41 ms·

Generally there's this thing called "due process", if they were just planning on putting Snowden on a CIA plane I really can't see how that's supposed to be oka

by ryanlol 11y ago

Generally there's this thing called "due process", if they were just planning on putting Snowden on a CIA plane I really can't see how that's supposed to be okay.

BWStearns 11y ago
Fair point, but it doesn't really say the manner in which they planned to put him on a plane, so I would give benefit of the doubt to using the extradition agreements in such a high profile case. It's not like the death penalty would be sought (I think the last execution under the Espionage Act was the Rosenbergs) so they'd have no problem meeting the requirements of the extradition treaty. Edit: >> Why would you give that particular benefit of the doubt? If it's a) legal, b) gets the job done, why on earth would you make an unforced error when you know everyone on the planet would be watching how you handled this? I'm not relying on the better angels of men here, I'm relying on self interest, path of least resistance, and government laziness. Each on their own has rarely failed me and never all three at once.
- js8 11y ago
  And was there an extradition agreement (I mean the actual specific paperwork or court decision for Snowden's case, not just the abstract international agreement)? Shouldn't the U.S. get that in order before they send an actual plane? I am not U.S. taxpayer, but it's at least a waste of money otherwise..
  - ryanlol 11y ago
    yes
  - rbanffy 11y ago
    Unless they did something else and used Snowden as a distraction.
    - js8 11y ago
      It's also possible that UK police really wanted to do something else at Ecuadorian embassy, and Assange was just an useful cover. I don't think secret services feel the need to justify their operations in this manner. On the other hand, people who pay for it..
- BWStearns 11y ago
  @js8: http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/Denmark%20International%20Extradition%20Treaty%20with%20the%20United%20States.pdf http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/Denmark%20International%20Ex... If my explicit reference to it was not enough to convince you then you can go read it.
- ryanlol 11y ago
  There's a very good chance the DK<->US extradition treaty could block the extradition of Edward Snowden. >Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances: >6. In respect of a military offense.
  - BWStearns 11y ago
    It's a civilian criminal offense. The fact that he was a defense contractor doesn't make it a military offense. That would have to be a charge under the UCMJ. @ryanlol: I very much hope that laws and treaties are never interpreted via "common sense". Tech is not the only field with a technical argot, and it is good that specific words have specific meanings. If laws were enforced by "common sense" then every time you had an interaction with a contract or government agency would be subject to the whims of whatever moron happened to have power over you that day. Even though that is sadly frequent in practice, it shouldn't be, it isn't law that it be so, and I feel much better that we at least aspire to better.
    - ryanlol 11y ago
      Maybe in the US. Scandinavian courts use common sense much more liberally (sometimes even too liberally) than US ones. >@ryanlol: I very much hope that laws and treaties are never interpreted via "common sense". Tech is not the only field with a technical argot, and it is good that specific words have specific meanings. If laws were enforced by "common sense" then every time you had an interaction with a contract or government agency would be subject to the whims of whatever moron happened to have power over you that day. Even though that is sadly frequent in practice, it shouldn't be, it isn't law that it be so, and I feel much better that we at least aspire to better. You can hope, but as someone who has a plenty of experience with Scandinavian legal systems I'll have to assure you that's sadly not the case. Anyway, here I am sitting with a money laundering conviction for receiving a wire transfer of some 6000 euros from a Chinese bitcoin exchange. The prosecutor could never find _anything_ explaining the origin of the money, but as an unemployed person convicted of (not financially motivated) hacking crimes the judge figured it was "common sense" that the money had to be the proceeds of a crime.
