I'd add here it would probably be a military tribunal, locked under the pretense of protecting state secrets, but they don't seem to be having a good time of it prosecuting the 9/11 defenders.
Still, expect surveillance and general intimidation of defense attorneys and judges on the same scale.[1]
I "get" how he could end up in a military tribunal because "laws be-damned" but not sure what sort of tortuous logic they could use to justify that. He was a civilian when he committed his acts so I believe he would legally be facing a civilian court system.
I agree "national security" would be invoked to hush it all up but it would certainly add to the body of evidence that the people in charge got to go.
I think they could make some tortured legal case that because he was working as a security contractor with a certain clearance and had access to XX information and signed XXX legal release forms, he could be tried as a member of the military.
Or heck, name him an "enemy combatant" and just detain him indefinitely in some Polish blacksite. People will forget his name in time.
> I think they could make some tortured legal case that because he was working as a security contractor with a certain clearance and had access to XX information and signed XXX legal release forms, he could be tried as a member of the military.
The Supreme Court has already struck down, on constitutional grounds, application of the UCMJ to military contractors deployed with the military on foreign military missions, under express language in the UCMJ applying it to them (the motivation for the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which applied US federal civilian criminal law that otherwise applies within the US territorial and special maritime jurisdiction to them.)
So I don't see that argument surviving the inevitable habeas petition.
> Or heck, name him an "enemy combatant" and just detain him indefinitely in some Polish blacksite. People will forget his name in time.
Not in time to mitigate the short term political consequences of being seen disappearing him.
Prosecution isn't the goal. It's to make an example of him.
Rotting in solitary while the court case slowly plays out is likely just as good for the supposedly aggrieved as a victory in court with the subsequent incarceration.
Given just the amateur research on remote-exploiting automobile control systems for auto-parking and such, I'd be astonished if the CIA didn't have plenty of experience in using modern cars as a weapon to kill the driver.
I don't understand how he ever believes he could get a fair trial. I commend him for the belief in the rule of law that the sentiment represents, but he embarrassed the world's most powerful intelligence establishment - you know, the people responsible for killing people who want to kill us in secretive ways.
There's nothing I'd consider out of bounds for possible retaliation, not even a "heart attack" or "engine problems."
“I would love to put a bullet in his head,” one Pentagon official, a former special forces officer, said bluntly. “I do not take pleasure in taking another human beings life, having to do it in uniform, but he is single-handedly the greatest traitor in American history.”
It's not chilling; it's what Snowden deserves: a fair trial and a humane execution. He's a despicable traitor, having violated his oath and aided our enemies in wartime. He's not a hero; he's a villain.
Taking potshots and calling for his head isn't going to convince anyone of your stance. Since when is America at war with China or Russia? What evidence is there that "enemies" were aided by anything Snowden released, blustery, "cover-our-asses" reports from intelligence officials aside?
I don't think anyone would gain - certainly I think the debate would suffer - and it would be even further evidence that the NSA et al are above the law. It would be a huge scandal, maybe even lead to the restructuring of the American intelligence establishment itself.
But I don't think it's impossible. He's done more damage to one of the most powerful organizations in the world than anyone in modern history. Spooks are vindictive types.
He could get a fair trial in the U.S. for the same reason he's safe in Russia: because the whole world is watching (e.g. in the Reddit AMA he said: "If I show up with broken fingers, everybody will know what happened"). That's not a guarantee, but it does a lot for him. It's a lot harder to "disappear" a public figure.
But lets say he does show up with broken fingers, what then? Nothing can, or will, be done about it so if anything it just adds to the NSA's overarching goal of turning him into an example.
From a government apparatus that's blithely accepting of "parallel construction", and given such a high profile "enemy of the state", he could easily be done away with and the truth mis-reported across all major networks.
I say this as someone who others might declare as a "card carrying liberal" - the current administration and the US intelligence community as a whole are anything but sympathetic towards Snowden.
