Slashdot Mirror


Snowden Reportedly In Talks To Return To US To Face Trial

HughPickens.com writes: The Globe and Mail reports that Edward Snowden's Russian lawyer, Anatoly Kucherena, says the fugitive former U.S. spy agency contractor is working with American and German lawyers to return home. "I won't keep it secret that he wants to return back home. And we are doing everything possible now to solve this issue. There is a group of U.S. lawyers, there is also a group of German lawyers and I'm dealing with it on the Russian side." Kucherena added that Snowden is ready to return to the States, but on the condition that he is given a guarantee of a legal and impartial trial. The lawyer said Snowden had so far only received a guarantee from the U.S. Attorney General that he will not face the death penalty. Kucherena says Snowden is able to travel outside Russia since he has a three-year Russian residency permit, but "I suspect that as soon as he leaves Russia, he will be taken to the U.S. embassy."

671 comments

  1. Bad idea by cheesybagel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Really bad idea. If he was going to do this he should have never bothered leaving in the first place.

    1. Re:Bad idea by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thinking the same thing here.

      I love living here and all, but damn - if I were a young single guy and my home country wants me imprisoned (or worse - probably worse) over uncovering illegal activities they committed?

      Screw that - I could learn Russian easily enough, many of the women there are reportedly rather cute, vodka ain't that bad as far as booze goes, and I can easily deal with living in cold-ass weather 9 months of the year.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed. Due process is for matters which don't threaten the ruling class. Matters which do threaten the ruling class are considered "too important" for the regular judicial system, because the first and foremost concern of the ruling class is to maintain and propagage the ruling class -- exactly as it has been since the dawn of coercive authority.

    3. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Really bad idea. If he was going to do this he should have never bothered leaving in the first place.

      Maybe he felt that being out of the immediate grasp of the US Government gave him a lot more breathing space to talk about it and discuss the leaks, even if he didn't actually want to leave the US. If he'd stayed in the US it would have been much faster and easier to shut him up quickly and let it peter out, in contrast to him video conferencing all over the place and responding to questions to give a deeper insight into what went on.

      That said, he seems to be considering returning on the basis of certain guarantees from certain people. Given the dirty tricks he has exposed, does he expect them to honour those guarantees? I get that he wants to return because he misses the people and places of home, but even if he openly expects a prison term, does he expect everyone inside and outside the government to be fair and reasonable?

    4. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Bad idea, because he's not getting a fair trial as a matter of principle. He's already branded a traitor by every gov't branch, and that kinda predetermines what'll happen when he's tried.

      The only way he can go home is if the US somehow elects a conscientious president, who gives him a pardon. Which won't happen with a president from either major party.

    5. Re:Bad idea by infolation · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe he's just testing the water, to find out what kind of reaction this provokes from the US. He clearly knows better than anyone what the consequences of what he's doing would be.

    6. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If he does get an unfair trial, I expect to see rioting.

    7. Re:Bad idea by phorm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      However, you're not really going to be doing much better with the Russian government that the US government...

    8. Re:Bad idea by DaHat · · Score: 1

      How exactly are you (the AC) going to determine if it is a fair trial or not?

    9. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe he felt that being out of the immediate grasp of the US Government gave him a lot more breathing space to talk about it

      Absolutely. We may have never learned that Snowden existed otherwise.

      That said, he seems to be considering returning on the basis of certain guarantees from certain people. Given the dirty tricks he has exposed, does he expect them to honour those guarantees?

      He may now be famous enough that he couldn't be simply "disappeared" or sent to Guantanamo. That's the best guarantee.

      Sadly, this used to be a shield in other countries -- sufficient international fame to prevent disappearance. Now, you might need it in US.

    10. Re:Bad idea by countach74 · · Score: 1

      Why? I certainly don't. People don't actually care about important things.

    11. Re:Bad idea by doti · · Score: 1

      s/face trial/receive a medal/

      --
      factor 966971: 966971
    12. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he does get an unfair trial, I expect to see rioting.

      Would be nice, but you won't, though...

    13. Re:Bad idea by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Absolutely, He is a fool if he even thinks about it because the DOJ can promise the world and not abide by it. In fact I guarantee they will make his life a living hell and an example to all those bad bad americans that would dare let out secrets that help terrorists.

      Only a fool would come back here after blowing the whistle like that.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    14. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Easily. If his trial comes before the investigation of the NSA wrongdoings that he uncovered, it is unfair.

    15. Re:Bad idea by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, you're not really going to be doing much better with the Russian government that the US government...

      Won't have to... just work for a private company in some capacity. Even if it wasn't in tech, I'd rather be a lowly factory worker in East Bumfuck, Russia than a famous prisoner in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    16. Re:Bad idea by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Really bad idea. If he was going to do this he should have never bothered leaving in the first place.

      One plausible scenario is that he left in order to continue his work (although its unclear if he has been directly involved since handing the data off to Greenwald and Poitras) and create more visibility for himself. The only reason for returning, since as many will point out life in prison is not preferable to a free life in Russia or almost any other country, is so that he can continue his work by creating a zoo of a trial that drags on for years and hangs in the media like a raincloud over the US government, constantly reminding people of what the NSA/CIA did/does and what they are willing to do to maintain their grip on information. Eventually a politician (probably a presidential candidate) will come to his rescue as a goodwill gesture and motivate the right people to free him on parole, mostly to get him out of the media so he can live a reclusive existence in remote California or Texas or something.

    17. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And there will be riots. I lived in LA during the Rodney King riots and those were over something far less important.

    18. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't break the law and then run away like a coward...

      Easy to say. What have you ever done? There's nothing noble about facing the wrath of authoritarian idiots.

    19. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Very easily. If it violates the constitution or infringes on any of Mr. Snowden's rights.

      He's a hero and should be treated as such.

    20. Re:Bad idea by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1, Insightful

      he knew enough to be well aware of the fact that the government will not play fair, no matter what.

      the fact that you THINK the gov would play fair speaks badly about you. or, exposes your agenda as a shill.

      well, another shill to add to my 'sponsored morons' list. welcome!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    21. Re:Bad idea by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't know if Russia is a good place for someone like Snowden who likes to expose government corruption. Then again, maybe he'll have better luck than Boris Nemstov.

      Luckily, if the Russians ever decide to jail him for exposing government corruption, he's likely to get that "fair and impartial" trial that he evidently thinks he needs a guarantee for in the US.

    22. Re:Bad idea by kaizendojo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Better yet, go to Ukraine. Less Putin, more cute women. Sorta like Russia-Lite.

    23. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > I could learn Russian easily enough

      You sure? a language with 7 grammatic cases (with cameos of at least other 3), 3 noun genders and vowel pronunciation depending on stress which doesn't appear anywhere on writing?

      Not to mention the exceptions. Oh, the mountain of exceptions.

    24. Re:Bad idea by grahamsz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think his own actions make that quite clear. If he's been stuck in a US prison do you think he's be able to still communicate with journalists to draw attention to his leaks, would he be able to testify at the European Union?

      He's already demonstrated that he's more valuable to advancing his agenda when he's able to communicate, than if he were in prison alongside Chelsea Manning. He's not running away like a coward, he's running away like someone who's determined to make his actions count for as much as possible.

    25. Re:Bad idea by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I don't, I expect to see it overshadowed by the combination of trivia and other crisis, as he is quietly shuffled off to be forgotten about in some gulag.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    26. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      6 grammatic cases, with cameo of 1 and 1 almost non-existent. Check your sources. (I'm a native Russian speaker.)

    27. Re:Bad idea by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As I've said before, if he's really this stand up guy, why did he run? IF he really had good and legal reasons to do what he did, take it to court and face the music.

      I know, right? Like how the Sons of Liberty didn't disguise themselves as Indians before dumping a load of tea into Boston Harbor, and then when done, turned themselves in to the nearest British garrison? We need more heroes like those fine, upstanding, nametag-wearing gentlemen.


      if you break the law to make your point that the law is unjust you should stand ready to be arrested, imprisoned and tried in court for what you choose to do.

      "Ready to be" doesn't mean adopting a Gump level of naivete and making it easy for the government to remove you from the public view. By him fleeing the country (and seeking asylum in a country we traditionally mock for their lack of an open and fair government, no less), we continue to discuss Snowden's actions years later. If he had stuck around, we would all have forgotten about him as soon as the next weekly scandal distracted the media.

    28. Re:Bad idea by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      If he is able to get a Fair trial. (This is the United States, our criminal justice system while isn't perfect, isn't so bad off that it cannot be done). There should be enough people for a fair jury, especially due to morally ambiguous issues, whistle blowing to show off abuse vs. just following order.
      The trial can be used to bring to light rules on how to correctly whistle blow, and force changes in the organizations structures.

      My personal view, I think he went too far, while I admire his intentions he crossed the line. However crossing that line means now the court will need to show where that line is.

      I expect he will get 10-20 years of prison. Then get hired to work for some political action group.

      Our history shows that people who willingly take their time for their actions, usually end up looking better in the eyes of history then the guy who cowers in some other countries borders.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    29. Re:Bad idea by Eponymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > IF he really had good and legal reasons to do what he did, take it to court and face the music.

      What if he did the right thing but that happened to be illegal? Then I think running is a reasonable thing to do.

    30. Re:Bad idea by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      if this were reversed, and he was a Russian citizen disclosing the abuse of Russian spy agencies, do you think he would even be alive for a trial? Now, what makes you think that our spies are any less evil?

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    31. Re:Bad idea by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's not Finnish. ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    32. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doubtful. American Idol will probably be on the day that the verdict comes out.

    33. Re:Bad idea by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Then you must live in some alternate dimension then the one the rest of us live in. In this one, most of the polls show 2:1 and 3:1 ratios in which the respondents say he should be put on trial and they don't support his actions.

    34. Re:Bad idea by arth1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Better yet, go to Ukraine. Less Putin, more cute women. Sorta like Russia-Lite.

      ... and soon enough, Russia proper?

    35. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He may now be famous enough that he couldn't be simply "disappeared" or sent to Guantanamo. That's the best guarantee.

      Might not disappear, but they can still torture him for months without much outrage. See Manning.

    36. Re:Bad idea by johanw · · Score: 2

      Even if there are riots, they won't help. Police officers still shoot black kids in the back out of self defence.

    37. Re:Bad idea by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. - MLK Jr, emphasis mine

      I can't arose much sympathy for someone who professes to love his country but seeks refuge from a regime that stands opposed to virtually everything his country stands for. There are people who are willing to die for this country, without fame or recognition, but Mr. Snowden both outs himself and refuses to face a jury of his fellow citizens?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    38. Re:Bad idea by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      As the old saying ought to go:

      It's better to live on your feet than die on your knees

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    39. Re:Bad idea by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Easy: if rioting ensues, the trial must have been unfair - just as in Ferguson. Isn't that how the legal system is supposed to work? Who needs prosecutors, judges, and juries when you've got a very large jury of angry peers to decide them?

    40. Re: Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did pretty well with English, a language where pronunciation has nearly nothing to do with the way you write it

    41. Re:Bad idea by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, how much less do you think he should have done? What secrets should he have kept from the citizens of the US and its (nominal) allies?

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    42. Re:Bad idea by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As I've said before, if he's really this stand up guy, why did he run?

      Because he didn't feel he was going to get fair treatment from the government. It's the same reason why a multitude of whistleblowers flee their parent country for fear of retaliation.

      IF he really had good and legal reasons to do what he did, take it to court and face the music.

      Riiight. Because the government never plays dirty against whistleblowers, right? Oh wait... Obama is one of the worst presidents when it comes to trying to attack whistleblowers.

      Civil disobedience has ALWAYS carried the potential for punishment and if you break the law to make your point that the law is unjust you should stand ready to be arrested, imprisoned and tried in court for what you choose to do. You don't break the law and then run away like a coward...

      Said by a big, brave keyboard warrior. Get back to us when you actually face a similar situation to the one Snowden is in.

    43. Re:Bad idea by arth1 · · Score: 1

      He may now be famous enough that he couldn't be simply "disappeared" or sent to Guantanamo. That's the best guarantee.

      Being famous (or infamous) is a gurantee against being "disappeared"?
      I'm sure Jimmy Hoffa will be happy to hear that.

    44. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. - MLK Jr, emphasis mine

      Which is great if not for the fact that the "community" in this case is a bunch of ignorant idiots.

      I can't arose much sympathy for someone who professes to love his country but seeks refuge from a regime that stands opposed to virtually everything his country stands for.

      So you're also against all the Nazi defectors, Soviet Union defectors, etc. that all fled their countries to come to the US? Because they did exactly what you state is supposedly a terrible thing.

      There are people who are willing to die for this country, without fame or recognition, but Mr. Snowden both outs himself and refuses to face a jury of his fellow citizens?

      Snowden was outed by others. He didn't do this for fame or recognition.

    45. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm confused: do you believe in rule of law (Congress, judges, juries, etc.), or do you believe Snowden taking the law into his own hands? It tickles me that the law suddenly becomes very important when we need to determine whether or not Mr. Snowden violated it, but it was of no importance to Mr. Snowden when he was (allegedly) violating it.

      Is the "hero" the guy who violates the law or the guy by disclosing secrets, contrary to terms he signed when he got his security clearance, or is the "hero" the guy who wants the law to be applied fairly to his own case.

    46. Re:Bad idea by onthemightofprinces · · Score: 0

      And ruled by the US by proxy now... probably a bad idea.

    47. Re:Bad idea by jep77 · · Score: 1

      Isn't the perceived fairness of any given trial typically based on how the verdict compares to the outcome the outside observer believes is correct? If the jury decides in opposition to my own personal views, it must have been an unfair trial.

    48. Re:Bad idea by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Civil disobedience has ALWAYS carried the potential for punishment and if you break the law to make your point that the law is unjust you should stand ready to be arrested, imprisoned and tried in court for what you choose to do.

      You assume he'd get a trial which was anything other than a secret kangaroo court, operating under secret laws, and that he'd get a fair trial.

      When your government has decided it doesn't give a fuck about your laws and your Constitutional rights ... you don't stick around to "face the music".

      The only way we'd have ever learned half as much is by him leaving.

      And, curiously, the people who were breaking the fucking law in the first place have had pretty much zero repercussions.

      Do you see Cheney up on charges? Or Bush? Or Obama? Or the head of the CIA?

      Of course not, because those clowns are operating under a different set of laws than you and I do.

      Face it, America is handling this like a banana Republic .. if the only thing the AG is promising is no death penalty, maybe the AG doesn't give a crap about the law, or the truth, just protecting the government when it shits all over the Constitution?

      Face it, America is now being ran by people who don't believe the law applies to them. Which means you should be very angry with the people in power, and not enabling them to keep acting like this.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    49. Re:Bad idea by bledri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know if Russia is a good place for someone like Snowden who likes to expose government corruption. Then again, maybe he'll have better luck than Boris Nemstov.

      Luckily, if the Russians ever decide to jail him for exposing government corruption, he's likely to get that "fair and impartial" trial that he evidently thinks he needs a guarantee for in the US.

      The fact that Putin's Russia is also a bully does not absolve the US of it's hypocrisy and misdeeds.

      --
      Some privacy policy Slashdot.
    50. Re:Bad idea by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, Ukraine would never trade Snowden to the US for military aid against Russia.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    51. Re:Bad idea by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't know if Russia is a good place for someone like Snowden who likes to expose government corruption. Then again, maybe he'll have better luck than Boris Nemstov.

      Luckily, if the Russians ever decide to jail him for exposing government corruption, he's likely to get that "fair and impartial" trial that he evidently thinks he needs a guarantee for in the US.

      As long as it is only the US government's corruption, abuse of power and their ongoing rape of the US constitution that Snowden is exposing then I'm pretty sure the Russians are perfectly happy to allow him to continue and if Snowden has half a brain he will allow the Russians opposition to handle exposing the similar shenanigans of the Russian government.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    52. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can easily deal with living in cold-ass weather 9 months of the year.

      As someone who has lived in the upper Midwest for 41 years: you may think that, but a lot of people eventually get tired of cold-ass weather coming around every year.

      I'm to the point where I have weather forecast summaries loaded up on my phone for potential places of retirement so I can make sure I move to a place that doesn't get long-term cold-ass weather.

    53. Re:Bad idea by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      I'd sooner trust a "dishonest" blogger like Glenn Greenwald than an anonymous coward like you.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    54. Re:Bad idea by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      If he had ran to the US and was being shielded by the US government? Sure. Of course if he ever bothered going on a vacation to somewhere else or stopped being escorted he would quite likely end like Leon Trotsky or Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev.

    55. Re:Bad idea by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      Thinking the same thing here.

      I love living here and all, but damn - if I were a young single guy and my home country wants me imprisoned (or worse - probably worse) over uncovering illegal activities they committed?

      Screw that - I could learn Russian easily enough, many of the women there are reportedly rather cute, vodka ain't that bad as far as booze goes, and I can easily deal with living in cold-ass weather 9 months of the year.

      Except you're not some random expat in Russia. You're a spy who has left everything behind, and not necessarily trusted by the Russians, either; since they cannot predict what you might do or say if you leave. They can't very well let you talk to whoever you want, get a job where you might learn something of interest you could reveal, or turn on them if you decide life there is worse than when you left. You have to wonder if the Russians one day will decide they get a better deal turning you over to the Americans what they get by protecting you; and possibly feeling guilty about what you did, if even only those you left behind, and add in loneliness and it may not be as idyllic as you hoped. Now comes the hard part for him; the realization he never can really return.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    56. Re:Bad idea by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "allegedly" violating it - he has not been convicted yet, and the presumption of innocence should prevail. We don't know if a jury would find sufficient cause, given the circumstances and the illegal acts that were being covered up, to find sufficient justification.

      Kind of like "yes, I went through the red light, but I was carrying someone who had been shot and was bleeding profusely to the hospital as quickly as I could."

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    57. Re:Bad idea by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Apparently, you do not have a clear understanding of how the US legal system works. If the DOJ makes a promise in a legal contract, it will have to follow that contract. To improperly reneg on that contract would jeopardize every legal contract the US government makes across the world. The US's power is embedded in law; to publicly violate it would unravel the US. And finally, you need to get a realistic grasp of Snowden's situation. His ability to further damage the US government is probably negligible. His value in "disappearing him into Gitmo" is also zero, because it will never happen with current protocols. He's negotiating jail time for "crimes" he knows he would be successfully prosecuted for, in exchange for the US to make the best "example" of Snowden they can manage. But the US DOJ will have to agree to operate above board, with a standard criminal prosecution; no "Star" courts.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    58. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the russian will kill him if he try to show the truth there. Next time try iceland

    59. Re:Bad idea by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

      Face it, America is now being ran by people who don't believe the law applies to them.

      Just now?

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    60. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm wondering if Boris Nemstov was killed by US / UK agencies to further their propaganda against Putin.

      They won't stop until they install a sympathetic government in the Kremlin.

    61. Re:Bad idea by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      And, just to take it further, suppose it was a Russian citizen released tons of information which embarrassed Putin's government and Putin wanted him back for a show-trial followed by life in prison (at best). Now, suppose that Russian citizen fled to the US. Should we return that citizen to Russia where we know he will not get a fair trial and will likely just "disappear" after a mock hearing? Should we send him home if Putin and his fellow politicians are calling for the citizen to be put to death as a traitor? Would we fault this Russian citizen for fleeing and call him a coward for not facing down the Russian government single-handedly? Or would the right thing to do be to grant him asylum and recognize that he took this brave, whistleblower action knowing that it would end life as he knew it in his home country and he would likely never be able to return again?

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    62. Re:Bad idea by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      That said, he seems to be considering returning on the basis of certain guarantees from certain people.

      And, come next election, those people will be replaced by other people who won't honor their predecessor's guarantees. Snowden will then face the full fury of the US Government as a convicted-guilty-traitor before his trial even begins.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    63. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Oh I see, you've bought into what you're being spun by the BBC (Foreign Office) or CNN (State Department).

      +1 For being an independent, critical thinker. Back to Fox News for you.

    64. Re:Bad idea by DaHat · · Score: 1

      So... Snowden 'allegedly' violated the law because he's not yet been convicted... but the "illegal acts that were being covered up" are in fact... illegal acts? Have said acts also been adjudicated as illegal?

      I could be mistaken... but at last check more courts have non-overturned rulings finding that the administration was engaged in an illegal amnesty program than have found that the information revealed by Snowden to be of illegal actions.

    65. Re:Bad idea by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      You sure? a language with 7 grammatic cases

      1. Plenty of Russians speak bad Russian.
      2. He only needs to learn enough to communicate, not write poetry.

      Getting grammatical cases right is not that important. In English, if someone says "drived" instead of "drove" or "runned" instead of "ran", you can still tell what they meant. I am a horrible Spanish speaker. I also speak Mandarin as a atonal language. In both cases, I occasionally have to repeat myself, or rephrase a question, but I am able to communicate well enough for daily life.

    66. Re:Bad idea by bledri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Really bad idea. If he was going to do this he should have never bothered leaving in the first place.

      As I've said before, if he's really this stand up guy, why did he run? IF he really had good and legal reasons to do what he did, take it to court and face the music.

      Civil disobedience has ALWAYS carried the potential for punishment and if you break the law to make your point that the law is unjust you should stand ready to be arrested, imprisoned and tried in court for what you choose to do. You don't break the law and then run away like a coward...

      I don't give a shit if he's a stand up guy, he deserves due process and the US does not hold up it's end of the bargain anymore (assuming it ever did.) We live in a time when it's illegal to discuss the fact that you've received a national security letter, much less the content. We live in a time when labelling someone a "terrorist" means they have no civil rights. People are held without being charged. People are flown to other countries to be tortured. US citizens have been targeted for assassination in other countries. But you think Snowden, knowingly throwing his life away, to expose the depths of the US government's intrusion into our lives is a coward? Because that's what he did, and knew that he was doing it. What sacrifice have you made to hold the government accountable?

      --
      Some privacy policy Slashdot.
    67. Re:Bad idea by mrbester · · Score: 1

      How many tenses do you think there are in English? I'll bet your guess isn't high enough, every though you probably use must of them without realising every day.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    68. Re:Bad idea by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      IF he really had good and legal reasons to do what he did, take it to court and face the music.

      Are you saying that people shouldn't report illegal government activity?

      As I've said before, if he's really this stand up guy, why did he run?

      And are you saying that Snowden didn't do what he did for America and put himself in a really crap positioning order to make the the US a better place, that's pretty 'stand-up guy' in my book.

      Do you think Snowden would receive a fair trial? Of course he wouldn't, they don't care if he's a whistle blower, they hate whistle blowers, they'll stick him in some send-you-nuts solitary confinement because he has hacking knowledge, he'll be there for years whilst a painfully slow trial works it's way through the courts and at the end of it he'll get to spend the rest of this life in USA's worst prisons.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    69. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is very strong evidence that the government has subverted the rule of law. This is a problem, but not the real problem. The real problem is that there is no legal mechanism for exposing this subversion, prosecuting the corrupt, and preventing future recidivism. The whole system, congress, president, judiciary, military-industrial complex, are united against reform.

      In the meantime,the full weight of the same system has been and will be unleashed against those that try to expose it to the light. There is no legal recourse, and this excuses Snowden's actions, nay, makes him a hero.

    70. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he is able to get a Fair trial.

      That one has already been decided. He is not eligible to a fair trial since he is accused under the Espionage Act which precludes all evidence or defenses based on him having a motive to publish the government's crimes.

      The jury is only allowed to decide on matters of fact. All they get to decide is whether Snowden did what he did.

    71. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are spouting the RT party line, muddy the water so that people do not notice that a dozen of Putin's detractors have been executed and summarily covered up by the police

    72. Re:Bad idea by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      He may now be famous enough that he couldn't be simply "disappeared" or sent to Guantanamo.

      "Simply" maybe not, but "accidents" happen to people all the time...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    73. Re:Bad idea by conoviator · · Score: 1

      Maybe rioting in Europe and few other places. Not in the United States. U.S. citizens are still asleep.

    74. Re:Bad idea by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know about rioting, but I can tell you that if he returns home, and doesn't receive a fair trial, I will be one of the ones out there protesting.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    75. Re:Bad idea by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      As I've said before, if he's really this stand up guy, why did he run? IF he really had good and legal reasons to do what he did, take it to court and face the music.

      Snowden seems like a stand-up guy, Assange seems like a moron and a jerk. In either case, focusing on the person distracts from what matters: the problems in the US government.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    76. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the cool kids are doing it.

    77. Re: Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. Seriously?

    78. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if he wants his old job back?

    79. Re:Bad idea by DroolTwist · · Score: 1

      Doubtful. American Idol will probably be on the day that the verdict comes out.

      Don't even joke about that. :(

    80. Re:Bad idea by Arancaytar · · Score: 2

      Yeah, Ukraine would never trade Snowden to the US for military aid against Russia.

      Well, if the US were willing to risk an armed conflict with Russia in order to get their hands on Snowden, they don't need to wait...

    81. Re:Bad idea by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You have to wonder if the Russians one day will decide they get a better deal turning you over to the Americans what they get by protecting you

      Historical trivia: The Russians have done that before. When Hitler came to power in Germany, hundreds of German leftists fled to Russia, assuming they would be safe in a communist country. The Russians turned 600 of them over to Hitler as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

    82. Re: Bad idea by Steve+B · · Score: 0

      Awww, they're so cute when they still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and politicians' honesty....

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
    83. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, you're not really going to be doing much better with the Russian government that the US government...

      Tell that to the Russian opposition leader who was just assassinated walking right outside the Kremlin.

    84. Re:Bad idea by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps you should try actually thinking instead of pounding your chest to the tune of the Star Spangled Banner? MLK publicly addressed unjust laws by being punished in a manner that was clearly unjust. If Snowden is punished, it will be hidden from the public and over laws that are effectively secret from the people. Also, had he not run, we likely wouldn't have been able to get as much press. You should be far more concerned that the NSA is insane, stupid, and practically unchecked in their power, instead of complaining that Snowden didn't follow the MLK edition of the Civil Disobedience handbook to the letter.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    85. Re:Bad idea by Coren22 · · Score: 2, Informative

      +1 for believing the propaganda despite all the evidence released. Sat photos are hard to fake, and sat photos of artillery/tanks entering Ukraine from Russia are pretty damning evidence.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    86. Re:Bad idea by Copid · · Score: 1

      If the penalties were similar to the penalties for blocking traffic in protest or refusing to go to the back of the bus, he may very well have rolled the dice. When the penalties are life in prison or the death penalty, that seems like a lot to ask. There's a reason why we celebrate people who die for their beliefs as heroes. It's because most people aren't willing to, and demanding it of anybody is pretty unreasonable.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    87. Re:Bad idea by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

      ...if Snowden has half a brain he will allow the Russians opposition to handle exposing the similar shenanigans of the Russian government.

      What idealist has half a brain? Instead, the true idealist stamps out the non-ideal wherever he may find it. But assuming the Russians have half a brain (which is a pretty good bet, since they're not idealists), they'll never give him the opportunity to use the half he's got.

      Of course, Snowden is highly unlikely to ever have an opportunity to expose anything significant ever again except for whatever he may still have stashed away from "the good ol' days". Still, it's kindda fun to wonder exactly where his idealism ends and his pragmatism begins. Evidently, he has at least one-quarter of a brain since he fled the US to practice his idealism from a safe distance.

    88. Re:Bad idea by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A trial would answer all those questions - but we can't bring the government perps to trial for some reason.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    89. Re: Bad idea by jblues · · Score: 1

      Perhaps try the south-east of Russia? Cities like Krasnodar are supposedly pleasant, with short mild winters and long hot summers.

      --
      If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
    90. Re:Bad idea by LVSlushdat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Face it, America is now being ran by people who don't believe the law applies to them. Which means you should be very angry with the people in power, and not enabling them to keep acting like this.

      Which is why I look at Edward Snowden as a true American hero.. If he were to come back to the US, I doubt he'd even get as "fair" a trial as Irwin Schiff did..
      http://www.takelifeback.com/ir.... Irwin's only "crime" was to publish books showing of facts showing clearly that there was/is NO law requiring Americans to pay an "income tax".. I live in Las Vegas, and attended a large part of the "trial".. His attorney was prevented from presenting evidence, and was also prevented from presenting evidence disputing the endless lies presented by the IRS and the prosecution.. Irwin was brought into the courtroom in shackles and prevented from speaking in his own defense by the judge. The "icing on the cake" of this "kangaroo court trial" was the fact that the judge, in his jury instructions, told the jury that they MUST find Irwin guity .. or THEY would be in violation of the law.... After the trial I spoke to a couple of people who were on that jury and they told me they were convinced of Irwin being not-guilty, but the completely illegal jury instructions scared them such that they voted to convict.. Whether or not you know (or believe) that the "income tax" is totally bogus or you've bought into it like a very large number of Americans, this type of "Star chamber" trial is VERY un-American... And this would be the type of trial that Snowden would receive, AT BEST....

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    91. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm wondering if Boris Nemstov was killed by US / UK agencies to further their propaganda against Putin.

      They won't stop until they install a sympathetic government in the Kremlin.

      Yeah, the US should continue to kill opponents of Putin until Putin is forced to leave office.

    92. Re: Bad idea by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      A politician's honesty has nothing to do with it. Its a lawyer's honesty. Its much like dealing with Lucifer, but they are scrupulously honest where enforceable legal stipulations make them so. If you can't believe in that standard in operational integrity, then your most rational reaction when being prosecuted for a criminal indictment would be to flee the country.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    93. Re:Bad idea by wired_parrot · · Score: 1

      If he can get a guarantee that the trial will be an public and open trial, and not done through a closed and secret military court, I think it can actually be a brilliant tactic. An open trial would force the government to air its eavesdropping activities out in the open. It could perhaps bring some judicial accountability by forcing them to defend the constitutionality of their activities.

      However, that's all a big if, and I'm doubtful the government would agree to have Snowden tried in public court outside of a military court.

    94. Re:Bad idea by hey! · · Score: 2

      Well, this is the thing about civil disobedience. The classic formula is to keep up awareness of your issue by forcing the government to go through the embarrassing and drawn-out process of prosecuting and punishing you. I'll bet they had to drag Thoreau kicking and screaming out of that Concord jail cell when some joker finally came along and paid his poll tax for him. Holding court for his admirers in the town pokey no doubt suited his purposes nicely.

      In that spirit, this announcement is very effective. When was the last headline you read about Edward Snowden? If he comes back for a long and drawn out trial that'll show he's pretty hard core about this civil disobedience thing -- if leaving a cushy, high paying job in Hawaii with his pole-dancing girlfriend to go to fricken' Russia wasn't enough.

      It occurs to me, though, that this situation is a lot like what I always say about data management systems: the good ones are easier to replace than the bad ones. Likewise the better governments, the ones with at least some commitment to things like due process, are much easier to face down with civil disobedience than ones where being a political threat gets you a bullet in the head, like Ninoy Aquino or Boris Nemtzov. If Snowden *does* come back, and if he ends up "detained" in limbo somewhere, then it'll be time for everyone to go into the streets and bring the government down.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    95. Re:Bad idea by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And no one will care, you can stand out there all you like, you'll be ignored...

