Snowden was right. Now Trump should pardon him.
Saturday, August 9, 2025
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Snowden's Asylum: 'It's the law, stupid'
By Richard Falk, Al Jazeera, 5 August 2013
The most influential media in the United States has lived up to its pro-government bias in the Snowden Affair in three major ways: firstly, by consistently referring to Snowden by the demeaning designation of ‘leaker’ rather than as ‘whistleblower’ or ‘surveillance dissident,’ both more respectful and accurate.
Secondly, they are completely ignoring the degree to which Russia’s grant of temporary refugee status to Snowden for one year was in full accord with the normal level of protection to be given to anyone accused of nonviolent political crimes in a foreign country, and pursued diplomatically and legally by the government that is seeking to indict and prosecute. In effect, for Russia to have turned Snowden over to the United States under these conditions would have been morally and politically scandalous considering the nature of his alleged crimes.
Thirdly, the media’s refusal to point out that espionage, the main accusation against Snowden, is the quintessential ‘political offense’ in international law, and as such is routinely excluded from any list of extraditable offenses. That is, even if there had been an extradition treaty between the United States and Russia, it should have been made clear that there was no legal duty on Russia’s part to turn Snowden over to American authorities for criminal prosecution, and a moral and political duty not to do so, especially in the circumstances surrounding the controversy over Snowden.
If the world were composed of equal sovereign states and a global rule of law existed, the United States would have meekly apologised and, at the very least, promised to refrain from such behaviour in the future.
If these elements had been clearly articulated, the United States government would have seemed ridiculous if it complained about the willingness of some foreign governments to give Snowden asylum. The Obama administration, and senate hot heads could bemoan Snowden’s unavailability for prosecution to their heart’s content, but it would be then seen for what it is: a petulant empire exhibiting its rage and anger because it’s hard power global presence is of no use, and its policy options are constrained by the rule of law.
Under these conditions to be threatening foreign countries with adverse diplomatic consequences if they refuse to play ball is not only exhibiting a child’s frustration, but it is self-defeating. If properly presented, those countries that offered asylum or refused Washington’s demand for the transfer of Snowden to American custody did the only decent thing.
What should be surprising is that more governments were not forthcoming, leaving it to such small countries as Bolivia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua to withstand the strong arm tactics of the United States, perhaps signaling a welcome new resolve throughout Latin America to no longer accept a regional identity of being the backyard of the colossus of the North.
If anything, President Vladimir Putin, considering the nature of the Snowden disclosures about the global reach of American surveillance systems, acted with exceptional deference to the sensitivities of the United States. Instead of merely pointing out that Snowden could not be transferred to the United States against his will, Putin went out of his way to say that he did not want the incident to harm relations with the United States, and even went so far as to condition Snowden’s asylum on an unusual pledge that he refrain from any further release of documents damaging to American interests.
Such a constructive approach to a delicate situation hardly merits the hyperbolic aggressive words of the supposedly liberal Democratic senator from New York, Charles Schumer: “Russia has stabbed us in the back…Each day that Mr. Snowden is allowed to roam free is another turn of the knife”.
We should ask these deeply aggrieved senators for honest answers, including John McCain and Lindsey Graham, never ones to shy away from a good fight, what they would have done had a comparable Russian whistleblower revealed a Russian surveillance system that was listening in on secret government deliberations in Washington as well as invading the privacy of ordinary Americans. The righteous indignation surrounding such revelations and the gratitude that would be bestowed on a Russian Snowden would know no bounds.
It would seem that a genuinely democratic government would not wish that the commission of war crimes and invasions of the privacy of citizens were kept secret, and beyond procedures of accountability.
Washington seems to be casting around for tangible ways to express its displeasure with Russia. The American presidential press secretary, Jay Carney, talks of ‘extreme disappointment’ leading to the possible cancellation of the Obama/Putin summit scheduled for September where such issues as Syria, reduction of nuclear arsenals, and Iran would be on the agenda.
Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, reminiscent of Cold War days, issued an inflammatory joint statement urging the United States to view Russia through an optic of conflict. It impetuously proposed reacting to Snowden’s asylum by beefing up the commitment to deploy missile defense systems in Europe and expanding NATO in ways that the Kremlin would find antagonistic.
