Snowden, in new statement, accuses Obama of using ‘old, bad tools of political aggression’

[alcibiades_mystery]

38. The warrant is a legal warrant in the United States and sufficient for revocation

Whatever the laughable response of the Hong Kong authorities to the extradition request (not the warrant), minor errors in a federal warrant are not sufficient to invalidate it; the invalidation of a warrant can only be due to substantial error.

As for due process, Snowden is free to request and show up for a hearing at a US embassy to challenge his passport revocation. US Marshals will be happy to meet him there. The right to challenge the revocation doesn't mean that the revocation is itself on hold. Moreover, in cases where the revocation is of a fugitive's passport, the State Department is not actually required to notify the fugitive in writing immediately (for rather obvious reasons, if one is not disingenuously emulating a prevaricating Hong Kong bureaucrat), it being sufficient according to procedure to delay notification of the fugitive and simply notify the authorities of the host country until one knows that the fugitive is in custody. Oh ho! So he can't challenge the revocation until he has it in writing, and he need not have it in writing until he is in custody!?? CORRECT. The goal with fugitives is to get them into custody. That's kind of how it works. Check the Foreign Affairs Manual on that.