He didn't flee to Russia. He had booked tickets to Ecuador going through Russia. The Obama administration revoked his passport, rendering him stateless and unable to leave Russia. Please do not regurgitate propaganda.

▲

firesteelrain 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

He actually fled the US before the leaks became public to Hong Kong but it was a calculated risk because Hong Kong has extradition treaty with the US. So he was fleeing already.

He could have returned to the US however he would have most certainly faced arrest. So he asked and was granted temporary asylum in Russia. If my passport is voided for whatever reason then I am returning to the US. I am still a citizen and so was he.

But naturally he didn’t want to be arrested so by definition became a fugitive.

▲

brightball 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Wasn’t he departing from Hong Kong to Ecuador and was stuck in Russia because his passport was revoked in transit?

I thought that’s what I remembered hearing. I think all of his meetings with reporters were in Hong Kong.

	▲	firesteelrain 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes so his default option was to return to the US and face arrest so he applied for asylum (as a US citizen still)

▲

BLKNSLVR 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I am still a citizen and so was he.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

▲

firesteelrain 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I get it I didn’t leak national security information but it doesn’t change the fact that he wasn’t stateless. That’s the part I was referring to

▲

BLKNSLVR 7 hours ago | parent [-]

That just feels like a slightly different false equivalence - and having said that, I may be making yet another version of it by saying this:

If a person has a 'state', but that state would immediately jail the person for treason upon their return, is that materially different to stateless?

That feels like the reason that many countries allow 'political asylum'.

▲

iamnothere 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I see what you’re saying, but true stateless people often have a different problem on their hands, because most countries won’t allow them entry at all unless they can get refugee status, and they will often be denied basic rights.

Some people actually voluntarily seek statelessness, but they’re either crazy or have enough resources to fly under the radar somewhere.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness

Snowden’s status is more of a political exile. Theoretically he could return legally and safely if there was a complete regime change where the new regime was aligned with his beliefs and actions, although the chances of this happening are approximately zero.

▲

BLKNSLVR 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah, Snowden was lucky he wasn't, by definition, stateless, otherwise Russia may not have offered him asylum. They got to piss off the US by doing so.

	▲	ShinyLeftPad 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Russia offers asylum to stateless people. The only problem with getting asylum anywhere while being stateless is proving who you are. And it wasn't a problem for him.

▲

firesteelrain 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

He wasn’t stateless. Stateless means no country recognizes you as a citizen. He just faced arrest if he returned. Same as any other fugitive. People seeking asylum still have a country and citizenship. Also he wasn’t facing treason charges. He was charged under the Espionage Act and with theft of government property. There were others in similar situations that faced up to 45 months in prison and Eric Holder was willing to make a deal in 2015.

He basically is on self imposed exile in Russia.

▲

BLKNSLVR 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> He just faced arrest if he returned

You seem to continue to minimise the seriousness of the situation.

▲

firesteelrain 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Oh it was very serious what he did. But it was odd he went to Hong Kong then to Russia on his was to Ecuador. It wasn’t well thought out

	▲	pydry 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It wasn't odd at all the list of places he could flee to was very limited because of his job. It's more odd that some people don't give him the same benefit of the doubt they would a whistleblower from Russia or China.

▲

viccis 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not a "false equivalence". Multiple people are trying to explain to you what "stateless" actually means and how's it's materially different than being a fugitive, but you are refusing to listen.

▲

BLKNSLVR 5 hours ago | parent [-]

My point is that the definition doesn't matter when faced with Snowden's situation. Not being stateless offered no respite, therefore it's materially no different - to Snowden, in his situation.

No, it won't hold up in court, because definitions exist and the law is an ass, as they say. But you'll never understand human behaviour if that's the only lens you look through.

Does that make my thread of explanations any more clear?

(inb4: No, you're wrong, he wasn't stateless.)

	▲	pepperoni_pizza 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Words mean things. If you decide your words mean something else to the common usage, people will react to that.

▲

crossroadsguy 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> If my passport is voided for whatever reason then I am returning to the US. I am still a citizen and so was he.

"firesteelrain = Edward Snowden"

Hence established! ^

▲

walrus01 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Thinking the US government wouldn't kidnap and rendition him from Ecuador is an extremely ignorant and uninformed position on how the US exercises power in the Americas. He made a least-bad choice of all possibly horrible choices and chose to stay in Russia.

▲

BLKNSLVR 2 hours ago | parent [-]

He couldn't take the trip to Ecuador because his passport was revoked.

Ecuador's offer of asylum to Assange, and the fact that Snowden was traveling with a Wikileaks representative, is the likely reason for Ecuador being the originally chosen destination.

It may be ironic (for the US) and lucky (for Snowden) that he was in Russia when the passport was revoked. Likely one of the few places the US may hesitate kidnapping him from. From a kidnap / rendition viewpoint, Ecuador is just one country on a long list of countries to which the US would probably not hesitate 'arranging a small excursion'.

	▲	walrus01 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		My point is that even if he did find himself physically in Ecuador he is not stupid enough to think that the US would not rendition him from Ecuador. Therefore making it an unacceptable risk to actually go to Ecuador. I believe it is highly likely that he never planned to go to Ecuador. At the time and date that he likely came to that regrettable conclusion, he found himself in one of the few places in the world where the US cannot arbitrarily rendition someone from without significant risk and possible consequences. The passport revocation means nothing, he had nowhere else he could possibly go without high likelihood of rendition even if he had a valid passport or wanted to leave Russia.

▲

BLKNSLVR 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Eeesh, the propaganda must be strong in the US if you're getting downvoted for this. You're essentially summarising documented facts.