    96. Re:Bad idea by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about absolution? I'm merely pondering where Mr. Snowden would most like to live under his present circumstances.

    97. Re:Bad idea by Bayowolf · · Score: 0

      He may now be famous enough that he couldn't be simply "disappeared" or sent to Guantanamo. That's the best guarantee.

      Being famous (or infamous) is a gurantee against being "disappeared"? I'm sure Jimmy Hoffa will be happy to hear that.

      The US Government has to "play nice" (i.e., follow the Constitution) or, at least pretend to. The folks who (most likely) "disappeared" Jimmy Hoffa (namely the LCN, a.k.a., the Mafia) didn't have to "play nice" and rarely did.

    98. Re: Bad idea by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 2

      He did pretty well with English, a language where pronunciation has nearly nothing to do with the way you write it

      Says you. (Translation: "sez u")

    99. Re:Bad idea by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Well, the lesson is: Don't get caught. But, well, that's the lesson to learn from anything involving doing time for.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    100. Re:Bad idea by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      ? You already didn't ignore me, and I didn't even have to stand outside.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    101. Re:Bad idea by bobbied · · Score: 0

      He KNEW what the potential punishments where before he broke the law. I say that if you care that much about the cause, do the right thing and don't run, stand and fight injustice in court in front of a jury. You don't run away to avoid trial because it is the trial that lets you air your opinion to a jury of your peers and it is the way you can address the issues with the law.

      Anything less just means you are no better than a hoodlum, committing a crime and running away from the law, then claiming the punishment isn't fair when you get caught. REAL civil disobedience is when you break the law, full knowing the consequences, ready to make your case about how the punishment isn't fair to a jury and if you loose, being punished.

      Did Rosa Parks say to herself, "I'm going to break the law today and show these people how unfair it is, but when the police show up I'm going to run and hide so they don't punish me!" No, she stood her ground, did what she thought was right, ready to be punished if that's what it took to call attention to the injustice of the law. That's what a valid protest looks like.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    102. Re:Bad idea by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      You'll forgive me if I decline to discuss my views of the relevant NSA programs, since /. isn't exactly welcoming to opinions more nuanced than "Snowden Good. NSA Bad."

      All I'll say on the subject is that there are mechanisms in place for people who feel their Government is doing wrong. He could have gone to the relevant Congressional committees or the Inspector General at NSA. He could have used the whistleblower act. He ignored all of those options and leaped straight to leaking, then further threw the baby out with the bathwater by leaking details of programs that had no bearing whatsoever on domestic civil liberties, like NSA's activities against China. In effect, he substituted his judgment for the judgment of our elected representatives, an act of extraordinary hubris in the words of Robert Gates.

      In spite of everything I may have retained some understanding of his choices had he opted to selectively leak the details of NSA's domestic activities. He didn't do that though, he took as much as he possibly could and leaked it all, with no consideration for the damage it would do to American interests and national security. That may not mean anything to you but such actions have far reaching ramifications and I don't recall seeing Mr. Snowden's name on the ballot when I was selecting the people who would wield that power on my behalf.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    103. Re:Bad idea by bobbied · · Score: 1, Funny

      As I've said before, if he's really this stand up guy, why did he run? IF he really had good and legal reasons to do what he did, take it to court and face the music.

      Snowden seems like a stand-up guy, Assange seems like a moron and a jerk. In either case, focusing on the person distracts from what matters: the problems in the US government.

      Well if calling attention to the government's problem was really his motive, there was no need to run away. In fact, running away actually hurt his case, both in court and in public opinion.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    104. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he would have never had the chance, and how can you as citizen judge him? or do you think that the jury would be read into classified materials programme.

      Most likely he would be tried under a military tribunal as an enemy combatant, which means he is already guilty no matter what evidence is presented.

      Charges: 82,000 counts of treason (aid and comfort to the enemy) has been used before in a treason case regarding documents.

      Evidence portion of the trial, Documents stolen: Classified under national security act.
      Snowden's lawyer "But they were stolen for the public good"
      Prosecutor "Objection, speculation since the documents cannot be examined in a court of law."

      Why did you flee the country Mr snowden
      Snowdens Lawyer "I feared for my safety"
      So you ran away because you would be caught, this is the words of a guilty man.
      Snowdens lawyer, "No I have Docu"
      Prosecutor; "Objection!, classified material"

    105. Re:Bad idea by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      And then what?

      I don't really like Putin. Personally I consider him a huge step back in Russia's way towards a real democracy (ok, it's not like there are any good role models left for that, but ... hey, let's remember the good ol' days when the US had to pretend to be the good guy 'cause of the bad Commies), but the question is "what comes after?"

      I can't help but compare him to Saddam. Saddam sure was not a good leader. But even his tyrannic regime was better than the clusterfuck that's going down now.

      At least for everyone outside Iraq...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    106. Re:Bad idea by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      Didn't we kick out the Russian proxy a while ago and installed our own puppet? Wasn't that what started the whole shit that's going on there now?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    107. Re:Bad idea by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      Most likely he would be tried under a military tribunal as an enemy combatant, which means he is already guilty no matter what evidence is presented.

      Our country can't even move forward with the military tribunals of unlawful combatant foreign nationals captured aboard, even though such tribunals are explicitly allowed under both domestic and international law. You think we'd be able to do it against an American citizen, for crimes allegedly committed on American soil? Give me a break. This is the type of conspiracy theory nonsense that makes internet discussions a complete waste of time. Study how the real world works, it's a lot more boring and bureaucratic than you think.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    108. Re:Bad idea by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      The real problem is that there is no legal mechanism for exposing this subversion

      If they exposed the git instead, everyone could perform their own prosecution locally.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    109. Re:Bad idea by bobbied · · Score: 0

      IF he really had good and legal reasons to do what he did, take it to court and face the music.

      Are you saying that people shouldn't report illegal government activity?

      Nope. Report away. Snowden's problem was HOW he reported it and to whom.

      As I've said before, if he's really this stand up guy, why did he run?

      >

      Do you think Snowden would receive a fair trial? Of course he wouldn't

      Of course he would receive a fair trial... Unless of course you have already predetermined what the outcome SHOULD be from that trial and have decided to define that as unfair... Look, the system in this country, despite what you think, is generally fair. Snowden would face a trial before a group of peers just like everybody else which would likely be more than fair to him. After all, the legal system in this country is "innocent until PROVEN guilty" and is slanted in favor of the accused in just about every way possible. Even trial procedure is slanted towards the defense, which gets the privilege of "answering" the charges by presenting it's arguments AFTER the prosecution presents it's case. So Snowden would get a fair trial, despite the people who claim otherwise...

      Snowden is also afforded a "speedy" trial, so if the defense pushes for a trial ASAP, they get it. Long Delays in a trial only come when the defense agrees to it, otherwise you have grounds for appeal. But I doubt there would be much delay for Snowden. The facts are pretty much not in dispute and well known, getting to a trial quickly is likely what the prosecution would want anyway now...

      Don't be so down on the US legal system. We have our issues, but generally it works reasonably well.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    110. Re:Bad idea by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If I was living in the US and was asked in a public and non-secret poll if I support his actions, I sure as hell would answer NO!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    111. Re:Bad idea by grahamsz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also I think it's fundamentally wrong to view "civil disobedience" as a one time thing. Him handing a bunch of documents to Glenn Greenwald wasn't the singular act of disobedience.

      He's still acting in a disobedient matter. He's still sitting on the bus if you will. And he is still suffering the consequences of his actions, even if that doesn't mean rotting in prison.

    112. Re: Bad idea by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And just as with dealing with Lucifer, you should read the fine print. Yes, they will head the contract. But I wouldn't put it beyond them that they'd claim he somehow did something wrong and hence the contract is null and void as soon as they can grab and pin him.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    113. Re:Bad idea by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      /Oblg. "Its a trap!"
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    114. Re:Bad idea by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The number of grammatical cases is irrelevant. Question: What's the difference between a grammatical case without stem changes and a postposition (opposite of a preposition? Answer: A space.

        That which is challenging, apart from stem changes, is the same thing that is challenging with helper words in general: when to use what with what. Picture a person learning English and trying to remember what to use with what. "I was scolding her.... over it? for it? about it? to it? around it?" "We were unhappy.... over it? for it? about it? to it? around it?" "She was dedicated.... over it? for it? about it? to it? around it?" And so forth. It's the same for people trying to learn which declension case to use in which context. But if the declensions are just suffixes without stem changes, then they're no different from postpositions. And often stem changes where they occur follow pretty predictable rules, often for pronunciation reasons.

      --
      You know when it's okay to shout fire in a crowded theatre? When it's on fire.
    115. Re:Bad idea by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Yep, but my reply to you on Slashdot does nothing and changes nothing. It might as well not even exist.

      I live in Texas, over the past 3 years, protesters have been holding a weekly rally in my town against Obama and various things from Obamacare and gun control. Groups of between 30 to 50 people get together on a bridge over the highway near my home and wave flags and hang signs.

      It does nothing, there aren't nearly enough people there to make anyone care. If the media isn't showing up to record and broadcast it, then it might as well not be happening. I hope they have fun or maybe are hanging out with friends, because no one cares and it changes nothing.

      Get a hundred thousand people together and maybe you'll have something. If the media decides to report it.

    116. Re:Bad idea by Jiro · · Score: 2

      Rosa Parks was arrested and tried, but her trial was public. You can't call attention to the injustice of the law if the trial is secret and nobody is even allowed to talk about what happens at it.

    117. Re:Bad idea by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      "Hey, it's no problem if you want to protest. We have zone far away from the cameras, surrounded by snipers and riot police. There's no food, water, or porta-potties. Feel free to protest, as long as you do it there."

    118. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you break the law to make your point that the law is unjust you should stand ready to be arrested, imprisoned and tried in court for what you choose to do. You don't break the law and then run away like a coward...

      Breaking the law how, like trumping up a "war" in oil-producing countries over phony WMD's, then setting up a puppet gov't to serve American interests? Or breaking the law as in pissing on the Constitution, like your hapa king is doing? So your genocidal war-crimes-lovin' America-hating presidential elite gets away with murder, unilateral declarations of war, torture and widespread corruption, and he isn't getting arrested, imprisoned or tried in court, and you think this is a great example to follow?
       
      That is some fucked up shit homie. I'd rather have "coward" like Snowden run my country than one "real man" like your Bushes and Barracks.

    119. Re:Bad idea by binarstu · · Score: 1

      The fact that Putin's Russia is also a bully does not absolve the US of it's hypocrisy and misdeeds.

      Not to mention that, from Snowden's perspective, speculating how he'd be treated if he were to reveal Russian state secrets is almost totally pointless, because there is about 0 probability that he would ever be in such a situation. Does anyone seriously believe that the Russian state security apparatus would hire him for a position in which he'd be handling sensitive information? Of course not. When considering his personal welfare, the only thing he has to weigh is his current life in Russia versus what would happen to him if he were to go back to the U.S.

    120. Re:Bad idea by DaHat · · Score: 1

      A Snowden trial could... however as I recall, under evidence rules in the US his ability to showcase potentially illegal acts that only came to light due to his own classified leaks is not permitted.

      On the other side, no group that I am aware of has sued and won over the various Snowden revelations so as to establish a precedent which a Snowden defense could be based.

    121. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really bad idea.

      Indeed.

      I'd say it probably ranks about even with sticking your dick in a running meat grinder.

      With the current "leanings" of the executive and judicial branches of the US government,
      Snowden will either be executed or given a very long prison term. If it were me, I'd take my
      chances going on the lam before I returned to the US. Better at least to die as a free man
      than to live as a prisoner ( and unlike most of you here I speak from experience,
      having been a guest of the US government in one of their fine federal prisons. By the
      way all that "pound me in the ass" stuff you people fantasize about is bullshit, that happens
      in state prisons maybe, but in fed joints you don't attack another prisoner unless you want
      a large dose of "diesel therapy". Diesel therapy refers to the practice of putting an inmate on
      a bus every week or ten days for months at a time. The result is that the inmate is effectively
      kept in solitary the entire time he is in transit, and this can go on for months. It most definitely
      IS a form of torture. Yep, right here in the land of the "free". If you people knew a fraction of
      the truth about what goes on in the US at this time, you'd be looking into leaving the country yourselves
      as I am, though I have no reason to run other than that I don't want to live the rest of my life in a police
      state, which the US is at this time.

    122. Re:Bad idea by bobbied · · Score: 0

      Dude, seriously?

      Snowden had voluntary access to classified information and had voluntarily signed a non-disclosure agreement. He is bound by that agreement, legally, forever. Contract law has to work that way.

      As to the *rest* of your little rant... IF you are a US citizen who is overseas and actively engaged in fighting the USA and a drone strike kills you, to bad, so sad. If you are captured as a combatant on foreign soil you first get adjudicated by the military under their rules and they may or may not be required to ship you back to the states for criminal trial. But REMEMBER that if you are with the sovereign territory of the United States the military is NOT the police, and CANNOT act like law enforcement arresting people and holding them for trial.

      So drop all this cloak and dagger stuff and realize that it's not as bad as you make it sound...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    123. Re:Bad idea by occasional_dabbler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This, absolutely this. Anyone with a brain and a conscience can say that Snowden did nothing but a service to the majority of the people in the world, whatever his motivation. Given his position as someone who could be 'crushed like a bug' by any side, he has a way better chance flying closer to Putins's flame than Obama's (or Jeb's or whatever other monstrosity the US vote in next)

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
    124. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I highly doubt you will be ignored. You will likely be pepper sprayed, shot with rubber bullets, non-lethally killed, tasered, arrested on trumped charges... ignored.. doubtful.

    125. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking as someone who's actually done the long-term migration thing, let me assure you - homesickness is a thing. Snowden himself probably didn't realise just how true this is until some time after he left.

    126. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly it was the traffic police doing the shooting... good luck with that.

    127. Re:Bad idea by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

      How many tenses do you think there are in English?

      There is "wigwam," and, "teepee," so there are two tents.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    128. Re:Bad idea by kaiser423 · · Score: 1

      See what they did to Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning. They locked her up in solitary for extended periods and really did just about everything that they could to make her mentally break. Very punitive, and if you ask me god-damn un-American. Lots of people tried to draw attention to the fact that the judicial system was totally fine with mentally and physically breaking a person before even going to trial, but hardly anyone even cared. If I was Snowden I would've seen that, and decided to get asylum somewhere until I was able to reasonably ensure that they wouldn't do the same to me, and then come back for trial. Snowden has always indicated that he is fine with standing in court over his actions -- but he is not fine with cruel and unusual punishment before the conviction and a railroaded process. I say bring him back and show that we can put on a fair trial and treat our accused with at least the most basic human dignity.

    129. Re:Bad idea by Copid · · Score: 1

      He KNEW what the potential punishments where before he broke the law. I say that if you care that much about the cause, do the right thing and don't run, stand and fight injustice in court in front of a jury.

      You're oscillating back and forth pretty freely between "illegal" and "wrong." If the penalty was his execution and the execution of everybody in his family, would standing trial and losing still be the "right" thing, or would the only "right' option in that case be to not break the law in the first place? What if the penalty was the execution of his family and he was blowing the whistle on secret government-run death camps? You're taking a rather absolutist position here and I'm wondering if you've really thought it through to its logical ends. Is there really no time when it's right to break the law and flee the consequences?

      REAL civil disobedience is when you break the law, full knowing the consequences, ready to make your case about how the punishment isn't fair to a jury and if you loose, being punished.

      I'd be more inclined to that position if it was actually legal for him to make the case to the jury that what he did was in the national interest or that the law was unjust. Unfortunately, those arguments aren't permitted. Legally, the reasons for doing it aren't relevant. The only question is whether he did it, and he has already admitted to that. There's no "making his case" in this process at all.

      The perversity of the situation here is that there are a lot of perfectly reasonable defenses for crimes that are not allowed as a matter of law. If you position hinges on using those defenses in some spectacular manner to lay bare the immorality of the law and make a great public spectacle, you're going to be sorely disappointed when the judge tells you to shut the fuck up and wait for the jury to find you guilty.

      Did Rosa Parks say to herself, "I'm going to break the law today and show these people how unfair it is, but when the police show up I'm going to run and hide so they don't punish me!"

      If the death penalty was a likely outcome for the infraction, I doubt Rosa Parks would have done it in the first place. She'd probably have kept her head down like everybody else, and we might be sending black people to the back of the bus today.

      If we make it so the only way people can do the right thing is to forfeit their lives in exchange, we're going to end up with not a lot of people doing the right thing.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    130. Re:Bad idea by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      How cute, you believe that. You do realize what they teach you in high school is a complete fantasy.
      Also how about that whole 6th amendment being suspended because "we are at war" bullshit.

      Or did you forget that nice tidbit that the scumbags in congress passed?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    131. Re:Bad idea by jcr · · Score: 1

      Snowden shouldn't even consider returning to the USA until the NSA and CIA have been abolished. They hate him even more than they hate Manning.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    132. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 for believing the propaganda despite all the evidence released. Sat photos are hard to fake, and sat photos of artillery/tanks entering Ukraine from Russia are pretty damning evidence.

      There were never any satellite photos ever released, unless you are talking about the faked SBU photos released by the Ukrainian's. Now speaking on the Ukrainian propaganda is another entirely hilarious discussion in itself. The amount of BS they have fabricated eclipses an entire encyclopedia.

    133. Re:Bad idea by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Snowden does not work for the Russian government, nor is he ever likely to. What he's been doing for a job over there, I'm not sure, but I'm quite sure they're not going to employ him in a job doing the same thing he was doing in the USA. At best, he can just work in private-sector jobs there which have nothing to do with the government.

      Yes, if he exposed government corruption in Russia, he wouldn't be treated well. But why would he ever be in a position to see such corruption and expose it?

    134. Re:Bad idea by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The broadband is probably better in Leavenworth.

    135. Re:Bad idea by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      1) How many times have you already been out there protesting for Snowden?
      2) How many times have you seen your government change its policies because someone, somewhere is protesting about something?
      3) Who do you think will gather the biggest crowd : people who want this hero to be given a full pardon or people who want this traitor to be executed?
      4) People don't even protest for their own constitutional rights. What makes you think they'll protest for Snowden's constitutional rights?

    136. Re:Bad idea by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      People who are paranoid enough to lie to a simple poll, won't openly go outside and riot.

    137. Re:Bad idea by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      I don't know if Russia is a good place for someone like Snowden who likes to expose government corruption.

      It is if he only exposed the US government's secrets, and doesn't intend on exposing more about Russia.

    138. Re:Bad idea by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Finnish conjugation can fuck right off but you really only need three or four words to survive in Finland: Perkele, Sauna, Viina, Ruoka.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    139. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US government is practically drooling in anticipation of convicting Snowden of something. Anything will do, though of course the greater the conviction, the more he will be pilloried by the Powers That Be.

      Let's face it, he will be convicted. His enemies will see to that one way or another. Once that happens they will never, ever fail to refer to him as anything other than Convict Snowden or something similar. James Clapper? Free man and patriot! Gen. Hayden? Hero and patriot! The former Veep? Can-do action hero and patriot!

      Yet who violated the Constitution? Who decided that spying on all citizens, indeed all of humanity, was both right and good? Who broke the chain of oversight and due process? Who encouraged torture and perpetual imprisonment without charge or representation?

      Snowden's real crime is that he revealed the institutional wrongdoing of people more powerful and culpable than he. For this the Three Letter Agencies will never forgive, never forget, and never admit their crimes.

    140. Re:Bad idea by slew · · Score: 1

      if this were reversed, and he was a Russian citizen disclosing the abuse of Russian spy agencies, do you think he would even be alive for a trial? Now, what makes you think that our spies are any less evil?

      Well, I'm not sure "our" spies ever did this... But I don't know for sure...

    141. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at what happened to the Falcon and the Snowman. One was convicted and sent to prison. He somehow managed to "escape," and was never seen again.

    142. Re:Bad idea by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 1

      There wouldn't be an armed conflict between the U.S. and Russia. These things never work that way. We would just "gift" Ukraine a bunch of tanks, planes, missiles, and bullets, and send some "volunteers" from the CIA to give them training on how to use their new toys.

    143. Re:Bad idea by BrookHarty · · Score: 1

      >I don't know about rioting, but I can tell you that if he returns home, and doesn't receive a fair trial, I will be one of the ones out there protesting.

      Depends on what the definition of "Fair" is, he gets a lawyer and a jury, so thats fair right? The judge will either approve or deny his plea argument. Think about that, he cant use a whistleblower plea because there is no whistleblower argument under the law. The judge wont allow it. This is the same thing that happens with state crimes in federal court. You could have a state permit to grow marijuana, but its federally illegal. So having a license by the state, is not allowed as a plea argument, and its excluded from the jury.

      And then the judge will instruct the Jury how to weigh the evidence. If the jury follows his instructions, he will be found guilty.

      If the courts ban your testimony and evidence for commiting an action, how can you defend your action?

      And appeals courts, they only rule if you had fair trial, not new evidence. DNA can set you free, tough, its new evidence.

      The legal sytem is the lie to pacify the masses.

    144. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the "hero" the guy who violates the law or the guy by disclosing secrets, contrary to terms he signed when he got his security clearance, or is the "hero" the guy who wants the law to be applied fairly to his own case.

      His oath was to first "defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic", and that directive supersedes all others. Once Snowden found out what the NSA was doing, it was in fact his duty to expose it.

      What do you think a "domestic enemy of the Constitution" looks like? Why do you think those words were chosen?

    145. Re:Bad idea by swillden · · Score: 1

      Civil disobedience has ALWAYS carried the potential for punishment and if you break the law to make your point that the law is unjust you should stand ready to be arrested, imprisoned and tried in court for what you choose to do.

      Your argument would carry more weight if the government who'd be trying Snowden weren't the same one he outed for violating its own laws, with the active collaboration of its judicial branch. Not to mention all of the recent fully-public sidestepping of due process for hundreds of other enemy combatants. Oh, and the torture, including of US citizens. And... do I really need to go on?

      Snowden has extremely good reason to be skeptical of the fairness of a trial... or if he'd even get a real trial.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    146. Re:Bad idea by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Because whistleblower protections in this country in general, and particularly under this president, are a joke.

      That's why.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    147. Re:Bad idea by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      This is hardly a new occurrence. He's been doing it since like forever.

    148. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A DOJ "promise"...have to follow through?!?! You've got to be kidding me? What planet have you been living on the last 5+ years. This gov't has been lying constantly on a daily basis and has made it an art form of how they re-neg on their "word". Oh my goodness, the naivety.

      Ed, you could not possibly believe you'd get a fair shake with this gov't...seriously. The FISA so-called court just rubber stamped AGAIN all the illegal spying and information gathering they can muster from our own law abiding citizens. Ed S. shines the light...the idiocy of the public at large yawns. You are all nothing but little serfs that need stay in your place. Pathetic.

    149. Re:Bad idea by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Even inside Iraq. I doubt there are less people dying now with the civil war going on than when he was in power.

    150. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now now. Putin isn't going to annex Ukraine. He'll just make a bunch of puppet states around Ukraine just like he did in Georgia.

    151. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of like "yes, I went through the red light, but I was carrying someone who had been shot and was bleeding profusely to the hospital as quickly as I could."

      Isn't that grounds for getting shot 43 times under current standard police procedure?

    152. Re:Bad idea by dywolf · · Score: 1

      yeah....
      if you witness a murder or other illegal acts, your contract binding you to silence loses all weight.

      as for the drone strike, it wasnt a happy coincidence, it was a targeted assassination of an individual, done in the full knowledge of his citizenship, and outside of any active combat.

      Make no mistake: the guy WAS a terrorist. i'll even say he absolutely deserved to die.

      But that doesnt give you, the President, or anyone else the power to simply bypass the Constitution, Due Process, and the basic rights granted to all American Citizens, including those we'd very much like to see dead. The very idea should turn the stomach of every American citizen.

      The GOP is so hopped up fighting mad and ready to impeach Obama?
      THIS IS WHAT THEY SHOULD USE.

      But they don't.
      And they won't.
      Because they actually support the doctrine.

      As I've said before: Most of the complaints of the GOP and Fox are manufactured bullshit meant for mass consumption of their voting base.
      The real issues, the real problems that should be held against the President, like this one, they don't actually care about and/or actively support.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    153. Re:Bad idea by mrbester · · Score: 1

      You forgot pup, hospital, yurt and marquee. Plus the rarely seen big top.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    154. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really bad idea. If he was going to do this he should have never bothered leaving in the first place.

      Do you even PR, bro? He's now widely supported by the security community, as well as Hollywood now that there's a smash-hit movie about him.

      That is entirely different from feeding yourself to the National Security wolf behind closed doors.

    155. Re:Bad idea by wasteoid · · Score: 1

      and probably get tasered and/or clubbed by a law-abiding police thug.

    156. Re:Bad idea by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      If the DOJ makes a promise in a legal contract, it will have to follow that contract.

      no one who has been paying attention the last few decades will believe this.

      the US does not even follow its own laws. lets start with that quaint old paper, the constitution. its against the C to spy on citizens without cause. yet, they do it, they are bold about it and they show no signs of changing. each day, they break major laws doing this.

      that should be enough for you to mistrust the government and how it applies its laws.

      its a salad bar situation; they pick and choose what favors them and only follow what gives them the edge.

      the US is a has-been. world-wide, we are a laughing stock. I HATE THAT, as I was born and raised here, but I do realize that we've lost all credibility and it will be a very long time coming before it returns.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    157. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reference? Wikipedia says otherwise... were you thinking of someone else?

    158. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      recording authorities helps...
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    159. Re:Bad idea by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah totally, just like the US government obeys the constitution... and international treaties on war crimes and torture...

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    160. Re:Bad idea by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

      As a Canadian who is very grateful to Snowden for starting this huge debate that wouldn't exist otherwise, I hope he gets retired someplace much more comfortable and safe, such as Cuba.

    161. Re:Bad idea by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I don't know if Russia is a good place for someone like Snowden who likes to expose government corruption. Then again, maybe he'll have better luck than Boris Nemstov.

      Luckily, if the Russians ever decide to jail him for exposing government corruption, he's likely to get that "fair and impartial" trial that he evidently thinks he needs a guarantee for in the US.

      The fact that Putin's Russia is also a bully does not absolve the US of it's hypocrisy and misdeeds.

      I think you really missed his point.

      He's not saying that Russia is no longer a better place for Snowden, he's saying that Russia may no longer be a safe place for Snowden.

      Snowden is safe as long as Russia is still interested in rubbing the US's proverbial nose in it. After that, he is likely to become a bargaining chip for Russia to get something they want. Give us "concession A" and we'll "lose" Snowden.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    162. Re:Bad idea by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

      The fact that you speak this way with impunity shows how free you are. For most of Russian history, those kinds of opinions would mean a knock at the door at midnight, and that would be the last anyone would ever see you.

    163. Re:Bad idea by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      A Snowden trial could... however as I recall, under evidence rules in the US his ability to showcase potentially illegal acts that only came to light due to his own classified leaks is not permitted.

      [citation required] Besides, to prosecute him for leaking the info, it has to be introduced in evidence. And if they redact it too heavily, any jury will smell a rat. Either the redacted stuff is very relevant and embarrassing to the government, or it's not relevant at all, in which case why redact it

      The government does not want this to come to trial. Snowdon knows this, and is tweaking their noses.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    164. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, come off the soapbox! You fat stupid ami's think your pontificating amounts to anything? Who cares whether you think Snowden iss zero or a hero? No matter what happens you will live your same pathetic lives either in fear or lust because you breed with whatever unfortunate scoundrel that can flee to your shores.
      At least Obama has exposed you for what you are - nothing! Putin proves that you big mouth pussies are no longer in control of your own destiny. You sound like hookers arguing over about nail polish. Suckadik loosers.

    165. Re:Bad idea by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there's a line that might be somewhat blurry, but I'll worry about clarifying things when it happens. I don't have to decide everything right now.

      However, there are some things that are clearly not fair. Will the trial be secret? Absolutely not fair. Will significant evidence be blocked? Also not fair. So there is some clarity.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    166. Re:Bad idea by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I know all that, but I don't care. I'll want to make the point that it's something I care about.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    167. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article should have been released from the "It's-a-trap" department, with the icon of Admiral Ackbar.

    168. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't the US have a patent on that business method?

    169. Re:Bad idea by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Do you see Cheney up on charges? Or Bush? Or Obama? Or the head of the CIA?

      Of course not, because those clowns are operating under a different set of laws than you and I do.

      Not that I disagree with your general point, but... the US president and members of Congress actually do constitutionally operate under a different set of rules than everyone else.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    170. Re:Bad idea by Vicarius · · Score: 1

      You have to wonder if the Russians one day will decide they get a better deal turning you over to the Americans what they get by protecting you

      Historical trivia: The Russians have done that before. When Hitler came to power in Germany, hundreds of German leftists fled to Russia, assuming they would be safe in a communist country. The Russians turned 600 of them over to Hitler as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

      You might as well blame Georgia (majority of the leadership at the time) or Ukraine (another of USSR republics, which also was the birth place of Russia) for that. It was Soviet Union at the time, not modern Russia. Yes, the capital was the same as now - Moscow, but the country and its actions were shaped by many other nationalities besides just Russians. For instance, capital of Russia used to be Kiev, which is the capital of Ukraine now, but we can hardly say that Russia and Ukraine are the same.

    171. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think that the question is whether his country really stands for something opposite to the country in
      which he seeks refuge. In fact I think that the very information that he leaked pointed out that
      this two country are not so different.

      Wouldn't be Snowden a political prisoner if he returned to USA. Is true, he did commit illegal acts,
      but so did the govern branches that are after him. He exposed them, and for that they are
      after him. That seems more proper of a dictatorship, not of a democracy.

    172. Re:Bad idea by Rick+in+China · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing out on the whole 'public' thing. This situation is so big and so public that it would be devastating for the US gov't to try sneaky shit and get around any legal promises made.

    173. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "he's likely to get that "fair and impartial" trial that he evidently thinks he needs a guarantee for in the US."

      You evidently think that US courts are fair and impartial. I would much rather be tried in the courts of the
      Russian Federation than in American courts and I am American.

    174. Re:Bad idea by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

      Kirk: Your logic is impeccable, Mr. Spock.
      McCoy: You're right, Jim - I guess a Vulcan can't be expected to understand irony.

    175. Re:Bad idea by Lesrahpem · · Score: 1

      "allegedly" violating it - he has not been convicted yet, and the presumption of innocence should prevail. We don't know if a jury would find sufficient cause, given the circumstances and the illegal acts that were being covered up, to find sufficient justification.

      Kind of like "yes, I went through the red light, but I was carrying someone who had been shot and was bleeding profusely to the hospital as quickly as I could."

      There's a problem here which Snowden has also voiced: In a "trial" of this nature justification isn't allowed as a defense. This is talked about in Citizen Four.

    176. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, as a US citizen, he isn't eligible for Guantanamo.

