Edward Snowden Wants To Come Home: 'I'm Not Asking For a Pass. What I'm Asking For is a Fair Trial' (cbsnews.com) 237
Edward Snowden, who has been living in exile in Russia after leaking American intelligence secrets in 2013 and was sued by the U.S. government over his new book this week, says that he would like to return to the United States if he is guaranteed a fair trial. He said: I would like to return to the United States. That is the ultimate goal. But if I'm gonna spend the rest of my life in prison, the one bottom line demand that we have to agree to is that at least I get a fair trial. And that is the one thing the government has refused to guarantee because they won't provide access to what's called a public interest defense.
Again, I'm not asking for a parade. I'm not asking for a pardon. I'm not asking for a pass. What I'm asking for is a fair trial. And this is the bottom line that any American should require. We don't want people thrown in prison without the jury being able to decide that what they did was right or wrong. The government wants to have a different kind of trial. They want to use special procedures they want to be able to close the courtroom, they want the public not to be able to go, know what's going on.
And, essentially, the most important fact to the government and this is the thing we have a point of contention on, is that they do not want the jury to be able to consider the motivations. Why I did what I did. Was it better for the United States? Did it benefit us or did it cause harm? They don't want the jury to consider that at all. They want the jury strictly to consider whether these actions were lawful or unlawful, not whether they were right or wrong. And I'm sorry, but that defeats the purpose of a jury trial. In an interview with The Daily Show (video), Snowden pointed out that it seems unlikely that the U.S. government is going to change its stand. He said: Just two days before my book came out, there is a whistleblower by the name of Daniel Hale. He is in prison right now. He was arrested for giving documents to journalists about the U.S. drone program. Extrajudicial killings. The United States government filed, in the same court that they are going to charge me -- Eastern District of Virginia -- a complaint before the judge that said the we demand that the court prohibits the jury from hearing and we prohibit the defendant from saying why he did what did because it's irrelevant. The jury shouldn't be distracted with reasons.
Again, I'm not asking for a parade. I'm not asking for a pardon. I'm not asking for a pass. What I'm asking for is a fair trial. And this is the bottom line that any American should require. We don't want people thrown in prison without the jury being able to decide that what they did was right or wrong. The government wants to have a different kind of trial. They want to use special procedures they want to be able to close the courtroom, they want the public not to be able to go, know what's going on.
And, essentially, the most important fact to the government and this is the thing we have a point of contention on, is that they do not want the jury to be able to consider the motivations. Why I did what I did. Was it better for the United States? Did it benefit us or did it cause harm? They don't want the jury to consider that at all. They want the jury strictly to consider whether these actions were lawful or unlawful, not whether they were right or wrong. And I'm sorry, but that defeats the purpose of a jury trial. In an interview with The Daily Show (video), Snowden pointed out that it seems unlikely that the U.S. government is going to change its stand. He said: Just two days before my book came out, there is a whistleblower by the name of Daniel Hale. He is in prison right now. He was arrested for giving documents to journalists about the U.S. drone program. Extrajudicial killings. The United States government filed, in the same court that they are going to charge me -- Eastern District of Virginia -- a complaint before the judge that said the we demand that the court prohibits the jury from hearing and we prohibit the defendant from saying why he did what did because it's irrelevant. The jury shouldn't be distracted with reasons.
I support the guy (Score:2, Insightful)
But this is getting ridiculous. He is guaranteed a fair trial by the constitution. He keeps coming out with stuff like this to keep his name in the headlines. Just man up and come home, let the chips fall where they may. He's too public for them to black bag.
Re:I support the guy (Score:5, Insightful)
All it took was one encounter with the police where I was illegally searched and they found nothing because they "smelled weed" for me to learn that the constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on.
Re:I support the guy (Score:5, Insightful)
Point of order: It's written on skin.
Re:I support the guy (Score:4, Informative)
Point of order: It's written on skin.
that is a Point of Information...
Re: (Score:2)
Which is not worth much as paper.
