General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)State Department Brief Today on Snowden. Unbelievable [View all]
QUESTION: Can we start in Russia
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- with Mr. Snowden? Im wondering if, since he has now asked the Russians for asylum, there has been any contact between this building and the Russians about your feelings about his status.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I can tell you I hadnt seen or I dont have independent confirmation, I guess I should say, about any request hes made. I can tell you that we have been in touch, of course, with Russian officials. Our Embassy in Moscow has been in direct contact on the ground. We are disappointed that Russian officials and agencies facilitated this meeting today by allowing these activists and representatives into the Moscow airports transit zone to meet with Mr. Snowden despite the governments declarations of Russias neutrality with respect to Mr. Snowden.
QUESTION: So Im sorry. Youre disappointed that they let someone into their own airport?
MS. PSAKI: Well
QUESTION: I dont get it.
MS. PSAKI: Well, that they facilitated this event, of course.
QUESTION: Well, why?
MS. PSAKI: Because this gave a forum for
QUESTION: You dont think that he should have a forum? Has he hes forfeited his right to freedom of speech as well?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, Mr. Snowden
QUESTION: All right.
MS. PSAKI: -- as weve talked about let me just state this
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: -- because I think its important. Hes not a whistleblower. Hes not a human rights activist. Hes wanted in a series of serious criminal charges brought in the eastern district of Virginia and the United States.
QUESTION: Okay. Im sorry. But I didnt realize people who were wanted on charges forfeited their right to speech to free speech. I also didnt realize that people who were not whistleblowers or not human rights activists, as you say he is not, that they forfeited their rights to speak, so I dont understand why youre disappointed with the Russians, but neither that leave that aside for a second.
The group WikiLeaks put out a transcript, I guess, essentially, of Mr. what Mr. Snowden said at the airport. At the top of that transcript, it contained it said that the Human Rights Watch representative from Human Rights Watch, researcher who went to this thing, while she was on her way to the airport, got a phone call from the American Ambassador asking her to relay a message to Mr. Snowden that basically the message that you just gave here, that, one, he is not a whistleblower, and, two, that he is wanted in the United States. Is that correct?
MS. PSAKI: It is not correct. First, Ambassador McFaul did not call any representative from Human Rights Watch. An embassy officer did call to explain our position, certainly, that I just reiterated here for all of you today, but at no point did this official or any official from the U.S. Government ask anyone to convey a message to Mr. Snowden.
QUESTION: Did anyone from the Embassy call any of the other groups representatives of groups that were going to this meeting that you understood were going to this meeting?
MS. PSAKI: As Im sure would be no surprise, and as you know because we even had a civil society event when the Secretary was there, we are in regular touch, as we have been today. I dont have an update on the exact list of calls, though, for you.
QUESTION: But you can say pretty conclusively that this one call did happen, and that it wasnt the Ambassador. So were there others? Do you know?
MS. PSAKI: We have
QUESTION: Did calls go to other groups?
MS. PSAKI: -- been in touch with
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: -- attendees.
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. PSAKI: I dont have any specifics for you, though.
QUESTION: Okay. And the and you have made no secret of the fact that any country or government that gives Mr. Snowden asylum or allows him to transit through, that there would be some serious consequences for grave consequences in their relationship with the United States.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Have you made the same and presumably that would apply to individuals who would help him stay help him avoid returning here to face justice. Is that thats correct?
MS. PSAKI: Im not sure what that exactly means.
QUESTION: Well, Im what Im getting at is these groups, the human rights groups that are respected human rights groups
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- which you yourself, as well as previous spokespeople have quoted from
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- in relation to other situations, have taken a side in support of Mr. Snowden, and Im wondering if there are any consequences for them if you if they aid and abet Mr. Snowden in staying away out of the reach of U.S. authorities.
MS. PSAKI: Well, we obviously dont think this was a proper forum or a proper elevation of him. Beyond that, the way that I think its been asked, but also the way weve thought about it, is more about governments and our relationships with them and their aid or decisions to aid Mr. Snowden.
QUESTION: Right, but I guess the question is: If you think this was an inappropriate forum, did you try to dissuade these groups from going there?
MS. PSAKI: From attending?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. PSAKI: Not that Im aware of, Matt. Obviously
QUESTION: Okay. So the call
MS. PSAKI: -- they were invited to attend.
