Snowden says U.S. not offering fair trial if he returns
Source: Reuters
Edward Snowden, the fugitive former U.S. spy agency contractor who leaked details of mass U.S. surveillance programs, said on Wednesday he is not being offered a fair trial if he returns to the United States.
"I would love to go back and face a fair trial, but unfortunately ... there is no fair trial available, on offer right now," he said from Russia in a live question and answer discussion organized by Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, Toronto's Ryerson University and the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. "I've been working exhaustively with the government now since I left to try to find terms of a trial," he said.
On Tuesday, his Russian lawyer had said that Snowden has been working with American and German lawyers on a way to return to the United States.
MORE
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/04/us-russia-usa-snowden-idUSKBN0M023E20150304?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
melm00se
(4,990 posts)trial from his perspective is to be found innocent regardless of what the evidence is.
think
(11,641 posts)uhnope
(6,419 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)i don't think it's fair to say Snowden helps the cause of exposing the national security state illegalities by being imprisoned.
In fact since he truly believes in this cause, he helps it FAR more by being free and educating people around the world about the injustices going on, than rotting in a prison.
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)
uhnope
(6,419 posts)Manning got a stiff sentence for dumping a huge amount of classified material and military secrets--stuff that she hadn't even read-- while on active duty. I don't think her treatment was fair, but it's also not a huge surprise--she pleaded guilty. A complicated case in which no one comes out looking very good, not Manning or the Army. I think she's a hero for exposing the videos but a questionable character for passing on almost a million documents of stuff that, for all she knew, could have gotten more people killed without even knowing what was in them.
Kiriakou obviously has good intentions but if he wanted to be a whistleblower, he could have gone about it methodically and then today he would be a hero. Instead he an exposed agent in the field and lied about the book he was publishing, violating his contract (every former CIA employee has to go through this if they write a book.) His praise of Snowden shows his judgement is off, as does his going on RT to help with Putin's propaganda. Not a "ruined" life.
Except for that one FBI raid, Binney has done pretty well for himself and now travels the world to speak about the NSA--not exactly a persecuted whistleblower. Again, not a "ruined" life.
Drake was unfairly prosecuted but eventually won out--again, while not a proud moment in US history, not a "ruined" life but a vindicated one. The justice system in the USA worked for Drake--and he wasn't sent to the gulag, which is where he would be (or the cemetery) if he had tried that in Snowden's choice of residence now.
No, none of these are good excuses for Snowden to have gone into hiding in the totalitarian regimes of China or Russia, and they aren't good excuses for Snowden not to come back and do the right thing, if he wants to be considered a real whistleblower and not a confused, dubious fake.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)and yes, ruined lives. I presume they wanted to continue working in their respective careers.
They're not anymore. Can't. Won't ever.
My husband's extremely passionate about his career. If he were suddenly told he couldn't do what he does anymore - in fact was expressly prohibited for the rest of his life from doing his work - he would consider his life ruined even if he landed on his feet doing something else. It would be even more painful if his banishment was the result of trying to whistle blow on malfeasance.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)I documented that most of your examples are not "ruined lives" and no excuse for Snowden not going the honorable route of Ellsberg, which is to face the music and do civil disobedience, not run off the arms of a totalitarian regime.
You talk about how your husband's life would be ruined if he couldn't do his work--but Snowden already can't do his work! How can he in Russia? So that doesn't really make sense. It seems to me that--in your scenario--Snowden had the choice of not being able to do his work in the USA anymore because of his civil disobedience or running off to live in a fascist country... And again, I question the choice of the latter.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)except he's now doing it on a bigger, more public stage. He's in demand as a speaker and consultant on intelligence overreach.
You have no authority to tell those whistleblowers whether their lives are ruined or not. I've given you a very specific example of someone I know personally who would be devastated at losing the ability to do his work, even if he managed to carve out a new successful career in something else.
Whether one can make $$ is not the definition of a good life.
Manning alone would be enough reason for Snowden to run. And yes, you are diminishing the very real torture she suffered.
Nope. No way. Snowden's far more effective outside, genuinely helping "the cause" than rotting in prison. Even Ellsberg agrees with that.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)Kiriakou especially just plain broke the law and proceed in a way that didn't really look like a clear-headed whistleblower, and he could have put others' lives at risk.
I was clear on Manning--you didn't address the fact that she exposed almost a million secret documents without even knowing what was in them--again possibly putting lives at risk.
The other guys--I've seen videos, they look pretty happy for "ruined" lives, and their cases were examples of the system working, especially Drake.
BTW what kind of "intelligence analyst" is Snowden in Russia? If he is still getting classified documents in Russia now, then he really is a spy. A spy for one of the worst fascist regimes on the planet.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Snowden is helping with the analysis of the cache he took amongst the other work he does.
There is no evidence that anything Manning released has harmed a single person or US national security. His 35 year sentence is a travesty. But feel free to continue to beat that dead horse, you'll never persuade me that anything she did merited torture and that level of incarceration.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)A quick google search shows that. Or you could go watch the documentary by Robert Greenwald about whistleblowers, you can find it for free online.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=whistleblowers+lives+ruined
You think Drake's life wasn't ruined??? Read this:
The former high-ranking National Security Agency analyst now sells iPhones. The top intelligence officer at the CIA lives in a motor home outside Yellowstone National Park and spends his days fly-fishing for trout. The FBI translator fled Washington for the West Coast.
