6 ms·

Wouldn't he just disappear in one of these secret courts?

by aluhut 12y ago

api 12y ago
He's too high profile to 'just disappear.' He would almost certainly face charges.
- slantedview 12y ago
  Sure, but they'd be argued in a quasi-fair court, specially purposed for the occasion.
  - CoreSet 12y ago
    I'd add here it would probably be a military tribunal, locked under the pretense of protecting state secrets, but they don't seem to be having a good time of it prosecuting the 9/11 defenders. Still, expect surveillance and general intimidation of defense attorneys and judges on the same scale.[1] [1] http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/guantanamo/article1947210.html http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/...
    - wavefunction 12y ago
      I "get" how he could end up in a military tribunal because "laws be-damned" but not sure what sort of tortuous logic they could use to justify that. He was a civilian when he committed his acts so I believe he would legally be facing a civilian court system. I agree "national security" would be invoked to hush it all up but it would certainly add to the body of evidence that the people in charge got to go.
      - CoreSet 12y ago
        I think they could make some tortured legal case that because he was working as a security contractor with a certain clearance and had access to XX information and signed XXX legal release forms, he could be tried as a member of the military. Or heck, name him an "enemy combatant" and just detain him indefinitely in some Polish blacksite. People will forget his name in time.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > I think they could make some tortured legal case that because he was working as a security contractor with a certain clearance and had access to XX information and signed XXX legal release forms, he could be tried as a member of the military. The Supreme Court has already struck down, on constitutional grounds, application of the UCMJ to military contractors deployed with the military on foreign military missions, under express language in the UCMJ applying it to them (the motivation for the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which applied US federal civilian criminal law that otherwise applies within the US territorial and special maritime jurisdiction to them.) So I don't see that argument surviving the inevitable habeas petition. > Or heck, name him an "enemy combatant" and just detain him indefinitely in some Polish blacksite. People will forget his name in time. Not in time to mitigate the short term political consequences of being seen disappearing him.
    - r00fus 12y ago
      Prosecution isn't the goal. It's to make an example of him. Rotting in solitary while the court case slowly plays out is likely just as good for the supposedly aggrieved as a victory in court with the subsequent incarceration.
- shepardrtc 12y ago
  After a little while in court he'll just get really stressed out and commit suicide.
  - bhayden 12y ago
    Suicide by two shots to the back of the head.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      Infowars is that way -->
- bashinator 12y ago
  Given just the amateur research on remote-exploiting automobile control systems for auto-parking and such, I'd be astonished if the CIA didn't have plenty of experience in using modern cars as a weapon to kill the driver.
CoreSet 12y ago
I don't understand how he ever believes he could get a fair trial. I commend him for the belief in the rule of law that the sentiment represents, but he embarrassed the world's most powerful intelligence establishment - you know, the people responsible for killing people who want to kill us in secretive ways. There's nothing I'd consider out of bounds for possible retaliation, not even a "heart attack" or "engine problems."
- moe 12y ago
  not even a "heart attack" or "engine problems." At this point, what would anyone gain from that?
  - guard-of-terra 12y ago
    There is this idea that some people just have to retaliate, regardless of whether it is in their interest. They have to show they're still in the game - more important than near objectives in the said game. This may or may not apply to the situation.
  - flurpitude 12y ago
    Revenge. http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/americas-spies-want-edward-snowden-dead http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/americas-spies-want-edw...
    - CoreSet 12y ago
      “I would love to put a bullet in his head,” one Pentagon official, a former special forces officer, said bluntly. “I do not take pleasure in taking another human beings life, having to do it in uniform, but he is single-handedly the greatest traitor in American history.” Chilling
      - bhayden 12y ago
        Also love how they are completely ignoring the people who have literally assassinated a president.
IceyEC 12y ago
I think that part of what he desires is to be able to make any defense that he wants. As stated in CitizenFour and again in his AMA, a defense in this case would be severely limited in what it could claim, because the case involves espionage, he would be unable to make a defense claiming that the actual laws are unjust, for example.
rayiner 12y ago
Source for "secret courts" that try U.S. citizens? Even citizens captured fighting against the U.S. in Afghanistan were transferred to regular courts once their citizenship became apparent. The FISA court is no such thing. It was created by Congress review execution action that doesn't Constitutionally require judicial oversight in the first place. It's not empowered to try people for crimes or anything of the sort.
- shit_parade 12y ago
  "disposition matrix", although I don't think getting on that list even evolves a court, just an advisory panel made up people picked by the executive breach, but it is hard to know for sure since it is all considered secret. EDIT: how about a counter argument instead of reflexive down votes -- yeah it sucks our government kills US citizens without much due process but that's the truth, try not to avert your eyes.
  - harryh 12y ago
    I think that most people are comfortable with the idea that if you join a foreign militia and take up arms against the United States you forfeit certain protections of citizenship. Certainly not everyone agrees with this but that's the counter argument you asked for.
    - shit_parade 12y ago
      How about Abdulrahman al-Awlaki or Samir Khan? I suppose they didn't even get the semblance of due process, just were at the wrong place at the wrong time. EDIT: parent asked for a source for secret courts, the "disposition matrix" is just that, except it doesn't even involve the judicial branch only the executive and has resulted in the deaths of 3 Americans, one purposely and two 'accidentally' whether killing Americans on purpose or on accident is worse or better I'll leave as an exercise for the readers imagination.
      - harryh 12y ago
        Neither of those people were intentionally killed. Certainly we can argue about larger strategy and when the cost of collateral damage is worth military action but that discussion is orthogonal to one about a loss of due process.

