
Snowden Seeks Assurance from Norway It Won’t Extradite Him - aburan28
http://www.wsj.com/articles/snowden-seeks-assurance-from-norway-it-wont-extradite-him-1461270001
======
rl3
Sounds like a great way to get nabbed by a CIA snatch-and-grab operation. Even
if his FSB protection plans the field trip _and_ accompanies him, it's still a
huge risk. It also provides an ample opportunity for Russia to divest
themselves of Snowden should they wish, making the West look bad in the
process.

Norway's NIS maintains a friendly relationship with U.S. intelligence.[0] NSA
documents leaked by Snowden refer to Norway as a "Tier B" country.[1] The only
thing higher is "Tier A"— _Five Eyes_ member nations.

[0]
[http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KW_21XnezyY/Usdezt9SifI/AAAAAAAABH...](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KW_21XnezyY/Usdezt9SifI/AAAAAAAABHE/9DJaHKzSayY/s1600/norway-
usa-relationship.jpg)

[1]
[http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NRWNh0OgZwQ/UrEBhQltzrI/AAAAAAAABF...](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NRWNh0OgZwQ/UrEBhQltzrI/AAAAAAAABFg/98_mh5CocKw/s1600/elmundo-
list.jpg)

~~~
Ueland
Norway does at lot of intelligence gathering around Svalbard/North Atlantic
against the russians due to the large fleet base at Murmansk. The ships used
is typicly equipped in the US before entering service.

------
benevol
Whatever we can speculate about the ifs and hows of this situation, let's keep
in mind that incredibly courageous people like Snowden have to endure what
they endure because people like us, citizens, don't seem to stand up to
corrupt governments anymore.

~~~
iamthepieman
From a recent interview with Snowden by Reason magazine

    
    
        I mean again, this sort of political direction gets
        beyond my expertise so I don’t like to talk too much    
        about. You know you brought up an interesting point   
        there about Russia that I think is actually important   
        to contextualize. There’s a lot of fair criticism 
        that’s like, “Hey, this guy’s in Russia.”
    
        It’s important to understand that I never intended to     
        end up in Russia. Originally I was hoping to get to   
        Iceland. After that, Latin America when Iceland fell 
        through. But the State Department cancelled my  
        passport, trapping me in Russia when I was initially on 
        the move, as soon as they heard I was in the air.    
        Despite the fact that I’ve asked several times, they’ve  
        refused to reinstate it, which is quite interesting. 
        The United States of course criticizes me for being in 
        Russia but at the same time they won’t let me leave.
    

Full arcticle here [http://reason.com/archives/2016/02/25/edward-
snowden/](http://reason.com/archives/2016/02/25/edward-snowden/)

------
a3n
I think if the US can have a President's plane redirected, forced to land, and
searched, with that President on it, they wouldn't have much trouble getting
Norway to look the other way for a few minutes.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Morales_plane_i...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Morales_plane_incident)

~~~
krylon
Sadly, I have to agree. In Germany, some people demand that the government
should offer Snowden asylum, but while I would appreciate the gesture (not
that the government would seriously consider doing something like that), if I
were in Snowden's place, I would not set foot in a country that is so deeply
in bed with the USA (not to mention the US military bases in Germany).

Which does not leave many places where Snowden could go and be safe.

------
toyg
On Reuters (i.e. free): [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-
snowden-norwa...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-snowden-
norway-idUSKCN0XI1WU)

~~~
majewsky
It's also free on WSJ when you come in with a Google referer. Google search
for "wall street journal snowden assurance" worked for me.

~~~
_Codemonkeyism
I use the "web" link below the title for that ;-) (Didn't want to be snarky
just friendly)

~~~
toyg
Well, TIL :)

------
alkonaut
I assume Norways laws work similar to Swedens, meaning there can be no
guarantees of non-extradiction (because preempting a legal decision usinga a
political one is illegal, and the extradiction would be handled only when it
is requested - which can only be done once he is actually in norway).

So the same thing might happen to Snowden that happened to Assange - no
guarantees up front.

The best they can do in that case is make broader statements that e.g. "we do
not extradite anyone who faces political charges and/or risks the death
penalty". It's safe to say Snowden fits into both categories.

~~~
fpoling
Exactly! It is up to the court system to decide what to do about a particular
case. Any promise from a government official will be a lie.

~~~
alkonaut
They can circumvent it pretty easily by not saying "We will not extradite
Edward Snowden" but simply doing by making a very clear statement of two
facts: i) "We do not extradite anyone who would risk a death penalty" and ii)
"We believe it is clear that Edward Snowden would risk a death penalty in the
US".

