5 ms·

Edward Snowden wants to come home but says U.S. won’t give him a fair trial

32 points by NN88 7y ago

waynecochran 7y ago
The gap between Snowden's eloquence at answering questions and the hackery of the CBS hosts is almost comic.
- bredren 7y ago
  I thought most of the host questions / utterances were reasonably generic and basic enough for Snowden to give a relatively detailed response with some respect to their need to keep viewers glued to the screen. This is network TV, not Charlie Rose. I was surprised they did not probe on his concerns about Russia’s meddling in the Presidential election—-particularly w regard to its use of social media to influence the votes of the American public. I’d have liked to hear how Snowden compares what he considers to be unethical or even criminal widespread privacy violations with the presumed intent of a foreign power to influence an election. He says he’s concerned with the human rights abuses of the Russian gov but says nothing of what some describe as an attack on the democratic process.
  - waynecochran 7y ago
    The CBS hosts' were really trying to control the narrative and frame the questions so that either a "yes" or "no" answer would be damning. e.g., "Was is illegal?" -- that is like the proverbial "do you enjoy beating your wife?" or "should we pay taxes to Caesar?" question. It's a trap question.
kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
Should every accused person, everywhere, get to play coy with facing justice or just people you are ideologically aligned with who are charged with crimes you think ought not be crimes? I imagine there are many people, of many different backgrounds, charged with many different crimes who would assert that they won't be given a fair trial.
- alexandercrohde 7y ago
  I think Snowden's point is that America has no authority over him. Seeing as he has leverage, he's trying to raise the bar on what's fair.
- headcanon 7y ago
  The difference here is that Snowden was acting as a whistleblower in the interest of the public good, and he asserts (and many agree) that doing so through the legal channels would not have had the same effect. While he did clearly break the law as it was written, I believe he made the world a better place. Which makes me think that maybe its the law that should be revisited, not his actions. Most unjust laws need high-profile perpetrators in order to highlight how unjust they are, and act as a catalyst for change.
  - dragontamer 7y ago
    > The difference here is that Snowden was acting as a whistleblower in the interest of the public good, Then lets get a fair, and impartial, jury and see whether or not the Jury is willing to conclude on this fact.
    - fallingfrog 7y ago
      You and I both know that’s not what would happen. He’d be tried in some secret court somewhere and we’d never find out what happened to him. The state would never actually let him win, regardless of the facts.
      - dragontamer 7y ago
        Why not? Snowden was a civilian, which means he'll go through the public courts when he gets here. The "fair and impartial" part means that jury members will be randomly selected, and then the prosecutor, judge, and defense lawyers get to throw out potentially unwanted jury members. Beyond that, a "fair and impartial" jury is just that. Randomized people who will be forced to listen to the case. That's literally how our court system works. ------ Tell me: how do you imagine things would go down? EDIT: https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/edward-snowden-complaint-unsealed-093181 https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/edward-snowden-compla... Looks like the public courts as far as I can tell. US District Court of Virginia. Complaints are filed (have been for years), courts are ready. All Snowden needs to do is show up for the show to get going. > He’d be tried in some secret court somewhere and we’d never find out what happened to him. If they were planning on a "secret court" (whatever that means), they're doing a horrible job at it. Putting all of these charges in public and all. > The state would never actually let him win, regardless of the facts. That's not for the state to decide. Its up to the jury.
reeboo 7y ago
He wants the jury in his trail to be made aware of jury-nullification.
- Accujack 7y ago
  Assuming he gets a jury trial, which isn't guaranteed. Look up how the US government is proposing to try him.
  - objectivetruth 7y ago
    At this point, instead of repeatedly and cryptically referring to some secret court process that you're privy to, it would be great if you could cite a reputable source.
Ari_Ugwu 7y ago
Couldn't get through the video. Dude is so smug it hurts. He is the Steven Seagal of cyber security. I got to the part in the video where he asks "Is the question whether I broke the law, or whether breaking the law was the right thing to do?" lul. Good luck in your trial with that 'holier than thou' attitude bud. Judges just _love_ that nonsense. Parole hearings also love it when you show no respect for the laws your broke or the system you harmed.
- ncmncm 7y ago
  What have you ever done or risked for the common good? Throwing away his life and career to alert the public to felonious activity by government employees deserves medals. The govt officials who broke the laws he exposed are not facing arrest. Why not?

