printYou should have long since said adieu to the quaint idea of absolute freedom. With the triumph of the suprastate over the individual, achieved by rigid central planning and the harmonization of laws across the globe—only pockets of freedom remain. Robert Wenzel of Economic Policy Journal counters mainstream media’s backward reasoning, according to which Edward Snowden is no freedom fighter because he has been protected by two other unfree powers (one spent; the other nascent).
That ridiculous notion has found expression in Henry Blodget’s smarmy tweet:
Snowden flees one paragon of freedom and privacy, China, for another–Russia
The Blodget conceit amounts to thinking in aggregates, reasons Robert Wenzel:
[Blodget] writes as though the circumstances for freedom are the same for everyone in a given country. This is far from the truth. I have written many times that even in a heavily totalitarian state some may be able to live just fine, a surfer dude for example. For others, in the US, time may be already up for some in the financial sector. Anyone putting deals together for very small companies, say, may find it much more attractive to work outside the constraints of US securities laws, which benefit no one other than major established players.
Pax Dickinson, contends Wenzel, is closer to the mark, tweeting sarcastically that, “Snowden should have fled to a noble & free country like the USA where we hold whistleblowers naked in solitary confinement without trial.”
Read Robert’s EPJ post (where you can also catch up on my latest weekly column, “Trying to be neighborly in the Evergreen State”).
Yesterday I heard a legal expert based in Hong Kong venturing that the imperative to hand Snowden over to US authorities was “not within the ambit of the American-Chinese extradition treaty.”
Yippee.
Today came the news, via the intrepid Guardian, that “Edward Snowden heads for Ecuador after flight to Russia leaves authorities in various countries amazed and infuriated”:
Snowden was five hours into his flight from Hong Kong, having already been served one of two hot meals, when news of his departure to Moscow began to electrify media organisations all over the world.
The Hong Kong authorities waited until Snowden was safely out of Chinese airspace before sending out a short press release that confirmed the intelligence whistle-blower had been allowed to leave on Aeroflot flight SU213, bound for Russia.
The 30-year-old had not been stopped on his way to Chek Lap Kok airport, and was allowed to slip away on a hot and humid morning, despite American demands that he be arrested and extradited to face trial for espionage offences.
The reason?
The Americans had mucked up the legal paperwork, the authorities claimed in a statement released at 4.05pm local time.
Hong Kong had no choice but to let the 30-year-old leave for “a third country through a lawful and normal channel”.
If the sudden “discovery” of a flaw in legal proceedings prompted sighs of relief around the island and across the rest of China, there would have been sharp intakes of breath in Washington and London, where diplomats and intelligence officials had been hoping the net around Snowden was finally tightening.
UPDATE: Via The New York Times:
…Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, said in an interview from his own refuge in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London that he had raised Mr. Snowden’s case with Ecuador’s government and that his group had helped arrange the travel documents. Baltasar Garzón, the renowned Spanish jurist who advises WikiLeaks, said in a statement that “what is being done to Mr. Snowden and to Mr. Julian Assange — for making or facilitating disclosures in the public interest — is an assault against the people.”
Obama administration officials privately expressed frustration that Hong Kong allowed Mr. Snowden to board an Aeroflot plane bound for Moscow on Sunday despite the American request for his detention. But they did not revoke Mr. Snowden’s passport until Saturday and did not ask Interpol to issue a “red notice” seeking his arrest.
Legal experts said the administration appeared to have flubbed Mr. Snowden’s case. “What mystifies me is that the State Department didn’t revoke his passport after the charges were filed” on June 14, said David H. Laufman, a former federal prosecutor. “They missed an opportunity to freeze him in place.” He said he was also puzzled by the decision to unseal the charges on Friday rather than waiting until the defendant was in custody. …
…While officials said Mr. Snowden’s passport was revoked on Saturday, it was not clear whether the Hong Kong authorities knew that by the time he boarded the plane, nor was it clear whether revoking it earlier would have made a difference, given the Ecuadorean travel document that Mr. Assange said he helped arrange. When Mr. Snowden landed in Moscow, he was informed of his passport revocation.
Mr. Assange said he did not know whether Mr. Snowden might be able to travel beyond Moscow using the Ecuadorean document. “Different airlines have different rules, so it’s a technical matter whether they will accept the document,” he said.
MORE.