5 ms·

> He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers -- not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Not sure what I was e

> He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers -- not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Not sure what I was expecting.

Raphmedia 11y ago
I am not from the USA and have little knowledge of such legal processes. Would he really be judged by his a jury of his peers? I was under the impression that he would forever be put to jail for treason the minute he stepped on American soil.
- Zikes 11y ago
  I am from the USA, and have little knowledge of such legal processes. That's the way they like it.
- juliangregorian 11y ago
  It would probably be pretty similar to what happened to Chelsea Manning. Granted Manning is military and as such exempt from the due process required to citizens. However they would love to make an example of Snowden.
  - PopeOfNope 11y ago
    > Granted Manning is military and as such exempt from the due process required to citizens. Weev got the same treatment.
- kenj0418 11y ago
  He would almost certainly be put in jail as soon as he stepped foot on American Soil. In most circumstances someone could make bail awaiting trial, but considering that he'd been hiding in another country (and the government would argue that he might run off again) it would be very doubtful for him. But then they would have a trial. It would likely take a very long time (and he would likely be in jail during it). The term 'jury of his peers' means regular American citizens (not judges or other government officials). Sadly, the government has done a good job of convincing many people that all their spying on us is for our own safety. They'd just need to work to get 12 people that believed that (while Snowden's attorney's would work to get at least one that didn't). Though anyone that already (openly) had an opinion on his guilt or innocence wouldn't be allowed on the jury. (note: this is assuming a civilian trial. I think they'd have a very hard time trying to give Snowden some sort of military tribunal)
  - Zikes 11y ago
    Most importantly, anyone with knowledge of jury nullification [1] would not be allowed on the jury. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
    - bjarnagin 11y ago
      This is a real problem. I was dismissed from a DUI case last year because I felt that it was a problem that the officer had forcibly administered a blood test while at the scene (this was after the Supreme Court case). The judge and prosecutor were very vocal about the fact that they were only interested in jurors who would be content to entertain whether the accused was intoxicated, without going any further into the matter.
      - plonh 11y ago
        I hear his sort of comment often. I don't understand why people value "being honest to a lawyer who is obstructing justice" over "fulfilling their civil duty to serve on a jury".
        Zikes 11y ago
        At best, the juror would be dismissed and replaced as soon as their lie was revealed. At worst, the juror would be held in contempt of court (or similar) and become another victim of that same corrupt justice system.
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    > But then they would have a trial. It would likely take a very long time (and he would likely be in jail during it). Of note: the Espionage Act forbids a public interest or whistleblower defense. His conviction would be a foregone conclusion.
Zikes 11y ago
Yep, that certainly worked out well for Chelsea Manning [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning#Detention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning#Detention
- venomsnake 11y ago
  Manning was not whistleblower.
  - NullCharacter 11y ago
    And neither is Snowden. After you grab a million files constituting nearly half a terabyte of top secret data and abscond with it to China (and then Russia), despite what your very best intentions may be, I don't think the title "whisteblower" is still applicable.
    - venomsnake 11y ago
      First - no one has quantified what exactly Snowden has. Second so far only the western media have had access to the files. Third there was not any proof that he had copy of the information while he was in Hong Kong.
      - NullCharacter 11y ago
        If you think the Chinese/Russian intelligence services haven't managed to get their hands on the entirety of what Snowden took I think you underestimate their prowess. A few Western journalists in their flats and offices does not a secure facility for storing highly classified information make.
        venomsnake 11y ago
        If Snowden took out data with such ease, I am strongly convinced that other services already had a copy of the relevant info (and much more) before he even thought about leaking it.
swalsh 11y ago
"judged by a jury of his peers" During the selection process for the Boston Bomber, a jury was selected of which only people willing to sentence him to death were allowed on. Snowdon would get a similar filtration. They would filter away any techies, etc until all that's left are people who will take the governments word as gospel. Ignoring the fact that the charges he's been charged with already don't allow for fairness, the trial process wouldn't make things any better.
- bagels 11y ago
  What evidence is there for your jury claims?
  - Zikes 11y ago
    History, mostly.
  - swalsh 11y ago
    "Most people from Eastern Massachusetts could qualify, as long as they assure lawyers and the judge that they are capable of handing out the death penalty, if the punishment is warranted." https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/11/06/jury-selection-marathon-bomber-trial/BeQatFcl11b5nOdxfzfE6J/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/11/06/jury-selection-...
  - srj 11y ago
    The questionnaire given to potential jurors asked for their beliefs on the death penalty. It begins with question 88, form embedded on this page: http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2015/03/18/heres-the-questionnaire-prospective-tsarnaev-trial-jurors-had-to-answer/ http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2015/03/18/heres-the-questionn...
- caskance 11y ago
  While death-qualified juries have some unfortunate side effects, you're mischaracterizing it in a very misleading way. If the law states that a possible punishment for theft is putting the thief in prison, it makes no sense to allow people on the jury who morally object to the idea of prison. And both sides are involved in jury selection. But who cares about the truth when you can just spread antigovernment FUD?

