Snowden Would Return To US If Government Guarantees Fair Trial (thehill.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Snowden Would Return To US If Government Guarantees Fair Trial (thehill.com)

Posted by whipslash on Monday February 22, 2016 @03:00AM from the freedom dept.

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.

24 of 488 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

They might guarantee it... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-22 03:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

But he still wouldn't get it.
1. Re:They might guarantee it... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-22 03:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  If he's making a deal to turn himself in, he can ask for things that the law allows but doesn't require. And the government can always say "No extra promises, we'll take our chances on being able to find you with an extraction team."
2. Re:They might guarantee it... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-22 03:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  Oh, the fucking irony of your statement.
  Edward Snowden did what he did because those in power don't like the Rights we have now, and decided to ignore them.
  Given that fact, Mr. Snowden has a hell of a lot better idea as to the definition of a fair trial than our own government does, so I challenge you to now find someone who will provide a more accurate definition.
3. Re:They might guarantee it... by NotDrWho · 2016-02-22 03:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The problem is he wants a fair trial, AS DEFINED BY EDWARD SNOWDEN.
  
  I imagine he would define "fair" as in "not held in a secret/closed courtroom, with the press allowed to attend, with a jury of his peers, with his defense being allowed to actually see the evidence against him, etc."
  And, no, he's never going to get all that.
  
  --
  SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
4. Re:They might guarantee it... by BarbaraHudson · 2016-02-22 03:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Not necessarily. He has the defense of it being in the public interest, as well as his duty as a citizen to report criminal activity at an international scale.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
5. Re: They might guarantee it... by BarbaraHudson · 2016-02-22 03:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You are SO full of shit. The 6th amendment guarantees the right to a criminal trial, including the right to an impartial jury, the right to a lawyer, the right to know who your accusers are, and the right to a speedy trial:
  
  Amendment VI
  In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
  The 7th amendment is about civil cases.
  Pretty bad when a Canadian has to correct an American on their own Constitution. Then again, it does tend to happen a lot.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
6. Re:They might guarantee it... by NatasRevol · 2016-02-22 03:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The government is already required to do that,
  And he showed that they do NOT actually do that.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
7. Re:They might guarantee it... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-22 04:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  He admitted that he did leak classified documents. The court found what the NSA was doing was overstepping its bounds.
  The catch-22 is that with the Espionage Act as it is currently written, his lawyer is not permitted to raise that second point. And the reason the law was written that way isn't actually so crazy, once you think about it.
  If the existence of the alien spacecraft in Area 51 (to use a ludicrous example) is classified, you cannot argue that the public has a right to know about the aliens in Area 51 in open court. To do so would require that the prosecution and/or its witnesses either confirm or deny the existence of said aliens. Under oath. In open court.
  Suppose you're the government's star witness in the case. "Mr. President, what's up with the aliens?"
  A1: "Well, they don't exist." Defendant is clearly innocent, goes free. (And now the witness has just committed perjury.)
  A2: "I will neither confirm nor deny the existence of any aliens." There remains reasonable doubt that the defendant actually leaked anything of value. Defendant goes free.
  A3: "They exist exactly as described in the secret document that the defendant leaked." Defendant is guilty. (And now the witness must be immediately placed under arrest for leaking classified information.)
8. Re:They might guarantee it... by sjames · 2016-02-22 04:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Or, he might have acted well within the law and you disagree with it. He dropped a dime on the people who were (and still are) breaking the law.
9. Re:They might guarantee it... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-22 05:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You're worse than an idiot in that you believe in what you say. No contract can superceed the law - that's the law!
  So if you signed an NDA for your "clearence" and you witness or are a part of criminal activity related to your position
  and duties, you are acting in a criminal matter by following the "contract" and not following the law in those matters.
  You are intentionally causing harm to your fellow Americans for a paycheck.
  Guess you never heard of Agent Orange; or you're too young to care. I've turned down positions (not many, but some)
  where I knew people would be harmed by my actions had I taken those positions.
  I'm very surprised the U.S. hasn't gone full Jared Fogel on Snowden and dug up some "dirt" on him - not to say they
  wouldn't if he returned....
  CAP === 'burped'
10. Re:They might guarantee it... by Jason+Levine · 2016-02-22 06:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There were other whistle blowers before Snowden who tried to get the word out about what happened. They went through the official channels, found themselves charged with "unrelated" crimes, and were told by the judges that they couldn't use "whistle blower" as a defense. These people went to jail and the government overreaches that they tried to report were hushed up and continued happening.
  Snowden knew that the same thing awaited him if he blew the whistle in this manner so he felt his only option was the flee the country while exposing what happened. You might argue about whether what he exposed was valid whistle blowing or whether he stepped over a line, but that's what a trial should determine. The problem is that a lot of powerful people were upset with Snowden revealing their operations. Even if his actions were 100% justified as a whistle blower, the history of treatment of similar whistle blowers doesn't make it look like he'd get anything approaching a fair trial.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
11. Re:They might guarantee it... by Aighearach · 2016-02-22 08:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Bail is a bit of a "slam dunk" if you already fled to multiple countries to evade capture. As in, a slam dunk for the prosecution. ;)
  That requires some really exceptional magical thinking to get to, "well he already fled so if he comes back he's not a flight risk." No, if he already fled then he is a proven flight risk even if you believe that he won't fly this time.
  If you're wanting to negotiate your surrender, pre-trial release is not a reasonable thing to demand. That is just daffy.
12. Re:They might guarantee it... by Jason+Levine · 2016-02-22 08:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The problem is that there are official channels that Snowden was "supposed" to have used to report what he found, but other people who used the official channels wound up prosecuted for daring to report what they found. When you make an official channel and then attack anyone who uses it, you shouldn't be surprised when people don't use the official channels. You can't hold up an official channel as a valid alternative if people don't feel safe using it.
  Let's assume for a moment that Snowden's revelations were of criminal government overreach of power (setting aside, for the moment, whether his reveals compromised non-US-citizen spying efforts since that's a different discussion), how should he have proceeded? Just put his head down and ignore what was going on because that was his orders? Try the official channels figuring that his fate would be different than all of the other people who used them?
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Still a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-22 03:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

