5 ms·

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 t

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.
      - travmatt 7y ago
        Do you believe Thomas Drake’s prosecution was fair and proportional to the ‘crimes’ he committed?
        dragontamer 7y ago
        When did I ever make a claim about prosecutors? I said the JURY decides. And in the Thomas Drake case, the prosecutors were so scared of the jury that they dropped all charges. As I said before: the jury decides ultimately. Prosecutors do not decide. Judges do not decide. Study up on the Thomas Drake case, the JURY is the weapon of choice which fights corruption. Specifically: the petite jury (aka: trial jury). Grand Jury is a bit more controversial, but its probably better than nothing at all.
        travmatt 7y ago
        Except for the fact that most criminal prosecutions in America are settled through plea bargaining, not trial - isn’t that correct? So to be accurate, the prosecutors decide most of the ‘justice’ in America - judges and juries play no part in plea agreements. Thomas Drake was able to escape the prosecutors also playing judge because he was able to afford representation, and his funds outlasted the pressure the prosecution was able to bring against him. According to your argument, his great victory was only trading his life’s earning for his freedom, instead of forfeiting both for attempting to be an ethical man. It’s pretty obvious that any prosecution of Snowden would aim to forfeit both his freedom and life earning’s, irregardless of the crimes they actually believe he committed.
mindslight 7y ago
Philosophically yes, every accused person everywhere should get to critique whether the trial they will/would receive will/would be fair. Practically, only those who successfully escape a mechanical application of the "justice system" meatgrinder get to do so in a non-futile way. You seem to be trying to form a philosophical argument supporting the status quo, based simply on the fact it's the status quo.
- aabeshou 7y ago
  > You seem to be trying to form a philosophical argument supporting the status quo, based simply on the fact it's the status quo. This is what the right and the center can always agree on.
Accujack 7y ago
Perhaps you don't know that the US is proposing to try him under a special set of court rules reserved for people who offend against the military industrial complex? IE, they won't use the regular/constitutional process, they have a secret court just for people accused of what he did. Given that, I think he has a right to contest the methods by which he'd be tried.
- objectivetruth 7y ago
  how did YOU find out about this super-secret magical mystery court?
aabeshou 7y ago
and what makes you think that the US will make him "face justice"? It will make him face the US justice system, but they are unfortunately not the same thing.
biggt 7y ago
Dont confuse laws with what's right and wrong. History is littered with awful laws in every country.

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.
    - travmatt 7y ago
      Do you believe Thomas Drake’s prosecution was fair and proportional to the ‘crimes’ he committed?
      - dragontamer 7y ago
        When did I ever make a claim about prosecutors? I said the JURY decides. And in the Thomas Drake case, the prosecutors were so scared of the jury that they dropped all charges. As I said before: the jury decides ultimately. Prosecutors do not decide. Judges do not decide. Study up on the Thomas Drake case, the JURY is the weapon of choice which fights corruption. Specifically: the petite jury (aka: trial jury). Grand Jury is a bit more controversial, but its probably better than nothing at all.
        travmatt 7y ago
        Except for the fact that most criminal prosecutions in America are settled through plea bargaining, not trial - isn’t that correct? So to be accurate, the prosecutors decide most of the ‘justice’ in America - judges and juries play no part in plea agreements. Thomas Drake was able to escape the prosecutors also playing judge because he was able to afford representation, and his funds outlasted the pressure the prosecution was able to bring against him. According to your argument, his great victory was only trading his life’s earning for his freedom, instead of forfeiting both for attempting to be an ethical man. It’s pretty obvious that any prosecution of Snowden would aim to forfeit both his freedom and life earning’s, irregardless of the crimes they actually believe he committed.

mindslight 7y ago

Philosophically yes, every accused person everywhere should get to critique whether the trial they will/would receive will/would be fair. Practically, only those who successfully escape a mechanical application of the "justice system" meatgrinder get to do so in a non-futile way. You seem to be trying to form a philosophical argument supporting the status quo, based simply on the fact it's the status quo.

aabeshou 7y ago
> You seem to be trying to form a philosophical argument supporting the status quo, based simply on the fact it's the status quo. This is what the right and the center can always agree on.

Accujack 7y ago

Perhaps you don't know that the US is proposing to try him under a special set of court rules reserved for people who offend against the military industrial complex? IE, they won't use the regular/constitutional process, they have a secret court just for people accused of what he did. Given that, I think he has a right to contest the methods by which he'd be tried.

objectivetruth 7y ago
how did YOU find out about this super-secret magical mystery court?

aabeshou 7y ago

and what makes you think that the US will make him "face justice"? It will make him face the US justice system, but they are unfortunately not the same thing.

biggt 7y ago

Dont confuse laws with what's right and wrong. History is littered with awful laws in every country.