> How would the US even know who was on a flight from Moscow?

The US has foreign intelligence services, utilizing both human and technical means, and they attempt to monitor movements of persons who are of concern to the US, with varying degrees of success.

(The degree to which Snowden is still actively a concern to the US is a bit less clear.)

> If you believe Assange

I don't, particularly, but on this particular point his claim isn't implausible, and, more to the point, isn't materially relevant.

> the reason for the Morales incident was that Assange leaked false information to make that happen.

Sure, that might be what they US believed Snowden was on the plane. Of course, were the US not both able and inclined to stop even a foreign leader's plane from transitting unmolested from Russia to South America if Snowden was believed to be on it, Assange's false leak (assuming that is the source of the belief) would be immaterial. That they have the capacity and will, however, to take such acts is demonstrated by the Morales incident independently of the source of the false belief that Snowden was on the plane.

> Furthermore, what does any of this have to do with Snowden's suspended passport?

Nothing, I wasn't responding to a claim about a passport I was responding to the claim that if Snowden wanted to be in Ecuador, he would be in Ecuador, and there is nothing the US could do to stop him from simply boarding a plane in Moscow and flying to Ecuador.

Their manifestly is something the US could do, and has demonstrated both the ability and willingness to do, to stop him from doing that.

> The passport isn't what's keeping him in Russia. I think the two plausible things that might be are: (1) Snowden, (2) Russia. You think there's a third? Can you explain it in some detail?

The United States. And I think I've explained it in excruciating detail in this post, and my prior post in this subthread.

> The same logic suggests they could grab Snowden off the streets in Moscow.

It actually doesn't, since the logic at issue is "they have shown both the capacity and the will to do this to planes they believe are carrying Snowden from Russia to South America in the past".

They clearly have not shown the capacity and will to grab Snowden off the street in the past.

Its certainly not impossible that they could, but its a different category of risk from something that they have demonstrated both the capacity and will to do against the specific target in the past.

I'm comfortable with where we've landed if we've arrived at the three reasons for Snowden not leaving Russia being (1) Snowden's desire to remain in Russia, (2) Russia's unwillingness to let Snowden leave, and (3) the US's shadowy spy network detecting the specific flight he's on and diverting it to effect his capture.

I will note, with bemusement, that our shadowy spy network was unable to effect his capture when he was known to be in Hong Kong. We must have a gap in capabilities for the most westernized part of China.

You're willfully refusing to acknowledge the very rational and demonstrably correct decision to not leave Moscow under the circumstances and instead choosing to attack a straw man so you can be a smartass.

If he remains in Moscow, he has near zero chance of being rendered. If he leaves, he is one piece of HUMINT/SIGINT away from being grounded and taken into custody.

I think even a few of the more intelligent dog breeds would be able to choose correctly here.

If Obama were to pardon Snowden, and the US reinstate his passport, I can't see Putin keeping him in Russia. Why would he do that? As long as Snowden is a thorn in the NSA's side, Putin is clearly glad to have him, but a pardon would neutralize the benefit. It's not even like he could trade Snowden for some Russian spies; what sense would that make? The US intelligence community does not think of Snowden as someone they want back on American soil, except maybe to kill him.

I found an interesting Assange interview on the Morales incident [0]. The whole thing is worth reading, but let me just quote one bit:

Portugal, Spain and France closed their airspace. Some other things happened. Some preemptive extradition requests were sent out, for example, to Iceland, which we got hold of and published. So there was — the U.S. was pressuring countries where flights might go through or land or refuel. And as a result of that operation, then it became clear that in fact it was too dangerous to — at that moment, at least, to take any flight out of Moscow. And this is what then led to his eventual asylum. It wasn’t just the removal of the passport, which removed his ability to use commercial flights. It was that the U.S. was closing airspace and acting in a manner where you would have to assume that they — you know, if a flight went past the United States — not over U.S. territory, but past the United States — there might be some kind of interdiction.

Assange goes on to suggest that Russia had their hands forced by the US Government's willingness to pull strings to catch Snowden, and by the willingness of Western Europe -- France, Portugal, and Spain, at least -- to roll over. This put Putin in the position of either granting Snowden's asylum request or looking like another US patsy. Well, the last thing Putin would ever do is look weak. (I suspect Putin is not really too unhappy to make sure Snowden stays alive.)

Anyway, although Putin's cooperation is clearly necessary, the primary force keeping Snowden in Russia is, and has always been, the US Government.

[0] http://www.democracynow.org/2015/5/28/assange_on_the_untold_...

We're not talking about why Snowden isn't in the US. It's clear: the reason he's not here is that if he sets foot on American soil he will be arrested and prosecuted.

We're talking about why, of all the places he could be in the world, he's in Russia --- and not Ecuador, where he claims he intended to go.

Right. He didn't think he could get to Ecuador without winding up in the US's hands. Was that not clear from what I wrote? In fact, is that not clearly the argument being made in this entire subthread?

You used the word "hostage" upthread. I don't think this is in any sense a hostage situation.

Yeah, I get that you think that. But you haven't explained why that would be. What prevents him from leaving Russia and flying to Ecuador? It's not the passport. But that's the only reason I've seen getting.

There are direct flights between Moscow and Havana every day.

Fun fact: the country Snowden supposedly wanted to flee to has an extradition treaty with the US.

Assange addressed this; I guess you didn't read the interview. I still recommend it; I think it would be interesting even if you're not inclined to believe Assange.

Anyway, you yourself mentioned the possibility of grabbing Snowden off the streets. I don't think for a moment that Putin would allow that to happen; the governments of Central and South America are another matter (not that they would willingly cooperate, necessarily, only that they couldn't do anything about it).

(For the record, I don't accept your claim that the passport is irrelevant. I don't really know how these things work, but I don't have the impression that it's easy for a known international fugitive to persuade a commercial carrier to board him with a canceled passport. I will grant that if Putin wanted Snowden to leave Russia, he could have made it happen; in that sense, the passport is not a barrier.)

As for the extradition treaty -- is it possible Snowden would have made a mistake in selecting his destination? Of course it is. What's your point? [ETA: I get it. You think the whole story is a lie and Snowden planned to stay in Russia all along. I think the absurdity of that view is matched only by its cynicism.]