3 ms·
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 ap
by 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."