Snowden shouldn't be extradited to US if he testifies about NSA spying, says Swiss gov Master spook blabbermouth Edward Snowden should be granted safe passage to and from Switzerland if he testifies about surveillance, the country's attorney general has reportedly said. Last year, the one-time NSA sysadmin leaked files revealing some of the secret spying tactics of UK and US spooks. Snowden currently has …
There are lots of flights, at least 4 each a day to Zurich and Geneva.
Unfortunately, the Chicago Convention allows any state to require any aircraft overflying its airspace to land, whether or not it's scheduled to. And once it's landed, they can search it.
Fortunately, that same convention forbids the use of military weapons against those aircraft, so it can't actually be forced down, at least in theory. But I daresay there would be severe repercussions from an aircraft refusing a lawful demand to land. At the very least, the airline would be denied access to that country's airspace for the foreseeable future, which would put a serious damper on their operations.
So really, the Swiss would have to get safe-conduct guarantees not just from their own government, but also from every other country on the flightpath. Which doesn't sound easy. And at this stage, the reassurance falls somewhat short of a "guarantee" even from the Swiss government itself.
" the Chicago Convention allows any state to require any aircraft overflying its airspace to land, whether or not it's scheduled to. And once it's landed, they can search it."
Yes, but do Poland, Germany etc have access to passenger manifests? If it's a direct Russia-Switzerland flight, why should they? And given that for example Germany are mightily ticked off with the US about the Merkel phonetapping, why would they pluck Snowden out of eh sky for the yanks, even if they knew he was overflying?
You underestimate how supine NATO and EU states are when confronted by a demand from the USA; safe-conduct assurances mean nothing if the State Department demands that the plane be ordered to land.
It's not just a risk that an executive decision to award Safe Conduct might be rescinded, or given in bad faith: I can easily see a personal assurance from a small, weak state's President, Prime Minister and Minister of Justice being ignored by the Foreign Office or the Defence Ministry - and that matters if the Defence Ministry runs the 'civil' air traffic control system.
Snowden's best bet is to hitch a ride with an oligarch's tax advisers on a private jet to Zurich.
<
Only "higher state obligations" could overrule that position, the AG reportedly added.
>
Mr President, I have just heard we have had, or rather, are about to have, or rather, will get if certain events necessitate we get, a telephone call from the American Secretary of State. Apparently your forthcoming visit to the White House may not. Forth, I mean. Or possibly come. One of those. And in any case, even if it does, it won't be at the White House. They've picked out a rather quaint off-White House. In, I believe, Poughkeepsie. Yes, sir. I'm reliably informed that is, indeed, a place. And unfortunately the President won't be available. No, sir. Nor the Vice-President. They're sending the secretary to meet you. No, Mr President - not the Secretary. The secretary. Or someone's secretary, anyway. Probably. Possibly. No, Mr President. I have no idea what's happened. Oh - but purely by coincidence, and with absolutely no bearing on the matter, I see you haven't got round to signing Mr Snowdon's Extradition yet? Oh, you have? Telephone call, Mr President? I really don't know what you mean, sir....
I don't believe Snowden is permanently exiled to Russia. Safe passage to and from Switzerland is a "foot out the door", so to speak - and a sign of things to come. As more governments change around the world, the impact of the revelations will start to have a political effect. I would not be at all surprised to see many countries offering asylum in coming years. Perhaps even Canada, when the current pro-USA regime is ejected.
{a down-vote}... really????
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
A war with Canada? Over Snowden, a guy that a lot of people consider a hero for blowing the whistle? I think not, unless Obama's a hell of a lot stupider than I give him credit for.
Go ahead, give all the conspiracy theorists who've been cleaning guns, biding time, and gaining numbers for the last few years a reason to start shooting. They wouldn't win, of course, but the resulting domestic chaos would be an absolute nightmare. We've already had one way-too-close call with those guys at the Bundy ranch. I don't think anyone who understands what almost happens there wants a repeat. If the shooting had started, and they were one itchy trigger finger on either side of the line away from it, it wouldn't have stopped there.
