
Edward Snowden wants to come home but says U.S. won’t give him a fair trial - NN88
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4nFGOEeSP0
======
kilo_bravo_3
Should every accused person, everywhere, get to play coy with facing justice
or just people you are ideologically aligned with who are charged with crimes
you think ought not be crimes?

I imagine there are many people, of many different backgrounds, charged with
many different crimes who would assert that they won't be given a fair trial.

~~~
headcanon
The difference here is that Snowden was acting as a whistleblower in the
interest of the public good, and he asserts (and many agree) that doing so
through the legal channels would not have had the same effect.

While he did clearly break the law as it was written, I believe he made the
world a better place. Which makes me think that maybe its the law that should
be revisited, not his actions.

Most unjust laws need high-profile perpetrators in order to highlight how
unjust they are, and act as a catalyst for change.

~~~
dragontamer
> The difference here is that Snowden was acting as a whistleblower in the
> interest of the public good,

Then lets get a fair, and impartial, jury and see whether or not the Jury is
willing to conclude on this fact.

~~~
fallingfrog
You and I both know that’s not what would happen. He’d be tried in some secret
court somewhere and we’d never find out what happened to him. The state would
never actually let him win, regardless of the facts.

~~~
dragontamer
Why not?

Snowden was a civilian, which means he'll go through the public courts when he
gets here. The "fair and impartial" part means that jury members will be
randomly selected, and then the prosecutor, judge, and defense lawyers get to
throw out potentially unwanted jury members.

Beyond that, a "fair and impartial" jury is just that. Randomized people who
will be forced to listen to the case. That's literally how our court system
works.

\------

Tell me: how do you imagine things would go down?

EDIT: [https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/edward-snowden-
compla...](https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/edward-snowden-complaint-
unsealed-093181)

Looks like the public courts as far as I can tell. US District Court of
Virginia. Complaints are filed (have been for years), courts are ready. All
Snowden needs to do is show up for the show to get going.

> He’d be tried in some secret court somewhere and we’d never find out what
> happened to him.

If they were planning on a "secret court" (whatever that means), they're doing
a horrible job at it. Putting all of these charges in public and all.

> The state would never actually let him win, regardless of the facts.

That's not for the state to decide. Its up to the jury.

~~~
travmatt
Do you believe Thomas Drake’s prosecution was fair and proportional to the
‘crimes’ he committed?

~~~
dragontamer
When did I ever make a claim about prosecutors?

I said the JURY decides. And in the Thomas Drake case, the prosecutors were so
scared of the jury that they dropped all charges.

As I said before: the jury decides ultimately. Prosecutors do not decide.
Judges do not decide. Study up on the Thomas Drake case, the JURY is the
weapon of choice which fights corruption.

Specifically: the petite jury (aka: trial jury). Grand Jury is a bit more
controversial, but its probably better than nothing at all.

~~~
travmatt
Except for the fact that most criminal prosecutions in America are settled
through plea bargaining, not trial - isn’t that correct? So to be accurate,
the prosecutors decide most of the ‘justice’ in America - judges and juries
play no part in plea agreements. Thomas Drake was able to escape the
prosecutors also playing judge because he was able to afford representation,
and his funds outlasted the pressure the prosecution was able to bring against
him. According to your argument, his great victory was only trading his life’s
earning for his freedom, instead of forfeiting both for attempting to be an
ethical man. It’s pretty obvious that any prosecution of Snowden would aim to
forfeit both his freedom and life earning’s, irregardless of the crimes they
actually believe he committed.

~~~
dragontamer
> Except for the fact that most criminal prosecutions in America are settled
> through plea bargaining

I dunno why you're talking about "most criminal prosecutions" now, after you
brought up the specific case of Thomas Drake (of which almost all charges were
dropped). You can only move the goalposts so far before it gets annoying
(especially since the parent post is talking about full on conspiracy-level
"secret courts").

In any case, the plea bargain is 100% based on what the defense and the
prosecution believe that a Jury would rule. It all comes down to the jury at
the end. If neither side can agree on the plea bargain terms, then it comes
down to the jury.

> Thomas Drake was able to escape the prosecutors also playing judge because
> he was able to afford representation, and his funds outlasted the pressure
> the prosecution was able to bring against him.

Do you think Edward Snowden won't have funds to afford representation? Or that
the ACLU will fail to raise funds for this highly anticipated case?

------
waynecochran
The gap between Snowden's eloquence at answering questions and the hackery of
the CBS hosts is almost comic.

~~~
bredren
I thought most of the host questions / utterances were reasonably generic and
basic enough for Snowden to give a relatively detailed response with some
respect to their need to keep viewers glued to the screen. This is network TV,
not Charlie Rose.

I was surprised they did not probe on his concerns about Russia’s meddling in
the Presidential election—-particularly w regard to its use of social media to
influence the votes of the American public.

I’d have liked to hear how Snowden compares what he considers to be unethical
or even criminal widespread privacy violations with the presumed intent of a
foreign power to influence an election.

He says he’s concerned with the human rights abuses of the Russian gov but
says nothing of what some describe as an attack on the democratic process.

~~~
waynecochran
The CBS hosts' were really trying to control the narrative and frame the
questions so that either a "yes" or "no" answer would be damning. e.g., "Was
is illegal?" \-- that is like the proverbial "do you enjoy beating your wife?"
or "should we pay taxes to Caesar?" question. It's a trap question.

------
reeboo
He wants the jury in his trail to be made aware of jury-nullification.

~~~
Accujack
Assuming he gets a jury trial, which isn't guaranteed. Look up how the US
government is proposing to try him.

------
Ari_Ugwu
Couldn't get through the video. Dude is so smug it hurts.

He is the Steven Seagal of cyber security.

I got to the part in the video where he asks "Is the question whether I broke
the law, or whether breaking the law was the right thing to do?" lul. Good
luck in your trial with that 'holier than thou' attitude bud. Judges just
_love_ that nonsense. Parole hearings also love it when you show no respect
for the laws your broke or the system you harmed.

~~~
ncmncm
What have you ever done or risked for the common good?

Throwing away his life and career to alert the public to felonious activity by
government employees deserves medals. The govt officials who broke the laws he
exposed are not facing arrest. Why not?