There must be another reason why this is being floated.
Even at the height of U.S. paranoia during the Cold War, the guy who tried to assassinate the President got a fair trial, and was acquitted by reason of insanity. In fact, he's regularly let out to visit his mother in her home, up to 17 days at a time: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/20/us/john-hinckley-jr-fast-facts.
I think that part of what he desires is to be able to make any defense that he wants. As stated in CitizenFour and again in his AMA, a defense in this case would be severely limited in what it could claim, because the case involves espionage, he would be unable to make a defense claiming that the actual laws are unjust, for example.
Source for "secret courts" that try U.S. citizens? Even citizens captured fighting against the U.S. in Afghanistan were transferred to regular courts once their citizenship became apparent.
The FISA court is no such thing. It was created by Congress review execution action that doesn't Constitutionally require judicial oversight in the first place. It's not empowered to try people for crimes or anything of the sort.
"disposition matrix", although I don't think getting on that list even evolves a court, just an advisory panel made up people picked by the executive breach, but it is hard to know for sure since it is all considered secret.
EDIT: how about a counter argument instead of reflexive down votes -- yeah it sucks our government kills US citizens without much due process but that's the truth, try not to avert your eyes.
I think that most people are comfortable with the idea that if you join a foreign militia and take up arms against the United States you forfeit certain protections of citizenship.
Certainly not everyone agrees with this but that's the counter argument you asked for.
How about Abdulrahman al-Awlaki or Samir Khan? I suppose they didn't even get the semblance of due process, just were at the wrong place at the wrong time.
EDIT: parent asked for a source for secret courts, the "disposition matrix" is just that, except it doesn't even involve the judicial branch only the executive and has resulted in the deaths of 3 Americans, one purposely and two 'accidentally' whether killing Americans on purpose or on accident is worse or better I'll leave as an exercise for the readers imagination.
Neither of those people were intentionally killed. Certainly we can argue about larger strategy and when the cost of collateral damage is worth military action but that discussion is orthogonal to one about a loss of due process.
No evidence exists that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was deliberately targeted, which makes him a bad example of the impact of a "disposition matrix". The target of the strike that killed him was Ibrahim al-Banna, an operational member of al Qaeda, who was among the confirmed dead in the strike.
That's an argument for why it's justified, but just because it's justified doesn't mean it's not a counterexample to the claim that US citizens always get normal civilian trials.
The kill list isn't a trial. Until the enemy combatants surrender they are fair targets of war. It is no different than Roosevelt ordering a bombing raid on a German train depot during WWII.
José Padilla was held for three and a half years in a military prison without trial. I don't know if it qualifies as a "secret court" to just be declared an enemy combatant by the President and sent straight to prison, but it's the same sort of thing. He did finally get a proper civilian trial, but that doesn't make that first part go away.
It's not inconceivable. I have very little faith in the personal integrity of Obama, but his last acts as President would happen after the election of his successor. If he wanted to do it, people would whine about it for a few months and forget long before the next election.
He probably stands a better shot of a deal with Obama, rather than whichever administration comes next. I think Hilary had a lot of egg on her face with the leaks (though using public email is her own fault!) and the Republicans would crucify him. I think it's now or never for him.
As a component of discourse, asking for a source during an online discussion implies that such a source is not trivial to find, and thus calls into question the assertion for which a source is being asked for. Prepending your inquiry with "Really?" also contributed to that note of incredulity.
Particularly in a case where a source or citation is extremely easy to find, asking for one comes off as less of an honest inquiry and more of a rhetorical device designed to discredit the person making the assertion, regardless of intent.
It can disrupt conversation to ask for a source when you could find it yourself in less time than it takes to ask. This is especially true when phrased in a curt manner that implies you already doubt the claim.
"Just fucking google it" will always get you downvotes no matter how you phrase it. Downvote people asking for sources if you think they're being lazy.
