asylum seekers, people moving around Europe, etc.).
Let that sink in.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_S...
Unless in a week or so some whistleblower that is moping blood from underground CIA interrogation rooms speaks up, my thought is that US does not torture, period.
Why would you then have a US Government, DOJ and Attorney General himself to come up and reassure about this?
(I was sarcastic btw)
They're already torturing people in Gitmo, and Bradley Manning, and nothing is being done about that. Whether or not they said they wouldn't beforehand doesn't make any of that any better.
All of which makes it so that, taken together, no reasonable party could trust: 1. Any statement made by the US regarding Snowden that comes without external confirmation or securities. 2. Any commitment of the US not to torture to have any substantive meaning, insofar the US has demonstrated that it has no problem redefining torture to exclude whatever it does. 3. Any commitment of the US not to torture or kill someone delivered into its power to mean that the US will not cause them to be tortured or killed, insofar as the US has demonstrated that it has no reluctance to render persons under its control for torturing and killing.
That's not to say that I think the US government would torture or kill Snowden, because I don't think that that is likely (for reasons unrelated to any guarantees provided by the US government.) But I do think that the US government's word on that matter, given recent history, is absolutely worthless.
“We believe these assurances eliminate these asserted grounds for Mr. Snowden’s claim that he should be treated as a refugee or granted asylum, temporary or otherwise,”
This seems to be the US setting themselves up to challenge Snowden's standing under international law. Not that we recognize international law, but still.
It seems very sinister to me. "We won't hurt him too bad, therefor his fears aren't legitimate, therefor all you other nations should just send him on home now."
Keep Snowden safe, Russia. The US government can't be trusted to do pretty much anything they say.
Trying him in Virginia, the home of the IC community, is pretty much a guaranteed conviction with the most extreme sentence. It's like trying a patent case in East Texas. Any trial in Virginia is just going to be a kangaroo court.