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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
Perhaps you don't know that the US is proposing to try him under a special set of court rules reserved for people who offend against the military industrial complex?
IE, they won't use the regular/constitutional process, they have a secret court just for people accused of what he did.
Given that, I think he has a right to contest the methods by which he'd be tried.
At this point, instead of repeatedly and cryptically referring to some secret court process that you're privy to, it would be great if you could cite a reputable source.
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.
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?
24 comments
[ 1.5 ms ] story [ 18.7 ms ] threadI 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.
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.
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.
Then lets get a fair, and impartial, jury and see whether or not the Jury is willing to conclude on this fact.
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...
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.
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.
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?
Practically, only those who successfully escape a mechanical application of the "justice system" meatgrinder get to do so in a non-futile way.
You seem to be trying to form a philosophical argument supporting the status quo, based simply on the fact it's the status quo.
This is what the right and the center can always agree on.
IE, they won't use the regular/constitutional process, they have a secret court just for people accused of what he did.
Given that, I think he has a right to contest the methods by which he'd be tried.
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.
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?