I don't know if that's the case. I think he's really internalized how people trust Republicans more with foreign policy, and acts extra-aggressively to avoid perceptions of being weak.
No president would be a better alternative than a man who indiscriminately bombs foreign countries, refuses to count civilian deaths, orders hits on US citizens, refuses to prosecute torture but prattles on about fighting extremism while his home town of Chicago has its own home grown black site. So yeah, he's worse than nobody, he's worse than if my dead grandmother were president.
You really think Reagan, McCain or either of the Bush presidents would have been more lenient on him than Obama? (I'm not being pro-Obama, just realistic)
Elizabeth Warren or Rand Paul might arguably be plausible answers, if all things were equal.
But, they are not remotely equal, because Obama is an outgoing president with no more elections to face. There is virtually no chance that any candidate for president, or president who will be a candidate again, could pardon Snowden.
Snowden is a true American hero, but most Americans don't understand what he did. Most also believe that illegal domestic spying is acceptable if it's "to fight terrorism"[1].
Politically, it would be suicidal to pardon Snowden. Obama doesn't have to worry about that anymore, so Obama is basically Snowden's best and only hope of that happening.
And a sizable demographic still thinks he's some sort of Muslim commie traitor despite his hawkish approach to security. If his attitude to leaking of classified information was as relaxed as some people wish, he'd have been impeached by now.
I predicted some time ago that Snowden would eventually come back, be imprisoned, and pardoned by Obama on leaving office, possible along with Chelsea (nee Bradley) Manning. I stand by that prediction.
The average American thinks an arrest is tantamount to guilt; one of many signs of this is that mugshots are made public here. Snowden should stay exiled.
So was Rosa Parks. We have a whistleblower law, along with a gov't oath to defend the Constitution, that potentially trumps other laws. So his prison potential isn't so clear.
> defend the Constitution, that potentially trumps other laws
I can't see how it couldn't trump other laws!
Think about it. If you can pass a new law which trumps the Constitution via a method that doesn't involve a Constitutional amendment, then you've just done an end-run around the theoretically supreme law of the land. And if you can do that, the Constitution is completely meaningless.
The whole point of the document is that it outlines some bedrock stuff and it's neigh impossible to change unless everyone in the country really agrees that it needs to via a 3/4 majority of the states ratifying.
I would argue that the Constitution absolutely overrides laws to the contrary and we see this play out all the time with the Supreme Court. Things get struck down all the time as unconstitutional and that's the end of it.
I can't see how the founding document of our government can somehow be subverted by other laws unless those laws are deemed as important via ratification.
> I would argue that the Constitution absolutely overrides laws to the contrary
We're agreeing with each other? It's up to each person who takes an oath to defend the Constitution, to ignore and even fight against unconstitutional laws, i.e. ones that in an ideal world would be overridden by a fair Supreme Court.
Couldn't reply earlier due to "you're posting too fast" limitation, even after a day. I may have to wait several days to reply again.
Up to the jury. Jury nullification is a possibility. If I was on the jury I would vote to acquit (of course for that reason I wouldn't end up on the jury).
The government likely wants to charge Snowden with espionage, not just with mishandling classified information. There's a difference between guilty of some crime and guilty of the crimes the government wants to charge.
I'm guessing his situation in Russia has deteriorated to the point where a US prison is preferable to staying in Russia. I'd say best case for him is 10 years in jail. Because there is almost no question that he broke the law; he will be arguing intent and conscientiousness.
His chief demand will likely be that the government not charge him under the espionage act, which is so broad and inflexible it would not even allow him to present a defense. No idea what other legal statutes he could be charged under, but whatever they are would have to at least allow the possibility of raising the "I did this in the best interests of the country, not the best interests of our military contractors and bureaucrats" defense.
Oh, and also that the trial will be a media circus and keep the NSAs surveillance programs in the news for the greater part of the next decade.
