Slashdot Mirror
Non-Binding Resolution: EU States Should Protect Snowden
The New York Times reports that the European Parliament has voted to adopt "a nonbinding but nonetheless forceful resolution" urging the EU's member nations to recognize Edward Snowden as a whistleblower, rather than aid in prosecuting him on behalf of the United States government. From the article:
Whether to grant Mr. Snowden asylum remains a decision for the individual European governments, and thus far, none have done so.
Still, the resolution was the strongest statement of support seen for Mr. Snowden from the European Parliament. At the same time, the close vote — 285 to 281 — suggested the extent to which some European lawmakers are wary of alienating the United States. ...
The resolution calls on European Union members to "drop any criminal charges against Edward Snowden, grant him protection and consequently prevent extradition or rendition by third parties."
Also at Wired, USA Today and many others; Snowden himself has tweeted happily about the news.
Breaking news: EU Parliament grudgingly acknowledges the remaining limited sovereignty of member states.
This seems entirely contradictory to their stance on Assange.
I wonder why.
Happy to see common sense, perhaps struggling, but still win. It's long overdue for Europe to stand up to the crumbling US.
In Capitalist US, the commerce controls the Government.
Unless those member states are willing to violate their extradition treaties with the United States, the resolution is more or less meaningless.
That's not true. Politicians are quick to do the right thing if they have support to do it.
At the same time, the close vote — 285 to 281 — suggested the extent to which some European lawmakers are wary of alienating the United States.
Or, maybe European politicians are just sharply divided over the issue. That would be easy to believe, even if it doesn't fit the narrative of the poor little EU always cowering whenever the US clears its throat.
#DeleteChrome
The EU continues to be short for "bedwetting pansies" (French translation).
No, he needs to come back and stand trial, and only punished if that is what the court decides.
(which it shouldn't, but that's not my decision)
They have better things they should be focusing on, like keeping the migrant hordes away from the borders.
Snowden is a fugitive from US justice, he must answer for the crimes he committed against the US government. This is none of the EU's business, this resolution is just a masturbatory exercise.
Snowden needs to be brought back to the US and punished.
It seems that he worked around that problem. Maybe the NSA should have behaved instead.
The EU is a fine example of why keeping the migrant hoards away from the borders is counterproductive. The sky did not fall in. The restaurants got better because they could get more native talent for their cuisine type.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
It's really hard to extradite from the EU anyway even for non-politically-connected crimes. It took 8 years even to get Abu Hamza, which was about as open and shut as possible (including convictions in the UK) for about as hateable of a figure as possible for serious of crimes during a period where there was a major push to prosecute said crimes. The ECHR in particular is a major refuge for people arguing political prosecution. The right in many countries like the UK hates them, as they make it hard to prosecute many types of crime and force them to guarantee all sorts of rights for prisoners (like assisted reproductive services for sex offenders and such). In the case of Abu Hamza, they ruled that a variety of conditions in US prisons are "torture" and he couldn't be extradited until the US promised to make all sorts of restrictions on how he would be housed. They also had to agree to not seek the death penalty, and nearly required the US to not seek life in prison either. And if the US would ever break any of their promises, the ECHR would impose a general ban on extradition to the US (as they've done with many other countries), as it's against EU law to extradite to countries who do not have a track record of upholding their pledges concerning prisoners (it was imposed in the aftermath of the Agiza/Alzery case)
Now, this shouldn't be confused with moving people between EU states under the EAW process (surrender, not extradition), which is generally rather easy. EAWs bypass the executive branch entirely, and the automatic presumption is that the warrant is valid and should be enforced rather than the other way around.
Honestly, what would work out best for everyone would be if the US agreed to plea bargain with Snowden. He seems interested in it, the US would still send their message that "you can't run from the law forever", etc.
"Oh, goodness. Look at my wrist, I have to go." "But what about your clothes?" "I don't love these."
There's no end to the punishment I would deliver to Ed.
First, I'd sentence him to a ticker tape parade.
Then he'd be made to suffer the receipt of one million ounces of gold.
Finally, I would inflict a lifetime exemption from all taxation - federal, state, county, and local - upon him and his descendants to the tenth generation.
I would be absolutely merciless.
The US justice would likely not provide a fair trial in Snowden's case. Until the US justice can provide that, Snowden has all the justifications to remain a fugitive to avoid his fundamental rights being infringed.
given the pre-judgment, the media coverage, the classified data involved and the associated "national security" options to block the use of that data as evidence for or against him, do you think there is even the slightest chance that Snowden could receive anything close to a "fair trial" in the US?! Nope, not possible....
Legally he's guilty as sin, he definitely broke the law. The right course of action would be a presidential pardon and a medal of freedom, not that that will actually happen.
