Ed Snowden Leaves Hong Kong, Seeks Asylum In Ecuador, As US Officials Flip Out

from the many-fists-were-shaken-impotently-that-day... dept

Edward Snowden had a few options available to him in Hong Kong despite facing extradition for espionage and theft charges. Beyond the appeals process that would have held off the inevitable for several years, there were certain built-in safety nets (the "political offense exception" built into the US-Hong Kong extradition treaty and protections against "inhumane treatment" via the UN) ihat could have seen him avoid extradition altogether.

Those no longer matter as Snowden is on his way to Ecuador, via Moscow and Cuba, accompanied by a member of Wikileaks' legal team. The US government was informed about Snowden's departure roughly five hours after he boarded an Aeroflot plane headed to Moscow. According to the statement released by Hong Kong officials, they had no choice but to let Snowden go.

Edward Snowden has left Hong Kong on his own accord for a third country through a lawful and normal channel, and Hong Kong has informed the US Government of his departure...

Since the documents provided by the US Government did not fully comply with legal requirements under Hong Kong law, the Hong Kong Government requested additional information so that the Department of Justice could consider whether the US Government's request met relevant legal conditions.

As the Hong Kong Government did not yet have sufficient information to process the request, there was no legal basis to restrict Mr Snowden from leaving Hong Kong.

It's a rarely seen event, but someone has just told the US government, "Your papers are not in order." That's a hell of a thing to wake up to, especially if you're one of the members of the "harmed" parties. (Supposedly Snowden's actions would harm all Americans from the way the anti-whistleblower contingent makes it sound, but really it's just the NSA and the FBI that have been caught with their particulars exposed.)

Hong Kong officials added one more paragraph to its statement, one which explains why Snowden was given a five-hour head start.

At the same time, it has formally written to the US Government requesting clarification on reports about the hacking of computer systems in Hong Kong by US government agencies. It will follow up on the matter, to protect the legal rights of people of Hong Kong.

In other words, Hong Kong finds the US government's actions more problematic than Snowden's actions, so have fun catching your boy!

Snowden's escape will be an embarrassment to those who publicly stated their confidence that Hong Kong would comply with the orders.

The White House appears to have been caught flat-footed by the latest manoeuvres. On Saturday, President Obama's national security adviser, Tom Donilon, told CBS news he expected Hong Kong to arrest Snowden because it "has been a historically good partner of the United States in law enforcement matters and we expect them to comply with the treaty in this case".

In fact, the US government is looking particularly hapless, what with its stern demands to Hong Kong before Snowden left, followed by similarly pathetic demands to Russia to not let Snowden hop a flight onto his next destination.

So, Snowden is on his way to Ecuador, seeking asylum in the same country that opened up its doors, heart and embassy Hide-a-bed to Julian Assange. His itinerary was hardly direct, but it made stops in nations unlikely to greet him at the airport with handcuffs and a seat on the next flight to the United States. Traveling to Russia and Cuba made it much less likely that someone would "officially" recognize the fact that the US government had revoked Snowden's passport prior to his boarding the flight to Russia. (Of all Snowden's worries, traveling with a revoked passport has to be so far down the list as to be imperceptible.)

He's left behind a wealth of information, all of which the US government would rather have kept secret. A trail of angry politicians and security officials also follow close behind, decrying his every move, including CISPA sponsor Mike Rogers.

"When you look at it, every one of these nations is hostile to the United States," Rogers said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"If he could go to North Korea and Iran, he could round out his 'government oppression tour.' So when you think about what he says he wants and what his actions are, it defies logic."

I doubt Snowden sympathizes with oppressive governments, but he does know who's more likely to ignore US pleas, threats or attempted intervention. Considering what's happened to other whistleblowers, the US government looks a bit oppressive itself, at least from Snowden's viewpoint. Still, Rogers thinks Snowden should just come home and get what's coming to him.

"If he really believed he did something good, he should get on a plane, come back, and face the consequences of his actions," Rogers said.

His statement makes no sense. Rogers has already declared Snowden guilty as charged and seems to think Snowden should martyr himself for his cause via the No Good Deed Goes Unpunished Whistleblower Retribution Plan that George Bush and (especially) Barack Obama are so fond of. Whistleblowers like Snowden should "face the consequences" while the government's excesses and overreach should be allowed to continue on unpunished in perpetuity.

There is a potential downside to Snowden's actions. By seeking asylum in a country with a somewhat antagonistic relationship with the US, there's always the possibility that he'll be used as a pawn when politically convenient. Ecuador has already proven it has a rather flexible definition of "asylum," one which allows it to suddenly revoke "refugee" status if certain governments ask nicely. Given the right circumstances, his hosts could decide to offer his freedom in exchange for something it really wants, or to avoid something it doesn't.