QUESTION: So the calls were just a reminder of your position. Did you say to Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International that if you guys help Mr. Snowden, support him in some way so that to keep him from facing justice back in the United States, that there would be consequences for them?
MS. PSAKI: I dont have any readouts of these calls. Our focus remains on
QUESTION: Okay. Well, then can you say
MS. PSAKI: -- conveying to the Russian Government the fact that they have the ability to help return Mr. Snowden to the United States.
QUESTION: Did you tell them in the calls that you did not think that Mr. Snowden should have the opportunity to express his view?
MS. PSAKI: Matt, I dont have any readout for these of these calls for you. We did --
QUESTION: Okay. Well, forget about the calls, then.
MS. PSAKI: We did convey the broad point that Ive made.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, then forget about what you said or what the Embassy people said in these specific phone calls. Do you believe that Mr. Snowden should not have had the opportunity to express his views at the airport in Moscow today?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, I think we broadly believe in free speech, as you know.
QUESTION: Except when it comes to this.
MS. PSAKI: But we cannot look at this as a I know we like to ask about sweeping scenarios in here, but --
QUESTION: No, this is not sweeping at all. This is very specific, related to one guy in one place in one city, one airport, one time. So I just do you think that it was inappropriate for Mr. Snowden to speak publicly? Do you I mean, not that whether youre disappointed in the Russians. Do you think that he should not have had the opportunity to speak publicly?
MS. PSAKI: Our focus, Matt, is on how our concern about how Russian authorities clearly helped assist the ability of attendees to participate in this.
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MS. PSAKI: That is of concern to us. Our focus is on returning Mr. Snowden to the United States. Beyond that, I just dont have anything more.
QUESTION: Okay. Im just Im trying to get you are saying that this essentially it wasnt a press conference, but it might as well have been. And you dont think the Russians should have helped to facilitate a --
MS. PSAKI: Facilitated a propaganda platform for Mr. Snowden.
QUESTION: -- a propaganda platform. Okay. So this is, to your mind, something like them bringing out a defected spy from the Cold War and putting him on a platform and having him rail against the United States. Is that what the Administration believes?
MS. PSAKI: Im not going to draw comparisons along those lines. But let me say --
QUESTION: A propaganda platform is close enough.
MS. PSAKI: -- that Mr. Snowden could should return to the United States to face these charges that where he will be accorded a fair trial. Thats where our focus is.
QUESTION: Well, is this a propaganda platform or is this kind of putting in train a process for asylum? Because last week, or two weeks ago, the Russians said that they would consider his request for asylum if Mr. Snowden would stop leaking material about or leaking information about U.S. surveillance programs. Now, he wouldnt do that before, and he tried some other areas for asylum.
Now, in this propaganda platform, as you call it, he said that he has decided to not to leak any more information, or he doesnt have any more information, but hes done. So are you concerned now that this is him accepting conditions for Russian asylum publicly as opposed to just some kind of propaganda? I mean, is that your real concern here, that these are the conditions for asylum and now hes publicly meeting them?
MS. PSAKI: Our concern here is that hes been provided this opportunity to speak in a propaganda platform, as I mentioned a few seconds ago, that Russia has played a role in facilitating this, that others have helped elevate it. But we still believe that Russia has the opportunity to do the right thing and facilitate his return to the United States.
QUESTION: Well, but --
MS. PSAKI: I dont have any independent knowledge, as would be no surprise, of what he has officially requested, what has officially been --
QUESTION: Well, its pretty public that Russia --
MS. PSAKI: -- accepted or not.
QUESTION: Okay, but its pretty public that Russia said that they would consider his asylum petition if he said that if he would agree publicly to stop leaking information. Now hes done that.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So is that propaganda, or is that publicly agreeing to Russias conditions and kind of moving the asylum petition along?
MS. PSAKI: Im just not going to make an evaluation of what Russias conditions are and whether he meets --
QUESTION: Well, you dont have to make an evaluation. Theyve said it publicly.
MS. PSAKI: -- let me finish whether he meets them. Thats not the point here. The point is Russia helped facilitate this. They have the ability and the opportunity to do the right thing and help return Mr. Snowden to the United States. Its not about what the conditions are.