Wouldn't he just disappear in one of these secret courts?

by aluhut 12y ago

Wouldn't he just disappear in one of these secret courts?

api 12y ago

He's too high profile to 'just disappear.' He would almost certainly face charges.

slantedview 12y ago
Sure, but they'd be argued in a quasi-fair court, specially purposed for the occasion.
- CoreSet 12y ago
  I'd add here it would probably be a military tribunal, locked under the pretense of protecting state secrets, but they don't seem to be having a good time of it prosecuting the 9/11 defenders. Still, expect surveillance and general intimidation of defense attorneys and judges on the same scale.[1] [1] http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/guantanamo/article1947210.html http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/...
  - wavefunction 12y ago
    I "get" how he could end up in a military tribunal because "laws be-damned" but not sure what sort of tortuous logic they could use to justify that. He was a civilian when he committed his acts so I believe he would legally be facing a civilian court system. I agree "national security" would be invoked to hush it all up but it would certainly add to the body of evidence that the people in charge got to go.
    - CoreSet 12y ago
      I think they could make some tortured legal case that because he was working as a security contractor with a certain clearance and had access to XX information and signed XXX legal release forms, he could be tried as a member of the military. Or heck, name him an "enemy combatant" and just detain him indefinitely in some Polish blacksite. People will forget his name in time.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > I think they could make some tortured legal case that because he was working as a security contractor with a certain clearance and had access to XX information and signed XXX legal release forms, he could be tried as a member of the military. The Supreme Court has already struck down, on constitutional grounds, application of the UCMJ to military contractors deployed with the military on foreign military missions, under express language in the UCMJ applying it to them (the motivation for the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which applied US federal civilian criminal law that otherwise applies within the US territorial and special maritime jurisdiction to them.) So I don't see that argument surviving the inevitable habeas petition. > Or heck, name him an "enemy combatant" and just detain him indefinitely in some Polish blacksite. People will forget his name in time. Not in time to mitigate the short term political consequences of being seen disappearing him.
  - r00fus 12y ago
    Prosecution isn't the goal. It's to make an example of him. Rotting in solitary while the court case slowly plays out is likely just as good for the supposedly aggrieved as a victory in court with the subsequent incarceration.
shepardrtc 12y ago
After a little while in court he'll just get really stressed out and commit suicide.
- bhayden 12y ago
  Suicide by two shots to the back of the head.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Infowars is that way -->
bashinator 12y ago
Given just the amateur research on remote-exploiting automobile control systems for auto-parking and such, I'd be astonished if the CIA didn't have plenty of experience in using modern cars as a weapon to kill the driver.

CoreSet 12y ago

I don't understand how he ever believes he could get a fair trial. I commend him for the belief in the rule of law that the sentiment represents, but he embarrassed the world's most powerful intelligence establishment - you know, the people responsible for killing people who want to kill us in secretive ways. There's nothing I'd consider out of bounds for possible retaliation, not even a "heart attack" or "engine problems."

moe 12y ago
not even a "heart attack" or "engine problems." At this point, what would anyone gain from that?
- guard-of-terra 12y ago
  There is this idea that some people just have to retaliate, regardless of whether it is in their interest. They have to show they're still in the game - more important than near objectives in the said game. This may or may not apply to the situation.
- flurpitude 12y ago
  Revenge. http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/americas-spies-want-edward-snowden-dead http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/americas-spies-want-edw...
  - CoreSet 12y ago
    “I would love to put a bullet in his head,” one Pentagon official, a former special forces officer, said bluntly. “I do not take pleasure in taking another human beings life, having to do it in uniform, but he is single-handedly the greatest traitor in American history.” Chilling
    - bhayden 12y ago
      Also love how they are completely ignoring the people who have literally assassinated a president.

IceyEC 12y ago

I think that part of what he desires is to be able to make any defense that he wants. As stated in CitizenFour and again in his AMA, a defense in this case would be severely limited in what it could claim, because the case involves espionage, he would be unable to make a defense claiming that the actual laws are unjust, for example.

rayiner 12y ago

Source for "secret courts" that try U.S. citizens? Even citizens captured fighting against the U.S. in Afghanistan were transferred to regular courts once their citizenship became apparent. The FISA court is no such thing. It was created by Congress review execution action that doesn't Constitutionally require judicial oversight in the first place. It's not empowered to try people for crimes or anything of the sort.

shit_parade 12y ago
"disposition matrix", although I don't think getting on that list even evolves a court, just an advisory panel made up people picked by the executive breach, but it is hard to know for sure since it is all considered secret. EDIT: how about a counter argument instead of reflexive down votes -- yeah it sucks our government kills US citizens without much due process but that's the truth, try not to avert your eyes.
- harryh 12y ago
  I think that most people are comfortable with the idea that if you join a foreign militia and take up arms against the United States you forfeit certain protections of citizenship. Certainly not everyone agrees with this but that's the counter argument you asked for.
  - shit_parade 12y ago
    How about Abdulrahman al-Awlaki or Samir Khan? I suppose they didn't even get the semblance of due process, just were at the wrong place at the wrong time. EDIT: parent asked for a source for secret courts, the "disposition matrix" is just that, except it doesn't even involve the judicial branch only the executive and has resulted in the deaths of 3 Americans, one purposely and two 'accidentally' whether killing Americans on purpose or on accident is worse or better I'll leave as an exercise for the readers imagination.
    - harryh 12y ago
      Neither of those people were intentionally killed. Certainly we can argue about larger strategy and when the cost of collateral damage is worth military action but that discussion is orthogonal to one about a loss of due process.