4 ms·

I find it most interesting, and perhaps frightening, that Snowden's passport was revoked. I've been thinking quite a bit about it since that bit of news broke,

I find it most interesting, and perhaps frightening, that Snowden's passport was revoked. I've been thinking quite a bit about it since that bit of news broke, and since it's referenced in this statement, it's back in my head. I winced a bit at the claim of being a stateless person, as I'd previously understood that to mean lacking citizenship anywhere, not being without a passport for travel. Perhaps I've been wrong about that all these years. I'm still researching, but so far, I've found the following passport-revocation authorities: 1. Obtained illegally or through fraud 2. Altered or misused (no definition yet on 'misused') 3. Issued to persons whose citizenship is cancelled 4. Non-payment of child support 5. Non-repayment of repatriation loan 6. Persons convicted of sex tourism 7. Persons convicted of drug trafficking 8. [based on comment below] Standing warrants for arrest (and other standing legal/court orders against the bearer) Interestingly enough, 22 USC § 2721 states that: > A passport may not be denied issuance, revoked, restricted, or otherwise limited because of any speech, activity, belief, affiliation, or membership, within or outside the United States, which, if held or conducted within the United States, would be protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I've yet to find an authority to revoke a passport from a citizen who is openly seeking political asylum. However, there is 22 USC § 217a: >A passport shall be valid for a period of ten years from the date of issue, except that the Secretary of State may limit the validity of a passport to a period of less than ten years in an individual case or on a general basis pursuant to regulation. So, there's that. Perhaps this is one such individual case. Additionally, the law requires the DOS to send the passport owner written notification of revocation. I wonder if the US is considering a press statement to be such written notice? Any lawyers versed in passport issues know whether revoking a passport in a situation like this runs afoul of law or established precedent? [edit: formatting failure on my part]

olalonde 13y ago
> A federal or state law enforcement agency may request the denial of a passport on several regulatory grounds under 22 CFR 51.70 and 51.72. The principal law enforcement reasons for passport denial are a federal warrant of arrest, a federal or state criminal court order, a condition of parole or probation forbidding departure from the United States (or the jurisdiction of the court), or a request for extradition. http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/info/info_870.html http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/info/info_870.html So I think the passport revocation was in fact legal since there was a request for extradition and a federal warrant of arrest.
- bobwaycott 13y ago
  Thanks. Hadn't found that one yet. Any idea on how that plays into the open requests for asylum? Also, I'm assuming the statute uses passport denial to also include passport revocation?
  - abalone 13y ago
    Yes, 22 CFR 51.72 says they can revoke for any of the same reasons they'd deny, including an outstanding federal arrest warrant. Seems pretty cut and dried to me. As for how it interacts with asylum, well, it doesn't. If states had an obligation not to pursue or interfere with the travel of a fugitive seeking asylum, then take a guess what a lot of fugitives would do. Generally if you're going to seek asylum, it's not the country you're fleeing FROM that facilitates your emigration, it's the country you're traveling TO. Well, that's exactly what Snowden did, and got a travel document from the Ecuadorian embassy. But the surprising other half of the story here is that Ecuador revoked that travel document while he was in Moscow. THAT is arguably the main reason why he's in a bind right now, not that he or his advisors expected his US passport to remain valid, which is clearly revokable under the law in these circumstances.
    - bobwaycott 13y ago
      Okay, thanks. I figured from what else I'd already researched and read that denial & revocation were essentially equal. On the interaction with asylum, I did a poor job of being clear. I was wondering more about considerations of asylum given the current situation and the US revoking Snowden's passport. I'd already assumed that a country would revoke (although Snowden's a different kind of fugitive than, say, a murderer attempting to flee). Obviously, no country facilitates emigration of a person they wish to make a political and legal example of. Was wondering more if the revocation makes Snowden look like more of a case for political asylum, or less attractive for potential asylum granters. The Ecuadorian revocation of travel documents--if their stated reasons are true--is certainly surprising (both for the revocation, and the political liability that they're assessing to Assange in relation to Snowden). All that aside, revoking a standing passport just strikes me as a very dick move. Almost childish, even. It just screams, "Our allies aren't cooperating with us because we've been abusing them, so we'll just maroon the poor bastard until they cave cos they don't want to deal with him either." Not ineffective, but still a disappointing tactic from the administration.
belorn 13y ago
It surprising that states cares about a passport in regard to a political refugee seeking asylum. It used to be a joke, as within the musical Chess, there is a short song with: If these people can't strike Blows for freedom With a valid visa We don't need 'em There in the Embassy Lament, the joke is about the offhand attitude of the US embassy when a Russian is seeking asylum to the U.S. So I wonder a bit, why do nations care about passports or visas if the individual seeking asylum can be identified through other means. Its not like Russia doubts that Snowden is who he say he is.
- bobwaycott 13y ago
  My suspicion about why this is a big deal, at least from the administration's standpoint as a very calculated move, is to make Snowden toxic--without the passport, wherever Snowden is currently situated is a place from which he cannot easily move, instantly making him a legal and political liability. Add to that the difficult place it forces the host nation in to be grilled on why they're not taking action against an alleged lawbreaker who is within their sphere of influence. If he is going to be able to move, a country is going to have to muster the courage to stand before the world stage and make it known that they are helping. It appeared for a moment that country was Ecuador. Now, apparently not (and quite possibly because of the publication of the alleged travel documents).
steveklabnik 13y ago
My passport states: "This passport is the property of the United States. It must be surrendered upon demand made by an authorized representative of the United States." Title 22, Section 51.9 is the law it references, but I haven't read it.