Having said those two things (which they can), they have implied the what he
wants to know, without breaking any laws.

~~~
vintermann
It's also a myth that Sweden can't do the same for Assange (although one
defended by certain lawyers for political reasons).

The courts can only stop extraditions, not non-extraditions. Politicians like
to pretend their hands are tied because they would like to blame the
bureaucracy for unpopular decisions, but they have full freedom to interpret
their own bilateral treaty obligations. If the Norwegian government says he's
a political refugee, he is as far as Norwegian law is concerned.

~~~
alkonaut
> The courts can only stop extraditions, not non-extraditions.

Not sure what you are implying by that. An extradition is tried in a court (if
the person to be extradited does not want to be extradited). The supreme court
tries the extradition against the legislation and then hands it to the
government for decision [1].

I think you may be thinking about this passage from[1]:

"Anser Högsta domstolen att det finns hinder mot utlämning, får regeringen
inte bifalla framställningen. Regeringen kan dock neka utlämning även om
Högsta domstolen inte har motsatt sig en utlämning; i lagen anges nämligen att
en person under vissa förutsättningar "må" utlämnas - inte "ska" utlämnas."

It says that if the courts find that extradition is NOT legal, then the
government may not extradite, but if the court recommends the extradition
(i.e. find it legal) then the government can still deny it.

So while it is true that the govrenment CAN in any situation reject any
extradition - it is out of the question for a government to forego the court
process. This would be known as "Ministerstyre" (an action by a member of a
government or a cabinet, which is to be interpreted - or can be interpreted -
as dictating, or interfering with, the daily workings of a government agency,
court of law or similar.).

One can call that "bureaucracy" but the fact remains - the swedish government
would just not do that.

[1] [http://www.regeringen.se/sveriges-
regering/justitiedeparteme...](http://www.regeringen.se/sveriges-
regering/justitiedepartementet/internationellt-rattsligt-samarbete/utlamning-
for-brott/)

~~~
vintermann
If the government can see beforehand that they would not agree to extradition,
I think it's just a waste of money to ask the courts whether it would be
legal.

There's nothing legally stopping the Swedish government, at best notions of
procedural propriety that are not binding. Truth is even so, ministries meddle
with the departments - or are accused of it, with varying degrees of
reasonableness - all the time. When the case against Assange was revived (the
first prosecutor dismissed it in unusually clear terms), that was as I see it
far more pernicious meddling than pre-rejecting extradition of a political
refugee would be.

------
kiproping
It's good we have countries like Russia and China that the US cannot bend to
their will.

Imagine if all countries in the world were stooges of America. Scary.

------
mercurial
How hard does the US government want him back, now that the cat is out of the
bag? Obviously, the US don't want to appear "soft" on the matter - the
interest of the administration is to avoid future whistleblowers by having a
tough posture.

But Snowden has a pretty massive following worldwide, on a scale that Assange
and Chelsea Manning don't have. Wouldn't a trial be a terrible PR move, on top
of raising embarrassing question about the activities of the NSA and their
legality?

~~~
pluma
At this stage I'm certain one of three things will happen if the US can get a
hold of him:

1) he will be secretly disappeared in a way that gives the US plausible
deniability.

2) he will die in an "accident".

3) he will be taken to trial and put away for life, most likely in solitary
confinement ("for his own safety").

It is obvious nobody actually cares about the activities of the NSA and their
legality at this point. There has been some bad PR around it but all in all
the American public hasn't revolted and the allies are still under control and
don't want to risk it. Also, to this day, Snowden is routinely referred to as
"a leaker" and US politicians' calls for his death and branding him as a
traitor have been met with nary any criticism.

At this point it's no longer about what secrets Snowden can reveal, it's just
about neutralizing what the US government (as in: politicians and state
officials) considers a threat to its interests (as in: _their_ interests, not
those of the nation). And to make an example of him, obviously.

~~~
mercurial
1) Would demand a lot of creativity. "Plausible deniability" when you are the
prime suspect is hard to achieve. 2) I don't believe that for a second. Not
because the US are not willing to kill people, but because of the level of
scrutiny. 3) He would certainly go to trial. I don't know how that'd turn out,
but I don't see that advancing the political career of anyone (that said, I'm
not American, maybe I'm misjudging the American public).

------
portlander12345
Although technically Russia and Norway share a land border, you would have to
drive thousands of miles through extremely remote arctic areas, where the
major routes are single-lane roads and the nearest settlements may be hours
apart. If one is worried about underhanded tactics by the US, this seems quite
a dangerous way to go.