Of course it would be a fair trial. And the trial would fairly convict him of exactly the crimes he committed. The reason he's elsewhere is that he knows a fair trial would result in a long prison sentence - exactly in keeping with the consequences to which he agreed when he decided to get into the sensitive work he betrayed.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
A fair trial is certainly possible, assuming that he is charged with releasing classified data or something like that the actual content of the classified data is irrelevant. But few of his supporters even argue that he did not release classified data, or that there is no law against releasing classified data. Rather, they argue, that Snowden was serving a higher purpose in breaking the law, therefore he should be found innocent. Necessity is a defense, even to murder, but under the most generous terms these circumstances would not make it necessary to release everything that he did (I am thinking specifically of the revelations of our eavesdropping on foreign governments--which is exactly what the NSA should be doing). Snowden supporters argue that he stole the equivalent of a loaf of bread to feed his family, but a lot of the stuff looks like stolen cigarettes which he sold at a price that was almost giving them away.
It's really hard to extradite from the EU anyway even for non-politically-connected crimes.
A big part of this is what is coincided punishment under the two jurisdictions. The EU has a very strong rule against the death penalty so when extraditing people that may face the it in the US it is very easy to argue that extradition could lead to cruel and unusual punishment under the EU rules.
The other issue is human rights, if there is any chance someone extradited might end up in Guantanamo Bay it once again makes a very easy case for the defendant.
There are plenty of cases when two laws goes against each other.
Say for example that you sign an NDA when you start a job, you then find out that your employers source of cheap meat for their burgers is murder victims.
At that point you are no longer bound by the NDA, it is never illegal to report a crime.
Here we have a case where a government organization is breaking the law and an IT worker is bound by an NDA. Why should it be illegal for him to report it in this case but not the other?
This guy? Looks like he was found VERY guilty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
If they were extradited to civilian law enforcement in the US, they wouldn't go to Gitmo, ever. That would be illegal under *US* law, let alone any other law.
People in the EU may have a problem with the place, but it is specifically for holding illegal combatants captured in the field by the military who are not POWs under the Geneva Convention. It's not a gulag or a concentration camp for political prisoners.
No one who is charged with an actual crime in the US gets sent to Guantanamo Bay. That's actually the point of the place. It's for prisoners captured by the US military in an operational area, frequently in battle. If the person is in EU custody and can be turned over to the US to answer charges, they weren't caught by the US military in an operational zone. They'd go to the FBI or US Marshals Service for custody and off to Federal holding cells in a civilian prison just like any other criminal.
the close vote — 285 to 281 — suggested the extent to which some European lawmakers are wary of alienating the United States.
This could be the case, but it also could be that they simply don't agree with the proposed resolution. I know Snowden is quite popular on Slashdot (and thus this possibility isn't), but the fact is that not everyone on the planet supports Snowden's decisions.
Is that why people where snatched of the streets in for example Italy and sent to Guantanamo? So Italy is now "in the field"?
but it [Gitmo] is specifically for holding illegal combatants captured in the field by the military who are not POWs under the Geneva Convention.
You say "illegal combatants" as if it is an old, established concept in martial history -- as opposed to a fairly transparent sleight of hand to get away with gross violations of the GC. Same reason it is on Cuba, not in the US. Pesky laws and regulations.
It's not a gulag or a concentration camp for political prisoners.
So anything short of that is acceptable?
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
Sorry, I hit submit by accident... Meant to add that, given what happened to Chelsey Manning, the prospect of being locked up on US soil rather than Guantanamo is hardly reassuring.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
There is no such thing as a fair trial when the prosecution can use any number of trump cards to ensure things go their way.
The big one being the State Secrets Privilege. Since all of the evidence is classified ( and the majority of it at Secret / TS level ) there is no way on the planet the intelligence community is going to allow that material to be presented in a courtroom. If you're unable to use any of the smoking gun evidence you've collected in your defense, I'm curious how you would consider the trial to be a fair one ?
To wit:
The state secrets privilege is an evidentiary rule created by United States legal precedent. Application of the privilege results in exclusion of evidence from a legal case based solely on affidavits submitted by the government stating that court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security.
It is worth pointing out that Abu Hamza was found not guilty of his alleged crimes when it eventually did go to trial.
Umm no, he was found guilty on all 11 counts in the USA and sentenced to life in prison.
There is no such thing as a fair trial when the prosecution can use any number of trump cards to ensure things go their way.
You mean, like the truth? The fact that person on trial not only admits what he did, but is on record crowing about it? What else there to even discuss?