QUESTION: But you dont I mean, is it I mean, your concern now is that this is that Russias by facilitating I mean, are you really upset that this is propaganda, or are you really upset that Russia is moving closer to accepting to this guys asylum?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we dont know that. This is a step that was taken today. Obviously, we continue to call for his return. They have a role they can play in that. Beyond that, Im not going to speculate what they are or arent going to do.
QUESTION: Jen, can I just ask: What level of seniority was the U.S. official that called Human Rights Watch?
MS. PSAKI: I dont have an exact position for you on that.
QUESTION: And --
MS. PSAKI: It was not the Ambassador, though.
QUESTION: Okay. And how did the U.S. get to know about this visit? Was were you informed by the Russians or by Human Rights Watch?
MS. PSAKI: We learned when it was made public, just as many of your organizations did.
QUESTION: Can I just --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: In the conversations that the Ambassador, or whoever it was the Embassy had not with the Human Rights people, but with the Russian Government --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- did you tell them that facilitating this appearance by Mr. Snowden was problematic, that you thought that they shouldnt do it?
MS. PSAKI: I --
QUESTION: Did you ask them not to do it?
MS. PSAKI: We made our concerns and our view on Mr. Snowden clear.
QUESTION: No, but I specifically about giving him this propaganda platform, as you called it.
MS. PSAKI: I just I dont have any more to read out for you from the private phone calls, Matt, just that there we have been in touch.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, did you ask the Russians, please dont do this, we think hes a criminal and needs to come back? Did you did I mean, did you ask and they rejected the request?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, weve been clear publicly --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. PSAKI: -- countless times what our view is --
QUESTION: I understand that, but --
MS. PSAKI: -- and weve consistently made the same points privately, today and any other day.
QUESTION: Right. But did you say that you would look negatively on them providing him a, quote-unquote, propaganda platform?
MS. PSAKI: I just dont have any more on the specifics of the calls.
QUESTION: Well, is the United States Government now in the business of trying to discourage people or governments from facilitating people having meeting with human rights activists? I dont get it.
MS. PSAKI: Matt, this is not a universal position of the United States. This is an individual --
QUESTION: So its just in this one case.
MS. PSAKI: -- who has been accused of three of felony charges.
QUESTION: But surely Jen --
MS. PSAKI: This is not a unique --
QUESTION: Okay. Hes been accused. Do you remember the old line that were supposed to all know he has not been convicted of anything yet.
MS. PSAKI: And he can return to the United States and face the charges.
QUESTION: But he can also surely people who are accused of crimes are allowed their right of free speech, are they not?
MS. PSAKI: Matt, I think weve gone the round on this.
QUESTION: No, I mean, its a legitimate question. I mean, you talk about even in Russia that journalists have been persecuted and political activists have been persecuted and you call for free speech around the world. But youre not saying that Mr. Snowden has the right of free speech?
MS. PSAKI: Thats not at all what I was saying. We believe, of course, broadly in free speech. Our concern here was that this was there was obvious facilitation by the Russians in this case. Weve conveyed that. Weve conveyed our concerns. Im saying them publicly.
QUESTION: So youre upset youre not upset about the press conference; youre upset that the Russians facilitated it.
MS. PSAKI: We certainly are upset that there was a platform for an individual whos been accused of felony crimes.
QUESTION: But what does that matter, really? I mean, people that are in jail or are on trial in the United States, they give press conferences or they speak out all the time. I mean, it sounds to me like what youre not really upset with the act that he spoke; youre upset with the fact that the Russians did something on his behalf.
MS. PSAKI: I think Ive expressed what were upset about.
QUESTION: I dont --
MS. PSAKI: And you keep saying what were upset about. But I think Ive made clear what were upset about.
QUESTION: Madam, can I just follow up real quick?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Just a quick Im sorry question on this. The Secretary has said in the past that this issue with Ed Snowden is just not his portfolio, and that all of this is being handled primarily through the Justice Department. Can you clarify what the State Departments role is, then? Because obviously there is contact today on the ground in Russia with diplomats involved.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think just for contexts sake, for everybody, that was said after a meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov. Obviously, there are a number of issues that we do discuss and will continue to discuss with the Russians. But were going to express concerns where we have them. We have been in touch on the ground; Embassy officials have been in touch on the ground with Russian officials. So yes, of course we have expressed our concerns, and they have been expressed previously. But the Secretary was making that comment in the context of his meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov.
