8 ms·

Fair trial impossible in U.S., Snowden tells Ecuador

160 points by mathattack 13y ago

joering2 13y ago
Snowden has nothing to worry about. He should come back home. Here: Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process. Barack H. Obama, The Obama-Biden Plan. http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/ http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  This is comedy gold.
- etherael 13y ago
  Which might be relevant if recent revelations hadn't reclassified this from noble ideal to hilarious parody and/or epitome of hypocrisy.
- alexqgb 13y ago
  Worth remembering: The Whistleblower Protection Act covers Federal employees only, not private contractors. Moreover, efforts to expand the law to protect contractors as well have been repeatedly rebuffed in Congress.
  - eli 13y ago
    That's misleading/false. The "Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act" specifically protects intelligence contractors. (Now I'll grant you that it probably isn't an attractive option for a lot of reasons, but there is a way for people like him to blow the whistle on illegal government activity without going to jail.)
    - venomsnake 13y ago
      But it is legal ... that is the problem.
    - alexqgb 13y ago
      No @eli, you've just got your facts wrong. What you're referring to is not the same thing as the Whistleblower Protection Act. Critically, the Act to which you refer isn't concerned with protection at all. It simply designates the path that reports should follow in getting to Congress. Retaliation against those who use it goes unaddressed. Tellingly, the Act has not been used once since its passage. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Community_Whistleblower_Protection_Act http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Community_Whistl...
      - eli 13y ago
        Huh? Which facts were wrong? Yes, they're different laws. The WPA doesn't apply to DoD at all AFAIK, so the fact the point made above that contractors are exempt is irrelevant. The law that covers the NSA is the ICWPA and it applies equally to contractors and employees. As I said above, I agree it's not a real great law and I could understand not wanting to take advantage of it. But reporting things to the IG or Congress is how you blow the whistle on classified intelligence programs. That's the process. I can't imagine it being a good idea to allow any low-level contractor to blow the cover of a classified program because they have decided it's wrong or unconstitutional.
        alexqgb 13y ago
        You were wrong in saying I was making misleading and / or false statements about Snowden's lack of protection and you're wrong in your belief that the law you cited offers protection to whistleblowers. The Whistleblower Protection Act - which is what I was originally talking about - has two seperate features. The first is to provide a well-defined pathway for reporting abuses to Congress. The second is to provide protection from retaliation against those who use this path. The point I made is that this Act covers Federal employees only, and not private contractors. What you referred to was a different law, written specifically for NatSec agencies. Like the Whistleblower Protection Act, it delineates a clear path for reporting abuse to Congress. And unlike the more general Act, it opens this path to private contractors as well as direct employees of the government. However—and this is critical—it does NOT provide the shield against retaliation that the Whistleblower Protection Act provides. In other words, if you're a private contractor (i.e. unprotected) and you use it to speak truth to power, you'd better be prepared to run. So like I said, as a private security contractor, Snowden doesn't enjoy meaningful protections in the event that he blows a whistle. All he's got is a path for doing so that he may use at his own (very considerable) risk. Again, as noted, not a single complaint has reached Congress via this channel. Not one. That should give you an idea as to how important the protections that Snowden doesn't enjoy really are.
- eli 13y ago
  Surely you agree that there needs to be some sort of organized process for whistleblowers, right? You can't just have government employees exposing secrets without punishment because they don't like something.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
alan_cx 13y ago
When defendants can be over whelmed to the point of suicide, with many charges, knowing that a jury is likely to find guilt on at least one of them, and basically feel (s)he might as well plead guilty to get a lesser of two evils sentence, I'm not sure how any one thinks they can get a fair trial in the US, unless they have a huge amount of money to lose, let alone the likes of Snowden. The idea of facing any sort of trial in a US court scares me senseless.
- carbocation 13y ago
  Often, assets will be frozen before the trial (see Silverglate's Three Felonies A Day for more details), so even those with vast resources may be unable to bring them to bear.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    This happens in cases where those assets are alleged to be the product of the crime itself; most felonies don't create that circumstance.