Re: (Score:2)
All it took was one encounter with the police where I was illegally searched and they found nothing because they "smelled weed" for me to learn that the constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on.
I don't think possession of or smoking weed should be illegal, but it does have a distinct smell, and there are federal laws against possession of it, so smelling it is a good enough reason to believe there might be some nearby.
If smelling is not good enough (if CBD oil is legal where you are then it probably isn't), I supposed you could argue they don't know what they're looking at, or trust any of their senses. Where does it end?
If your problem is you think the officer didn't actually smell or see anythi
Re:I support the guy (Score:5, Insightful)
> so smelling it is a good enough reason to believe there might be some nearby.
Do they need to log "smelling weed" and get authorization for a search. What's stopping them from magically smelling weed every time. If they smell weed and don't uncover anything are their repercussions? Do they lose their status to search based on smell because they're unreliable?
If they carry around a smell-o-mometer that quantifies weed smell and the government sets a weed ppm... then we can work with that. Otherwise *uck off.
Re: (Score:2)
Another police lie: "I transposed the license plate digits so that's why I pulled you over."
Re:I support the guy (Score:5, Insightful)
>"the constitution is worthless."
That is wrong. 100% wrong. The USA Constitution is the most important document in this country and one of the most important documents in the whole world, for all time.
What is broken is the lack of FOLLOWING it. In many cases it is completely ignored. In others, it is "reinterpreted" in ways that are completely inconsistent with the words, with the intent, and with the context. That is the problem. And it is a big problem.
The Constitution is the ultimate rules-of-the-game book. It sets the stage and the spirit. In many ways, it is brilliant- especially the Bill of Rights. But if we, as a people, decide we are not going to play by the rules, the game is over.
>"we need to break it all down and rebuild it"
No we don't. We simply need to heed it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you know
We all want to change your head"
Re: (Score:3)
mod parent up. the constitution is worthless.
I don't agree with "worthless", but many of the "guarantees" are meaningless.
We are guaranteed a fair trial, but 98% of federal offenses end in plea bargains. Defendants are coerced into pleading guilty under the threat of massively increased penalties for asserting their right to defend themselves. So you take a plea and serve 6 months, or you stand trial, spend $80k on lawyers, and face 20 years if convicted. That is why more innocent people go to prison in American than any other country.
What is happe
Re: I support the guy (Score:2)
The US does not allow a public interest defense for espionage charges. So his lawyers would not be able to tell the jury that he did what he did because the American public should know that their government was involved in unconstitutional and illegal activities. The jury would be instructed only to rule on whether or not he leaked sensitive documents, and if they found he did, he would be found guilty of espionage. I donâ(TM)t think thatâ(TM)s a fair trial.
Re: (Score:2)
The US does not allow a public interest defense for espionage charges. So his lawyers would not be able to tell the jury that he did what he did because the American public should know that their government was involved in unconstitutional and illegal activities.
And the very next question would be, what were those activities? Well, that's classified. The answer wouldn't necessarily be limited to the classified material he's already released, and even what he has released isn't declassified because he'd done it once. A "public interest" defense would default to the release of classified information, which is the very crime he's being charged with.
Here's the most interesting part of his statement: "But if I'm gonna spend the rest of my life in prison, the one botto
Re: (Score:2)
If he thought a "fair trial" would get him out of a prison sentence, then there is no "if".
That is not true. A "fair" trial does not necessarily always have the correct outcome --- There are innocent people whom the jury will still wind up convicting, and there are guilty people who will still wind up walking free, even if the trial was completely fair: the trier of fact will be capable of coming to the wrong conclusion.
Re: (Score:2)
He's cherry picking the meaning to be one thing: let me use a defense that the law says I cannot.
Why should the government be able to "ban" a particular defense?
Is there any constitutional basis for that?
The Constitution specifically allows Jury Nullification*, and the Supreme Court has upheld its validity, yet many courts prohibit it as a defense.
* Jury Nullification means that the defendant is found not guilty, despite breaking the law, because the law itself is unjust.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
The information is already out there. It's public record. That would be the basis for an argument to right or wrong.