    177. Re: Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's probably true, but when the cia and equivalent state actors are or might have reason to be involved, you never can be sure. That's the problem with conspiracy.

    178. Re:Bad idea by vilanye · · Score: 1

      The founders of this formerly great country were law breakers and traitors.

      Sometimes breaking the law is the only patriotic act you can commit.

    179. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Besides, to prosecute him for leaking the info, it has to be introduced in evidence.

      I wouldn't give up your day job to become an attorney if I were you.

    180. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Divulging a states FOREIGN intelligence services classified methods and programs is illegal in every country in the world with indoor plumbing. If he had stuck to releasing only information pertaining to DOMESTIC related areas he might have got a slap on his wrist. He could have the worlds fairest court hear his case and he would still be guilty of several major crimes. He should stay in Russia and hope the US doesn't work a backroom deal with Russia to trade economic sanction relief if they extradite him to the US. The US and Russia have a long history of making deals to exchange spies and others who are being held in each others country. Also remember that England would love to get their hands on him as well. Snowden's biggest crime is the monumental arrogance he has displayed in believing he is capable of deciding which information is safe to release and which information could prove harmful.

    181. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to citizen four he would not be allowed to explain his motivations. He is being charged under the Espionage Act and why is legally irrelevant.

    182. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real problem is that there is no legal mechanism for exposing this subversion, prosecuting the corrupt, and preventing future recidivism.

      Sure there is. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." That is fundamentally the legal basis for the Declaration of Independence and the byproduct country the USA. It's funny, to me, how little we in the US focus on the DoI and focus so much on the Constitution. It's little wonder when the first people against the wall in a revolution would be the government, and so clearly they don't want to grant any legitimacy to the idea.

    183. Re:Bad idea by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Reaction? You're kidding, right?

      Oh! big bad NSA! What fucking 'reaction' have we seen so far? I can tell you. Nothing! That's the all reaction you will ever see out of this. Let's stop with the charade,okay? Reelection rates will continue to remain steady for the foreseeable future. Snowden is coming back with a report. He will be debriefed and forgotten (by the press) in less than a month.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    184. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >blocquote> if rioting ensues, the trial must have been unfair - just as in Ferguson

      What trial? There was no trial.

      Correct me if the European media has lied to me here, but wasn't the main source of uproar in Ferguson tat a cop shot an unarmed civilian and the prosecutor basically went out of his way to avoid trial? I'm not a lawyer but from what I understand about the workings of the grand jury process, it's very easy for a prosecutor to get a trial out of it if he so desires, as there's no defense attorneys present, and the prosecution gets to basically present his idea of the events unchallenged. In the case of Ferguson, said prosecutor purposefully brought in evidence and witnesses that go against his case, thereby actively defending the accused, which is not his job.

      In any other western country, a cop shooting a civilian under similar conditions would be an instant trial. In Ferguson the prosecutor - who had a history of treating cops leniently as well as having family serving in the force - goes "Nope, no need for trial here, absolutely no possibility that a crime took place."

      While I never encourage looting or the destruction of property, I understand the protests. I'd be protesting too if the justice system was so blatantly based in favor of law enforcement that it allows for them to kill unarmed citizenry without even facing a trial to determine if it was justified or not. It sounds absurd.

    185. Re:Bad idea by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      ... determined to make his actions count for as much as possible.

      If you look at the 2014 election results, you will notice that his 'actions' counted for exactly nothing. And they will be just as valuable in the 2016 elections and beyond.

      In case you haven't figured it out yet, he is still an asset. His real value will be in what he brings back from Russia. That, of course, will not be leaked.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    186. Re:Bad idea by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Don't sweat it. Let's wait for the treasure trove our 'Professor Snape' brings back from Russia.

      The boy must die

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    187. Re: Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a very stupid thing to say

    188. Re:Bad idea by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Easy: if rioting ensues, the trial must have been unfair - just as in Ferguson.

      What trial? The DA acted more like a defense attorney at the grand jury hearing, where Wilson actually testified. Which is as much of a clue as one needs to know the fix was in. A remotely competent defense attorney would break his client's leg before letting him do that....unless the whole operation was a CYA from the beginning.

      So stick that in your police state apologist pipe and smoke it.

    189. Re:Bad idea by Nehmo · · Score: 1

      Ed, I know you're reading. Just stay in Russia. You're lucky to be there. Don't throw away your good fortune.

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
    190. Re:Bad idea by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Sat photos are hard to fake, and sat photos of artillery/tanks entering Ukraine from Russia are pretty damning evidence.

      You mean pictures on social media, which are very easy to fake. It's funny, Russia has been invading Ukraine for a year and a half now - after the American supported coup overthrew the elected government six months before the agreed upon early elections - but not one shred of evidence has been presented by the U.S. to back up it's claims.

      All those spy planes, all those spy satellites, and not. one. picture.

    191. Re: Bad idea by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      That was a very stupid thing to say

      Trade places with Chelsey Manning and say that again.

    192. Re:Bad idea by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      You are confusing Russian with another Slavic language (Ukrainian maybe?). Russian has lost the vocative case centuries ago so there are only 6 grammatical cases.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    193. Re: Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody cares what you care about. If you're lucky, you will be ignored. If you're not, you and your family will pay the price for dissent.

    194. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A one in four minority is plenty enough to have riots if they feel strongly enough about it. An unfair trial will anger even some of the majority, and even change some of their minds. The rest of the majority won't believe or won't care that the trial was unfair, and certainly won't be doing any protesting.

    195. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except he didn't leap straight to leaking. He held onto his knowledge for years as he tried to speak to his supervisors or any other person of power that could possibly affect change in the NSA. He was rebuffed for his concern by the authorities who control the NSA. He gave them a few years to change and they chose not to care. He decided to sacrifice his own life after it was obvious that the NSA leadership would not cease their attack on the freedom of the US people so he made his plan to tell the residents and citizens of the US about this.

    196. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying that the DOJ can now issue public promises, violate their promise, then expect other nations to respect the other promises made by the DOJ?

    197. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MLK publicly addressed unjust laws by being punished in a manner that was clearly unjust.

      Interesting comparison. An alternative comparison is with the members of the independence movement in the US, who did all they could to avoid being punished. But then, they faced harsher punishments - including execution - than MLK did. Which case do you think is more closely analogous to Snowden?

    198. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How cute, you believe that. You do realize what they teach you in high school is a complete fantasy.

      You mean like "All men are created equal"?

    199. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't trust either country's legal system, but in this case I agree. The odds of the Russian courts being impartial in this case are many times greater than those for a US court.

    200. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contract law has to work that way.

      It only works that way in the US. In the rest of the world, illegal contracts are null and void. That's the same reason you guys are bound by EULA's, while over here we aren't (for one thing, most EULA's are presented after the fact - i.e. after money has changed hands).

      And a contract that requires one part to keep secret that the other part is breaking the law would be a prime example of an illegal contract.

    201. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody knows about Snowden. Those before him who didn't run, most people haven't even heard of.

      Are you claiming that he hurt his case more by running, than they did by being silenced?

      Manning is the exception, and even so, we don't hear a lot about Manning anymore, where as Snowden is still making headlines.

    202. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say that if you care that much about the cause, do the right thing and don't run, stand and fight injustice in court in front of a jury.

      You say you don't care about freedom and the constitution yourself. You sure aren't posting that from prison.

    203. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bet you a million dollars Bradley Manning is screaming - out of his toilet sized jail cell - at Edward to stay the fuck WELL AWAY from the U.S.

    204. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely. We may have never learned that Snowden existed otherwise.

      NEXT ON FOX: TRAITOR exposes highly classified secrets [of unlawful breach of privacy by governments]. DEATH PENALTY!

    205. Re:Bad idea by shihonage · · Score: 1

      As someone who migrated from former USSR... the living conditions there were very scarce when I left, and although that did change over the years, it's still no match to a civilized country like America/Germany/France/Israel/Britain/etc. It's going to be a pretty big culture shock, and not in a good way at all. Yes, the Russian women are overwhelmingly attractive, much more so than in the United States, for example... but before you get your women and vodka you'll have to actually work for it and get your miserable salary and deal with complete corruption, bribery and deficit of produce and horrible healthcare and be generally miserable. A lot of the so-called "modern values" are very different in Russia. Homophobia is rampant, for example. If I had to evade prison and go to former USSR territory (for some reason), I'd probably choose Latvia. They actually seem to know what they're doing.

    206. Re:Bad idea by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      And no one will care, you can stand out there all you like, you'll be ignored...

      Or if you're with enough others, you'll have the Feds coordinating with local law enforcement to shut you down just like they did with Occupy Wall Street.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    207. Re:Bad idea by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Apparently, you do not have a clear understanding of how the US legal system works. If the DOJ makes a promise in a legal contract, it will have to follow that contract. To improperly reneg on that contract would jeopardize every legal contract the US government makes across the world. The US's power is embedded in law; to publicly violate it would unravel the US. And finally, you need to get a realistic grasp of Snowden's situation. His ability to further damage the US government is probably negligible. His value in "disappearing him into Gitmo" is also zero, because it will never happen with current protocols. He's negotiating jail time for "crimes" he knows he would be successfully prosecuted for, in exchange for the US to make the best "example" of Snowden they can manage. But the US DOJ will have to agree to operate above board, with a standard criminal prosecution; no "Star" courts.

      Does the DOJ overrule 'National Security' and the shadow court that would no doubt handle Snowden's trial in secret 'to avoid further breaches of security'?

      Legally, perhaps they do - in reality I'm not so sure.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    208. Re:Bad idea by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1
      Except we know he raised concerns multiple times, and that others with much more pull than him have had their careers ruined by trying to go through the proper channels. The oversight system doesn't work. We can barely get decent oversight in local police departments, so there's no real chance of oversight in the No Such Agency.

      In effect, he substituted his judgment for the judgment of our elected representatives, an act of extraordinary hubris in the words of Robert Gates [pbs.org].

      Sounds like he is projecting, seeing as the NSA's lack of effective oversight means that they do that all of the time.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    209. Re:Bad idea by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

      Let's go with your premise that the DA was incompetent, biased, corrupt, or whatever. Was the defendant therefore guilty? The mob (and now plus one more) sure seemed to think so.

      I've always thought that rioting was an odd response to injustice in the system - whether perceived or real. The reason is that the process is intended to be insulated from normal political forces such as the "majority rule" that is intended to explicitly drive many other processes, such as election of officials.

      If the system isn't working as intended, I recommend that you rioters work peacefully to change the system rather than demolish property to express your ire. In any case, if the system has failed in some given case by, for example, acquitting letting off someone who shouldn't have been, there's no way to cure that case via rioting or any other political means.

      When will you rioters learn...?

    210. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C'mon home buddy. It's like freshmen year, we'll choose your roommate.

      Get this traitor in a nice cell for a long time.

    211. Re:Bad idea by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Well, thank goodness you are here to set us straight on what 'REAL civil disobedience' is. Everyone else was under the delusion that the appropriate method of overturning institutional abuse was dependent upon context, but now that the great 'bobbied' has codified civil disobedience, the truth will now be clear to all. /s

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    212. Re:Bad idea by kaizendojo · · Score: 1

      You all realize this was a joke, right??

    213. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hard to ignore a blown up capitol building.
       
        Proper fucking riots if they fuck Snowden.

    214. Re:Bad idea by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      And that's why it's the defense's job to get the facts before the jury and let them decide if his acts were justified - no need to claim his acts were justified - just enough facts to leave a really bad taste in at least one juror's mouth.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    215. Re:Bad idea by dave420 · · Score: 1

      That might be true, but to ignore how many have died or been displaced as a direct result of the invasion is slightly dishonest, surely...

    216. Re:Bad idea by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Prosecution: 'You leaked classified info."

      Prosecution witness: 'You leaked classified info."

      Defense "No I didn't. Nothing I allegedly leaked was classified at the time. Prove otherwise."

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    217. Re: Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its a lawyer's honesty.

      Oh, well. Since you put it that way...

    218. Re:Bad idea by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      You're basing your arguments on a MOVIE??? Come on, you can do better than that.

      Guess you forgot about the release of the secret pentagon papers ...

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    219. Re:Bad idea by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      https://www.google.com/search?...

      There are half a dozen at least, pretty good quality for sat photos. There are also actual photos of tanks and artillery. Oh, and there were photos of the Muk launcher moving out of the Ukraine and into Russia after the plane was shot down.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    220. Re:Bad idea by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      I'm confused: do you believe in rule of law (Congress, judges, juries, etc.), or do you believe Snowden taking the law into his own hands?

      I'm confused: do you believe in rule of law (the Constitution), or do you believe in the various branches of government taking the law into their own hands? Are you OK with the NSA treating the Constitution as optional, the judicial system treating the Constitution as optional by deciding not to prosecute them, Congress treating the Constitution as optional by passing laws that the Constitution forbids? Remember, the Constitution is the highest law of the land, also the closest to the will of the people, and what people like Snowden have sworn to protect from enemies both internal and external.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    221. Re:Bad idea by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Russia's problem is silencing the grieving mothers of Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    222. Re:Bad idea by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I honestly do not know. I never worked for the NSA. I do not know the culture. Me personally I would have quit, when I started to deal with information that was getting into the gray area of my morals, and couldn't communicate my issues up the chain.
      However I think the line is in the details. Whistleblowing the few big issues as a general problem. Spying on US Citizens communication, having back door keys with big companies consumer products. Wiretapping our friends leaders phones. Should be enough to alert attention, without giving the detail that could disrupt a legit operation in plan, and put others at risk.

      For me the real issue isn't what the NSA did, or is doing, but the fact there isn't any bottom up mechanism to alert on potential wrong doing.

      The President wants to know what a country is doing. The edict goes to the NSA, The higher ups push it different departments, Each department uses its own specialty to answer the question to the best of its ability. Somewhere down the chain of direction the line was crossed. Or no one actually crossed the line, but the outcome of each legit action became an illegal total action.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    223. Re:Bad idea by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I keep my old Swedish military surplus arctic top coat to remind me of why I'm in California.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    224. Re:Bad idea by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That's why they used Ukrainians as cannon fodder. Not that they were all that much better with Russian troops. At least some of them got guns.

      Granted it's no different then the way English treated the Irish, Scots, Canadian and Australian troops.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    225. Re:Bad idea by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      5 years ago, I wouldn't have agreed with you...

      Today, I do... sad... :(

    226. Re:Bad idea by StikyPad · · Score: 2

      Yes. I'm also tired of the line, "at least we live in a country where we're free to have that discussion."

      First, all the things we do right are not an affirmative defense against the things we do wrong. Mother Teresa would still go to jail if she murdered someone.

      Second, it's not much of a discussion if the people who say that put their fingers in their ears and shout, "I'm not listening!" when you try to talk to them. Which is what that line is designed to do -- distract from the actual topic of discussion by having a meta-discussion.

    227. Re:Bad idea by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Do you really believe anybody in Russia will trust Snowden with any information? Seriously?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    228. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are the customary formalities of a cover-up? Perhaps you meant summarily executed.

    229. Re:Bad idea by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It's obviously a false statement. I will never play in the NBA. Some will never pass Calculus I. The original language was 'all men are created equal before the law'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    230. Re:Bad idea by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Jesus Christ. No, his "only crime" was not to publish books -- he was charged and found guilty of tax evasion.

      He was not even charged with a crime for his book -- which fraudulently claimed that it would tell people how to legally avoid paying taxes -- rather an injunction was ordered. Honestly, he's lucky he had a judge/prosecutor that was so lenient given his shenanigans.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    231. Re:Bad idea by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      There is no exception in the law for "sufficient justification." Maybe there should be, but there isn't. Since he confessed -- on film, no less -- to leaking classified information, there's no need to dance around it with "alleged" violations. He did the crime and, without a bargain or a pardon, he will do the time if he faces a trial in the US.

    232. Re:Bad idea by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      There is no exception in the law for "sufficient justification."

      Sure there is. You're not going to be convicted of disturbing the peace when you're screaming because someone is beating the crap out of you, or driving erratically when you've passed out or had a heart attack, or held up a bank because people are holding your family hostage.

      While many remember the conviction of Patty Hearst for robbing a bank, not too many remember that she was pardoned by Clinton. Complicated cases make for poor law.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    233. Re:Bad idea by euanc · · Score: 1

      Did Snowden join the Russian Government's spy agency? Interesting

    234. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just LGBTt? What about polygamists and polyamorists? What about swingers? What about antisocial abstainers/antisexuals? What about trisomes? What about intersex? What about bilateral testectomy, penectomy, vaginectomy, and hysterectomy patients? Don't they all deserve letters too???

      Or maybe we can just call them "people," instead of labeling and categorizing based on sexual orientation, characteristics, and behaviors.

      This post brought to you by the "p" in "person."

    235. Re:Bad idea by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      There's nothing ironic about your comment. Yes, everyone knows that Russia isn't exactly a nation that values free speech. It's also one of the few places where Snowden could go because the US has so much power over other nations (look at all the supposedly-human-rights-respecting European nations like Sweden which happily allowed the US to illegally abduct people and take them to black sites for torture, called "extraordinary rendition"), since Russia does not do extradition and likes to thumb their nose at the US, and is also a place where the CIA is not about to go abducting people since the repercussions if it was discovered and publicized would be utterly catastrophic.

      The fact that Russia would not treat a whistleblower of its own secrets kindly is completely irrelevant, because Snowden is not a Russian and would never be employed in such a capacity in Russia.

    236. Re:Bad idea by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you are just wrong.

      Necessity is not a defense for civil disobedience.

    237. Re:Bad idea by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

      There's nothing ironic about your comment.

      McCoy: See what I mean, Jim?

    238. Re:Bad idea by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      The defense of necessity is up to the jury to decide. Juries get to pick and choose the facts and their relevancy - the judge is only there for the law.

      Did you even bother to read your second link:

      In U.S. criminal law, necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as self defense.

      It then goes on to point out that there is no such exemption in English law - you know, the UK? I doubt Snowdon will be tried in Britain.

      And the first link?

      The majority began by summarizing the factors that make up the necessity defense, all of which must be met for the defense to apply:
      1 The defendant was faced with two bad options and chose the lesser;
      2 He acted to prevent imminent harm;
      3 He reasonably believed that his action could prevent that harm; and
      4 He had no reasonable legal alternative

      The court then explained that those factors were not met in this case

      Want to try again, this time with some citations that actually support what you're saying?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    239. Re:Bad idea by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'd just say what I thought, myself. However, if asked if I support his actions, I'd have to say "no", because I support some of his actions and not all.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    240. Re:Bad idea by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I applaud all the information he released on spying on US citizens. I deplore the information he released on spying on other countries.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    241. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only we could get enough people to adopt your defeatist attitude, we could make sure that nothing ever changes ever

    242. Re:Bad idea by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I find your account of the Schiff trial thoroughly bogus.

      Publishing books is perfectly legal, assuming there wasn't an child pornography in them, and people have published books far worse than any nonsense on the income tax with impunity. Any attempt at an indictment would be laughed out of court. He would have been charged with something that's actually illegal, which you conveniently don't mention.

      He and his attorney were almost certainly prevented from delivering propaganda in the courtroom, not evidence. Since the actual charge was not that he was publishing books, odds are that the "evidence" in question had no bearing on the case. Defendants in shackles are normally there because there is a very good reason to think they might get violent, and you haven't addressed the reason for shackles. He would have had a chance to speak in his own defense, provided he was saying something relevant to the charges.

      If the judge had acted flagrantly illegally, that would be excellent grounds for an appeal, and it sounds like Schiff has supporters enough to fund an appeal. Whatever the judge said was almost certainly on a sound legal footing, to head off possibility of appeal. I'd speculate that the jury instructions were that, if the jury concluded he had done certain things, they must find him guilty. Legally, the job of the jury is to determine facts and establish whether the defendant did certain specific things. It is the job of the judge to figure out what the law is.

      People who speak out against the income tax are generally considered harmless crackpots, and no danger to the public as such. There is no possibility that the court system would take him seriously, having ruled in many courts that the income tax is legal. There would be no reason to make a target of him for publishing books or espousing views that the entire legal system and almost all of the public think are crazy.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    243. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The movie is a documentary, I think it's reasonable to cite. I can't seem to find a transcript of that part to quote it.

      I'm not sure how the pentagon papers relates to this. Please explain. From wikipedia:

      He and Russo faced charges under the Espionage Act of 1917 [...] Ellsberg tried to claim that the documents were illegally classified to keep them not from an enemy but from the American public. However, that argument was ruled "irrelevant"

    244. Re:Bad idea by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Really? You're grasping at straws to support your allegorical argument rather than relying on case law which has already decided the relevant facts. Those are Wikipedia articles that I provided for your understanding, not authoritative documents, and you demonstrate a shocking lack of awareness of even the basic process of criminal trials.

      Here is the cliffnotes version:

      Judges decide what evidence is and is not allowed, and without evidence to support a given defense theory, it cannot be raised. Even if it could, let us agree that without evidence, it would be unconvincing.

      Now that you understand how that works, here is the decision:

      CONCLUSION

      Because the necessity defense was not intended as justification for illegal acts taken in indirect political protest, we affirm the district court's refusal to admit evidence of necessity. [Emphasis mine.]
      http://openjurist.org/939/f2d/...

      It did not matter whether or not the actions met the requirements for necessity. In fact, the appeals court addresses this specifically and say that it does not matter.

      As have courts before us, we could assume, as a threshold matter, that the necessity defense is conceivably available in these cases, but find the elements never satisfied. Such a decision, however, does not come without significant costs.

      First, the failure of the federal courts to hold explicitly that the necessity defense is unavailable results in district courts expending unnecessary time and energy trying to square defendants' claims with the strict requirements of the doctrine.

      Second, such an inquiry oftentimes requires the courts to tread into areas constitutionally committed to other branches of government.

      Third, holding out the possibility of the defense's applicability sets a trap for the unwary civil disobedient, rather than permitting the individual to undertake a more realistic cost-benefit analysis before deciding whether to break the law in political protest.

      Fourth, assuming the applicability of the defense in this context may risk its distortion in traditional cases.

      Finally, some commentators have suggested that the courts have sabotaged the usually low threshold for getting a defense theory before the jury as a means of keeping the necessity defense from the jury.

      In other words, they want to send a clear message that necessity defense is not available to people who use civil disobedience to gain attention to an issue other than the law they are breaking in the first place. If Snowden released information wantonly in order to protest laws against disclosure of classified information, that would be one thing, but he had a political agenda -- the very thing this decision prohibits using the necessity defense for.

      If you still don't understand, then there's perhaps this will make it clear: The whole reason Snowden refuses to return for trial is that, as a contractor, he is not allowed to raise the whistleblower defense. Under your theory of trial law, he could raise whatever defense he wants. He can't.

      Now, please go forth better educated and stop spreading misinformation and conjecture. Or don't. In any case, I've said all that I have to say on this, so I'm done responding to what is, at this point, willful ignorance.

    245. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, you're not really going to be doing much better with the Russian government that the US government...

      Well, in this set of circumstances you would be doing *much* better with the Russian government in that you haven't uncovered any of their illegal activities, so....

    246. Re:Bad idea by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The movie obviously does not cover his trial, since it hasn't happened yet. So anything wrt that is just speculation among the characters.

      BTW - nice cherry-picking re. the Pentagon Papers:

      For his disclosure of the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg was initially charged with conspiracy, espionage and theft of government property, but the charges were later dropped after prosecutors investigating the Watergate Scandal soon discovered that the staff members in the Nixon White House had ordered the so-called White House Plumbers to engage in unlawful efforts to discredit Ellsberg

      and

      He was later indicted on charges of stealing and holding secret documents by a grand jury in Los Angeles. Federal District Judge William Matthew Byrne, Jr. declared a mistrial and dismissed all charges against Ellsberg and Russo on May 11, 1973, after several irregularities appeared in the government's case, including its claim that it had lost records of illegal wiretapping against Ellsberg conducted by the White House Plumbers in the contemporaneous Watergate scandal Byrne ruled: "The totality of the circumstances of this case which I have only briefly sketched offend a sense of justice. The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case." Ellsberg and Russo were not acquitted of violating the Espionage Act, but they were freed due to the mistrial.

      Government actions can easily lead to a similar situation here. There's an old saying that when you go to court you'd better have clean hands. The government's weren't.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    247. Re:Bad idea by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      Why not look at the government's failure to get a conviction against Ellsberg even after he admitted to releasing the Pentagon Papers.

      As for that case, I've already covered why it's inapplicable in these circumstances, but nice try.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    248. Re:Bad idea by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Same shit, different decade. Next up: Santa is real, because every Christmas NORAD tracks him.

    249. Re:Bad idea by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Let's go with your premise that the DA was incompetent, biased, corrupt, or whatever.

      What part of "no defense attorney would let his client testify at his own grand jury hearing unless the fix was in" did you have a hard time with?

      I've always thought that rioting was an odd response to injustice in the system - whether perceived or real.

      Why don't you ask the cops that start them? From the 60's through Occupy, most riots can accurately be described as police riots. But that's a part of the gameplan: cops brutally crack down on protestors, and authoritarians such as yourself blame the protesters. It's a time honored tactic, honed to perfection. The only way to cause change is to make life inconvenient enough for the bourgeoisie and the the politicians is to inconvenience them until they do something about it.

      All your nice polite protests in a limited area, for a limited duration accomplish is a continuance of the system. There was no independent DOJ autopsy of Eric Gardner's murder, nor an independent DOJ investigation, nor a personal visit from the Attorney General from the United States. That did happen in Ferguson, precisely because the people didn't bend over and take their oppression like you would prefer they do.

      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK

    250. Re:Bad idea by zsedcft · · Score: 1

      Elon Musk should send him to Mars...

    251. Re:Bad idea by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

      He's not saying that Russia is no longer a better place for Snowden, he's saying that Russia may no longer be a safe place for Snowden.

      That's not a bad conclusion to draw, but my original point was more along the lines that regardless of how much folks complain about the flaws of the US government, you're unlikely to find some highly perfect government anywhere else. Russia, in particular, seems like an odd place to choose when fleeing an imperfect government. Does Snowden think Russia actually has that one idyllic government on Earth where "gentlemen don't read other gentlemen's mail?" Seems unlikely.

      So, why is Snowden there? It's pure expediency, of course. If you're looking for a place where the US can't get to you, a place with a corrupt government who doesn't much care what you've actually done to your last government, that's run by a would-be dictator who can unilaterally let you in, and is increasingly at odds with the government you're fleeing, one could hardly think of of a better place to be.

      Here's the best part: since everybody knows that you (Snowden) are a gifted computer hacker with a penchant for exposing secrets, you won't ever be given access to anything new that could get you in trouble. So, you get to remain the idealist you still see yourself as, yet you don't have to get into any of the nasty trouble that sometimes goes with that.

      Hey, minimum security prison may not actually be the country club everybody says it is. So let those other poor suckers face the music and take it like a man. As for Snowden, he can achieve fame and notoriety (oh, and also make the world a better place), and for punishment, he can wash down Russian caviar with a sip - or two - of the world's finest vodka.

      To pull all that off, he must be one heckuva smart guy.

    252. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't trying to cherry pick. I still contend "why" is not a defense he can offer. Nothing you quoted disputes that.

      I would certainly hope that if Snowden were to face trial his legal strategy would be more solid hoping for misconduct resulting in a mistrial.

    253. Re:Bad idea by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Five years ago I wouldn't have agreed with me either :-(

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    254. Re: Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's betting on a losing horse. Russia has vested interests and a PROVEN track record of overturning the rules of law. Best thing you could have said is its your opinion that Russia would render an appropriate judgement. In your opinion.

      Sure. Let Russia put Snowden on trial.

      We'll still put Snowden on trial - Russian jurisprudence isn't worth a bucket of American spit!

    255. Re:Bad idea by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      See my posts elsewhere - "why" is admissible and acceptable.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  2. Don't do it, Snowden! by jdavidb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They will hang you, literally or figuratively. Build a good life in Russia, and keep speaking out.

    1. Re:Don't do it, Snowden! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm thinking that the US is simply wearing him down. they can wait, they have time. but he's living in a kind of prison right now, anyway. his freedom is highly restricted. plus, well, russia is a shit-hole. who in their right mind would want to STAY there if you've known and grown up with better?

      still, I would never trust this 'agreement'. the US has a hard-on for fucking him over and there will be NO fair trail, you can bet on that.

      the US makes up its own rules and it would take an extremely lucky person to walk out of such a situation alive, in one piece and not be always watching over your shoulder.

      his life is mostly over, as it is. really sad to have to say that, but living in the US will always be a 'look over your shoulder' kind of life. he will be hunted the rest of his life, if not by government thugs, then by CITIZEN thugs who think they are being 'patriotic' (dammit!).

      there is no good move for him. I wish him the best, he's my ultimate hero, but I don't see this ending well at all ;(

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Don't do it, Snowden! by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      plus, well, russia is a shit-hole. who in their right mind would want to STAY there if you've known and grown up with better?

      Compared to Club Fed (if you're lucky - Death Row if you're not)?

      I'll take "Shit-holes I'd rather spend the rest of my natural life in since prison or death are the only other alternatives" for $1000, Alex!

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:Don't do it, Snowden! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Home Depot sells rope.

    4. Re:Don't do it, Snowden! by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If he comes back it makes him the dumbest smart guy I ever saw.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    5. Re:Don't do it, Snowden! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      He wants a public trial so that the crimes he leaked evidence of get more media attention. What he means by a fair trial is one where the government doesn't just hide everything behind a shield of classification and national security.

      I seriously doubt that it is possible. The US lies about this stuff all the time. Guarantees are worthless. Snowden should keep pushing for asylum in Europe or Iceland. It might take years, but by remaining free he encourages others to leak evidence of crimes by demonstrating that incarceration is not inevitable.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Don't do it, Snowden! by B33rNinj4 · · Score: 4, Funny

      He should stay. Anna Chapman is there. The US offers nothing that good.

    7. Re:Don't do it, Snowden! by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Build a good life in Russia, and keep speaking out.

      Until we start providing asylum to Russian dissidents, who build a good life in the US ... at which point, we participate in a brand-new dissident exchange program and everything's back to normal. Just in time for whatever the show is after the Simpsons.

    8. Re:Don't do it, Snowden! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compared to Club Fed (if you're lucky - Death Row if you're not)?

      The US government already said they wouldn't seek the death penalty. But I'd say Club Fed if you're lucky, Federal "Pound me in the Ass" prison if you're not...

    9. Re:Don't do it, Snowden! by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because speaking out in Russia is so encouraged.

    10. Re:Don't do it, Snowden! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cops and prosecutors are not sworn to tell the truth, and generally speaking, lie all the time.

    11. Re:Don't do it, Snowden! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone shares your opinion on what is "Patriotic", and what isn't.

    12. Re:Don't do it, Snowden! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no chance, none, that he would be acquited in a US court, EVEN WITH the so called fair and impartial trial. He would have to be totally out of his mind. Given what would await him, he is best advised to resign himself to Russia.

    13. Re:Don't do it, Snowden! by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      I have little doubt Mr Snowden ever imagined he'd be where he is, right now, at the mercy of a schizophrenic patron like the Russian Putin.