Filed Under: cuba, ecuador, ed snowden, edward snowden, extradition, hong kong, mike rogers, moscow, russia

Chevron Subpoenas Google, Yahoo & Microsoft To Get Info On Email Accounts Going Back Years

from the intimidation-or-legitimate-evidence-gathering? dept

Chevron is embroiled in a big lawsuit with some folks in Ecuador that has been going on for 19 years, and resulted in an $18.2 billion judgment against the company for environmental damage in the country. Chevron is accusing the lawyer for the Ecuadorians of racketeering. A New Yorker article from earlier this year goes into significant detail about the case, including Chevron arguing that the whole thing is "a shakedown," and questioning whether or not the lawyer went too far in the case.

We actually wrote about this case a few years ago, when Chevron sought footage that a documentary filmmaker had taken of people involved in the case, including the lawyer, Steven Donziger. While it seemed like the filmmaker should have the right to protect the work like journalists protect their sources, a court ordered it turned over to Chevron. That footage turned out to provide info that Chevron believes shows evidence of racketeering in trying to influence the court decision. Here's the New Yorker describing some of what was in the footage:

As Mastro played a series of outtakes for Judge Kaplan, Donziger’s outspokenness was on full display. He riffed, indignantly, about the inadequacies of the Ecuadoran legal system. “They’re all corrupt,” he says of Ecuadoran judges in one clip. “It’s their birthright to be corrupt.”

... In one scene, a scientific expert for the plaintiffs tells him that one measurement of groundwater contamination was not as strong as he had thought. “This is Ecuador, O.K.?” Donziger says. “At the end of the day, if there’s a thousand people around the courthouse you’re going to get what you want.” As for the scientific data, he adds, it’s “just a bunch of smoke and mirrors and bullshit.”

[...] In another scene that Mastro showed to the court, Donziger chats with associates over dinner at a restaurant. Someone at the table, referring to the popular antipathy toward Chevron in Ecuador, suggests that if the judge in Lago Agrio ruled against the plaintiffs he might be killed.

“He might not be,” Donziger replies, cradling a glass of red wine. “But he thinks he will. Which is just as good.”

All of this, plus some other evidence led Chevron to go after Donziger for racketeering. And, as part of that, it has sent a subpoena to Google, Microsoft and Yahoo seeking information on more than 70 email accounts, claiming that this info may help them show that Donziger was "falsifying evidence from the outset of the trial in Ecuador." CNET notes that Chevron believes that among other things, the lawyers for the Ecuadorians may have been involved in "blackmailing a judge, ghostwriting expert reports, and even helping to draft the court's final opinion."

It's important to note that Chevron is not (yet) seeking the contents of the email, but a variety of information about the accounts -- such as IP address info, physical address, phone numbers and billing info (if available). The idea seems to be that Chevron believes some of the addresses have been faked, and this will help to show that. However, some of the requests clearly seem to be overly broad -- including going after law professor and blogger Kevin Heller, who was not happy about this. Heller was able to have the ACLU call Chevron on his behalf about this -- getting them to drop the request for his info. Chevron claims that this helped them prove that Heller's account belonged to a real person, which is all they're seeking, but Heller is justifiably upset about all of this, sensing significant chilling effects and worrying about possible intimidation.

I will likely never know why Chevron subpoenaed me. But I do know that it is unacceptable for a party to litigation to try to obtain private information from a blogger-journalist who has criticized its tactics. This is not about my journalistic freedom; it is about the journalistic freedom of all bloggers. And it is not about Chevron; it is about any party that thinks it is acceptable to subpoena a blogger’s private information. I would be no less critical of an attempt by Greenpeace to subpoena Glenn Reynolds. Tactics like this need to be exposed and resisted, no matter who uses them or whom they target; passive acquiescence is simply an invitation to further abuses.

Heller also goes after Google, his email provider, for not more actively fighting back on his behalf:

I also think that Google needs to do far more to protect the privacy of its users.  Twitter has been very active in resisting attempts to obtain its users’ private information.  Google has also done so in the past, but it did nothing to help me, even after I informed it via email that I was a law professor and a blogger-journalist.  But again, this isn’t about me.  It’s about all the other bloggers who might find themselves facing a similar subpoena.  I’m lucky: I have friends like Glenn Greenwald to ask for help. I’m sure that the ACLU would assist anyone in my position — but not everyone knows that the ACLU is out there, much less that no case is seemingly too small or too unimportant for them to be concerned.  More importantly, the ACLU should not have to get involved in every case like this one (and again, I am but one of 44 people named in the subpoena); Google itself — and all other service providers in similar situations — need to be the first line of defense.

Google has asked the judge for more time to respond to the subpoenas, which Chevron has already agreed to. The magistrate judge is also going to hold a hearing in a few weeks to "evaluate" the subpoenas. Microsoft told Declan McCullagh at CNET that it had provided notice to the Microsoft accounts in question. Yahoo didn't respond to McCullagh's questions about the subpoenas, so it's unclear what they've done.