Re: I support the guy (Score:3)
He won't get fair trial. He will get the Epstein solution, as no crime is worse than making the government look stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
no crime is worse than making the government look stupid.
Any trial is going to make the government look stupid.
The best outcome for the US government is for Snowden to stay in Russia.
That is why they are not offering him a fair trial. They want to make him an offer he can't accept.
Re: (Score:3)
The US does not allow a public interest defense for espionage charges.
How exactly is what he did espionage? If he had attempted to covertly transmit those documents to a foreign power it would be espionage. He gave documents to the press to release to the public. While that's technically a crime because he didn't whistleblow though the proper channels, it's not espionage.
As a side note: it's not possible to whistleblow through the proper channels because that's how it gets covered up. There should be a law making it legal to publicly expose any crime–by either the gover
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly is what he did espionage?
"Because we in government have grabbed so much power over many decades beyond what the Constitution allows, that we now have the power to define anything however we like, so fuck you, you're nothing but slaves on an open-range plantation"
"Pick up that can."
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
The legal system is a series of inter-related algorithms. If you want to change the bit of the algorithm that lists possible defenses for espionage then the Executive branch is powerless because that's in the statute (they can do a variety of other things to help him, but those are in "Pardon," and "Prosecutorial Discretion" bits of the algorithm, not the fair trial bit). The Judicial branch, particularly the post-Kavanaugh Judicial branch, is not going to add a defense to a statute. You need Congress.
In so
Re: (Score:3)
He is guaranteed a fair trial by the constitution.
The Constitution has been deprecated.
Didn't you read the latest release notes . . . ?
And anything he would have to say in a trial, would be so explosive that the US Government would have to put the whole thing under a gag order.
"Fair" is an extremely relative word.
Re:I support the guy (Score:5, Insightful)
June 24, 2015 By Sandra Coliver
More than 300 parliamentarians in a body representing 820 million Europeans just voted to urge the U.S. government to give National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden a fair shot at justice, as should be his right.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe yesterday passed a resolution that calls on “the United States of America to allow Mr. Snowden to return without fear of criminal prosecution under conditions that would not allow him to raise the public interest defense.”
That’s legalese for saying that he should have the opportunity, if prosecuted, to prove that the information he revealed was valuable for informing public debate. The prosecution would then have the burden of showing that the disclosures caused significant harm. The judge or jury would decide if the benefit outweighs the harm.
If they decided that, yes, the benefit does outweigh the harm, Snowden would have a complete defense and would be found not guilty. Even if they decided it does not, the punishment would have to be proportionate to the harm caused, weighed against the public interest in disclosure.
Snowden, charged with two violations of the Espionage Act, faces 30 years in prison. The act, passed in 1917 when the United States was in the heat of war preparations (and which, among other anachronisms, outlaws “any abusive language about the uniform of the Army or Navy”), does not allow a public interest defense. Nor does it require the prosecution to prove, as most of America’s European allies require, that the accused intended to—or actually did—cause harm to national security.
U.S. law is out of step with other democracies in respect to both the penalties for unauthorized disclosure of secrets and available defenses. A full statement of global norms concerning national security whistleblowing is set forth in the Tshwane Principles on National Security and the Right to Information, which have been widely endorsed, including by the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly.
The extensive congressional debate on government surveillance, culminating in passage of the USA Freedom Act, is among the most significant evidence of the public interest value of Snowden’s disclosures.
In addition, the disclosures revealed that U.S. officials were less than truthful in their public comments and congressional testimony about the government’s domestic surveillance practices, both in the scope of the programs and their effectiveness. As noted by Michael German, senior policy counsel in the ACLU’s Washington legislative office, “Such false and misleading testimony threatens more than just Americans’ privacy; it threatens democratic control of government.”
The United States, the EU, Germany, and Brazil all opened investigations into mass surveillance as a result of the disclosures. A large number of documents have subsequently been released by the U.S. government, including a 2011 FISA Court opinion that ruled some NSA surveillance actions unconstitutional.
