Richard Falk on what is missing in the Snowden affair.

What am I missing in the Snowden affair?

The US government's dogmatic pursuit for Snowden is both counter-productive and hypocritical, writes scholar. Richard Falk 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 US Government position contradicts its own long standing practice of refusing to give up those wanted for political crimes," writes Richard Falk. Above, a sign made by a protester [Reuters]

I would have thought that there was a clear set of principles that make the American diplomatic pursuit of Edward Snowden as a fugitive from justice a rather empty and futile  gesture. As far as I can tell, there isnot even a need for asylum as governments should have  been prepared to grant Snowden residence status because his alleged criminal acts in  the United States were without question political crimes ,without violence or monetary  motivation. I had thought it was as clear as law can be that any person who has committed a political crime should be exempted from mandatory extradition even if a treaty existed imposed a duty on its  parties to hand over individuals accused of serious criminal activity. To be sure, from  the perspective of the United States government, Snowden's exposure of the  PRISM surveillance program was a flagrant violation of the Espionage Act. But it  was also as clearly a political crime as almost any undertaking can be. There was  no violence involved or threatened, and no person can be harmed by  the disclosures. What puzzles me is why the refusal to hand Snowden over by expelling him to the United States,which is what Washington has asked Russia to do, raises any kind of serious question beyondwondering how the US government officials arrogantly made the request in  the first place. Asit was put to Moscow by the US government: "We expect the Russian government to look at all options available to expel Snowden to the United States to face  justice for the crimes with which he is charged." Inherent hypocrisy It is also puzzling is why foreign governments do not make this simple point in response that  international criminal law enforcement does not extend to political crimes even in the relation  of governments friendly with one another, and there are good public policy and humanitarian reasons why such "criminals" should not be treated internationally as fugitives from justice. It seems clearly within the domain of reason to believe that the extent of secret surveillance, both within the United States and globally, is posing a dangerous  threat to democracy and the rights and security of individuals, and in this sense, Snowden is an authentic whistleblower drawing attention to an urgent  concern of many people and governments throughout the world. He can also be  deemed to have engaged in acts of civil disobedience as his moral motivations  clearly led him to act on behalf of the public good in a manner that he realised  was in violation of applicable criminal law in the United States. Some have suggested that unlike Daniel Ellsberg who remained in the country after he released the Pentagon Papers, Snowden does not deserve to be treated as a  whistleblower because he did not stay around to face the legal music, as if such a show  of subservience o the legal system is a sina qua non of good faith. --- -- Snowden is a whistleblower I suppose that this attack of "surveillance panic" is a symptom of the larger importance being attached by Washington to cyber security, and worries about disabling attacks by way  of hacking and debilitating viruses. But to go after Snowden in this way is more than panic,  it suggestsone more example of American exceptionalism that causes anger and resentment throughout the world - in effect, we are insisting that we expect from  others far more than we are prepared to give. It is especially striking that among Snowden's disclosures are confirmations of the  earlier rumors that the United States and Israel had developed the computer worm  or virus, Stuxnet that had been used to disrupt operations in Iran's nuclear facilities.  As with the use of drones around the world, the blowback effects seem once more  ignored as America flexes its geopolitical muscles without regard for the  constraints of international law, and the values of a free society. --- --- = Giving sanctuary to political crimes helps makes the world safe for political dissent  and pluralism, and offers a shield against the autocratic security state. It is admirable  that Venezuela, whatever its reasons, stepped forward to offer Snowden asylum,  which was deserved, considering the vindictive approach taken toward such other  recent "leakers" as Bradley Manning and Julian Assange . What may be most regrettable in this yet unfinished drama is the American refusal  to engage in self-scrutiny, to wonder whether surveillance and secrecy are not  being abused, a gross over-reaction to 9/11 and extremist threats, that alters the  balance between state and society in an anti-democratic manner, as well as  threats the entire world as it falls within the domain of US national security. Such  a worldview is decidedly imperial as it precludes granting reciprocal rights to  others, and implicitly claims that the United States is above the law, or shapes the  law to suit its own particular priorities. Instead of seeking to prosecute and punish Snowden, the healthy national  response would be to reestablish limits on governmental surveillance and  extraterritorial security claims.  At least, it is time for citizens not to be fooled by the politics of deflection by which  the government and a pliant media avoid the message and obsess about the  messenger, and discuss the substantive issues that prompted the disclosures  rather than seek to punish an individual of conscience who chose bravely to risk  the fury of a state because some of its unseemly secrets were being made public. 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.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/07/201371011618650821.html