3 ms·

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

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

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.