- mpyne 13y ago
  How does one get a fair trial in any nation with a free press and freedom of speech then? If the jury has been tampered with, it has been by the incessant media coverage, which is permitted by the wide-ranging protections on the press, protections which Snowden is fighting for along with the rest of our Bill of Rights, no?
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    We could start by punishing some of the prosecutors who are particularly notorious for creating these conditions.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      What prosecutors are responsible for the 24/7 news cycle?
  - 13y ago
cafard 13y ago
I suspect that a trial that would result in Snowden being found not guilty is nearly impossible--given anything like competence in the prosecution team. But is a fair trial supposed to be like a fair coin, with an even chance either way? Note that I am not saying anything with regard to rights and wrongs, merely about laws. [Edit: changed "found guilty" to "found not guilty". Thanks.]
- mtgx 13y ago
  Guilty on what? He has 3 charges against him. Pretty sure he won't be found guilty of Espionage (at least not at the Supreme Court if he gets there). If it's in a normal Texas Court, then he may be, and his fears might prove real that he won't get a fair trial. As for being found guilty of "leaking classified documents", I supposed that could happen, but again I'd like to see the issue at the Supreme Court, because there you might see it being discussed if a whistleblower can or can't be charged for "leaking".
- rthomas6 13y ago
  Why do you think that a fair trial would result in Snowden almost certainly not being found guilty?
  - danudey 13y ago
    The debate isn't whether a fair trial would convict him, the debate is whether it would be a fair trial. Regardless of whether he's guilty of a crime, an unfair trial is a sign of an unjust society. Though, the same could be said for mass warrantless wiretapping.
- ipsin 13y ago
  I suspect you meant "being found not guilty is nearly impossible". And federal prosecution is absolutely nothing like a fair coin toss -- the federal conviction rate is 90+%. I think this has something to do with the tactics used in federal cases -- throwing an array of charges and seizing assets, for example. Also, the idea of jury nullification (the idea that jurors can find someone 'not guilty' of an unjust law) cannot be broached by the defense.
ihsw 13y ago
Interesting how the US equates her own jurisdiction with 'the law.' During the HK debacle they made this statement: > If Hong Kong doesn't act soon, it will complicate our bilateral relations and raise questions about Hong Kong's commitment to the rule of law. And again regarding Russia: > I would urge them to live by the standards of the law because that is in the interest of everybody. Universal jurisdiction is a difficult policy to enforce since it can be challenged so plainly and directly by other state actors, especially if it's enforced selectively based on diplomatic convenience.
- joering2 13y ago
  US government is the most selfish country in the world. They sit on #2 oil mine in the world (Alaska) but yet continue to suck it up from any other place. And yes indeed its irony how they believe the only law everyone needs to comply is the one they set up. And if they decide to use nuclear weapon of course it will be in accordance with rule of law and in "interest of everybody". Yuck. That abuse of basic words: everyone, everybody, everywhere. My parents gave me really good advice: do not ever listen or trust people who continuously abuse those words.
  - _delirium 13y ago
    This is becoming something of a tangent, but the U.S. doesn't produce a particularly large amount of oil relative to its population: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_pro_percap-energy-oil-production-per-capita http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_pro_percap-energy-...
  - outworlder 13y ago
    > US government is the most selfish country in the world. They sit on #2 oil mine in the world (Alaska) but yet continue to suck it up from any other place. Isn't that just logical, however? Other countries could do the same, but they prefer to exchange their reserves for dollars. Once the other countries reserves start to run out, then the US will begin tapping theirs. That's smart, from my point of view.
    - 13y ago
bayesianhorse 13y ago
It's a thorny issue. On the one hand, Snowden clearly committed treason in revealing a part of the national security architecture. So even in a fair trial, even counting how overdue the discussion about constitutional compatibility was, he can't expect to get free. But he is right. While the US have a much fairer process of trial than most other countries, the system has been bitch-slapped left and right over Guantanamo and Wikileaks. What is worse: The US justice system's failures are minutely documented, while China and Russia do these kind of trials routinely, and noone really bothers.
- mtgx 13y ago
  He didn't commit treason. He isn't even charged for treason.
