

Putin: Russia can't turn over Snowden - tuukkah
http://yle.fi/uutiset/putin_russia_cant_turn_over_snowden/6704647

======
skwirl
"Can't" here should be read in the same sense as "he hasn't crossed our
border" (Russia) and "the extradition request wasn't filled out properly."
(Hong Kong/China) Since this is an espionage case, there is really nothing
about the crime offensive to Russia or China, and these countries really don't
want to seem subservient to the United States. At the same time they don't
want to damage their relationship with the United States, so they keep trying
to punt on the issue by not arresting him but not letting him stay put, hence
the creative use of words.

Snowden is probably in good shape. If he can't leave Russia for one reason or
another, that may change the moment Russia wants someone accused of a crime in
Russia sent back to them from the United States, which I understand happens.
In that case they probably won't be getting anyone unless they swap for
Snowden.

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

~~~
revscat
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
Lack of an extradition treaty does not prevent Russia from handing Snowden
over, or expelling him; it would merely obligate them to.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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
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
> 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.

~~~
narcissus
"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?

~~~
pfortuny
That just shows how scared are the US.

When I was in London, 2002, a Chinese national living there wanted to attend a
solidarity camp in El Salvador, in august 2002, organized by the hall of
residence I was living in. The flight had a single scale in the US (probably
Florida but who knows, it was not a 'stay', just a scale). BOWM: travel
forbidden.

Uhu? What?

Just that. NO WAY you are going to fly to El Salvador via the US.

Mmmhh I call that being terrorized.

------
Shivetya
Should read, Russia can't turn over Snowden until Putin gets something for it.

~~~
dale386
Like a super bowl ring?

------
rackman171
Perhaps the first time I've ever upvoted an action by Putin. And it's well
deserved, here.

------
throwaway10001
Also, "Ex-CIA official: Snowden probably questioned by Russians “The
likelihood that there’s either been no conversation with him or they haven’t
downloaded stuff from his electronic gear is about zero,” Philip Mudd, a
former CIA deputy director of counterterrorism, told Matt Lauer."
[http://www.today.com/news/ex-cia-official-snowden-
probably-q...](http://www.today.com/news/ex-cia-official-snowden-probably-
questioned-russians-6C10435404)

In other words, considering how US has promised to treat him, Snowden has
almost no options. The Russians hold all the cards and know how to play them
well. USA should have advised his family to hire a lawyer for him and issue a
pardon while he was in HK, before spilling all the other info he has.

Well done, morons!

~~~
mikeyouse
>In other words, considering how US has promised to treat him

You mean the promises to arrest him for releasing confidential information?
I'm honestly confused why people don't think he should be arrested. If he had
released weapons designs instead of NSA documents, would you support his
galavanting across HK and Russia?

The question, "Is the NSA program unconstitutional?" is a far different one
than "Should those who release confidential documents be arrested?" Unless you
think that there should be no state secrets, it makes absolute sense to arrest
and prosecute Snowden. I'm grateful that he shed some light on a very
troubling program, but that doesn't just grant him immunity from prosecution.
It would be far more honorable to accept responsibility rather than to
continue this mess.

~~~
vinceguidry
> I'm grateful that he shed some light on a very troubling program, but that
> doesn't just grant him immunity from prosecution.

This doesn't seem like a rational position. Either Snowden performed a service
or he committed a crime. He can't have done both. The fact that it's really a
subjective call speaks to its political nature. As such, there is no dishonor
in absconding to a country with more favorable politics.

~~~
icebraining
_Either Snowden performed a service or he committed a crime._

Isn't that what a trial - after arrest and prosecution - is supposed to
determine?

The problem is not prosecution, it's that a fair trial is hardly guaranteed.

~~~
codex
38% of Americans think that Snowden shouldn't be prosecuted. While not 50%,
it's reasonably high. That, combined with jury selection and sequestration,
_ought_ to do the trick--but if OJ Simpson can get away with murder,
anything's possible in the U.S.

