Says the Guardian[0]: "Tany Lokshina has confirmed that the US embassy called her before the meeting to ask her to pass on to Snowden the message that he was not a whistleblower."

So forget about Wikileaks. It's either Human Rights Watch's Tany Lokshina lying, or the US Ambassador.

[0]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/12/edward-snowden-t...

It is really quite hard to think of a reason why the US Ambassador to Russia would "[ask] her to relay to Mr Snowden that the US Government does not categorise Mr Snowden as a whistleblower and that he has broken United States law".

The fact that he has been charged with a crime is a pretty good indication that the USG thinks he has broken the law.

If you carry out Wikileak's line of thinking here, then anyone in any country who has been charged with a crime, no matter how severe or small, brutal or kind, should have the right to seek asylum from another country and that no state should interfere with that right.

Also, they continue to make the false claim that he has been made "stateless", which shows a purposeful ignorance of how laws actually work.

He has been made de facto stateless. At this point actual legality is irrelevant. His right to asylum is real as well as his status as whistleblower; that the US recognizes neither is not grounds for rejecting either statement.

Anyone who has their passport revoked is de facto stateless? That's nonsensical. Your passport is not your citizenship, and the U.S. would be happy to have Snowden back within its borders.

Or did you have something more specific in mind?

Suppose North Korea charged and revoked the passport of one of its upper-level citizens for the same crime as Snowden. Would you not call that person de facto stateless, since their only option is to stay in the international terminal of the airport they're in, or be treated unfairly by their home country?

No, I wouldn't. That person would still be a citizen of North Korea, but without their authorization to travel internationally.

Just because returning to your country would likely be unpleasant for you doesn't mean you no longer have a country.

Anyone can seek asylum, that doesn't mean it will be granted. In this case it has been granted and accepted. Big difference.

I don't find the US government a credible source on anything fullstop. Can't you see whats going on here?

Looks like a confidence war?

What if they had vague powerpoint slides?

Don't hold your american flag security blanket so tight, you're going to strangle it.

Given that the US has been caught in lie after lie on this topic, for once I find Wikileaks to be more credible.

"Sorry for the confusion, guys. confirmed that call came from US embassy but not necessarily US Ambassador ."