3 ms·

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 thi

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
      Obama has not targeted for execution a single person without a trial who wasn't an enemy combatant. I find it really hard to believe that a drone strike inside Yemen is justified on the "he's shooting at us!" grounds. For the death penalty, I'd like to think that the USA would demand more than an administrative designation. In fact for any legal penalty, I'd like to think that a public trial with advocates for both sides arguing the matter.
      - diminoten 13y ago
        Drone strikes in Yemen are closer to the "he's shooting at us!" than they are to arresting foreign citizens in foreign countries and trying them in a jurisdiction they've never been in for breaking laws they had no say in making. There isn't really a good answer here except maybe if people stopped trying to kill Americans...

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
    Obama has not targeted for execution a single person without a trial who wasn't an enemy combatant. I find it really hard to believe that a drone strike inside Yemen is justified on the "he's shooting at us!" grounds. For the death penalty, I'd like to think that the USA would demand more than an administrative designation. In fact for any legal penalty, I'd like to think that a public trial with advocates for both sides arguing the matter.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      Drone strikes in Yemen are closer to the "he's shooting at us!" than they are to arresting foreign citizens in foreign countries and trying them in a jurisdiction they've never been in for breaking laws they had no say in making. There isn't really a good answer here except maybe if people stopped trying to kill Americans...