...
His alleged crime: voicing concernsto superiors after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks?about violations of Americans’ privacy by the nation’s largest intelligence organization (the NSA) and later, in frustration, speaking to a reporter about waste and fraud in the NSA intelligence program. (He says he revealed no classified information.)
He lost his $155,000-a-year job and pension, even though in 2011 the criminal case against him fell apart. The former top spokesman for the Justice Department, Matthew Miller, later said the case against Drake may have been an “ill-considered choice for prosecution.”
...
Now working at the Apple Store and living in Howard County, he is extremely grateful for his hourly wage retail job. He has no choice. He has massive legal debts and a son ready to go to college.
...
Lots more info at the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/after-the-whistle-revealers-of-government-secrets-share-how-their-lives-have-changed/2013/07/28/23d82596-f613-11e2-9434-60440856fadf_story.html
You claim Drake's life wasn't ruined because he was vindicated. Well so was Gary Webb, but guess what? He was already found dead, either by suicide or by "suicide" after his life was ruined. Yes, ruined. Oh well, he was vindicated, so what? The vindication happened after he was already dead and had his career taken away from him.
Instead of winning a Pulitzer, Webb experienced a vicious smear campaign likely fueled by the CIA and carried out by jealous reporters and editors at the nation's three biggest papers, in particular the Los Angeles Times. Webb's career was destroyed to the point where he could barely support himself with part-time work at a small weekly paper. He was found with two gunshot wounds to the head in 2004; his death was ruled a suicide.
Webb was vindicated in 1998 by a CIA Inspector General report which revealed that the agency had covered up its business relationships with Nicaraguan drug dealers. Kill the Messenger is expected to reinstate Webb's reputation as a courageous journalist.
...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-mariotti/10-tips-whistleblowers-ne_b_5639659.html
Here's more:
http://crooksandliars.com/2007/08/25/american-whistleblowers-tortured-lives-and-careers-ruined-by-their-own-government
One after another, the men and women who have stepped forward to report corruption in the massive effort to rebuild Iraq have been vilified, fired and demoted. Or worse.
For daring to report illegal arms sales, Navy veteran Donald Vance says he was imprisoned by the American military in a security compound outside Baghdad and subjected to harsh interrogation methods.
...
Also held was colleague Nathan Ertel, who helped Vance gather evidence documenting the sales, according to a federal lawsuit both have filed in Chicago, alleging they were illegally imprisoned and subjected to physical and mental interrogation tactics "reserved for terrorists and so-called enemy combatants."
How do you live with yourself making an argument like that? Seriously. If those aren't ruined lives I don't know what is. Why are you arguing that their lives weren't ruined? What are you trying to accomplish? Who are you defending/protecting?
One end result of you being successful with that bs is that you can bet we will never have the wrong doings of our govt exposed to us. Is that what you want? If so then why are you on a Democratic board? Or does the Democratic Party not stand with the people any more?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)
former9thward
(31,981 posts)There is no way the U.S. would offer a fair trial and a great probability of his being suicided before trial.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)And yet the implausible explanation for his demise would quickly become gospel.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)The fact is that what he wants is NOT a fair trial, but a guarantee that he will not be punished.
I have read more than a year that the reason he thinks the trial would likely not be fair is that the only thing that will be considered is what the law is and whether he broke it -- which he admits!
He thinks that unless he is given a platform to defend why he did what he did, it is unfair. The problem is the government is certainly not going to set a precedent that anyone can divulge any government secrets that he/she think need to be revealed.
As to being "suicided" I think you should leave that nonsense in the CT group.
Response to karynnj (Reply #6)
Post removed
karynnj
(59,501 posts)First, your use of "deary" is offensive. Second, I am at least as informed and educated as you are. I have noticed that people who can not contradict the content, rely on personal insults.
I am glad that I don't live in your insular paranoid world.
The fact is that Snowden does not want a fair trial, because there is absolutely no question that he has committed a crime. Trials deal with answering whether a crime was committed.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)Tell me, are you over 18 yet?
karynnj
(59,501 posts)What I stated as a fact is that Snowden broke the law. He admits that he leaked classified material --- lots of classified material.
PS There is nothing wrong with being under 18, an age I still can remember, but long ago.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Again I ask... link?
You must have missed my other post asking for a link to that other fact. I'd love to see the source.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)have said he should return and face trial. Given his fame and the fact that he will have no trouble getting a good lawyer, there is absolutely no reason to doubt that his trial will be 100% according to the what the legal system is supposed to be.
The question is what is he "negotiating" for?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Link? Source? That is the question. You can't just throw out statements as fact and expect me to just believe you. I'd like to see where you got that "fact" from.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)or suicided.
Here is a link where many legal scholars argue that he could and would get a fair trial. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-edward-snowden-should-agree-to-stand-trial-in-the-us/2014/10/23/70b7322a-5aef-11e4-b812-38518ae74c67_story.html
Now, where is your link?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)This is a good summation.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)You really need to understand what a fact is. Your link doesn't substantiate your claim that you know for a fact what Snowden wants/thinks.
