* Snowdon revealled much about GCHQ so you can't really expect the UK government to be any more supportive of his activities than the US one was. I don't know enough detail but suspect other countries were implicated too. In those cases they're not in thrall to the US, they're simply responding according to their own interests.
* For European countries not specifically mentioned, why would any government antagonise the US when they're probably doing similar things themselves.
* Let's not kid ourselves what the Russians are really doing. This is basically trolling on an international government scale. Putin certainly doesn't believe Snowdon is a freedom fighter, and his actions around support for Snowdon are hypocritical in the extreme given the sorts of activities Russia are almost certainly engaged in themselves.
It's unrealistic to assume any government will support Snowdon as a matter of principal. They'll do so if it is popular enough with the people of their country but to me at least this doesn't feel like something that your average person is going to get worked up about compared to more domestic issues such as jobs, the cost of living and Kim Kardashian's ass.
>Let's not kid ourselves what the Russians are really doing. This is basically trolling on an international government scale. Putin certainly doesn't believe Snowdon is a freedom fighter, and his actions around support for Snowdon are hypocritical in the extreme given the sorts of activities Russia are almost certainly engaged in themselves.
Not only that, but you also have to ignore the things the current Russian government could, would, and has done to people like Snowden to think this has every been some altruistic move on their part.
This is one the benefits (among many costs) of not having a world state, the interests of nations balance against each other creating room for successful dissent.
>This is basically trolling on an international government scale.
Do you also think that giving the refuge to the dissidents form the USSR was trolling as well?
Generally dissidents have more in common with the country they're fleeing to than the one they're fleeing from but that's not the case with Snowdon. He's not a communist sympathiser, he's closer to being an American patriot who has done something his government may disagree with because he wants his country to be better. Simply put he's in Russia because it's there or Guantanamo Bay.
On the Russian side Putin has no sympathy whatsoever with the principals Snowdon stands for. Putin is a former spy with a penchant for locking up or oppressing those who oppose him. His logic runs no further than my enemy's enemy is my friend. If Snowdon was had revealed similar information about Russian intelligence Putin would be first in line to have him locked up or worse.
You have an extraordinary ability to read Putin's mind.
For one thing, Putin don't seem to have the ambition to dominate the world like the US does and for which the NSA's global eavesdropping is an important tool.
You don't need to read anyone's mind, he's a world leader with a public history - just a bit of reading will tell you enough about him to make a pretty good guess at what's happening here.
A European country could give him a permit, the problem is that doing so would cause a massive diplomatic incident with the US, and most countries would rather not have to deal with that fuss. Russia (actually also European, just not EU European) had nothing to lose in that department, though.
I imagine it's tricky for any EU member wanting to take him due to the EU having an extradition treaty with the US and the fact that Europe wide arrest warrants are a thing.
One of the problems is that he has no valid passport. The US has cancelled his. So he cannot take a regular flight. Also, any country would need to proactively make an exception to their rules to have him enter their territory, welcoming the wrath of the US administration.
What a bizarre world are we living in where you need a specially colored and printed piece of paper to travel and where it is this piece of paper, and not the technical problem of traveling thousands of miles, is the real challenge.
Indeed. For thousands of years people were able to move about relatively freely in most parts of the world, exceptions most often due to war. Only relatively recently has it become the norm to need permission from multiple states to move between them. Prior to the U.S. Civil War, it was difficult to even determine who someone was if they left their area of birth. Most forms of identity were informal and ultimately relied on a community attesting to who someone is. Identity systems weren't formalized and reliable, so you could start a new life in a new place under a new identity if you wanted to.
While state-enforced identity controls are used to enforce travel controls, it need not be so. You only need identity controls for state sponsored benefits (insurance, welfare, licensure, etc). There is no necessity for your mobility to be imparied by those identity controls; it is only how states have chosen to do it.
My point was that identity controls predated travel controls and were a prerequisite for a "papers please" kind of society. Each state chooses (either directly or by will of its voters) what responsibilities it owes to non-citizens in its territory. Those responsibilities can range from almost nonexistent to very generous, but it is ultimately the choice of the state, and not the visitors to that state.
He has a residence permit that allows him to get past Russian exit controls and travel abroad, so I suppose he can get on a plane if he wishes. Getting off will be a problem, yes. He'd have to arrange something with Ecuador, Venezuela, Cuba, or the like.
Airlines generally won't let you board unless you have the necessary documents to enter the destination country (e.g. a valid passport, a visa if required). In fact, countries will fine airlines for bringing passengers without the correct documents.
As far as my experience goes, the only thing that gets checked in russian airport (for resident) is your passport. Passport control doesn't know where you are heading nor they care, nobody else checks it.
