Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by whipslash on 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.

42 of 488 comments (clear)

  1. They might guarantee it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But he still wouldn't get it.

    1. Re:They might guarantee it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's Assange.

      This is Snowden.

      Different people.

    2. Re:They might guarantee it... by arth1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's Assange.

      This is Snowden.

      Different people.

      They're both Bradley Manning, didn't you know?

    3. Re:They might guarantee it... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    4. Re:They might guarantee it... by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Exactly. "Fair," in this context, involves the consistent and systematic application of the law to Snowden's case. The government is already required to do that, so asking for guarantees of fairness really doesn't mean much: they'll either follow the law or break it, regardless of what guarantees they make. "Sure we'll give you a fair trial, yeah, that's the ticket.."

      However, since he evidently doesn't agree with the law, he presumably would deem any consistent and systematic application of it to be "unfair." (BTW, wouldn't it be nice if all of us could ignore any laws we regard as unfair, especially with tax time just around the corner?)

      Therein lies his paradox: unless he is acquitted of all charges, he will believe he has been treated unfairly, ipso facto, QED, de gustibus non disputandum*.

      *I threw in some Latin here to make it sound lawyerly.

    5. Re:They might guarantee it... by NotDrWho · · 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.
    6. Re:They might guarantee it... by BarbaraHudson · · 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.
    7. Re: They might guarantee it... by BarbaraHudson · · 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.
    8. Re:They might guarantee it... by NatasRevol · · 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
    9. Re:They might guarantee it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      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.

    10. Re:They might guarantee it... by sjames · · 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.

    11. Re:They might guarantee it... by Hardhead_7 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    12. Re:They might guarantee it... by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Having said that, I think the government might have difficulty trying him under a process which is not transparent. It's not like they can state that the material that he purloined is still actually a secret.

      Admittedly, the US Government tells its clearance holders that they are not permitted to look at classified material, even if it is leaked to the public, but I don't think that sort of dickery will pass in a civilian court.

      I'm not 100% with what Snowden did, but I will become very upset with the government in a way that I was not upset before if they try and run this in any way but a full public jury trial. Yes, there will be parts that will be classified, but in the end, it should not and most likely will not, happen in a Star Chamber.

      And the US Government has something to gain from this too. Did Snowden adequately make use of the internal methods for redress that he had instead of extruding this data illegally? It's easy to assume the government would ignore him and retaliate against him, but since he never actually did anything like that, we can't know. The government has the chance to make the case to those people who are listening, that the internal whistleblower protection is there and it can be demonstrated to actually work. They can argue that he was told of how he could address these concerns legally and where he could do that.

      Of course, the government may not have those methods at all. And then, I think Snowden may get his satisfaction, if not his freedom. As long as he didn't simply decide he couldn't trust the government, but instead, acted out on his own, he has a chance of making his case, and I will be watching that line of argument very closely. I do not believe that he had a right to just release that material, but I can be convinced that he felt he had no choice after exploring the actual options.

      This is, at heart, the only actual defense that Snowden has; that he had a constitutional duty to expose this, and he couldn't do so without violating the trust granted to him by his clearance.

      What the government will have no problem doing is proving damage to the country. The damage to the US is actually quite evident, and I personally deal with it every day when I work with EU customers. A false dichotomy has been set up between the US and its intelligence services, and every other country and its intelligence services. It's like lifting only one rock, but knowing there are ants and things under both. Unless you're a company actively competing with a US company in certain sectors, your data is probably as safe in the hands of a US company as it is in anyone else's. Perhaps cold comfort, but I would like to see the EU's Edward Snowden, because I am quite certain that his or her revelations would be similarly interesting.

    13. Re:They might guarantee it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think that all Snowden looks for is a fair and impartial conviction.

      He won't get it, because the new, improved post-millenium USA doesn't believe in all those old stale ideals like innocent until proven guilty, not using torture, due process and the ability for people to move around the country without restriction.

      If he did, he'd almost be certainly using it as a venue to blow the lid off even more hypocrisies, because regardless of his motives his acts were illegal. Then again, his point wasn't to be legal, it was to be moral and the law doesn't recognize moral.

    14. Re:They might guarantee it... by Anonymous Coward · · 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'

    15. Re:They might guarantee it... by SScorpio · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

    16. Re: They might guarantee it... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Funny

      How do you know an AC is American?

      Simple. They don't know the American Constitution. :-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    17. Re:They might guarantee it... by larkost · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    18. Re:They might guarantee it... by Xenx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Regardless of personal opinion, your assertion is flawed. From the article you linked:

      "In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction: "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." In 'United States v. Thomas (1997), the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law."

      Again, I'm not saying it can't happen and I'm not arguing whether it should or shouldn't. I'm just pointing out that it isn't legally recognized.

    19. Re:They might guarantee it... by Jason+Levine · · 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.
    20. Re:They might guarantee it... by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He doesn't even have an argument for what would be "unfair" about the trail.

      It is one thing to disagree about what the law should be, but what a fair trail is isn't that controversial. There are no mainstream arguments that people in the US who are high profile and have access to their choice of lawyers don't get fair trails. That is just silly-talk.

      Obviously poor people and minorities often don't get fair trials unless it is high profile, but that isn't Snowden's situation.

      He engaged in civil disobedience. Believing you were right to do it does not mean not experiencing the consequences of those acts. When people block a street or engage in a sit-in blocking a lunch counter, they know they will have to serve the time or pay the fine or whatever. A "fair trial" doesn't mean, "if the jury is glad I did it, then I'm not guilty." A trial is to determine if you are guilty of the crime, it is not a popularity contest to decide if the jury still likes you, or if the crime had some happy outcome.

