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

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.