Of course, Putin’s new identity as ‘human rights defender’ lacks any principled credibility given his approach to political dissent in Russia, but that does not diminish the basic correctness of his response to Snowden. There is a certain obtuseness in the American diplomatic shrillness in this instance. Snowden’s acts of espionage are pure political offense. Beyond this, the nature of what was disclosed revealed sustained threats to the confidentiality of government communications throughout the world.
If anything, rather than being intimidated by American inappropriate demands, the more natural and healthier international response would have been to cry ‘foul play!’ If the world were composed of equal sovereign states and a global rule of law existed, the United States would have meekly apologised and, at the very least, promised to refrain from such behaviour in the future. Snowden would have been chastised for breaking American law, but commended for bringing to the surface some ugly encroachments on freedom and constitutional order, including within America, that shows how dangerous it is to leave the balancing of security and civil liberties to the good faith and judgment of bureaucrats and politicians.
It would seem that a genuinely democratic government would not wish that the commission of war crimes and invasions of the privacy of citizens were kept secret, and beyond procedures of accountability.
In the age of digital wonders, more than ever we are dependent upon the vigilance of citizens of conscience to protect us against Orwellian scenarios of those many wannabe Darth Vaders lurking in the murky depths of the governmental bureaucracy in Washington. It is such individuals that have repeatedly taken the United States to the dark side in places like Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram Air Force Base, as well as arranging those infamous ‘black sites’ and devising depraved procedures such as ‘extreme rendition’ to ensure that a suspect will be duly tortured with no consequences if it turns out that he is innocent.
We, as citizens of the world, should be thankful for the sacrifices made individuals such as Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, and Edward Snowden, surely deserving heroes of our time! And if we are ever to achieve legitimate government, then even our elected leaders and representatives would be grateful for such a check on the abuses of government.
Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is also the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights.
The most influential media in the United States has lived up to its pro-government bias in the Snowden Affair in three major ways: firstly, by consistently referring to Snowden by the demeaning designation of ‘leaker’ rather than as ‘whistleblower’ or ‘surveillance dissident,’ both more respectful and accurate.
Secondly, they are completely ignoring the degree to which Russia’s grant of temporary refugee status to Snowden for one year was in full accord with the normal level of protection to be given to anyone accused of nonviolent political crimes in a foreign country, and pursued diplomatically and legally by the government that is seeking to indict and prosecute. In effect, for Russia to have turned Snowden over to the United States under these conditions would have been morally and politically scandalous considering the nature of his alleged crimes.
Thirdly, the media’s refusal to point out that espionage, the main accusation against Snowden, is the quintessential ‘political offense’ in international law, and as such is routinely excluded from any list of extraditable offenses. That is, even if there had been an extradition treaty between the United States and Russia, it should have been made clear that there was no legal duty on Russia’s part to turn Snowden over to American authorities for criminal prosecution, and a moral and political duty not to do so, especially in the circumstances surrounding the controversy over Snowden.
If the world were composed of equal sovereign states and a global rule of law existed, the United States would have meekly apologised and, at the very least, promised to refrain from such behaviour in the future.
If these elements had been clearly articulated, the United States government would have seemed ridiculous if it complained about the willingness of some foreign governments to give Snowden asylum. The Obama administration, and senate hot heads could bemoan Snowden’s unavailability for prosecution to their heart’s content, but it would be then seen for what it is: a petulant empire exhibiting its rage and anger because it’s hard power global presence is of no use, and its policy options are constrained by the rule of law.
Under these conditions to be threatening foreign countries with adverse diplomatic consequences if they refuse to play ball is not only exhibiting a child’s frustration, but it is self-defeating. If properly presented, those countries that offered asylum or refused Washington’s demand for the transfer of Snowden to American custody did the only decent thing.
What should be surprising is that more governments were not forthcoming, leaving it to such small countries as Bolivia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua to withstand the strong arm tactics of the United States, perhaps signaling a welcome new resolve throughout Latin America to no longer accept a regional identity of being the backyard of the colossus of the North.
If anything, President Vladimir Putin, considering the nature of the Snowden disclosures about the global reach of American surveillance systems, acted with exceptional deference to the sensitivities of the United States. Instead of merely pointing out that Snowden could not be transferred to the United States against his will, Putin went out of his way to say that he did not want the incident to harm relations with the United States, and even went so far as to condition Snowden’s asylum on an unusual pledge that he refrain from any further release of documents damaging to American interests.