What do you want a link to?
karynnj
(59,501 posts)I was not saying I know what Snowden thinks. However, he has said he won't get a fair trial. Given that it is reasonable to assume that he does not mean anything similar to what is normally meant by "fair trial". The reason for that is that of course he will have a lawyer and he will be tried according to the laws on the books.
It does not take any genius or insight to see that he is asking for something beyond that. In particular, various accounts over the last two years have argued that he wants to be considered a whistleblower and not be tried at all -- or to mount a defense that it was defensible to leak everything he leaked because the intelligence service overstepped its limits. (Many articles said that that is absolutely not allowed - and it is rather easy to see that the government is unlikely to agree that it is up to everyone to second guess what is leakable.
Not to mention, those who focus on the teleco data collected forget that there were months of debate on the house and Senate floor in late 2006 and early 2007 -- and in August 2007, FISA legislation made this illegal program legal and retroactively gave the telecos immunity. NOTHING Snowden released on that was new.
Where he hurt the US was the release of many documents - some from UK and Australia - that hurt our foreign policy. It takes a certain amount of chutzpah to think that no one will care if you do that!
cui bono
(19,926 posts)and yet you still say you never said you knew what Snowden thinks. You absolutely did, you stated it as "a fact".
Perhaps in the future you will not state things to be a fact when they are merely your opinion. Words like "fact" mean something.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)Look at the Snowden quote in the OP. He is saying that he will not get a fair trial. There are plenty of experts in my link and other people's links saying that he will get a fair trial.
It is not speculation, nor is the fact that Snowden broke the law. Do you concede that Snowden broke the law as written - and also broke confidentiality agreements he signed?
EVERY post arguing that Snowden won't get a fair trial is at least as speculative. The difference is that you agree with them.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)karynnj
(59,501 posts)likely establish. Nor can you refute that my statement is at least as factual as any of the pro Snowden comments - some in the realm of the CT.
I won't reply further given that it is clear that you are making no sense.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)
omg... that actually did make me lol.
You've already admitted I was right about you speculating rather than stating facts but I'm "making no sense"? The only thing I claimed you conceded (albeit in a half-assed manner), so what am I not making sense about?
Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts)from there. And it certainly can't help that he's sitting in the lap of one of the most hated men on the planet. It's like the more awards he picked up, the more his numbers tanked. The administration really has no reason to "make a deal" with him.
(CBSNews.com) - National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden leaked informationabout the secret program that collected the phone and internet records of people in the U.S. and abroad - and his actions are not well-received by the public
Most Americans - 61 percent - think Snowden should have to stand trial in the United States for his actions. Far fewer - 23 percent - think he should be granted amnesty. Republicans, Democrats, and independents all agree on this as well.
Meanwhile, 31 percent approve of Snowden's actions, while most, 54 percent, disapprove. Majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents disapprove.
When asked to come up with a word that describes Edward Snowden, nearly a quarter volunteer either traitor or a similar word that questions his loyalty to his country, while 8 percent say he is "brave" or "courageous" or "a hero". Just 2 percent volunteered that he is a patriot or patriotic, and another 2 percent say "terrorist".
http://archive.wtsp.com/news/national/article/353851/81/Poll-Most-think-Edward-Snowden-should-stand-trial-in-US
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Link?
peacebird
(14,195 posts)and that what he exposed makes him a hero.
There were several other whistleblowers in his area who were crucified trying to get the info about govt spying out.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)say he should have done have had their lives completely ruined for having done so. The "proper channels" are not there to help them get the information out, they are there to ensure that it never does get out.
Btw... I asked the same poster for a link to their "fact" in response to another of their "factual" posts since they took the time to respond to someone else but ignored my link request. Not holding my breath. Sad that so many DUers no longer know what facts are and then choose to ignore them when presented with them.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)donthinkso
cui bono
(19,926 posts)See Robert Greenwald's documentary or google it. It's well documented that several whistleblowers' lives were ruined.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)Here are the links--"ruined" is hyperbole
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141029712#post139
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141029712#post141
cui bono
(19,926 posts)presents facts that do not support your claim. Especially such an important filmmaker who has made many great documentaries about important subjects. Although even if you did misread that, it illustrates that you are more interested in who brings you a story than the story itself and have a knee-jerk reaction to anything GG might say, with absolutely no interest in simply discussing the facts.
Your two posts are not proof at all that no lives were ruined. A quick google search shows that. Or you could go watch the documentary I mentioned, you can find it for free online.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=whistleblowers+lives+ruined
You think Drake's life wasn't ruined??? Read this:
The former high-ranking National Security Agency analyst now sells iPhones. The top intelligence officer at the CIA lives in a motor home outside Yellowstone National Park and spends his days fly-fishing for trout. The FBI translator fled Washington for the West Coast.
...
His alleged crime: voicing concernsto superiors after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks?about violations of Americans’ privacy by the nation’s largest intelligence organization (the NSA) and later, in frustration, speaking to a reporter about waste and fraud in the NSA intelligence program. (He says he revealed no classified information.)
He lost his $155,000-a-year job and pension, even though in 2011 the criminal case against him fell apart. The former top spokesman for the Justice Department, Matthew Miller, later said the case against Drake may have been an “ill-considered choice for prosecution.”
