8 ms·

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. I

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)
pfortuny 13y ago
A whistleblower is NOT a conscientious objector, they are different figures. The first one just wants to make something which is private, public, but he is not willing to risk even his life (because he does not deem it necessary). A conscientious objector, on the other hand, is willing to put all aside -even his life- before doing something that goes against his conscience. Not the same thing at all even though they may look similar. He wants to defend America, not the legal status quo.
ceejayoz 13y ago
Troops storming Normandy on D-Day felt it was a cause worth dying for, too, but that didn't mean they were going to run up to a German machine gun nest unarmed and ask them to fire.
pyre 13y ago
| To allege he won't receive a fair trial in the | United States is completely ridiculous Would you, as a whistleblower, trust your former employer, on whom you blew the whistle, to be your judge, jury and executioner? I'm thinking not.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Snowden himself is saying that the judiciary should have oversight of any NSA surveillance programs via specific warrants (among other things), was he not? Does he believe in Constitutional protections or no? Similarly I wasn't aware that judges and defense attorneys allowed the prosecutor to pack juries with NSA analysts. Has this changed at some point?
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    Why do you think the charges were filed in Eastern Virginia (home of the security establishment) and not Hawaii, whi h is the home of Snowden and the scene of the alleged crime?
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Are you saying no one in all of eastern Virginia is able to get a fair trial? If true that would be a far worse crisis for civil liberties than an automated FISA-compliance system.
      - alexqgb 13y ago
        No, of course I'm not. Moreover, reframing the dynamic that exists between a particular plaintiff and a particular defendant in a particular case by turning it into a blanket assumption as general as that is either stupid, dishonest, or both. Seriously, why would I do that? More pointedly, what makes you even raise the question? Jurisdiction shopping is a very real problem, as HN readers who follow patent issues know all too well. Anyone insisting that Snowden's trial would be fair should pay more attention to the way the field is being tilted against him from the outset.
      - 13y ago
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Could you imagine if Daniel Ellsberg... Hmm, let's see what Ellsberg has to say, shall we? http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/edward-snowden http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/edward-snowden "For the president then to say that there is judicial oversight is nonsense – as is the alleged oversight function of the intelligence committees in Congress. Not for the first time – as with issues of torture, kidnapping, detention, assassination by drones and death squads –they have shown themselves to be thoroughly co-opted by the agencies they supposedly monitor. They are also black holes for information that the public needs to know."
danudey 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. Sure. The NSA has been conducting illegal data capture on millions of Americans for years, but surely we can rely on the government and legal system to play fair. After Bradley Manning was kept in conditions that are considered torture, and after prisoners in Guantanamo, having been kept without trial for years after Obama said he was going to close it down, went on a hunger strike only to have themselves force-fed so the government can keep them alive to continue rotting in jail, surely Snowdon will receive a fair and public trial where the facts in evidence will be used to ascertain his guilt or innocence without any interference. The actual likely result is he will be declared a traitor, enemy of the state, and a spy, accused of espionage, and thrown in a cell without actually being charged with a crime for years.
happy_dino 13y ago
People like you make me really feel ashamed of the human race.

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)

pfortuny 13y ago

A whistleblower is NOT a conscientious objector, they are different figures. The first one just wants to make something which is private, public, but he is not willing to risk even his life (because he does not deem it necessary). A conscientious objector, on the other hand, is willing to put all aside -even his life- before doing something that goes against his conscience. Not the same thing at all even though they may look similar. He wants to defend America, not the legal status quo.

ceejayoz 13y ago

Troops storming Normandy on D-Day felt it was a cause worth dying for, too, but that didn't mean they were going to run up to a German machine gun nest unarmed and ask them to fire.

pyre 13y ago

| To allege he won't receive a fair trial in the | United States is completely ridiculous Would you, as a whistleblower, trust your former employer, on whom you blew the whistle, to be your judge, jury and executioner? I'm thinking not.

mpyne 13y ago
Snowden himself is saying that the judiciary should have oversight of any NSA surveillance programs via specific warrants (among other things), was he not? Does he believe in Constitutional protections or no? Similarly I wasn't aware that judges and defense attorneys allowed the prosecutor to pack juries with NSA analysts. Has this changed at some point?
- alexqgb 13y ago
  Why do you think the charges were filed in Eastern Virginia (home of the security establishment) and not Hawaii, whi h is the home of Snowden and the scene of the alleged crime?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Are you saying no one in all of eastern Virginia is able to get a fair trial? If true that would be a far worse crisis for civil liberties than an automated FISA-compliance system.
    - alexqgb 13y ago
      No, of course I'm not. Moreover, reframing the dynamic that exists between a particular plaintiff and a particular defendant in a particular case by turning it into a blanket assumption as general as that is either stupid, dishonest, or both. Seriously, why would I do that? More pointedly, what makes you even raise the question? Jurisdiction shopping is a very real problem, as HN readers who follow patent issues know all too well. Anyone insisting that Snowden's trial would be fair should pay more attention to the way the field is being tilted against him from the outset.
    - 13y ago

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

Could you imagine if Daniel Ellsberg... Hmm, let's see what Ellsberg has to say, shall we? http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/edward-snowden http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/edward-snowden "For the president then to say that there is judicial oversight is nonsense – as is the alleged oversight function of the intelligence committees in Congress. Not for the first time – as with issues of torture, kidnapping, detention, assassination by drones and death squads –they have shown themselves to be thoroughly co-opted by the agencies they supposedly monitor. They are also black holes for information that the public needs to know."

danudey 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. Sure. The NSA has been conducting illegal data capture on millions of Americans for years, but surely we can rely on the government and legal system to play fair. After Bradley Manning was kept in conditions that are considered torture, and after prisoners in Guantanamo, having been kept without trial for years after Obama said he was going to close it down, went on a hunger strike only to have themselves force-fed so the government can keep them alive to continue rotting in jail, surely Snowdon will receive a fair and public trial where the facts in evidence will be used to ascertain his guilt or innocence without any interference. The actual likely result is he will be declared a traitor, enemy of the state, and a spy, accused of espionage, and thrown in a cell without actually being charged with a crime for years.

happy_dino 13y ago

People like you make me really feel ashamed of the human race.