There may be legitimate reasons for Chevron's request, but given Heller's experience, it certainly appears that the fishing expedition is overly broad, and could have significant chilling effects in intimidating people who were legitimately helping out with the case. That should be a big concern, and the judge should be exceptionally careful in making the companies reveal info on these email accounts. We've talked in the past about things like the Dendrite rules for determining when possibly identifying info on anonymous people should be allowed, as it sets a high bar that protects a person's right to anonymity. Hopefully the court recognizes that Chevron's requests seem to go too far.

Filed Under: chilling effects, ecuador, email, privacy, steven donziger, subpoenas
Companies: chevron

Just As Ecuador Grants Asylum To Assange, It Prepares To Extradite Blogger For Exposing Corruption

from the epic-failures dept

We just wrote about hypocrisy from Russia, condemning the UK over the Julian Assange situation at the same time that it was putting Pussy Riot in jail for political speech. As someone pointed out in our comments, there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around, including with Ecuador, who, at the same time it's granting asylum to Assange, is likely preparing to extradite a blogger who was granted asylum after exposing corruption in Belarus.

The plight of Barankov poses a real test of Ecuador’s commitment to human rights. A former Belarusian army captain, Barankov arrived in Quito in 2008 thanks to the Ecuadorian government’s very liberal immigration laws. He then set up a blog denouncing corruption and other crimes allegedly committed under authoritarian ruler Alexander Lukashenko. Ecuador initially granted him refugee status, but after a state visit by Lukashenko to Quito on June 29, he was arrested and is being held in the capital’s infamous, 19th century prison while the top court hears the case on Belarus’ fresh extradition request. If sent there, according to his partner, Maribel Andrade, he will face charges of treason and could be put to death.

Furthermore, the report in Time notes that Ecuador has a history of not respecting the basic privacy and human rights of its citizens and journalists:

Indeed, the hospitality that Ecuador extends to Assange is withheld from Ecuadorians who may try to emulate his online whistle-blowing tactics. Since Assange entered the embassy, Ecuador’s government has scrapped the need for a warrant to investigate private Internet Protocol addresses. Additionally, for the second time in 18 months, on July 31 government officials and police seized the computers of the newsmagazine Vanguardia, which has been critical of the Correa Administration. The charge: that the publication had violated labor laws. As a result, Vanguardia only managed to go to print this week with the help of donated computers.

Kinda makes you wonder if there are any reasonable governments out there.

Filed Under: barankov, ecuador, extradition, hypocrsiy, julian assange

US, UK Betray Basic Values To Get Assange At Any Cost

from the sad-day dept

While I've covered numerous aspects of Wikileaks, I've shied almost entirely away from the arrest of Julian Assange and the extradition fight to have him sent to Sweden, as well as the questions involving asylum in Ecuador. For the most part, I considered those things to be outside the scope of what's normally interesting around here. Whether or not you think the claims of what he did in Sweden were legitimate or trumped up, it was wholly separate from what he did with Wikileaks. That said, with the news today that Ecuador has, in fact, granted asylum to Assange, there are a few tidbits that have made the story extra interesting.

First up, is the absolutely astounding and shocking news -- as released to the public by the Ecuadorian embassy -- that the UK literally threatened to enter the embassy in order to get Assange and ship him to Sweden:

"You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy. We sincerely hope that we do not reach that point, but if you are not capable of resolving this matter of Mr Assange's presence in your premises, this is an open option for us."

If you don't follow diplomatic and embassy issues, this might not seem like a big deal, but it's huge. While it's mostly a myth that embassies are considered the sovereign territory of the countries they represent, under the Vienna Convention, the UK has agreed that such premises "shall be inviolable" and that its agents "may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission." The UK's very direct threat here s that it would ignore that international agreement just to get Assange. That the UK would be willing to take such an incredibly drastic step to extradite Assange seems completely disconnected from the nature of the accusations against him. It would also put UK diplomats at risk around the globe, as other countries would note that it did not respect the Vienna Convention, so why should they?

Then there's a deeply disturbing, but quite compelling, argument by Mark Weisbrot at The Guardian, that even if these things seem disconnected, it's pretty clear that the driving force behind all of this is the plan for the US to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act for his role in Wikileaks -- and this moment is particularly stunning. Historically, those who were being persecuted on human rights issues fled to the United States for asylum. Not the other way around. But here's a case where the exact opposite is true. And while many people have gotten past the point of believing that the US is a beacon of light on human rights issues, the fact that Assange had to take this action, combined with the UK's response, really acts as a distinct (and tremendously embarrassing) marker for a clear point in time in which the US turned from being a protector of human rights, to a persecutor against human rights.

