4 ms·

I've checked russian version of Putin's words, he really said that Snowden is still in Moscow. Also, there is a wikileaks twit: "Cancelling Snowden's passport

I've checked russian version of Putin's words, he really said that Snowden is still in Moscow. Also, there is a wikileaks twit: "Cancelling Snowden's passport and bullying intermediary countries may keep Snowden permanently in Russia. Not the brightest bunch at State.". https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/349556329645473792 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/349556329645473792 So he remains in Russia, and he probably has problem getting to Ecuador.

iandanforth 13y ago
Does he actually say there is no extradition treaty? That is very surprising.
- revscat 13y ago
  Think about it: just today Obama said "we're following all of the appropriate legal channels" to get Snowden in US custody. Putin shoots back with "well gee shucks we can't legally turn him over. No extradition treaty!" Putin is maintaining the moral high ground while using the exact same language the US is. Savvy.
  - codex 13y ago
    Lack of an extradition treaty does not prevent Russia from handing Snowden over, or expelling him; it would merely obligate them to.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Lack of an extradition treaty does not prevent Russia from handing Snowden over, or expelling him; it would merely obligate them to. If Russia has a constitutional government with limited powers (which, I think, on paper it does, whatever it may otherwise do in practice), not having a legal basis to detain and hand him over may, legally at least, prevent them from detaining him and handing him over.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Well, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Russia couldn't detain him for questioning, let him out of the car, now he's touched the native soil and can be arrested on immigration charges and nicely deported to the U.S. embassy. Really seems like one of things where "if there's a will, there's a way".
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Well, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Russia couldn't detain him for questioning, let him out of the car, now he's touched the native soil and can be arrested on immigration charges and nicely deported to the U.S. embassy. It wouldn't surprise me if, on paper at least, being compelled by the government to pass out of the area not requiring a visa was not an immigration offense. It also isn't surprising to me that the government of a sovereign state isn't particularly interested in going out of their way to game their own legal systems to make the government of a geopolitical rival who is publicly threatening them look less impotent and ineffectual.
        mpyne 13y ago
        I'm just saying, nothing would really surprise me in international diplomacy anymore.
        narcissus 13y ago
        "It wouldn't surprise me if, on paper at least, being compelled by the government to pass out of the area not requiring a visa was not an immigration offense." So I'm not entirely sure how this squares up with my anecdote, but flying from Sydney, Australia to Vancouver, Canada (did, at some point) require stopping in Honolulu to refuel and take on passengers. At that point in the journey, passengers were (are?) required to get off the plane and pass through US immigration to continue their flight on to Canada. I know of at least one passenger that was refused passage through US immigration at that point (even though she was forced to go through it and her final destination was not the US) and so she was not allowed to continue. Like I say, I don't really know how that quite squares up with your comment, but I thought it was "interestingly similar", maybe?
- eatitraw 13y ago
  Yes, he really said this: http://lenta.ru/news/2013/06/25/putin/ http://lenta.ru/news/2013/06/25/putin/ (just put the link in the google translate if you want). Here is my crude translation of the relevant part: "Considering possible extradition somewhere, we can extradite people only to the countries which have extradition treaty with us. We don't have such agreement with the USA. Snowden haven't committed any crimes in the territory of Russia". Note: Putin hasn't used the exact formal term "extradition". So he may have spoken of some other type of agreement.
  - nivertech 13y ago
    More exact translation: "Considering possible extradition somewhere, we can extradite people only to the countries which have extradition treaty with us. We don't have such agreement with the USA. Snowden haven't committed any crimes in the territory of Russia, thanks God". Putin's cynicism?
throwaway10001 13y ago
So he remains in Russia, and he probably has problem getting to Ecuador. Maybe no direct flights and other transit countries might arrest him?
- eatitraw 13y ago
  You're right, there are no direct flights. The originally announced path was: HK -> Russia -> Havana -> Venezuela (probably: -> Ecuador). I am wondering if the US pressed hard on Cuba and if Snowden can reach Ecuador on a private plane.

iandanforth 13y ago

Does he actually say there is no extradition treaty? That is very surprising.

revscat 13y ago
Think about it: just today Obama said "we're following all of the appropriate legal channels" to get Snowden in US custody. Putin shoots back with "well gee shucks we can't legally turn him over. No extradition treaty!" Putin is maintaining the moral high ground while using the exact same language the US is. Savvy.
- codex 13y ago
  Lack of an extradition treaty does not prevent Russia from handing Snowden over, or expelling him; it would merely obligate them to.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Lack of an extradition treaty does not prevent Russia from handing Snowden over, or expelling him; it would merely obligate them to. If Russia has a constitutional government with limited powers (which, I think, on paper it does, whatever it may otherwise do in practice), not having a legal basis to detain and hand him over may, legally at least, prevent them from detaining him and handing him over.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Well, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Russia couldn't detain him for questioning, let him out of the car, now he's touched the native soil and can be arrested on immigration charges and nicely deported to the U.S. embassy. Really seems like one of things where "if there's a will, there's a way".
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Well, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Russia couldn't detain him for questioning, let him out of the car, now he's touched the native soil and can be arrested on immigration charges and nicely deported to the U.S. embassy. It wouldn't surprise me if, on paper at least, being compelled by the government to pass out of the area not requiring a visa was not an immigration offense. It also isn't surprising to me that the government of a sovereign state isn't particularly interested in going out of their way to game their own legal systems to make the government of a geopolitical rival who is publicly threatening them look less impotent and ineffectual.
        mpyne 13y ago
        I'm just saying, nothing would really surprise me in international diplomacy anymore.
        narcissus 13y ago
        "It wouldn't surprise me if, on paper at least, being compelled by the government to pass out of the area not requiring a visa was not an immigration offense." So I'm not entirely sure how this squares up with my anecdote, but flying from Sydney, Australia to Vancouver, Canada (did, at some point) require stopping in Honolulu to refuel and take on passengers. At that point in the journey, passengers were (are?) required to get off the plane and pass through US immigration to continue their flight on to Canada. I know of at least one passenger that was refused passage through US immigration at that point (even though she was forced to go through it and her final destination was not the US) and so she was not allowed to continue. Like I say, I don't really know how that quite squares up with your comment, but I thought it was "interestingly similar", maybe?
eatitraw 13y ago
Yes, he really said this: http://lenta.ru/news/2013/06/25/putin/ http://lenta.ru/news/2013/06/25/putin/ (just put the link in the google translate if you want). Here is my crude translation of the relevant part: "Considering possible extradition somewhere, we can extradite people only to the countries which have extradition treaty with us. We don't have such agreement with the USA. Snowden haven't committed any crimes in the territory of Russia". Note: Putin hasn't used the exact formal term "extradition". So he may have spoken of some other type of agreement.
- nivertech 13y ago
  More exact translation: "Considering possible extradition somewhere, we can extradite people only to the countries which have extradition treaty with us. We don't have such agreement with the USA. Snowden haven't committed any crimes in the territory of Russia, thanks God". Putin's cynicism?

throwaway10001 13y ago

So he remains in Russia, and he probably has problem getting to Ecuador. Maybe no direct flights and other transit countries might arrest him?

eatitraw 13y ago
You're right, there are no direct flights. The originally announced path was: HK -> Russia -> Havana -> Venezuela (probably: -> Ecuador). I am wondering if the US pressed hard on Cuba and if Snowden can reach Ecuador on a private plane.