Edward Snowden and social security benefits

[doubled]

Suppose Edward Snowden were 35 years older and eligible for social security. Could the US government legally refuse to mail him a check? Or would they be forced to mail a check to his address in Russia? The government has a clear financial obligation for his social security check and the fact he’s wanted for a (IMHO, so-called) crime doesn’t change that. So is there any legal precedent for the government denying him payments?

Of course I’m sure the government would just say “Sure, we’ll give you your social security – your check is waiting for you at the NSA headquarters and all you have to do is come pick it up!” But lots of US retirees live oversees and receive social security checks – as I understand it, there’s never been a requirement for having to physically pick it up. Is there any legal precedent?

[Lord_Feldon]

http://oig.ssa.gov/about-oig/offices/office-technology-and-resource-management/fugitive-enforcement-program

The Social Security Act prohibits payment of benefits to people who are:

Fleeing to avoid prosecution for a felony

[kaylasdad99]

Well. That was asked and answered in fairly short order.

Let’s see if we can keep it going, though. Would his benefits continue to accrue during the period in which he remained a fugitive? And, in the event that he were to return, face trial, and receive an acquittal, would he be due a large check upon his release?

[Lord_Feldon]

@Lord_Feldon

http://oig.ssa.gov/about-oig/offices/office-technology-and-resource-management/fugitive-enforcement-program

Or maybe that doesn’t apply any more:

Effective April 1, 2009, Social Security began suspending or denying benefits based on outstanding felony arrest warrants only for the crimes of flight to avoid prosecution or confinement, escape from custody, and flight-escape. We also began applying the new policy when we consider a person’s suitability to serve as a representative payee.