4 ms·

Doesn't pardoning assume convicting him first? Or does it mean there won't be open trial? I think an open and media covered trial will be more valuable to the p

Doesn't pardoning assume convicting him first? Or does it mean there won't be open trial? I think an open and media covered trial will be more valuable to the public. Not sure about himself.

bertil 10y ago
The assumption is that he has been convicted by a secret court (FISA).
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  I think you need to adjust your tinfoil hat. FISA does not have jurisdiction to hear any criminal complaints.
  - whamlastxmas 10y ago
    It's pretty shitty to throw the term "tinfoil hat" in an argument, especially so when discussing Snowden. It's also pretty silly to make the assumption that there hasn't been some sort of secret equivalent of conviction given everything we've learned about how opaque our government is.
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      You're simply wrong. FISA courts exist because Congress created them and gave them jurisdiction. There is no such thing as a secret conviction under US law. There is no such thing as a secret criminal trial, where the accused has no opportunity to defend themselves, under US law. Does not exist period.
      - whamlastxmas 10y ago
        Just like there's no such thing as domestic mass surveillance under US law? And who said he was tried in our criminal court system? If it's a matter of "national security" all due process flies out the window. My point is there is literally no way for you to know and claiming people are wrong and dismissing them with "tin foil" arguments is shitty.
        marcoperaza 10y ago
        Just because you don't understand why it's not possible, doesn't mean that it is. A US citizen cannot be imprisoned without due process or being found in contempt of court (and in that case, only until the moment they comply with the court order). This is a basic premise of shelves upon shelves worth of Supreme Court decisions, and is guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Even without those amendments, what you suggest is not possible because Congress has passed no law establishing a body with the authority to imprison people in such a matter. And even then, only "Article III tribunals" (i.e. federal courts) have the authority to deprive civilians of liberty under federal law. "Article I tribunals" only have limited authority to decide civil matters, and to hear court-martials of servicemen. You're also making totally false claims like: >If it's a matter of "national security" all due process flies out the window. There are multiple recent Supreme Court decisions directly contradicting that. For example, and very relevant to this exact discussion, the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Further, given that Snowden is not a combatant in any armed forces or insurgent group, he is not subject to any military jurisdiction. He can only be tried in US federal courts.
        cwkoss 10y ago
        NDAA authorized indefinite detention.
        whamlastxmas 10y ago
        Where was the due process for Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a 16 year old American who was killed by a drone strike without any evidence of being involved as a combatant or part of an insurgent group? As far as I can tell, there was never any official comment by any government official about this despite countless inquiries. Never any accountability. Hence my argument, due process is less relevant than ever these days. It is not at all out of the question for Snowden to be considered an enemy combatant, especially since we apply that same logic to any adult male in the vicinity of a drone target.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  FISA's jurisdiction is to rule on surveillance permits. Not criminal convictions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intell... The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC, also called the FISA Court) is a U.S. federal court established and authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The governing legal code: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1805 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1805 So: 1. FISA doesn't do criminal convictions. 2. There are no secret courts in the US capable of in absentia trials.[1] 3. Your attacking those who are correcting your factual misapprehensions doesn't play well here. Please don't do that. ________________________________ Notes: 1. If a defendant takes off during the pretrial phase, however, he may be able to elude an in absentia conviction. In the 1993 case Crosby v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law "prohibits the trial in absentia of a defendant who is not present at the beginning of trial." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2003/06/when_can_a_defendant_be_tried_in_absentia.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...
  - bertil 10y ago
    I am not attacking anyone, simply clarifying the implicit assumptions of people who believe that Snowden needs a pardon. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has introduced jurisdictions that goes outside of the usual process of law, notably publicity; people who oppose that trend in government tend to assume that Snowden has been convicted using such an extraordinary measure. Whether that is possible within the current law framework seems irrelevant to both those claiming for his head, and Snowden himself.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      FISA is all flavours of horrible. But what it doesn't do is provide a venue for convictions. Only (and I grit my teeth and clench my gut when I write that) approval of surveillance requests. In a no-contest, no-appeal, rubber-stamp, kangaroo court, yes. But only surveillance orders. And, my error, it was whamlastxmas who went full tinfoilhattery on us, not you. The inability to see up/down thread when responding to an HN comment is a bit crippling. I apologise for my third point, that doesn't apply to you. Your clarification that some other people might think Snowden's already been convicted (by a court which cannot convict, no less) might have legs, though I've seen no particular evidence of it. The strictures against in abstentia convictions make it little more than a myth, and it probably shouldn't be offered without noting that it violates numerous elements of US statutory and case law.
dredmorbius 10y ago
No. Addressed multiple times in this thread. Notably: Nixon pardoned by Ford, and Vietname War draft-dodgers pardoned by Carter, without necessity of prior convictions.