- rthomas6 13y ago
  I agree with you except maybe on the word "treason". I'm not so sure that revealing state secrets is treason. A crime, certainly, but not treason. I thought treason was siding with some other entity over the interests of the state. So, for instance, if Snowden took state secrets and sold them to China, that might be treason.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Well in layman terms treason is anything that deliberately weakens your state in favor of those of your enemies. Pointing out specifics of U.S. cyberattacks on Chinese infrastructure might actually be one example. But then there is also a Constitutional definition that Snowden would not fall under.
    - ceejayoz 13y ago
      > But then there is also a Constitutional definition that Snowden would not fall under. That's the only definition that matters. "Weakens the state" could apply to someone who complains about their taxes on Twitter.
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Lendal 13y ago
I really wish I could sign the White House petition to pardon Snowden, but I don't want to get my name on the no-fly list or any other such secret lists of "terrorists". I wonder how many Americans are afraid to speak out for the same reason. I guarantee every one of those 110,000 people who signed that petition are now being closely watched.
- msg 13y ago
  I guess I'm living my life in the government bubble. If you're censoring your feelings out of concern for the security apparatus, you are really missing the point. This is not Mao's hundred flowers campaign, and it is your job as a citizen to make sure it never gets there. The only way to stop this leviathan is to change minds. If you thought SOPA was a dark day for the internet, surely this sucking up of network metadata and content data strikes at the heart of end to end communication. I wonder if we need to start over on the privacy-protected internet, just to make sure this can never happen again.
- mpyne 13y ago
  The NSA doesn't have enough analysts to "closely watch" anywhere close to that number though.
  - danudey 13y ago
    They don't need analysts to watch them. They just need to add their contact information to their 'watch more closely' list, and then run that through their data mining software. There's more than enough processing power to add a few hundred thousand more people to their 'intense scrutiny' list. Not that I expect that it's actually going to happen, but it's not beyond the realm of their capability.
- ipsin 13y ago
  If 110,000 are more closely watched because they signed a petition, problems are much bigger than they currently appear to be. I am confident in at least that much. Sign the petition, use the voice you have. I did.
- 13y ago
DanHulton 13y ago
There's a lot of discussion here that is missing the point that is clearly expressed in the first paragraph of the article: "Pleading for asylum from U.S. officials he says want to persecute him, NSA leaker Edward Snowden told Ecuadorian officials that he fears a life of inhumane treatment -- even death -- if he's returned the United States to answer espionage charges, the country's foreign minister said Monday." Snowden isn't afraid of being found guilty and serving a reasonable sentence. He's afraid of disappearing into a secret dungeon and tortured for decades. Which is a thing the USA has been proven to do. Recently. To people who have upset the government way, way less than he has. It's a legit fear.
- lifeformed 13y ago
  > He's afraid of disappearing into a secret dungeon and tortured for decades. Which is a thing the USA has been proven to do. Recently. To people who have upset the government way, way less than he has. Can you provide some examples of when this has happened to a non-military US citizen? I'm not denying it, I'm just genuinely curious here.
  - CapitalistCartr 13y ago
    He's probably referring to America's program of "Extraordinary Rendition" which disappears people off the streets of cities around the World, and transports them to coöperating countries that are happy to torture prisoners. Supposedly such nations have included Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, and Libya. The number of people so disappeared, their nationality, and their ultimate fate is in unknown. There is no way for the American public to ascertain whether or not such abductions have happened on American soil because the program is secret, lacking any oversight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
- pyre 13y ago
  | He's afraid of disappearing into a secret dungeon | and tortured for decades. Or spending decades in solitary confinement, which is akin to torture.
ianhawes 13y ago
I sincerely hope that Ecuador denies his request and he is deported back to the United States. In his Q&A, Snowden said the United States was worth dying for. If he truly wants things changed, he certainly won't achieve it hiding in Ecuador. He has the opportunity to present his case to the citizens of the United States through the proper avenues: our justice system, our legislature (through Congressional hearings), and our press. To allege he won't receive a fair trial in the United States is completely ridiculous. What he's really trying to say is he knows he is guilty. Could you imagine if Daniel Ellsberg had fled to a foreign country and sought asylum there? The entire premise of a whistleblower would probably not exist if he had done that.