      One of the great moments of shame for me, was when an American citizen sought refuge in Soviet Russia. I understand. The US government has a real need to treat him like a cold war spy instead of an heroic whistleblower to retain any credibility on this ubiquitous unconstitutional eavesdropping, but darn it Beav, we used to stand for something. I think some of us still do. How do we fix for him?

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    14. Re:Don't do it, Snowden! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think he's really going to do it. He's got something cooking.

    15. Re:Don't do it, Snowden! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm thinking that the US is simply wearing him down. they can wait, they have time. but he's living in a kind of prison right now, anyway. his freedom is highly restricted. plus, well, russia is a shit-hole. who in their right mind would want to STAY there if you've known and grown up with better?

      I'm not sure why you're referring to a prison where he currently is; he is still in a better situation than Julian Assange right now; he has an entire country at his disposal; that has to be better than staring at the same four walls, but you may think differently, although I know which one I'd rather have.

    16. Re:Don't do it, Snowden! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will hang you, literally or figuratively. Build a good life in Russia, and keep speaking out.

      absolutely. from my review i will assume that he has been "strongly persuaded"... from what we've learned he has had zero plans to ever return to the US. seeing the corruption he has already exposed, he's more than stirred a hornets nest...

    17. Re:Don't do it, Snowden! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... plus, well, russia is a shit-hole.

      I"ve lived in Russia.

      I seriously doubt you have even traveled there.

      It's not a bad place to live compared to some places in the US.

      Of course the US wants you to believe it is terrible, but that is propaganda.

    18. Re:Don't do it, Snowden! by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      You laugh, but rumors are she was involved in a plot to keep him there.

      --
      Be relentless!
    19. Re:Don't do it, Snowden! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously know nothing about the REAL power structures in the places you mention. I suggest you look up the occupier troops.

    20. Re:Don't do it, Snowden! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He should stay. Anna Chapman is there. The US offers nothing that good.

      BTDTGTTS

    21. Re:Don't do it, Snowden! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because speaking out in Russia is so encouraged.

      As long as he is only speaking out against Russia's enemies i.e the USA, then Putin won't care and he'd probably encourage it too!

    22. Re:Don't do it, Snowden! by mjwx · · Score: 1

      plus, well, russia is a shit-hole. who in their right mind would want to STAY there if you've known and grown up with better?

      Compared to Club Fed (if you're lucky - Death Row if you're not)?

      I'll take "Shit-holes I'd rather spend the rest of my natural life in since prison or death are the only other alternatives" for $1000, Alex!

      The thing is, living in shit-holes is only good if you have access to a lot of money the US cant touch. Money can buy a lot of "justice" and a much nicer locale than Russia. Lots of rich fugitives lived happy lives in Argentina for decades.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    23. Re:Don't do it, Snowden! by Rick+in+China · · Score: 1

      "well, russia is a shit-hole"

      How much time have you spent in Russia? I'm guessing none.

    24. Re:Don't do it, Snowden! by ClarkMills · · Score: 1

      > Build a good life in Russia, and keep speaking out.

      Except against Putin...

  3. He should have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lied under oath to Congress.

    No penalty for that.

    1. Re:He should have by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or given classified documents to his biographer. I hear that you can just plead guilty to a misdemeanor in that case.

  4. Full blooded American here by bhcompy · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...and I wouldn't trust any guarantee I received if I were in Snowden's situation. His best case scenario would be to find himself a nice country(read: not Russia) without an extradition treaty and negotiate his way there. The only way is if the president officially pardons him or he is convicted in absentia and the president commutes his sentence, but even then, they'll find something to stick on him, just like they used the IRS to take down gangsters and the mafia.

    1. Re:Full blooded American here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Considering how frequently, blatantly, and deliberately the US government has lied about every aspect of everything to do with this situation, even if the president were to pardon him, he still should not trust them. The most worrying part is that "guarantee from the U.S. Attorney General that he will not face the death penalty" - which pretty much means they plan to execute him as soon as possible, probably without bothering with a trial.

    2. Re:Full blooded American here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The US has threatened trade sanctions with countries willing to take him in. For example, the US held a tree trade treaty with Ecuador hostage over it the first time around (the revocation of which would have crippled the country). Putin was the only one who had the guts to say: "meh - do your worst". The US is playing hardball when it comes to Snowden - and people around the world are starting to notice. The whole affair has been a horrible black mark on the image of the US - both from what the NSA has done, to how the government behaved trying to get Snowden.

    3. Re:Full blooded American here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just because there is no treaty, does not mean he cannot be extradited, just that it will be harded. About the only Countries in the World where he would be immune from American grasp are maybe Russia, North Korea, Belarus, and possibly China, and the Islamic State, but I'm pretty sure he does not want to join ISIS.

    4. Re:Full blooded American here by QRDeNameland · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the fact that the USAG won't guarantee his constitutional right to a fair trial is as horrifying of an indicator of how corrupted the US gov't has become in the post-911 era as any I can think of.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    5. Re:Full blooded American here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure he does not want to join ISIS.

      Especially since ISIS would just try to sell him to the US.

    6. Re:Full blooded American here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The only way is if the president officially pardons him or he is convicted in absentia and the president commutes his sentence

      This president would pardon Clapper, Holder, Cheney, Nixon. He'd pardon Ku Klux Klan leaders and more likely than not Hitler and/or Mengele. Snowden? Hell will freeze over before that.

      And it's quite unlikely that the next president will be anything other than another pawn of the military/secretive complex.

      There will be not be anything like justice for Snowden, just like there isn't anything like justice for Clapper, Holder, Cheney et al. If there were any intent to deliver justice, there would be enough people inside of the U.S.A. that would need to get prosecuted. If Snowden comes back, he'll be nailed to the wall instead of those responsible for the misdeeds he pulled into the open.

      As long as it would be inconvenient to prosecute anybody else, they will kill the messenger if they can get a hold of him.

    7. Re:Full blooded American here by DaHat · · Score: 1

      I think the fact that the USAG won't guarantee his constitutional right to a fair trial

      How exactly is the AG doing that?

    8. Re:Full blooded American here by MondoGordo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wonder if that is the whole point of the negotiations in the first place ... to show just how corrupt and unreasonable the system is? I wouldn't be surprised if Snowden never expected it to go anywhere meaningful in the first place.

    9. Re:Full blooded American here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A fair trial in the matter is utterly impossible. There are only two alternatives: He committed espionage or NSA violated the Constitution. But a trial by jury is mandated by law in all criminal cases. Guess what, a directed verdict for "guilty" is utterly illegal.

    10. Re:Full blooded American here by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are already guaranteed a right to a fair trial. It's not something that the AG can "add to" or deny. Compare a trial in the US to a trial in, say, North Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, or the territories controlled by ISIS/ISIL. Even some of the most egregious examples of non-impartial trials in the US seem fair in comparison to treatment of suspected anti-government persons in those states.

      The problem is that Snowden's version of "Fair" and the general standard of "Fair" in the US are still probably fairly widely separated. He would probably like whistleblower status for everything, ignoring the parts of classified documents he released which were sensitive but not necessary to indicate the underlying problems he wanted to expose. He would probably like the damage he did to the US relationship with its allies to be inadmissible, along with the potential tactical advantage gained by other states as a result of the massive, unfiltered release of classified US intelligence documents.

      I think he should really spend his effort working on his Russian and praying that Putin never grown tired of him.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    11. Re:Full blooded American here by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      "As long as it would be inconvenient to prosecute anybody else, they will kill the messenger if they can get a hold of him."

      Well, to be fair, the act of being the messenger is what makes espionage illegal.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    12. Re:Full blooded American here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - which pretty much means they plan to execute him as soon as possible, probably without bothering with a trial.

      I'm sure they'd love to, and would if they could. But this case is too public for that.

    13. Re:Full blooded American here by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      shill detected!

      "damage he did"...

      you just gave youself away. the US did damage. he just reported it!

      another one for the old killfile. thanks for IDing yourself as a stupid government shill.

      we can clearly see who is being paid to write dissenting posts, here. its not hard.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    14. Re:Full blooded American here by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      fwiw, do you think any of the 5 eyes (uk, oz, etc) would give him a fair trial?

      no such luck!

      any time you piss off the spymasters this much, you won't usually live very long, or have a good life. he ran for his life, very literally.

      there cannot be a fair trail because you insulted the king and the king is very very mad at you.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    15. Re:Full blooded American here by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

      What's the point of such a guarantee? Either the system is fair, in which case a guarantee isn't needed, or it isn't, in which case a guarantee is worthless.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    16. Re:Full blooded American here by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand. His plane will go down on the way to trial, killing him in a tragic coincidence.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    17. Re:Full blooded American here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "Islamic State" is not a country, just a bunch of religious bigots going around killing people as if no one could have a different opinion or way of life.

    18. Re:Full blooded American here by Dishwasha · · Score: 0

      Somebody ship Snowden a pair of ruby slippers and tell him to put them on, click his heels together three times, and repeat "There's no place like home". Once he's done that he can then finish the outfit and change his name to Chelsea or something else as ridiculous.

    19. Re:Full blooded American here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Espionage" is passing secrets on to a third party in order to enable it to cause damage to the people. Whistleblowing is publishing crimes to the general public in order to enable them to stop the damage to the people.

      Conflating one with the other is exactly what the weaseling cronies in the government would love to do. Even better, blame their crimes on the person who uncovered them. Which is exactly what the talk about all the "damage" Snowden has done is about. Snowden damaged the enemies of the American people, and they will get him for that.

    20. Re:Full blooded American here by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Yes, because everything in the world is binary and there are no shades of grey.

    21. Re:Full blooded American here by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      I miss being proud of my country.

    22. Re:Full blooded American here by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are already guaranteed a right to a fair trial. It's not something that the AG can "add to" or deny.

      Guantanamo Bay says differently.

    23. Re:Full blooded American here by arth1 · · Score: 0

      The "Islamic State" is not a country, just a bunch of religious bigots going around killing people as if no one could have a different opinion or way of life.

      Ah, Alabama!

    24. Re:Full blooded American here by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      He's not shilling, he's just also not thinking. A lot of people want to believe that they live in a great country, because they think that makes them great. So they shout up their country every chance they get because they think it improves their credibility. Heh heh heh

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re:Full blooded American here by DaHat · · Score: 1

      You really should look into the history of why that facility was established where it was, I'd start with an understanding of the Eisentrager case first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...

    26. Re:Full blooded American here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the fact that the USAG won't guarantee his constitutional right to a fair trial ...

      It doesn't matter if he gets a fair trial or not, my understanding is that there are only two defenses he can raise.

      One is the "Whistle Blower" defense, but that doesn't apply because he was a contractor.

      And the "In The Public Interest" defense is not a defense under the Espionage Act.

      So his trial will be about one minute long.

      "Did he steal confidential documents? Yes."

      "Does he have any applicable defenses? No."

      "Guilty as charged. Life in prison with no parole."

    27. Re:Full blooded American here by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      Ironically, any POTUS that tried to pardon/commute Snowden's sentence would get the full wrath of the US Intelligence community. POTUS's have been trying to negotiate away Pollard for years; I hope that traitor dies in a US federal prison.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    28. Re:Full blooded American here by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      US lawyers can form a legal agreement with the DOJ as to the form of legal prosecution which would be acceptable to both parties. My guess would be no Star Chambers, and a public federal criminal prosecution will all legal rights that a US defendant are afforded. The potential sticky point would be Snowden providing the prosecutors/DNI to the best of his knowledge, the information he did procure, to avoid a situation where sensitive information gets leaked in court, or federal prosecutors be given the ability to "close" trial sessions. And of course, the DOJ's willingness to cut their losses concerning Snowden; I doubt Snowden would agree to a twenty year prison sentence.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    29. Re:Full blooded American here by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Even if you could believe any guarantee (and that's a BIG if), I'd only trust it as long as those people are in power. With the upcoming 2016 election, the "you'll get a fair trial and no death penalty" could quickly become "HANG THE TRAITOR NOW! HANG THE TRAITOR NOW! HANG THE TRAITOR NOW! Ok, maybe a mock trial first, but make it quick. I've got the rope all ready here."

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    30. Re:Full blooded American here by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      No its not. A plea bargain agreement is the defendant agreeing to plead guilty to certain crimes in exchange for a sentence agreed to by the prosecution. Sadly, its still possible for today's federal gov't to "disappear" a person into Guantanamo or a black site, and that is "effectively" a directed verdict.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    31. Re:Full blooded American here by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      He would probably like whistleblower status for everything, ignoring the parts of classified documents he released which were sensitive but not necessary to indicate the underlying problems he wanted to expose.

      I agree. Releasing classified documents should bring the full weight of US law down upon Snowden. Judging by the Petraeus trial - where Patraeus gave classified materials to his mistress to help with her biography of him - this would be a misdemeanor charge, right?

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    32. Re:Full blooded American here by DrJimbo · · Score: 1

      The Wikipedia article you linked to supports what the GP said:

      This decision was weakened by the Court's ruling in Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court (1973), when the court found that the key to jurisdiction was whether the Court could process service to the custodians. Braden was relied on by the Court in Rasul v. Bush (2004), in which it held that it did have jurisdiction over the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay detention camp because it could reach their custodians, the policymakers and leaders of the Bush administration, who were responsible for their detention.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
    33. Re:Full blooded American here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also remember, Snowden did not choose to go to Russia. The US revoked his passport and he got stuck there while in transit. I'm tired of people trying to make it look like Snowden thinks Russia is better than the US. It is obviously not, but that's not saying much.

    34. Re:Full blooded American here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You are already guaranteed a right to a fair trial. It's not something that the AG can "add to" or deny. Compare a trial in the US to a trial in, say, North Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, or the territories controlled by ISIS/ISIL. Even some of the most egregious examples of non-impartial trials in the US seem fair in comparison to treatment of suspected anti-government persons in those states."

      BZZZZZT WRONG!!!

      Simply put, you will be face an indictment with dozens to hundreds of charges on it, most of them very flimsy and based on hearsay. They will state the penalty for that is some hundreds of years in prison. But of course, you know, if you WINK WINK ****WAIVE*** that "right" to a fair trial, well you'll ONLY face something that could result in 10 to 20 years!!!! Wow! Such a bargain, itz!

      A great example is the Aaron Swartz case.

      So tell me, how is that not extortion? Oh, because a special privileged member of the royal court does it, right? **PUKE**

    35. Re:Full blooded American here by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, because writing an opinion that differs from yours is clearly only possible by being paid to do so. *eyeroll*

      Making public a lot of things that people suspected but didn't quite know did indeed damage relationships. Had he not released the documents, the relationships would have continued as before.

      Whether or not the secret actions should have been authorized in the first place is an entirely different issue. From my perspective, having to stamp "secret" on an authorization to do things that you know would piss off your friends is a sign that you probably should not be doing these things, or make you re-evaluate who your friends are.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    36. Re:Full blooded American here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how does the systematic compulsion of defendants to waive their rights protect their rights again? Fucking idiot shill

    37. Re:Full blooded American here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree the guy you're replying to is full of shit, using the word "Shill" makes you out to be a giant flaming faggot. Please grow up a bit.

    38. Re:Full blooded American here by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      Well, you must be a full blooded American, because you are phenomenally stupid.

      If no law enforcement body is compelled to prosecute a violator for convictable abrogations of law, then a directed verdict for "guilty" cannot be illegal (except in your delusional imagination). You've been watching too many pre-1960's movies. Hint, what HUAC and the FBI did wasn't legal either, in the American legal context. I didn't see either Joe McCarthy or J. Edgar Hoover go to prison either.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    39. Re:Full blooded American here by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      What is wrong with Russia?

      That they have leadership that thinks it can do whatever it wants? We have that in the US as well.

      If he avoids running afowl of the Russian government, I imagine he'll be just fine there.

    40. Re:Full blooded American here by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      While I agree with you, I grew up "proud" of the USA, as I have grown older and (hopefully) wiser, I've come to learn that nations are just put together to give those in power a way to control those who are not.

      Is the USA better than North Korea? Of course... but it isn't heaven, it is just a matter of degrees...

      As long as I stay on the happy side of the government, they leave me alone. But I don't believe for a second I really have the right to protest things they don't want protested. Look what happened to OWS.

    41. Re:Full blooded American here by stoploss · · Score: 2

      You misunderstand. His plane will go down on the way to trial, killing him in a tragic coincidence.

      No, that's too obvious. He will suddenly contract aggressive, terminal cancer. And, when his DNA is analyzed, it will show he was genetically predisposed to this through a de novo mutation.

      He will be too ill for trial and won't live long enough in any case. Bad luck, man!

    42. Re:Full blooded American here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "Islamic State" is not a country, just a bunch of religious bigots going around killing people as if no one could have a different opinion or way of life.

      Ah, Alabama!

      Ah, what's that cry that liberals always trot out? "False equivalence"... that's it.

      If you want to claim you were purely jesting, then expect someone with a long memory to throw that in your face when you try to harangue someone who mocks the liberal hellholes you wish to force us all to live in.

      "Ha ha, only serious."

    43. Re:Full blooded American here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patriot Act.

    44. Re:Full blooded American here by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      All he needs to do is show that a stingray was used and demand the details of the device be entered into evidence.
      Then they'll drop the charges.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    45. Re:Full blooded American here by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Slipping in an assertion that he did damage is pretty shill worthy.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    46. Re:Full blooded American here by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And what do you think would happen? The GA could draw a gun and cap him right in the court room and NOTHING would happen. Who would, could stand up against it?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    47. Re:Full blooded American here by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I was looking for this.

      The only way in hell Snowden's coming back is if he has bargaining chips. Does he?

      My understanding, and I sincerely welcome a correction, is that Snowden does not have "the documents" anymore. I believe he gave them all up and HE has never actually, personally, revealed anything.

      The cache is in the hands of third parties who will continue to sift through the data for interesting tidbits.

      Now, if I'm mistaken and Snowden has another stash ...

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    48. Re:Full blooded American here by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      But what if POTUS was a lame duck?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    49. Re:Full blooded American here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do people not chop off the limbs of the police and prosecutors that come after them and the cauterize the wounds so they stand as living testaments to revenge?

    50. Re:Full blooded American here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your spouse is cheating on you, and you illegally record her to find out, who did the damage? You are saying that you did the damage by recording and finding our your spouse was cheating. Any logical person has a VERY different opinion.

    51. Re:Full blooded American here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically, any POTUS that tried to pardon/commute Snowden's sentence would get the full wrath of the US Intelligence community. POTUS's have been trying to negotiate away Pollard for years; I hope that traitor dies in a US federal prison.

      The wrath of the intelligence community would be nothing compared to the impending collapse of the economy and most (if not all) of Silicon Valley is considering moving out of the USA so that might speed things up a good bit.

    52. Re:Full blooded American here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well according to wikipedia, only Yasser Hamdi was held at Gauntanamo Bay until they realized he was an American by birth. Then they repatriated him to KSA provided he renounce his US citizenship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_detainees_at_Guantanamo_Bay

    53. Re:Full blooded American here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The US essentially hijacked the head of a sovereign nation trying to catch Snowden when he went on the lam.

      If the president of Uruguay cannot feel safe, why should Snowden?

    54. Re:Full blooded American here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I miss smart Americans. He is a traitor and deserves to come home to receive his just punishment.

    55. Re:Full blooded American here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How George Washington treat a certain traitor?

    56. Re:Full blooded American here by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Regarding damaging relationships...

      Say some woman comes on to me in a bar, and comes back to my place an we sleep together. Afterward, I learn that she is married, and I tell her husband, out of concern for him. The husband is rightfully upset, and all of their friends hear about her actions, and a bunch of relationships are damaged.

      Who damaged those relationships? The cheater, who betrayed her husband's trust and is rightly reviled for that in the eyes of her friends; or me, who unwittingly facilitated it and then informed the betrayed party at the earliest convenience?

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    57. Re:Full blooded American here by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Yes, because writing an opinion that differs from yours is clearly only possible by being paid to do so.

      Only because there are people who bend over backwards to excuse inexcusable corruption and government lawbreaking. Case in point:

      Making public a lot of things that people suspected but didn't quite know did indeed damage relationships. Had he not released the documents, the relationships would have continued as before.

      Abusive, domineering, illegal relationships. Do you apologists throw parties with the Stasi Boosters Club? If not, why not?

    58. Re:Full blooded American here by kesuki · · Score: 1

      snowden has a lot of options, he could wipe his mind clean and then be completely a vegitable. for one. i'm sure there are bugs that would love to infest his brain too... or he could just learn how to spontaneously combust. he could try to grow plants inside his body that use fusion to power their growth and petrify his heart while he still lives. he could use an array of abacus to start number crunching the full length string of pi. he could lock his brain in a infinite loop of forkbombs... even if they dd his brain the password file is probably eroded from the acid rain. so only guest accounts with no passwords can log in...

    59. Re:Full blooded American here by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      He revealed many programs that really needed to be revealed. He also revealed things that should have been kept secret, that showed the NSA simply doing its legally defined job abroad.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    60. Re:Full blooded American here by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I believe he would get a fair trial. I also believe that he committed crimes, the evidence for that is strong, and that the verdict would be that he broke some serious laws, and that he therefore would be found guilty. If your definition of a fair trial is one where he's guaranteed to be found not guilty, then, no, that's not going to happen. If your definition is one in which evidence is presented fairly, the law is explained, and a verdict is rendered, the US government can be pretty darn assured that he'll be sentenced to several years in prison. Under those circumstances, what would be the reason not to give him a fair trial.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    61. Re:Full blooded American here by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

      > But what if POTUS was a lame duck?

      American ex-presidents are protected by the Secret Service after their terms, because there are a lot of people around the planet (including in the US), who have grievances (real or imagined) against said ex-president. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

      > The original act provided for lifetime Secret Service for former presidents.
      > In 1997, it was reduced to 10 years for presidents taking office after 1997.
      > The 1997 amendment was reverted by the Former Presidents Protection
      > Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-257).All living former presidents and their
      > spouses are now entitled to receive lifetime Secret Service protection.

      Snowden's info releases embarressed the USA. But it is believed that several US agents died or were captured by other countries due to Pollard's espionage. The Secret Service is part of the US "intelligence community". Do you, as a former US president really want to pardon the man who was responsible for thr death of comrades of the people charged with protecting you?

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    62. Re:Full blooded American here by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      How did Pollard become relative to the Snowden case?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  5. One condition should be by fredrated · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All the scum responsible for the illegal spying go on trial at the same time.

    1. Re:One condition should be by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      That would be the United States government and all the people who voted for them.

    2. Re:One condition should be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but I did not vote for illegal spying. So why should I be on trial???

    3. Re:One condition should be by countach74 · · Score: 1

      And how exactly can you extend responsibility to voters, who have no way of knowing or controlling the specifics of what goes on in government? I mean, don't get me wrong, it is partially their fault for being so ignorant, but legal responsibility?

    4. Re:One condition should be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be the United States government and all the people who voted for them.

      All the people that voted for them is a bit much. I doubt very many people that voted for "them" explicitly knew what all "they" were going to do while in office.

    5. Re:One condition should be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why not? are we not to blame for letting this happen? should we not be punished for not doing anything? Ignorance of a law or culpability never shelters you from legal responsibility. Sadly we are free and will never be held accountable for our actions because this could never be enforced, I welcome the day that another country can neutralize our military and cultural superiority, on that day I feel sad for our children. If you think thats impossible, so did the romans.

    6. Re:One condition should be by rHBa · · Score: 1

      Here's a question, in 100 years who will be more famous, Obama or Snowden? Will people be thinking "Obama, wasn't he the president during the Snowden leaks?" or will it be "Snowden, wasn't he the guy who leaked that stuff during Obama's presidency?"

    7. Re:One condition should be by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Perfect sense. Extend responsibility to voters, and now politicians can do any illegal things they want. "Blame the assholes that voted for me."

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    8. Re:One condition should be by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I didn't vote for any NSA son of a bitch.

      And neither did you.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    9. Re:One condition should be by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      All the scum responsible for the illegal spying go on trial at the same time.

      I'd settle for just stopping the illegal spying. Heck, I'd consider it a step forward if they just stopped the parts they agreed were wrong and said they were going to stop.

  6. Snowden isn't coming - this is all a ruse by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Snowden isn't going to come to the USA willingly to face trial. This is all a ruse. His Russian handlers may just be messing with the US or it may be said to get some publicity. If Snowden really wanted to face justice, he wouldn't have done what he did. His handler is quite right that if Snowden leaves Russia he may end up extradited to the USA. Snowden is going to stay as a permanent "guest" of the USSR, cough cough, I mean Russian Republic as long as Putin is in charge and possibly longer. Wait for it - in the end Snowden or his handlers will say that he couldn't get the guarantees he needed about a fair trial, so he won't be coming. Even if he really wanted to leave and face US justice with no pre-conditions, I don't think Putin and his former KGB boys would let Snowden leave.

    1. Re:Snowden isn't coming - this is all a ruse by Princeofcups · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Snowden isn't going to come to the USA willingly to face trial. This is all a ruse. His Russian handlers may just be messing with the US or it may be said to get some publicity. If Snowden really wanted to face justice, he wouldn't have done what he did. His handler is quite right that if Snowden leaves Russia he may end up extradited to the USA. Snowden is going to stay as a permanent "guest" of the USSR, cough cough, I mean Russian Republic as long as Putin is in charge and possibly longer. Wait for it - in the end Snowden or his handlers will say that he couldn't get the guarantees he needed about a fair trial, so he won't be coming. Even if he really wanted to leave and face US justice with no pre-conditions, I don't think Putin and his former KGB boys would let Snowden leave.

      Except Snowden is no longer a person who should expect anything from either government. He's just a PR pawn at this point. If the US offers Russia something in return, like concessions in Ukraine, and someone thinks that they could get a big PR win out of it, then expect him to be escorted to a D.C prison post haste.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    2. Re:Snowden isn't coming - this is all a ruse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would the US give up Ukraine for a single guy that can't do any more harm? (Except perhaps PR harm... and Ukraine is a PR war as far as the USA is concerned... hmm...)

    3. Re:Snowden isn't coming - this is all a ruse by crypticedge · · Score: 0

      Moscow would publicly execute him for a small sanctions relief after their Ukraine actions. This is probably why he's talking trial, he knows his time is coming up soon in Russia, and he can't find a safe passage to any other nation that will let him stay without risk of US retribution.

      Of course, he did commit treason by definition, so his fear of being treated as someone who committed treason is kinda spot on.

    4. Re:Snowden isn't coming - this is all a ruse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      He did not commit treason you fucking idiot. Actually read the fucking constitution which clearly defines what treason is.

    5. Re:Snowden isn't coming - this is all a ruse by onthemightofprinces · · Score: 1

      You managed to get every single racist stereotype about Russians into one post there... the US State Department would be proud of you!

    6. Re:Snowden isn't coming - this is all a ruse by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Treason has an extremely specific definition in the USA. It what way does what he did qualify as such? Cite specific a specific example if you don't want to be dismissed as a brainless idiot proudly parroting your tribal allegiance.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    7. Re:Snowden isn't coming - this is all a ruse by umghhh · · Score: 1

      Concessions on Ukraine in return for Snowden? I mean get real - US play hard ball on Ukraine and Russia for more than a year now. They played hard ball on Snowden too. Current US government does not see anything wrong with both policies so why would anybody think that changing one being paid by changing another is at all what US government want?

    8. Re:Snowden isn't coming - this is all a ruse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually he could be guilty of all these,

      2381. Treason - Aid and comfort (has been used before for top secret documents)
      2383. Rebellion or insurrection - incites rebellion (not directly but it doesn't matter)
      2384. Seditious conspiracy - or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof
      2385. Advocating overthrow of Government - Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

    9. Re:Snowden isn't coming - this is all a ruse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aid and comfort to the enemy is what passing classified documents is charged under as treason and has been used in the past for secret documents cases, its true they the newer espionage act is used more now but Treason can still be invoked and carries the death penalty.

    10. Re:Snowden isn't coming - this is all a ruse by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Yup, the war in Ukraine and the collapse of the price of oil were are double whammy for Snowden, but then again he was really naÃve for thinking that Putin wouldn't sell him out in a second....

    11. Re:Snowden isn't coming - this is all a ruse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did not commit treason you fucking idiot. Actually read the fucking constitution which clearly defines what treason is.

      Ok. Tell us in this particular thread where the word "treason" actually appears.

      Back away from the latte. You have exceeded your caffeine intake for the day.

    12. Re:Snowden isn't coming - this is all a ruse by StikyPad · · Score: 1
  7. Dunno about that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Working at the Moscow McDonald's can't be all that bad. Can it? Maybe Putin is scared the US may come in there and get him.

  8. The problem is ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is he a traitor, or was his whistle blowing justified?

    The real problem is that he could be both at the same time.

    Same as in the military, if you disobey a direct order and that disobedience ends up saving lives, you can still be charged with disobeying a direct order.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:The problem is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The real problem is that he could be both at the same time. "

      No, the real problem is that there are moron's in the world who actually believe that.

      CAPTCHA: Tyrant

    2. Re:The problem is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is a great point, he is both.

      His whistleblowing was very important and the right thing to do, but he compromised several secret and illegal programmes to do it. The best case scenario of returning to the US is being on permanent surveillance (not just for what he did do but what he might do in the future and the russian contacts he made) Finding a job would be interesting, I would say a few companies would employ him as a show piece, but he will never be trusted.

      Worse case is a very public show trial, to which he will executed, nothing can be done if the US goes back on its word, trust me is not words the US can use until they earn some again, this would go a long way to earning back some trust if they honor the deal... but the US has a long history of being one of the harshest countries when it deals with "traitors"

    3. Re:The problem is ... by prelelat · · Score: 1

      The real problem is, is that his whistle blowing makes him a traitor. It shouldn't, what he did was a service to the people and country. Those that wish to prosecute him and hang him are only doing so because the cat got out of the bag. The government should never have been doing a vast majority of what they were doing. His whistleblowing was justified and if he's a traitor to the U.S. it's a travesty.

    4. Re:The problem is ... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      The real problem is, is that his whistle blowing makes him a traitor.

      It might open him up to the legal definition of treason in the eyes of the U.S. government, but not to the real definition of treason.

    5. Re:The problem is ... by blue9steel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Traitor: One who commits treason
      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. 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.

      He didn't levy war on us, he didn't adhere to our enemies, nor did he give them comfort. There is a flimsy argument that perhaps his actions gave aid to our enemies but if you roll with that reasoning then all of the people he exposed are also traitors so I'm not sure that's an argument the government would want to make.

      He may be a criminal under the current laws, but he's not a traitor. Furthermore, if what he did was illegal then it's the law that is wrong and should be changed. The correct action would be for him to receive a presidential pardon followed by congress strengthening the whistleblower laws and a big shakeup at the NSA to root out their culture of taking activities beyond what they are authorized for. I'm afraid we don't live in that rosy alternate universe however.

    6. Re:The problem is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He violated his NSA Security Clearance and disclosure contracts, oaths. I'm sure that has Federal repurcussions. Not that I think he should face anything, but I don't work for the current Administration or DOJ.