Such a constructive approach to a delicate situation hardly merits the hyperbolic aggressive words of the supposedly liberal Democratic senator from New York, Charles Schumer: “Russia has stabbed us in the back…Each day that Mr. Snowden is allowed to roam free is another turn of the knife”.
We should ask these deeply aggrieved senators for honest answers, including John McCain and Lindsey Graham, never ones to shy away from a good fight, what they would have done had a comparable Russian whistleblower revealed a Russian surveillance system that was listening in on secret government deliberations in Washington as well as invading the privacy of ordinary Americans. The righteous indignation surrounding such revelations and the gratitude that would be bestowed on a Russian Snowden would know no bounds.
It would seem that a genuinely democratic government would not wish that the commission of war crimes and invasions of the privacy of citizens were kept secret, and beyond procedures of accountability.
Washington seems to be casting around for tangible ways to express its displeasure with Russia. The American presidential press secretary, Jay Carney, talks of ‘extreme disappointment’ leading to the possible cancellation of the Obama/Putin summit scheduled for September where such issues as Syria, reduction of nuclear arsenals, and Iran would be on the agenda.
Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, reminiscent of Cold War days, issued an inflammatory joint statement urging the United States to view Russia through an optic of conflict. It impetuously proposed reacting to Snowden’s asylum by beefing up the commitment to deploy missile defense systems in Europe and expanding NATO in ways that the Kremlin would find antagonistic.
Of course, Putin’s new identity as ‘human rights defender’ lacks any principled credibility given his approach to political dissent in Russia, but that does not diminish the basic correctness of his response to Snowden. There is a certain obtuseness in the American diplomatic shrillness in this instance. Snowden’s acts of espionage are pure political offense. Beyond this, the nature of what was disclosed revealed sustained threats to the confidentiality of government communications throughout the world.
If anything, rather than being intimidated by American inappropriate demands, the more natural and healthier international response would have been to cry ‘foul play!’ If the world were composed of equal sovereign states and a global rule of law existed, the United States would have meekly apologised and, at the very least, promised to refrain from such behaviour in the future. Snowden would have been chastised for breaking American law, but commended for bringing to the surface some ugly encroachments on freedom and constitutional order, including within America, that shows how dangerous it is to leave the balancing of security and civil liberties to the good faith and judgment of bureaucrats and politicians.
It would seem that a genuinely democratic government would not wish that the commission of war crimes and invasions of the privacy of citizens were kept secret, and beyond procedures of accountability.
In the age of digital wonders, more than ever we are dependent upon the vigilance of citizens of conscience to protect us against Orwellian scenarios of those many wannabe Darth Vaders lurking in the murky depths of the governmental bureaucracy in Washington. It is such individuals that have repeatedly taken the United States to the dark side in places like Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram Air Force Base, as well as arranging those infamous ‘black sites’ and devising depraved procedures such as ‘extreme rendition’ to ensure that a suspect will be duly tortured with no consequences if it turns out that he is innocent.
We, as citizens of the world, should be thankful for the sacrifices made individuals such as Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, and Edward Snowden, surely deserving heroes of our time! And if we are ever to achieve legitimate government, then even our elected leaders and representatives would be grateful for such a check on the abuses of government.
Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is also the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights.
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
While N.S.A. Leaker Stays in Hiding, Russian TV Builds a Pedestal for Him
By Ellen Barry, NY Times, June 28, 2013
MOSCOW—While Edward J. Snowden has remained mysteriously hidden from sight during his visit to Russia this week, Russian television has been making him a hero.
On programs that were hastily arranged and broadcast on the two largest federal channels, he was compared to the dissident Andrei Sakharov, to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and to Max Otto von Stirlitz, a dashing fictional double agent from Soviet television. He was described as “the man who declared war on Big Brother and got stuck in the transit zone," and as “a soldier in the information war, who fights, of course, on the side of Russia, or maybe the side of China."
For as long as he remains here, one program’s host said, “the pulse of world history is beating here in Moscow."
Since Mr. Snowden landed in Moscow on Sunday, the likelihood that he will remain in Russia has steadily crept up.
Though President Vladimir V. Putin said this week that “the sooner he chooses his final destination, the better for us and for him," Mr. Snowden shows no sign of leaving.