- outworlder 13y ago
  > To allege he won't receive a fair trial in the United States is completely ridiculous. What he's really trying to say is he knows he is guilty. What he is saying is that he knows the government considers him guilty and will make it so. Which doesn't automatically mean that he shares the same opinion.
- agwa 13y ago
  How could he possibly "present his case to the citizens of the United States" when he's sitting in jail awaiting trial, and is then imprisoned for decades after conviction, possibly in severely cruel and restrictive conditions that deny him contact with the outside world[1]? He could lead a much more effective campaign as a free man in Ecuador. Furthermore, allowing himself to be captured and subject to harsh treatment would be an extremely effective deterrent to future whistleblowers thinking of doing the same thing. [1] See "Special Administrative Measures" here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_administrative_measure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_administrative_measure] and [http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/June/09-ag-564.html http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/June/09-ag-564.html] (bottom of page) and [http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/24mcrm.htm#9-24.300 http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit...] (under "9-24.300") - given that he is charged with espionage and the govt would love to make an example out of him, I have no doubt he would be subject to that. (Edit: fixed typo: it's "Special Administrative Measures" not "Conditions" and added additional links)
tpatke 13y ago
I realize this may not be a popular opinion, but I think Snowden should turn himself in. There is a wider America then the one we get here on HN. The wider America is the same one which voted for Bush and don't own passports. To that America it is easy to see Snowden as a traitor and running to China and Russia isn't helping. I realize that Manning has had it pretty rough while in custody, but: 1. Snowden is a civilian. He has not submitted himself to military law. As far as I am aware, everything that has happened to Manning is (unfortunately) in line with military law. 2. Manning leaked GBs of confidential documents seemingly at random. Snowden is pointing out a particular problem which he finds morally repulsive. These are two different issues. In short, the more Snowden acts like a criminal, the more he will be perceived to be a criminal. Monitoring citizens is one thing. The failure of the criminal justice system / law and order is another. Furthermore, it is difficult to support him when he is in hiding. Snowden is acting like he did something wrong. He should own it.
- graedus 13y ago
  I see your reasoning, but the "wider America" of which you speak - or at least a large portion of it - would still be calling for him to be tossed in prison (or worse) for being a "traitor" after he turned himself in. IOW I don't think it would help him much in the court of public opinion. Further, the distinction between indiscriminately leaking and selective/targeted leaking is a real one but I don't think it will result in him being spared in any sense. I can't blame him for wanting to prolong media exposure instead of being locked up awaiting trial for "espionage" while the story quickly disappears from the headlines and from the national and global consciousness.
- icelancer 13y ago
  >Snowden is acting like he did something wrong. He should own it. Easy for you to say. You're not the one facing an unwinnable trial and/or serious human rights violations.
  - mr_luc 13y ago
    Yeah - the "own it" advice seems crazy in this situation. I mean, the guy already put his face on it, blew the whistle. He "owned" it. Now he's trying to avoid a life of constant suffering for doing what he saw as the right thing. From the standpoint of his welfare, yeah, he had to move. This isn't a startup with a PR problem after making a tough but principled decision. This is a guy who worked within government, pulled a Bradley Manning, and is still at large. Startup marketing slash public relations 101 advice just isn't very realistic in this situation. Now, if you're talking about the Greater Good, and making him even more of a sacrificial lamb -- if you're arguing that he should come back here, take his lumps, 'take the argument to the people' (as if he'd be allowed to ... we haven't heard much from Manning, right?) so as to sway public opinion a few more points ... Well, that's a valid point of view, but if you want to prevail on other people to sacrifice more for the sake of the blown whistle, who pick on one of the few people who are already sacrificing? I don't know if Snowden counts as a "good guy" or not, but as a whistleblower it looks like he did a bang-up job, so instead of griping, just come to Ecuador and buy him a beer or something.