He doesn't need to present the content of stuff he stole to defend himself, because he's on the record as explaining that he did it, when he did it, how it did it, and why he did it. Case closed. Unless you're going to suggest that he'll deny everything he's said?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You say "illegal combatants" as if it is an old, established concept in martial history -- as opposed to a fairly transparent sleight of hand to get away with gross violations of the GC. Same reason it is on Cuba, not in the US. Pesky laws and regulations.
And you're missing the point. I'm not justifying it's existence. I'm only stating what the entry conditions are. These are going to be people taken in intelligence or military operations. They're not people who are handed over in extradition proceedings. You can verify that yourself, if you doubt it. The lists of people in the camp are more or less public.
No one in EU jurisdiction is an illegal combatant, and more to the point, no one from the EU would be extradited if the US was known to change the status of prisoners like that. The EU will make an agreement with the US, and whether the US wants to put them in a hole like Gitmo or not, it won't happen because the US doesn't serve it's interests that way. The administration isn't going to break all it's extradition agreements with the EU just for one person, no matter how nefarious.
It's not a gulag or a concentration camp for political prisoners.
So anything short of that is acceptable?
I don't recall saying anything is "acceptable". I'm only telling you why no one in Snowden or Manning or Assange's positions will ever set foot in there, even if turned over to the US via extradition.
People in the US judicial system don't get sent to Gitmo. For all that it might be illegal and certainly not a place I'd want to end up in, it's not a secret prison. We know who is in there and presumably why.
In this discussion, Guantanamo Bay is a bogeyman, and that's all. I understand why people feel strongly about it, but unless the existing facts and process change, no one in judicial custody is going there.
Irrelevant. We are talking about people who would be extradited. Presumably, the people you're talking about were taken "off the streets" in some sort of intelligence operation. That isn't going to happen to Snowden or anyone else of his notoriety if they're in judicial custody of an EU state.
Politicians never do something because it is the right thing to do. There must be a lot of pressure from the commoners motivating this.
No, it is the parliament. They do that sort of thing (right) all the time. It is basically a polical afterlife for politicians who were burned out at home, and have gone somewhere they have much less power, but what they have they can atleast use for good.
I would have preferred that everyone remained professional about the Manning case in the sense of how he was treated, but Manning is now in military prison and has even had transition assistance. It's hard time, but a lot of people consider those actions treasonous, and certainly they have caused problems for the US. It could have gone a lot worse.
Not being allowed to explain your motivations in open court – that is, to argue that you committed the act but did not have mens rea – is the very definition of an unfair trial.
Well, obviously the nice picture you wanted to show Guantanamo in is not so nice when even Italy is an "operational area". So I guess the whole EU is an "operational area" too. Isn't US an "operational area" too? Looks like it is more about just "taking off the streets" instead of "arresting".
Revealing secrets about your nations legal operations against foreign states is NEVER whistleblowing. He did billions of dollars worth of damage to the US intelligence operations in Asia, Russia, and the Middle East with what he told the Chinese and Russians.
What he said about the US domestic operations might have won him whistleblower status. Hurting the US to help China and Russia? That's treason.
He should be safe under the whistleblower act
He had no interest in availing himself of the act's protections. He was showboating. Your cartoon fantasies about him dying by fake heart attack, etc., suggest you have exactly as immature and grandstanding-oriented as Snowden (who is clearly realizing what a mistake he made in thinking that treachery was going to count as "cool" for long enough to set him up for life in a place less crappy than Russia, where things are actually more like the cartoon fantasy evil empire crap he pretended to believe about the US).
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
How the fuck is misinformation considered worth moderating as "informative?"
C'mon now... The OP is blatantly lying. I've no idea why, but they are.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Let's play a game.
It's my game. I set the rules but am not obligated to abide by them. I am free to change the rules whenever I like. I have thousands of advisors to assist my tactics although you are limited to those you can afford to hire. I am able to take all your money at a whim. The game is to the death.
OK; would you like a cup of tea before we begin?
Come back! You are required to play by the rules of the game!
Requiem for the American Dream
Sorry, I hit submit by accident... Meant to add that, given what happened to Chelsey Manning, the prospect of being locked up on US soil rather than Guantanamo is hardly reassuring.
In the US the Military actually has it's own Court System, with it's own law-code.
Snowden would be in the civilian system. His conviction is pretty much a slam-dunk. Revealing Classified Info to people who don't have clearance is illegal,and he did that shit. Since Congress has not seen fit to adda public interest defense, or exception, or really anything of value to a Federal whistle-blower, you claims that he had to do it to reveal NSA misconduct are simply irrelevant legally.
Yes. Such an error of judgement that is almost universally-supported by the world's population.
