
My son won’t get fair trial in US – Snowden’s father - JumpCrisscross
http://rt.com/news/snowden-father-fair-trial-836/
======
diminoten
What would constitute a fair trial for Edward Snowden?

~~~
bediger4000
The same qualities that constitute a fair trial for anyone:

Presumption of innocence.

Proceedings overseen by an impartial, unbiased official ("Judge").

Charges brought under a pre-existing law.

Examining the charges and evidence and accusers, in court, in front of a jury.

Representation by a competent lawyer.

Decisions made by a jury of your peers.

Evidence presented in court, jury examination of evidence, evidence is
obtained legally.

Evidence obtained without torture.

You know, the same things that people have fought and died for since 1215.

~~~
diminoten
And why specifically would one not believe Edward Snowden to receive these
things?

I thought the issue was that the existing law didn't sufficiently protect
whistleblowers, not that the US would violate its own court procedings. I'm
pretty sure the case is open/shut regarding the _legality_ of what Snowden
did.

And a small point of order, but the fact that people have been fighting and
dying for something doesn't make it valid. People have been fighting and dying
in the name of Jesus Christ for 2000+ years.

~~~
rollo_tommasi
The President, various members of Congress, and senior military officials have
all pronounced him guilty of various crimes up to and including treason, so I
think you can fairly argue that his right to presumption of innocence has been
violated.

There is also no guarantee that he won't be tortured, given the treatment
Bradley Manning received.

~~~
mpyne
Funny you should mention Manning, given that those same people also
"pronounced" that Manning had 'aided the enemy' by helping AQ. Yet Manning was
found not guilty of that very charge, and in a courtroom where the law really
_is_ stacked against the defendant, compared to civilian justice systems.

Instead, what the President, Congressmen, etc. think about Snowden is
_opinion_ at this point, nothing more, just like the Commander-in-Chief
himself wasn't able to direct a guilty verdict for Manning's aiding the enemy
charge.

~~~
bediger4000
Given that the President is in charge of the Executive branch, of which the
Department of Justice is a part, it's hard for me to believe that
pronouncements of "opinion" from The President don't carry a lot of weight.

And fer cryin out loud, Obama has admitted to executing US citizens without a
trial. Fixing Snowden's trial would hold little more fear of ethical missteps
than drone strikes.

Given what's come out about "extraordinary rendition" and "enhanced
interrogation", I think the fear of torture is completely justified.

~~~
diminoten
What you're effectively saying is that because the boss of the prosecutor
thinks the guy is guilty, he loses his right to innocence before guilt. That
is, pardon my French, fucking stupid. No god damned shit the prosecution
thinks he's guilty.

Obama has not targeted for execution a single person without a trial who
wasn't an enemy combatant. What you're proposing is a Judge Dredd style method
of conducting combat operations, which is, again pardon my French, fucking
stupid.

"He's shooting at us _right now_ , but we can't assume he's guilty of shooting
at us right now until we gather a jury of his peers together and they
determine that his finger is the one pulling that trigger. Yes the trigger we
both see him pulling that's attached to the gun he has pointed at us. What's
that? You're dead because he shot you in the face while you were contemplating
the morality of our situation? Well, at least we're not bad people though,
right? -HURK-"

As for "extraordinary rendition" and "enhanced interrogation"? Again, there is
literally nothing the US/any country can do or say that will give anyone
absolute guarantees that such a thing won't happen. It's worthless to
speculate about. Besides, if that were the route the US decided to go, don't
you think it would have already happened?

~~~
bediger4000
_Obama has not targeted for execution a single person without a trial who wasn
't an enemy combatant._

I find it really hard to believe that a drone strike inside Yemen is justified
on the "he's shooting at us!" grounds.

For the death penalty, I'd like to think that the USA would demand more than
an administrative designation. In fact for any legal penalty, I'd like to
think that a public trial with advocates for both sides arguing the matter.

~~~
diminoten
Drone strikes in Yemen are closer to the "he's shooting at us!" than they are
to arresting foreign citizens in foreign countries and trying them in a
jurisdiction they've never been in for breaking laws they had no say in
making.

There isn't really a good answer here except maybe if people stopped trying to
kill Americans...