160 points by mathattack 13y ago

Snowden has nothing to worry about. He should come back home. Here: Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process. Barack H. Obama, The Obama-Biden Plan. http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/ http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
This is comedy gold.
etherael 13y ago
Which might be relevant if recent revelations hadn't reclassified this from noble ideal to hilarious parody and/or epitome of hypocrisy.
alexqgb 13y ago
Worth remembering: The Whistleblower Protection Act covers Federal employees only, not private contractors. Moreover, efforts to expand the law to protect contractors as well have been repeatedly rebuffed in Congress.
- eli 13y ago
  That's misleading/false. The "Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act" specifically protects intelligence contractors. (Now I'll grant you that it probably isn't an attractive option for a lot of reasons, but there is a way for people like him to blow the whistle on illegal government activity without going to jail.)
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    But it is legal ... that is the problem.
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    No @eli, you've just got your facts wrong. What you're referring to is not the same thing as the Whistleblower Protection Act. Critically, the Act to which you refer isn't concerned with protection at all. It simply designates the path that reports should follow in getting to Congress. Retaliation against those who use it goes unaddressed. Tellingly, the Act has not been used once since its passage. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Community_Whistleblower_Protection_Act http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Community_Whistl...
    - eli 13y ago
      Huh? Which facts were wrong? Yes, they're different laws. The WPA doesn't apply to DoD at all AFAIK, so the fact the point made above that contractors are exempt is irrelevant. The law that covers the NSA is the ICWPA and it applies equally to contractors and employees. As I said above, I agree it's not a real great law and I could understand not wanting to take advantage of it. But reporting things to the IG or Congress is how you blow the whistle on classified intelligence programs. That's the process. I can't imagine it being a good idea to allow any low-level contractor to blow the cover of a classified program because they have decided it's wrong or unconstitutional.
      - alexqgb 13y ago
        You were wrong in saying I was making misleading and / or false statements about Snowden's lack of protection and you're wrong in your belief that the law you cited offers protection to whistleblowers. The Whistleblower Protection Act - which is what I was originally talking about - has two seperate features. The first is to provide a well-defined pathway for reporting abuses to Congress. The second is to provide protection from retaliation against those who use this path. The point I made is that this Act covers Federal employees only, and not private contractors. What you referred to was a different law, written specifically for NatSec agencies. Like the Whistleblower Protection Act, it delineates a clear path for reporting abuse to Congress. And unlike the more general Act, it opens this path to private contractors as well as direct employees of the government. However—and this is critical—it does NOT provide the shield against retaliation that the Whistleblower Protection Act provides. In other words, if you're a private contractor (i.e. unprotected) and you use it to speak truth to power, you'd better be prepared to run. So like I said, as a private security contractor, Snowden doesn't enjoy meaningful protections in the event that he blows a whistle. All he's got is a path for doing so that he may use at his own (very considerable) risk. Again, as noted, not a single complaint has reached Congress via this channel. Not one. That should give you an idea as to how important the protections that Snowden doesn't enjoy really are.
eli 13y ago
Surely you agree that there needs to be some sort of organized process for whistleblowers, right? You can't just have government employees exposing secrets without punishment because they don't like something.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

alan_cx 13y ago

When defendants can be over whelmed to the point of suicide, with many charges, knowing that a jury is likely to find guilt on at least one of them, and basically feel (s)he might as well plead guilty to get a lesser of two evils sentence, I'm not sure how any one thinks they can get a fair trial in the US, unless they have a huge amount of money to lose, let alone the likes of Snowden. The idea of facing any sort of trial in a US court scares me senseless.