The chance that Russia will turn him in has all but vanished, as evidenced by Thursday’s television programs, which were almost certainly produced under Kremlin orders and have a powerful effect on public opinion. Officials here have signaled an openness to granting him political asylum, and each passing day would seem to narrow Mr. Snowden’s options, giving the United States time to negotiate with Ecuador and Venezuela, other countries that may grant him asylum.
"I think the main thing for him right now is to guarantee his security," said Igor Korotchenko, a former specialist in Russia’s top military command who now edits the magazine National Defense. “Already he cannot live his former life. The United States of America will look for him all over the world in order to punish him as an example to potential traitors and so that the political elite in Washington will be satisfied. They want his blood."
"Whose protection does he want: Ecuador, Venezuela or Russia? It is hard to judge right now," Mr. Korotchenko said. He added, “In Russia, he will find a country capable of guaranteeing his security because I think in Latin America the United States would find much opportunity to solve the problem, so to say."
So far, there is no consensus among Russian elites on whether Russia should grant Mr. Snowden asylum, a step that would advertise the country, cold-war-style, as a haven for Western dissidents. Russia’s upper house of Parliament has invited him to testify about the impact of spying by the National Security Agency on Russian citizens, and about the activities of giant Internet companies that may have shared information with the agency.
Though Mr. Putin has made it a central goal to challenge American dominance in world affairs, the potential cost of granting Mr. Snowden asylum has come into sharper focus over the past few days. Russia will host President Obama in September, and would be stung if the visit were called off. Powerful figures like Igor I. Sechin, who as chairman of Rosneft has struck a series of bold deals with Western oil companies, may also be worried about the potential repercussions. Mr. Putin and many of those around him are former intelligence officers, and they may see Mr. Snowden as a traitor, and an unpredictable player.
Igor M. Bunin, the director of the Center for Political Technologies in Moscow, said that by far the best solution for Moscow would be to send Mr. Snowden to another country, “to Ecuador, Venezuela, to Cuba, wherever."
"Snowden is like a hot meat pie in your hands: even if you want to eat it very much, it’s very hot and maybe it’s better to throw it on the floor," Mr. Bunin said. “To make a deal with America to turn Snowden over would be a slap in the face of public opinion because he is already a hero in Russia and part of the West. On the other hand, not turning him over destroys your relationship with America."
Unlike Ecuador and Venezuela, Russia has avoided staking out a position on political asylum for Mr. Snowden, and in his remarks at a news conference on Tuesday, Mr. Putin said he hoped not to become personally involved.
Aleksandr Prokhanov, a nationalist ideologue who has emerged as a leader in conservative thought, called Mr. Snowden “a soldier of the information war," stripping the United States of its right to criticize other countries.
"For Americans, human rights is a powerful tool for influencing other countries," Mr. Prokhanov said. “A country ‘violates human rights,’ and its president becomes a devil incarnate, the society destabilizes, the human rights issue is followed by attack planes, and the country is wiped out from the face of the earth."
Other speakers, like Veronika Krasheninnikova, urged Russians to rally around Mr. Snowden, noting the 60th anniversary this month of the execution of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, who were convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage.
Nikolai V. Zlobin, a political analyst and writer who often appears on Russian television to articulate an American perspective and was invited to appear on both shows, said he believed Russian leaders were weighing the cost and benefit of different outcomes to Mr. Snowden’s case. In the end, he said, they can secure a propaganda coup without the participation of Mr. Snowden himself, and without granting him political amnesty.
"What happens now doesn’t matter because public opinion in Russia has already been shaped. America is lying, dishonest, and has double standards," Mr. Zlobin said. “It’s a Christmas gift. They are trying to find the most deft way to use it, but it is unexpected, and they don’t know how to handle it."