A number of commentators and government officials have claimed that Snowden’s revelations have, by revealing methods of U.S. surveillance, caused grave damage to national security. NSA Director Michael Rogers said that they have “had a material impact on our ability to generate insights as to what terrorist groups around the world are doing.”
But neither Rogers nor any other U.S. government official has supported claims with details about the alleged damage. They say doing so would exacerbate the damage to the U.S. government’s intelligence collection activities. In response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in February released
Re: I support the guy (Score:2)
Only the corrupt politicians of the USA could pass a spying/ secret court law and call it the "Freedom Act!"
Re: (Score:2)
Newspeak has been around for quite some time in the U.S. It can usually be found when contrasting the content of legislation to the title or when talking heads defend their camp.
Re: (Score:2)
The public interest defense he seeks to assert is on the same level as killing someone and proffering the defense that they needed killing. I'm not making any judgment calls about whether either of those should be allowed, as a matter of public policy, but if he deserves the opportunity to make that defense, everyone else does, too.
Re: (Score:3)
Why don't they just pardon him? Would it set a bad precedent, cause more whistle blowers in the future?
Dragging this out is just creating more attention, I think the only reason he is alive is that if he ended up dead in a ditch there would be even MORE attention.
The CIA goons watching him are probably there to make sure he doesn't get mugged and stabbed accidentally.
Book only refers to fraction of what was released (Score:2)
Can't have it both ways, boys! Either what he revealed was harmful, or it wasn't. And since you are allowing the continued dissemination of Snowdon's "revelatons", I think we all know the real answer to that one!
They aren't having it both ways.
(1) He revealed much more than is in the book.
(2) What could cause harm in 2013 is not necessarily what could cause harm in 2019, what is classified in 2013 is not necessarily what is classified in 2019.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I understood that the reason the Pentagon papers could be freely published was that they were placed in the public record by a committee of Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
If Snowdon signed an agreement, as a government employee with security access, to run any books by the government to clear their security revealations, first, presumably that would apply.
But that would be additional punishment for him.
Re:I support the guy (Score:5, Insightful)
They are not guaranteeing trial by jury, which the constitution guarantees to every citizen. It's quite clear by how other whistle blowers are treated that they will declare some form of national security concern and deny him and process him through arbitration.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not guaranteeing trial by jury,
Citation required. What they are actually not guaranteeing is the ability to use to a "public interest" defense. He can have a jury trial, but not one that requires the disclosure of more classified information.
Re:I support the guy (Score:5, Informative)
He is guaranteed a fair trial by the constitution.
No, he isn't. The constitution guarantees due process and a trial by jury, but it doesn't say anything about what that due process should be, or what the jury should be allowed to hear.
Common law, the origin of the right to a jury trial, inherently assumes that the jury will be allowed to hear all pertinent information, but that tradition is breached in many ways today. In this case, the public interest defense isn't allowed for espionage so the jury won't be allowed to hear him explain his reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
In this case, the public interest defense isn't allowed for espionage so the jury won't be allowed to hear him explain his reasons.
And hence what makes it the perfect tool to persecute whistleblowers, and a good indication of why the Obama administration set the record for using it.
The persecution of Thomas Drake under the Espionage Act was one of the more egregious abuses. [cbsnews.com]
There is no whistleblower here (Score:2)
And hence what makes it the perfect tool to persecute whistleblowers,
There is no whistleblower here. A whistleblower releases the information to sympathetic members of Congress, not to the press.
Snowden is a hero, then (Score:3)
There is no whistleblower here. A whistleblower releases the information to sympathetic members of Congress, not to the press.
Oh sure, I'll just let you redefine whistleblower as you want and narrow its meaning to make it completely irrational in the context of the oath to defend the constitution against "all enemies both foreign and domestic". The People themselves are the ultimate authority in which to report crimes, or have you forgotten what this country was founded on?