Doesn't pardoning assume convicting him first? Or does it mean there won't be open trial? I think an open and media covered trial will be more valuable to the public. Not sure about himself.

bertil 10y ago

The assumption is that he has been convicted by a secret court (FISA).

marcoperaza 10y ago
I think you need to adjust your tinfoil hat. FISA does not have jurisdiction to hear any criminal complaints.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  It's pretty shitty to throw the term "tinfoil hat" in an argument, especially so when discussing Snowden. It's also pretty silly to make the assumption that there hasn't been some sort of secret equivalent of conviction given everything we've learned about how opaque our government is.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    You're simply wrong. FISA courts exist because Congress created them and gave them jurisdiction. There is no such thing as a secret conviction under US law. There is no such thing as a secret criminal trial, where the accused has no opportunity to defend themselves, under US law. Does not exist period.
    - whamlastxmas 10y ago
      Just like there's no such thing as domestic mass surveillance under US law? And who said he was tried in our criminal court system? If it's a matter of "national security" all due process flies out the window. My point is there is literally no way for you to know and claiming people are wrong and dismissing them with "tin foil" arguments is shitty.
      - marcoperaza 10y ago
        Just because you don't understand why it's not possible, doesn't mean that it is. A US citizen cannot be imprisoned without due process or being found in contempt of court (and in that case, only until the moment they comply with the court order). This is a basic premise of shelves upon shelves worth of Supreme Court decisions, and is guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Even without those amendments, what you suggest is not possible because Congress has passed no law establishing a body with the authority to imprison people in such a matter. And even then, only "Article III tribunals" (i.e. federal courts) have the authority to deprive civilians of liberty under federal law. "Article I tribunals" only have limited authority to decide civil matters, and to hear court-martials of servicemen. You're also making totally false claims like: >If it's a matter of "national security" all due process flies out the window. There are multiple recent Supreme Court decisions directly contradicting that. For example, and very relevant to this exact discussion, the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Further, given that Snowden is not a combatant in any armed forces or insurgent group, he is not subject to any military jurisdiction. He can only be tried in US federal courts.
        cwkoss 10y ago
        NDAA authorized indefinite detention.
        whamlastxmas 10y ago
        Where was the due process for Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a 16 year old American who was killed by a drone strike without any evidence of being involved as a combatant or part of an insurgent group? As far as I can tell, there was never any official comment by any government official about this despite countless inquiries. Never any accountability. Hence my argument, due process is less relevant than ever these days. It is not at all out of the question for Snowden to be considered an enemy combatant, especially since we apply that same logic to any adult male in the vicinity of a drone target.
dredmorbius 10y ago
FISA's jurisdiction is to rule on surveillance permits. Not criminal convictions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intell... The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC, also called the FISA Court) is a U.S. federal court established and authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The governing legal code: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1805 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1805 So: 1. FISA doesn't do criminal convictions. 2. There are no secret courts in the US capable of in absentia trials.[1] 3. Your attacking those who are correcting your factual misapprehensions doesn't play well here. Please don't do that. ________________________________ Notes: 1. If a defendant takes off during the pretrial phase, however, he may be able to elude an in absentia conviction. In the 1993 case Crosby v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law "prohibits the trial in absentia of a defendant who is not present at the beginning of trial." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2003/06/when_can_a_defendant_be_tried_in_absentia.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...
- bertil 10y ago
  I am not attacking anyone, simply clarifying the implicit assumptions of people who believe that Snowden needs a pardon. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has introduced jurisdictions that goes outside of the usual process of law, notably publicity; people who oppose that trend in government tend to assume that Snowden has been convicted using such an extraordinary measure. Whether that is possible within the current law framework seems irrelevant to both those claiming for his head, and Snowden himself.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    FISA is all flavours of horrible. But what it doesn't do is provide a venue for convictions. Only (and I grit my teeth and clench my gut when I write that) approval of surveillance requests. In a no-contest, no-appeal, rubber-stamp, kangaroo court, yes. But only surveillance orders. And, my error, it was whamlastxmas who went full tinfoilhattery on us, not you. The inability to see up/down thread when responding to an HN comment is a bit crippling. I apologise for my third point, that doesn't apply to you. Your clarification that some other people might think Snowden's already been convicted (by a court which cannot convict, no less) might have legs, though I've seen no particular evidence of it. The strictures against in abstentia convictions make it little more than a myth, and it probably shouldn't be offered without noting that it violates numerous elements of US statutory and case law.

dredmorbius 10y ago

No. Addressed multiple times in this thread. Notably: Nixon pardoned by Ford, and Vietname War draft-dodgers pardoned by Carter, without necessity of prior convictions.