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Ecuador unilaterally scraps U.S. trade deal
| By Juan Forero, Washington Post, June 27, 2013 BOGOTA, Colombia—The leftist government of Ecuador, under pressure from the Obama administration for considering a request for sanctuary from the American intelligence leaker Edward Snowden, announced Thursday that it will back out of a preferential trade pact with the United States that top Ecuadoran officials say is being used to blackmail their country. The move, which President Rafael Correa’s government described as unilateral, came a day after the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee pledged to do all he could to block trade benefits for Ecuador should it grant Snowden political asylum. "Our government will not reward countries for bad behavior," Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said in a statement Wednesday. “Trade preferences are a privilege granted to nations, not a right." Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who is presumed to be in Moscow, has asked for asylum in Ecuador. While the government has made no decision in response to the request, Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño voiced sympathy for the 30-year-old fugitive in lengthy comments Monday. At a news conference Thursday, Minister of Communications Fernando Alvarado pushed back at perceived efforts to influence Ecuador’s decision. It “doesn’t accept pressure or threats from anybody, and it doesn’t trade its principles or give them up for commercial interests, no matter how important," the Quito-based newspaper El Comercio quoted him as saying. Alvarado said his country “unilaterally and irrevocably renounces those trade preferences" and defiantly quipped that Ecuador would provide $23 million to the Obama administration for human rights training. |
The No-Show
By Anna Nemtsova, Foreign Policy, June 26, 2013
HAVANA—We’re waiting for you in Havana, Snowden. Are you on your way?
It’s still unclear what happened on Monday, June 24, the day after leaker Edward Snowden arrived in Moscow from Hong Kong. That day, Snowden was supposed to board a plane to Havana to then transfer to Ecuador, one of the very few places willing to shield him from the American officials who regard him as a traitor. He even had a boarding pass for the window seat in row F, in economy class. But he never showed up, and his seat stayed empty.
Was Snowden trapped in the transit zone of Moscow’s Sheremetyevo International Airport against his will by the Russian security service, curious to see the data he had in his computers? Or was he afraid of flying in a plane that could be grounded while passing over the United States, where American courts were waiting to lock him up in jail for over 30 years? Until the very moment the Aeroflot crew closed the plane’s door, it looked like he was coming: Russian police surrounded Gate 28, patrolling outside and inside the airplane. The crew members on the plane looked tense and upset, as if they were facing a horrible trial. We still don’t know what happened at the last moment, but in the end Snowden stayed in Moscow.
I was on that plane, waiting for him along with several dozen other journalists from international news agencies and TV channels, all of us eager to quiz him about his claims. I wanted to ask Snowden about the evidence he had to prove his claims that the U.S. and British intelligence agencies, despite their governments’ public advocacy for freedom of the Internet, had been spying and stealing tons of personal data from people in their home countries.
For a long time, after we took off, we still could not believe that Snowden was not among us: After all, who knew what disguise he might be using? (This might seem a bit less crazy when you consider that we just saw an American spy wearing a wig last month.) Trapped on the flight for 12 hours, journalists walked around the plane looking into every passenger’s face. Other reporters were already waiting to greet Snowden in Cuba. They looked for him inside and outside Havana’s airport, asking every young blond male if he was Snowden. I’m still hoping to meet up with Snowden here in Havana, though Ecuadorean diplomats now say it may take months to issue him political asylum.
There’s one very specific reason Snowden may be having trouble finding a way out of the Moscow airport’s transit lounge, where he apparently is right now: his papers. Right now the only travel document he has is one of dubious status issued by the Ecuadoreans. After the American authorities canceled his U.S. passport on Monday, no airline wants to sell him another plane ticket. (He apparently managed to buy his ticket for Havana while his passport was still valid.)
There are other theories. “He got frightened that Americans would bring him down on that plane," says Igor Bunin, a Moscow political analyst. “He’s a huge pain for the Kremlin, a Catch-22. Now that he’s turned into an anti-American government star, Russia can’t kick him out, but keeping him means even a bigger international scandal." I’d love to ask Snowden about his days and nights in Russia if I ever get the chance to meet him.
My friend Olga Bychkova, a host from radio Echo of Moscow, described a scene she witnessed in the airport’s transit zone on the day of Snowden’s arrival on Sunday. “I saw about 20 Russian officials, supposedly FSB [security service] agents in suits, crowding around somebody in a restricted area of the airport," Bychkova told me. “The Kremlin pretends they have nothing to do with him being stuck in Moscow, but in reality they’re all over him."
What’s up Mr. Snowden? Do you really hate reporters? If you’re “a free man," as President Vladimir Putin says, why hide from crowds of journalists waiting to talk to you in Sheremetyevo airport for three days? WikiLeaks claims that you—the biggest leaker in the history of the National Security Agency—are “in a safe place." If you’re safe and free, why didn’t you use your ticket last Monday? You would have had a great chance to explain the reasons for renouncing your wealthy life with a beautiful girlfriend. Just imagine: 12 hours in front of the world’s major networks on the flight to Cuba! Russian commentators think that you’re not as free as the Russian leader claims, that somebody did not allow you to fly Monday. “Snowden will fly out of Russia when the Kremlin decides he can go," says Moscow political analyst Dmitry Oreshkin. “He might not even be in the airport. The safest place would be a GRU [Russian military intelligence] apartment." That would also explain why no one has seen your face in Moscow yet.