Congress allowed this travesty to happen, can't be trusted to provide actual oversight, and has done nothing to curb potential abuses of the Espionage Act since
Re: (Score:2)
I think you kid yourself on the reach of the US gov't, and the lengths it would go to protect state secrets. Besides, who to say he doesn't have a phone or laptop (that he might not even know about) that's laden with CP?
Or perhaps he doesn't even make it to trial; he's a proven flight risk, and while waiting for trial -- another inmate shanks him. Or perhaps he is out on bail by some miracle and some random mugger kills him on the street?
Mishaps are prone to happening after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But this is getting ridiculous. He is guaranteed a fair trial by the constitution. He keeps coming out with stuff like this to keep his name in the headlines. Just man up and come home, let the chips fall where they may. He's too public for them to black bag.
Did you read any of this stuff? Did you watch any videos?
The charge is espionage. In that matter, there is no need for a jury. There's nothing to consider. The court proceeding goes like this:
Plaintiff: "Did you share confidential material with a journalist?"
Snowden, "Yes, but ..."
Jury: "Guilty as charged."
Did you even read TFS?
The United States government filed, in the same court that they are going to charge me -- Eastern District of Virginia -- a complaint before the judge that said the we demand that the court prohibits the jury from hearing and we prohibit the defendant from saying why he did what did because it's irrelevant. The jury shouldn't be distracted with reasons.
It's a binary case with no mitigating circumstances.
Go read the goddam code. The jury is instructed to consider one fact: "Did the defendant share confidential information with a jou
Re: (Score:2)
There is no way they will ever give him a fair trial which is precisely the reason he is able to say this kind of stuff. He is never coming home. If he walked the embarrassment to government and the security nightmare such a precedent would trigger would be massive. There is no longer much pause or consequence for the US government acting like the Russian government. A fair trial would never be permitted. You are delusional.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Oooooo, the Constitution. Sent from above by angels and wielded by blindfolded justices. Never in the history of the United States has an innocent person been convicted. No one has ever been framed, the powerful have never abused the legal system against the weak.
Ah yes, perfection, mortal enemy to the good.
At least subjugation to a King has no such lofty goals, or pretenses such as 'innocent until proven guilty" or "shall not be infringed".
pay more then $50 per day for the jury members (Score:2)
pay more then $50 per day for the jury members
death penalty (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
From your link:
Mr Pompeo has heavily criticised the landmark Iran nuclear deal, blasted Hillary Clinton over the attack on a US diplomatic outpost in Libya and her use of a private email server, and believes Edward Snowden is a traitor who deserves a death sentence.
Pompeo is wrong on the "traitor" part. The crime of treason is defined in the US constitution to be aid or comfort given to an enemy. Such an "enemy" exists only at a time of war declared by the US Congress. The US Congress hasn't declared war since 1942.
That said, I suppose it's not at all impossible that Snowden could face the death penalty. The Rosenbergs were executed, not for treason, but for conspiracy to commit espionage. The US was not formally at war at the time.
AUMFs declare war too (Score:2)
The US Congress hasn't declared war since 1942.
Congress has enacted several authorizations for use of military force (AUMFs) against specific countries since then. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held in Doe v. Bush that such an AUMF suffices to declare war.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't ever compare him to a pair of spies for the Soviet Union who stole nuclear secrets.
Neither would I. Snowden is not a spy, he's a whistleblower. He didn't sell secrets, he made them public.
That said, I don't imagine his would-be prosecutors would care about the difference. And apparently that's why Snowden wants to mount a public interest defense -- to make that distinction clear.
The point is that if Snowden is convicted of espionage, the death penalty does not seem to be ruled out. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, as I would hope I am.
Re: (Score:2)
Declaration of war declares belligerent not enemy (Score:2)
The crime of treason is defined in the US constitution to be aid or comfort given to an enemy. Such an "enemy" exists only at a time of war declared by the US Congress
A declaration of war declares a belligerent, not an enemy. Enemies exist in peacetime too.
