Slashdot Mirror
Snowden Would Return To US If Government Guarantees Fair Trial (thehill.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Edward Snowden said if the government would guarantee him a fair trial, he would return to the United States. Snowden spoke via Skype from Russia on Saturday at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum, WTOP reported. "I've told the government I would return if they would guarantee a fair trial where I can make a public interest defense of why this was done and allow a jury to decide," Snowden said.
That's Assange.
This is Snowden.
Different people.
Espionage Act it is. The only defense allowed being "I didn't do it". Which would be rather ridiculous.
And judge and jury only get to decide "did he do it?".
There is nothing in store for Edward Snowden but a sham trial with hardwired "Guilty" verdict. The U.S. won't clean up their ridiculous laws allowing the government to get predetermined results when they really want it. Most certainly not in order to benefit Snowden or any old whistleblower;.
Bradley Manning is now trans-gender and is Chelsea Manning
It's called jury nullification, and the legal system really, really, really doesn't like it, even though its totally a thing.
He is accused under the Espionage Act. He is not allowed to defend or justify his actions. The judge is required to stop any attempt of him to do so and have them stricken from record. The jury is not allowed to take the merit of his actions into account.
So no: he does not have this defense. That's what his statement concerning a fair trial is about.
Why would you say he wouldn't get a fair trial?
Because the government was embarrassed by him and has no incentive of any kind to provide a fair trial. Remember that this is the same government that for the last 15 years has been holding people without charges in Cuba because they know the prosecution would lose if it came before a jury or unbiased judge because the government broke the law.
But the thing is a Fair trial doesn't mean he isn't guilty, it just means they will weigh all the evidence.
A fair trial also means that if he is guilty that the punishment is proportional to the crime and any mitigating considerations. It means that he would have the right to face his accuser, have all evidence presented publicly and on the record, have an impartial jury of his peers, have the reasons for his actions considered and weighed, to consider whether his actions were reasonable and/or justified, that he has to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, that the laws he is being judged by are consistent with the Constitution, that the prosecution isn't withholding evidence, etc. A fair trial means a lot of things. There is no reason to believe the US government has shown the slightest interest in giving Mr Snowden a fair trial based on previous actions and public statements.
The problem is he wants a fair trial, AS DEFINED BY EDWARD SNOWDEN. We can't make up law according to the defendant. If you don't like the law we have now, elect someone else and have it changed.
When Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, he posted bail and went on news programs. These days, you get thrown into solitary confinement for years before the government decides maybe it'll give you a secret military trial.
You, sir or madam, are both a fool and an ass.
No, it is not a declared state of war. The US Constitution explicitly states that Congress must declare war. Congress has not declared war since WWII.
In a trial by jury the law does recognize moral acts by way of jury nullification.
Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury acquits a defendant, even though the members of the jury may believe that the defendant did the illegal act, yet they don't believe he or she should be punished for it. This may occur when members of the jury disagree with the law the defendant has been charged with breaking, or believe that the law should not be applied in that particular case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
Kind of amazing how every time I say this, it gets reported like it's the first time. It's been the same since 2013.
https://twitter.com/Snowden/st...
No, if you read the article you will know that his definition of "fair" is that he is allowed to argue, in court, that he was a whistleblower. The last person charged in this manner was bared from even mentioning words that defended themselves in this manner. That does seem particularly unfair to me as well.
There is in fact on ongoing war, legally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You don't have to like it, but we are still at war.
People who whine and cry about not having "declared" war are directed to Section 2(b)(1) which clarifies that it is in fact a declaration of war:
The reason to believe it is not Treason is simply that he is not charged with Treason, he is charged with violating the Espionage Act by "unauthorized communication of national defense information" and "willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person" neither of which have anything to do with wars.
You're allowed to defend your actions. Plenty of those accused have.
No, you're not always allowed to defend your actions. Consider Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked top-secret documents in 1971. Here's part of wikipedia's description of the trial:
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". Ellsberg was silenced before he could begin. According to Ellsberg, his "lawyer, exasperated, said he 'had never heard of a case where a defendant was not permitted to tell the jury why he did what he did.' The judge responded: well, you're hearing one now. And so it has been with every subsequent whistleblower under indictment".
That said, the judge eventually dismissed the case because the government broke a number of rules, including wiretapping Ellsberg without a warrant. However, if the government had bothered to follow the rules, you can bet that Ellsberg would be in the slammer because Ellsberg unequivocally violated the Espionage Act of 1917. Although releasing the information was the right thing to do, that simply isn't a legally valid defense. Period.
Likewise, Snowden has no inherent right to defend his actions, and unless the government did something dumb like illegally wiretap him, Snowden would be found guilty because he unequivocally broke the law (albeit for a good purpose, which is not a legally valid defense). Since the government can get rubber stamp warrants whenever it wants, government investigators may well have complied with the letter of the law. If you define a "fair trial" as a "a trial where the judge enforces the laws as they are written", then short of the government doing something stupid, Snowden be found guilty. I'm not saying that's a good thing (it's not), but thinking otherwise is delusional.
The fundamental problem here is that the laws are shitty. However, pointing out that the laws are shitty is not a valid defense unless you can prove they're unconstitutional, and for better or worse, the supreme court has blessed the Espionage Act of 1917.
... in the sixth circuit.