4 ms·

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

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.
        dragontamer 7y ago
        > Except for the fact that most criminal prosecutions in America are settled through plea bargaining I dunno why you're talking about "most criminal prosecutions" now, after you brought up the specific case of Thomas Drake (of which almost all charges were dropped). You can only move the goalposts so far before it gets annoying (especially since the parent post is talking about full on conspiracy-level "secret courts"). In any case, the plea bargain is 100% based on what the defense and the prosecution believe that a Jury would rule. It all comes down to the jury at the end. If neither side can agree on the plea bargain terms, then it comes down to the jury. > 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. Do you think Edward Snowden won't have funds to afford representation? Or that the ACLU will fail to raise funds for this highly anticipated case?

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.
        dragontamer 7y ago
        > Except for the fact that most criminal prosecutions in America are settled through plea bargaining I dunno why you're talking about "most criminal prosecutions" now, after you brought up the specific case of Thomas Drake (of which almost all charges were dropped). You can only move the goalposts so far before it gets annoying (especially since the parent post is talking about full on conspiracy-level "secret courts"). In any case, the plea bargain is 100% based on what the defense and the prosecution believe that a Jury would rule. It all comes down to the jury at the end. If neither side can agree on the plea bargain terms, then it comes down to the jury. > 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. Do you think Edward Snowden won't have funds to afford representation? Or that the ACLU will fail to raise funds for this highly anticipated case?