His motivation? The law doesn't care.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:His motivation? The law doesn't care.. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right, you're not a lawyer. What you refer to as "motivations" are legally called "intent", and it very much does matter. For example, intent is what differentiates things like Murder in the various degrees. Do you intend to kill the person? Was the intent so much you plotted and schemed (Murder 1), or was it a crime of passion (Murder 2)?
Re: (Score:2)
"Intent" is different than "motivation". Basically "did you mean to do that" vs "why did you do that".
Yes, "I planned and commited a murder" is often a different crime than "I came home and saw my wife with the mailman."
But "I planned and commited a murder because his shirt is ugly", is the same crime as "I planned and commited a murder because he is sleeping with my wife".
Or "I stole bread because I'm hungry" is the same as "I stole bread so I could sell it and buy a playstation".
Why you did a crime is n
Re: His motivation? The law doesn't care.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, that's his main point. Intent is allowed in pretty much every other case, and he was charged under essentially the one thing that doesn't allow it. The law he was charged under his design for foreign spies leaking American secrets to wartime enemies. It was not designed for the case of telling the American public things our own government was doing to us, some of which were later found unconstitutional after they were revesled.
The old law that was designed for wartime spies is not designed for him, and some of the restrictions which are to prevent those foreign spies from releasing more secret information in court, doesn't apply to him.
Your statement was blanket about motivation, not to his specific case.
Re: (Score:2)
and some of the restrictions which are to prevent those foreign spies from releasing more secret information in court, doesn't apply to him.
And exactly what would prevent him from releasing more classified information in court except those restrictions? Why would it be ok for him to do that if we already accept that stopping 'foreign spies' from doing it is ok?
Re: (Score:2)
The classified information Snowden released demonstrated once more that the federal government only abides by laws and regulations when convenient. I would expect them to make your argument. It would be convenient for them to claim their hands were tied in response to Snowden's request for a public trail. After all, they'd only be following the law.
Re:His motivation? The law doesn't care.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Motivation/intent *shouldn't* matter. But like I said, I'm not speaking as an attorney. I'm saying what my feelings on this issue might be if I was a juror.
Should motivation matter if you kill your wife? What if she was coming at you with a machete, to chop your head off? What if she was swinging that machete to stop you from shooting your baby?
Motivations are hugely important in courts of law. The crimes which don't consider motivation (or intent as it's usually called) are known as "strict liability crimes" and they're very, very rare, for the excellent reason that justice can rarely be done without considering motivation.
He certainly knew ahead of time that he was likely to come across some terrible information that might cause him some moral outrage. But still, he agreed to the terms of his employment and willfully and knowingly broke them.
With all due respect, you're either frighteningly short-sighted or frighteningly fatalistic. Maybe you don't think it's important that your government be accountable for the actions it takes on your behalf, but I sure as hell do. And there's no way the government can be held accountable while it's allowed to keep secrets that are against the public interest. This is precisely why whistleblower laws have been passed, but those laws have regularly failed to protect the whistleblowers in recent decades, which is why Snowden decided not to chance it and ran. We need it to be possible for "terrible information that might cause moral outrage" among the majority of the citizenry to be published where it can do some good. You can argue about whether or not that was Snowden's intent, or about whether or not he executed his intent in the best way... but that's precisely why we have juries, to give a group of ordinary Americans the opportunity to examine the evidence and make a call.
Re: (Score:3)
So all whistle blowers are therefore criminals, and should be tried and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Fair? He literally committed treason. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think there is ever a justified reason for exposing that your own government is violating all sorts of laws?
Re: (Score:3)
NOWHERE, did he expose classified material that was legal.
Re:Fair? He literally committed treason. (Score:5, Insightful)
He wants "fair" the problem is that what he did was gather up thousands of highly classified documents from an intelligence agency in digital form en mass that he wasn't even sure what all he had until AFTER he turned it over to a foreign national and they began to sift through it together .... for all he knew he could have been turning over troop locations, foreign assets, all kinds of things and not only did he give it to someone not cleared to see it that was a citizen here, he handed it all directly to a foreign national that was known for leaking classified documents to other people ........ what he deserves is life in prison.
