6 ms·

Does he have any other options? Do you think he would do this if he had any other choice? If he doesn't accept them he is going to be sent into US and tortured

Does he have any other options? Do you think he would do this if he had any other choice? If he doesn't accept them he is going to be sent into US and tortured. It's either asylum from a non 'free' country or torture.

GabrielF00 13y ago
You're not only making a claim that he might be tortured but that any interaction that he would have with the US criminal justice system would inevitably result in torture. That's just ridiculous. Yes, in the decade after 9/11 a number of people were subjected to interrogation techniques that many people (including myself) would consider torture. However, this happened under a legal theory that would not apply in Snowden's case (it is impossible to consider him an enemy combatant) and is no longer in use. There is no reason to believe that someone who goes through the Federal civilian criminal justice system will be inevitably subject to torture.
- indlebe 13y ago
  >There is no reason to believe that someone who goes through the Federal civilian criminal justice system will be inevitably subject to torture. Do you consider solitary torture? Whistleblowers have been subjected to brutal solitary conditions, and they don't even consider him that.
- betterunix 13y ago
  His first stop in the US justice system would almost certainly be solitary confinement, which is widely held to be a form of torture. I suppose he might not be thrown into solitary; he might be kept with other prisoners who have been told that he is a CIA assassin sent to kill them: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/john-kiriakou-letter_n_3359938.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/john-kiriakou-lette...
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Jesus, solitary confinement is not "widely held to be a form of torture." That's totally absurd and makes the term meaningless.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      It's not a widely held belief, but I found this article convincing. Yes, a leftist rag. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_... I think most people don't think it's torture simply because they don't really know what it's like, haven't experienced it, can't readily imagine why it would be painful, etc.
      - pekk 13y ago
        Is anything that someone really hates and doesn't want torture just because it's incredibly awful?
        rayiner 13y ago
        Yes. Because we're not supposed to be mean to criminals.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        clicks 13y ago
        But at least you agree that it falls under even the most loose interpretation of a "cruel and unusual" punishment and is thus unconstitutional? Or no?
        rayiner 13y ago
        Considering that the First Congress authorized the death penalty for crimes like counterfeiting, and punishments like the pillory were still in use in the U.S. until well into the 1800's, no, I don't think the founders would have understood solitary confinement to be "cruel and unusual." The rack, drawing and quartering, flaying, etc, that's what the 8th amendment refers to.
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  >this happened under a legal theory that would not apply in Snowden's case how can he be sure that there isn't other legal theory secretly approved by secret court that would allow to subject him to simulated death (or something even more devilish) without leaving any evidence on his body? After all Snowden had security clearance, had friends in these agencies, heard stories, so he do knows better what is waiting for him... >(it is impossible to consider him an enemy combatant) why? isn't it is just an at-will designation by the executive branch without any roots in domestic or international law? And even if not enemy combatant, "enemy of the US" or "enemy of freedom" would work fine as well and would qualify him for "enhanced interrogation techniques 2.0 freedom deluxe edition" (nice movie "Dictator" btw)
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > why? isn't it is just an at-will designation by the executive branch without any roots in domestic or international law? Perhaps surprisingly, but no it's not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant
    - VladRussian2 13y ago