      He is like a giant flamebait begging idiots to hang their hats on his crazy argument simply because they dislike the NSA. But you can be against government over-reach and still know what a "fair trail" is. He'd be better off trying to negotiate getting a minimum security white collar prison assignment. Then his supporters could advocate for reduction or commutation of his sentence, something actual possible to receive if the right people agree. Much better than now, where he is constantly asking his supporters to fight for impossible demands.

    21. Re:They might guarantee it... by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Informative

      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:

      (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

      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.

    22. Re:They might guarantee it... by alexgieg · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Try as I might, it's hard for me to see Snowden or anyone else who explicitly breaks their word as any sort of hero or candidate for Giver of Law.

      There are three main schools of thought on what constitutes a moral act: a) doing what's right in itself irrespective of the consequences, a.k.a. Virtue Ethics; b) obeying and fulfilling your duties irrespective of the consequences, a.k.a. Deontology; c) doing what will result in the best outcome for the most people irrespective of concepts of virtue or duty, a.k.a. Consequentialism.

      It seem clear you subscribe to Deontology. You feel that once you promise and accept a duty, the moral path is to do as you promised and fulfill that duty, otherwise what might happen if everyone began ignoring their word and doing what they feel is right or feel provided the best outcome?

      The problem with Deontology is that it only works well (from the other two ethical perspectives) if the duties being fulfilled are themselves virtuous and/or if they provide the best outcome for the majority. For example, let's say you subscribe to the duty of always saying the truth, otherwise what would happen if everyone were free to lie. That's all fine and nice in a good society. In a fascist society however, it leads to telling the SS the truth about those Jews hidden in the third house down the road.

      Snowden evidently isn't a Deontologist. He's either a Virtue Ethicist, thinking that bringing evil to light is a good in itself and nothing else matters, or a Consequentialist, thinking that by bringing these facts to light the state of the world will improve for the majority.

      Now, here's the fun thing: opting for either of these three ethical frameworks is arbitrary. There's no criteria by which one can objectively conclude one is better than the other. In this it's like religion: you either believe in this, or in that, or in the other, or even in neither.

      The we have a second set of criteria: is Law something people create, or discover?

      Those who think it's a creation, called Legal Positivists, are usually Deontologists (strong belief in this, almost no belief in exceptions) or Consequentialists (weak belief in this, open to lots of exceptions), and think basically anything goes. Virtue Ethicists, on the other hand, believe Law is discovered, and therefore that you can have laws in the book that are either valid because they express a Natural Law that preexists any human writing it down, or that are invalid because they don't, and then the fact they were written down by someone to be meaningless. Legal Naturalism is a tradition that goes back to Plato and Aristotle, who both wrote on the distinction between true and fake laws.

      Since you're a Deontologist, it seems to me you're very likely to also be a Legal Positivist. The law that one must obey is what's in the books, and that's it. Snowden, evidently, disagree, and most everyone who looks at any law and thinks "this is unjust".

      And then we have a third sect of criteria: that of the psychological way people think about justice questions. There are six approaches to this, in a scale psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg identified in the 1960's. Here, the important point is that "law agreed upon by different groups as the source of justice and the means by which they don't fight each other" is a strong belief of those fitting what Kohlberg identified as the 4th stage in the scale: "Law and order morality".

      Now, I cannot say in which stage Snowden is, but it wouldn't surprise me if he were at stage 5. In stage 5, "Social contract orientation", justice rises from the agreement of individuals, an agreement that can change over time but must be construed by them explicitly as individuals, and not as members (real or perceived) of groups seen as single blocks. As a "stage 5" then, Snowden would find that hidden laws and hidden rules (which are okay from the perspective of stage 4) are something that doesn't provide for true democracy, and decided to put pressure into making things move up.

      As you can see then, there are several ways by which Snowden can indeed be seen as someone doing right, even if from your perspective what he did was anything but.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    23. Re:They might guarantee it... by Aighearach · · 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.

    24. Re:They might guarantee it... by Jason+Levine · · 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.
    25. Re:They might guarantee it... by suutar · · Score: 3, Informative

      ... in the sixth circuit.

  2. Still a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · 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+ · · 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!
  3. Re:Can't you just stay in Russia and STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Trump is real? I thought it was only make-believe monster tales created by the American media.

    Signed,
    a Canadian.

  4. They Could Get The Pope To Assure Him by zenlessyank · · 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.

  5. Not a good idea by robinsonne · · 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.

  6. Re:Fair trial? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  7. Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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;.

  8. Re:I don't think that's how trials work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's called jury nullification, and the legal system really, really, really doesn't like it, even though its totally a thing.

  9. Re:Fair trial? by wwphx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Robert Blake, AKA Baretta, was accused of killing his second wife and was acquitted in criminal court. He was quoted as saying "In the United States, you're innocent until proven broke."

    Like OJ Simpson, he was found guilty in civil court of being liable for her wrongful death.

    --
    When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
  10. Re:More grandstanding by Snowden by mrchaotica · · 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

  11. Re:I don't think that's how trials work by fnj · · 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.

  12. A fair trial means many things by sjbe · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  13. Re:Some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  14. Re:I don't think that's how trials work by sjames · · 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).

  15. What I find disturbing... by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On Saturday, Snowden said some of his former colleagues at the NSA and CIA said "the Constitution doesn't really matter."

    If you don't believe the COTUS really matters, then you don't believe in "the rule of law" and that law must be followed in all situations. What it really means is what people currently in power consider important overrides "the rule of law".

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  16. You're _not_ always allowed to defend your actions by dlenmn · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.