    7. Re:The problem is ... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Yes, he did... but he did so for the right moral reasons...

      If I were President of the United States, I'd pardon him and thank him for doing the right thing...

      Which is probably why I'll never be President of the United States. :)

    8. Re:The problem is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US AGs are world famous for their blatantly corrupt selective enforcement practices (See: Global Recession). They will try Snowden for treason and ignore the rest.

    9. Re:The problem is ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Good points, but here's a tough call:

      There is a flimsy argument that perhaps his actions gave aid to our enemies ...

      Could you see the United States providing a list of, "enemies," in an open court?

      Just who are our enemies? We have not declared war on any government.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    10. Re:The problem is ... by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      My definition would be anyone on whom we've declared war (of course), since we don't do that as much any more I'd accept a congressional authorization of military force. In my opinion everyone else doesn't count even if we don't trust them or like them very much. I believe the only groups covered by this currently would be North Korea (armistice, not peace) and Al-Qaeda. (Apologies if I missed one) I'm sure the government would disagree and want to have the ability to add groups from an arbitrarily created list that has no oversight such as the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. I wouldn't be comfortable with that without congressional oversight and a formal approval vote for each entry.

    11. Re:The problem is ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I see where you're heading and I'd point out that some formal list would have to be compiled tout de suite because we don't have anything in place that would stand in court.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    12. Re:The problem is ... by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Traitor: One who commits treason

      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. 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.

      He didn't levy war on us, he didn't adhere to our enemies, nor did he give them comfort. There is a flimsy argument that perhaps his actions gave aid to our enemies but if you roll with that reasoning then all of the people he exposed are also traitors so I'm not sure that's an argument the government would want to make.

      He may be a criminal under the current laws, but he's not a traitor. Furthermore, if what he did was illegal then it's the law that is wrong and should be changed. The correct action would be for him to receive a presidential pardon followed by congress strengthening the whistleblower laws and a big shakeup at the NSA to root out their culture of taking activities beyond what they are authorized for. I'm afraid we don't live in that rosy alternate universe however.

      It can all too easily be said that Snowden aided the enemies of the US, which is all the justification the US government needs to stick him in a cell forever.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    13. Re:The problem is ... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      So you think it should be legal to take secret information about perfectly legal but secret acts of the US government and publicize them, to the detriment of US foreign relations? Or that it should be legal if he's also whistle-blowing? That release of documents that we really, really needed to know about absolves him of all other crimes in the act?

      And why would people involved in illegal surveillance be considered traitors? They haven't waged war against the US, and you'd have to name an enemy they gave aid and comfort to. Moreover, nobody could be convicted of treason on the basis of leaked papers, since conviction requires a confession or two eyewitnesses to the same overt act.

      There is some legal justification for what the NSA did. I've read of acts I consider illegal, and strong evidence that the NSA is concentrating on only one of its two legal responsibilities to the detriment of the other, which is harmful to the US, but that isn't grounds for conviction.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    14. Re:The problem is ... by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      So you think it should be legal to take secret information about perfectly legal but secret acts of the US government and publicize them, to the detriment of US foreign relations? Or that it should be legal if he's also whistle-blowing? That release of documents that we really, really needed to know about absolves him of all other crimes in the act?

      He definitely broke the law, I don't think that's in question. I do think the main reason he broke the law is that the current whistleblowing system doesn't work. Reporting this through proper channels would have either A) Produced no results or B) Resulted in him being disappeared or ruined. My personal opinion is that his releases, while embarrassing for the current government, weren't actually particularly damaging to the US Strategic position as a whole. Because he worked with a reputable journalist and filtered the releases (unlike Bradley Manning's straight dump, which was intolerable) I think the good he did outweighed the problems he caused, which is why I think he deserves a pardon.

  9. Fair and impartial? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What part of "releasing classified documents" doesn't he understand? It's pretty obvious he violated US law. Fair and impartial won't change that outcome.

    You may argue that the law is bad, or that the purpose of his actions was noble. That same may be said of killing [insert bad guy]. It doesn't make the murder legal, it may only lessen the sentence. I'm not sure when facing the death penalty, that life without parole in a federal penitentiary is going to be that much more appealing if your goal is to live out your life in the United States without constantly being under the thumb of the government.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Fair and impartial? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may argue that the law is bad, or that the purpose of his actions was noble. That same may be said of killing [insert bad guy]. It doesn't make the murder legal, it may only lessen the sentence.

      Actually, that's up to a jury.

    2. Re:Fair and impartial? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What part of "releasing classified documents" doesn't he understand? It's pretty obvious he violated US law. Fair and impartial won't change that outcome.

      It did for Clapper, Alexander, Obama, Cheney, Holder, the CIA and a number of others who broke the Constitution, committed perjury before Congress, violated a number of human rights, tortured and killed people without any legal basis for it, and continued lying about it time after time.

      All of those enemies of the American people and their Constitution and violators of their oath are foaming at their mouth in anticipation of casting the first stone on Snowden who got the priorities of who and what he was supposed to serve right: "classification" does not trump disclosure of crimes against the American People and Constitution.

      It would be a travesty of justice (or rather it is a travesty of justice) that all those go free for their much more severe crimes while Snowden should be prosecuted for uncovering them.

    3. Re:Fair and impartial? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which there wouldn't be if he's tried under the Espionage Act ... Fair and impartial... doesn't apply

    4. Re:Fair and impartial? by bigtrike · · Score: 1

      If killing isn't legal in some circumstances, why do we have the death penalty?

    5. Re:Fair and impartial? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I didn't say killing. I said murder. There's a difference.

      Publishing documents may or may not be legal. Espionage is always illegal. See the difference?

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    6. Re:Fair and impartial? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      Good point, which brings up two problems:

      1. Jury nullification is a possibility
      2. Can he get a fair trial anywhere in the US, given that the entire pool of jury candidates has heard about him and his alleged acts (remember - he's still innocent until proven guilty, much as many people find that concept hard to swallow).

      It's not like the US has that great a reputation for fair trials.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    7. Re:Fair and impartial? by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      Hmm... perusing definitions of "espionage", both common and legal, they all have as a common element that the obtaining and disclosing of classified information is done on behalf of a foreign country.

      I have never seen the U.S. government allege that Snowden was acting as a spy for any nation.

      So: no espionage.

      See the difference?

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    8. Re:Fair and impartial? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So many people in the government have violated the law and made victims of us all that letting one more go free for telling us about it is insignificant.

    9. Re:Fair and impartial? by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      That same may be said of killing [insert bad guy]. It doesn't make the murder legal, it may only lessen the sentence.

      Except in Texas where it's still a valid defense to say "He needed killing" and get off scott free if the jury agrees. Not a bad law in my opinion.

    10. Re:Fair and impartial? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the laws surrounding classification of documents require that they have valid national security implications in order for the classification to be legal. As so many leaks have shows most classified documents are centered around keeping illegal/immoral/unsightly government activities secret for long enough that those responsible aren't held legally/politically accountable and I believe that the courts have already held that those aren't valid national security concerns.

    11. Re:Fair and impartial? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Good point, which brings up two problems:

      1. Jury nullification is a possibility

      Except lawyers are not allowed to bring that up in trial or arguments.

      2. Can he get a fair trial anywhere in the US, given that the entire pool of jury candidates has heard about him and his alleged acts (remember - he's still innocent until proven guilty, much as many people find that concept hard to swallow).

      Also immaterial as long as the jury members can base their decision on the facts raised at trial. There is no need to not know anything about what he did. I also would not be surprised if you could find a jury pool that hasn't heard of him or doesn't remember hearing of him. We assume because we do everyone does which is not necessarily true since ewe are surrounded by people with similar interest and read similar news.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    12. Re:Fair and impartial? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may argue that the law is bad, or that the purpose of his actions was noble.

      Actually, you cannot, because the information to make that argument is secret. And in any case, you don't have standing.

      THAT is the problem.

    13. Re:Fair and impartial? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rule of law was over when NSA went rogue on its own citizens. This is hard for the law and order types to digest, since they betrayed their own values and got beat at their own game. When spying is outlawed, only outlaws will spy. /shrug

    14. Re:Fair and impartial? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Everyone and their dog who owns a TV knows about jury nullification.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    15. Re:Fair and impartial? by rHBa · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure when facing the death penalty, that life without parole in a federal penitentiary is going to be that much more appealing

      I thought your life expectancy on death row was longer than if you serve life without parole.

    16. Re:Fair and impartial? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Everyone and their dog who owns a TV knows about jury nullification.

      I doubt many people know wht it means but regardless knowing what it means and doing so are two different things and lawyers are not allowed to argue for nullification. Judges also tend to disqualify jurors who inquire about it and tell juries to decide based on the law. Ultimately you can't get inside the mind of a juror so it is always a possibility, doing so isn't easy. I would not bet my future on it as a strategy.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    17. Re:Fair and impartial? by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Can he get a fair trial anywhere in the US, given that the entire pool of jury candidates has heard about him and his alleged acts (remember - he's still innocent until proven guilty, much as many people find that concept hard to swallow).

      And this is the problem with the Jury system... people like me never end up on Juries...

      If Snowden was in front of me, I would vote not-guilty.

      Why? Because his release of classified documents is nullified by the documents containing information about illegal acts by the US Government.

      It is the right of a Jury to decide if the auctions SHOULD be illegal or not, it is the ultimate check and balance against the government.

      Judges often try to tell Juries otherwise, but at the end of the day, the Jury can vote any way it wants.

      ---

      Did he break the law? Yes, he did.

      Is he guilty of a crime? No, he is not.

      If you can follow that, then you get a cookie. :)

    18. Re:Fair and impartial? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The executive branch - as Obama himself has been at enormous pains to point out only recently - always has discretion as to whether a given offence should be prosecuted.

      Even without that getout, the president has a right to grant a full pardon. Which is the Constitution's own way of saying "sometimes you don't want to prosecute, no matter what the crime".

    19. Re:Fair and impartial? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Right ... lots of people don't know who Snowden is. Many have no clue about Manning, either.

      Even the people who have heard of Snowden can't remember any details.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    20. Re:Fair and impartial? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Once you're on the jury you can't be dismissed without cause. Jury nullification is not cause. And since lawyers aren't allowed to discuss it, they won't ask prospective jurors for their views on it.

      You might not bet your future on it, but Dr Henry Morgentaler did, 3 times:

      In 1969 Morgentaler opened an abortion clinic in Montreal. He said that he applied for status as a model abortion clinic and proposed to the federal and provincial governments that abortions could be safely done outside hospitals. He recounts that neither the provincial nor the federal government was interested. Each said it was the other's responsibility. No one came to inspect the clinic. Instead, they sent the police. On June 1, 1970, Montreal city police raided Morgentaler's clinic and laid several charges of performing illegal abortions. The first case did not come to trial until 1973; in the meanwhile, women's groups organized in support of him and he continued to perform abortions. In 1973, the doctor stated that he had performed 5,000 safe abortions outside hospitals, demonstrating that a hospital setting was not necessary.

      To summarize, between 1973 and 1975, Morgentaler was tried three times in Montreal for defying the abortion law; each time, he raised the defence of necessity, and each time he was acquitted. Each time, the jury took less time to reach their decision to acquit: at the third trial, they took one hour. This is called Jury nullification—the refusal of juries to enforce a law that they perceive to be unjust

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    21. Re:Fair and impartial? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The Snowden gag is working perfectly. If you think he took away a lot, just wait and see what he brings back. I mean, please! Russia? How many illegals do you see running that direction?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    22. Re:Fair and impartial? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Once you're on the jury you can't be dismissed without cause. Jury nullification is not cause. And since lawyers aren't allowed to discuss it, they won't ask prospective jurors for their views on it.

      Actually they can but they have to be sure it's because a juror refuses to follow the law and not just because the juror doen't believe in the merits of the prosecution's case. That is a very high bar and justifiably so; given the need for secret deliberations means it is exceedingly difficult to do which is good since it preserves a jury's independence and prevents a judge from removing a juror to get a guilty verdict. That does not mean it cannot be done.

      You might not bet your future on it, but Dr Henry Morgentaler did, 3 times:

      Yoou needn't have gone to Canada to get an example; there are plenty in the US from juries refusing to enforce fugitive slave laws, refusing to convict whites when they murdered blacks, to refusing to convict fraft card burners during the VietNam war. What all if those cases, and your example, have in commn is a sympathetic populace that did not like the law or how it was applied. Lawyers always try to make thier client sympthetic and get jurors they think they can convince he or she is innocent based on the story they plan to tell.

      The question in Snowden's case is "how easy will it be to get a sympathetic jury that would be willing to overlook the facts and decide based on a peraonal belief that what he did served a greater good and thus not convict?" I think it is a long shot bet, even if it is his only hope. The prosecution might even conceed his revelations did some good but giving everything to the Chinese and Russians warrants a finding og guilt and severe punishment to counter any desire on the part of jurors to acquit based on their belief the what he did accomplished. Greater good and thus does not deserve to be punished even if he broke the law.

      His lawyers may try to make that argument, I think it is their only hope to win. In the end however his future is at stake and hinges on being able to convince a jury what he did was right despite the law. Remember, if you want to learn about right and wrong, you turn to religion, to learn about winning and losing you turn to the courts.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    23. Re:Fair and impartial? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      One thing I would point out that he gave them to point out to the American people the extent to which the government was violating the constitutiion; there was no way to do that without the whole world knowing (including the ruskies and the chinese). And, of course, if the government hadn't been breaking the law and the constitution, none of this would have happened, and it's to prevent the USA from becoming another North Korea / USSR / China.

      And then to ask the same question that's been asked about the banks - why not a single conviction for the law-breakers.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    24. Re:Fair and impartial? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      If you're actually up on the story, Snowden wound up in Russia by following an algorithm similar to the "drunk walk."

      He didn't cleverly plan that outcome.

      He was guided by a revoked passport, no fly lists, pressure on allies, etc.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    25. Re:Fair and impartial? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      uh huh...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    26. Re:Fair and impartial? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      One thing I would point out that he gave them to point out to the American people the extent to which the government was violating the constitutiion; there was no way to do that without the whole world knowing (including the ruskies and the chinese).

      While you could legitimately argue that he was doing a good thing that is not the point. The point is can you make the argument convincingly enough to convince a jury not to convict despite ample evidence laws were broken? I think that is a high bar to clear, and the counter to letting the world know is he did not have to go to the Chinese and the Russians and hand over a treasure trove of material and that is the issue at trial. The prosecution would hammer home that the damage he did far outweighed any good he sought to do and focus on his spying for the Chinese and Russians. They might even point out he could have done the same thing in the US, via leaks to newspapers or to a sympathetic representative, without hurting the US by giving it to China and Russia. They will make as strong an emotional appeal to the jurors as his lawyers would. Since neither the law nor the facts are on his side he is reduced to a very, IMHO, long shot attempt to convince a jury to ignore both and acquit. He will be portrayed in the worst possible light, with everything he did while working for the government and later on the run, to make him a very unsympathetic defendant. Is he willing to bet his life on a long shot?

      And, of course, if the government hadn't been breaking the law and the constitution, none of this would have happened, and it's to prevent the USA from becoming another North Korea / USSR / China.

      That would probably hurt him since jurors are likely not think we are heading in that direction and thus find the claim a bit outrageous and thus discount his need to reveal the information.

      And then to ask the same question that's been asked about the banks - why not a single conviction for the law-breakers.

      That would probably be ruled inadmissible since it is irrelevant to the case and would think a lawyer that did that would be on shaky ethical ground.

      In the end, our opinion on what he did is irrelevant, what counts is that of the jurors and I doubt popular opinion would be so strongly in his favor that he could win on jury nullification strategy; especially since the prosecution is free to press how badly he damaged American security while his lawyer would have to very carefully navigate the ethical grounds of making a jury nullification argument.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    27. Re:Fair and impartial? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Too bad your version of the facts isn't the true one. He initially DID give the information to reporters - Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. It was only when things got too hot that he ended up "on the other side." At no point before he was forced into hiding was he "spying for the Russians and Chinese."

      All it takes is one juror to hang a jury ... and IF it ever goes to trial (doubtful) that's a likely scenario.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    28. Re:Fair and impartial? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Too bad your version of the facts isn't the true one. He initially DID give the information to reporters - Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. It was only when things got too hot that he ended up "on the other side." At no point before he was forced into hiding was he "spying for the Russians and Chinese."

      It all depends on how you spin the facts; and the prosecution will do so to make him look as bad as possible. He has no idea what others have said to investigators, and even once he finds out pre-trial it's his word against theirs and he may not come across as the most honest and truthful witness to a bunch of jurors. An innocent joke to a coworker that "the Russians would love to know we can do x" or musing "I wonder what X would pay of this" could be construed as part of a plan to commit espionage, for example In the end it's all about whose story is better and his isn't exactly the best since it hinges on jurors believing what he did was for the greater good and thus should ignore the law.

      All it takes is one juror to hang a jury ... and IF it ever goes to trial (doubtful) that's a likely scenario.

      While I doubt it ever goes to trial simply because he has too much to lose absent a plea bargain I am not convinced they couldn't get a conviction or that a hung jury is the likely scenario. They may not convict on every count they'll charge him with but likely would find him guilty of enough counts to spend the rest of his life behind bars and in solitary.

      And if they get a hung jury they can just retry him if they want and meanwhile keep him in jail since he has proven to be a flight risk. In the end the odds are not in his favor absent a plea bargain, and the US has little incentive to cut a favorable deal since most of the damage probably has already been done. They can just let him fall deeper and deeper into a bad psychological state since time is on their side; who knows at some point Putin may decide giving him up gets him something more valuable or even decide letting him go is to dangerous and as a result he gets charged with a crime in Russia or suffers an accident. He is only valuable as long as he either has information or is seen as a bargaining chip, and that is a really bad negotiation position to be in.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    29. Re:Fair and impartial? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      You can have your own set of opinions, but you can't have your own set of facts. Fact is that he initially leaked it to journalists. The governments' actions forced him into hiding, not his choice.

      And I think after two or three hung juries, they'll let it slide.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    30. Re:Fair and impartial? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      You can have your own set of opinions, but you can't have your own set of facts. Fact is that he initially leaked it to journalists. The governments' actions forced him into hiding, not his choice.

      Facts are what are presented in court. The government may dispute his facts with evidence to the contrary. That's why we have juries, to decide cases based on the facts. Even if the government did force his hand that shows he realized he broke the law and decided to run to avoid getting punished. Regardless of our opinion on the rightness of his actions things do not look good for him. Each side will present facts that best suit their narrative. we obviously disagree on what we think the outcome will be but the truth of the matter is, no matter what we want it to be, the fate would be in the hands of a jury and no one knows how they will decide. To me, basing your hope of avoiding a serious prison term is to be able to convince a jury that you do not deserve to be convicted despite what the law says is a very risky thing to do.

      And I think after two or three hung juries, they'll let it slide.

      As I have said, I don't think the government will have a hard time getting a conviction that results in serious time. You disagree. That's fine; and in the end if he returns a jury will decide which one of us was correct assuming he doesn't return under a plea bargain. Personally, I would not return absent a plea, even then that has some risk because if i remember correctly a plea bargain is not binding on a court.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    31. Re:Fair and impartial? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously going to continue to deny that you were wrong when you said that "instead of leaking it to the Russians and Chinese, he could have leaked it to reporters?" Come on, that duck won't fly. Get real. Please.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    32. Re:Fair and impartial? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously going to continue to deny that you were wrong when you said that "instead of leaking it to the Russians and Chinese, he could have leaked it to reporters?" Come on, that duck won't fly. Get real. Please.

      I am not making a claim one way or another on the facts. I am pointing out there are a lot of arguements the government can use to paint a very damning picture of what he did in order to secure a conviction. He has neither the law nor facts on his side and thus is in a very bad position. It will be hard to make him a sympathetic defendant. You believe it would be easy for him to be found not guilty through jury nullification or a hung jury; I do not think it is as easy as you think and thus believe his returning to yhe US and hoping to walk based on a trial victory is a very risky move.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    33. Re:Fair and impartial? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      Come on, quit the lies. Here is what you wrote:

      They might even point out he could have done the same thing in the US, via leaks to newspapers or to a sympathetic representative, without hurting the US by giving it to China and Russia.

      That is YOUR claim that he, in your own words, "could have done the same thing in the US, via leaks to newspapers", which is in fact what he did.

      Either you were ignorant of the facts, or you're shilling. Somehow, I doubt a shill would be stupid enough to try to pull one over my eyes, but you never know.

      Also, he only needs one juror to hang the jury. Or one acquittal for double jeopardy to apply - "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" since this is a capital case.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    34. Re:Fair and impartial? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Come on, quit the lies. Here is what you wrote:

      They might even point out he could have done the same thing in the US, via leaks to newspapers or to a sympathetic representative, without hurting the US by giving it to China and Russia.

      That is YOUR claim that he, in your own words, "could have done the same thing in the US, via leaks to newspapers", which is in fact what he did.

      You keep ignoring the They might even point out part of my post; where I state one tack the government could chose to take. I make no claim to what he did or didn't do, despite your attempts to ascribe such to me. My point is there are many argument the government can make to convince a jury to acquit but his only hope seems to be to convince someone that what he did doesn't deserve punishment. As I have said, when the facts and the law are against you you have a tough road to hoe.

      Either you were ignorant of the facts, or you're shilling. Somehow, I doubt a shill would be stupid enough to try to pull one over my eyes, but you never know.

      No, but I wonder why you ignore what I actually say in order to argue that Snowden will win if he goes to trial.

      Also, he only needs one juror to hang the jury. Or one acquittal for double jeopardy to apply - "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" since this is a capital case.

      True, I just think it is a remote possibility that they get an acquittal or even a hung jury. If they really wanted to be bastards they could charge him with some offenses and if they lose come back with other separate offenses without it being double jeopardy. I doubt they would do that just was I doubt they would fail to get a conviction.

      \

      William Shatner ain't riding in and saying "Denny Crane" and saving the day right before the end credits; returning to face trial would most likely end very badly for him.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    35. Re:Fair and impartial? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      I ignore what you said because there's no way they can present "proof" that contradicts the facts.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    36. Re:Fair and impartial? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      I ignore what you said because there's no way they can present "proof" that contradicts the facts.

      Don't be so sure. Everything introduced in a court case is a fact, the jury needs to decide who made the most compelling argument based on their facts and whose facts are in fact the correct ones. it's all about picking a story to get the jury to focus on on the argument you make and decide it is the correct one.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    37. Re:Fair and impartial? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never served on a jury. It is the JURY who decide what the facts of the case are, and jurors are not nearly as naive as you seem to think. Oh - wait - you're probably in the US, where jurors are paid so little that everyone and their dog tries to get out of jury duty, leaving only those stupid enough not to get out of it to serve.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    38. Re:Fair and impartial? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never served on a jury. It is the JURY who decide what the facts of the case are, and jurors are not nearly as naive as you seem to think. Oh - wait - you're probably in the US, where jurors are paid so little that everyone and their dog tries to get out of jury duty, leaving only those stupid enough not to get out of it to serve.

      Actually I have; and ad hominem does not add to your argument. But to your point, juries make a finding of fact based on the evidence presented and what they believe to be the truth. Which gets to my point which you consistently seem to ignore for some unknown reason; perhaps you do not want to believe Snowden would be convicted and receive a life sentence or two. I think it is a very risky bet on his part to return and face a trial. My experiences on juries is that no matter how sympathetic we are to the defendant if the facts, under the law, point to guilt we found them guilty. Jury nullification is not an easy thing to accomplish; especially when neither rte facts nor law are on your side.

      Yes, the US jury selection is messed up but in my experience most people didn't try to get out of jury duty. A more likely scenario is those most likely to really think about the fact are not selected to serve on a jury because they may rule against one side. I am quite surprised when I get picked to actually be on one because I generally do not fit the profile of a desirable juror based on my background and education.

      Anyway, we seem to be arguing two points. You are focusing on Snowden's actions and weather or not he should be found guilty; I am focusing on the risk he faces going to trial. You see the facts and say "He should be exonerated based on a greater god argument," I see them and say "They can be twisted many ways to make a story, most of which may not work in his favor."

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    39. Re:Fair and impartial? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Please don't try to say what I'm thinking when there's no evidence to back up your suppositions. I never said anything that would indicate that there's no risk of Snowdon being convicted. You're arguing a strawman.

      Nevertheless, the law is clear - the defense of justification is allowed (and I cited the law elsewhere - feel free to look through the comments), contrary to your movie scenario.

      So, the law, contrary to what your claim, is on my side in saying that it's possible - not probable, but possible. What next - citing Star Wars as a legal reference?

      Guess it shows the difference in our jury systems - the only thing the two sides are allowed to ask is your name, age, and occupation. A lot less room for "cherry-picking" a jury, and much more likely to get people who are educated and knowledgeable. You can't stack your jury with old grandmothers who watch Faux when most women work and you have only limited peremptory challenges.

      Also, I have not even made up my mind on whether he should be convicted or not. I see both sides of the story, and neither is as cut and dried as anyone makes it out to be.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    40. Re:Fair and impartial? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Please don't try to say what I'm thinking when there's no evidence to back up your suppositions. I never said anything that would indicate that there's no risk of Snowdon being convicted. You're arguing a strawman.

      Good. Now it's only a question of how big a risk of conviction; I think it's pretty high.

      Nevertheless, the law is clear - the defense of justification is allowed (and I cited the law elsewhere - feel free to look through the comments), contrary to your movie scenario.

      And I have never said he couldn't use a necessary defense, in fact I said I thought it was probably his best shot. However, one aspect of that defense is that there were no legal alternatives to violating the law. If if he could prove, for example that he acted to prevent imminent harm, the legal alternative standard adds another bar on top of that; which is why I think going to trial is very risky for him.

      I missed where you cited US case law in this thread. The only example you gave was a Canadian one; which while interesting has no bearing on US law. There is however, US examples that address the allowably of a necessity defense, though they aren't necessarily consistent in defining it's components. Until the Supreme Court settles the question its still allowable but how and what must be shown is not consistent across the US.

      So, the law, contrary to what your claim, is on my side in saying that it's possible - not probable, but possible. What next - citing Star Wars as a legal reference?

      You start out by talking about jury nullification, something Federal courts do not allow to be brought up; then went on to say "All it takes is one juror to hang a jury ... and IF it ever goes to trial (doubtful) that's a likely scenario. Now your backing off that and saying it's just Possible. I agree, it's possible but not very probable,as I have said all along.

      And Hans did fire first.

      Guess it shows the difference in our jury systems - the only thing the two sides are allowed to ask is your name, age, and occupation. A lot less room for "cherry-picking" a jury, and much more likely to get people who are educated and knowledgeable. You can't stack your jury with old grandmothers who watch Faux when most women work and you have only limited peremptory challenges.

      Except he would be tried in a US court where jurors can be questioned so what other judicial systems allow is irrelevant. I do agree that it would be better if fewer citizens could avoid jury duty and we got broader base of prospective jurors. Courts in the US also limit peremptory challenges.

      Also, I have not even made up my mind on whether he should be convicted or not. I see both sides of the story, and neither is as cut and dried as anyone makes it out to be.

      I agree, but I think he has a much more difficult challenge in avoiding a conviction than the government has in getting one. Either way, he's in a real tough spot and it sounds like living in Russia is starting to wear on him.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    41. Re:Fair and impartial? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      And what part of "it only takes one joror to hang a jury" isn't true or relevant? Not backing off from it at all - I'd give it a 5-10% chance in the US, and about 50-50 in places where jurors know their rights and aren't afraid to cheese of judges, like Canada (especially Quebec).

      However, if the government tries to go with your story line, that he worked for the Russians and Chinese, and that he should have just leaked it to newspapers, I'd put his chances of acquittal in the US at well over 50%.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    42. Re:Fair and impartial? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      And what part of "it only takes one joror to hang a jury" isn't true or relevant? Not backing off from it at all - I'd give it a 5-10% chance in the US, and about 50-50 in places where jurors know their rights and aren't afraid to cheese of judges, like Canada (especially Quebec).

      Well, since he would be tried in the US what a Canadian jury would do is irrelevant. Your "it only takes one joror to hang a jury" comment is relevant to my point that you agree with me that an acquittal or mistrial in the US is very unlikely; as evidenced by your 5 - 10% chance comment. It looks like we actually agree on my point.

      Jury nullification is a two edged sword. Just as it can be used to prevent convicting someone who actually did a moral thing it can also be sued to let actual criminals go do to the prejudices of a community. It's easy to say the latter will never happen but history shows that not to be the case.

      However, if the government tries to go with your story line, that he worked for the Russians and Chinese, and that he should have just leaked it to newspapers, I'd put his chances of acquittal in the US at well over 50%.

      Who knows what their strategy would be? I pointed out one possible story line out of many. At any rate, he probably would not clear the requirements to even be able to present a necessary defense.

      For sake of argument, lets assume he passes the direct civil disobedience test and thus gets to make the case to the judge that he should be able to mount a necessity defenses. To do so, he'd need to convince the judge that he:

      1. was faced with a choice of evils and chose the lesser. Again, let's assume this is the case because not all circuits include this. So we are left with:

      2. proving he acted to prevent imminent harm. This is a tough one since he would have to show some actual injury not some probable or conjectured one.

      3. Then he'd have to show his actions have a direct causal relationship what he did and averting the harm. This is hard because his actions dd not stop the collection of data or the government's attempts to do so. It may have made it harder but it did not avert the arm claimed in 2.

      4. Finally, he'd have to prove that he exhausted all legal alternatives to what he did. This would probably stop him in his tracks because he didn't do this. He had legal alternatives to taking the information and releasing it.

      As a result, he might not even get to make a necessity defense.

      His final problem is he went beyond the factors above when he gave the material to the Chinese and Russians. He had already made the public aware of what was going on and yet continued to provide information in an apparent, and later successful, attempt to avoid prosecution. Once you go beyond doing what is needed to prevent harm you could still be found guilty of a crime. For example, if I rescue a dog from the cold but then refuse to turn it over I could be hailed for the former and charged with theft for the latter. In his case, informing the public would not excuse committing espionage by providing the Russians and Chinese with US secrets. Which is why, in the end, I think he has a very slim chance of success in a US court. Your 5 - 10% may be correct or even too high.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    43. Re:Fair and impartial? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Gee, you really want to beat a dead horse, don't you. "It only takes on juror to hang a jury" applies in the US.

      We don't agree on anything because you started out with the premise that a conviction was a foregone conclusion, that US law did not allow any form of "justification" defense - based on a MOVIE you saw - and that the only case ANYONE has quoted failed the test because the act was they were convicted of was not in any way related to what they were protesting.

      "Pointing out a story line" ... well, keep living in a fantasy world. Introducing evidence that is easily proved false will get the case tossed out before the jury even has an opportunity to deliberate.

      Also, he doesn't have to convince the judge of ANYTHING. Please get that through your head. That's not how jury trials work.