Maybe this is different matter for some flights (for example, to Israel or the USA), where the airline does additional checks on you, but you fly out to Europe and most other destinations unchecked (despite needing a visa to enter).
I've travelled quite a bit (including Russia -> EU), and I've never been asked that.
Maybe they do a fast peek at your passport when letting you to board in the very end, but they can only check if some visa is physically there, since it takes them around 5 sec.
Yet, he did what he did to demonstrate the the US government was violating the US Constitution, which are the law also, and the US government charges him with violating the law? Who will charge the US government with violating the law? Or is the US government above the law? Is the law meaningless if it doesn't apply to the US government? Isn't the US Constitution specifically drafted to restrict the actions of the US Government? But if the US government violates the constitution with impunity, then isn't the US government illegitimate? And is an illegitimate government allowed to issued valid charges of violation of law, when it violates the law itself?
Snowden should have never been charged. Snowden is a hero, one who took his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, with all seriousness, at great personal risk, and now his good name is tarnished and his freedom is restricted, and the people who violated their oaths and broke the law are free.
how about argentina for example? the non aligned movement has at least 120 member states, you'd think that there are one or two states that don't exactly agree with US foreign policy, eh?
How would he get there? Not by plane; last year, Bolivian President's plane was forced to land in EU on suspicion that he was carrying Snowden on board.
Why would tracking someones movements be an extraordinary achievement for CIA? And if he would travel under his own name, why should it be hard for them to know where and when did he booked a flight?
Both tasks should be business as usual for such huge secret service.
I'm not saying it is easy and flawless, just that calling it "extraordinary" is in all likelihood an exaggeration. They do not need to know where exactly he is at every single moment to make travel too risky for him. Them not knowing where he was during that incident does not imply them not knowing where he is now. Neither it implies them not having an informer who would tip them if the Snowden tries to arrange secret fly.
CIA had a lot of time between them and now. It also have a lot of resources and his movements are likely to be top priority for them. Them knowing he boarded a plane is real risk for him.
> Why would tracking someones movements be an extraordinary achievement for CIA?
I do think that would be an achievement while he's under the wing of the Russian government. But what do I know?
What's really extraordinary is that gpvos knows for sure that it's not only doable but is actually happening; and is willing to share this intel with us. Or they seem to know; no citation to support the claim has been provided yet. It could just be internet BS.
I'm not so sure he's actually being protected in any real way by the Russian government, as you seem to claim. Although the FSB is probably keeping tabs on him too.
For the rest: what watwut said in a nearby comment. I'm just extrapolating from things like the Evo Morales incident.
Submarines have been used to smuggle people. Both Argentina and Russia got submarines. But is it worth of it? But would be simpler to just take any private boat ride to Argentina. You don't need to always fly.
He has a chance, but I think the US would know after a few days that he has left the country, and would just raid all boats on plausible routes. The US is not all-powerful, but still pretty powerful and white-hot with rage, and willing to risk diplomatic incidents over this.
Submarines would be too expensive. He's not worth that much to Russia, Argentina or any other country.
To be honest I'm not sure why he would. South American countries tend to have volatile regimes and Russia is probably the best place for him to stay, even occupationally.
And I wouldn't put it past the CIA to perform an extraordinary rendition since he can be easily plucked from a cafe in Bolivia. Harder to do one from Russia.
The problem is the US could try and stop his plane again when it passes above some US vassal country like UK, France, Spain, and so on. On the other hand, those countries would have to be pretty stupid to do that right now to Russia and force Putin's hand into a war (regardless of their chances of winning I think we can agree a war in Europe would be bad for all parties).
Granted, a boat trip is longer, which is more time for things to (be made to) go wrong, but if a ship is traveling through international waters, are there any grounds for another country to board it and seize its passengers?
(With a follow up: is there a sea route between Russia and Friendly Country X which doesn't pass through waters claimed by another country?)
> if a ship is traveling through international waters, are there any grounds for another country to board it and seize its passengers?
Suddenly, pirates, out of fucking nowhere.
EDIT:
Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if some "random" thing happened to Snowden if he tried to go by a boat. Just like Assange became an sex offender out of the blue the moment he seriously pissed off the US government.
Well, not to put a fine point on it, but Assange was already known as a bit of a dick.
I think the issue was, what was considered rape in Sweden was basically just being a misogynistic douche in other countries.
However, he would have known this well before going into the country, it's not like they created a new law just for him.
I doubt the US is so subtle as to use pirates. People seem to have these grand conspiracies about how the government is like a ninja...it's not.
They will simply send the police around and arrest him. Seriously, why are they going to bother with cloak and daggers for? This isn't a Bond movie. They will simply arrest him, and charge him with espionage charges since...err..that's sort of what he did?