carbocation 13y ago
Often, assets will be frozen before the trial (see Silverglate's Three Felonies A Day for more details), so even those with vast resources may be unable to bring them to bear.
- tptacek 13y ago
  This happens in cases where those assets are alleged to be the product of the crime itself; most felonies don't create that circumstance.
mpyne 13y ago
How does one get a fair trial in any nation with a free press and freedom of speech then? If the jury has been tampered with, it has been by the incessant media coverage, which is permitted by the wide-ranging protections on the press, protections which Snowden is fighting for along with the rest of our Bill of Rights, no?
- Zigurd 13y ago
  We could start by punishing some of the prosecutors who are particularly notorious for creating these conditions.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    What prosecutors are responsible for the 24/7 news cycle?
- 13y ago

cafard 13y ago

I suspect that a trial that would result in Snowden being found not guilty is nearly impossible--given anything like competence in the prosecution team. But is a fair trial supposed to be like a fair coin, with an even chance either way? Note that I am not saying anything with regard to rights and wrongs, merely about laws. [Edit: changed "found guilty" to "found not guilty". Thanks.]

mtgx 13y ago
Guilty on what? He has 3 charges against him. Pretty sure he won't be found guilty of Espionage (at least not at the Supreme Court if he gets there). If it's in a normal Texas Court, then he may be, and his fears might prove real that he won't get a fair trial. As for being found guilty of "leaking classified documents", I supposed that could happen, but again I'd like to see the issue at the Supreme Court, because there you might see it being discussed if a whistleblower can or can't be charged for "leaking".
rthomas6 13y ago
Why do you think that a fair trial would result in Snowden almost certainly not being found guilty?
- danudey 13y ago
  The debate isn't whether a fair trial would convict him, the debate is whether it would be a fair trial. Regardless of whether he's guilty of a crime, an unfair trial is a sign of an unjust society. Though, the same could be said for mass warrantless wiretapping.
ipsin 13y ago
I suspect you meant "being found not guilty is nearly impossible". And federal prosecution is absolutely nothing like a fair coin toss -- the federal conviction rate is 90+%. I think this has something to do with the tactics used in federal cases -- throwing an array of charges and seizing assets, for example. Also, the idea of jury nullification (the idea that jurors can find someone 'not guilty' of an unjust law) cannot be broached by the defense.

ihsw 13y ago

Interesting how the US equates her own jurisdiction with 'the law.' During the HK debacle they made this statement: > If Hong Kong doesn't act soon, it will complicate our bilateral relations and raise questions about Hong Kong's commitment to the rule of law. And again regarding Russia: > I would urge them to live by the standards of the law because that is in the interest of everybody. Universal jurisdiction is a difficult policy to enforce since it can be challenged so plainly and directly by other state actors, especially if it's enforced selectively based on diplomatic convenience.

joering2 13y ago
US government is the most selfish country in the world. They sit on #2 oil mine in the world (Alaska) but yet continue to suck it up from any other place. And yes indeed its irony how they believe the only law everyone needs to comply is the one they set up. And if they decide to use nuclear weapon of course it will be in accordance with rule of law and in "interest of everybody". Yuck. That abuse of basic words: everyone, everybody, everywhere. My parents gave me really good advice: do not ever listen or trust people who continuously abuse those words.
- _delirium 13y ago
  This is becoming something of a tangent, but the U.S. doesn't produce a particularly large amount of oil relative to its population: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_pro_percap-energy-oil-production-per-capita http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_pro_percap-energy-...
- outworlder 13y ago
  > US government is the most selfish country in the world. They sit on #2 oil mine in the world (Alaska) but yet continue to suck it up from any other place. Isn't that just logical, however? Other countries could do the same, but they prefer to exchange their reserves for dollars. Once the other countries reserves start to run out, then the US will begin tapping theirs. That's smart, from my point of view.
  - 13y ago

bayesianhorse 13y ago

It's a thorny issue. On the one hand, Snowden clearly committed treason in revealing a part of the national security architecture. So even in a fair trial, even counting how overdue the discussion about constitutional compatibility was, he can't expect to get free. But he is right. While the US have a much fairer process of trial than most other countries, the system has been bitch-slapped left and right over Guantanamo and Wikileaks. What is worse: The US justice system's failures are minutely documented, while China and Russia do these kind of trials routinely, and noone really bothers.