...
Now working at the Apple Store and living in Howard County, he is extremely grateful for his hourly wage retail job. He has no choice. He has massive legal debts and a son ready to go to college.
...
Lots more info at the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/after-the-whistle-revealers-of-government-secrets-share-how-their-lives-have-changed/2013/07/28/23d82596-f613-11e2-9434-60440856fadf_story.html
You claim Drake's life wasn't ruined because he was vindicated. Well so was Gary Webb, but guess what? He was already found dead, either by suicide or by "suicide" after his life was ruined. Yes, ruined. Oh well, he was vindicated, so what? The vindication happened after he was already dead and had his career taken away from him.
Instead of winning a Pulitzer, Webb experienced a vicious smear campaign likely fueled by the CIA and carried out by jealous reporters and editors at the nation's three biggest papers, in particular the Los Angeles Times. Webb's career was destroyed to the point where he could barely support himself with part-time work at a small weekly paper. He was found with two gunshot wounds to the head in 2004; his death was ruled a suicide.
Webb was vindicated in 1998 by a CIA Inspector General report which revealed that the agency had covered up its business relationships with Nicaraguan drug dealers. Kill the Messenger is expected to reinstate Webb's reputation as a courageous journalist.
...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-mariotti/10-tips-whistleblowers-ne_b_5639659.html
Here's more:
http://crooksandliars.com/2007/08/25/american-whistleblowers-tortured-lives-and-careers-ruined-by-their-own-government
One after another, the men and women who have stepped forward to report corruption in the massive effort to rebuild Iraq have been vilified, fired and demoted. Or worse.
For daring to report illegal arms sales, Navy veteran Donald Vance says he was imprisoned by the American military in a security compound outside Baghdad and subjected to harsh interrogation methods.
...
Also held was colleague Nathan Ertel, who helped Vance gather evidence documenting the sales, according to a federal lawsuit both have filed in Chicago, alleging they were illegally imprisoned and subjected to physical and mental interrogation tactics "reserved for terrorists and so-called enemy combatants."
How do you live with yourself making an argument like that? Seriously. If those aren't ruined lives I don't know what is. Why are you arguing that their lives weren't ruined? What are you trying to accomplish? Who are you defending/protecting?
One end result of you being successful with that bs is that you can bet we will never have the wrong doings of our govt exposed to us. Is that what you want? If so then why are you on a Democratic board? Or does the Democratic Party not stand with the people any more?
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)He clearly leaked classified documents. He clearly qualifies as a whistleblower since what he leaked demonstrated sever violations of the law and the Constitution.
The real story is that our government is spying on our private lives to an extent that boggles the mind. That data is out there where hundreds of thousands of government employees, private contractors, and corporations have access. In all likelihood, since Snowden got the info and probably would not have been caught had he not leaked it to the media, others can do the same thing for private gain and never be known. How many corporations or Foriegn governments would love to have that info?
To me, other than the fact that his and other whistleblowers persecution has chilled individuals desire to blow the whistle on fraud, abuse, etc., he is irrelevant. This information the NSA, CIA, and FBI have has and will be misused. It is flat out wrong, yet with the media making Snowden the big story has helped to make the issue of our government spying on us another, ho hum, 15 minutes and gone.
The illegal spying, the crash of 2008, by Wall Street, the complete and utter corruption of all three branches of government caused by campaign cash, and the oligarchies that are allowed to exist, especially in banking and media, spell a bleak future to what was once the greatest country in the world.
If you want to argue that Snowden is either a hero or a crimminal TO THE EXCLUSION of the much, much bigger issue of the illegal spying, you my friend have missed the point.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)heinous crimes he exposed as hard as they can.
F'ing hypocrites.
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)Thank you for a great post. Astute and intelligent summary of this issue. 
treestar
(82,383 posts)A lot of people don't come out and say what they really mean, because they know it would be outrageous.
There are plenty of people who think the law should bend when it comes to them. Eddie is obviously above the law, in his mind. His supporters demand that he be above the law.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)when it is merely their opinion. Especially on a board that is supposed to be frequented by informed people.
I don't think Snowden believes he is above the law. If he did why did he leave the country? He is a whistleblower though. Those that don't think he is... I wonder why they feel that way and worry about it so much rather than worry about the transgressions of the NSA.
treestar
(82,383 posts)If he thinks the law applies to him, why not? He and his supporters admit he broke the law but not only that he should get to, but that he should be considered above trial in the US. It's "unfair" to even do that. He shouldn't even have to make his case, it should be accepted by all, including the government.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)More whistleblower prosecutions than all other presidents combined.
Look at all the whistleblowers who went through "proper channels" only to be sent to jail and have their lives ruined. Why should he face that? It's obvious he won't be treated fairly at this point. He had to be a criminal since being a whistleblower gets you the same treatment as a tried and convicted criminal these days and the information remains secret.
If you have time watch Robert Greenwald's documentary about whistleblowers. I think you'll see exactly why Snowden did things the way he did.
The real question is why are so many Dems smearing him constantly and wanting him to go to jail more than they are wanting the NSA reigned in?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)He's looking for a free ride. Maybe seeing putin's opponents getting gunned down is making him rethink his announcement that Russia was a champion of civil rights.
treestar
(82,383 posts)An overly negative view of the USA.