      i don't say that these words didn't exist before. If you read the link you submitted, the first 2 paragraphs clearly state that "enemy combatant" notion used in the US after 9/11 is different from typical meaning of enemy combatant that existed before. The "enemy combatant" as it is used in the US means people in the US custody who is outside of the US jurisdiction and have at the will of the executive branch been denied Geneva convention (which covers _everybody_, not just uniformed combatants - everybody else is also entitled to protected POW status until put into domestic justice system of the country possessing the custody) Such "enemy combatant" notion don't have basis in the US law as well as in international law.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        From the ruling given in 1942: "...an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals." Likewise, from the very same two paragraphs you reference you would find that the Bush-definition of enemy combatant describes an "unlawful combatant" who has no right to POW status under Geneva or the LOAC. That doesn't mean that such civilian combatants have no rights whatsoever, but they are far limited compared to what Geneva provides for uniformed forces, and there is indeed precedent in international (and U.S.) law. For instance, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld was argued to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, which ruled (among other things) "... repudiating the U.S. government's unilateral assertion of executive authority to suspend the constitutional protections of individual liberty of a U.S. citizen. The Court recognized the power of the government to detain unlawful combatants, but ruled that detainees must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge.". Congress tried to clarify in 2006 with the "Military Commissions Act of 2006" which does indeed contain a definition of an unlawful enemy combatant (one not reliant solely on the will of the executive). Likewise, several Supreme Court rulings have further eroded the position taken by Bush regarding the legal rights afforded to unlawful combatants held in Gitmo and other places. And going back to the subject here (of whether the executive can unilaterally declare Snowden to be an 'enemy combatant' and send him to Gitmo): "On 18 December 2003, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the Bush Administration lacked the authority to detain a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil as an "illegal enemy combatant" without clear congressional authorization (per 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)); it consequently ordered the government to release Padilla from military custody within thirty days." (Padilla was a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil). But, that case ended up being thrown out on a technicality. When it was re-argued in the right court, they "ordered the Bush administration to either charge Padilla or release him.". They relied for that ruling on the Supreme Court ruling I'd just mentioned. So no, Snowden should be perfectly safe from treatment as any kind of weird unlawful combatant should he return. In fact the term 'enemy combatant' was dropped in 2009 coincident to a certain regime change in the U.S.
- D9u 13y ago
  >There is no reason to believe that someone who goes through the Federal civilian criminal justice system will be inevitably subject to torture. Who will deny that the threat of prison rape is understood by most of us?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Koreans "understand" the threat of 'fan death'. What are the actual numbers of whistleblowers who are raped in prison in cases like this?
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Surely you are not saying that the threat of prison rape is imagined.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Imagined, no. But what is the actual threat? There's a threat of rape outside of prison as well, even if you're a white male. They do track statistics for this by the way, if you know where to look.
- gerhardi 13y ago
  woowwwwowoww... now the wording is very critical, the real deal is other way around - they have used torture techniques that (too) many people would consider interrogation.
- infinity0 13y ago
  Bradley Manning.
  - GabrielF00 13y ago
    Manning is a soldier and subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Snowden is a civilian.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      And even with that in mind, there's no actual right of the government to 'torture' military servicemembers accused of crimes either. For that reason once the trial judge determined that Manning should not have been held under Prevention of Injury Status after the psychiatrist deemed that he was not actually a suicide risk, she ended up reducing whatever his eventual sentence happens to be due to the fault of the military in that case. Mind, he's still kind of stupid for 'joking' about killing himself with his soldier/Marine guards (who are not trained psychiatrists and are therefore trained to take no chances). But even Manning being in the military wouldn't completely excuse his treatment in his first stages of pre-trial confinement.
lttlrck 13y ago
Not anymore. But he did have plenty options before he revealed his identity.