HAVANA—We’re waiting for you in Havana, Snowden. Are you on your way?
It’s still unclear what happened on Monday, June 24, the day after leaker Edward Snowden arrived in Moscow from Hong Kong. That day, Snowden was supposed to board a plane to Havana to then transfer to Ecuador, one of the very few places willing to shield him from the American officials who regard him as a traitor. He even had a boarding pass for the window seat in row F, in economy class. But he never showed up, and his seat stayed empty.
Was Snowden trapped in the transit zone of Moscow’s Sheremetyevo International Airport against his will by the Russian security service, curious to see the data he had in his computers? Or was he afraid of flying in a plane that could be grounded while passing over the United States, where American courts were waiting to lock him up in jail for over 30 years? Until the very moment the Aeroflot crew closed the plane’s door, it looked like he was coming: Russian police surrounded Gate 28, patrolling outside and inside the airplane. The crew members on the plane looked tense and upset, as if they were facing a horrible trial. We still don’t know what happened at the last moment, but in the end Snowden stayed in Moscow.
I was on that plane, waiting for him along with several dozen other journalists from international news agencies and TV channels, all of us eager to quiz him about his claims. I wanted to ask Snowden about the evidence he had to prove his claims that the U.S. and British intelligence agencies, despite their governments’ public advocacy for freedom of the Internet, had been spying and stealing tons of personal data from people in their home countries.
For a long time, after we took off, we still could not believe that Snowden was not among us: After all, who knew what disguise he might be using? (This might seem a bit less crazy when you consider that we just saw an American spy wearing a wig last month.) Trapped on the flight for 12 hours, journalists walked around the plane looking into every passenger’s face. Other reporters were already waiting to greet Snowden in Cuba. They looked for him inside and outside Havana’s airport, asking every young blond male if he was Snowden. I’m still hoping to meet up with Snowden here in Havana, though Ecuadorean diplomats now say it may take months to issue him political asylum.
There’s one very specific reason Snowden may be having trouble finding a way out of the Moscow airport’s transit lounge, where he apparently is right now: his papers. Right now the only travel document he has is one of dubious status issued by the Ecuadoreans. After the American authorities canceled his U.S. passport on Monday, no airline wants to sell him another plane ticket. (He apparently managed to buy his ticket for Havana while his passport was still valid.)
There are other theories. “He got frightened that Americans would bring him down on that plane," says Igor Bunin, a Moscow political analyst. “He’s a huge pain for the Kremlin, a Catch-22. Now that he’s turned into an anti-American government star, Russia can’t kick him out, but keeping him means even a bigger international scandal." I’d love to ask Snowden about his days and nights in Russia if I ever get the chance to meet him.
My friend Olga Bychkova, a host from radio Echo of Moscow, described a scene she witnessed in the airport’s transit zone on the day of Snowden’s arrival on Sunday. “I saw about 20 Russian officials, supposedly FSB [security service] agents in suits, crowding around somebody in a restricted area of the airport," Bychkova told me. “The Kremlin pretends they have nothing to do with him being stuck in Moscow, but in reality they’re all over him."
What’s up Mr. Snowden? Do you really hate reporters? If you’re “a free man," as President Vladimir Putin says, why hide from crowds of journalists waiting to talk to you in Sheremetyevo airport for three days? WikiLeaks claims that you—the biggest leaker in the history of the National Security Agency—are “in a safe place." If you’re safe and free, why didn’t you use your ticket last Monday? You would have had a great chance to explain the reasons for renouncing your wealthy life with a beautiful girlfriend. Just imagine: 12 hours in front of the world’s major networks on the flight to Cuba! Russian commentators think that you’re not as free as the Russian leader claims, that somebody did not allow you to fly Monday. “Snowden will fly out of Russia when the Kremlin decides he can go," says Moscow political analyst Dmitry Oreshkin. “He might not even be in the airport. The safest place would be a GRU [Russian military intelligence] apartment." That would also explain why no one has seen your face in Moscow yet.