This is someone who fled to Russia because of its commitment to human rights. Obviously not right in the head, is Eddie.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Seriously? He's gotten enough fame for that to be noticed.
And our government does not regularly do that. How insane.
Autumn
(45,056 posts)Sad
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)I wouldn't trust our current government (esp. the clandestine side) as far as I could throw them.
840high
(17,196 posts)
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Now if that is not proof we have a broken democracy what is?
And like it has already been said above, even if he gets it he would probably commit suicide before he got it.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Hence the term "suicided", like being "disappeared".
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Although don't forget how the FBI tried to badger MLK into committing suicide. (The documents were finally released.) I think there are folks out there who would intentionally make his life utterly unbearable in the hopes that he would buckle on his own. If not, I'm sure they have Plan B.
BetsysGhost
(207 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)Things like that make me snarky.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)uhnope
(6,419 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Is he going to be the first defendant in US history who is denied a right to counsel? And the right to appeal that decision? Or the right to confront witnesses? Or the right to object to the introduction of evidence? What exactly will be "unfair" about it?
The suicide theory is ridiculous. Just patently ridiculous.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And it is not like we don't have people in jail right now that did not receive a fair trial...some have been released after serving decades in prison for crimes they did not commit because they did not receive a fair trial.
And you want us to believe that Snowden will, when you know full well if the US ever gets their hands on him he will never see the light of day again....Like Manning.
They don't like it when you tell their secrets and expose the corruption...they want us all like you, to believe they myths of fairness in our democratic state...when evidence of it being anything but fair is all over the place.
Now you can call me a conspiracy theorist and just dismiss it all with that.
treestar
(82,383 posts)There's an opposite to that.
Manning has always been able to speak out and make issues in the courts.
At least in the US if the trial has problems, the person can appeal it. Just because it does not turn out how someone wants does not make it unfair.
Sure, juries make errors but now the technology makes it possible to correct those or prevent them from happening. That was how people got out of jail under things like the innocence project. And that was allowed to happen and the system did not insist on keeping the people in jail.
I don't think there are statistics to back up your very dark view, or that it's necessary to have that dark a view. You must have a low view of human nature, and being one of those humans yourself, how do you reconcile that? Everyone else is evil? If it seems that way, you may be too.
If our system is that bad, you are basically saying there is no point. Should no one ever be arrested? How is the system to be improved?
randome
(34,845 posts)No need for juries or judges or any of those messy things. We call 'em as we see 'em, by Jove!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And no my view of human nature is not a low one, but I have paid attention to history and what is happening in my own lifetime and I know that when certain people who do have a low opinion of humanity come to power, and they always do because of their nature to want to control things, they fuck things up bad...just look at every civilization and how it fell to fine the evidence of that...it was not human nature that did that it was a few who detested human nature...that part of us that wants to give and receive love.
And history shows it only takes a small percentage of people to cause great harm to humanity and the earth itself.
Our system is not bad, and in fact is based on fairness and designed to be fair, it is people who are controlling and manipulative that are the cause of the problem not the system itself.
And as long as we make excuses for them it will never get better, just like a drunk you have to face up to the problem that as long as you enable them they will not change.
The first step is to admit we have a problem and you are suggesting we do not...(or that it can just be tweaked to make it better, like telling the drunk to cut back on the drinking a llttle)...that is an illusion IMHO.
The system does not need improvement, but those who administer it do big time.
cstanleytech
(26,283 posts)members who havent heard something about Snowden by now I do have one quibble and that is where Snowden said
"I've been working exhaustively with the government now since I left to try to find terms of a trial," he said.
because that smells like pure unadulterated BS.
JDDavis
(725 posts)He could have "worked exhaustively with the government" BEFORE leaving and stealing all that stuff, through LEGAL channels, exposing how porous and easy it is to steal government secrets, how unfair it is what personal info on individuals was being collected, etc etc.
Instead, he grandstanded, and wound up in Russia, where Putin is in charge of his fate, and Putin is getting crazier and crazier by the day. I bet he's starting to feel he may have outlived his usefulness to Putin, and is now "expendable" there in Russia. Putin can execute him on the street some night, and then Putin will blame it on the USA's CIA or something.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)anyone to expose our authoritarian leaders when they betray us. Life is simpler when we live in denial.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)"LEGAL channels".
Astounding that people care more about swiftboating and ridiculing Snowden than the fact that POTUS has gone after whisteblowers more times than all other presidents combined. Why on earth would anyone go through "LEGAL channels" knowing that they will be thrown in jail and have their lives are going to be ruined?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)in their safe denial bubble. They support harsh treatment for those that dare look behind the curtain. They rationalize it one way or another. They are like the little authoritarians that follow behind the bully and root him on.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)schtick.
elias49
(4,259 posts)Have you been interested in democratic values for a long time?
Or is it Edward Snowden and the missteps and law breaking of the US intelligence industry that has brought your voice out?
rpannier
(24,329 posts)“Most people in those days thought that the NSA and CIA worked for the U.S. government,” he said. “But they don’t. They’re an entity unto itself, a global entity that is comprised of the Five Eyes.” The Five Eyes is the informal name for the intelligence-sharing agreement between the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. “This community operates outside of the Constitution,” Fellwock said, “and from everything I’ve seen, it still does.”