32 points by NN88 7y ago

waynecochran 7y ago

The gap between Snowden's eloquence at answering questions and the hackery of the CBS hosts is almost comic.

bredren 7y ago
I thought most of the host questions / utterances were reasonably generic and basic enough for Snowden to give a relatively detailed response with some respect to their need to keep viewers glued to the screen. This is network TV, not Charlie Rose. I was surprised they did not probe on his concerns about Russia’s meddling in the Presidential election—-particularly w regard to its use of social media to influence the votes of the American public. I’d have liked to hear how Snowden compares what he considers to be unethical or even criminal widespread privacy violations with the presumed intent of a foreign power to influence an election. He says he’s concerned with the human rights abuses of the Russian gov but says nothing of what some describe as an attack on the democratic process.
- waynecochran 7y ago
  The CBS hosts' were really trying to control the narrative and frame the questions so that either a "yes" or "no" answer would be damning. e.g., "Was is illegal?" -- that is like the proverbial "do you enjoy beating your wife?" or "should we pay taxes to Caesar?" question. It's a trap question.

kilo_bravo_3 7y ago

Should every accused person, everywhere, get to play coy with facing justice or just people you are ideologically aligned with who are charged with crimes you think ought not be crimes? I imagine there are many people, of many different backgrounds, charged with many different crimes who would assert that they won't be given a fair trial.

alexandercrohde 7y ago
I think Snowden's point is that America has no authority over him. Seeing as he has leverage, he's trying to raise the bar on what's fair.
headcanon 7y ago
The difference here is that Snowden was acting as a whistleblower in the interest of the public good, and he asserts (and many agree) that doing so through the legal channels would not have had the same effect. While he did clearly break the law as it was written, I believe he made the world a better place. Which makes me think that maybe its the law that should be revisited, not his actions. Most unjust laws need high-profile perpetrators in order to highlight how unjust they are, and act as a catalyst for change.
- dragontamer 7y ago
  > The difference here is that Snowden was acting as a whistleblower in the interest of the public good, Then lets get a fair, and impartial, jury and see whether or not the Jury is willing to conclude on this fact.
  - fallingfrog 7y ago
    You and I both know that’s not what would happen. He’d be tried in some secret court somewhere and we’d never find out what happened to him. The state would never actually let him win, regardless of the facts.
    - dragontamer 7y ago
      Why not? Snowden was a civilian, which means he'll go through the public courts when he gets here. The "fair and impartial" part means that jury members will be randomly selected, and then the prosecutor, judge, and defense lawyers get to throw out potentially unwanted jury members. Beyond that, a "fair and impartial" jury is just that. Randomized people who will be forced to listen to the case. That's literally how our court system works. ------ Tell me: how do you imagine things would go down? EDIT: https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/edward-snowden-complaint-unsealed-093181 https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/edward-snowden-compla... Looks like the public courts as far as I can tell. US District Court of Virginia. Complaints are filed (have been for years), courts are ready. All Snowden needs to do is show up for the show to get going. > He’d be tried in some secret court somewhere and we’d never find out what happened to him. If they were planning on a "secret court" (whatever that means), they're doing a horrible job at it. Putting all of these charges in public and all. > The state would never actually let him win, regardless of the facts. That's not for the state to decide. Its up to the jury.

reeboo 7y ago

He wants the jury in his trail to be made aware of jury-nullification.

Accujack 7y ago
Assuming he gets a jury trial, which isn't guaranteed. Look up how the US government is proposing to try him.
- objectivetruth 7y ago
  At this point, instead of repeatedly and cryptically referring to some secret court process that you're privy to, it would be great if you could cite a reputable source.

Ari_Ugwu 7y ago

Couldn't get through the video. Dude is so smug it hurts. He is the Steven Seagal of cyber security. I got to the part in the video where he asks "Is the question whether I broke the law, or whether breaking the law was the right thing to do?" lul. Good luck in your trial with that 'holier than thou' attitude bud. Judges just _love_ that nonsense. Parole hearings also love it when you show no respect for the laws your broke or the system you harmed.

ncmncm 7y ago
What have you ever done or risked for the common good? Throwing away his life and career to alert the public to felonious activity by government employees deserves medals. The govt officials who broke the laws he exposed are not facing arrest. Why not?