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
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.