
Fair trial impossible in U.S., Snowden tells Ecuador - mathattack
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/24/politics/nsa-leak/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
======
DanHulton
There's a lot of discussion here that is missing the point that is clearly
expressed in the first paragraph of the article:

"Pleading for asylum from U.S. officials he says want to persecute him, NSA
leaker Edward Snowden told Ecuadorian officials that he fears a life of
inhumane treatment -- even death -- if he's returned the United States to
answer espionage charges, the country's foreign minister said Monday."

Snowden isn't afraid of being found guilty and serving a reasonable sentence.
He's afraid of disappearing into a secret dungeon and tortured for decades.
Which is a thing the USA has been proven to do. Recently. To people who have
upset the government way, way less than he has.

It's a legit fear.

~~~
pyre

      | He's afraid of disappearing into a secret dungeon
      | and tortured for decades.
    

Or spending decades in solitary confinement, which is akin to torture.

~~~
burke

        s/akin to//
    

It _is_ torture. Human beings are not meant to be deprived of interaction that
much, and you can be sure he's not in solitary because he's a danger to other
inmates.

~~~
pyre
I consider it to be torture, but a good portion of the population views
torture as the stuff where someone's body is meticulously taken apart in the
most painful way possible.

------
joering2
Snowden has nothing to worry about. He should come back home. Here:

 _Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste,
fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to
public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and
patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars,
should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees
as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will
strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste,
fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal
agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and
whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process._

Barack H. Obama, The Obama-Biden Plan.

[http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/](http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/)

~~~
alexqgb
Worth remembering: The Whistleblower Protection Act covers Federal employees
only, not private contractors. Moreover, efforts to expand the law to protect
contractors as well have been repeatedly rebuffed in Congress.

~~~
eli
That's misleading/false. The "Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection
Act" specifically protects intelligence contractors.

(Now I'll grant you that it probably isn't an attractive option for a lot of
reasons, but there _is_ a way for people like him to blow the whistle on
illegal government activity without going to jail.)

~~~
alexqgb
No @eli, you've just got your facts wrong. What you're referring to is not the
same thing as the Whistleblower Protection Act. Critically, the Act to which
you refer isn't concerned with protection at all. It simply designates the
path that reports should follow in getting to Congress. Retaliation against
those who use it goes unaddressed. Tellingly, the Act has not been used once
since its passage.

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act)

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Community_Whistl...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Community_Whistleblower_Protection_Act)

~~~
eli
Huh? Which facts were wrong?

Yes, they're different laws. The WPA doesn't apply to DoD at all AFAIK, so the
fact the point made above that contractors are exempt is irrelevant.

The law that covers the NSA is the ICWPA and it applies equally to contractors
and employees.

As I said above, I agree it's not a real great law and I could understand not
wanting to take advantage of it. But reporting things to the IG or Congress
_is_ how you blow the whistle on classified intelligence programs. That's the
process. I can't imagine it being a good idea to allow any low-level
contractor to blow the cover of a classified program because they have decided
it's wrong or unconstitutional.

~~~
alexqgb
You were wrong in saying I was making misleading and / or false statements
about Snowden's lack of protection and you're wrong in your belief that the
law you cited offers protection to whistleblowers.

The Whistleblower Protection Act - which is what I was originally talking
about - has two seperate features. The first is to provide a well-defined
pathway for reporting abuses to Congress. The second is to provide protection
from retaliation against those who use this path.

The point I made is that this Act covers Federal employees only, and not
private contractors.

What you referred to was a different law, written specifically for NatSec
agencies. Like the Whistleblower Protection Act, it delineates a clear path
for reporting abuse to Congress. And unlike the more general Act, it opens
this path to private contractors as well as direct employees of the
government. However—and this is critical—it does NOT provide the shield
against retaliation that the Whistleblower Protection Act provides. In other
words, if you're a private contractor (i.e. unprotected) and you use it to
speak truth to power, you'd better be prepared to run.

So like I said, as a private security contractor, Snowden doesn't enjoy
meaningful protections in the event that he blows a whistle. All he's got is a
path for doing so that he may use at his own (very considerable) risk.

Again, as noted, not a single complaint has reached Congress via this channel.
Not one. That should give you an idea as to how important the protections that
Snowden doesn't enjoy really are.

------
ihsw
Interesting how the US equates her own jurisdiction with 'the law.'

During the HK debacle they made this statement:

> If Hong Kong doesn't act soon, it will complicate our bilateral relations
> and raise questions about Hong Kong's commitment to the rule of law.