As far as routes, Russia doesn't have the best access to the ocean. He'd definitely have to pass through waters claimed by nations not friendly towards him. The 3 best options are:
Vladivostok, which is very close to Japan, and would be nearly impossible to not go through either South Korean or Japanese waters. Neither of which are friendly to him.
Sevastopol, Which requires going through the Turkey, and then either through the straights of Gibraltar or Egypt.
St Petersburg, Which requires passing through Denmark.
If I were in his shoes, I'd probably try to charter a Jet coming out of Vladivostok. If that wasn't possible, I think I'd choose the Sevastopol/Gibraltar route by sea.
The boldest move would be for Putin to let Snowden board a nuclear sub and let him go freely to his chosen destination, under the protection of the Russian navy.
If Putin's willing to go to that level of provocation, why bother with a sub? Sending him on a surface ship is easier, cheaper, and less of a security risk. It's not like the US is going to try to board a Russian military vessel.
> It was the US Navy’s biggest jolt in years. On October 26, 2006, a Chinese Song-class attack submarine quietly surfaced within nine miles of the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk as the 80,000-ton-diplacement vessel sailed on a training exercise in the East China Sea between Japan and Taiwan.
>The Song-class vessel, displacing 2,200 tons, was close enough to hit the Kitty Hawk with one of its 18 homing torpedoes. None of the carrier’s roughly dozen escorting warships detected the Song until it breached the surface.
My point was that if Snowden were to travel by plane then there is a high probability that it could be forced to be grounded and Snowden captured then sent to Gitmo.
But if he were to travel by submarine, he would be untouchable from the US Navy.
My point was that if Putin were willing to send Snowden elsewhere, why not just use a regular military surface ship. Or, for that matter, why not fly him in a Russian air force transport?
It's silly to think the US would get into a military engagement with Russia just to capture Snowden. At this point, he's not that valuable to either side, except as a propaganda tool. Hell, Putin would probably do a happy dance if the US were stupid enough to do something like that. The sabre rattling in the Ukraine has made him very popular - one can only imagine what a revived cold war rivalry would do for him; in the short term, at least.
No, but that was my point. Snowden cannot safely fly anywhere without risking a sudden and abrupt rendition to the US.
He cannot risk flying. The Bolivian incident showed just how powerful the US is when it comes to Snowden and flying. They forced down a presidential jet for god's sake! They were willing to risk a massive diplomatic incident and outcry (toned down) by doing so.
He could travel by boat somewhere quietly, but (in my opinion) countries that have offered him some degree of asylum, such as Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela are not stable or strong enough to oppose the will of the United States of America. If I was Snowden I couldn't imagine anything worse than landing in Bolivia, only to find that two years later a pro-US president miraculously wins the election. The US-CIA have a rather impressive record of subverting elections in South and Central America, so he would be a fool to risk it.
Therefore, he is confined to Russia until Russia finds a reason to become the USA's best friend. He can travel overland to any country that is pro-Russia and protected by Russia. That's about it. Most of them are (ex)war zones.
Considering the current geo-politics, that scenario is highly unlikely. The status quo is likely to remain, as long as oil, gas, and other natural resources are fought over by the world's major league countries.
The US has little (in comparison) natural resources, whilst Russia has more than any other country. Long term, the power scales will tip. The only thing that may change that is a pro-USA Russian government.
Oh, and pigs might fly over the Kremlim before that happens.
Cuba is softening. Raul has made huge inroads, most recently allowing property ownership, which is huge step forward. Once Fidel dies I think things will start to change. Once Raul dies even more so.
The US could rapidly turn Cuban relations around if they wanted something like say 'A Snowden'.
He is probably safer in Russia than anywhere else, until he pisses them off. The smart money says he isn't about to do that of his own volution.
------
My original post was getting heavily downvoted, even after the first edit. Here it is, with the first edit. I've ROT13d it to stop people down-voting the (now corrected) mistake.
Fbzr angvbaf erdhver gurve pvgvmraf gb trg crezvffvba gb yrnir gur pbhagel. Ehffvn vf bar bs gurfr pbhagevrf.
It used to be like that for all citizens. But that practice has been abolished quite a while ago, if you have a valid passport and you're not on a list of 'persons of interest' you can leave the country like everywhere else.
But you are right in Snowdens case, since foreigners resident in Russia need an 'exit visum' to be allowed to do trips abroad, and clearly Snowden is one of those.
I never claimed he was a citizen, but he is a resident and that's the bit that matters here. And that's exactly the situation that part of the law applies to (and it is one of the reasons I never wanted to live in Russia, I don't want to have to ask permission to leave a country).
So Snowden needs permission to be allowed to leave.
just in case someone misunderstands your post: in Russia, passport for international travel is called "foreign" passport to disambiguate it from the internal ID, which is also called "passport".
The Crimea is probably the safest place he could travel to at present!