4 ms·

Did he release secret US Army and Navy documents? Was he hired to secure them, but then stole them? Isn't this treason? Let him come back. If there is enoug

Did he release secret US Army and Navy documents? Was he hired to secure them, but then stole them? Isn't this treason? Let him come back. If there is enough evidence against him, then he can stand trial. If he is innocent; then the government won't be able to prove a case against him.

coldtea 11y ago
>Isn't this treason? Is "treason" against people and organizations who failed the country and abused the constitution still treason? Let's not forget that the revolution for independence was also treason to the British crown...
- tosseraccount 11y ago
  He should be allowed to testify and defend himself. The prosecution can present their evidence.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    Sometimes it cannot. Would a jury in the South in 1850 condemn or free an abolitionist? That's the problem with justice in full -- it's not just the law, and it's not just the majority opinion. The first can mostly determine compliance (with its code), the second can mostly determine popularity or prevelance of a sentiment. And they can do that only given all the facts (which they wont, e.g. how this information was used, special service people can just lie like they did to congress etc), and without undue influence from outside. For something like Snowden's case (or the slavery example), who controls the media and public discourse is quite an important factor on any jury, that's in effect even before they got selected. All that, of course, if anybody believes that there's a thing such as justice in general, and that while some things can be relative, something like slavery being bad is wrong whether the majority of people in an era thinks its ok or not.
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    > He should be allowed to testify and defend himself. He's not. 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... > If Edward Snowden comes back to the US to face trial, he likely will not be able to tell a jury why he did what he did, and what happened because of his actions. Contrary to common sense, there is no public interest exception to the Espionage Act. Prosecutors in recent cases have convinced courts that the intent of the leaker, the value of leaks to the public, and the lack of harm caused by the leaks are irrelevant—and are therefore inadmissible in court.
ceejayoz 11y ago
> Isn't this treason? Treason requires actions directly aiding a wartime enemy. There's a reason the US has prosecuted (let alone convicted) less than 40 people for it, and there's a reason they passed the Espionage Act, which is what Snowden was charged under.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  The constitution says of treason: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." This is the part you addressed. Perhaps this could be construed as "giving our enemies aid". The actual legislation adds more details. But the constitution continues: "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." Which, actually, may not be an evidentiary standard that could be met here, assuming Greenwald and Poitras don't testify.
smileysteve 11y ago
> Let him come back. If there is enough evidence against him, then he can stand trial. > If he is innocent; then the government won't be able to prove a case against him. Nobody (not even him) questions whether he violated the laws as they were written, but the concept of whistleblowing suggests that these laws were knowingly violated to present unlawful laws and actions.

coldtea 11y ago

>Isn't this treason? Is "treason" against people and organizations who failed the country and abused the constitution still treason? Let's not forget that the revolution for independence was also treason to the British crown...

tosseraccount 11y ago
He should be allowed to testify and defend himself. The prosecution can present their evidence.
- coldtea 11y ago
  Sometimes it cannot. Would a jury in the South in 1850 condemn or free an abolitionist? That's the problem with justice in full -- it's not just the law, and it's not just the majority opinion. The first can mostly determine compliance (with its code), the second can mostly determine popularity or prevelance of a sentiment. And they can do that only given all the facts (which they wont, e.g. how this information was used, special service people can just lie like they did to congress etc), and without undue influence from outside. For something like Snowden's case (or the slavery example), who controls the media and public discourse is quite an important factor on any jury, that's in effect even before they got selected. All that, of course, if anybody believes that there's a thing such as justice in general, and that while some things can be relative, something like slavery being bad is wrong whether the majority of people in an era thinks its ok or not.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  > He should be allowed to testify and defend himself. He's not. 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... > If Edward Snowden comes back to the US to face trial, he likely will not be able to tell a jury why he did what he did, and what happened because of his actions. Contrary to common sense, there is no public interest exception to the Espionage Act. Prosecutors in recent cases have convinced courts that the intent of the leaker, the value of leaks to the public, and the lack of harm caused by the leaks are irrelevant—and are therefore inadmissible in court.

ceejayoz 11y ago

> Isn't this treason? Treason requires actions directly aiding a wartime enemy. There's a reason the US has prosecuted (let alone convicted) less than 40 people for it, and there's a reason they passed the Espionage Act, which is what Snowden was charged under.

dllthomas 11y ago
The constitution says of treason: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." This is the part you addressed. Perhaps this could be construed as "giving our enemies aid". The actual legislation adds more details. But the constitution continues: "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." Which, actually, may not be an evidentiary standard that could be met here, assuming Greenwald and Poitras don't testify.

smileysteve 11y ago

> Let him come back. If there is enough evidence against him, then he can stand trial. > If he is innocent; then the government won't be able to prove a case against him. Nobody (not even him) questions whether he violated the laws as they were written, but the concept of whistleblowing suggests that these laws were knowingly violated to present unlawful laws and actions.