I completely agree; the timing is curious to me though. Given how savvy he and his team (i.e. the reporters he's been working with) are with manipulating the media, I wouldn't be surprised if this is just becoming public because the US is entering into a presidential election cycle.
IMO the best political outcome for the democrats would be to have Obama pardon him as part of the presidential pardons every president issues on his last day in office. Bush actually gave last-day pardons to people accused of much more dangerous leaks of classified information (the whole Valerie Plame scandal), so it's not unprecedented.
> I'm guessing his situation in Russia has deteriorated to the point where a US prison is preferable to staying in Russia.
That's rather extreme, and I'm not aware of the slightest shred of evidence for it. As far as we know, he's still living a fairly normal life with his girlfriend in Moscow. He could be concerned about Russia not renewing his status in the future, though.
It could just be a case of the Russian government realizing he's never going to give them what they want, so they decided to stop helping him out in the hopes that a lengthy prison sentence might encourage him.
What I did get out of Citizenfour is that Snowden understands international politics, and that he would know his existence in Russia will last only as long as Putin needs him for. But given the increasing distrust in Russia towards all things American right now, it can't be a particularly welcoming environment for someone who considers himself a crusader of truth and freedom.
>It could just be a case of the Russian government realizing he's never going to give them what they want, so they decided to stop helping him out in the hopes that a lengthy prison sentence might encourage him.
"what they want"? he entered the country without any of the documents if those are what you're referring to. his safe life in russia acts as a snub to washington at a time when US/russian relations are at a historic low, which is presumably the entire reason they gave him a visa and refuse to extradite him to begin with. it's no great expenditure on the part of the russian state to host him, he's just a guy living with his girlfriend
Right, but if you're an FSB officer you're thinking "No way this guy doesn't have access to the documents. Let's keep him here and spy on him in case he leads us to them." After a few years, they realize he was telling the truth, and he's suddenly of a lot less value to them.
Eventually, Russia will want to warm up relations with the US. When that day comes, Snowden's time in Russia will be at an end. It's convenient for Putin to be able to use the US as a punching bag, but Putin will not be in power forever. It's probably better for him to find an exit now and have a bit more control over his own destiny.
you're projecting a whole lot here. there is no reason for snowden to have the documents and it would make much more sense for him to leave them with the journalists, if you accept his stated motivations. again, granting him asylum costs them nothing and acts as an symbol they can hold up to highlight US spying and hypocrisy. they benefit in PR from hosting him and you seem to have this bizarre idea that russians just execute everyone that isn't producing value or something. it's exactly those stereotypes that russia is holding up a mirror to by hosting him, people act like they're all ruthless barbarians but the US is the country trying to crucify this guy for leaking invasive spy programs to the public. they get to call out that hypocrisy
It's not just Russia; when you dabble in geopolitics, everything becomes a bargaining chip. The PR benefit of hosting Snowden is short-lived; his profile will fade over time if he keeps his mouth shut. Eventually, when Russia wants to improve relations with the US, they will likely use Snowden as a bargaining chip. He's not worth much to Russia, but the US wants him really bad. So they can use Snowden to extract something they want from the US (reduction in sanctions, for example) for relatively little cost to themselves. But there was always very little downside to Russia here, and a significant amount of upside: right now, the upside is in holding Snowden up as an example of US hypocrisy, but later that upside might be that he can be traded for something more valuable.
I'm not trying to single out Russia as a bad actor here -- the US behaved in a very similar fashion with Soviet spies and dissidents in the 70s and 80s. This is why you don't want to get involved with geopolitics - your future is controlled by situations outside your control. Snowden strikes me as a smart guy who knows all of this, which is why negotiating a return to the US makes sense for him.
> It could just be a case of the Russian government realizing he's never going to give them what they want, so they decided to stop helping him out in the hopes that a lengthy prison sentence might encourage him.