And again regarding Russia:

> I would urge them to live by the standards of the law because that is in the
> interest of everybody.

Universal jurisdiction is a difficult policy to enforce since it can be
challenged so plainly and directly by other state actors, especially if it's
enforced selectively based on diplomatic convenience.

~~~
joering2
US government is the most selfish country in the world. They sit on #2 oil
mine in the world (Alaska) but yet continue to suck it up from any other
place.

And yes indeed its irony how they believe the only law everyone needs to
comply is the one they set up. And if they decide to use nuclear weapon of
course it will be in accordance with rule of law and in "interest of
everybody". Yuck. That abuse of basic words: everyone, everybody, everywhere.
My parents gave me really good advice: do not ever listen or trust people who
continuously abuse those words.

~~~
outworlder
> US government is the most selfish country in the world. They sit on #2 oil
> mine in the world (Alaska) but yet continue to suck it up from any other
> place.

Isn't that just logical, however? Other countries could do the same, but they
prefer to exchange their reserves for dollars. Once the other countries
reserves start to run out, then the US will begin tapping theirs.

That's smart, from my point of view.

~~~
_k
Is it really that smart ? By doing so the president commits crimes against
humanity, incentives lots of people to attack the US, kills privacy for the
sake of security and does so while violating the constitution. The list goes
on and on. Meanwhile, the people (not the government !) end up paying for this
madness. Literally and figuratively.

A smart thing to do would have been to fund programs that bring alternatives
on the market. That may not even have been necessary. (high oil prices is a
big enough incentive) If he had invested all that war money in alternatives,
the world would love the US. But look at what's happening now ! The guy at the
top is worse than Bush. He then bullies and threatens foreign countries in an
attempt to shut down journalists. How smart is all that ?

The US could have innovated its way out of oil dependency problem. It choose
not to. How smart is that ?

~~~
mpyne
The U.S. doesn't get most of its oil from abroad though. We get most of it
between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. The idea that the U.S. is ravenously
hounding Arab countries for their oil is pretty much just a leftist myth at
this point.

Most Arab oil goes to China, India, Europe. Even the Arab oil that _does_ go
to the U.S. is typically just to be refined and processed so it can turn right
around and be _exported_ back to other countries.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The U.S. doesn't get most of its oil from abroad though. We get most of it
> between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

Canada and Mexico are part of "abroad", unless they've secretly been annexed
when we were all distracted by Snowden.

Also, it doesn't get "most" from Canada and Mexico. More like a third of its
imports.

> The idea that the U.S. is ravenously hounding Arab countries for their oil
> is pretty much just a leftist myth at this point.

OPEC, as a large cartel that controls enough of the world supply to
substantially influence market prices, is an important target for influence
for any purchaser of oil whether or not they directly get oil from them. That
said, the US gets lots of oil from OPEC, including its Arab members; Saudi
Arabia, for instance, is the #2 source of imported US oil, and Iraq and
Kuwait, and are significant sources as well -- and of the non-Arab OPEC
members, Venezuela is #4, some months topping Mexico as #3, and Nigeria is
significant as well.)

See:
[http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_...](http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm)

~~~
mpyne
Canada and Mexico are encompassed by free trade agreements. I walked past a
Canadian government poster right here in DC the other day gloating about being
the #1 oil exporter to the U.S. I should hope that my overall point is not
lost in the quibbling about whether invading Iraq for oil is the same as
buying it from a willing seller next door.

As for OPEC, it is true that the U.S. imports a lot of oil... it is also true
that it _exports_ a lot of refined petroleum products, as I had hinted at but
didn't make fully clear. The actual U.S. usage for oil can be mostly made up
by domestic (incl. regional) production, the excess refining capacity goes to
support giving Europe and other nations high-quality gasoline and other
products.

------
Lendal
I really wish I could sign the White House petition to pardon Snowden, but I
don't want to get my name on the no-fly list or any other such secret lists of
"terrorists".

I wonder how many Americans are afraid to speak out for the same reason. I
guarantee every one of those 110,000 people who signed that petition are now
being closely watched.

~~~
mpyne
The NSA doesn't have enough analysts to "closely watch" anywhere close to that
number though.

~~~
danudey
They don't need analysts to watch them. They just need to add their contact
information to their 'watch more closely' list, and then run that through
their data mining software. There's more than enough processing power to add a
few hundred thousand more people to their 'intense scrutiny' list.

Not that I expect that it's actually going to happen, but it's not beyond the
realm of their capability.

------
alan_cx
When defendants can be over whelmed to the point of suicide, with many
charges, knowing that a jury is likely to find guilt on at least one of them,
and basically feel (s)he might as well plead guilty to get a lesser of two
evils sentence, I'm not sure how any one thinks they can get a fair trial in
the US, unless they have a huge amount of money to lose, let alone the likes
of Snowden.

The idea of facing any sort of trial in a US court scares me senseless.