      And it's easy-peasy to argue the 4 "points" you try to make. Ongoing breach of the constitution is more than "imminent" harm - it's actual harm. And lets face it - revealing what was going on put a crimp in the ops - even the government admits this. And no, he didn't have any realistic legal alternatives to releasing the information. Name one. Complaining to the people who were actively breaking the law? That would be like complaining to the mafia that they're running a protection racket, or the bikers that they're selling drugs.

      And no, giving the material to the Russians and Chinese isn't a problem - they would have to prove that it was given only to the Russians and Chinese - it was given to the whole darn world. The whole "Russian and Chinese" thing is a smokescreen.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    44. Re:Fair and impartial? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Gee, you really want to beat a dead horse, don't you. "It only takes on juror to hang a jury" applies in the US.

      Never said it didn't. You first claimed it would be a likely outcome and then backed down to a 5 - 10% chance when you finally agreed with me.

      We don't agree on anything because you started out with the premise that a conviction was a foregone conclusion, that US law did not allow any form of "justification" defense - based on a MOVIE you saw - and that the only case ANYONE has quoted failed the test because the act was they were convicted of was not in any way related to what they were protesting.

      Actually, I said none of that. I did say he has a very difficult time proving a necessity defense, and thus going to trial in the US is very risky thing for him. Perhaps you think a 5 - 10 % chance (your numbers, BTW) of not being convicted is not risky?I did say lawyers are not allowed to bring up jury nullification to the jury, which is different than a justification (necessity) defense.

      I'm not sure where you get this movie fantasy idea of yours.

      Also, he doesn't have to convince the judge of ANYTHING. Please get that through your head. That's not how jury trials work.

      Actually he does have to convince a judge prior to presenting a necessity defense at trial. That's how the US federal courts work.

      And it's easy-peasy to argue the 4 "points" you try to make. Ongoing breach of the constitution is more than "imminent" harm - it's actual harm

      Except the standard is imminent harm. Who is faced with imminent harm from the year collection of information?

      And arguing is different than convincing a judge to allow the defense.

      And lets face it - revealing what was going on put a crimp in the ops - even the government admits this.

      However, it did not prevent the surveillance from occurring, which means it would fall short of the prevent standard.

      In fact arguing it put a crimp on the operation might hurt him because he interfered with legal intelligence operations against foreign nationals. Remember, it is perfectly legal for US intelligence agencies to collect information on foreign countries and their citizens, so damaging that ability is not proving that he prevent harm because there is no harm.

      And no, he didn't have any realistic legal alternatives to releasing the information. Name one. Complaining to the people who were actively breaking the law?

      He had a well established formal method to complain about the actions. A long as that exists and he did not use it he failed to meet the standard for a necessity defense.

      That would be like complaining to the mafia that they're running a protection racket, or the bikers that they're selling drugs.

      Really? Nice movie fantasy strawman you're conjuring up.

      And no, giving the material to the Russians and Chinese isn't a problem - they would have to prove that it was given only to the Russians and Chinese - it was given to the whole darn world. The whole "Russian and Chinese" thing is a smokescreen.

      Nope, it's still espionage and separate from his argument about the necessity of revealing the extent of what the government was doing to the public since it was a separate act. Simply because he revealed classified material to person A and the material became widely known doesn't mean it wasn't a crime to reveal it to B as well.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    45. Re:Fair and impartial? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      You're really such a liar. I went through the whole thread, and nowhere did I say that a hung jury would be a likely outcome.

      Same as you lied when you claimed that he "could have gone to reporters first", when in fact that's what he did.

      And no, giving everything to the whole world is not "spying for Russia and China".

      BTW - the definition of Immanent

      Impending; menacingly close at hand; threatening.

      Imminent peril, for example, is danger that is certain, immediate, and impending, such as the type an individual might be in as a result of a serious illness or accident. The chance of the individual dying would be highly probable in such situation, as opposed to remote or contingent. For a gift causa mortis (Latin for "in anticipation of death") to be effective, the donor must be in imminent peril and must die as a result of it

      The illegal acts by the government were certain, immediate, and close at hand - not some hypothetical in some future universe (which is what your arguments are).

      After all, he was in a position to know the authenticity of the illegal acts that were being done, and his actions were targeted directly at stopping those acts, unlike the people who spattered blood all over the place to protest something different than blood-spattering.

      When the government knowingly and repeatedly acts outside the constitution, they bring the government's legitimacy into doubt, not just inside the country, but around the world - and that's not just harmful, it's corrosive.

      So, in summary: Don't use a movie as a legal reference, don't use court cases that were dismissed because the perps actions had no direct connection with the acts they were protesting against, don't lie over and over about what I have or have not said, don't continue to claim that the judge is the one who has to be convinced in a jury trial, and don't contradict what the law says when it says that justification is a defense. I could go on, but I think I've made my point. You are a liar. You have lied about what I said or didn't say, repeatedly.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    46. Re:Fair and impartial? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      You're really such a liar. I went through the whole thread, and nowhere did I say that a hung jury would be a likely outcome.

      Post (#49181845) All it takes is one juror to hang a jury ... and IF it ever goes to trial (doubtful) that's a likely scenario.

      Same as you lied when you claimed that he "could have gone to reporters first", when in fact that's what he did.

      Except my actual statement was a prosecutor could make such an argument; not a statement of what he did or didn't do. Although, if i remember correctly, he first fled to Hong Kong before he revealed the documents.

      And no, giving everything to the whole world is not "spying for Russia and China".

      However, he did give them to China and Russia, which is a classic case of espionage independent of anything else he did. Furthermore, Congress has specifically approved conducting surveillance against foreign countries and thus preemption would apply, i.e. the legislature has stated the activity is legal and thus a policy determination has been made that the protects the evil he is protesting.

      So, in summary: Don't use a movie as a legal reference,

      You keep bring up a movie - to what are you referring?

      don't use court cases that were dismissed because the perps actions had no direct connection with the acts they were protesting against

      The problem Snowden has is his actions might not meet the standard of preventing the harm since his actions would not result in the US stopping collection of intelligence. Courts have ruled against justification as a defense when the actions would not be expected to stop the supposed harm.

      don't continue to claim that the judge is the one who has to be convinced in a jury trial,

      Except Federal judges do get to decide if a necessity defense is allowable and thus have to be convinced all the requirements for one is met before it goes to a jury.

      and don't contradict what the law says when it says that justification is a defense.

      I never said it wasn't a possible defense, just that it is a very difficult one to use successfully. You seem to miss the point I was making; even as you said his you'd give him a 5-10% chance in the US in Post #49202025.

      So what exactly is your point. We both agree that justification is a defense and that he has a slim chance of winning his case. Is it you don't think he has to meet the standards set by a Federal court to mount a justification defense? If that's the case then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    47. Re:Fair and impartial? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      Gee, even your quote of my quote proves you to be a liar. You really need to learn how to read!!! What I say:

      All it takes is one juror to hang a jury ... and IF it ever goes to trial (doubtful) that's a likely scenario.

      Two different things. First, I doubt it will ever go to trial. Snowdon is probably just tweaking the government's nose (as I said before). That is the most likely event - say 80% or more. Every other outcome is minor in comparison, including a hung jury, a conviction, or a mistrial. It almost definitely will not go to trial. Now, let's look at the favorable outcomes in the very low probability that it actually goes to trial.

      Overall, his chances of winning greatly exceed 10%, since you forgot to add up all the different reasons I've given for him winning. Hung jury - 5-10%. Justification defense - 20-40%. Mistrial - 10-20%. Success on appeal if convicted - who knows, but definitely greater than zero. Overall, that's half decent odds (35-70% or more). But only in the VERY unlikely event that it even gets to trial. Or do you really believe the government wants to try him?

      You claimed that he should have just given the info to reporters, when in fact that's what he did. You first claimed that there's no legal defense of justification, when it's part and parcel of the law, and now you're changing your story. You got your "facts" from a MOVIE (try admitting that into evidence). You claimed that they have to convince the judge, and not the jury. And you claimed that I was saying that it was very likely that he would get a hung jury, when in fact what I made it clear he wasn't likely to even get to trial. He doesn't want to be tried unless he can turn it into a show trial. The government doesn't want to try him. It's all "performance art." And now that he's too visible, they can't even suicide him.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    48. Re:Fair and impartial? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Gee, even your quote of my quote proves you to be a liar. You really need to learn how to read!!! What I say:

      All it takes is one juror to hang a jury ... and IF it ever goes to trial (doubtful) that's a likely scenario.

      Two different things. First, I doubt it will ever go to trial. Snowdon is probably just tweaking the government's nose (as I said before). That is the most likely event - say 80% or more. Every other outcome is minor in comparison, including a hung jury, a conviction, or a mistrial. It almost definitely will not go to trial. Now, let's look at the favorable outcomes in the very low probability that it actually goes to trial.

      Overall, his chances of winning greatly exceed 10%, since you forgot to add up all the different reasons I've given for him winning. Hung jury - 5-10%. Justification defense - 20-40%.

      Here is where we clearly disagree. I doubt that he would be allowed to mount a justification defense given he could not meet the criteria the Federal courts use of allowing such a defense.

      You claimed that he should have just given the info to reporters, when in fact that's what he did.

      Nope. I said the government could make such an argument; I never said what he did or didn't do.

      You first claimed that there's no legal defense of justification, when it's part and parcel of the law, and now you're changing your story.

      Wrong again. I said he'd have a hard time mounting one, not that there is no legal defense of justification.

      You got your "facts" from a MOVIE (try admitting that into evidence).

      You keep bring up this movie. Where have I said anything about a movie? You keep bringing that up but never show where I used a movie to justify my position.

      You claimed that they have to convince the judge, and not the jury.

      The judge, in a Federal court, gets to decide if a justification defense is allowed to be presented to the jury. I've pointed out the conditions that must be met and why I think Snowden would have a hard time meeting them.

      And you claimed that I was saying that it was very likely that he would get a hung jury, when in fact what I made it clear he wasn't likely to even get to trial.

      The sentence you quoted above clearly states that you'd expect the trial outcome, if there was a trial, to be a hung jury. if you are backing away from that, that's fine, but that is what you said initially.

      He doesn't want to be tried unless he can turn it into a show trial. The government doesn't want to try him. It's all "performance art." And now that he's too visible, they can't even suicide him.

      Yea, I don't think he'd be tried either. He may want to come back but the government has no compelling reason to cut a deal so they can just wait him out./P.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  10. Trial? Please! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    He's coming back to report, and be debriefed! You don't really think he 'did' anything, do you?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Trial? Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    2. Re:Trial? Please! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      It'll cost ya a million bucks. Cough it up.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  11. There are things worse then the death penalty by lhaeh · · Score: 1

    Personally, I'd rather die then spend a few years in solitary at ADX Florence. It's basically non-physical torture and you can expect to be insane at the end of it.

  12. Stupid move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    If he think he'll get a fair trial or even humane treatment he's kidding himself. There is no such thing as a fair trial in this country, the deck is stacked in favor of the prosecution at every stage and we saw how they treated Manning. They've shown at every step of the way they are willing to ignore the law or make it up as they go while doing whatever they want. Even if Russia is becoming an authoritarian regime, it's more freedom and probably better treatment then he'll get if comes back.

    1. Re:Stupid move by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      http://billofrightsinstitute.o...

      he will NOT get a fair trial, that was removed from american law with the PATRIOT act.

      All the scumbags that supported the passing of the PATRIOT ACT should be deported from the United states and labelled as traitors.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Stupid move by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as a fair trial in this country, the deck is stacked in favor of the prosecution at every stage and we saw how they treated Manning.

      I agree with you, but looking at Manning is still a bad analogy. Manning was in the military and therefore went to a court-martial and was held at a military base before that.

    3. Re:Stupid move by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Since he violated some very serious laws, and there's extremely strong evidence for it, a fair trial would result in a long prison sentence. Why would the US prosecutors want to avoid that?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  13. North Korea by skipkent · · Score: 1

    I'm sure he would be given super star status if he were to move to North Korea. Most there live in squalor but I have a feeling he'd be given the VIP treatment; and it's a hell of a lot better than a cell.

    1. Re:North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding? The VIP treatment in NK is to get a stable rice ration and an apartment probably less than 800sq foot. I'm talking about the ELITES who submit to programming wholeheartedly. There's a great documentary on the 3 army defectors that grew into old men there, you can find it on netflix, it should give you a pretty good idea of what it is like to be at the top of the heap in NK - which is similar to a life defined as abject poverty anywhere in the US; much worse with respect to access to information, entertainment and expression.

    2. Re:North Korea by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      But is Snowden any good at basketball?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  14. He is crazy by gatkinso · · Score: 2

    The trial will be classified. He will be made an example of to prevent further leaks. He'd be nuts to return.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    1. Re:He is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What trial? The military will snap him up and he will end up in military prison as a foreign combatant and never see the inside of a court house.
      I feel ashamed to even think about my government this way, but I have no more trust or respect for its actions anymore.

    2. Re:He is crazy by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      like other have guessed, he's very likely NOT seriously thinking of returning.

      but, there may be something to be gained by ACTING like you are willing to return, to see what deals the gov is willing to make.

      all info you get is useful. whatever they disclose, could be useful, now or later.

      I'm 99% sure he has no plans to return. he's smart and there's something else he's got in mind, out of this. dollars to borscht, I would bet on it.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:He is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And he will never be seen or heard from ever again.

    4. Re:He is crazy by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Why would the trial be classified? Why not just have an open trial and present the evidence fairly? That would almost certainly get him a long stretch in prison.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  15. Putin Is'nt PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After Putin took out Nemtsov, Snowden must be thinking it's time to relocate.

    1. Re:Putin Is'nt PC by random+coward · · Score: 1

      Or the CIA got Nemtsov and Snowden is afraid they'll get him next.

  16. Fair trial by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    Could have sworn most of the criminals involved in the Snowden revelations, are not only in the US but could be easily gathered from their cushy government offices to stand trial. It's only fair to go after the worst criminals first, before going after the people who reported them.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  17. He won't leave USA alive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the whole point of getting him back - to silence him.

    The trial is a pretext, a farce.

    Uncle Sam is guilty of heinous acts against humanity that even the most hardened ISIS veteran would balk at.

    Mr Snowden, I thank you for wikileaks. You have exposed the ugly deeds of my government and its well-disguised disdain towards us common folks.

    Good luck.

    1. Re:He won't leave USA alive by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      He didn't use WikiLeaks.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    2. Re:He won't leave USA alive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Uncle Sam is guilty of heinous acts against humanity that even the most hardened ISIS veteran would balk at."

      What's so heinous about the US burning little girls, boys, men, and women alive? They belonged to a non-feminist culture. Had to be done.

      They even marry female children to men there! The US had no choice. The world must be made safe for feminism.

  18. Run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't see any upside in returning to America to be humiliated by the propaganda machine of the United States government with an automatic conviction. Talk about show trial. Snowden's motivations would be attacked from every angle and he would get no opportunity to tell his side or explain his motivations in court since a judge would immediately silence any testimony to that effect. A Snowden trial would set back the cause of Liberty.

    1. Re:Run by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the Snowden trial would mirror the trial in Alice in Wonderland:

      [trial begins]
      US Government: Now, Ha ha... are you ready for your sentence?
      Snowden: Sentence? Ah, but there must be a verdict first!
      US Government: Sentence first! Verdict afterwards.
      Snowden: But that just isn't the way!
      US Government: All ways are...
      Snowden: Your ways, your majesty.
      US Government: Yes, my child. Off with his head!

      And I don't think any "magic mushroom" is going to make Snowden grow over a mile high and thus able to walk out a free man.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Kafka is more apropos.

    3. Re:Run by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      With the difference that Snowden at least knows what he's accused of.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Run by slew · · Score: 1

      I think Snowden already thinks he has a trump card.

      * He requires release of some sensitive information as evidence.
      * Request denied.
      * Trial not fair. Evidence suppressed.
      * Repeat as necessary.

      Basically this is a probe to see how stupid the US government is...

    5. Re:Run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that I like it, but I think the following is more likely:

      * He requires release of some sensitive information as evidence.
      * Request denied.
      * Trial deemed fair by authorities.
      * Sentencing.

  19. no doubt living in Russia sucks by SethJohnson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    but he's living in a kind of prison right now, anyway. his freedom is highly restricted. plus, well, russia is a shit-hole.

    I don't entirely disagree with you here. I do think he has untapped earning potential in Russia, though. If he can get a long-term work visa, there are any number of Russian (Kaspersky as an example) and overseas security consulting firms who would vanity hire him as a security auditor. He was making $200k per year as a contractor for the NSA and I expect he could fetch that or more from a company looking to raise their profile in the security industry. Heck, look at Kevin Mitnick. And that guy was a newb compared to Snowden. I expect $200k per year probably supports a more lavish lifestyle in Russia than it did when Snowden was living in Hawaii.

    Since 2000, Mitnick has been a paid security consultant, public speaker and author. He does security consulting for Fortune 500 companies, performs penetration testing services for the worldâ(TM)s largest companies and teaches Social Engineering classes to dozens of companies and government agencies. He is the author of a dozen books that have been translated into many languages, including The Art of Deception, The Art of Intrusion, and Ghost in the Wires.

    1. Re:no doubt living in Russia sucks by tibit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Russia is quite like the U.S. when it comes to expanse of the land. There's plenty of superbly beautiful and unspoiled areas in Russia, if that's your thing. If remote work was feasible, he could live in the middle of nowhere just as well as in the middle of a big city. I would not generalize Russia to be a shithole. If you're on the wrong footing with the authorities, you'll fare equally poorly in any "civilized" country.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    2. Re:no doubt living in Russia sucks by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      to be fair, the women I've met from russia and ukraine were amazing knock-out beauties!

      for some reason, I get a lot of 'you might know this person' on linked-in and they often are women from ukraine (more so than russia, for some reason). 95 times out of a 100, they are model-quality in their looks.

      so, being in that region of the world could have its good points... ;)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:no doubt living in Russia sucks by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I would not generalize Russia to be a shithole.

      You might have a different perspective if you're homosexual. Or Muslim. Or generally anything but Slavic Orthodox.

      Here's an interesting statistic that speaks volumes about corruption in Russia: The annual global wealth study published by the financial services group Credit Suisse says a mere 110 Russian citizens now control 35 percent of the total household wealth across the vast country.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:no doubt living in Russia sucks by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

      Seems like Snowden could have a good chance of negotiating while in Russia. Negotiate for what is the issue.

      Snowden might as well play hardball and negotiate for employment back at the NSA. He obviously knew a lot more than his bosses.

      ___________________
      Hang up now; it's over.

    5. Re:no doubt living in Russia sucks by aliquis · · Score: 1

      You might have a different perspective if you're homosexual. Or Muslim. Or generally anything but Slavic Orthodox.

      I could make it easy for me and go the nationalistic route of any country/culture and say how maybe they just don't want to turn it into a shit-hole which would be anything else than what it is because anything else than what you have is considered a shit-hole.

      Anyway, to be fair:
      Wikipedia: "According to a poll by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center, 6% of respondents considered themselves Muslims.[2] According to Reuters, Muslim minorities make up a seventh (14%) of Russia's population.[3] Muslims constitute the nationalities in the North Caucasus residing between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea: Circassians, Balkars, Chechens, Ingush, Kabardin, Karachay, and numerous Dagestani peoples."

      My impression from what I've seen lately is that there's quite a bit of Muslims in Russia and if you check RT they write all the time about racism and anti-Muslim movements and such in Europe so I get the impression that they are against that / pro tolerance (because really my impression of RT is that they want to point out how everyone else is bad and Russia is good ..)

      On the other hand Russia doesn't buy into the globalism and idea of a country/people not owning their natural resources or not having the right to decide how they want their society to work.

      So yeah. Maybe in Russia a Muslim is supposed to accept Russian society and obey to the same laws and maybe if nothing else they want to set their own laws on homosexuals (I live in Sweden and while Sweden is much further on there the fact is that Sweden have just like the very last year or so gone into feminism extreme and last couple of years been extremely pro-immigrants / deny any flaws in such a policy and maybe just for what? two? Decades been more ok with gays and the church less so. The idea of religious freedom is just little over 60 years old. I assume Bible studies was part of the school at least little over 100 years ago, I don't really know. .. so yeah. Russia may be behind there if you think all of that is a good thing but we don't really deserve to be super proud of it and view it as it's something which has always been there because it haven't.
      And to be fair didn't USA more or less invented freedom? ;D (No? Someone feel free to write down some points, I'm interested and don't really mean and say that USA was first but I respect it being a thing from the very beginning over there and taken seriously.)
      Religious free in writing since 1789(?)
      I used to be proud of the freedom of my country but I've lost that belief. And I'm sad for that and don't really know what to do against it (because it's true one have to fight for it but fighting for it put yourself at risk and I don't really feel I deserve or should have to take a risk for the right of being free. I want to take it for granted. It's fucked up.))

    6. Re:no doubt living in Russia sucks by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      And to be fair didn't USA more or less invented freedom? ;D (No? Someone feel free to write down some points, I'm interested and don't really mean and say that USA was first but I respect it being a thing from the very beginning over there and taken seriously.)

      The Western concept of freedom probably started with the Greeks. Of course, they weren't perfect, they owned slaves (as did the young American Republic) but Western civilization has never been and never will be perfect. The Romans added a great deal to the mix, as did the British, and the United States is really just built on all that came before it.

      Incidentally, I've never been to Sweden, but I've spent some time in Finland. I'm actually headed back there for a month this summer and have a trip to Stockholm on the agenda. If you've got any suggestions for things to do.... :)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:no doubt living in Russia sucks by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Well, since you bring up the Muslims, maybe you might understand how we have been cultivating their 'radicalism' to play against the Communists, since, oh, I don't know, the middle 70s? Sometimes the magic works. And besides, do people still think the Russians are ever going to cross the Urals and live to tell about it? Can we stop with this silliness please?

      Depending what he brings back, old boy might get himself a Medal of Honor if the truth can be revealed.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    8. Re:no doubt living in Russia sucks by aliquis · · Score: 1

      have a trip to Stockholm on the agenda. If you've got any suggestions for things to do

      I've checked what people think about the various capitals (more Oslo, Stockholm, Copenhagen rather than Helsinki) and where one should go (I was more curious about living than visiting but whatever.)

      For Stockholm I think what is mentioned is Skansen, Gamla stan and the Gustav Vasa museum.
      http://www.vasamuseet.se/en/
      http://www.old-town-stockholm....
      http://www.skansen.se/en/kateg...

      Whatever it would be my picks I don't know.

      I haven't been to many museums. I've been at both Skansen and Vasa but I don't remember much from it and I don't really see what's so interesting with an old wooden ship =P.

      Sometimes museums has had free entry here in Sweden depending on who's in charge of the government so if that's the case I guess that's a nice opportunity to go visit some :)

      I can understand the idea of visiting places for education (maybe more so for kids? If you got any there's places like Tom Tits Experiment which may be worth a visit too, likely more so! ;D http://www.tomtit.se/english/I...) and culture & history too even though here in Sweden for whatever reason the in fashion thing is to deny it / act like it doesn't matter but I assume most of the world don't and think it's interesting.

      I know while I think the middle-east would be the least place on the planet I wanted to live in and possibly visit too .. (maybe along with parts of Africa though stunning scenery may be nice) what would be of some interest there and in Egypt is exactly the things IS want to destroy and remove because they don't like different cultures either / want no traces of them / want no-one to care.

      This is so fucking nasty and obviously ruin things forever:
      https://gatesofnineveh.wordpre...

      The few things worth bothering about ..

      Anyway, not a Museum guy. In Sweden I would rather want to travel some rural road either just with agriculture landscape and vast views or through and wooden avenue or places where animals has grassed on the sides or something such. Or venture out on any lake or in the case of Stockholm the archipelago.
      (Or I guess for some others maybe up in the northern mountain regions, if you where long up north maybe visit Boden and http://www.rodbergsfortet.com/... ?), possibly Gotland and Visby.

      In Norway people would take about the fjords and hiking in the mountains there too, in Denmark you've likely got the same agriculture landscape and Bornholm & Hammershus to visit instead for instance.

      On the lake side we've got lots of lakes and Vänern is the largest lake in EU and our biggest, Mälaren which sit left of Stockholm is our third largest but it's also large ..

      If one wasn't in Stockholm I guess there's lots too see at various places. Anyway, I don't know what's best. And it's likely ok to not visit anything beyond just being in the city considering there's so much water IN the city too =P, so at least there's all that to take in regardless :)

      Enjoy your stay :)

  20. As a fly, never try to negotiate with the spider by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 2

    Snowden is a very intelligent individual.

    There is no way on this EARTH he can possibly put any trust into the US Government to keep their word irregardless of what they may promise. Even if this isn't BS ( which I suspect it is ) you KNOW one of the conditions will be to provide the USG with the full cache of documents and / or the cessation of any further disclosures contained within said cache. The USG does not like to be embarrassed on the world stage. Not one bit.

    Even IF by some magical amazing miracle the USG keeps their word ( Recall these people spy on their friends / allies and torture anyone to get what they want ) he couldn't return to the US because about half the country has consumed the wrong color Kool-Aid and believes he's a traitor that deserves to die. So even if the USG doesn't do it, they wouldn't have to. They'll let the radicals do it for them.

    I can understand he may be homesick, but returning to the US now will certainly not be the same life he left behind. If he's LUCKY, he'll just sit in prison for the rest of his life.

    Unless . . . . .

    Unless he has something yet unrevealed on the NSA so incredibly damning, that the USG would do anything to prevent its disclosure. That scenario is the only possibility I can think of where these negotiations could potentially prevent any of the usual behavior we've come to expect of the USG as of late.

  21. Obligatory Exploration? by Geste · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On some level, I feel like Snowden has to explore the option to return, if only to make clear his long-stated desire to do so, look for avenues to negotiate, and keep his supporters engaged.

    I am very doubtful, however, that he will be treated fairly given that he committed the unpardonable crime of embarrassing the U.S. government. Obama is clearly petty and pig-headed enough to resist any cries for justice. His mind is made up about a lot of things, this just being one.

    If I were him, though, I'd have to be very nervous anxious about being the guest of such a calculating thug during a time of such geopolitical aggression and uncertainty. I mean Vlad could just order him killed by unknown assailants and then blame the U.S. for the purposes of some minor PR points. He's that kind of guy.

    Dear Edward Snowden. There has been one person telling the truth and that has been you. You have lost pretty much everything and gained nothing. I hope the day comes when you can walk the streets of our misguided country as a free man. Thank you.

    1. Re:Obligatory Exploration? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget to mention one key aspect.

      Even IF the US gave him a get out of jail free card (haha, yea right), there are people in the US, everyday citizens, who probably want him dead. And are probably just crazy enough to take that to task.

    2. Re:Obligatory Exploration? by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      I mean Vlad could just order him killed by unknown assailants and then blame the U.S. for the purposes of some minor PR points. He's that kind of guy.

      I have yet to see bitching about Putin that wasn't either a case of projection, or 'beams and 'motes. He's an authoritarian doosh, but he's not keeping people in gulag's that have been cleared for release for a decade, nor is he busy murdering people on the other side of the planet with robot planes for their political speech. Nor has he supported a coup in Mexico and then all but invited his newly created puppet government into the Warsaw Pact.

      Putin, at his worst day, is a a molehill next to the mountain of American Exceptionalism on it's best day.

    3. Re:Obligatory Exploration? by Geste · · Score: 1

      I mean Vlad could just order him killed by unknown assailants and then blame the U.S. for the purposes of some minor PR points. He's that kind of guy.

      I have yet to see bitching about Putin that wasn't either a case of projection, or 'beams and 'motes. He's an authoritarian doosh, but he's not keeping people in gulag's that have been cleared for release for a decade, nor is he busy murdering people on the other side of the planet with robot planes for their political speech. Nor has he supported a coup in Mexico and then all but invited his newly created puppet government into the Warsaw Pact.

      Putin, at his worst day, is a a molehill next to the mountain of American Exceptionalism on it's best day.

      You make some good points, but Snowden is stuck in Russia, and I intentionally did not want to get in to "Who is Worse?".

      I don't think that "authoritarian doosh" is sufficent. Murders of Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, and now Nemtsov are just the tip of the iceberg.

      If you are referring to Mohamedou Ould Slahi, his Habeas Corpus petition was only granted (then countermanded) in 2013. Not that it matters much.

      I think Slahi's diary and Scahill's Dirty Wars speak to the exceptional view you point out and should both be required reading for all high school juniors.

    4. Re:Obligatory Exploration? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Why do you think he wouldn't receive a fair trial? The result of a fair trial according to untarnished US jurisprudence would almost certainly be a long prison sentence. Why do you think the US would object to that?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    5. Re:Obligatory Exploration? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      You make some good points, but Snowden is stuck in Russia, and I intentionally did not want to get in to "Who is Worse?".

      But it's unavoidable. It's like trying to watch with a straight face as Chris Brown gets a lecture on how to treat women....by O.J. Simpson.

      Murders of Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, and now Nemtsov are just the tip of the iceberg.

      Pennies on the hundred dollar bill - and that's assuming Putin ordered or condoned their killings. Obama has killed thousands of innocent people with his drones, including barely 16 year old boys for political speech their fathers made.

      If you are referring to Mohamedou Ould Slahi

      I'm referring to the more than 50 people who are still being held in Gitmo, some of which have been cleared for release from when Obama was still a Senator. The cop-out that 'their home countries wouldn't take them back' never held any water, since the U.S. spent years ignoring Urugay's offer to take some in, before finally freeing six men late last year.

    6. Re:Obligatory Exploration? by Geste · · Score: 1

      Quoting parent got messed up so just responding as-is.

      Your Brown/Simpson allusion is apt. Yes, this has become a country where war criminals freely walk the streets, get paid for speaking engagements, are feted for their oil paintings and occupy our highest office while launching Hellfire missles on a whim. Innocent teenagers? Why not? The MGR (mere gook rule) has become the MAR (mere arab rule) or MMR (mere muslim rule?) In this thread, though, I was stuck on a young hero of mine who is stuck in Russia.

      I feel pretty comfortable with the assumption that Putin ordered a lot of the killings you find listed on spots like https://larussophobe.wordpress... I think I would have to be a real optimist otherwise. But I'll admit. He doesn't hold a candle to Stalin :)

      No argument to your correction of 50+ cleared for release. I was thinking that they did not have a commitment (that was broken) but that doesn't mean much.

  22. Very Brave by rgbe · · Score: 1

    If he did voluntarily return to the US this would be yet again a very brave move from him. The first very brave move was to leave the US and release the information he had.

  23. ... Not really though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's not coming back here. He's not even considering it. This is a PR move and nothing more.

    Unfortunately there are those in the US that see him as a traitor and an enemy. That's going to taint his message, which is important. By saying that he's willing to come back if he gets a fair trial he's putting the impetus on the US Government to offer the parameters of a "fair trial." Of course, none of those parameters will be adequate because they can't be. There is no fair trial for Snowden in the US. There never will be. But by doing this the dialog can advance. His supporters can say, "Look, he's willing to come back but the terms really aren't fair yet..."

    Nothing to see here... move along.