But they did get what they want. They got a great idea of NSA/US SIGINT operations and a smear against the US government.
Russia is not what I'd call a normal country right now, being as it's involved in a hot war, near-daily saber-rattling with NATO, and prominent political figures are being gunned down in public.
> Because there is almost no question that he broke the law
Perhaps. He may well have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. And if he did in fact do that, then his "illegal" whistle-blowing is in fact required of him in order to execute his oath. You know, the whole 4th Amendment re: unreasonable search or seizure.
Even if he goes to jail for 10 years and then gets out, then what? He would still face the big risk of "mob justice," since a significant portion of the population thinks he's a traitor.
I'd be worried about staying in Moscow right now if I were Snowden. Whether true or not, Russian government is acting fully confident that Nemstov was killed as a false flag. If they get a little more angry about accusations the "CIA" might kill Snowden just to prove a point.
I wouldn't be surprised if something else is happening. While his lawyer 'negotiates' look for snowden to turn up in a different extradition-free country.
I think he's too smart to believe any platitudes about a "fair trial." Of course it will be a fair trial, just like manning got along with his years of solitary - completely fair and normal.
As for a presidential pardon, I don't think that can happen without a conviction. Can you get a preemptive pardon?
That is something I considered but thought we should refer to even an individual's past events by their current state. Otherwise we construct passages like "He was tried and imprisoned. After she was released, she reverted her gender identity. He rejoined the military and served 5 years." which is confusing.
I wonder what style guides say about referring to the past actions of someone previously in the closet about being gay. That might be applicable here too.
> As for a presidential pardon, I don't think that can happen without a conviction. Can you get a preemptive pardon?
Presidential pardon power is plenary, can apply to any and all offenses against the US, and can be applied before any criminal process has started. (Probably not apply to acts committed after the pardon is issued, though, so not really preemptive.)
Those words might be loaded, but they aren't wrong.
He is wanted by the government to face criminal accusations therefore he is a fugitive. The word doesn't imply guilt of anything beyond not turning oneself in.
He used to do work for the CIA and NSA therefore he is an ex-U.S. spy. The word spy is only being modified by ex-U.S., it isn't implying that he is a current spy or has worked for any other government.
I doubt this has anything to do with his condition in Russia. I think its timed very nicely to coincide public sentiment in the US. A movie about his courageous acts just won an Oscar. Hundreds of news stories brought to light by his efforts have outraged the US public over the last couple years. Him and his team might be running low on hard-hitting stories and would rather deal with an Obama DOJ than whatever comes next. If he wishes to turn himself in, the time to act is in the next 3-6 months before the 2016 primaries heat up.
If he returns to the US soon, we will see massive demonstrations in the street demanding his release. I doubt he'd end up serving more than a couple years in prison. Even then, life abroad is no doubt preferable to life in the federal pen. It's smart for him to be putting feelers out right now, but its still far from certain that he's coming stateside anytime soon.
He stole and leaked evidence of state's illegal activities. If anything he deserves a medal. And state should go to jail. Oh, wait... State is running the jails. We may have problem here...
Killing someone is still a crime if it's in self defense - that's why we have trials, to weigh intent and consequence and such.
What Snowden did can be justifiable, and still be a crime. Although I suppose it's a moot argument to make if one assumes no such thing as a fair trial can exist.
I agree with everything you said except I think it is a little naive to believe he'll only get "more than a couple years in prison."
Here's the thing: Snowden, regardless of morals, upset a lot very powerful and influential people. These people might have calmed down a little since they were calling for him to get the death sentence, but these aren't the kind of people who won't try to get revenge if given half an opportunity.
Just look at what they did to Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley Manning), he got 35 years(!) for leaking a bunch of embarrassing diplomatic cables where key US politicians wrote what they really thought about foreign leaders and diplomats.
Snowden upset people in the US government just as much. He essentially took a bunch of power away from them, and people in those positions shrive on power. Do you really think they won't get every pound of fat out of Snowden that they can? Because I do. 35 years if he's lucky.