~~~
mc32
Possibility, yes, but realistically no. I don't see them kidnapping him as a
way to bring him before US courts. If I were him I'd be a little more worried
about local gangs with little to do and one too many crazy ideas knowing who
he is and trying to kidnap him and avail him at some price.

~~~
toyg
_> If I were him I'd be a little more worried about local gangs_

Yeah, all those famous Norwegian kidnapping gangs. /facepalm

~~~
mc32
Rural Russia isn't exactly the manicured place you imagine it to be.

~~~
toyg
Ah yeah, I thought you referred to the situation once he crossed the border.

Inside Russia, I would expect his transport to be Putin-approved, which is
probably the safest you can get.

------
kmonsen
Would he have a guarantee he would be allowed back in Russia? If not I guess
he can stay in Norway indefinitely but would need a work visa as well.

~~~
xaduha
Would Putin even let him leave Russia?

~~~
EthanHeilman
It would look really bad for Russia if Snowden was held against his will.

~~~
exabrial
They would care you think?

~~~
rev
Actually the better question is why would they care about Snowden leaving (or
not leaving) Russia? Or why wouldn't Putin let Snowden leave? Snowden is a
minor liability for Russia.

~~~
xaduha
I think Snowden is valuable to Putin, he's not just a liability.

------
didbdohd
Seems unlikely.

He also needs assurance the flight between Russia and Norway won't be grounded
or redirected on route.

~~~
RijilV
Presumably he'd drive, as Norway and Russia share a border.

What isn't clear to me from the article is why he'd risk it for an award from
a group of writers who have branches in Russia..

~~~
CPLX
One obvious guess would be that it's a dress rehearsal for a possible Nobel
peace prize win.

~~~
21
It would also be a powerful statement if he could visit western countries
without being arrested.

~~~
vonklaus
> It would also be a powerful statement

It would be powerful. It's actualy shameful that Assange and Snowden are so
constrained, especially for telling the truth. Ironically, Roman Palanski
plead guilty to raping a 13 year old. Later, he was detained in Switzerland
but they denied a U.S. extradition request.

It's sad basic travel would send a powerful message, just because that means
many assume that these constraints are a foregone conclusion.

------
eric_h
So I'm curious how Snowden supports himself while exiled in Russia. How does
he pay for these law firms representing him?

~~~
dbbolton
> In May 2015, Snowden's lawyer Ben Wizner said that Snowden's main source of
> income was speaking fees, which sometimes exceeded $10,000 per
> appearance.[308]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#2015](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#2015)

------
csense
Even if Snowden gets this assurance from the Norweigans, how can he be sure
they're not lying?

E.g. the US tells Norway they should say "yeah sure we won't arrest and
extradite you," then go back on their word and arrest him as soon as he enters
the country. The US makes some under-the-table bribes or threats to be sure
Norway goes along with this scheme.

Something along the lines of "It sure would be a shame if we tanked your
economy by making it illegal for US businesses to operate in Norway...those
juicy Internet taps Snowden claims we have, well we can't confirm or deny
them, but we might or might not know certain delicate things that were said in
private by Norwegian politicians, and we might or might not know about certain
financial relationships between certain wealthy Norweigans and high-ranking
politicians, and it sure would be a shame if the things we might or might not
know became public and had unfortunate consequences for your party's political
position...now let's talk about how you're going to handle this Snowden
situation..."

Also as other posters have pointed out, the US could simply send a CIA team to
kidnap or murder him. Norwegian counterintelligence is presumably a lot weaker
than Russia's, and their politicians presumably a lot more afraid of the US,
so it's probably a lot less risky for the US to run an op like that in Norway
than in Russia.

~~~
vegardx
First of all because extradition is handled in the courts, not the parliament.
And given how popular he is in most of Europe it would surprise me if any
politician want to touch it. Helping the US would ensure political suicide.

And come on, snatch and grab inside a sovereign state, that is a close ally
and with all the media attention his has. You don't really need to be an
intelligence service to notice a guy like Snowden suddenly disappearing.

Ask Israel how much we like it when foreign states interfere within our
borders. They are still more or less out in the cold after they executed the
wrong guy. A Norwegian citizen, within Norwegian borders. You just don't do
that.

------
dschweig
Remember Anders Behring? He was sentenced for 21 years for his terrorist
attack in 2011. I find it hard to believe a country that has the most humane
prison system in the world would extradite Snowden back the the US...

~~~
marvin
The Norwegian government is too entangled with US interests, due to our
defense doctrine and role in NATO ("hold out for 24 hours while the rest of
NATO mobilizes"). Although many Norwegian politicians probably have personal
sympathies for Snowden's legal situation, it's very doubtful that anything
short of a Supreme Court ruling would prevent Norwegian authorities of
cooperating with the US when it comes to arresting and extraditing Snowden.