- rdtsc 11y ago
  > so I would give benefit of the doubt to using the extradition agreements in such a high profile case. Why would you give that particular benefit of the doubt?
rhino369 11y ago
Due process in regard to which laws. I presumably would be a violation of Danish law, but under American law it isn't. It's more of an insult to Denmark than anything else. Which is why it's not typically done. But if the CIA just dragged him back to America and turned him over to the US Marshals it wouldn't impact his charges. There is no recognized right to be a fugitive.
- ryanlol 11y ago
  Who was talking about American law?
  - rhino369 11y ago
    Why should the CIA care about Danish law?
    - ryanlol 11y ago
      Diplomatic relations. US LEAs might have a hard time harassing people like me if EU countries stopped coöperating with them.
      - rdl 11y ago
        Generally actions done to your citizens abroad will cause less retribution than actions done to host nation citizens in host nation. Even better if there is any level of plausible (or even implausible) deniability. Russia pretty much got away with murdering Litvinenko in London; if they'd done that to a natural-born UK citizen in the UK with no other ties to Russia, and unambiguously, there would have been much more serious consequences.
        pjc50 11y ago
        Russia pretty much got away with murdering Litvinenko in London Well, up until now. It was so clearly a political decision to ignore it when it happened and now that relations with Russia have deteriorated it's been investigated and the obvious conclusion reached. The CIA could have someone with 'CIA' on their jacket shoot a UK citizen on the street in broad daylight and the UK would avoid investigating it if it was politically inconvenient to do so.
at-fates-hands 11y ago
If the CIA wanted to grab him, they could, regardless of where he is. The fact that it might ruffle a few feathers diplomatically is hardly something the CIA considers when they handle operations like the one they're describing. Also, if they did grab him, trust me, he wouldn't be heard from again. Considering Snowden has an army of governments after him, it would be easy for the CIA to run a disinformation campaign to keep people guessing who really kidnapped him. It would be easy for the CIA to rotate him between several of their "black sites" around the world and basically let him wither and die in one these miserable places.
- rl3 11y ago
  I doubt this. It's likely the FSB has him under constant surveillance. Moreover, even if the US managed to grab him, it'd be easier to manufacture a bogus story explaining how he suddenly ended up in custody. After that, he'd just be sent off to ADX Florence for life.
- kafkaesq 11y ago
  If the CIA wanted to grab him, they could, regardless of where he is. Umm, no. That's not quite how things work.
  - Caprinicus 11y ago
    They could do it, it would absolutely destroy our geopolitical relations with important countries in the process, which is hopefully why they didn't try.
    - tezza 11y ago
      ? An ex KGB guy was assassinated in London with radioactive poison and lived to name the killers. That ruffled the feathers until a few years later when it was all swept under the carpet. Now the disagreement is over Ukraine and Syria. So Russia is in the bad books again for the killing
      - 11y ago