Requiem for the American Dream
The right course of action would be that the adminisration holds its hands up and speaks truth about its corruption then redirects the defence budget into a time-limited study to find a permanent solution to corruption - as it steps down from office - the office to be held on a temporary basis by honest amateurs until a more permanent solution is found by the study.
Requiem for the American Dream
If they were extradited to civilian law enforcement in the US, they wouldn't go to Gitmo, ever.
I realize that, I was just commenting broadly on the subject to try to explain why these things seem to be sticky in general.
The situation is different in the US so the outcome would differ.
However, once a sufficient number of migrants from planet-mc-fast-'food' are queuing at the border, the strategy may have merit.
Requiem for the American Dream
It would make me feel better about my country if various states here would take it upon themselves and independently vote for an equivalent resolution. I'm not aware of any state - not even any city - which has demonstrated the independence and moral leadership to speak up for Mr Snowden. Why not? SF and various other cities have declared themselves sanctuary cities. Why has no US state or city stepped forward and declared sanctuary for a much more deserving cause?
Don't you Americans have a Constitution containing a Bill of Rights that includes a clause that allows the people Freedom of Speech? IIRC it basically says that Congress will not pass a law abridging speech and yet you get 5 insightful for thinking that someone exercising his 1st Amendment rights should got to jail, for a long time yet, for simply breaking a non-disclosure agreement.
Or perhaps you think that your government should not have to obey the Constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
And I suspect many people here on Slashdot would have no problem with Snowden facing charges for what he did ... if the system also punished those whose illegal (and treasonous) actions he revealed.
So you are saying that none of the endless speechifying, blogging, interviews and other occasions he's used to explain EXACTLY that on the public record would be magically removed from history?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
Right, its neither gulag nor concentration camp. Lots of people made it out of them alive. Note that every major power in WW II had concentration camps (US used them for people of Japanese heritage) and many of them, including some in Third Reich, had better conditions than Gitmo. Look, you made the comparison.
People in the EU may have a problem with the place, but it is specifically for holding illegal combatants captured in the field by the military who are not POWs under the Geneva Convention. It's not a gulag or a concentration camp for political prisoners.
Uhm, that's exactly what it is, which is why people in the EU have problems with it. Kidnapping people from the soil of sovereign countries and then holding them without due process for indefinite time without trial, oversight by third parties (e.g. Red Cross), way to appeal the imprisonment or access to a lawyer on some remote military base is the hallmark of injustice. It couldn't possibly get worse -- well, it could, if you additionally hold some of them in cages and torture them with sleep deprivation and waterboarding.
If you can't see the atrocity of this then I feel very, very sorry for you.
He had no interest in availing himself of the act's protections.
Would you be willing to literally stake your life on the claim that he would have actually received the proper protections and not be mistreated but the famously moderate and careful US law enforcement? What about someone else's life? Would you stake the life of your partner or a child (if you have one) on that?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It's really hard to extradite from the EU anyway even for non-politically-connected crimes.
For politically connected non-crimes it's very, very easy.
Take for example that teenager who profited from running a torrent site of some sorts. It's perhaps not illegal here: the CPS stated explicitly that they don't know if it's illegal and would have to actually take it to court to find out. And yet he was all bundled off and nearly sent to the US, despite no one being sure if his acts were criminal in the UK.
Only thing that saved him is the public backlash was so huge this time, it actually put the extradition treaty at risk.
But yeah the rule is pretty much, be the most evil of scum and you get the full protection of the law. Upset the corporate paymaster of someone in the US and you'll be off before you know, crime or no crime.
Well, apparently old Tony is kinda rather upset that he's not been able to move into the elder statesman role he sees himself as. I'm glad that the memory of the public is not as short as it's sometimes made out to be.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
That's both unlikely to happen and unlikely to work. Corruption is eternal, it's part of human nature, all we can do is try and build systems that assume it will happen and attempt to mitigate it.
There are legalities, and moralities. Snowden broke the law in a big way. He released classified information, and that's highly illegal for people with security clearances. If extradited, he'd be tried, convicted, and imprisoned in the normal course of things. That's what the legalities are.
Lots of people, including me, think that Snowden broke the law in a good cause, and should not be held legally responsible. This means we think that he should get a pardon, not that he didn't break the law.
Whether or not anyone from the NSA should be charged and tried is a separate matter, legally and morally. Regardless of what happens with the revelations, I'd like to see him pardoned (not that that's going to happen any time soon).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
This is the same EU that did this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
They have burned any trust they may have had. They will just cooperate secretly.
Even if the protections offered by the Whistle-blower Protection Act were not dubious and routinely ineffective, at the time it did not apply to contractors including Snowden. It operates more as a trap to encourage whistle-blowers to reveal themselves so they can be properly persecuted.
The act's protections did not apply to him as a contractor.