3 ms·

That neither surprises nor outrages me. The purpose of a trial is to determine whether or not you broke the law, not why you broke the law. That can be relevant

That neither surprises nor outrages me. The purpose of a trial is to determine whether or not you broke the law, not why you broke the law. That can be relevant in your sentencing, but why you broke the law is not relevant as to whether you broke the law. That does not in any way make it a "show trial." In an ideal world we might have stronger whistle-blower protections in the Espionage Act, but for the moment it works like most other laws: the reason you violated the law may mean the prosecutor decides not to pursue the case or mean you get a light sentence, but the trial is not about why you did it, but whether you did it.

lhl 12y ago
I wouldn't have a problem either if all the far graver crimes/criminals that Snowden's leaks revealed would also be prosecuted with as rigorously but we know that's not going to happen. We're not talking about why or whether you broke the law, but about how much power you have within the system. If there's no surprise or outrage, that just means the nominal raison d'être of the founding fathers / US Constitution is so far dead that it doesn't matter anymore. Sadly, this is most likely the case.
- Amezarak 12y ago
  > I wouldn't have a problem either if all the far graver crimes/criminals that Snowden's leaks revealed would also be prosecuted with as rigorously but we know that's not going to happen. What specific crimes could we use to prosecute specific people? What the NSA is doing might be illegal and unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean there's a legal framework in place for punishing people specifically. I believe there are cases still moving in the judicial system to prove NSA actions were illegal and/or unconstitutional and to put an end to those actions. >If there's no surprise or outrage, that just means the nominal raison d'être of the founding fathers / US Constitution is so far dead that it doesn't matter anymore. Sadly, this is most likely the case. Calling it nominal is certainly the right usage. The founding fathers/US constitution offered the majority of the population no power whatsoever within the system. And the ink was hardly dry on the paper before the same founding fathers were flagrantly violating the rights of even propertied white men with, e.g., the Sedition Act. People went to prison for the crime of criticizing John Adams. I'd say we're much better off now. Rather than saying it's "so far dead that it doesn't matter anymore", I'd say it's entering the prime of its life in the long view.
AJ007 12y ago
Why absolutely is relevant. If there is a dead man in your home, did he break in and threaten you or was it someone who you invited in and then killed? It is appalling for a defendant to be prevented from giving his story. Generally, a prosecutor wants a defendant to take the stand as to trip them up in their lies. Never in Espionage Act cases. Why? The context of the Espionage Act absolutely matters. Daniel Ellsberg, Drake, Manning were not able to speak for themselves at trial. Lawyers would point out that a law from 1917 is wildly being taken out of context by US prosecutors. In all of these leaker cases, including Snowdens, the government was revealed to be involved in incredible immoral and illegal activities, and sometimes even atrocities. The US Prosecutors think that is irrelevant. To an amoral society it is.
- Amezarak 12y ago
  > The context of the Espionage Act absolutely matters. Daniel Ellsberg, Drake, Manning were not able to speak for themselves at trial. They absolutely were. Both Russo and Ellsberg testified about their reasons for leaking the Pentagon Papers and their experiences in Vietnam. Manning, whose case much different since it was tried by the military's judicial system, also got a chance to speak for himself. Manning pleaded guilty to ten charges and gave a long statement, in part explaining why he did it. There was also substantial testimony during the trial for the remaining charges explaining why he did it. Drake never went through the full process because the government dropped the charges. > Why absolutely is relevant. If there is a dead man in your home, did he break in and threaten you or was it someone who you invited in and then killed? That not a "here's why I broke the law", that's a "I didn't actually break the law, it was self defense and not first degree murder."

lhl 12y ago

I wouldn't have a problem either if all the far graver crimes/criminals that Snowden's leaks revealed would also be prosecuted with as rigorously but we know that's not going to happen. We're not talking about why or whether you broke the law, but about how much power you have within the system. If there's no surprise or outrage, that just means the nominal raison d'être of the founding fathers / US Constitution is so far dead that it doesn't matter anymore. Sadly, this is most likely the case.

Amezarak 12y ago
> I wouldn't have a problem either if all the far graver crimes/criminals that Snowden's leaks revealed would also be prosecuted with as rigorously but we know that's not going to happen. What specific crimes could we use to prosecute specific people? What the NSA is doing might be illegal and unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean there's a legal framework in place for punishing people specifically. I believe there are cases still moving in the judicial system to prove NSA actions were illegal and/or unconstitutional and to put an end to those actions. >If there's no surprise or outrage, that just means the nominal raison d'être of the founding fathers / US Constitution is so far dead that it doesn't matter anymore. Sadly, this is most likely the case. Calling it nominal is certainly the right usage. The founding fathers/US constitution offered the majority of the population no power whatsoever within the system. And the ink was hardly dry on the paper before the same founding fathers were flagrantly violating the rights of even propertied white men with, e.g., the Sedition Act. People went to prison for the crime of criticizing John Adams. I'd say we're much better off now. Rather than saying it's "so far dead that it doesn't matter anymore", I'd say it's entering the prime of its life in the long view.

AJ007 12y ago

Why absolutely is relevant. If there is a dead man in your home, did he break in and threaten you or was it someone who you invited in and then killed? It is appalling for a defendant to be prevented from giving his story. Generally, a prosecutor wants a defendant to take the stand as to trip them up in their lies. Never in Espionage Act cases. Why? The context of the Espionage Act absolutely matters. Daniel Ellsberg, Drake, Manning were not able to speak for themselves at trial. Lawyers would point out that a law from 1917 is wildly being taken out of context by US prosecutors. In all of these leaker cases, including Snowdens, the government was revealed to be involved in incredible immoral and illegal activities, and sometimes even atrocities. The US Prosecutors think that is irrelevant. To an amoral society it is.

Amezarak 12y ago
> The context of the Espionage Act absolutely matters. Daniel Ellsberg, Drake, Manning were not able to speak for themselves at trial. They absolutely were. Both Russo and Ellsberg testified about their reasons for leaking the Pentagon Papers and their experiences in Vietnam. Manning, whose case much different since it was tried by the military's judicial system, also got a chance to speak for himself. Manning pleaded guilty to ten charges and gave a long statement, in part explaining why he did it. There was also substantial testimony during the trial for the remaining charges explaining why he did it. Drake never went through the full process because the government dropped the charges. > Why absolutely is relevant. If there is a dead man in your home, did he break in and threaten you or was it someone who you invited in and then killed? That not a "here's why I broke the law", that's a "I didn't actually break the law, it was self defense and not first degree murder."