5 ms·

> I'm not a lawyer, but if he wants to argue that he's innocent or that the law is unconstitutional, it seems like the courtroom is the right place to make that

> I'm not a lawyer, but if he wants to argue that he's innocent or that the law is unconstitutional, it seems like the courtroom is the right place to make that argument. You should know that he would be legally barred from doing so under an Espionage Act prosecution. https://freedom.press/blog/2013/12/if-snowden-returned-us-trial-all-whistleblower-evidence-would-likely-be-inadmissible https://freedom.press/blog/2013/12/if-snowden-returned-us-tr... https://freedom.press/blog/2014/01/sen-schumer-wrong-snowden-would-be-barred-arguing-his-case-trial https://freedom.press/blog/2014/01/sen-schumer-wrong-snowden...

eli 11y ago
Well, I believe that's based on a hypothetical of how a judge might rule if Snowden attempts that defense. But more importantly, I don't think that's wrong. "I had a good reason" isn't a defense against the charges since intent is not a factor in this crime. I don't think you're generally allowed to argue for jury nullification, which is what this would amount to. (If the government could prove he intended to cause harm I imagine there would be even more charges against him.) And it makes sense: we can't have a situation where any random defense employee can bring down a national security program that they themselves think is wrong or illegal. I assume if there was a sentencing hearing, he'd be allowed to make a case for leniency based on why he did it.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  "And it makes sense: we can't have a situation where any random defense employee can bring down a national security program that they themselves think is wrong or illegal." I want that situation. I want that situation very badly. People are generally predisposed to think that the stuff they're working on is a good thing. If, despite that, someone decides it's so appalling it needs to be stopped, I want them to speak up. Even if they're occasionally wrong.
themartorana 11y ago
This is the stuff of nightmares. My nightmares, anyway. A fair and speedy trial in which you are not allowed to argue against the charges you face. It flies in the face of everything American and everything decent. There's a reason jury nullification is a thing - it's a check against the unbridled power and resources of the prosecution, and any laws that may be unjust by existing. Seriously, it's crazy to me when shit is ruled inadmissible when the information clearly has everything to do with the case. And if I put myself in the shoes of a juror, if I pass a verdict and later find out part of the truth was withheld, I'm very much going to feel that I was used - a pawn in a broken system, and not at all a participant in justice.
- eli 11y ago
  That seems a bit overblown. Nothing has been ruled inadmissible because Snowden hasn't made in court or filed any motions -- this is speculation. And "I had a good reason for committing the crime" is relevant to the case, but it's not evidence of innocence. There's a reason jury nullification is a thing, but there's also a reason the defense can't openly argue for it in court.
  - deciplex 11y ago
    > There's a reason jury nullification is a thing, but there's also a reason the defense can't openly argue for it in court. The reason being that if jurors knew they could just choose not to convict people who broke unjust laws, the conviction rate of the American justice system would be cut in half.

eli 11y ago

Well, I believe that's based on a hypothetical of how a judge might rule if Snowden attempts that defense. But more importantly, I don't think that's wrong. "I had a good reason" isn't a defense against the charges since intent is not a factor in this crime. I don't think you're generally allowed to argue for jury nullification, which is what this would amount to. (If the government could prove he intended to cause harm I imagine there would be even more charges against him.) And it makes sense: we can't have a situation where any random defense employee can bring down a national security program that they themselves think is wrong or illegal. I assume if there was a sentencing hearing, he'd be allowed to make a case for leniency based on why he did it.

dllthomas 11y ago
"And it makes sense: we can't have a situation where any random defense employee can bring down a national security program that they themselves think is wrong or illegal." I want that situation. I want that situation very badly. People are generally predisposed to think that the stuff they're working on is a good thing. If, despite that, someone decides it's so appalling it needs to be stopped, I want them to speak up. Even if they're occasionally wrong.

themartorana 11y ago

This is the stuff of nightmares. My nightmares, anyway. A fair and speedy trial in which you are not allowed to argue against the charges you face. It flies in the face of everything American and everything decent. There's a reason jury nullification is a thing - it's a check against the unbridled power and resources of the prosecution, and any laws that may be unjust by existing. Seriously, it's crazy to me when shit is ruled inadmissible when the information clearly has everything to do with the case. And if I put myself in the shoes of a juror, if I pass a verdict and later find out part of the truth was withheld, I'm very much going to feel that I was used - a pawn in a broken system, and not at all a participant in justice.

eli 11y ago
That seems a bit overblown. Nothing has been ruled inadmissible because Snowden hasn't made in court or filed any motions -- this is speculation. And "I had a good reason for committing the crime" is relevant to the case, but it's not evidence of innocence. There's a reason jury nullification is a thing, but there's also a reason the defense can't openly argue for it in court.
- deciplex 11y ago
  > There's a reason jury nullification is a thing, but there's also a reason the defense can't openly argue for it in court. The reason being that if jurors knew they could just choose not to convict people who broke unjust laws, the conviction rate of the American justice system would be cut in half.