~~~
mpyne
How does one get a fair trial in any nation with a free press and freedom of
speech then?

If the jury has been tampered with, it has been by the incessant media
coverage, which is permitted by the wide-ranging protections on the press,
protections which Snowden is fighting for along with the rest of our Bill of
Rights, no?

~~~
pfortuny
First of all, you need a _trial_. Go ask the people at Guantanamo.

Then it needs to be fair. Which means that both parties (the State and the
individual, in this case) abide by the same laws. This is what is tricky, but
in this case, Snowden could point out that (simplifying a lot):

* The law he is abiding by is the Constitution.

* The prosecutors will claim that he has broken other laws which have not been deemed unconstitutional.

* While those laws are reviewed (if they are, upon his appeal), he will not be treated justly (which to him probably seems quite likely).

~~~
twoodfin
_The law he is abiding by is the Constitution._

Where in the Constitution is the right to flee the United States with laptops
full of classified information you illegally obtained?

Snowden has clearly committed serious crimes. It's fine to argue they were
somehow for the greater good—though I'm not sure what "greater good"
carelessly exposing classified information to the Russians and Chinese might
be serving—but it seems like the government could present a slam dunk case
against him while entirely respecting his rights.

~~~
pfortuny
Well, yes. You know: he could not do it from the US, so he decides to break a
lesser important law for the greater good.

------
tpatke
I realize this may not be a popular opinion, but I think Snowden should turn
himself in. There is a wider America then the one we get here on HN. The wider
America is the same one which voted for Bush and don't own passports. To that
America it is easy to see Snowden as a traitor and running to China and Russia
isn't helping.

I realize that Manning has had it pretty rough while in custody, but: 1\.
Snowden is a civilian. He has not submitted himself to military law. As far as
I am aware, everything that has happened to Manning is (unfortunately) in line
with military law. 2\. Manning leaked GBs of confidential documents seemingly
at random. Snowden is pointing out a particular problem which he finds morally
repulsive. These are two different issues.

In short, the more Snowden acts like a criminal, the more he will be perceived
to be a criminal. Monitoring citizens is one thing. The failure of the
criminal justice system / law and order is another. Furthermore, it is
difficult to support him when he is in hiding.

Snowden is acting like he did something wrong. He should own it.

~~~
alexqgb
Manning isn't the only example of vindictive prosecutors run amok. Aaron
Swartz was facing a deck stacked so heavily that he was risking 35 years in
prison for excercising his basic right to a trial by jury. And if you doubt
that the same psychotic vindictivness would be in play here, consider the case
of Thomas Drake.

Indeed, Drake's case is the essential precursor to understanding Snowdwn's, in
that it was the one that unambiguously revealed (a) how out of bounds the NSA
had grown and (b) how effectively the whistleblower system had been
transformed into a means of ferreting out principled opponents with the law on
their side.

Snowden had no illusions about getting a fair trial. He's running from a
kangaroo court, not impartial justice. And if you think his "legitimacy" as a
"conscientious objector" has any bearing whatsoever, then the thrust of the
entire revelation has been lost on you. This isn't some theatrical act of
protest. This is hard evidence of a massive criminal conspiracy conducted by
the US military against the American people. And the power to which he's
speaking truth isn't them, it's us. Some can handle it, and respond
judiciously. Others freak out, and retreat to blanket denials. Insisting that
Snowden stand trial on dubious charges in a court rigged against him is
probably the worst imaginable response to the confirmation he's risked his
life to deliver.

~~~
qdog
Manning is in the military, so his case exists in a totally different legal
system (which I personally don't think is a good idea, ie: separate system for
military justice).

Revealing the spying system gathering US Citizen data is probably the
whistleblower part that might be protected. I don't think that the
surveillance of foreign citizens at universities in HK or wherever is going to
get protected, and revealing that type of stuff is going to be prosecuted.

Your viewpoint on spying may be that it isn't right, however, I believe the
only legal defense for Snowden is in the US Constitution, and it grants no
rights to foreigners, as far as I recall.

I find it unfortunate at this point that the main story is starting to revolve
around Snowden and his attempts at finding sanctuary instead of whether or not
what he revealed is important.

------
cafard
I suspect that a trial that would result in Snowden being found not guilty is
nearly impossible--given anything like competence in the prosecution team. But
is a fair trial supposed to be like a fair coin, with an even chance either
way?

Note that I am not saying anything with regard to rights and wrongs, merely
about laws.

[Edit: changed "found guilty" to "found not guilty". Thanks.]