> He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers -- not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Not sure what I was expecting.

Raphmedia 11y ago

I am not from the USA and have little knowledge of such legal processes. Would he really be judged by his a jury of his peers? I was under the impression that he would forever be put to jail for treason the minute he stepped on American soil.

Zikes 11y ago
I am from the USA, and have little knowledge of such legal processes. That's the way they like it.
juliangregorian 11y ago
It would probably be pretty similar to what happened to Chelsea Manning. Granted Manning is military and as such exempt from the due process required to citizens. However they would love to make an example of Snowden.
- PopeOfNope 11y ago
  > Granted Manning is military and as such exempt from the due process required to citizens. Weev got the same treatment.
kenj0418 11y ago
He would almost certainly be put in jail as soon as he stepped foot on American Soil. In most circumstances someone could make bail awaiting trial, but considering that he'd been hiding in another country (and the government would argue that he might run off again) it would be very doubtful for him. But then they would have a trial. It would likely take a very long time (and he would likely be in jail during it). The term 'jury of his peers' means regular American citizens (not judges or other government officials). Sadly, the government has done a good job of convincing many people that all their spying on us is for our own safety. They'd just need to work to get 12 people that believed that (while Snowden's attorney's would work to get at least one that didn't). Though anyone that already (openly) had an opinion on his guilt or innocence wouldn't be allowed on the jury. (note: this is assuming a civilian trial. I think they'd have a very hard time trying to give Snowden some sort of military tribunal)
- Zikes 11y ago
  Most importantly, anyone with knowledge of jury nullification [1] would not be allowed on the jury. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
  - bjarnagin 11y ago
    This is a real problem. I was dismissed from a DUI case last year because I felt that it was a problem that the officer had forcibly administered a blood test while at the scene (this was after the Supreme Court case). The judge and prosecutor were very vocal about the fact that they were only interested in jurors who would be content to entertain whether the accused was intoxicated, without going any further into the matter.
    - plonh 11y ago
      I hear his sort of comment often. I don't understand why people value "being honest to a lawyer who is obstructing justice" over "fulfilling their civil duty to serve on a jury".
      - Zikes 11y ago
        At best, the juror would be dismissed and replaced as soon as their lie was revealed. At worst, the juror would be held in contempt of court (or similar) and become another victim of that same corrupt justice system.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  > But then they would have a trial. It would likely take a very long time (and he would likely be in jail during it). Of note: the Espionage Act forbids a public interest or whistleblower defense. His conviction would be a foregone conclusion.

Zikes 11y ago

Yep, that certainly worked out well for Chelsea Manning [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning#Detention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning#Detention

venomsnake 11y ago
Manning was not whistleblower.
- NullCharacter 11y ago
  And neither is Snowden. After you grab a million files constituting nearly half a terabyte of top secret data and abscond with it to China (and then Russia), despite what your very best intentions may be, I don't think the title "whisteblower" is still applicable.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    First - no one has quantified what exactly Snowden has. Second so far only the western media have had access to the files. Third there was not any proof that he had copy of the information while he was in Hong Kong.
    - NullCharacter 11y ago
      If you think the Chinese/Russian intelligence services haven't managed to get their hands on the entirety of what Snowden took I think you underestimate their prowess. A few Western journalists in their flats and offices does not a secure facility for storing highly classified information make.
      - venomsnake 11y ago
        If Snowden took out data with such ease, I am strongly convinced that other services already had a copy of the relevant info (and much more) before he even thought about leaking it.

swalsh 11y ago

"judged by a jury of his peers" During the selection process for the Boston Bomber, a jury was selected of which only people willing to sentence him to death were allowed on. Snowdon would get a similar filtration. They would filter away any techies, etc until all that's left are people who will take the governments word as gospel. Ignoring the fact that the charges he's been charged with already don't allow for fairness, the trial process wouldn't make things any better.

bagels 11y ago
What evidence is there for your jury claims?
- Zikes 11y ago
  History, mostly.
- swalsh 11y ago
  "Most people from Eastern Massachusetts could qualify, as long as they assure lawyers and the judge that they are capable of handing out the death penalty, if the punishment is warranted." https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/11/06/jury-selection-marathon-bomber-trial/BeQatFcl11b5nOdxfzfE6J/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/11/06/jury-selection-...
- srj 11y ago
  The questionnaire given to potential jurors asked for their beliefs on the death penalty. It begins with question 88, form embedded on this page: http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2015/03/18/heres-the-questionnaire-prospective-tsarnaev-trial-jurors-had-to-answer/ http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2015/03/18/heres-the-questionn...
caskance 11y ago
While death-qualified juries have some unfortunate side effects, you're mischaracterizing it in a very misleading way. If the law states that a possible punishment for theft is putting the thief in prison, it makes no sense to allow people on the jury who morally object to the idea of prison. And both sides are involved in jury selection. But who cares about the truth when you can just spread antigovernment FUD?