Chelsea Manning's case was complicated by the fact that he was enlisted when he got caught. Daniel Ellsberg only ended up serving 2 years because his case was dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct. Something of this nature is unlikely to happen in Snowden's case, but mounting public pressure could force some sympathy. To clarify, I think they'll try to give him 200 years in prison but I don't think it'll stick.
> Just look at what they did to Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley Manning), he got 35 years(!) for leaking a bunch of embarrassing diplomatic cables where key US politicians wrote what they really thought about foreign leaders and diplomats.
Chelsea Manning is a woman. Most women go by she. I'm sure this was just a typo, but intentional (and malicious) misgendering of transgender people is common enough to where you probably want to avoid doing it accidentally. People might get the wrong idea about you.
Snowden gave countless interviews where he admitted to a litany of crimes like running a bot on a classified network. They don't even have to try him for leaking intel because he admitted to so many other things, on camera no less.
They will give him diesel therapy the moment he enters BOP to prevent any media getting at him and after a few months of that stash him in a CSHU where even guards won't be permitted to talk to him. He's not going to get magically pardoned and appear on Ellen to show off his medal of freedom.
141 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 213 ms ] threadStill, expect surveillance and general intimidation of defense attorneys and judges on the same scale.[1]
[1] http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/...
I agree "national security" would be invoked to hush it all up but it would certainly add to the body of evidence that the people in charge got to go.
Or heck, name him an "enemy combatant" and just detain him indefinitely in some Polish blacksite. People will forget his name in time.
The Supreme Court has already struck down, on constitutional grounds, application of the UCMJ to military contractors deployed with the military on foreign military missions, under express language in the UCMJ applying it to them (the motivation for the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which applied US federal civilian criminal law that otherwise applies within the US territorial and special maritime jurisdiction to them.)
So I don't see that argument surviving the inevitable habeas petition.
> Or heck, name him an "enemy combatant" and just detain him indefinitely in some Polish blacksite. People will forget his name in time.
Not in time to mitigate the short term political consequences of being seen disappearing him.
Rotting in solitary while the court case slowly plays out is likely just as good for the supposedly aggrieved as a victory in court with the subsequent incarceration.
There's nothing I'd consider out of bounds for possible retaliation, not even a "heart attack" or "engine problems."
At this point, what would anyone gain from that?
They have to show they're still in the game - more important than near objectives in the said game.
This may or may not apply to the situation.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/americas-spies-want-edw...
Chilling
Flag away, good sir. I'm more than happy to disagree with you.
But I don't think it's impossible. He's done more damage to one of the most powerful organizations in the world than anyone in modern history. Spooks are vindictive types.
From a government apparatus that's blithely accepting of "parallel construction", and given such a high profile "enemy of the state", he could easily be done away with and the truth mis-reported across all major networks.
I say this as someone who others might declare as a "card carrying liberal" - the current administration and the US intelligence community as a whole are anything but sympathetic towards Snowden.
There must be another reason why this is being floated.
The FISA court is no such thing. It was created by Congress review execution action that doesn't Constitutionally require judicial oversight in the first place. It's not empowered to try people for crimes or anything of the sort.
EDIT: how about a counter argument instead of reflexive down votes -- yeah it sucks our government kills US citizens without much due process but that's the truth, try not to avert your eyes.
Certainly not everyone agrees with this but that's the counter argument you asked for.
EDIT: parent asked for a source for secret courts, the "disposition matrix" is just that, except it doesn't even involve the judicial branch only the executive and has resulted in the deaths of 3 Americans, one purposely and two 'accidentally' whether killing Americans on purpose or on accident is worse or better I'll leave as an exercise for the readers imagination.
The whole point of due process is that the pesky "if" part needs to be proven. Otherwise your argument is entirely circular.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/...