Besides, it isn't actually necessary to be able to win a war in order to discourage invasion. It is only necessary to be able to make the war cost the potential invader more than the spoils are worth. That has worked well for the Swiss, and it would work well enough for Canada.
It is realistic to assume a risk of US interference (unlike Assange)
The question is: would any nation really want to interfere with a Swiss registered government plane? Neutrality has as advantage that it puts the country in a good position to mediate in all sorts of conflicts - I'm not sure the US could be convincing enough to get countries to mess with an official, lawful government flight so they'd have to get their own US operatives involved, and that risks massive problems of its own.
Given that the Swiss are seeking direct information at judicial level in what could become yet another rather massive political and criminal scandal for the US (because there isn't a single NSA activity I've seen so far that isn't flat out illegal in Switzerland), any US interference would indicate that they have, umm, something to hide.
Given the way the US has sought to treat Switzerland (the "people helping tax evaders" - to distract from the role Wall Street played in the creation of yet another economic crisis), I suspect there is no enthusiasm left to be of any assistance whatsoever other than when it really fits within Swiss law (and then it's still up to the judge). For the latter, the US would have to provide probably cause in a manner that is 100% compliant with Swiss law, and I suspect that would not really be possible without the sort of embarrassing disclosures they are ever so keen to avoid..
Ah, the irony. First they got served cold by Putin, and now the Swiss are about to return some of their favours. As the Swiss don't have anti-terror backdoors in their legislation there are no real loopholes to exploit either.
Payback is a b*tch :)
This post has been deleted by its author
The US is not anywhere near stupid enough as to launch fighter jets to try and hijack an unarmed civilian aircraft in European airspace. At best (if successful), it would cause the biggest international incident between Europe and America since the Trent affair with repercussions so extreme that it wouldn't be worth it.
And what are the chances of pulling it off? If the US did intercept the aircraft with fighters and forced it to change direction, what do you think going to happen then? The pilot flicks his transponder to "7500" (hijacked) and the heavily armed Quick Reaction Force fighters from the local airforce afterburn in with twitchy trigger fingers wanting to know WTF is going on in their airspace.
What's going to happen then? When the civilian aircraft decides it's no longer going to follow the directions given by the US fighters then what are they going to do? Open fire (even with warning shots) in another countries airspace with armed fighters belonging to that country sitting behind them?
Never going to happen.
This post has been deleted by its author
Of course you don't scramble interceptors to force Snowden's plane down. All you need is a special ops team and a SAM, and you blame it on convenient locals… "There was a previously-unidentified separatist Russian-speaking Pole terrorist group…". Don't forget to liquidate the special ops team when you're done.
I really hope I'm joking.
"Ah, the irony. First they got served cold by Putin, and now the Swiss are about to return some of their favours. As the Swiss don't have anti-terror backdoors in their legislation there are no real loopholes to exploit either."
The Swiss aren't exactly squeaky clean, but their crimes are of the abetting tax evasion kind. Would be a way to help reduce the US deficit: a few multi-billion dollar fines for Swiss banks for tax evasion would deal with a week or two's government overspend.
That's the payback's payback.
" a few multi-billion dollar fines for Swiss banks for tax evasion..."
The thing is, Switzerland and the rest of Europe are getting fed up with the US's extraterritoriality provisions. Nothing of what Swiss banks did was illegal under Swiss law so US is treading a very fine line with the concessions extracted from Swiss banks in the last few years, the mega-fines it has already inflicted on French banks etc. If they push the line too far, the rest of the world might decide that operating in the US is more trouble than it's worth and just say <Cartman> "screw you guys, I'm going home" </Cartman>
The Swiss fines were for abetting tax evasion by US citizens by the US branch of the bank. We all know that Swiss banks engage in tax evasion. If they want to do with without the dollar markets then that's nothing to do with the US. But if they allow and encourage US citizens to evade US taxes, then they are guilty. I think moaning about extraterritoriality in this particular case (fines for sanction busting by foreign banks to foreign countries are a different matter entirely) is a bit like trying to get off on a technicality. If Switzerland and Swiss banks want to be the world's money launderer and tax evader then it and they should have to deal with the consequences of that.
