4 ms·

True, but I'm not sure I'd say the laws against leaking government secrets are unjust. I'd say the various monitoring systems are potentially dangerous and unco

by pfraze 13y ago

True, but I'm not sure I'd say the laws against leaking government secrets are unjust. I'd say the various monitoring systems are potentially dangerous and unconstitutional, but those issues are separate from Snowden's charge. Also, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that the nature of the leak will factor into his trial, which is where it should be evaluated (right?).

drcube 13y ago
Because secret treason courts are where justice is best served? In the very country being accused of civil rights violations by the defendant? And besides troop movements, names and locations of undercover operatives, and other specific information that could get people hurt or killed, why should the government keep secrets from its citizens for any reason? Or what does "consent of the governed" mean?
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  > and other specific information that could get people hurt or killed, You've described the loop hole for a slippery slope. And I promise you, the first suggestions would seem so reasonable. After all, you didn't mention the descriptions of the operatives. Or the supplies needed to support the troop movements. Both of which are not specifically described by you, but could easily be used against the troops and agents. Both of which are reasonable to keep secret... But it's still a slope. We think we are here overnight, but we are not. PRISM didn't just happens. It's been in the making for decades before you were born. That's the part we need to realize. Obama didn't do this. Bush didn't do this. Hell, your parents didn't do this. We've all done this, one way or the other. We've all been apart of this.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > Because secret treason courts are where justice is best served? What secret treason courts? Snowden is not charged with treason, and even if he were, he'd be tried in U.S. District Court.
mindcrime 13y ago
True, but I'm not sure I'd say the laws against leaking government secrets are unjust. I think you have to consider context. To flip it around, the law may or may not be inherently unjust, but breaking it may well be justified in some circumstances. Nominally, this is part of the reason we have juries, and why juries are able to make their determination on any basis they see fit... so they can allow for this kind of "fuzziness" to the law. There's also a reason that prosecutors have discretion in choosing what charges to pursue, what sentence to seek, etc. Now, you can argue that, given our system and all its checks and balances and protections, that Snowden should come home and face a trail in front of a jury of his peers. But you can also argue that, given all the publicity around the case, he's correct in saying that he won't get a fair trail. You could also argue that even a "fair trail" is unfair from the perspective of the individual being judged, if they don't consider themselves guilty of a crime. At the end of the day, this whole idea of "justice" is not black and white, sadly.

by pfraze 13y ago

drcube 13y ago

Because secret treason courts are where justice is best served? In the very country being accused of civil rights violations by the defendant? And besides troop movements, names and locations of undercover operatives, and other specific information that could get people hurt or killed, why should the government keep secrets from its citizens for any reason? Or what does "consent of the governed" mean?

jasonlotito 13y ago
> and other specific information that could get people hurt or killed, You've described the loop hole for a slippery slope. And I promise you, the first suggestions would seem so reasonable. After all, you didn't mention the descriptions of the operatives. Or the supplies needed to support the troop movements. Both of which are not specifically described by you, but could easily be used against the troops and agents. Both of which are reasonable to keep secret... But it's still a slope. We think we are here overnight, but we are not. PRISM didn't just happens. It's been in the making for decades before you were born. That's the part we need to realize. Obama didn't do this. Bush didn't do this. Hell, your parents didn't do this. We've all done this, one way or the other. We've all been apart of this.
rayiner 13y ago
> Because secret treason courts are where justice is best served? What secret treason courts? Snowden is not charged with treason, and even if he were, he'd be tried in U.S. District Court.

mindcrime 13y ago

True, but I'm not sure I'd say the laws against leaking government secrets are unjust. I think you have to consider context. To flip it around, the law may or may not be inherently unjust, but breaking it may well be justified in some circumstances. Nominally, this is part of the reason we have juries, and why juries are able to make their determination on any basis they see fit... so they can allow for this kind of "fuzziness" to the law. There's also a reason that prosecutors have discretion in choosing what charges to pursue, what sentence to seek, etc. Now, you can argue that, given our system and all its checks and balances and protections, that Snowden should come home and face a trail in front of a jury of his peers. But you can also argue that, given all the publicity around the case, he's correct in saying that he won't get a fair trail. You could also argue that even a "fair trail" is unfair from the perspective of the individual being judged, if they don't consider themselves guilty of a crime. At the end of the day, this whole idea of "justice" is not black and white, sadly.