Fine, that's your opinion. What should happen is that a jury of 12 ordinary citizens get to hear all of the evidence of what he did and why and make the decision as to whether not he deserves life in prison. That's what he's asking for, and it's exactly what we try to do in all normal prosecutions.
Re: (Score:3)
George Washington also literally committed treason.
What Snowden wants... (Score:5, Interesting)
Snowden wants, across the board, the jury to be able to decide whether the action was right or wrong, not just legal or illegal. And in pursuit of that goal, he wants the defendant to be able to explain why he or she did the act.
In other words, Fully Informed Jury, the judge can't restrict what information the defendant presents. Jury Nullification, the jury has the right to judge not just the facts, but the law itself, and how it is being applied in this case.
That would be a pretty fundamental change in the way jurisprudence is done in the United States. It would probably be a good thing, irrespective of whether Snowden was right or wrong in what he did. In Snowden's case, I'm more on the anti side, personally, always have been.
But it's interesting that, back before Russia got blamed for His Orangeness getting into the White House, support for Snowden was pretty universal here. Now, since Snowden is in Russia, the opinion of him here seems to have changed radically.
I think he shou (Score:2)
He did us all a great service by leaking the info he did. Realistically, hes never going to be able to come back here as a free man. If I were him I would just accept it and start a new life. Instead of rotting in a US prison he could love out his days as a farmer or welder or whatever. Hes done more than enough for us.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet "Snowden Vodka" would sell pretty well.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd think the Russians could just give him a new passport and smuggle him out to live in obscurity somewhere.
Same Argument but Hoping Traction in Trump's USA (Score:2)
Jury nullification (Score:2)
I'm reminded of a case in which the judge questioned all prospective jurors and dismissed those likely to nullify:
https://truthout.org/video/why... [truthout.org]
Proof US is a Police State (Score:2)
Police State
"a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens' activities."
The USA secretly supervises the citizens activities. The USA also has secret courts and secret interpretations of laws where 1st, 4th, 5th, & 6th Amendment rights are suspended.
You can be arrested or killed by the government for any reason or no reason at all. The Police, Judges, Prosecutors, & Politicians are all in total agreement every-time someone gets fucked over by the
Re: (Score:2)
The USA secretly supervises the citizens activities.
Is it really that much of a secret?
"What I'm asking for is a fair trial" (Score:2)
What your asking for is for the court to redefine the law to your specifications.
Not Gonna Happen (Score:2)
Unfortunately, since Mr. Snowden's actions led to the exposure of actions the Powers That Be wanted kept secret, they have to make an example of him.
I still consider him a hero, though.
The " Why " is always important (Score:2)
This makes zero sense to me.
Take the following as an example:
I kill a man.
I'm arrested and during the trial, the jury is told to disregard the circumstances surrounding WHY I killed a man but, rather, to simply rule on whether my killing a man is illegal or not.
Under these circumstances, of course I'm guilty because killing a man is a crime.
However, had the jury heard the fact the man had kicked in the front door to my home, was armed and had violent intentions, the verdict would be vastly different due to
Re: (Score:2)
killing a man is a crime.
Killing a man is not always a crime. Murder is a crime. Killing in self-defence is not.
Great timing Ed (Score:2)
Just as all those presidential hopefuls are looking for ways to court those legions of disgusted and angry young voters. A promise of presidential pardon would pull a lot of young techies into camp. With all of the silly free stuff promises being thrown around in the debates, a pardon is a pretty damn cheap card to play in comparison.
Thanks for the revelations Ed. You made many big changes for the better, and we are all a little more secure in our persons, papers, and effects because of the very actions tho
Thank you Snowden (Score:2)
March 12, 2013: James "Least Untruthful" Clapper made his bold faced lie [youtu.be] to Senator Wyden. I can only assume his obvious discomfort was spurred by the actual depths of the government's betrayal.
June, 2013, just a few months later, the Guardian reports the first leak.