QUESTION: So what is the regular channel of communication between Embassy officials, or is it at a higher level? I mean, has Deputy Secretary Burns been in more regular contact? We havent really heard in recent --
MS. PSAKI: I just dont have any other specific calls or contacts to read out for you. Obviously, there are many components of the government who are engaged and involved in this issue, but beyond that, I dont have anything specific for you.
QUESTION: Is it this buildings role, then, to formally request a denial of asylum? I mean, what is the communication here? If the issue of him being a fugitive is handled through Justice, what is it that State is doing?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we would like to see him returned to the United States, and he can be put on a plane to do exactly that.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: So does that mean the issuance of an actual letter from the State Department? Would the counselor issue a letter on State Department letterhead, or is that simply reserved for the Attorney General?
MS. PSAKI: Thats ahead of where the process is right now. Ive I think as events unfold, well we can provide you all updates.
QUESTION: Jen, on this point that you were talking about just now, there was apparently a fresh offer for asylum if he stops leaking. That was made today. I understand that was made today --
MS. PSAKI: Which Elise just asked about. Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- like a couple of hours ago. So what is exactly your position? I didnt understand it. So you did you tell the Russians that that is rejected, that is unacceptable? What language did you use?
MS. PSAKI: Well, weve conveyed outside of that I dont have any independent confirmation of whats been offered or whats been approved or accepted, beyond that Russia has the ability to do the right thing, the opportunity to do the right thing, and facilitate his return to the United States.
QUESTION: And second, you said that hes not a whistleblower; hes a felon. Now, according to --
MS. PSAKI: I said hes been accused --
QUESTION: Hes been accused, okay.
MS. PSAKI: -- of felony crimes. Yes.
QUESTION: Hes not yeah, but apparently public opinion polls in America show that, three to one, the public says that hes a whistleblower. Does that factor in, like the petition in Egypt, in any way?
MS. PSAKI: I think youre linking a lot of things together there.
QUESTION: No. Okay, what is --
MS. PSAKI: Im conveying he is a United States citizen.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: Hes facing crimes in the United States. He can return to the United States and face the charges.
QUESTION: Okay, so public opinion should not matter in this case. Thats what youre saying.
MS. PSAKI: In terms of defining --
QUESTION: This is a purely legal --
MS. PSAKI: -- his specific role, Im giving you an overview of the U.S. Government view.
QUESTION: Jen, just a quick follow-up. Are privately Russians are telling you in Moscow or at the United Nations or in Washington about this offer?
MS. PSAKI: Are they privately --
QUESTION: Asylum, yeah.
MS. PSAKI: I just dont have any updates on that for you, Goyal.
QUESTION: When was the last time before todays contacts did anyone from this building talk with Russian officials? Or have all of the conversations been strictly from the Justice Department?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think even Secretary Kerry spoke briefly with Foreign Minister Lavrov about it when they last met. So obviously, there have been contacts at a range of levels. I dont have any update for you on the last high-level contact from the building, but its fair to say that the State Department, just like other administrative Administration departments, where appropriate, have been very engaged. Weve been working very closely with the Department of Justice, as Secretary as the Secretary also said.
QUESTION: But wouldnt it be logical to assume that if the entrée was made for Amnesty and Human Rights Watch and WikiLeaks and other people to get into this transit zone, that the Russian authorities would have had some sort of heads-up and would have conceivably made some sort of arrangements in order to get them into an area where, theoretically, theyre not supposed to have access because theyre not, quote, in transit? And wouldnt the U.S. have had more of an alert before finding out from the media today that this event was going to happen?
MS. PSAKI: Well, you are correct that this is an area only accessible with the assistance of Russian authorities. Beyond that, we, of course, saw the announcement earlier this morning online, or wherever it was first made, but that was the first we learned of the plans for this event.
QUESTION: Is it your position that in his meeting with these human rights activists, Mr. Snowden committed more violations of American law?
MS. PSAKI: I dont think I was suggesting that, Matt.
QUESTION: Okay. Then I just dont understand. I think this is an incredibly slippery slope that youre going down here, that the U.S. Government is going down here, if you are coming up and saying to us that youre trying to prevent an American citizen albeit one who has been accused of serious crimes from exercising his right to free speech. You dont agree with that?
MS. PSAKI: I believe that what Ive conveyed most proactively here is our concern about those who helped facilitate this event --
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. PSAKI: -- and make it into a propaganda platform.