GabrielF00 13y ago

You're not only making a claim that he might be tortured but that any interaction that he would have with the US criminal justice system would inevitably result in torture. That's just ridiculous. Yes, in the decade after 9/11 a number of people were subjected to interrogation techniques that many people (including myself) would consider torture. However, this happened under a legal theory that would not apply in Snowden's case (it is impossible to consider him an enemy combatant) and is no longer in use. There is no reason to believe that someone who goes through the Federal civilian criminal justice system will be inevitably subject to torture.

indlebe 13y ago
>There is no reason to believe that someone who goes through the Federal civilian criminal justice system will be inevitably subject to torture. Do you consider solitary torture? Whistleblowers have been subjected to brutal solitary conditions, and they don't even consider him that.
betterunix 13y ago
His first stop in the US justice system would almost certainly be solitary confinement, which is widely held to be a form of torture. I suppose he might not be thrown into solitary; he might be kept with other prisoners who have been told that he is a CIA assassin sent to kill them: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/john-kiriakou-letter_n_3359938.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/john-kiriakou-lette...
- rayiner 13y ago
  Jesus, solitary confinement is not "widely held to be a form of torture." That's totally absurd and makes the term meaningless.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    It's not a widely held belief, but I found this article convincing. Yes, a leftist rag. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_... I think most people don't think it's torture simply because they don't really know what it's like, haven't experienced it, can't readily imagine why it would be painful, etc.
    - pekk 13y ago
      Is anything that someone really hates and doesn't want torture just because it's incredibly awful?
      - rayiner 13y ago
        Yes. Because we're not supposed to be mean to criminals.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        clicks 13y ago
        But at least you agree that it falls under even the most loose interpretation of a "cruel and unusual" punishment and is thus unconstitutional? Or no?
        rayiner 13y ago
        Considering that the First Congress authorized the death penalty for crimes like counterfeiting, and punishments like the pillory were still in use in the U.S. until well into the 1800's, no, I don't think the founders would have understood solitary confinement to be "cruel and unusual." The rack, drawing and quartering, flaying, etc, that's what the 8th amendment refers to.
VladRussian2 13y ago
>this happened under a legal theory that would not apply in Snowden's case how can he be sure that there isn't other legal theory secretly approved by secret court that would allow to subject him to simulated death (or something even more devilish) without leaving any evidence on his body? After all Snowden had security clearance, had friends in these agencies, heard stories, so he do knows better what is waiting for him... >(it is impossible to consider him an enemy combatant) why? isn't it is just an at-will designation by the executive branch without any roots in domestic or international law? And even if not enemy combatant, "enemy of the US" or "enemy of freedom" would work fine as well and would qualify him for "enhanced interrogation techniques 2.0 freedom deluxe edition" (nice movie "Dictator" btw)
- mpyne 13y ago
  > why? isn't it is just an at-will designation by the executive branch without any roots in domestic or international law? Perhaps surprisingly, but no it's not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant
  - VladRussian2 13y ago
    i don't say that these words didn't exist before. If you read the link you submitted, the first 2 paragraphs clearly state that "enemy combatant" notion used in the US after 9/11 is different from typical meaning of enemy combatant that existed before. The "enemy combatant" as it is used in the US means people in the US custody who is outside of the US jurisdiction and have at the will of the executive branch been denied Geneva convention (which covers _everybody_, not just uniformed combatants - everybody else is also entitled to protected POW status until put into domestic justice system of the country possessing the custody) Such "enemy combatant" notion don't have basis in the US law as well as in international law.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      From the ruling given in 1942: "...an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals." Likewise, from the very same two paragraphs you reference you would find that the Bush-definition of enemy combatant describes an "unlawful combatant" who has no right to POW status under Geneva or the LOAC. That doesn't mean that such civilian combatants have no rights whatsoever, but they are far limited compared to what Geneva provides for uniformed forces, and there is indeed precedent in international (and U.S.) law. For instance, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld was argued to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, which ruled (among other things) "... repudiating the U.S. government's unilateral assertion of executive authority to suspend the constitutional protections of individual liberty of a U.S. citizen. The Court recognized the power of the government to detain unlawful combatants, but ruled that detainees must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge.". Congress tried to clarify in 2006 with the "Military Commissions Act of 2006" which does indeed contain a definition of an unlawful enemy combatant (one not reliant solely on the will of the executive). Likewise, several Supreme Court rulings have further eroded the position taken by Bush regarding the legal rights afforded to unlawful combatants held in Gitmo and other places. And going back to the subject here (of whether the executive can unilaterally declare Snowden to be an 'enemy combatant' and send him to Gitmo): "On 18 December 2003, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the Bush Administration lacked the authority to detain a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil as an "illegal enemy combatant" without clear congressional authorization (per 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)); it consequently ordered the government to release Padilla from military custody within thirty days." (Padilla was a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil). But, that case ended up being thrown out on a technicality. When it was re-argued in the right court, they "ordered the Bush administration to either charge Padilla or release him.". They relied for that ruling on the Supreme Court ruling I'd just mentioned. So no, Snowden should be perfectly safe from treatment as any kind of weird unlawful combatant should he return. In fact the term 'enemy combatant' was dropped in 2009 coincident to a certain regime change in the U.S.
D9u 13y ago
>There is no reason to believe that someone who goes through the Federal civilian criminal justice system will be inevitably subject to torture. Who will deny that the threat of prison rape is understood by most of us?
- mpyne 13y ago
  Koreans "understand" the threat of 'fan death'. What are the actual numbers of whistleblowers who are raped in prison in cases like this?
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Surely you are not saying that the threat of prison rape is imagined.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Imagined, no. But what is the actual threat? There's a threat of rape outside of prison as well, even if you're a white male. They do track statistics for this by the way, if you know where to look.
gerhardi 13y ago
woowwwwowoww... now the wording is very critical, the real deal is other way around - they have used torture techniques that (too) many people would consider interrogation.
infinity0 13y ago
Bradley Manning.
- GabrielF00 13y ago
  Manning is a soldier and subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Snowden is a civilian.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    And even with that in mind, there's no actual right of the government to 'torture' military servicemembers accused of crimes either. For that reason once the trial judge determined that Manning should not have been held under Prevention of Injury Status after the psychiatrist deemed that he was not actually a suicide risk, she ended up reducing whatever his eventual sentence happens to be due to the fault of the military in that case. Mind, he's still kind of stupid for 'joking' about killing himself with his soldier/Marine guards (who are not trained psychiatrists and are therefore trained to take no chances). But even Manning being in the military wouldn't completely excuse his treatment in his first stages of pre-trial confinement.

lttlrck 13y ago

Not anymore. But he did have plenty options before he revealed his identity.