mtgx 13y ago
He didn't commit treason. He isn't even charged for treason.
rthomas6 13y ago
I agree with you except maybe on the word "treason". I'm not so sure that revealing state secrets is treason. A crime, certainly, but not treason. I thought treason was siding with some other entity over the interests of the state. So, for instance, if Snowden took state secrets and sold them to China, that might be treason.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Well in layman terms treason is anything that deliberately weakens your state in favor of those of your enemies. Pointing out specifics of U.S. cyberattacks on Chinese infrastructure might actually be one example. But then there is also a Constitutional definition that Snowden would not fall under.
  - ceejayoz 13y ago
    > But then there is also a Constitutional definition that Snowden would not fall under. That's the only definition that matters. "Weakens the state" could apply to someone who complains about their taxes on Twitter.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

Lendal 13y ago

I really wish I could sign the White House petition to pardon Snowden, but I don't want to get my name on the no-fly list or any other such secret lists of "terrorists". I wonder how many Americans are afraid to speak out for the same reason. I guarantee every one of those 110,000 people who signed that petition are now being closely watched.

msg 13y ago
I guess I'm living my life in the government bubble. If you're censoring your feelings out of concern for the security apparatus, you are really missing the point. This is not Mao's hundred flowers campaign, and it is your job as a citizen to make sure it never gets there. The only way to stop this leviathan is to change minds. If you thought SOPA was a dark day for the internet, surely this sucking up of network metadata and content data strikes at the heart of end to end communication. I wonder if we need to start over on the privacy-protected internet, just to make sure this can never happen again.
mpyne 13y ago
The NSA doesn't have enough analysts to "closely watch" anywhere close to that number though.
- danudey 13y ago
  They don't need analysts to watch them. They just need to add their contact information to their 'watch more closely' list, and then run that through their data mining software. There's more than enough processing power to add a few hundred thousand more people to their 'intense scrutiny' list. Not that I expect that it's actually going to happen, but it's not beyond the realm of their capability.
ipsin 13y ago
If 110,000 are more closely watched because they signed a petition, problems are much bigger than they currently appear to be. I am confident in at least that much. Sign the petition, use the voice you have. I did.
13y ago

DanHulton 13y ago

There's a lot of discussion here that is missing the point that is clearly expressed in the first paragraph of the article: "Pleading for asylum from U.S. officials he says want to persecute him, NSA leaker Edward Snowden told Ecuadorian officials that he fears a life of inhumane treatment -- even death -- if he's returned the United States to answer espionage charges, the country's foreign minister said Monday." Snowden isn't afraid of being found guilty and serving a reasonable sentence. He's afraid of disappearing into a secret dungeon and tortured for decades. Which is a thing the USA has been proven to do. Recently. To people who have upset the government way, way less than he has. It's a legit fear.

lifeformed 13y ago
> He's afraid of disappearing into a secret dungeon and tortured for decades. Which is a thing the USA has been proven to do. Recently. To people who have upset the government way, way less than he has. Can you provide some examples of when this has happened to a non-military US citizen? I'm not denying it, I'm just genuinely curious here.
- CapitalistCartr 13y ago
  He's probably referring to America's program of "Extraordinary Rendition" which disappears people off the streets of cities around the World, and transports them to coöperating countries that are happy to torture prisoners. Supposedly such nations have included Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, and Libya. The number of people so disappeared, their nationality, and their ultimate fate is in unknown. There is no way for the American public to ascertain whether or not such abductions have happened on American soil because the program is secret, lacking any oversight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
pyre 13y ago
| He's afraid of disappearing into a secret dungeon | and tortured for decades. Or spending decades in solitary confinement, which is akin to torture.

ianhawes 13y ago

I sincerely hope that Ecuador denies his request and he is deported back to the United States. In his Q&A, Snowden said the United States was worth dying for. If he truly wants things changed, he certainly won't achieve it hiding in Ecuador. He has the opportunity to present his case to the citizens of the United States through the proper avenues: our justice system, our legislature (through Congressional hearings), and our press. To allege he won't receive a fair trial in the United States is completely ridiculous. What he's really trying to say is he knows he is guilty. Could you imagine if Daniel Ellsberg had fled to a foreign country and sought asylum there? The entire premise of a whistleblower would probably not exist if he had done that.

