4 ms·

I might consider your opinion if I thought he would be treated fairly in trial. If the last few years are any indication, there is no chance of that happening.

I might consider your opinion if I thought he would be treated fairly in trial. If the last few years are any indication, there is no chance of that happening. The POTUS has already said that he is guilty of treason before any trial has begun. Do you realize the outrageousness of that simple fact?

anigbrowl 13y ago
^ Not actually a fact.
jsz0 13y ago
Being that he has already confessed on video and presumably there's a good amount of other evidence the government would have nothing to gain from an unfair trial.
- mayneack 13y ago
  As opposed to all that they gained from their treatment of Bradley Manning.
- doki_pen 13y ago
  He never confessed to treason.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    He confessed to infiltrating the NSA via B-A-H for the purpose of grabbing material to later leak to the public. He may not have realized it at the time but that's very damning, especially since he went out of his way to get information relating to Chinese hacking activities.
    - doki_pen 13y ago
      [edit: added more] Are we fighting a war with China? From Wikipedia: Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavor. The point is, if we can argue about it, then there should be a fair trial to determine whether or not it was treason. The president and other leaders saying it's treason doesn't lend itself to a fair trial in the future. The appropriate response is "He committed crimes, we will have a trial to determine the extent of those crimes and whether or not it is treason".
      - mpyne 13y ago
        You're focusing way too much on treason. There's probably 5 other felonies besides that Snowden would be guilty of without even having to think about treason charges.
sigkill 13y ago
Also, isn't it true that the POTUS considers himself to have a remote killswitch for every American that exists?
- pjnewton 13y ago
  What? What does this even mean? You're saying you think the President thinks he can assassinate any American he pleases without repercussion? And who do you think will carry out these killings? (Hopefully you have a credible source to back up your claims...)
- mpyne 13y ago
  No. The Commander-in-Chief might, for non-state military members that happen to be Americans and a few other "Law of War" provisos. But that's why you don't oppose the U.S. militarily, it's been shown to be hazardous to one's health.

anigbrowl 13y ago

^ Not actually a fact.

jsz0 13y ago

Being that he has already confessed on video and presumably there's a good amount of other evidence the government would have nothing to gain from an unfair trial.

mayneack 13y ago
As opposed to all that they gained from their treatment of Bradley Manning.
doki_pen 13y ago
He never confessed to treason.
- mpyne 13y ago
  He confessed to infiltrating the NSA via B-A-H for the purpose of grabbing material to later leak to the public. He may not have realized it at the time but that's very damning, especially since he went out of his way to get information relating to Chinese hacking activities.
  - doki_pen 13y ago
    [edit: added more] Are we fighting a war with China? From Wikipedia: Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavor. The point is, if we can argue about it, then there should be a fair trial to determine whether or not it was treason. The president and other leaders saying it's treason doesn't lend itself to a fair trial in the future. The appropriate response is "He committed crimes, we will have a trial to determine the extent of those crimes and whether or not it is treason".
    - mpyne 13y ago
      You're focusing way too much on treason. There's probably 5 other felonies besides that Snowden would be guilty of without even having to think about treason charges.

sigkill 13y ago

Also, isn't it true that the POTUS considers himself to have a remote killswitch for every American that exists?

pjnewton 13y ago
What? What does this even mean? You're saying you think the President thinks he can assassinate any American he pleases without repercussion? And who do you think will carry out these killings? (Hopefully you have a credible source to back up your claims...)
mpyne 13y ago
No. The Commander-in-Chief might, for non-state military members that happen to be Americans and a few other "Law of War" provisos. But that's why you don't oppose the U.S. militarily, it's been shown to be hazardous to one's health.