Staying in the US likely would have been hanging himself.
Don't agree with me, that's fine.
But, the attorney's for Ray McGovern, Coleen Rowley and Thomas Drake, think staying would be a mistake
The three went through proper channels and '... The inspector general was the one who gave their names to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act. And they were all targets of a federal criminal investigation, and Mr Drake ended up being prosecuted.'
Annie Machon, and M15 whistle blower fled the UK to avoid being prosecuted. She and David Shayler leaked significant crimes committed by M15. You probably think they should have stayed as well.
When Mr. Shayler returned, every piece of information he used in his defense, he was required to give to the prosecution.
Only a fool would stay
Perry Fellwock
(2 posts)When I first heard that Snowden has fled the United States, I was worried that the Right and the Obama Administration would have a propaganda coup against him and past and future whistleblowers on the national security state. Indeed, they have. But have examined the positions of the White House and the national security staff and Justice Department, I have changed my mind. I see now that they would have treated him at least as badly as they have treated Manning.
Furthermore, I now understand how the U.S. government trapped Snowden in Moscow making him not only a target of their resentment but a possible pawn in the Obama administration's intrigues against the Russian government.
From what I have read, I have no contact with Snowden or any of the other NSA whistleblowers, I understand that, in his attorney's limited conversations with the Administration, Obama has promised not to torture him if he returns to U.S. jurisdiction.
In what I have read, Snowden says his attorneys have not worked out a plea deal for his return even though he and they have offered his return for such a deal.
This makes me suspect that Snowden's strategic position, trapped in Moscow while the Obama administration is trying to figure out how to fulfill NATO's yearning for some level of combat with Russian forces, is of more significance now to Obama's war party than the anger and embarrasement they have felt over
Perry Fellwock
(2 posts)When I first heard that Snowden has fled the United States, I was worried that the Right and the Obama Administration would have a propaganda coup against him and past and future whistleblowers on the national security state. Indeed, they have. But have examined the positions of the White House and the national security staff and Justice Department, I have changed my mind. I see now that they would have treated him at least as badly as they have treated Manning.
Furthermore, I now understand how the U.S. government trapped Snowden in Moscow making him not only a target of their resentment but a possible pawn in the Obama administration's intrigues against the Russian government.
From what I have read, I have no contact with Snowden or any of the other NSA whistleblowers, I understand that, in his attorney's limited conversations with the Administration, Obama has promised not to torture him if he returns to U.S. jurisdiction.
In what I have read, Snowden says his attorneys have not worked out a plea deal for his return even though he and they have offered his return for such a deal.
This makes me suspect that Snowden's strategic position, trapped in Moscow while the Obama administration is trying to figure out how to fulfill NATO's yearning for some level of combat with Russian forces, is of more significance now to Obama's war party than the anger and embarrassment the national security chiefs & the Oval Office felt over the ease with which Snowden removed and delivered their dirty Signals Intelligence secrets to the public.
I may be wrong but I suggest that Mr. Snowden should be vary careful when considering any proffers from the U.S. government or suggestions from his liberal handlers.
To me the stakes appear much higher now than when he first decided to escape U.S. jurisdiction.
I still think he is a patriot and whatever faces him in the future, he should be supported by all other patriots.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)fates when having done so. Or watch Robert Greenwald's documentary about whisteblowers.
It will be REAL clear after that.
I don't recall any grandstanding. I do see a lot of swiftboating though. Why is that?
hack89
(39,171 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Also, perhaps he wants to be certain he actually gets a trial at all, and is not left to be tortured in a jail cell for who knows how long.
hack89
(39,171 posts)he knows that the case against him is open and shut.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)can you tell me what his terms were? All we have is his cryptic statement.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)though we all know your speculation to be the truth by wording it the way you did. And claiming to know what he thinks.
hack89
(39,171 posts)but it is rational speculation. There is no question he broke the law. Negotiating for leniency makes sense. Criminals do it all the time.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)he knows that the case against him is open and shut.
That is not a post of speculation.
hack89
(39,171 posts)give it a rest. It is not that big a deal.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)worded it and now you admit it was mere speculation. Perhaps you will get it and word things differently in the future when you are positing your own opinion, perhaps you won't.
But trying to turn this into me being outraged is extremely immature and disingenuous. It shows me you never really wanted to have a discussion about this at all.
think
(11,641 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 5, 2015, 10:15 PM - Edit history (1)
how can he be refused a jury trial? Who made the decision that he cannot have one?
think
(11,641 posts)which would not provide a jury. Unless this is incorrect it does not seem like he'd get one.
Ewen MacAskill - Wednesday 4 March 2015 12.18 EST
~Snip~
Snowden faces three charges under the Espionage Act. That would mean he would be tried in front of a judge, without a jury, and it would almost certainly mean he would end up in jail. The three charges alone could see him sent to jail for 30 years, but these might only be initial charges and he would be looking at a much longer sentence.
If he was offered the prospect of a jury trial, he would be likely to take it, but that is not on the table.
