4 ms·

What would constitute a fair trial for Edward Snowden?

bediger4000 13y ago
The same qualities that constitute a fair trial for anyone: Presumption of innocence. Proceedings overseen by an impartial, unbiased official ("Judge"). Charges brought under a pre-existing law. Examining the charges and evidence and accusers, in court, in front of a jury. Representation by a competent lawyer. Decisions made by a jury of your peers. Evidence presented in court, jury examination of evidence, evidence is obtained legally. Evidence obtained without torture. You know, the same things that people have fought and died for since 1215.
- diminoten 13y ago
  And why specifically would one not believe Edward Snowden to receive these things? I thought the issue was that the existing law didn't sufficiently protect whistleblowers, not that the US would violate its own court procedings. I'm pretty sure the case is open/shut regarding the legality of what Snowden did. And a small point of order, but the fact that people have been fighting and dying for something doesn't make it valid. People have been fighting and dying in the name of Jesus Christ for 2000+ years.
  - rollo_tommasi 13y ago
    The President, various members of Congress, and senior military officials have all pronounced him guilty of various crimes up to and including treason, so I think you can fairly argue that his right to presumption of innocence has been violated. There is also no guarantee that he won't be tortured, given the treatment Bradley Manning received.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      They have no power to pronounce him guilty, so that's about as important as me, or Oprah, or Bill Murray pronouncing him guilty. His right to the presumption of innocence is in the court of law, not the court of public opinion, and that right has not been violated. You're basically complaining that people don't like him. No shit. As for not being tortured, there is literally nothing the US could say or do that would provide what you're looking for there. It's a nonstarter.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Funny you should mention Manning, given that those same people also "pronounced" that Manning had 'aided the enemy' by helping AQ. Yet Manning was found not guilty of that very charge, and in a courtroom where the law really is stacked against the defendant, compared to civilian justice systems. Instead, what the President, Congressmen, etc. think about Snowden is opinion at this point, nothing more, just like the Commander-in-Chief himself wasn't able to direct a guilty verdict for Manning's aiding the enemy charge.
      - bediger4000 13y ago
        Given that the President is in charge of the Executive branch, of which the Department of Justice is a part, it's hard for me to believe that pronouncements of "opinion" from The President don't carry a lot of weight. And fer cryin out loud, Obama has admitted to executing US citizens without a trial. Fixing Snowden's trial would hold little more fear of ethical missteps than drone strikes. Given what's come out about "extraordinary rendition" and "enhanced interrogation", I think the fear of torture is completely justified.
        diminoten 13y ago
        What you're effectively saying is that because the boss of the prosecutor thinks the guy is guilty, he loses his right to innocence before guilt. That is, pardon my French, fucking stupid. No god damned shit the prosecution thinks he's guilty. Obama has not targeted for execution a single person without a trial who wasn't an enemy combatant. What you're proposing is a Judge Dredd style method of conducting combat operations, which is, again pardon my French, fucking stupid. "He's shooting at us right now, but we can't assume he's guilty of shooting at us right now until we gather a jury of his peers together and they determine that his finger is the one pulling that trigger. Yes the trigger we both see him pulling that's attached to the gun he has pointed at us. What's that? You're dead because he shot you in the face while you were contemplating the morality of our situation? Well, at least we're not bad people though, right? -HURK-" As for "extraordinary rendition" and "enhanced interrogation"? Again, there is literally nothing the US/any country can do or say that will give anyone absolute guarantees that such a thing won't happen. It's worthless to speculate about. Besides, if that were the route the US decided to go, don't you think it would have already happened?
  - bediger4000 13y ago
    Senator Feinstein says he's guilty: http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/304573-sen-feinstein-snowdens-leaks-are-treason http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/304... ex-Ambassador John Bolton says he's guilty: http://www.wlsam.com/common/page.php?pt=Bolton%3A+NSA+leaker+Edward+Snowden+is+guilty+of+treason&id=45663&is_corp=0 http://www.wlsam.com/common/page.php?pt=Bolton%3A+NSA+leaker... ex-Vice President Dick Cheney says he's guilty: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0616/Dick-Cheney-Edward-Snowden-a-traitor-who-likely-spied-for-China-video http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0616/Dick-Chene... President Obama himself has impugned Snowden as a "hacker": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/obama-edward-snowden-hacker_n_3515562.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/obama-edward-snowde... That was easy. Now, surely, you too believe that Snowden cannot get a fair trial in the USA. Be a gentleman, and admit it, eh?
    - diminoten 13y ago
      Wait, are those people going to be jury members? Are any of them going to be the judge presiding over his case? No, and no. But hey, acting like an asshole about your country on the Internet is fun! And besides, he is guilty as shit and you know it. The problem is that the laws don't protect whistleblowers in the first place, not that Snowden would "unfairly" be convicted. We all know he's guilty, we're just hoping Obama will pardon him because that's his only chance.