~~~
toyg
_> it's very doubtful that anything short of a Supreme Court ruling would
prevent Norwegian authorities_

Considering how international laws are now completely ignored by our imperial
masters (see Abu Omar, rendition flights, the raid on Kim Dotcom, etc etc), I
would say it's very doubtful anything short of a couple of panzer divisions
would prevent any US-friendly authorities from helping out.

------
cat-dev-null
There's direct Aeroflot flights between Moscow and Oslo (SVO - OSL).

US fighters and/or ships could _arguably_ intercept a civilian aircraft in
international waters and force landing in another country.

~~~
pluma
"Arguably". Remember Morales. You don't need fighter jets to intercept/divert
a civilian aircraft in "friendly" airspace. Just pull the right strings.

~~~
mcv
Russia shares a tiny bit of border with Norway. Even if Finland, Sweden and
the Baltic states don't want to cooperate, as long as Russia and Moscow agree,
the plane could simply take a detour through the far north.

------
PlzSnow
Why would Snowden get assurance from the the Norwegian government? There is
nothing special about him.

------
andersonmvd
So many threats along the way: 1) kidnap before reaching the airport 2) not be
allowed to leave Russia 3) be intercepted between Russia and Norway 4) be
caught in Norway after arrive 5) be caught in Norway before departure back to
Russia 6) be caught during travel back to Russia 7) not be allowed to go back
to Russia at all 8) be caught after arrive in Russia 9) be caught before going
back to his apartment 10) be caught soon after arriving on his apartment 11)
be caught later on

~~~
majewsky
Numbers 1 and 9 through 11 are not really relevant for this discussion. Or is
there evidence that he is restricted to his apartment (either by his own
choice or by force)?

------
arca_vorago
One thing yo remember is Norway isnt partnof NATO, which makes quite a bit of
difference in this. Still not sure what the end result will be, but good luck
to Snowden and I hope Norway does it. If only so I dont have to hear any more
ignoramouses talk about how Snowden went to Russia on purpose.

~~~
progre
Norway IS a full NATO member.

~~~
vinay427
Yes, it's a founding member at that.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO)

------
karmacondon
The US government isn't going to kidnap Edward Snowden at any point. He's too
high profile and the press would eventually find out. And I don't think Putin
will let him leave Russia unless it would hurt the US in some way. If Snowden
really wants to leave, he can probably leave. But the Russian government won't
make it easy for him.

Snowden should just come home and face the music. He'll probably get a pro
bono all-star legal team and have 50/50 odds with a jury of his peers. With
sufficient lawyering he could probably get away with five years at worst, and
then go back to life in America as even more of a hero.

~~~
woodman
> ...face the music.

I've never heard that phrase used but to describe the consequences of a
malevolent action. I'm interested to hear a rational explanation for why
anyone would think that Snowden's whistleblowing was anything but altruistic.
Some may say that the good intentions were misguided, but again - I've never
heard the phrase used that way. The man wearing full plate armor, while trying
to save a horse caught in a flash flood, ended up facing the music and
drowning... doesn't sound right does it?

> ...50/50 odds...

You must have very little regard for your own freedom if you don't see that as
being super bad advice to give.

~~~
marcoperaza
> _I 'm interested to hear a rational explanation for why anyone would think
> that Snowden's whistleblowing was anything but altruistic._

He divulged a lot of information about America's foreign intelligence
operations as well. Spying on other countries is the original and core mission
of the intelligence services. There's no question as to its legal legitimacy
and he directly undermined it by revealing the nature and extent of our
capabilities. It also caused serious diplomatic and political problems, with
Germany for example.

~~~
gurkendoktor
> It also caused serious diplomatic and political problems, with Germany for
> example.

It didn't really look like a serious problem from within Germany. Our
administration is as pro-US as before. We've stopped sharing some information,
but I doubt that has caused the NSA much trouble.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany–United_States_relation...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany–United_States_relations#21st_century)

~~~
pluma
The only thing that changed is that there's the NSA Untersuchungsausschuss,
which is "investigating" the NSA spying affair.

It's pretty clear that the investigations will not yield anything we don't
already know and will have no consequences on US-German relations. Our NATO
membership alone is enough to make us avoid upsetting the US at all costs
(just as we've been turning a blind eye on Turkey all this time).