The US works hard to ensure that Fully Informed (of their right to vote based on conscience rather than facts) jurors are pretty much banned. If you show any signs of being fully informed, you will never be a juror. Easiest way out of jury duty, if you wanted out of it, to be honest, and no worries about penalties either. Just show up and loudly proclaim "I believe in my right to vote not guilty to stop a bad law". You'll never have to show up again, and might even get to leave early.
1. Re:Still a bad idea by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2016-02-22 03:23 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  My father got called up for jury duty once. He was asked what his profession was. He said he was an electrical engineer working for RCA. Both the District Attorney and the defense attorney wanted him tossed out. My father told me that anyone with half a brain got tossed of the potential jury pool.
  There's your fair trial for you . . .
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Re:Can't you just stay in Russia and STFU by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-22 03:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Trump is real? I thought it was only make-believe monster tales created by the American media.
Signed,
a Canadian.
They Could Get The Pope To Assure Him by zenlessyank · 2016-02-22 03:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

And I still wouldn't believe them. There is no such thing as a fair trial when the US Govt. is involved. They will hang you, shoot you, or put you to sleep. I understand you are homesick, but that ship has sailed. Unless they offer to make you president, just stay in Russia.
Not a good idea by robinsonne · 2016-02-22 03:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

A "fair trial" for him ends with him in prison for life, or worse. Stay in Russia and enjoy what little freedom you have Mr. Snowden.
Re:Fair trial? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-22 03:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

Does anyone believe anyone can get a fair trial in the US?
The US has the **worst** justice system in the world. Nobody gets any type of "fair trial" here unless you're a white male at the head of a corporation.
That's a bold statement.
China just illegally extradited 5 people from Hong Kong (1 nation, 2 systems agreement does not allow for intelligence agencies to extradite citizens) for running a "banned book" publishing site because they were about to publish something awful against President Xi. One of those people was a British citizen. THey are now making public confessions on Chinese State media. http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-case-of-the-missing-hong-kong-book-publishers
Egypt just gave a book publisher 2 years in prison for publishing "sexually explicit material" because some guy read his novel and got heart palpitations and a drop in blood pressure. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/21/africa/egypt-author-sentenced/index.html
Iran executes people for being gay. http://observer.com/2015/05/how-iran-solved-its-gay-marriage-problem/
You're a bit out of line claiming the US has the worst justice system in the world.
Re:More grandstanding by Snowden by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-22 03:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

The US Constitution guarantees him a fair trial.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees a lot that the U.S. government is not willing to grant its citizens. In this case in particular, the Espionage Act under which he is accused denies a fair trial to Snowden. He would not be permitted to defend or justify his actions to the court.
That's what his statement is about.
Re:More grandstanding by Snowden by mrchaotica · 2016-02-22 03:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

The US Constitution guarantees him a fair trial.
The US Constitution guarantees that the NSA would not fucking spy on everyone too, but we all see how that worked out!

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:Can't you just stay in Russia and STFU by ganjadude · 2016-02-22 04:00 · Score: 1, Insightful

and yet both of them would be waves better than the options the democrats are giving us

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:I don't think that's how trials work by fnj · 2016-02-22 04:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

For pete's sake, inform yourself. Prosecutors and judges try to railroad jurors by lying to them about their powers and duties all the time, but the truth is that a jury, once empaneled, is completely free to reach a finding of not guilty for ANY REASON, and it does not have to reveal what that reason is. A jury's responsibility is awesome, and its power of decision is absolute. That decision cannot be invalidated just because the judge disagrees with it, or disagrees with the process used.
Re:I don't think that's how trials work by sjames · 2016-02-22 05:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Look up jury nullification. It is deeply embedded in common law (The U.S. has common law) and has on more than one occasion been used to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
On a more practical level, there is no way to stop it while offering a fair trial. The judge is not entitled to hear the jury's deliberation and may not direct the jury to give a guilty verdict (including by threatening punishment).