The same qualities that constitute a fair trial for anyone: Presumption of innocence. Proceedings overseen by an impartial, unbiased official ("Judge"). Charges brought under a pre-existing law. Examining the charges and evidence and accusers, in court, in front of a jury. Representation by a competent lawyer. Decisions made by a jury of your peers. Evidence presented in court, jury examination of evidence, evidence is obtained legally. Evidence obtained without torture. You know, the same things that people have fought and died for since 1215.

diminoten 13y ago
And why specifically would one not believe Edward Snowden to receive these things? I thought the issue was that the existing law didn't sufficiently protect whistleblowers, not that the US would violate its own court procedings. I'm pretty sure the case is open/shut regarding the legality of what Snowden did. And a small point of order, but the fact that people have been fighting and dying for something doesn't make it valid. People have been fighting and dying in the name of Jesus Christ for 2000+ years.
- rollo_tommasi 13y ago
  The President, various members of Congress, and senior military officials have all pronounced him guilty of various crimes up to and including treason, so I think you can fairly argue that his right to presumption of innocence has been violated. There is also no guarantee that he won't be tortured, given the treatment Bradley Manning received.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    They have no power to pronounce him guilty, so that's about as important as me, or Oprah, or Bill Murray pronouncing him guilty. His right to the presumption of innocence is in the court of law, not the court of public opinion, and that right has not been violated. You're basically complaining that people don't like him. No shit. As for not being tortured, there is literally nothing the US could say or do that would provide what you're looking for there. It's a nonstarter.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Funny you should mention Manning, given that those same people also "pronounced" that Manning had 'aided the enemy' by helping AQ. Yet Manning was found not guilty of that very charge, and in a courtroom where the law really is stacked against the defendant, compared to civilian justice systems. Instead, what the President, Congressmen, etc. think about Snowden is opinion at this point, nothing more, just like the Commander-in-Chief himself wasn't able to direct a guilty verdict for Manning's aiding the enemy charge.
    - bediger4000 13y ago
      Given that the President is in charge of the Executive branch, of which the Department of Justice is a part, it's hard for me to believe that pronouncements of "opinion" from The President don't carry a lot of weight. And fer cryin out loud, Obama has admitted to executing US citizens without a trial. Fixing Snowden's trial would hold little more fear of ethical missteps than drone strikes. Given what's come out about "extraordinary rendition" and "enhanced interrogation", I think the fear of torture is completely justified.
      - diminoten 13y ago
        What you're effectively saying is that because the boss of the prosecutor thinks the guy is guilty, he loses his right to innocence before guilt. That is, pardon my French, fucking stupid. No god damned shit the prosecution thinks he's guilty. Obama has not targeted for execution a single person without a trial who wasn't an enemy combatant. What you're proposing is a Judge Dredd style method of conducting combat operations, which is, again pardon my French, fucking stupid. "He's shooting at us right now, but we can't assume he's guilty of shooting at us right now until we gather a jury of his peers together and they determine that his finger is the one pulling that trigger. Yes the trigger we both see him pulling that's attached to the gun he has pointed at us. What's that? You're dead because he shot you in the face while you were contemplating the morality of our situation? Well, at least we're not bad people though, right? -HURK-" As for "extraordinary rendition" and "enhanced interrogation"? Again, there is literally nothing the US/any country can do or say that will give anyone absolute guarantees that such a thing won't happen. It's worthless to speculate about. Besides, if that were the route the US decided to go, don't you think it would have already happened?
- bediger4000 13y ago
  Senator Feinstein says he's guilty: http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/304573-sen-feinstein-snowdens-leaks-are-treason http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/304... ex-Ambassador John Bolton says he's guilty: http://www.wlsam.com/common/page.php?pt=Bolton%3A+NSA+leaker+Edward+Snowden+is+guilty+of+treason&id=45663&is_corp=0 http://www.wlsam.com/common/page.php?pt=Bolton%3A+NSA+leaker... ex-Vice President Dick Cheney says he's guilty: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0616/Dick-Cheney-Edward-Snowden-a-traitor-who-likely-spied-for-China-video http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0616/Dick-Chene... President Obama himself has impugned Snowden as a "hacker": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/obama-edward-snowden-hacker_n_3515562.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/obama-edward-snowde... That was easy. Now, surely, you too believe that Snowden cannot get a fair trial in the USA. Be a gentleman, and admit it, eh?
  - diminoten 13y ago
    Wait, are those people going to be jury members? Are any of them going to be the judge presiding over his case? No, and no. But hey, acting like an asshole about your country on the Internet is fun! And besides, he is guilty as shit and you know it. The problem is that the laws don't protect whistleblowers in the first place, not that Snowden would "unfairly" be convicted. We all know he's guilty, we're just hoping Obama will pardon him because that's his only chance.