5 ms·
> not because there was some imminent threat to his life. Treason does actually carry the potential of a death penalty. Based on poor state of the current US
by jussij 13y ago
> not because there was some imminent threat to his life.
Treason does actually carry the potential of a death penalty.
Based on poor state of the current US legal system, I too would have run.
The last decade has seen the US legal system turned into nothing but a rubber stamp and puppet for the government.
The founding fathers would be turning in their graves.
- rtpg 13y agoHe isn't going to be charged with treason.
- jussij 13y agoOk, let’s say they charged him with of "aiding the enemy". That also carries the death penalty. Who knows what kind of trumped up charges the government where planning to throw at him. But there's no way he'd be getting a fair trial, so why on earth would he be offering himself up for trial.
- ahmad777x 13y agoFbcf
- muuh-gnu 13y agoHow is he supposed to know in advance that they will not try to kill him if that legal option is on the table and they are known to be willing to make examples out of previous whistleblowers like Bradley Manning? And even if he is not threatened with outright execution, even slightly less radical but more likely punishments, like that of Manning, are sufficiently radical to justify defecting to the Soviet Union. Even a simple life in some far away Siberian village will be more endurable than a US 24/7 waterboarding & force-feeding facility.
- sampo 13y ago> defecting to the Soviet Union Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991. 1991 was 22 years ago. You must be a real old-timer?
- 3825 13y agoPerhaps a jab at Putin, if I had to guess
- ChikkaChiChi 13y agoRussian Federation has a far less ominous sound to it than Soviet Union. When you say the Soviet Union (or USSR) you can almost hear the evil Ivan Drago music playing in your head.
- ChikkaChiChi 13y agohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwBH3Fj1zSc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwBH3Fj1zSc I had to YouTube it immediately after typing this. There's just something terrifying about a man who speaks better English than I do, playing a man who speaks English like a man who grew up behind the Iron Curtain, that punches with the power and effectiveness of a chemical engineer. Sometimes, I too miss the 80's.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- mortehu 13y ago> How is he supposed to know in advance that they will not try to kill him if that legal option Well, in most countries it's illegal to deport someone if there's a risk of a death sentence, which is why US often cannot extradite people. Hence US has to convince the "host" country first, which I guess counts for something. That's what US is currently trying to do with Russia: > "The charges he faces do not carry that possibility, and the United States would not seek the death penalty even if Mr. Snowden were charged with additional death penalty-eligible crimes," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Russian Minister of Justice Vladimirovich Konovalov.
- arunkd13 13y agoI have heard the term secret court, for the first time only with reference the the USA. With secret courts, secret indictment, your statement of 'He isn't going to be charged with treason' only looks like a trap being laid.
- rayiner 13y agoOh for fucks sake. There are no secret courts that can issue indictments.
- officemonkey 13y agoThey're not needed. The government can just declare him an enemy combatant and stick him in Guantanamo. (see: Jose Padilla.) Or, drop a drone bomb on him. (see: Anwar al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, Abd al-Rahman, and Jude Mohammed.)
- rayiner 13y agoJose Padilla was never held in Guantanamo. He was held in a military brig in South Carolina, longer than he should have because of litigation surrounding the authority of the Bush administration to hold him without charges. The Bush administration did charge him, likely because they lost Hamdi v. Rumsfeld which rejected their attempts to detain a different U.S. citizen. The only American citizen targeted in a drone strike was Al Awlaki. The others were killed because they happened to be traveling with Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan or Yemen who were targeted. We can argue about the legality of targeting Al Awlaki, someone who was actively waging war against the U.S. and tried to evade capture for a decade, but it's ridiculous to bring up the other three. Hundreds of U.S. citizens were killed in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The fact that U.S. citizens may be killed collaterally in a military strike with legitimate targets has never been construed to be a violation of due process. Snowden is a completely different situation. He's not waging war against the U.S. and leaking classified information is a criminal charge, not an act of war.
- jussij 13y ago
- socialist_coder 13y agoWho cares what he's charged with. Look at what they did to Bradley Manning. Actions speak louder than words.