The points raised by Weisbrot include the fact that Assange still hasn't actually been charged in Sweden. He notes that Swedish officials have been offered, multiple times, the opportunity to come to the UK to question him, and they've refused each time, including a recent offer from the Ecuadorian embassy to question him there:

We can infer that the Swedes have no legitimate reason for the extradition, since they were repeatedly offered the opportunity to question him in the UK, but rejected it, and have also refused to even put forth a reason for this refusal. A few weeks ago the Ecuadorian government offered to allow Assange to be questioned in its London embassy, where Assange has been residing since 19 June, but the Swedish government refused – again without offering a reason. This was an act of bad faith in the negotiating process that has taken place between governments to resolve the situation.

Former Stockholm chief district prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem also made it clear that the Swedish government had no legitimate reason to seek Assange's extradition when he testified that the decision of the Swedish government to extradite Assange is "unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and disproportionate", because he could be easily questioned in the UK.

I'm not willing to go quite that far, in that I'll grant the possibility that there is a legitimate reason for Assange to be extradited -- but the failure of the Swedish government to take easy steps to prove those legitimate reasons or to obtain the necessary evidence is concerning.

And that's where Weisbrot connects the US to the whole thing. While we've talked about UK-US extradition in other contexts, apparently Assange could not be extradited to the US from the UK based on any of the possible charges against him. But that wouldn't be true in Sweden. Which gives rise to plenty of reasons why Sweden and the UK might be under heavy diplomatic pressure to get Assange to Sweden -- even to the point of threatening to enter the embassy to get him. Weisbrot points out that there's plenty of evidence that the US is sitting on an indictment for Assange:

But, most importantly, the government of Ecuador agreed with Assange that he had a reasonable fear of a second extradition to the United States, and persecution here for his activities as a journalist. The evidence for this was strong. Some examples: an ongoing investigation of Assange and WikiLeaks in the US; evidence that an indictment had already been prepared; statements by important public officials such as Democratic senator Diane Feinstein that he should be prosecuted for espionage, which carries a potential death penalty or life imprisonment.

This, by itself, is quite troubling, as we've discussed in the past. No matter what you think of Assange (and, personally, I don't think too highly of his methods or his grandstanding), it's a massive stretch to think that he should even be subject to an Espionage Act claim. However, as we've detailed multiple times, the Obama administration has turned the Espionage Act from a law against spying into a law against whistleblowers who embarrass them. The administration has used the Espionage Act twice as many times as all other Presidents combined to go after journalists and whistleblowers. Even if you disagree with Assange's methods, or the way that Wikileaks has operated, this should concern you. What Wikileaks did was not "espionage."

This will have massive ramifications for US foreign policy on human rights issues.

Why is this case so significant? It is probably the first time that a citizen fleeing political persecution by the US has been granted political asylum by a democratic government seeking to uphold international human rights conventions. This is a pretty big deal, because for more than 60 years the US has portrayed itself as a proponent of human rights internationally – especially during the cold war. And many people have sought and received asylum in the US.

[...] Today, the US claims the legal right to indefinitely detain its citizens; the president can order the assassination of a citizen without so much as even a hearing; the government can spy on its citizens without a court order; and its officials are immune from prosecution for war crimes. It doesn't help that the US has less than 5% of the world's population but almost a quarter of its prison inmates, many of them victims of a "war on drugs" that is rapidly losing legitimacy in the rest of the world. Assange's successful pursuit of asylum from the US is another blow to Washington's international reputation. At the same time, it shows how important it is to have democratic governments that are independent of the US and – unlike Sweden and the UK – will not collaborate in the persecution of a journalist for the sake of expediency. Hopefully other governments will let the UK know that threats to invade another country's embassy put them outside the bounds of law-abiding nations.

Yes, others will claim that the US was never the beacon of human rights it set itself out to be. There are numerous examples of where the US has failed to live up to its own stated standards. But this case and all of the details around it seem to take things to a new level, and the idea that someone needs to seek asylum in Ecuador out of fear of being put to death for trying to increase transparency by releasing government records? That's going to wake more people up to these questions.

And even if we believe that the US is actually mostly good on human rights issues, these moves all make it significantly harder to have any semblance of a moral high ground in dealing with other nations around the globe. We have failed, quite publicly, to live up to our own set of ideals, and that makes it nearly impossible for our own diplomats to carry out any sort of human rights mission around the globe. It's one thing to be ashamed of specific actions by my own government. That happens. But, what horrifies me about this situation is that we've now built up this perfectly handy tool to make the job of US diplomats focused on human rights issues almost impossible. Any effort to seek better human rights elsewhere will be met with pushback as foreign governments point to the US's own awful track record on these particular items. It's really quite a shame.

Filed Under: ecuador, embassy, espionage act, julian assange, uk