So are US Based companies sick of the EU's extraterritorial interference. But that never stopped them did it?
As far as BANKING laws are concerned, the Swiss KNEW they were/are breaking US laws by allowing and canvassing US clients. They took the risk and got their peepee slapped. And French Bankers get what they deserve.
"not exactly squeaky clean..". Kind of an understatement.
From selling weapons to the Nazi's and allowing rail shipments to concentration camps to favorite home of drug lords from around the world.
If they can make money it's OK.
Must be some way they can make a franc euro out of the deal.
Remember how among other countries France closed its airspace to the Bolivian President's plane on the SUSPICION that Snowden was onboard, which forced the Bolivian plane to land in Vienna? Then the Austrians wouldn't let it take off again until they had a chance to search the plane for Snowden? Do you really think that couldn't happen again with a civilian flight that doesn't have a head of state onboard? Mind you, the geopolitical downside of offending Bolivia is not exactly huge, but it's still a head of state on a diplomatic conveyance that was stopped merely because somebody powerful thought Snowden might be onboard.
Eh, what do I know. I'm probably being paranoid, and its not like anyone ever has to overfly Austria or France to get to Switzerland....wait...for some reason my geography alarm bells are ringing....Eh, I probably just need to calm down and trust the government!!
Do you really think that couldn't happen again with a civilian flight that doesn't have a head of state onboard?
I think it's reasonable to expect a charter paid for by the Swiss government, possibly with Swiss officials onboard - after all, he is asked to testify as a witness in a Swiss investigation so the expense is justified, and so is the political cover. Unlike Bolivia, Switzerland has serious EU leverage, so if the US is really so desperate that it will interfere with a proper judicial process there will be hell to pay.
If the US has not yet fully realised its precarious position in Europe it will discover it when they try to interfere with a judicial investigation by a neutral nation. I'm not sure the US can risk the opposition of the whole of Europe (which will include Russia).
I think you are dealing with wishful thinking here. Bolivian President Evo Morales is a well known "power to the people" socialist. So is Francois Hollande of France, and he didn't hesitate for a second to throw his internationalist comrade Morales under the bus. There wasn't even a complaint from the Elysees Palace when Morales was forced down. And France has, how should I say it, the reputation for not always being the most tractable U.S. ally. Rather likewise Spain, who still views itself a bit as a mother country to Bolivia and most of the South American republics. They didn't squawk about shutting Morales out either. And Austria--almost a poster child for non-aligned nations in Europe, but they didn't complain a bit about forcing a search of Morales' plane. I don't know what the NSA/U.S. intelligence community has on these nations, but lot of EU elites are on the side of the NSA on this one and it took a LOT of inter-governmental pull to get Morales' plane forced down and searched.
About the only thing that would work in Snowden's favor is that enough has been release that those in power might just shrug and say "the damage is done and let's not martyr him" and let him fly through to Switzerland.
I think you are dealing with wishful thinking here. Bolivian President Evo Morales is a well known "power to the people" socialist. So is Francois Hollande of France, and he didn't hesitate for a second to throw his internationalist comrade Morales under the bus. There wasn't even a complaint from the Elysees Palace when Morales was forced down. (etc)
Let's not forget that this all happened before it became abundantly clear that the secrets Snowden was carrying were not terrorist secrets, but hard evidence of just how massively the US was ignoring international agreements, laws and protocol. I bet those collaborating with the takedown of that decoy must be kicking themselves for both falling for the deception and now even accepting the original US story that prompted their collaboration..
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