Thank you, Snowden, for having the courage and the integrity to do the right thing, even at such great personal risk. The slashdotters that spit on you would probably have remained loyal servants of the Crown. Or perhaps work for Microsoft, Goog
Political refugees (Score:2)
I remember when I was a kid, political refugees used to escape Russia and seek asylum in the United States.
Some time in the last 10 or 20 years that got turned upside down.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Got it.
Re:Does he really think it possible? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Executions for federal crimes in the US are performed using the method of the state in which the conviction occurred. Virginia executes by lethal injection, unless electrocution is requested. In Mississippi, Oklahoma and Utah you can still go for the firing squad though.
Re:Snowden is Asking for Special Treatment (Score:5, Informative)
Not true. The defense he wants is available normally, just not when charged under the Espionage Act. During the Obama administration, eight people were charged or convicted of leaking national security secrets under the Espionage Act - more such cases than under all previous administrations combined. So we're talking 15 or so people total charged under this law, first enacted in 1917. That isn't "treated like anyone else".
The law was meant for World War I era spies, and was last revised in 1961.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the US is in the wrong here.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, juries can frequently find people not guilty of a specific crime and guilty of a lesser crime with intent being one of the big factors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"A jury does not get to fill out a jury verdict form to say a person's actions were unlawful, but because he or she did the unlawful actions for the "right" reasons according to the jury's opinion, the person is therefore not guilty."
A jury does not have to give reasons for returning a not guilty verdict. Jurors are tasked with using their judgement. Sometimes this means deciding whether the law is fair or would produce a fair result. If a juror says "not guilty" then that's what he says whether you like
Re: (Score:2)
Jury nullification is a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but no, he is mistaken on how juries work. His view that the purpose of a jury trial is to let the jury hear the evidence and decide whether something was right or wrong is not correct. The jury is instructed on the law by the judge according the applicable jury charge; the jury's charge is then to determine if his actions were lawful or unlawful based upon the required elements of the alleged crime per the jury charge and in consideration of any enumerated mitigating factors under the applicable statute (also included in the jury charge if applicable). A jury does not get to fill out a jury verdict form to say a person's actions were unlawful, but because he or she did the unlawful actions for the "right" reasons according to the jury's opinion, the person is therefore not guilty.
Have you not heard of jury nullification?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, no, that's just flat wrong, and a contravention of English Common Law. Is that what they're teaching in government schools these days?
“The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”
~ John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, author on The Federalist Papers, and contributory framer to the US Constitution
The government would have you believe that people swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against enemies foreign a
Re: (Score:3)
Near as I can tell, many peoples' opinion is: to check a box on a list requirements. There is otherwise no reason, and the founders had no motivation whatsoever for guaranteeing the right to a jury trial. Juries are completely irrelevant and unnecessary for justice, and we would be better off without them, their inefficiency, and their fallibility.
And if a jury disagrees with a judge, that's an error on the jury's part. But it's an e
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if Bernie wins. Not sure about Warren. But Trump or Biden would both throw him to the wolves.
Isn't the Judicial Branch supposed to independent from the Executive Branch?
But then again, I'm relying on short blurps that they showed how a bill becomes a law between episodes of "Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids" back in the 70's on Saturday morning TV .
"Hey, hey, hey . . . It's Fat Albert!
Re: I don't think he'll get one here (Score:2)
The Executive Branch is the one that charges you with the crime. The Judicial Branch tries it. That's why the Department of Justice is an Executive Branch agency.
Re:I don't think he'll get one here (Score:5, Informative)
Nether Trump or Biden have anything to do with this. All they can do is use the executive branch to charges against them. From there on out its in the hands of the judicial branch. They can press charges but that is about it.
Um... they can not file charges (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's drop all the current charges against Snowden.
From what you're saying, the U.S. government can destroy him with copyright infringement charges.
Re: (Score:2)
the U.S. government can destroy him with copyright infringement charges.
Under current copyright law, works of the United States government are in the public domain.
Re: (Score:2)
And somehow Snowden is the bad guy for revealing it.