4 ms·
First of all, you need a trial. Go ask the people at Guantanamo. Then it needs to be fair. Which means that both parties (the State and the individual, in this
by pfortuny 13y ago
First of all, you need a trial. Go ask the people at Guantanamo.
Then it needs to be fair. Which means that both parties (the State and the individual, in this case) abide by the same laws. This is what is tricky, but in this case, Snowden could point out that (simplifying a lot):
* The law he is abiding by is the Constitution.
* The prosecutors will claim that he has broken other laws which have not been deemed unconstitutional.
* While those laws are reviewed (if they are, upon his appeal), he will not be treated justly (which to him probably seems quite likely).
- twoodfin 13y agoThe law he is abiding by is the Constitution. Where in the Constitution is the right to flee the United States with laptops full of classified information you illegally obtained? Snowden has clearly committed serious crimes. It's fine to argue they were somehow for the greater good—though I'm not sure what "greater good" carelessly exposing classified information to the Russians and Chinese might be serving—but it seems like the government could present a slam dunk case against him while entirely respecting his rights.
- pfortuny 13y agoWell, yes. You know: he could not do it from the US, so he decides to break a lesser important law for the greater good.