That's actually true of the EU as well, I believe. US prosecutors would (in theory) need to agree not to seek the death penalty in order to obtain extradition.
I haven't heard anyone talk about the death penalty for Snowden. Manning got 35 years. I'm sure the US gov would be happy to lock Snowden up for the rest of his life (instead of the death penalty) if it meant they could get him back on US soil.
Just in the last week a few prominent and influential figures have said just that:
“I think giving him amnesty is idiotic,” Former CIA Director James Woolsey said. “He should be prosecuted for treason. If convicted by a jury of his peers, he should be hanged by his neck until he is dead." [1]
Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton: Edward Snowden 'Ought To Swing From A Tall Oak Tree' [2]
That's not the administration's official line of course, and might be Fox News or the administration just floating the idea, but these are very senior figures in the Washington establishment.
There are laws and there are American interests that tend to have precedence. It's about risk assessment - how much of a fallout can be expected. In case of Russia, it's likely to be substantial, so the US don't intervene. If you talk about "colonial" South America - few people will care.
A presidential plane can be grounded en route and searched. And you talk about safety of a former NSA contractor here.
Does Brazil forbid extradition in particular cases that might bring the death penalty, or does it flat forbid all extradition to countries that have the death penalty at all?
AFAIK it forbids all prosecution-based extradition for countries that have death penalty. It also forbids extradition if the subject is married to a Brazilian citizen or has Brazilian offspring.
“Their job wasn’t to protect privacy or deter abuses, it was to ‘restore public confidence’ in these spying activities. Many of the recommendations they made are cosmetic changes,” Mr. Snowden said in an email exchange with the Globo TV channel."
Likewise when someone does step forward and leaks, their first action is to ridicule the person doing the leaking.
When the U.S. Government realizes that Snowden has more credibility than it does on spying, it may come to realize better ways to improve its stature. The tried-and-true method for handling huge PR gaffs is to come clean and state everything you've done the public might consider wrong so no one else can, state you understand you shouldn't have done it, and take responsibility for doing it better.
The problem for the U.S. Government for doing anything remotely like that is that the decision to do so has to come from the top, which is Obama, and Obama doesn't seem to agree with the public that the government did something wrong. Or that somehow the system isolated him or twisted his understanding to where he doesn't understand the public's perspective, odd as that may sound regarding a lawyer who would understand the Fourth Amendment.
15 comments
[ 32.8 ms ] story [ 1171 ms ] thread“I think giving him amnesty is idiotic,” Former CIA Director James Woolsey said. “He should be prosecuted for treason. If convicted by a jury of his peers, he should be hanged by his neck until he is dead." [1]
Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton: Edward Snowden 'Ought To Swing From A Tall Oak Tree' [2]
That's not the administration's official line of course, and might be Fox News or the administration just floating the idea, but these are very senior figures in the Washington establishment.
[1] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/17/ex-cia-director-s...
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/17/john-bolton-edward-...
A presidential plane can be grounded en route and searched. And you talk about safety of a former NSA contractor here.
Likewise when someone does step forward and leaks, their first action is to ridicule the person doing the leaking.
The problem for the U.S. Government for doing anything remotely like that is that the decision to do so has to come from the top, which is Obama, and Obama doesn't seem to agree with the public that the government did something wrong. Or that somehow the system isolated him or twisted his understanding to where he doesn't understand the public's perspective, odd as that may sound regarding a lawyer who would understand the Fourth Amendment.