From an Amy Goodman interview with lawyer Michael Ratner yesterday:
Amy Goodman: ... Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter
to the Russian minister of justice last week insisting the United
States would not seek the death penalty against Edward Snowden and would
issue him what it called a "limited validity passport good for direct
return to the United States." The letter also offered reassurances that
the U.S. would not torture Edward Snowden.
Well, for more, we remain with Michael Ratner,
president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights and a lawyer
for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, which is involved with helping Edward
Snowden get from Hong Kong to Russia.
Michael, this letter that was sent by Attorney
General Eric Holder to his Russian counterpart that says we will not
torture or kill Edward Snowden?
Michael Ratner: You know, it’s not worth anything, Amy, and it’s laughable. It’s sad
that the U.S. has to write such a letter, that it won’t torture people
or kill them. But in fact it’s meaningless. First, it’s not necessarily
enforceable by Ed Snowden. But even more importantly, think about how
the U.S. defines torture. The U.S. doesn’t really think that anything it
did under the Bush era was torture, with the exception possibly of
waterboarding. So that means Ed Snowden can be subjected to every
enhanced interrogation techniques—you know, lights on all the time, loud
noise, cold temperatures, hot temperatures, strapped into a chair. All
of the, quote, "enhanced interrogation techniques" are allowed under
U.S. view of torture. That’s one. Secondly, prolonged, arbitrary
detention? It doesn’t say anything in the letter we won’t put him into
some underground cell and keep him there the rest of his life. And then
it says he doesn’t have any right to asylum. And that’s just wrong.
Whistleblowers are entitled to apply for asylum, and it can’t be
interfered with by the United States. This letter is meaningless. It’s a
PR ploy. People shouldn’t even look at it.
[ *Whistleblowers are entitled to asylum.
The landmark case on this issue, Grava v. INS, 205 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2000)
held as follows: “Whistleblowing against one’s supervisors at work is
not, as a matter of law, always an exercise of political opinion.
However, where the whistle blows against corrupt government officials,
it may constitute political activity sufficient to form the basis of
persecution…”]
Amy Goodman: Let me just quote more from Attorney General Eric Holder’s letter that
he sent to the Russian justice minister. He said, "Mr. Snowden will not
be tortured. Torture is unlawful in the United States." Holder went on
to say, "If he returns to the United States, Mr. Snowden would be
brought before a civilian court convened under Article of the United
States Constitution and supervised by a United States District Judge."
Holder also added, quote, "We believe that these assurances eliminate
these asserted grounds for Mr. Snowden’s claim that he should be treated
as a refugee or granted asylum, temporary or otherwise." Michael
Ratner?
Michael Ratner: Yeah, it’s what I said. I mean, torture is illegal in the words of the
United States’ statute, but what they—United States has redefined
torture so that it no longer complies with international law, and
includes enhanced interrogation techniques. Secondly, the reason for
asylum is, one, how he will be treated here and not get a fair trial,
which I’ve just indicated. But it’s also because he’s a whistleblower,
and he’s one who has revealed publicly important information about human
rights violations by the United States. He’s entitled to refugee status
because of that. Holder doesn’t even address that.
[*Torture is illegal in the US.
The federal anti-torture statute is formally known as Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C
of the U.S. Code. The law consists of three sections (2340, 2340A, and
2340B), which define the crime of torture and prescribe harsh
punishments for anyone—an American citizen or otherwise—who commits an
act of torture outside of the United States. (Domestic incidents of
torture are covered by state criminal statutes.) A person found guilty
of committing torture faces up to 20 years in prison or even execution,
if the torture in question resulted in a victim's death.
The law was added to the books in 1994, as part of the United States' efforts to ratify and comply with the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(more simply known as the CAT). The treaty was adopted by the United
Nations in 1984, but not ratified by the U.S. Congress until a decade
later. The CAT mandates that all parties to the treaty "take effective
legislative, administrative, judicial, or other measures to prevent acts
of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction."]
Amy Goodman: Now, the issue that—the breaking news last week that he would be issued
temporary asylum in Russia, what happened? Why is he still in the
airport?
Michael Ratner: I don’t know the answer to that, Amy. All I know is—on that issue, I
just—I know what I read, that, so far, that something with the paperwork
has been fouled up or something like that. And as far as we know, he’s
still in the airport.
Amy Goodman: Can he get a fair trial if he returns to the United States?
Michael Ratner: Absolutely not. Ask yourself if Bradley Manning is getting a fair
trial, and think about what would happen to Ed Snowden. Ed Snowden has a
lot of support. Bradley Manning has a lot of support, as well. But
they’re still not getting fair trials in the United States.
Amy Goodman:
And the U.S. putting pressure on other countries? We saw they brought
down the Bolivian flight, forced the president, his plane down in
Austria by not—by pressing countries not to allow the Bolivian president
to fly through the airspace of France and Spain, fearing that Edward
Snowden was on board that plane, which he wasn’t.
Michael Ratner:
You know, first it’s the bully in the schoolyard, the big imperial
country deciding whatever it wants, when it wants, and using the big
stick when it wants. But it’s also illegal. Obviously it was illegal to
force a presidential plane with immunity and the president to go down,
to land. And secondly, it’s illegal to interfere with someone’s right to
get asylum. That’s 100 percent. If Snowden had been on that plane, they
couldn’t interfere with his right to apply for asylum.
But, of course, they would interfere. They did interfere. What we know -- for sure -- is that the law no longer applies to the US government and hasn't for more years than any of us have been alive.