olalonde 13y ago

> A federal or state law enforcement agency may request the denial of a passport on several regulatory grounds under 22 CFR 51.70 and 51.72. The principal law enforcement reasons for passport denial are a federal warrant of arrest, a federal or state criminal court order, a condition of parole or probation forbidding departure from the United States (or the jurisdiction of the court), or a request for extradition. http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/info/info_870.html http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppi/info/info_870.html So I think the passport revocation was in fact legal since there was a request for extradition and a federal warrant of arrest.

bobwaycott 13y ago
Thanks. Hadn't found that one yet. Any idea on how that plays into the open requests for asylum? Also, I'm assuming the statute uses passport denial to also include passport revocation?
- abalone 13y ago
  Yes, 22 CFR 51.72 says they can revoke for any of the same reasons they'd deny, including an outstanding federal arrest warrant. Seems pretty cut and dried to me. As for how it interacts with asylum, well, it doesn't. If states had an obligation not to pursue or interfere with the travel of a fugitive seeking asylum, then take a guess what a lot of fugitives would do. Generally if you're going to seek asylum, it's not the country you're fleeing FROM that facilitates your emigration, it's the country you're traveling TO. Well, that's exactly what Snowden did, and got a travel document from the Ecuadorian embassy. But the surprising other half of the story here is that Ecuador revoked that travel document while he was in Moscow. THAT is arguably the main reason why he's in a bind right now, not that he or his advisors expected his US passport to remain valid, which is clearly revokable under the law in these circumstances.
  - bobwaycott 13y ago
    Okay, thanks. I figured from what else I'd already researched and read that denial & revocation were essentially equal. On the interaction with asylum, I did a poor job of being clear. I was wondering more about considerations of asylum given the current situation and the US revoking Snowden's passport. I'd already assumed that a country would revoke (although Snowden's a different kind of fugitive than, say, a murderer attempting to flee). Obviously, no country facilitates emigration of a person they wish to make a political and legal example of. Was wondering more if the revocation makes Snowden look like more of a case for political asylum, or less attractive for potential asylum granters. The Ecuadorian revocation of travel documents--if their stated reasons are true--is certainly surprising (both for the revocation, and the political liability that they're assessing to Assange in relation to Snowden). All that aside, revoking a standing passport just strikes me as a very dick move. Almost childish, even. It just screams, "Our allies aren't cooperating with us because we've been abusing them, so we'll just maroon the poor bastard until they cave cos they don't want to deal with him either." Not ineffective, but still a disappointing tactic from the administration.

belorn 13y ago

It surprising that states cares about a passport in regard to a political refugee seeking asylum. It used to be a joke, as within the musical Chess, there is a short song with: If these people can't strike Blows for freedom With a valid visa We don't need 'em There in the Embassy Lament, the joke is about the offhand attitude of the US embassy when a Russian is seeking asylum to the U.S. So I wonder a bit, why do nations care about passports or visas if the individual seeking asylum can be identified through other means. Its not like Russia doubts that Snowden is who he say he is.

bobwaycott 13y ago
My suspicion about why this is a big deal, at least from the administration's standpoint as a very calculated move, is to make Snowden toxic--without the passport, wherever Snowden is currently situated is a place from which he cannot easily move, instantly making him a legal and political liability. Add to that the difficult place it forces the host nation in to be grilled on why they're not taking action against an alleged lawbreaker who is within their sphere of influence. If he is going to be able to move, a country is going to have to muster the courage to stand before the world stage and make it known that they are helping. It appeared for a moment that country was Ecuador. Now, apparently not (and quite possibly because of the publication of the alleged travel documents).

steveklabnik 13y ago

My passport states: "This passport is the property of the United States. It must be surrendered upon demand made by an authorized representative of the United States." Title 22, Section 51.9 is the law it references, but I haven't read it.