[dragonwriter]

> 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.

[tptacek]

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

[dragonwriter]

> 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.

[tptacek]

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.

[lawnchair_larry]

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.