You can fly wherever you want. No international commercial airline will let you on their plane unless you have a valid passport / VISA for the destination. If you show up by private plane, you will have to show your passport to enter the country, or else you are denied entry.
Currently, Snowden is denied entry to Russia, and is stuck in the "Transportation Zone" of a Russian airport, unable to enter the country. Snowden was in discussions for asylum with Russia (who would issue papers allowing him in if granted), but Snowden has reconsidered this option and is seeking asylum elsewhere.
When you board a commercial airline you have to show that you have a valid visa/passport for your destination however that is not technically checked until you go through that country's immigration service.
So would it be possible for a private jet to pick up Snowden and drop him in Ecuador where he could officially apply for asylum? It sounds like the main issue is that he has to be in Ecuador to apply.
The whole originating notion of a passport was to say to other countries, "This person is a citizen of our nation in good standing, and we vouch for him".
Other countries can look at that passport and make their own decision - for example, I've anecdotally heard from people that having a passport stamp for Israel can make border crossings into certain middle eastern countries much more complicated.
Now, the US in effect is saying, "We believe this person to be a bad guy, and you should not trust him". Since he has been charged with a number of crimes, this is a fair statement.
This is the same thing that happens with people in the US who are considered a flight risk from prosecution - their passport is flagged and they are required to turn it in.
One of the many reasons why Snowden's behavior in first revealing himself then leaving hong kong to Russia is very odd is exactly this - how could he not know they could revoke his passport? What did he think would happen?
> As a US citizen, its bullshit that a country can revoke your right to travel outside of itself.
Countries don't provide (or revoke) your right to travel outside of their sovereign jurisdiction (which would be contrary to the entire idea of sovereign jurisdiction); they can, however, revoke their willingness to represent to other countries that they have some kind of relationship with you. (They can also stop you from exiting their jurisdiction while you are still inside it, and though the US would have liked to have done that in Snowden's case, it didn't have the opportunity.)
Its the country you are currently in and the one you are attempting to enter that control whether or not you have the "right" to travel.
You, as a citizen of country, have the right to renounce your citizenship of that country at any time. Your country of citizenship should never have the right to revoke your own citizenship.
I understand stopping someone from leaving the borders due to legal reasons. But being able to stop your travel once you're outside the country? No.
> Your country of citizenship should never have the right to revoke your own citizenship.
Revoking a passport isn't revoking citizenship (governments, right or wrong, can do both, but they are separate and distinct acts.)
> But being able to stop your travel once you're outside the country?
Revoking your passport is basically your country no longer vouching for you. Other countries choose whether or not this should impact your ability to travel.