by ryanlol 11y ago

Generally there's this thing called "due process", if they were just planning on putting Snowden on a CIA plane I really can't see how that's supposed to be okay.

BWStearns 11y ago

Fair point, but it doesn't really say the manner in which they planned to put him on a plane, so I would give benefit of the doubt to using the extradition agreements in such a high profile case. It's not like the death penalty would be sought (I think the last execution under the Espionage Act was the Rosenbergs) so they'd have no problem meeting the requirements of the extradition treaty. Edit: >> Why would you give that particular benefit of the doubt? If it's a) legal, b) gets the job done, why on earth would you make an unforced error when you know everyone on the planet would be watching how you handled this? I'm not relying on the better angels of men here, I'm relying on self interest, path of least resistance, and government laziness. Each on their own has rarely failed me and never all three at once.

js8 11y ago
And was there an extradition agreement (I mean the actual specific paperwork or court decision for Snowden's case, not just the abstract international agreement)? Shouldn't the U.S. get that in order before they send an actual plane? I am not U.S. taxpayer, but it's at least a waste of money otherwise..
- ryanlol 11y ago
  yes
- rbanffy 11y ago
  Unless they did something else and used Snowden as a distraction.
  - js8 11y ago
    It's also possible that UK police really wanted to do something else at Ecuadorian embassy, and Assange was just an useful cover. I don't think secret services feel the need to justify their operations in this manner. On the other hand, people who pay for it..
BWStearns 11y ago
@js8: http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/Denmark%20International%20Extradition%20Treaty%20with%20the%20United%20States.pdf http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/Denmark%20International%20Ex... If my explicit reference to it was not enough to convince you then you can go read it.
ryanlol 11y ago
There's a very good chance the DK<->US extradition treaty could block the extradition of Edward Snowden. >Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances: >6. In respect of a military offense.
- BWStearns 11y ago
  It's a civilian criminal offense. The fact that he was a defense contractor doesn't make it a military offense. That would have to be a charge under the UCMJ. @ryanlol: I very much hope that laws and treaties are never interpreted via "common sense". Tech is not the only field with a technical argot, and it is good that specific words have specific meanings. If laws were enforced by "common sense" then every time you had an interaction with a contract or government agency would be subject to the whims of whatever moron happened to have power over you that day. Even though that is sadly frequent in practice, it shouldn't be, it isn't law that it be so, and I feel much better that we at least aspire to better.
  - ryanlol 11y ago
    Maybe in the US. Scandinavian courts use common sense much more liberally (sometimes even too liberally) than US ones. >@ryanlol: I very much hope that laws and treaties are never interpreted via "common sense". Tech is not the only field with a technical argot, and it is good that specific words have specific meanings. If laws were enforced by "common sense" then every time you had an interaction with a contract or government agency would be subject to the whims of whatever moron happened to have power over you that day. Even though that is sadly frequent in practice, it shouldn't be, it isn't law that it be so, and I feel much better that we at least aspire to better. You can hope, but as someone who has a plenty of experience with Scandinavian legal systems I'll have to assure you that's sadly not the case. Anyway, here I am sitting with a money laundering conviction for receiving a wire transfer of some 6000 euros from a Chinese bitcoin exchange. The prosecutor could never find _anything_ explaining the origin of the money, but as an unemployed person convicted of (not financially motivated) hacking crimes the judge figured it was "common sense" that the money had to be the proceeds of a crime.
rdtsc 11y ago
> so I would give benefit of the doubt to using the extradition agreements in such a high profile case. Why would you give that particular benefit of the doubt?

rhino369 11y ago

Due process in regard to which laws. I presumably would be a violation of Danish law, but under American law it isn't. It's more of an insult to Denmark than anything else. Which is why it's not typically done. But if the CIA just dragged him back to America and turned him over to the US Marshals it wouldn't impact his charges. There is no recognized right to be a fugitive.

ryanlol 11y ago
Who was talking about American law?
- rhino369 11y ago
  Why should the CIA care about Danish law?
  - ryanlol 11y ago
    Diplomatic relations. US LEAs might have a hard time harassing people like me if EU countries stopped coöperating with them.
    - rdl 11y ago
      Generally actions done to your citizens abroad will cause less retribution than actions done to host nation citizens in host nation. Even better if there is any level of plausible (or even implausible) deniability. Russia pretty much got away with murdering Litvinenko in London; if they'd done that to a natural-born UK citizen in the UK with no other ties to Russia, and unambiguously, there would have been much more serious consequences.
      - pjc50 11y ago
        Russia pretty much got away with murdering Litvinenko in London Well, up until now. It was so clearly a political decision to ignore it when it happened and now that relations with Russia have deteriorated it's been investigated and the obvious conclusion reached. The CIA could have someone with 'CIA' on their jacket shoot a UK citizen on the street in broad daylight and the UK would avoid investigating it if it was politically inconvenient to do so.

at-fates-hands 11y ago

If the CIA wanted to grab him, they could, regardless of where he is. The fact that it might ruffle a few feathers diplomatically is hardly something the CIA considers when they handle operations like the one they're describing. Also, if they did grab him, trust me, he wouldn't be heard from again. Considering Snowden has an army of governments after him, it would be easy for the CIA to run a disinformation campaign to keep people guessing who really kidnapped him. It would be easy for the CIA to rotate him between several of their "black sites" around the world and basically let him wither and die in one these miserable places.

rl3 11y ago
I doubt this. It's likely the FSB has him under constant surveillance. Moreover, even if the US managed to grab him, it'd be easier to manufacture a bogus story explaining how he suddenly ended up in custody. After that, he'd just be sent off to ADX Florence for life.
kafkaesq 11y ago
If the CIA wanted to grab him, they could, regardless of where he is. Umm, no. That's not quite how things work.
- Caprinicus 11y ago
  They could do it, it would absolutely destroy our geopolitical relations with important countries in the process, which is hopefully why they didn't try.
  - tezza 11y ago
    ? An ex KGB guy was assassinated in London with radioactive poison and lived to name the killers. That ruffled the feathers until a few years later when it was all swept under the carpet. Now the disagreement is over Ukraine and Syria. So Russia is in the bad books again for the killing
    - 11y ago