  24. All that he needs is an agreement on the charges by CraigCruden · · Score: 2

    If he were returning home (seriously) and not just messing around, all he has to do is come to some agreement on the charges and venue of the trial before arriving back in the US. That is all that is available to him, and the only guarantees that he get. There are plenty of high-power lawyers from prestigious law firms that would handle his case pro-bono because of the exposure, the courts are the courts and they are not going to make changes to them just for him..... the only issue is what the charges would be.... which would be very serious no matter what.

  25. Russia by Dan+East · · Score: 1

    Wow, I never realized Russia was that bad of a place to live. This speaks volumes.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Russia by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Wow, I never realized Russia was that bad of a place to live. This speaks volumes.

      A friend (Russian born, Aussie citizen) of mine when back to Russia and he said on return "its older and crappier than I remember". The fact Russia is a terrible place to be isn't news.

      Something tells me Snowden isn't there for the great beaches and excellent food.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:Russia by ruir · · Score: 1

      Or is it plain PR and misinformation?

  26. What's he coming back for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's he coming back for, the hangin'?

  27. Reality check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps Russia is not a worker's paradise after all. Furthermore, it is quite traditional for the Russian government to conduct periodic purges, perhaps Snowdon heard rumors.

  28. No good options by Headw1nd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's still a goddamn shame that none of the allegedly "neutral" countries had the balls to take him in, but what can you do? The US is scary.

    I don't think the time is yet right for him to come home, the government isn't any friendlier now than when he left and the people are only slightly less apathetic. Without some powerful public figures to support him, he doesn't stand a chance. However with the situation deteriorating in Russia I imagine it would only be a time before he was assassinated or traded back to the US, so he can't well stay there. At least this will shut up the "Why did he run if he really believes in his cause?" crowd - just kidding they'll change the script and keep on going. Always better to make it a referendum on Snowden's character than to actually talk about the real issues.

    1. Re:No good options by ilparatzo · · Score: 1

      "I don't think the time is yet right for him to come home, the government isn't any friendlier now than when he left and the people are only slightly less apathetic."

      Although consider this: the longer that he is away from the United States, the more that the overall population forgets about him, forgets about the concerns he brought up and more likely that they are willing to listen to the government's narrative if/when he does come back. As the furor dies down more and more, people aren't going to support him more, but rather less. If he needs to come back 10 years from now, I would imagine that the likelihood of him getting a "fair" trial is much lower than if he returned today.

      If he is going to come back at all, it needs to be before he's been largely forgotten. And the longer he stays, the more he risks being traded back to the United States by Russia. Or Russia simply decides he's no longer worth the trouble and doesn't provide him residency anymore. Then he gets no deal.

    2. Re:No good options by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Balls? The U.S. has shown it has no qualms about having a diplomatic plane - even one carrying a head of state - forced down by puppet governments because Snowden might be on board. The same U.S. that is busy leveling sanctions against the governments of Russia and Venezuela for American-made problems - the successful coup in Ukraine, the so far unsuccessful coup attempts in Venezuela. The U.S. that has asserted the right to murder anyone on the planet at any time, even barely 16 year old boys for the political speech of their fathers.

      It's not just taking in a political refugee. It's taking on Western Imperialism, and you have to have Snowden-sized balls to do that.

  29. Leverage by duckintheface · · Score: 2

    Snowden may be using what leverage he has left. He has not yet disclosed all the information he obtained so the US government might cut a deal to avoid further disclosures.

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
    1. Re:Leverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Snowden may be using what leverage he has left. He has not yet disclosed all the information he obtained so the US government might cut a deal to avoid further disclosures.

      If you believe what Snowden has previously said then no. He has already given everything he had to foreign third parties, and he no longer controls the information. Snowden could plead with them not to reveal anything more, but it is out of his hands. That is if you believe him.

    2. Re:Leverage by swillden · · Score: 1

      Snowden may be using what leverage he has left. He has not yet disclosed all the information he obtained so the US government might cut a deal to avoid further disclosures.

      I see no evidence that Snowden didn't hand everything over to the Guardian et al, all at once, as he said he did. On what do you base your claim that he's still got something left?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Leverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "I, Edward Snowden, do solemnly affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

      So far, it appears he's kept his oath. He's walking on a razor edge of being a traitor, which is always the case when you steal evidence to accuse government agencies of being "domestic enemies of the Constitution".

      However, using what material he still has as leverage in his trial? Hell no! If he has more evidence of the government violating the Constitution, it's *not* okay to bury that just to get a sweeter deal. He has to hold himself to the utmost standard of integrity and duty, because that's all he has left.

    4. Re:Leverage by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Past reputation for the US. They only keep deals if it advantages them to do so, once the advantage ceases so does the deal, just ask Native Americans and all the treaties they signed with the Yankees. I can not see how Edward Snowden can possibly expect to return to the US, ever. The nature of the country and it's government makes that impossible. Why the negotiations, likely an immigration step, simple proof of the impossibility of returning and the legal justification for the certainties of Russian citizen status. Russian moves with RT http://rt.com/ would be an indication that is reaching out to the rest of the world. They are now more likely to create say a multi-national technological development enclave within Russia to attract people from all over the globe to develop Russian commercial technology. That kind of cerebral melting pot is far more effective that a monocultural one and it helps to create an economic climate for other commercial developments in that enclave, tourism, content development etc..

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re:Leverage by byuu · · Score: 1

      Do you really think it would be an intelligent choice to try and blackmail the US government with classified secrets in exchange for your freedom and safety?

    6. Re:Leverage by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

      Snowden may be using what leverage he has left. He has not yet disclosed all the information he obtained so the US government might cut a deal to avoid further disclosures.

      What's the point of Snowden taking all that info if he isn't going to disclose it all?

    7. Re:Leverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no reason not to believe him. He knows as well as any that if the USIC wants to prevent disclosure they'll use a bullet.

      He is alive because he is more valuable as a fugitive than a martyr.

    8. Re:Leverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blackmail is not a good defense strategy. The threat to continue revelations is probably a crime in itself.

  30. It takes time to adjust to a new society...be free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You won Snowden, live with it!

    Prison sucks and military prison sucks worst.

    They will do you like they did Manning, keep you in a dark hole so your skin turns pale white and you get severely depressed from the lack of sunlight.

    Your "daily exercise" will consist of military assholes giving you marching orders outside while naked, running into walls and doing endless pushups.

    They will keep you isolated and malnourished, you'll be faking medical conditions so you can talk to the doctor or nurse. The chaplain will be your only friend and that would be terrible conversation limited to only what the good book says.

    Fair trial or not, the US Government has got you dead to rights committing a crime and that's all the jury is going to be hand selected and instructed to observe, if the law was broken or not. Not why you did it or that it was in the interest of the American public to know. Many people get fooled into that scam and find out there are no exceptions, if they got the evidence and the law was broken your punished plain and simple. The government has to make a example out of you.

    This is no OJ trial, you would be taking on the best prosecutors in the country and they already can prove beyond a reasonable doubt a crime was committed. Why bother risk losing, you have already won. Move to southern Russia and try to get some sunlight, it will make you happier.

    There are many in the US that consider your revelations a crime (especially those with military training) and it's all too easy for the government to rig the game. Even five years in prison is going to make you insane, not to mention being in close proximity to people that will kill you just for the fame inside or on the outside. Don't think the guards or cops won't set that up? Think again.

    Stay in Russia and over time your former homeland mentality will diminish and disappear, live your life as free as possible. Enjoy the sunlight and not having to look over your shoulder.

    There is no way in hell your going to have your peachy USA life back, even if you managed to get out of prison, the jack booted government thugs will be trying to set you up left and right.

    Hawaii was great, so was your bartender girl friend and the money. But it's gone now. It's a memory to be cherished as what you did to alert the world of the growing threat of government surveillance.

    We thank you, now live long and prosper.

  31. Require cameras by hawguy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As part of his re-patriation agreement, he should require cameras to be rolling throughout the entire trial with a live uncensored feed available to any organization that wants it (News organizations, EFF, ACLU, etc). If the government shuts down the cameras for any reason, then the agreement is null and void and the USA guarantees his return to Russia.

    Then the american people can decide if the trial is "fair" -- if the government tries to redact all of the evidence due to national security reasons, then it's hard to see how the trial can be called "fair".

    I realize that the USA will likely ignore the agreement once he's on american soil, but at least it demonstrates that the USA government can't be trusted to abide by its own agreements and it validates Snowden's reason for fleeing to Russia.

    1. Re:Require cameras by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      As part of his re-patriation agreement, he should require cameras to be rolling throughout the entire trial with a live uncensored feed available to any organization that wants it (News organizations, EFF, ACLU, etc). If the government shuts down the cameras for any reason, then the agreement is null and void and the USA guarantees his return to Russia.

      I wonder if the cameras could detect Snowden being whispered to that unless he plead guilty, his parents would have an unfortunate traffic accident in 6 months.

    2. Re:Require cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >then the agreement is null and void and the USA guarantees his return to Russia
      >then the agreement is null and void and the USA guarantees his return to *Guantanamo Bay

    3. Re:Require cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he "requires" that and consents, the trial will be held behind closed doors without the promised cameras.

      If he can safely stay in Russia, he'd be well-advised to do so. If not, it would still be better to try to disappear to some other place. Going to the US, no matter the promises, is suicidal.

    4. Re:Require cameras by hawguy · · Score: 1

      If he "requires" that and consents, the trial will be held behind closed doors without the promised cameras

      Then he's just proven to the world that the USA is not to be trusted.

      If he can safely stay in Russia, he'd be well-advised to do so. If not, it would still be better to try to disappear to some other place. Going to the US, no matter the promises, is suicidal.

      If it were me, that's what I'd do, but I'd lay low and stay out of the news.

    5. Re:Require cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only the US had a law, above all others, that was absolute and guaranteed individuals things like fair trials.

  32. Same deal as Petraeus? by duckintheface · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It was annouced today that former General David Patraeus (former head of the CIA, former commander of US forces in Afghanistan) has been allowed to plead guilty to one misdemeanor count of disclosing classified information after providing large amount of secret info to his mistress and biographer. Should Petraeus, who was motivated by vanity and sex, get a better deal than Snowden who was motivated by love of country and his own idealistic morality? I think not.

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
    1. Re:Same deal as Petraeus? by MobSwatter · · Score: 3, Funny

      ES: Hey, I'll let ya get ur hooks in me if you'll be fair.

      US: Sure, we "Promise", you can bet the constitution on it...

    2. Re:Same deal as Petraeus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      General Betray-Us should spend the rest of his life making little rocks out of big rocks at Ft. Leavenworth.

      Ed should be given a ticker tape parade, one hundred billion dollars, and a lifetime exemption for the next ten generations of descendants of all taxation.

    3. Re: Same deal as Petraeus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which won't happen. They'll make an example out of Snowden. He'll die screaming.

    4. Re:Same deal as Petraeus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are delusional

      Petraus is guilty of vanity in pursuing his legacy through a book

      Snowden is guilty of turning over a detailed review of our internal security apparatus to our national enemies

      they are many orders of magnitude more horrible on Snowden's behalf

    5. Re:Same deal as Petraeus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think Snowden wasn't motivated by vanity and sex? Do you really know so little about human nature?

    6. Re:Same deal as Petraeus? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Right, where's the American spirit? The General Asshole did it for vanity, fame and money, in short, the American dream. And that idiot Snowden for "love of his country" and "moral values". Fuck that, you gotta monetize that shit! Giving away state secrets for free is so Un-American, you commie bastard!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Same deal as Petraeus? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      His first thought sure was to get rich and famous and get a book and movie deal out of it. Because, hey, Hollywood sure is going to be all over someone who hands out national secrets, that's the kind of movie everyone wants to back with money! Not to mention all the tail he's gonna get, 'cause, you see, a fugitive on the run who has a good chance that some special op team bursts in at any time, preferably if he's busy shagging you, who'd be a very unwanted witness so you'd ratehr be something we love to call collateral damage today, hell, if that doesn't get you to cream your panties, what is?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Same deal as Petraeus? by russotto · · Score: 2

      Snowden is guilty of turning over a detailed review of our internal security apparatus to our national enemies

      I'm not a great fan of the Guardian either, but "national enemies" is going too far.

    9. Re:Same deal as Petraeus? by penguinoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Snowden is guilty of turning over a detailed review of our internal security apparatus to our national enemies

      I know it doesn't look that way, but technically the American public is not an enemy of the USA.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    10. Re:Same deal as Petraeus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jayne: What you think should happen and what actually happens ain't exactly similar.

    11. Re:Same deal as Petraeus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How harshly Snowden is punished will be a function of:

      1) Who he pissed off, how powerful they are, and how angry they are.
      2) How much public outrage will be caused if he is punished.

      "Justice" won't actually enter in. And I don't think he is in a very good position....the American public has already shown its apathy. We throw our whistleblowers to the wolves, no matter how much we benefit from them.

    12. Re:Same deal as Petraeus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Should Petraeus, who was motivated by vanity and sex, get a better deal

      Beltway business as usual. Petraeus is a well connected Washington insider. Petraeus lied to FBI agents about classified information yet he gets to plead to a misdemeanor. I am sure there are people with long prison sentences who are guilty of less.

    13. Re:Same deal as Petraeus? by dj245 · · Score: 1

      Right, where's the American spirit? The General Asshole did it for vanity, fame and money, in short, the American dream. And that idiot Snowden for "love of his country" and "moral values". Fuck that, you gotta monetize that shit! Giving away state secrets for free is so Un-American, you commie bastard!

      I wish that were an exaggeration. A couple days ago, South Korea legalized adultery. While the rest of the world discussed the history and the merits of the law, the US media asked only if someone had made a buck off it

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    14. Re:Same deal as Petraeus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about Petraeus, and can't judge a man in love.

      About Snowden, I agree with you 100%. It's quite obvious he love his country a lot (I'm not American) and decided to right the "system" even at personal risk. I repeat what I once said: if I were Edward's father, I'd be immensely proud of my son. One day, maybe in 2100, kids will read about his courage in school books and the people who hate him will feel like idiots -- because essentially that's what they are.

      If we had Snowdens in Russia and China, maybe the world could get a better survival chance and peace might prevail.

      That said, I think he should return this early. It's dangerous.

    15. Re: Same deal as Petraeus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think 'legalized adultery' is a little wrong. They decriminalized adultery, big difference.

    16. Re:Same deal as Petraeus? by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      Yes, your national enemies. aka, the American People. Oh, and all the other non-criminal citizens of the world.

    17. Re:Same deal as Petraeus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know it doesn't look that way, but technically the American public is not an enemy of the USA.

      Seems like an illogical position to take. In a democracy, you need to fool >50% of the people most of the time which is quite easily done. You just need to dumb >50% of the people down by controlling more than 50% of the food companies, media companies, etc, etc. Done. The public can be and are weaponised against themselves.

    18. Re:Same deal as Petraeus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You consider the people of the United States and its allies 'our national enemies'?

    19. Re:Same deal as Petraeus? by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Right, where's the American spirit? The General Asshole did it for vanity, fame and money, in short, the American dream. And that idiot Snowden for "love of his country" and "moral values". Fuck that, you gotta monetize that shit! Giving away state secrets for free is so Un-American, you commie bastard!

      Irony aside, what you're saying is the unsaid truth about the situation.

      Patraeus is well connected and will probably come out of this relatively unscathed.

      Snowden pissed off those in power enough that he's almost certainly fucked no matter what.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    20. Re:Same deal as Petraeus? by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      I love how Americans are so proud of having kicked out a King but seem so keen to make new ones at every opportunity.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    21. Re:Same deal as Petraeus? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      No, "national enemies" is accurate, assuming we have any. Snowden released a great deal of information to everybody, so any national enemies we have should have been able to get it, no problem. ]

      Some of the information really needed to be released, like the NSA spying on US citizens. Some of it really should have been kept secret, like the NSA spying on other countries.

      From my point of view, Snowden did some heroic acts and some that were unnecessary, ill-advised, and positively illegal. In our system of jurisprudence, that makes him a criminal if convicted.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    22. Re:Same deal as Petraeus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > That said, I think he should return this early. It's dangerous.

      I a word.

      What I meant was: "I think he should NOT return this early. It's dangerous."

    23. Re:Same deal as Petraeus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree and he betrayed the trust that all IT professionals are given.

  33. Masochistic MoFo by trippin_efnet · · Score: 1

    Wow. Is he a masochist? As others have stated above, for all of our terrible terrible problems, the US is a nice place to live. However, I don't think we've come far enough yet for him to return and receive a fair trial. His personal world here will never be the American Dream again. Too many muggles here are still drinking the 'Snowden is a Traitor' kool-aid.

    His life in partial hiding is going to be better than the life in prison that our 'justice' system is sure to give him. In fact, I think he can make more of a difference as a figure head, speaking about the justice and liberties the US used to be known for. Show how a single individual can help improve upon the fucked up situation we're currently facing in the US.

    I'm grateful for everything he has done, it took a real commitment and belief in justice to sacrifice his life in the US. I just really hope he doesn't end up spending his life in prison. A terrible fate for someone who is willing to give up so much to do what is right.

  34. Perhaps he sees the writing on the wall in Russia. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Russia's not the country of freedom that some think it would be, as freedom is conditional to having a large amount of assets and/or not showing any opposition whatsoever to the current leader. In the US, the thresholds for such activity are much higher.

    Of course, a fair and impartial trial will also require him to accept a very high likeliness of losing the case, based on the current evidence against him.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  35. Worse than bad, it's a stupid idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He can build a good life in Russia. I've been there and could live there - it is a fascinating, huge country, rich in culture of all kinds. Moscow and St Petersburg are amazing. I'm sure he could get work with Kaperksy or any number of firms. He can write his memoirs. He can campaign for whatever from the safety of Russia. Young Russian women are better than cute - they're absolutely gorgeous. It's not all snow, Russia gets very hot summers, and there's nude bathing in one section of the Moscow River.

    Sure it's a slight challenge to live in Russia. But if he goes back to the US, the authorities will fuck him as hard as they can, over and over, and he will be lucky to get out of prison in under 30 years, if at all. If Snowden trusts any deal the US pretends to be making with him, then he's mad. They will fuck him and they will enjoy fucking him. It's personal.

  36. Would Never Happen But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The only way I would believe a trial actually occurred is if it was televised to the public.

  37. Not a chance by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1, Insightful

    His best case scenario would be to find himself a nice country(read: not Russia) without an extradition treaty and negotiate his way there.

    Just to get 'Seal Team Sixed'? Pass.

    1. Re:Not a chance by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that Seal Team Six have magical powers that lets them operate inside the heart of Russian territory without the likelihood of being captured?

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    2. Re:Not a chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you suggesting that Seal Team Six have magical powers that lets them operate inside the heart of Russian territory without the likelihood of being captured?

      WTF? You act like you don't even own a Three Operator Moon shirt.

    3. Re:Not a chance by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that Seal Team Six have magical powers that lets them operate inside the heart of Russian territory without the likelihood of being captured?

      The flippers would be a dead give away. That and the balancing a beach ball on their noses trick.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  38. Fishing for a Pardon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is hoping to have charges filed and underway, with him back on home turf. Then when the big O leaves the white house he can pardon him on the way out in exchange for STFU.

  39. All Lies. But there would be quite the trial. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anything they tell him. Anything they guarantee. None of it will be true. Even if they put it in writing, they'll simply ignore it or break the agreements.

    By the time the highly televised trial starts, there will have never been any such agreements, he will have 'came back because of his guilt to finally accept that justice be dealt for his treason', and the offended agencies will finally be able to say "look, we respect people's rights/privacy/life/sentience, it was only THIS HORRIFIC MONSTER that did all of the bad things he claimed we did but now its okay you'll be safe from his terrorism".

    Then again, I wonder why he'd even be in such talks (if he is). Were his parents and/or family still alive and in the US by any chance?

  40. In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You imprison the government

  41. Don't let get on that jury by CuredPorkBelly · · Score: 1

    Because he's a free man walking no matter what "evidence" the prosecutors bring to court.

  42. of all the ideas, this is the worst. by nimbius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Based on historic evidence, the US has absolutely zero intention of honouring a 'fair' and 'impartial' trial. Chelsea manning leaked a video of US soldiers murdering an ambulance of civillians and was gifted 35 years in prison for a largely victimless crime. KSM and about 100 other 'detainees' at guantanamo, although routinely and repeatedly insisted that they face American justice are in fact completely in limbo. the FBI has been caught spying on defense council and fabricating evidence and the US Congress, once they realized a program of torture and forced rendition would open these individuals to american courts and the possibility of acquittal immediately moved to isolate, restrict, and outlaw transport or trial of any detainee in an american court.

    Civil forfeiture entirely usurps legal process in favour of a carte blanche land and property grab in the pursuit of the "war on drugs." Police are routinely found murdering people in suspicious or controversial situations only to never face trial. the financial collapse of 2008 involved some of the largest banks and securities companies committing fraud on a massive scale, and not a single arrest or trial has taken place. So please, Edward, I understand youre homesick for the first few years in a new place but you need to consider the very legitimate possibility that "american justice" is completely and utterly arbitrary and held to no reasonable, impartial international standard. it exists and functions by virtue of its own existence. Martyring yourself wont change anything, wont alter systems like foreign policy or defense at all. You wont face reason. You will be hanged, and then there will be cake and spin to continue insisting the system of american exceptionalism works.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:of all the ideas, this is the worst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Based on historic evidence, the US has absolutely zero intention of honouring a 'fair' and 'impartial' trial.

      Any person of color will absolutely concur.

    2. Re:of all the ideas, this is the worst. by Anonanonaon · · Score: 1

      Martyring himself could have a significant effect on the world level of "mad as hell and not going to take it".

      If the right level of media attention is given to this negotiation, it could become a flashpoint, and play in Russia's favor while critical geo-political wrangling is currently being decided. BRICS or Petro Dollar? Russia could use a win in the crazy propaganda battle being waged against it.

      Discussions could reveal pandemic corruption problems, and right now, I can't think of any high-profile, world-respected U.S. citizen martyrs America has to worry about galvanizing world opinion against it.

      But I'd just as soon not see Ed take that bullet. His suffering would be immense.

  43. thats crazy talk by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    Snowden should sneak out of Russia, find his way across the Ural mountains, in to Mongolia and head south in to southeast asia like Thailand or Vietnam, find some sleepy village where nobody cares about world politics and settle down in a little house in the hills, it would be suicide or at least a long prison term in Leavenworth by coming back to the USA

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:thats crazy talk by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Because a pale white guy can blend in well in SE Asia...

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    2. Re:thats crazy talk by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Because a pale white guy can blend in well in SE Asia...

      A pale white guy wont be able to work or own land in SE Asia.

      If Snowden had the cash, there's plenty of places with nice beaches, attractive women and no extradition treaties with the US. The problem is, you need to have money that the US has no access to.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  44. He must be nuts. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    Snowden must be mad wanting to return to the US.

    There is no way in hell he will get a fair trial since the US Gov are just dying to make an example of him.

    Any judge that Snowden gets will already know to play ball with the US Gov so will automatically give Snowden the worst possible sentence.

  45. Change of venue by JeffOwl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hold the trial in a neutral location outside the US like Switzerland. It can be based on US law, but under the control of an independent third party. Get agreement that any prison time is spent somewhere with a humane prison system, like Norway.

    1. Re:Change of venue by z0idberg · · Score: 1

      Not a terrible idea from Snowdens point of view.

      But why would the US even consider agreeing to this?

      Snowden wants to come home, so him having to live in exile is a punishment itself for the time being, so why wouldn't the US just wait him out until they can get their grubby hands on him.

  46. and who can live on jury pay for a long trail like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and who can live on jury pay for a long trail like this?

    Will maybe having the up side of free room, free food, free swimming pool, free HBO. Ooh. Free Willy.

  47. Fair/Impartial Deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not possible. There are too many details and too much subjective interpretation involved. This is totally at his peril. I would expect the government to use its unlimited resources to completely eviscerate the spirit of any deal by manipulating the minutia.

  48. Pardoned in 2017? by AdamStarks · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The only way home I can think of for Snowden is if someone like Rand Paul ends up as President (not ideal, but there are worse choices):
    1) He seems to genuinely care about civil rights (is against the Patriot Act, use of drones, government surveillance etc), and this would be an opportunity to put his money where his mouth is
    2) Only a Republican would snub President Obama in such a way

    Fat chance of that happening, though.

    1. Re:Pardoned in 2017? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      It's a nice thought, but I've been fooled before about Presidential candidates. Pretty much every time.

    2. Re:Pardoned in 2017? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rand Paul would see him executed. You aren't voting for a man, you're voting for a party. McCain did an about face on certain issues (campaign finance reform) when he won the nomination in '08. Obama did the same on Guantanamo and Iraq. The only way voting will save him is if you voted for a third party (or Ron Paul).

  49. Re:Perhaps he sees the writing on the wall in Russ by Rich0 · · Score: 2

    Of course, a fair and impartial trial will also require him to accept a very high likeliness of losing the case, based on the current evidence against him.

    Yup. When the law is immoral, only the immoral are innocent of breaking the law.

  50. he needs a good hobby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure if he could even get 1/3 of his former salary he could live pretty big in russia, pushing spam or w/e

    i would sooooooooooo not go back to some area where extremely pissed off authorities had jurisdiction.

  51. Political by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

    Snowden's case is far too political, the justice system will stick him in prison for the rest of his life. Jjudges have a large tendency to do what the establishment expect them to do, that's what they're paid for.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  52. "Death Penalty" by Dracos · · Score: 2

    Can we infer from this that the Federal government doesn't consider "suicide by two bullets to the back of the head" capital punishment?

    Because we all know that (or something similarly underhanded) is going to happen.

    Don't do it, Ed.

  53. Re:As a fly, never try to negotiate with the spide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if this isn't BS ( which I suspect it is ) you KNOW one of the conditions will be to provide the USG with the full cache of documents and / or the cessation of any further disclosures contained within said cache.

    Except that he doesn't have the documents. He is powerless to prevent the continued release of the documents that are now in the posession of the journalists. He may not even know everything that was on the drive when he handed it over to the journalists in Hong Kong.

    There is nothing the USG can do to him - not torture, not a fair trial followed by imprisonment in a minimum-security prison, not even a complete exoneration during trial or Presidential pardon following trial - that will change what does/doesn't get leaked in the future, because he doesn't have the documents.

  54. He must be ruled a felon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he comes back, he must be ruled a felon. If he isn't, he'll be eligible for president in a few years to come and there is serious danger that he'd get elected as an independent candidate.

    Eisenhower is dead. And the big parties will not let anyone rise to the top who cares about America more than his cronies. Not any more.

    So they can't afford to nail him down sufficiently to keep him from ever running for president. Preferably kill him. But that could annoy people.

  55. Re:As a fly, never try to negotiate with the spide by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

    From past experience, we can be pretty sure that nothing could be so damning as to make the American people stand up and genuinely hold the criminals accountable. So seriously, what do they care?

  56. You won't get fair trial by Nyder · · Score: 2

    Do not come back until we have a complete change of government here in the USA. You will not get a fair trial.

    Our current government is broken, corrupt & vindictive. You hurt them, they want your blood.

    Nothing has changed since you leaked those documents.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  57. boing-boing-boing. kangaroo court. by swschrad · · Score: 1

    reason being, what evidence have they got that they want out in the public domain, feeding the 24x7xscrew-it, we-never-blink news cycle?

    "May it please the court, I have ten million intercepts the defendent had access to. But you can't look. Oh, no, secret secret, we already shot the custodian of the documents."

    "Counselor, that's all you ever say."

    "Judge, I got a rifle on you, too."

    nah, this can't be a fair trial. stay safe. stay gone.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  58. Give him a nobel peace prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama could never allow the headline "Nobel Peace Winner imprisons other Nobel Peace Winner".

  59. Fair Trial? by chriscappuccio · · Score: 1

    Hah! Getting a "fair" criminal trial can be a very expensive proposition in the US. That's for a normal person. For Snowden, in the current political climate, seriously????? He's fucked. No amount of guarantees will un-fuck him.

  60. Whistle blower status? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure after going to Russia he will get just a Whistle blower status. Yes, for me I am glad he brought to the attention of all American's what our own government is doing to spy on its own people. Makes me compare it to what a country like Russia would be doing. Its the steps he took after releasing all this information that gives me conflicts on how he should be treated.

  61. Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, he is guranteed all that anyway by law.

    Second, Snowden is an active spy for the NSA / CIA. His mission was to make the world believe the NSA had more capabilities than they really have. To get everybody so scarred to do anything in secret.

    Even if he had a trial, he would either be found innocent, or he would be found guilty and given a new identity.

  62. You know what would be cute? by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

    If the judge and the bailiffs were actually kangaroos! That would be adorable!

  63. Re:Systemd, for or against? by rHBa · · Score: 1

    You're way off topic there. If you'd said "Snowden should insist that SystemD is made optional in all major Linux distos" you'd have made a +1 Insightful troll.

  64. Fair and Balanced Trial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Snowden can get a "Fair and Balanced" trial. He just needs to turn himself over to FOX.

  65. No problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Murder is illegal, whether a jury finds one defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt is a separate question. Similarly, the chances of a jury to nullifying laws against what Snowden did is essentially zero; the laws against unauthorized release of classified information are not in question here.

    Some people might have heard the name, but that doesn't mean he couldn't get a fair trial; the potential jurors will be asked if the publicity will effect their ability to decide the case. I would be surprised if more than a tiny fraction of potential jurors have even heard of him, let alone paid any attention what he did. This isn't about Bruce Jenner getting a sex change you know.

    But I suspect this is just publicity whoring by the people controlling Snowden. His 15 minutes of fame are over, the rest of the world has moved on.

    1. Re:No problems by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Jury nullification is in play. We've had cases where the jurors were questioned by the judge as to why they weren't going to uphold their oath to base their decision solely on the law and the evidence, and basically admitted that while the law was clear, and that it was obvious the defendant committed the acts in question, finding the defendant guilty would, in their collective opinion, be a greater miscarriage of justice than the original offense.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  66. Precedent by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Looking at the cold war defectors, or even domestic whistle blowers in US history there is precedent.

    I think he understands that given time, his actions will be vindicated, not only by the people but by the US government (eventually). However it is too recent and raw to expect anything meaningful to happen anytime soon. The calculation he is doing is if he can swing a deal to stay in minimum security Club Fed for 10-20 years or Russia, after which cooler heads will eventually prevail (not to mention that the advance of technology might hasten it by making what he exposed a moot point), and the US will issue a grand apology, pardon, and call him a hero ( or at at least not vilify him as a traitor anymore), allowing him to live out the rest of his life in relative normalcy using his time to write a book about his experiences, and do a modest book tour and perhaps talk show circuit.

    I think this is one where he has history on his side (future history really), however recognizing that it isn't going to happen over night, and a lot of time will probably need to pass (and certain people retire) before anything positive is likely to happen in his favor.