~Snip~
Full article:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/04/edward-snowden-what-would-happen-if-he-went-home-pardon-or-prison
hack89
(39,171 posts)Sterling’s case was the first case involving an alleged leak to the press to proceed to a full trial in thirty years. The last case involved Samuel L. Morison, a Navy civilian analyst who was charged under President Ronald Reagan for leaking photographs of Soviet ships to alert America to what he perceived as a new threat.
Notably, Morison’s case was one of the first cases where the Justice Department used the Espionage Act to criminalize a leak. (Morison was later pardoned by President Bill Clinton.)
He was initially charged with committing ten felonies, seven of which fall under the Espionage Act. The other charges were mail fraud and obstruction of justice. The mail fraud charge was dismissed by the judge last week before deliberation.
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2015/01/26/jury-convicts-former-cia-officer-jeffrey-sterling-of-leaking-to-journalist-violating-espionage-act/
think
(11,641 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Response to think (Reply #142)
Adrahil This message was self-deleted by its author.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)remain in exile,,,,, forever!
candelista
(1,986 posts)Snowden is not a communist. He sought exile in an ex-communist country, Russia. There is nothing "comradely" about him. So why the epithet? Just to be insulting? Just to be silly?
But I know why... someone was shown in a bad light because of this leak. Can't have that now, can we?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)It's so much easier than thinking for oneself. They don't like whistle-blowers, journalists, protestors, or anyone that dares speak truth to their authoritarian leaders.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)NRaleighLiberal
(60,014 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)NRaleighLiberal
(60,014 posts)Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)nor Papa Paul's opinions or Comrade Snowden's opinion. But at least you have one!
btw,,,,,Yes the Comrade nickname is meant as a well deserved insult for a Papa Paul whore of a traitor.
Let him rot in Russia.....
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)1. He is charged. 2. Evidence is produced regarding the charges. 3. He gets to present his side. 4. The jury decides.
Not complicated.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)By no stretch of the imagination is giving highly classified documents to Wikileaks whistleblowing.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)than all other presidents combined? Have you seen what happens to whistleblowers these days? Watch Robert Greenwald's documentary about it, you can see it for free online.
He is a whistleblower. He exposed crimes of a govt agency.
hack89
(39,171 posts)until the U.S. Government agrees with him (and you). Maybe President Clinton will be more understanding than President Obama.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)or President Warren or President Biden.
cstanleytech
(26,283 posts)as it would undermine the whole need for a trial so I guess Snowden had best get used to speaking Russian for the rest of his life.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Her brothers served, she mentions it often, she mentions one's Purple Heart. She's not "anti" military at all, and she favors a strong national defense to the point of even doing a little pork barreling for the folks back home.
Bernie Sanders is ranking on Veteran's Affairs. He's not a fan of people leaking secrets that can get servicemembers killed--he's had to concern himself with the grievously wounded up to now.
Don't assume these people would be "soft" on Snowden, because I suspect that would be a very wrong assumption, indeed.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)Meaning: Said of the application of the law that is contrary to common sense.
Origin
This proverbial expression is of English origin and the ass being referred to here is the English colloquial name for a donkey, not the American 'ass', which we will leave behind us at this point. Donkeys have a, somewhat unjustified, reputation for obstinance and stupidity that has given us the adjective 'asinine'. It is the stupidly rigid application of the law that this phrase calls into question.
It is easy to find reference works and websites that attribute the phrase to Charles Dickens, who put it into print in Oliver Twist, 1838. When Mr. Bumble, the unhappy spouse of a domineering wife, is told in court that "...the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction", replies:
"If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass - a idiot".
In fact, 'the law is an ass' is from a play published by the English dramatist George Chapman in 1654 - Revenge for Honour:
Ere he shall lose an eye for such a trifle... For doing deeds of nature! I'm ashamed. The law is such an ass.
'Published by' doesn't necessarily mean 'written by'. In 1653, Chapman's play was registered, as The Parricide, or, Revenge for Honor, to fellow playwright Henry Glapthorne. Some scholars contend that the play was the work of neither gentlemen and was written around 1620.
Whoever the author was, we can be sure it wasn't Charles Dickens. However, it was Dickens who brought the phrase to the general public. Oliver Twist was an enormous success when it was first published as a serial and has become one of the world's best selling novels.
CHARLES DICKENS, BY THE WAY, WAS THE VICTORIAN EQUIVALENT OF A WHISTLE-BLOWER.
But it doesn't help Snowden, now does it?
Demeter
(85,373 posts)Every intelligent and thoughtful, moral and objective person, who disagrees with the law as written and executed by these fascists, and supports the Constitution, helps.
IN FACT:
We help ourselves and our descendents at the same time as we help Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, and the rest.
AND IT ISN'T OVER, BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.
hack89
(39,171 posts)i think he needs to be in prison.
randome
(34,845 posts)As if it's so bleeding obvious that there is no need to let courts or juries intrude on the matter.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)system? Of course the "law" doesn't like him. The "law" doesn't like any whistle-blowers.
hack89
(39,171 posts)i have nothing personal against Snowden. I just don't think he is a whistle blower. Stealing highly classified documents and cooperating with foreign intelligence agencies is not whistle blowing.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)They seem to do a good job of ignoring the fact that "we tortured some folks."