~~~
ipsin
I suspect you meant "being found not guilty is nearly impossible". And federal
prosecution is absolutely nothing like a fair coin toss -- the federal
conviction rate is 90+%.

I think this has something to do with the tactics used in federal cases --
throwing an array of charges and seizing assets, for example. Also, the idea
of jury nullification (the idea that jurors can find someone 'not guilty' of
an unjust law) cannot be broached by the defense.

~~~
rayiner
> I think this has something to do with the tactics used in federal cases

Yes, and that tactic is not wasting resources bringing a case unless it's a
slam-dunk. Say what you want about the Schwartz prosecution, but it was a
slam-dunk case. The debate was political: whether his actions merited such
harsh punishment, not legal: it was clear and undisputed that he entered the
closet, downloaded the articles, changed his MAC address to evade the ban,
etc, and those actions were almost certainly crimes within the letter of the
law.

A system where a trials didn't result in a high conviction rate would be
supremely broken. It would mean that prosecutors were bringing cases without
enough evidence to make them a likely win.

------
bayesianhorse
It's a thorny issue. On the one hand, Snowden clearly committed treason in
revealing a part of the national security architecture. So even in a fair
trial, even counting how overdue the discussion about constitutional
compatibility was, he can't expect to get free.

But he is right. While the US have a much fairer process of trial than most
other countries, the system has been bitch-slapped left and right over
Guantanamo and Wikileaks.

What is worse: The US justice system's failures are minutely documented, while
China and Russia do these kind of trials routinely, and noone really bothers.

~~~
rthomas6
I agree with you except maybe on the word "treason". I'm not so sure that
revealing state secrets is treason. A crime, certainly, but not treason. I
thought treason was siding with some other entity over the interests of the
state. So, for instance, if Snowden took state secrets and sold them to China,
_that_ might be treason.

~~~
mpyne
Well in layman terms treason is anything that deliberately weakens your state
in favor of those of your enemies. Pointing out specifics of U.S. cyberattacks
on Chinese infrastructure might actually be one example.

But then there is also a Constitutional definition that Snowden would not fall
under.

~~~
ceejayoz
> But then there is also a Constitutional definition that Snowden would not
> fall under.

That's the only definition that matters. "Weakens the state" could apply to
someone who complains about their taxes on Twitter.

------
ianhawes
I sincerely hope that Ecuador denies his request and he is deported back to
the United States. In his Q&A, Snowden said the United States was worth dying
for. If he truly wants things changed, he certainly won't achieve it hiding in
Ecuador. He has the opportunity to present his case to the citizens of the
United States through the proper avenues: our justice system, our legislature
(through Congressional hearings), and our press.

To allege he won't receive a fair trial in the United States is completely
ridiculous. What he's really trying to say is he knows he is guilty.

Could you imagine if Daniel Ellsberg had fled to a foreign country and sought
asylum there? The entire premise of a whistleblower would probably not exist
if he had done that.

~~~
pyre

      | To allege he won't receive a fair trial in the
      | United States is completely ridiculous
    

Would you, as a whistleblower, trust your former employer, on whom you blew
the whistle, to be your judge, jury and executioner? I'm thinking not.

~~~
mpyne
Snowden himself is saying that the judiciary should have oversight of any NSA
surveillance programs via specific warrants (among other things), was he not?
Does he believe in Constitutional protections or no?

Similarly I wasn't aware that judges and defense attorneys allowed the
prosecutor to pack juries with NSA analysts. Has this changed at some point?

~~~
alexqgb
Why do you think the charges were filed in Eastern Virginia (home of the
security establishment) and not Hawaii, whi h is the home of Snowden and the
scene of the alleged crime?

~~~
mpyne
Are you saying no one in all of eastern Virginia is able to get a fair trial?
If true that would be a far worse crisis for civil liberties than an automated
FISA-compliance system.

~~~
alexqgb
No, of course I'm not. Moreover, reframing the dynamic that exists between a
particular plaintiff and a particular defendant in a particular case by
turning it into a blanket assumption as general as that is either stupid,
dishonest, or both. Seriously, why would I do that? More pointedly, what makes
you even raise the question?

Jurisdiction shopping is a very real problem, as HN readers who follow patent
issues know all too well. Anyone insisting that Snowden's trial would be fair
should pay more attention to the way the field is being tilted against him
from the outset.