    I think it is likely to work also. He probably recognizes that he is already in a prison of sorts, with little hope for the immediate future. However he is free enough and Russia wants to snub the US enough, that he is more of a thorn than anything. They would like nothing more to throw him in jail for *something* and forget about him for an extended period of time. He has made a big enough a deal, that disappearing him or convenient accidents really aren't much of an option anymore. The real question will be if the US really wants to open up a full fledged court case over the mess and the possible political fallout that might create depending on the outcome. Having him come home, and a conditional plead to some trivial crime that puts him away for the time being is probably his best bet, and is probably what he is negotiating for.

    1. Re:Precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if they had guys with machetes approach him in moscow and chop off his limbs and then burn the severed limbs so they could not be re-attached.

      That would be a lesson to all american men, just like waco (with the burning alive death) was: you obey us.

      You don't try to live the way you want (as a man, screwing young women or maybe even girls in the case of waco guy).

  67. Motivations aren't the only factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's quite a difference in the sensitivity, quantity, and scale of disclosure between the two cases. Prosecutors are more likely to go by impact of the leak rather than motivation of the leaker.

    1. Re:Motivations aren't the only factor by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Odd. When I gun someone down, it sure as hell matters why I did it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Motivations aren't the only factor by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Odd. When I gun someone down, it sure as hell matters why I did it.

      Is your name Joe?

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  68. "require"? pffft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Snowden has no bargaining power. Nobody can trust any agreement he offers to make - the crime he committed was breaching an oath. Plus, he has repeatedly said that he no longer has the information he stole in his possession.

    1. Re:"require"? pffft by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Snowden has no bargaining power. Nobody can trust any agreement he offers to make - the crime he committed was breaching an oath. Plus, he has repeatedly said that he no longer has the information he stole in his possession.

      Once he's in custody, it's physically impossible for him to refuse to accept the results of a "fair trial".

    2. Re:"require"? pffft by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      the crime he committed was keeping an oath

      FTFY. You know the Oath of Office swears you to defend the Constitution, not the bipartisan fascists trampling it, right? Right?

  69. Spin Control by ikhider · · Score: 1

    The US government will spin this as a leak of delicate secret documents. Whereas Snowden made a distinction between actions taken by government agencies that violated US citizens' constitutional rights and other state secrets that may put an agent's life in danger. It is the former that he outed while trying to mitigate the risks of the latter. However, the US government will say that Snowden is not one to distinguish the former from the latter. Moreover, they have no guarantee that more delicate state secrets were not compromised. They just have Snowden's word to go on. As such, the US government will throw the book at him. His position was to follow orders, not question them. Obama pretty much reiterated this. Agreeing or disagreeing with what Snowden did is incidental, the US will still stick to their policies and will mete out punishment accordingly. Also, they will set an example with Snowden as a deterrent to other would be leakers/whistleblowers.

    --
    "SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
  70. Also can be some of one and some of the other by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    He's leaked a lot of things. So even if the jury agreed that some of it was justified, a situation where the public's need to know outweighed his promise to keep it secret, they could rule that on other things that wasn't the case. It isn't the sort of thing that would have to be taken as part and parcel.

    As you said though, even in cases that people feel are justified, he still might be held guilty. The agreement regarding classified information you undertake doesn't have exemptions, it doesn't say "You agree to keep this secret unless you think the public needs to know," it is pretty cut and dried. So even if the jury believes he did the right thing, they very well could find him guilty because he still broke the law.

    1. Re:Also can be some of one and some of the other by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      The example I cited was from military law. Snowdon, being a civilian, will not be held to that standard. And yes, it would have to be taken as a whole, because his defense is that the public's need to know outweighed the promise to keep it secret.

      Prosecutor: "You broke your oath."
      Defense: "Here are all the reasons why someone might be justified to break their oath in such a situation." (pulls out the Snowdon revelations, demands to cross-examine those in the decision-making process).

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:Also can be some of one and some of the other by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Well in the case of civilians, you are in a special situation when you have access to classified data. You agree not to release it on penalty of criminal charges and you do so explicitly to be granted access. If you aren't ok with the restrictions, then you don't agree, and don't get clearance. Normal people like us aren't under any such restrictions, which is why the press doesn't get in trouble publishing it. They never agreed to shit.

      As such it could be a situation where even if they agree it was just, it was still illegal.

    3. Re:Also can be some of one and some of the other by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Even if it was illegal, that doesn't mean that jury nullification can't "fix" that, or that other defenses can't be mounted to justify the action. It's illegal to go through a stop sign, but who's going to convict someone driving through a stop sign to get someone who has stopped breathing to the nearest clinic or hospital?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:Also can be some of one and some of the other by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Just saying that is an issue that would have to be overcome. It is a case where the trial could be fair, and the jury could believe he acted in good faith and the best interests of the public and still find him guilty, and have that upheld. Just further emphasizing how tricky the situation is. It isn't a case of "If they give him a fair trial he'll walk." No, in fact in a fair trial he could be convicted if the jury decided not to nullify.

    5. Re:Also can be some of one and some of the other by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The likelihood is that he will be convicted. Jury nullification, while a possibility, really depends on the jury and what they're allowed to hear.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  71. Re:Perhaps he sees the writing on the wall in Russ by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    One would have to throw out the entire case for him to win. That is not going to happen.

    He will have to accept some US-side loss in the long run; it is better that it is delivered judicially than extrajudicially by the US or Russia.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  72. Whistleblowing seems to be the worst crime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that a US citizen can commit. It is seen as a worse crime than crimes against humanity by the US administration.

    What we have is the power elite doing everything they can to plug the leaky dyke that is information about their political sway and behaviour from becoming public, and that the US government is there to govern US citizens, rather than govern for US citizens.

    All the western countries are under that same control (just check the list of Bilderberg attendees) - and this fight in the US has ramifications to the rest of us 'free' westerners.

  73. legal fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can you imagine what his legal fees are going to be?

    1. Re:legal fees by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Zero.

      I can imagine a battle royal of all the shysters that want to build a reputation defending him. Last lawyer standing gets the client.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  74. Nyet don't even think about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Snowden I love you man but don't even think about it.

    The only thing awaiting you here in the US is spending forever in jail while some other much less deserving dude ends up with your girl who cares enough about you to move to Russia to be with you.

    Russia *is* a bastion of freedom compared to wasting away in a cell in the US.

  75. Am I the only one noticing it? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    What the fuck does Germany have to do with the whole deal?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Am I the only one noticing it? by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      Germany didn't like finding out that the NSA had tapped all of Merkel's communications lines directly. That's what.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    2. Re:Am I the only one noticing it? by kesuki · · Score: 1

      because when she said 'zfs has DEduplication' she though that meant sending the whole ball of wax to be duplicated in DE(germany)

  76. The Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He wants to come to the US to test his theory that the US people will find him not guilty, thus symbolically crashing the party of the entire surveillance state.
    That's a noble reason, but it's going to take more than just one leaker/protestor/activist going up on charges to do that.
    As it is now, the FUD machine is likely to drown out his nobility and he'll be sent to the pen for life.
    If he really thinks he would win... come to the US.
    But don't risk a good life in Russia over it.

  77. This is a joke... right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, okay, very, very, very BAD idea Snowden. If he's lucky, he'll end up in prison for the rest of his life, or if unlucky be assassinated fairly quickly. I live in the US and am trying to get out of this shit hole someday. Why would anyone, especially him, want to come back to this place? Just wow.

  78. Way to be grateful to your host. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Way to be grateful to your host.

    Guess snowden loves feminism so much he needs to come home.
    Russia doesn't have enough of the SJW shit he loves.

    What kind a man shacks up with a stripper whore.

    Men like Hans Reiser kill women who whore out on them (as commanded in the old testament). Men like snowden shack up with them :/

  79. umm, contract law does not trump all by lamer01 · · Score: 1

    So, if you signed a contract to join the military and you're ordered to kill innocent civilians you have to do it because you signed a contract? What baloney!

  80. Obama should Pardon Snowden by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Whether you think Snowden is a hero or a traitor, I'd say the best political move Obama could make would be to pardon Snowden for any crimes he is accused of committing to date.

    It would effectively silence Snowden as he could come home with the pardon in his pocket, assuming he keeps his mouth shut forever after. If Snowden continued leaks, then Snowden would be easy to turn into the bad guy

    It would avoid a public trial (which would be awkward, assuming the government would even grant one).

    It would avoid accusations of injustice (in case the trial was a secret one in Gitmo, or an unfortunate 'accident' occurred on his flight home).

    Obama should do this after the 2016 election before he leaves office, as the hubbub will settle out and be forgotten by the 2018 midterm election. It would not satisfy Snowden's supporters (who think he should get a ticker tape parade) or his detractors (who think he should be imprisoned forever), but it would effectively halt the leaks and put the problem to bed with a minimum of fuss.

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:Obama should Pardon Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is there to pardon? The guy found criminal activity by some people in government. He should be treated as a hero. There's something upside down when banksters can walk when they broke the economy and almost derailed the whole world. Just plain nuts.

    2. Re:Obama should Pardon Snowden by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Whether you think Snowden is a hero or a traitor, I'd say the best political move Obama could make would be to pardon Snowden for any crimes he is accused of committing to date.

      It would effectively silence Snowden as he could come home with the pardon in his pocket, assuming he keeps his mouth shut forever after. If Snowden continued leaks, then Snowden would be easy to turn into the bad guy

      It would avoid a public trial (which would be awkward, assuming the government would even grant one).

      It would avoid accusations of injustice (in case the trial was a secret one in Gitmo, or an unfortunate 'accident' occurred on his flight home).

      Obama should do this after the 2016 election before he leaves office, as the hubbub will settle out and be forgotten by the 2018 midterm election. It would not satisfy Snowden's supporters (who think he should get a ticker tape parade) or his detractors (who think he should be imprisoned forever), but it would effectively halt the leaks and put the problem to bed with a minimum of fuss.

      It would encourage other whistleblowers to come forth - something the government wants just about as much as they want to take power away from themselves.

      So no, a presidential pardon for Snowden will never happen and if he returns he will be crucified.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    3. Re:Obama should Pardon Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether you think Snowden is a hero or a traitor, I'd say the best political move Obama could make would be to pardon Snowden for any crimes he is accused of committing to date.

      It would effectively silence Snowden as he could come home with the pardon in his pocket, assuming he keeps his mouth shut forever after. If Snowden continued leaks, then Snowden would be easy to turn into the bad guy

      It would avoid a public trial (which would be awkward, assuming the government would even grant one).

      It would avoid accusations of injustice (in case the trial was a secret one in Gitmo, or an unfortunate 'accident' occurred on his flight home).

      Obama should do this after the 2016 election before he leaves office, as the hubbub will settle out and be forgotten by the 2018 midterm election. It would not satisfy Snowden's supporters (who think he should get a ticker tape parade) or his detractors (who think he should be imprisoned forever), but it would effectively halt the leaks and put the problem to bed with a minimum of fuss.

      Obama can pardon Snowden all he wants. This still will not guarantee that the press Snowden gave all the intel to won't continue to periodically release new and exciting juicy tidbits of information about the SOP of the intel aparatus of the good ole USA. Unless their offices start mysteriously exploding at 3 am local time.

    4. Re:Obama should Pardon Snowden by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      What would be awkward about a public trial? Snowden violated the law in a big way, and it's very clear that he did it. If Snowden returned and had an absolutely fair trial in the best traditions of US jurisprudence, he'd be in prison for a long, long time. In what way would that be awkward to the government or anybody in it?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    5. Re:Obama should Pardon Snowden by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

      What would be awkward about a public trial?

      The fact that Snowden's disclosures have revealed the NSA basically has burned the Constitution and enjoys a daily constitutional on its ashes?

      But if no one cares about that, by all means, have a trial.

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    6. Re:Obama should Pardon Snowden by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

      It would encourage other whistleblowers to come forth - something the government wants just about as much as they want to take power away from themselves.

      So no, a presidential pardon for Snowden will never happen and if he returns he will be crucified.

      Maybe, if the presidency stays with the Dems in 2016. But if there is a party change in the next election, this would be a great way for Obama to poison the well for the other party. But I think in that case that Obama would be doing it just to stick it to the other party, not out of any high-minded sentiments of liberty and privacy rights. He clearly doesn't care about that.

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    7. Re:Obama should Pardon Snowden by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Snowden would never be allowed to raise the subject of domestic enemies of the constitution. He would also not have a jury trial.

      This whole thing is a publicity stunt, to make it clear to all he would _not_ get a fair trail.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:Obama should Pardon Snowden by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      It would encourage other whistleblowers to come forth - something the government wants just about as much as they want to take power away from themselves.

      So no, a presidential pardon for Snowden will never happen and if he returns he will be crucified.

      Maybe, if the presidency stays with the Dems in 2016. But if there is a party change in the next election, this would be a great way for Obama to poison the well for the other party. But I think in that case that Obama would be doing it just to stick it to the other party, not out of any high-minded sentiments of liberty and privacy rights. He clearly doesn't care about that.

      Not even, as any further whistleblowers that came out would damage the entire establishment not only whoever happens to be in the white house at the moment.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    9. Re:Obama should Pardon Snowden by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Aside from the fact that the NSA has legal opinions that all of its official actions are Constitutional (I don't agree with them, but I can't clearly refute them), what more would a public trial reveal?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    10. Re:Obama should Pardon Snowden by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Snowden's trial would not be a proper place to question NSA activities. If I break into somebody's house and find strong evidence that the homeowner murdered people (like shallow graves in the basement), I'm still guilty of breaking and entering.

      I'm getting a real strong sense that lots of people think a fair trial would be one that acquits Snowden, rather than one according to the best practices of the US court system impartially applied.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    11. Re:Obama should Pardon Snowden by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Certainly the second option, as currently written, is guaranteed to generate a not fair trail.

      Which isn't surprising. Those that have already pissed on the constitution don't hesitate to shit on it too. Their actions _cannot_ be brought into question in open court.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re:Obama should Pardon Snowden by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      So you define a fair trial as one that doesn't convict Snowden? I'm really trying to figure this attitude out. Snowden did a great service to the US people. He also revealed things that should have stayed secret, and violated the law quite seriously.

      I'm not trying to mix up legality and morality here, since they can be quite different things. However, a court of law has to concern itself with legality. I believe that the proper thing to do with Snowden is not to rig a trial so he's acquitted, but to pardon him. Unfortunately, I think this is one of those things that Obama and I disagree on.

      The correct venue to dig into the NSA would be a lawsuit against them (if somebody can come close enough to having standing) or a congressional investigation, neither of which I see happening any time soon. We'll have to go with Snowden's revelations and what other stuff we can figure out.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  81. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  82. Civil Disobedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it would be a real statement as to his integrity if he was willing to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the US Court system in this matter.

  83. Firing Squad - aim for the stomach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear firing squad, please aim for the belly, it will take him longer to die.
    He was a soviet spy - folks - pure and simple.

    1. Re:Firing Squad - aim for the stomach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear firing squad, please aim for the belly, it will take him longer to die.
      He was a soviet spy - folks - pure and simple.

      GFY

  84. Re:As a fly, never try to negotiate with the spide by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    Why is this modded down? It makes fucking sense.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  85. The only way for Snowden to return safely.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .... is to elect Charlie Sheen President! http://draft-sheen-in-2016.org

  86. Ooh by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    Yeah, taken to a US Embassy, hauled off to gitmo for 5 years after which he'll announce that he wants to chop off his dong and be referred to as "Edwina." It's not like we haven't seen that happen before...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  87. They'd never let Snowden out of jail by mbstone · · Score: 1

    They want to post Snowden's photo in the hallways of the Pentagon and CIA, right next to Aldrich Ames and General Petraeus.

  88. PLus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Snowden needs the protection of a first-rate security apparatus against covert kidnappers. Not many countries actually have that.

    So yerah, stay where you are, torture awaits you in America. c.f. Manning.

  89. I remember ... by nut · · Score: 1

    Who else remembers, back in the day, when whistleblowers used to escape from Russia and seek political asylum in the USA?

    I feel old.

    --
    Never trust a man in a blue trench coat, Never drive a car when you're dead
    1. Re:I remember ... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      I was recently watching 'moscow on the hudson' and thinking to myself, wow, we have not exactly switched sides, but we have become much more like the old dreaded russia than we ever thought we'd become.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  90. Bingo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Snowden, read Richard Tomlinson, ex SIS.

    He was locked up with murderers in the filthiest British jail. For writing a book about his work.

    They almost killed him by telling French police he was a "terrorist". Had they actually acted upon this,
    Tomlinson would have woken up with a bullet in the head.

  91. Re:As a fly, never try to negotiate with the spide by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

    Snowden is a very intelligent individual.

    Right so intelligent that he unwittingly played a part in Putin's propaganda TV show.

  92. Yeah, Scare-Cross by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sound like one of these officers who could not drown an Austrian.

    Russia wont damage their reputation as a place of asylm.

  93. BAH !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Land Of The Free Prison(TM)

  94. Snoden v. The United States Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What Snowden wants:

    1. A fair trial
    2. To be covered under the whistleblower act.
    3. The United States of America to change it's policies to respect it's own citizens.

    What the United States Government wants:

    1. Make a bigger example out him than Bradley (Chelsea) Manning.

  95. Hero or Spy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you really trust Snowden? How can just a simple employee steal such important data without triggering an alarm?

    He can portray himself as a hero, but is he truly a hero? How did he stumble onto that data? Was it just there in a map “CLASSIFIED” or did he had to hack his way to get to the data?

    He then went to China and Russia with data he stole from the US government. Those don't seem to be countries that don't have any use for important information about American security.

    Apparently he was not just a simple employee, he was working for counterintelligence himself. He was smart enough to know that a country like the US could spy on everything it wants before he joined the counterintelligence forces.

    And all of the sudden the person responsible for securing computer networks against Chinese and probably Russian hackers, ends up in China and Russia with 'leaked data'. He uses this leaked data to give him an aura of heroism. He opened the eyes of the American people, and the US should be grateful for making the US a better place.

    But yet he is still a network specialist, who had been working on securing NSA's network, who ends up living under the 'protection' of Putin?

    Well, call me naive, or a believer in conspiracy theories, but I don't trust him.

    There are two side of Snowden, the true American hero and someone who has worked for the counterintelligence of the NSA. While he was working for the NSA, he was collecting information that was not for his eyes. You know when you work for the NSA, that the NSA is a spying agency and that one of their purposes is to spy on people. Why do you all of the sudden get angry with them when you discover they are spying? It's not like anyone with his expertise would think the NSA didn't spy on such a large scale, or was he not that smart after all?

    He did not just disclose information, he first evaluated information before releasing it to journalists. But what with the information that would make a big impact? Did he tell Putin that he would not give this information to him, and Putin answered with: “Ow, what a shame, I would have been glad with this information, but it's your call”?

    My naive gut feeling tells me that it didn't go that way.

    Now there are two theories in my mind. The first is that Snowden is just a spy for China and Russia, and selectively releases data to journalists to give him a more hero status.
    The second is that Snowden is just a spy for the US, and 'fled' to China and Russia with 'important' data. Or data that the US wants China and Russia to find, misinformation.
    Of course it is entirely possible that he was just an employee who ended up discovering that the NSA did mass surveillance on the entire population of multiple countries. He did not like it, got angry with the NSA, stole data, waited for Obama to see if things went better. Saw that Obama just continued with the mass surveillance. Got even more angry and fled to China after ensuring he had copied enough data to have valuable enough data to leak to journalists. He ended up in Russia after his home country had forsaken him.

  96. I hear General Burkhalter's voice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You will have a fair trial. After which, you will be shot."

  97. Don't do it Ed!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Nazi's that run America will have your balls on a platter

  98. That depends.... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    As others said, there's not necessarily a guarantee Russia wouldn't decide to use Snowden as a bargaining chip or sorts, turning him over to the U.S. govt. at a very inopportune time for him to get any hope of justice. Surely, that's in the back of his head as at least a lingering possibility?

    Also, he has quite a bit of support in the U.S. from people who think he's a hero, not a criminal. (Not everyone makes the front cover of Wired magazine, covered in a positive way.) Our current folks in political office may not care for him -- but *if* he could negotiate a high profile trial here, at least there would be a LOT of eyeballs watching, concerned that he received a fair outcome.

    I'm positive he'd instantly find work in the private sector too, doing infosec of some sort.

  99. USA Show Trials As Bad As Soviet Show Trials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama's hatrad of Caucasians is Legendary.

    This would be a very very bad timing if Snowden really wants to be placed on trial for treason and high crimes and misdemeanors in the "beloved", sniff sniff, USA.

    Moscow is safe territory.

    Israel will go to WAR against Obama and Kerry, read White House and State Department, when Kerry sign the DEAL.

    Netanyahu's message to the USA Congress was, paraphrase, sign the "DEAL" with Iran and WE will ATTACK.

    Who will Israel Attack?

    The USA Signers of the "DEAL" Barak Hussein Obama and John Kerry; I.E. assignation.

    That is Netanyahu's "Nightmare" !

    And that nightmare will be followed up by a thermo nuclear attach targeting Washington D.C. and Tehran.

    Beautiful.

    The real enemies of the world are targeted for extinction.

    1. Re:USA Show Trials As Bad As Soviet Show Trials by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I don't thing 'assignation' means what you think it does.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  100. Re:All that he needs is an agreement on the charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He could also insist on no bond requirement, no pre-trial incarceration. If he's coming back voluntarily, they're pretty much irrelevant.

  101. no Public Interest exception to Espionage Act by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    That's what's fucked over every whisteblower from Manning to Kiriakou: they aren't allowed to argue in court that their actions were justified.

  102. Stay the *F* out! by WheatGrass · · Score: 1

    We care about you, Ed. Stay where you are. It's OK to be lonely or homesick but you'll get over it.

  103. A Fitting Punishment by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Put Snowden in charge of the NSA for 20 years; I can really think of no better punishment. At this point, GITMO looks like a day spa.

  104. Modded down. Here's why: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He would probably like whistleblower status for everything, ignoring the parts of classified documents he released which were sensitive but not necessary ...

    That, actually, is what the press is for -- why its considered the Fourth Estate -- and why sources like Manning and Snowden seek out journalists who can collaborate on the task of picking out relevant info. No individual is up to the task of assessing on a word-for-word basis the mountains of documents relating to equally mountainous government misdeeds.

    So you are applying a standard to whistleblowers that reflects the US government's bias, and then claiming it was Snowden and not the government that did the damage!

  105. Snowdens last view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Snowden's last view will either be through very old mans eyes past a set of bars, or a young man's eyes as the bullet causes the view to blur and fade. The US might not try to take Snowden out like Putin took out Boris Nemtsov, but they sure don't mind locking those they consider traitors behind bars and essentially welding the lock shut, and bricking the bars in. Considering what the NSA has done to really loyal people like Thomas Drake, Snowden should expect the intelligence community to suggest a "Boris". And given the group's recent history, more than just a few willing to go 'out of band' and take a shot at it (literally) themselves.

  106. Help fix these problems: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Considering how frequently, blatantly, and deliberately the US government has lied..."

    The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt in many areas, not just in this situation. A few areas of corruption:

    Finance: in 2008, banks were allowed to steal from taxpayers. Bank managers were rewarded with extremely high pay: The Divide. "New York Times bestseller -- Named one of the best books of the year by the Washington Post, NPR, and Kirkus Reviews".

    Health care: The new health care system will further bankrupt the country. The ACA, Affordable Care Act, is NOT affordable. The ACA benefits everyone but the citizens. #1 Best Seller: America's Bitter Pill: Money, Politics, Back-Room Deals, and the Fight to Fix Our Broken Healthcare System.

    Prison system: The U.S. has the largest percentage of its citizens in prison, of any country, in any century. The prison system is hugely profitable for prison corporations. ACLU: With only 5% of the world's population, the U.S. has 25% of the world's prison population. ThinkProgress: The United States Has The Largest Prison Population In The World -- And It's Growing.

    Violence: The U.S. government has killed, or caused the death of, an estimated 11,000,000 people since the end of the 2nd world war. War is extremely profitable for some corporations: House of Bush, House of Saud by Craig Unger. Bush and Cheney started a war that was profitable for them.

  107. Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama could do something right and give him a presidential pardon..

  108. Really!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    on the condition that he is given a guarantee of a legal and impartial trial. The lawyer said Snowden had so far only received a guarantee from the U.S. Attorney General that he will not face the death penalty.

    So this low the things have gone. Perhaps it's time for the all concerned parties to create a new republic over the steaming pile of lawlessness the previous seems to suffer from (the French are on their fifth, after all) , or start taking their anti paranoia and psychosis medicine regularly, or hone their communication strategies to engulf the citizens into warm, trusting feeling about the government. See? I covered all bases.

  109. Why doesn't he get asylum somewhere nice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why doesn't some European nation offer him asylum? Are they really that scared of retaliations by the U.S. government?

    1. Re:Why doesn't he get asylum somewhere nice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

  110. Re:Feminism by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Is there a man's country anywhere in the world anymore? Where a european type man can marry a european type female child? Or is the whole world a feminist sinkhole.

    Russia? The middle-east? Africa?

    Since you're AC I guess you won't read this but whatever.

    Here in "my city" Örebro they have "always" claimed that they plow the cycle (and pedestrian?) parts of the road first and for cars later. In my opinion that haven't been done but that's the claim. And I've guess that was because they felt being able to bicycle was important and possibly because it's also unprotected people.

    However the current ruler-ship have decided to "genus plow" the streets which supposedly mean exactly the same thing! But what is news to me but supposedly the case is that only women ride a bike and only men drive a car, so it's unfair to prioritize the men (I didn't knew it was a local idea what to start with here) and but it's not to prioritize women so hence bicycle lanes should be cleared up first.

    One of the two (one male one female) leader of the Swedish environmentalist party which possibly is behind the stuff above is also the leading force for the mass-immigration, well-fare for anyone, abandoning of law & order, borders and likely nationality too. They don't get many votes (about 7%) and they rule the government in minority with the social democrats (for a total of less than 38%) but those two together think it's very important to be possible to rule in a minority because none of the "non-racist" parties can come up with a majority government together and to have disputes, do sacrifices and come up with majority decisions in a parliament is so horrible. The "racist" party is likely ok to rule with anyone to get influence but that won't do it because the they are just as racist as the rest of the world.

    Other "fresh" initiatives is that while sex is a social construction it's very important to see what sex is at what working places and in what positions and who's staying home with the children.

    And while it's totally unimportant and irrelevant that immigrants commit more crimes, rape, terrorist travels, fail school and such it's very important to see whatever they too reach the same positions in society!

    Because individuality doesn't matter. Only sex and race do for the anti-sexist and anti-racists.. Well, as long as it's about positive discrimination for those who can't pass on their own merits. However it's totally not relevant when the outcome would relate to anything negative for a "minority group" (a group individuals supposedly given a group belonging due to ethnicity, sex and religion.)

    I guess in my world it's just affirmative action and censorship and positive discrimination.

    I'm against discrimination but I'm just fine with women picking medicinal research over technological and the fact that people from Somalia have less competitive work experience and education than the native born people.

  111. Homesickness impairs judgement by duck_rifted · · Score: 1

    If this man thinks it's even possible for him to get a fair and impartial trial, then the Russian cold must be getting to his head. Everybody in the United States has already chosen sides with or against him. I would challenge anybody here to seek out even a single conversation that isn't wrapped in such strong bias that it results in hailing him as a hero or calling him a traitor.

    This is all aside from the fact that he embarrassed the government and that revealing their actions has harmed diplomacy and economy. Citizens don't even get fair trials here when accused of something inconsequential. I'm not even sure it would be possible to buy that man a fair trial at any price.

  112. Don't do It Ed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please don't do that Edward. I understand you miss your family but there is no way you'll get a fair trial and they'll not let you see your loved ones either.

  113. Re:It takes time to adjust to a new society...be f by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hawaii was great, so was your bartender girl friend and the money. But it's gone now.

    Actually, the girlfriend moved to Russia to be with him.

  114. Re:Bad idea Snowdon, You can't get a fair trial. by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    Subject line says it all. Snowdon, you can't get a fair trial. You have to burn your bridges. It is unfortunate. If you want marriage and children, and the pleasures of raising a family, you cannot return. By the time you are on parole (if ever), you will be too old. And if you think you will not be kept in solitary, think again. And wait for an inmate to take a knife to you.

    Latin America is a place to head to. They are understanding and recognize that you did not murder anyone. You can get a good job there, and the timezone is not more than one or two hours difference.

    And lets face it. The hackers, terrorists, and all the bad guys have known about encription and monitoring from today -7200 or from the end of the first world war.

    All you did was let the public know, and we are grateful. Our financial transactions and our bank accounts are not going to be hacked, because industry now knows that NSA is prying everywhere. If NSA is doing it, criminals are also doing it.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  115. Re:As a fly, never try to negotiate with the spide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he doesn't have the documents.

    Do you really believe this ? He may not have physical media with him but an encrypted blob hidden in various online file stores is just as good.

  116. Re:Perhaps he sees the writing on the wall in Russ by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    No, what he has done is save some more data and arrange for it to be released on his death. Otherwise he would be dead already.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  117. Not news. /. is "hyping empty garbage". Again. by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    Don't worry, he won't. And this story (like so much of /.) is "hyping empty garbage" (what Glenn Greenwald called Politicoâ(TM)s digital editorial director Blake Hounshell, but applies quite well here). Greenwald explains it all excellently, as per usual.

  118. Re:All that he needs is an agreement on the charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lawyer can't stop you getting picked off en route. Duh.

  119. Not always true; by NewYork · · Score: 1

    "If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the USA. They don't care." --Nelson Mandela
    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/nelson-mandela-iraq-israel_b_4396638.html

  120. I fell for this story too, here's what's really... by minyard · · Score: 1

    happening

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/04/snowden-wants-come-home-stories-case-study-media-deceit/

  121. Re:Perhaps he sees the writing on the wall in Russ by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Luck, and pumping information to the FSB are the only things keeping him alive, trophy status being a side effect. Illegal disclosures from beyond the grave would only hurt the people doing them.

    Do not expect that these deeds will go unpunished by subsequent administrations or that the odds will be in his unending favor.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  122. Re:Perhaps he sees the writing on the wall in Russ by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    What? You're on crack.

    Personally I hope he grabbed the NSA's files on all Congressmen, Judges, DNC and RNC commettee members, the Fortune 400 and members of the last 20 executive branches and their election opponents.

    I think if he had that in the hands of 3 to 8 trusted individuals the CIA would have agents surrounding him ready to take a bullet. He'd be safer than the president.

    There is no telling what he has in his real insurance file. No doubt it's not as good as I imagine. If he had that data he could walk through NSA headquarters kicking everybody he passed in the balls and have no fear.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  123. The end of surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indiegogo campaign - https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-end-of-watching

  124. Re:Perhaps he sees the writing on the wall in Russ by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    I think if he had that in the hands of 3 to 8 trusted individuals the CIA would have agents surrounding him ready to take a bullet. He'd be safer than the president.

    The more realistic scenario is that the individuals tasked with bringing him in or taking him (or any misguided "journalists") out would receive that kind of protection and more.

    Perhaps some good citizens would be more than happy to call his bluff and ensure that national security gets taken seriously.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.