'Cause there's laws and treaties against torture, and obligations to prosecute, yet no one is being prosecuted, sans torture whistleblower John Kiriakou.
Why do you think that is?
hack89
(39,171 posts)doing what the government told them to do and there is built in resistance within the government to prosecute itself. Which is not an excuse, by the way, just an observation.
Snowden, on the other hand, clearly does not fall within that category.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... Some of his disclosures were about things which are perfectly legal in the U.S.
That's gonna get him no matter what.
elias49
(4,259 posts)all will be either redacted or hidden by claims of 'national security'. It has happened multiple times before.
He won't be able to 'present his side' either. For the same reasons.
Judge decides.
Not right.
hack89
(39,171 posts)his problem is that the law doesn't care why he did it. That is what this is about. He wants to argue that his crime was justified
candelista
(1,986 posts)Only whether he did the act. So a moral necessity defense is ruled out. That is one reason why there would not be a "fair trial."
Demeter
(85,373 posts)ripcord
(5,346 posts)http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/03/politics/snowden-ready-to-return-to-united-states/
aikanae
(202 posts)What Snowden revealed was immeasurably valuable to US society. He's changed the course of security and IT conversations, put these issues in the face of people who weren't paying attention and raised awareness of those who were. Companies have changed practices and products because of this information. None of this looks good for Democrats (even worse Republicans, but they weren't in the drivers seat at the time).
What disturbs me the most is the laughable rhetoric about "treason" and such when apx 80% of the public isn't buying it. They'd rather erect a statue and name a federal holiday after him. That's an extreme disconnect that D.C. appears clueless about. It's just one of many growing disconnects and I can assure you that Dems will not win elections with such huge gaps in everyday matters.
Whistle blower protections are needed because the nature of blowing the whistle tends to involve crime and it needs to be considered which serves the greater good. In Snowden's case, he did not randomly dump material or act maliciously or impulsively. The documents were sorted and selected for value and need to know. He contacted journalists with responsible history handling similar material that could also conduct their own investigations. There was nothing blind about this.
The public deserved and needed to know this information and there was no channel he could go through - obvious by the political storm calling for his arrest, propaganda brigade.
And the public isn't buying it. Wikkileaks, Manning, and at least 10 others. The corporate government is looking like a fool to press charges.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)It far more likely the law is criminal than the person breaking it....when a nation like ours is under fascism, or near enough. The Constitution must mean something, or we are betrayed.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)and the history of whisteblowers' lives being completely ruined - those who went through the "proper channels" - by treating them as the criminal, perhaps he might have considered going that route. But as it stands, with whistleblower prosecution under Obama being more than all other presidents combined, well can you blame him for not going through "proper channels" and wondering how he will be treated if he returns to the US?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Whatever else he did, that's a crime.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)They are trying to drive the narrative to fit their agenda. "Catapulting the propaganda," as it were.
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)
KansDem
(28,498 posts)Then he'd only be required to pay a fine...
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)It's amazing how little facts matter when people attempt to ridicule a whistleblower they don't like, for whatever reason...
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)Not according to the law.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...in the land of the ''free'' and home of the ''brave.''
- The key is to try and stay off the ''Official Kill List'' -- problem is, no one knows whom to ask for a copy because its a secret.......
K&R
candelista
(1,986 posts)uhnope
(6,419 posts)beyond ridiculous. Are people on DU supposed to even take that seriously?
Kablooie
(18,626 posts)They know he would be a hero to many and a villain to others so any trial would be extremely divisive.
No matter which way it went a large portion of the population would be furious and could react.
If he just stays away from the US his situation won't cause too many waves so they are probably deliberately making offers they know he won't accept.
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)in an era where the cynicism and corruption of our time and of the US Oligarchy is as bad as they come.
He can never safely return to the USA. I wish him long life, peace and good health abroad, and I salute him as a true patriot. 
treestar
(82,383 posts)Why would he be treated any differently? He's one of those people that believes the law must bend to him and what he needs or wants, rather than be what it is.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Can he have a free and fair trial when the jury will never hear the facts of the case?
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Do they play baseball there, because baseball season is starting over here.
Sorry you'll miss it. Can you even watch games there? MLB.com? Or is that blocked?
Oh well. Have fun!
elias49
(4,259 posts)Whoever the 'comrade' is that you're referring to surely doesn't need your good cheer.
You have a good day in your sandbox.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
Response to Demeter (Original post)
Post removed
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)
He can rot in Moscow for all I care...
candelista
(1,986 posts)Next time, try to be more precise. Grade: D. (I hate flunking people.)
uhnope
(6,419 posts)If Snowden was really into civil disobedience, he would face the trial and jail time
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)with "there's a 99.9% chance I'll be found guilty on the letter of the law"
candelista
(1,986 posts) Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)uhnope
(6,419 posts)Snowden never considered that
brooklynite
(94,502 posts)
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)Snowden IS guilty.
He's also a hero. His only hope would be for jury nullification.
If selected for his jury I'd certainly vote "not guilty" just because he may have saved our country.
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)February average daily temp was 14F.
Yes, he is a hero. Sadly, this country is probably not capable of having a fair trial for him.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and "They want a pound of flesh" at 11.
