Wasn’t he departing from Hong Kong to Ecuador and was stuck in Russia because his passport was revoked in transit?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

Yes so his default option was to return to the US and face arrest so he applied for asylum (as a US citizen still)

Her default option was to return to her abuser and face more abuse so she went to the only shelter she could access, having no means to access any other shelter.

"Her" is Snowden.

Let's not be so sneaky in how we word things ;)

He wasn’t being abused.

I'm pretty sure one or more members of congress called for his execution.

One did. But he was declared a traitor and treasonous. I agree with them.

Cool, I'll declare you a traitor and treasonous, all the people who agree with me can call for you to die, and we'll see how the world works out like that.

I think his argument was that those politicians were abusing the constitution, and that in and of itself was treasonous.

> I am still a citizen and so was he.

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

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

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> He just faced arrest if he returned

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

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

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.

He didn’t have to flee at all

What a weird argument. Sure, he didn't "have" to, but I don't blame him for not wanting to spend years (decades? life?) in prison for doing something he believed was morally right.

What about leaking secrets of the United States has anything to do with morals? He might as well been a foreign adversary

when the secret being leaked is that the united states is spying on its own citizens and violating the 4th amendment.

i find it weird how many Russians, Chinese and Americans are weirdly protective of their own government's oppressive behaviours in the name of patriotism.

Again you are missing the point. Nothing was proven in violation of the 4th amendment. Ninth Circuit didn’t even latch on that argument nor express it. Courts agreed that the metadata collection program went beyond what was approved by the FISA courts. But he leaked a whole host of foreign spying programs that had nothing to do with Americans.

Just as some Chinese people want Ai Weiwei to rot in prison, some Russians wanted Navalny to rot in prison and some Americans wanted or still want Snowden and Assange to rot in prison.

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.

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.)

Words mean things.

If you decide your words mean something else to the common usage, people will react to that.

> 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! ^