QUESTION: Right. And --
QUESTION: Or a public asylum --
QUESTION: -- the propaganda platform aside, free speech covers propaganda. Last time I checked, it covers a lot of things. And I dont see, unless hes somehow violated U.S. law by speaking at this at the Russian the transit line at the Russian airport, I dont see why you would be disappointed in the Russians for, one, facilitating it, but also, apparently from what it sounds like, tried to discourage them from tried to discourage this them from allowing this event to take place in the to take place at all.
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, this isnt happening, clearly, because we wouldnt be talking about it, in a vacuum. And this is an individual, as we all know, who has been accused of felony crimes in the United States. We have expressed strongly our desire to have him returned --
QUESTION: I understand.
MS. PSAKI: -- to face those charges. This is all applicable context to these circumstances.
QUESTION: But as you have also said, he is a U.S. citizen.
MS. PSAKI: He is, yes.
QUESTION: He remains a U.S. citizen, and he enjoys certain rights as a U.S. citizen. One of those rights, from your point of view, is that he has the right to come back and face trial for the crimes hes committed. But the rights that youre not talking about are his right to free speech, his right to talk with whoever he wants to, freedom to assemble. I dont understand why those rights are why you ignore those and simply say that he has that hes welcome to come back to the United States to exercise his right to be tried by a jury of his peers. Why is that the only right that he gets, according to this Administration?
MS. PSAKI: I dont think thats what my statement conveyed.
QUESTION: All right.
QUESTION: Has the I just want to find out, has the U.S. spoken had contact with the Russian Ambassador here to convey that message?
MS. PSAKI: Id have to check on additional contacts beyond what I just stated.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Is there a belief in this building that the Russians are not dealing with the U.S. in good faith regarding Edward Snowden?
MS. PSAKI: I think our belief is what I stated, which is that they still have the opportunity to do the right thing. We are disappointed in their with their role in facilitating the events of this morning, but we will continue to convey that wed like to see him returned, and they can play a role in that.
QUESTION: How much is this sorry.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: I was just going to ask: Has the Administration sent any officials or any people representing the Administration to this transit area in the Moscow airport to try to make contact with Snowden directly?
MS. PSAKI: Not that Im aware of.
QUESTION: How if the Russians accept his asylum decision, how badly will this damage the relationship? Is it is this the most important issue in the relationship with Russia right now?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Im not going to rank them. Obviously, we work with Russia on a range of issues. Theres no question that, as weve stated broadly with any country that would have a role in assisting him either in transit or in a final place for him to live, that that would raise concerns in our relationship. However, were not at that point yet. They still have the --
QUESTION: Raise concerns, or would it damage the relationship irreparably?
MS. PSAKI: Well, at least this hasnt happened yet. They still have the opportunity to do the right thing and return Mr. Snowden to the United States, and thats what our hope is.
QUESTION: But you dont really think thats going to happen. I mean, youre growing resigned to the idea that theyre going to accept his asylum petition --
MS. PSAKI: Im not thats not at all what I stated.
QUESTION: Do you and this is not contentious, I dont think. Do you know if the Secretary has any plans to talk to Lavrov? I mean, yes, I realize its not necessarily their specific portfolios, but now that it is a diplomatic thing --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Im not aware of a planned call, Matt.
QUESTION: Could I ask the WikiLeaks statement that Edward Snowden put out, he accepted all extended offers of asylum, including the one from Venezuela, and said that that relationship is now formal, that hes now an asylee. Does the U.S. recognize this?
And he also said that that would give him some kind of international legal protections. And in that case, as an asylee, what kind of implications would that have for the U.S.s continuing efforts to extradite him?
MS. PSAKI: Well, its not for the United States to recognize. Our position and our message to every government weve communicated with has been the same, which is that wed like to see him returned to face the charges hes been accused of. I dont have any independent confirmation of whats been offered or accepted in any of these cases.
QUESTION: New subject?
MS. PSAKI: Are we done with Snowden? Okay.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MS. PSAKI: Oh, go ahead.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) in summary just to say that todays events have not changed the U.S. position and have not changed his legal status, Snowdens status?
MS. PSAKI: On the second, not that Im aware of. And on the first, absolutely, it has not changed our position.
...
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2013/07/211891.htm#SNOWDEN