5 ms·

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

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
    s/layman/ultranationalist[1]/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#Ultranationalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#Ultranationalism
LoganCale 13y ago
He absolutely did not clearly commit treason, and he is not charged with it either. Treason is an actual crime defined by the Constitution and he did not commit it. Arguably, he did not commit espionage either—the DoJ under the Obama administration has charged seven other whistleblowers with that crime and in at least some cases the courts have found them not guilty.
joering2 13y ago
> 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. No difference to the outcome really. Okay so in US example you know things up to a minute. So what? Did it help you get off your comfortable couch and do something about it? Did it help those oppressed by the US government? [1] Not really. While you would expect fair trial, fairness and basic human rights being protected in the "land of the free, home of the brave", you wouldn't expect the same in China or Russia. Really strange and dangerous precedence if people seek asylum from the US! [1] Manning is a great example of a governmental power abuse. No wonder Snowden is running away after seeing what they have done to Manning. He was kept for 3 years in solitary confinement. Sleeping naked (for his of own protection, of course) and being violently woken up every 2 hours "to make sure he is okay", it sure broke his mind, just like it would broke mine or yours. Heck, after what they done to him, I would personally admit to killing Jesus Christ himself. Major human rights advocates kept requesting more info from the US and to change that barbarian approach (some called it mental torture) up to a point that high ranked US officer simply told them to back off and leave it alone. Bottom line: there is not difference and you cannot expect fair trial in situation like Snowden.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>It's a thorny issue. On the one hand, Snowden clearly committed treason Nope http://lmgtfy.com/?q=treason http://lmgtfy.com/?q=treason >the US have a much fairer process of trial than most other countries, Really? I'm skeptical.

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
  s/layman/ultranationalist[1]/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#Ultranationalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#Ultranationalism

LoganCale 13y ago

He absolutely did not clearly commit treason, and he is not charged with it either. Treason is an actual crime defined by the Constitution and he did not commit it. Arguably, he did not commit espionage either—the DoJ under the Obama administration has charged seven other whistleblowers with that crime and in at least some cases the courts have found them not guilty.

joering2 13y ago

> 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. No difference to the outcome really. Okay so in US example you know things up to a minute. So what? Did it help you get off your comfortable couch and do something about it? Did it help those oppressed by the US government? [1] Not really. While you would expect fair trial, fairness and basic human rights being protected in the "land of the free, home of the brave", you wouldn't expect the same in China or Russia. Really strange and dangerous precedence if people seek asylum from the US! [1] Manning is a great example of a governmental power abuse. No wonder Snowden is running away after seeing what they have done to Manning. He was kept for 3 years in solitary confinement. Sleeping naked (for his of own protection, of course) and being violently woken up every 2 hours "to make sure he is okay", it sure broke his mind, just like it would broke mine or yours. Heck, after what they done to him, I would personally admit to killing Jesus Christ himself. Major human rights advocates kept requesting more info from the US and to change that barbarian approach (some called it mental torture) up to a point that high ranked US officer simply told them to back off and leave it alone. Bottom line: there is not difference and you cannot expect fair trial in situation like Snowden.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

>It's a thorny issue. On the one hand, Snowden clearly committed treason Nope http://lmgtfy.com/?q=treason http://lmgtfy.com/?q=treason >the US have a much fairer process of trial than most other countries, Really? I'm skeptical.