outworlder 13y ago
> To allege he won't receive a fair trial in the United States is completely ridiculous. What he's really trying to say is he knows he is guilty. What he is saying is that he knows the government considers him guilty and will make it so. Which doesn't automatically mean that he shares the same opinion.
agwa 13y ago
How could he possibly "present his case to the citizens of the United States" when he's sitting in jail awaiting trial, and is then imprisoned for decades after conviction, possibly in severely cruel and restrictive conditions that deny him contact with the outside world[1]? He could lead a much more effective campaign as a free man in Ecuador. Furthermore, allowing himself to be captured and subject to harsh treatment would be an extremely effective deterrent to future whistleblowers thinking of doing the same thing. [1] See "Special Administrative Measures" here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_administrative_measure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_administrative_measure] and [http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/June/09-ag-564.html http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/June/09-ag-564.html] (bottom of page) and [http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/24mcrm.htm#9-24.300 http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit...] (under "9-24.300") - given that he is charged with espionage and the govt would love to make an example out of him, I have no doubt he would be subject to that. (Edit: fixed typo: it's "Special Administrative Measures" not "Conditions" and added additional links)

tpatke 13y ago

I realize this may not be a popular opinion, but I think Snowden should turn himself in. There is a wider America then the one we get here on HN. The wider America is the same one which voted for Bush and don't own passports. To that America it is easy to see Snowden as a traitor and running to China and Russia isn't helping. I realize that Manning has had it pretty rough while in custody, but: 1. Snowden is a civilian. He has not submitted himself to military law. As far as I am aware, everything that has happened to Manning is (unfortunately) in line with military law. 2. Manning leaked GBs of confidential documents seemingly at random. Snowden is pointing out a particular problem which he finds morally repulsive. These are two different issues. In short, the more Snowden acts like a criminal, the more he will be perceived to be a criminal. Monitoring citizens is one thing. The failure of the criminal justice system / law and order is another. Furthermore, it is difficult to support him when he is in hiding. Snowden is acting like he did something wrong. He should own it.

graedus 13y ago
I see your reasoning, but the "wider America" of which you speak - or at least a large portion of it - would still be calling for him to be tossed in prison (or worse) for being a "traitor" after he turned himself in. IOW I don't think it would help him much in the court of public opinion. Further, the distinction between indiscriminately leaking and selective/targeted leaking is a real one but I don't think it will result in him being spared in any sense. I can't blame him for wanting to prolong media exposure instead of being locked up awaiting trial for "espionage" while the story quickly disappears from the headlines and from the national and global consciousness.
icelancer 13y ago
>Snowden is acting like he did something wrong. He should own it. Easy for you to say. You're not the one facing an unwinnable trial and/or serious human rights violations.
- mr_luc 13y ago
  Yeah - the "own it" advice seems crazy in this situation. I mean, the guy already put his face on it, blew the whistle. He "owned" it. Now he's trying to avoid a life of constant suffering for doing what he saw as the right thing. From the standpoint of his welfare, yeah, he had to move. This isn't a startup with a PR problem after making a tough but principled decision. This is a guy who worked within government, pulled a Bradley Manning, and is still at large. Startup marketing slash public relations 101 advice just isn't very realistic in this situation. Now, if you're talking about the Greater Good, and making him even more of a sacrificial lamb -- if you're arguing that he should come back here, take his lumps, 'take the argument to the people' (as if he'd be allowed to ... we haven't heard much from Manning, right?) so as to sway public opinion a few more points ... Well, that's a valid point of view, but if you want to prevail on other people to sacrifice more for the sake of the blown whistle, who pick on one of the few people who are already sacrificing? I don't know if Snowden counts as a "good guy" or not, but as a whistleblower it looks like he did a bang-up job, so instead of griping, just come to Ecuador and buy him a beer or something.