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/18/destroyed-by-t...
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/...
Particularly in a case where a source or citation is extremely easy to find, asking for one comes off as less of an honest inquiry and more of a rhetorical device designed to discredit the person making the assertion, regardless of intent.
But, they are not remotely equal, because Obama is an outgoing president with no more elections to face. There is virtually no chance that any candidate for president, or president who will be a candidate again, could pardon Snowden.
Snowden is a true American hero, but most Americans don't understand what he did. Most also believe that illegal domestic spying is acceptable if it's "to fight terrorism"[1].
Politically, it would be suicidal to pardon Snowden. Obama doesn't have to worry about that anymore, so Obama is basically Snowden's best and only hope of that happening.
(It still won't happen, though.)
[1]; http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-ph...
I predicted some time ago that Snowden would eventually come back, be imprisoned, and pardoned by Obama on leaving office, possible along with Chelsea (nee Bradley) Manning. I stand by that prediction.
I can't see how it couldn't trump other laws!
Think about it. If you can pass a new law which trumps the Constitution via a method that doesn't involve a Constitutional amendment, then you've just done an end-run around the theoretically supreme law of the land. And if you can do that, the Constitution is completely meaningless.
The whole point of the document is that it outlines some bedrock stuff and it's neigh impossible to change unless everyone in the country really agrees that it needs to via a 3/4 majority of the states ratifying.
I would argue that the Constitution absolutely overrides laws to the contrary and we see this play out all the time with the Supreme Court. Things get struck down all the time as unconstitutional and that's the end of it.
I can't see how the founding document of our government can somehow be subverted by other laws unless those laws are deemed as important via ratification.
We're agreeing with each other? It's up to each person who takes an oath to defend the Constitution, to ignore and even fight against unconstitutional laws, i.e. ones that in an ideal world would be overridden by a fair Supreme Court.
Couldn't reply earlier due to "you're posting too fast" limitation, even after a day. I may have to wait several days to reply again.
His chief demand will likely be that the government not charge him under the espionage act, which is so broad and inflexible it would not even allow him to present a defense. No idea what other legal statutes he could be charged under, but whatever they are would have to at least allow the possibility of raising the "I did this in the best interests of the country, not the best interests of our military contractors and bureaucrats" defense.
Oh, and also that the trial will be a media circus and keep the NSAs surveillance programs in the news for the greater part of the next decade.
That may be the case, but keep in mind, in some way this story isn't news. Snowden has always said he'd like to come home. That hasn't changed.
IMO the best political outcome for the democrats would be to have Obama pardon him as part of the presidential pardons every president issues on his last day in office. Bush actually gave last-day pardons to people accused of much more dangerous leaks of classified information (the whole Valerie Plame scandal), so it's not unprecedented.
That's rather extreme, and I'm not aware of the slightest shred of evidence for it. As far as we know, he's still living a fairly normal life with his girlfriend in Moscow. He could be concerned about Russia not renewing his status in the future, though.
> That's rather extreme, and I'm not aware of the slightest shred of evidence for it.
It's winter. Even diehard Russians who will gladly give their life for Mother Russia want to leave.
On a more serious note, I don't believe there is a place on earth he could expect to get treated fairly.
What I did get out of Citizenfour is that Snowden understands international politics, and that he would know his existence in Russia will last only as long as Putin needs him for. But given the increasing distrust in Russia towards all things American right now, it can't be a particularly welcoming environment for someone who considers himself a crusader of truth and freedom.
"what they want"? he entered the country without any of the documents if those are what you're referring to. his safe life in russia acts as a snub to washington at a time when US/russian relations are at a historic low, which is presumably the entire reason they gave him a visa and refuse to extradite him to begin with. it's no great expenditure on the part of the russian state to host him, he's just a guy living with his girlfriend
Eventually, Russia will want to warm up relations with the US. When that day comes, Snowden's time in Russia will be at an end. It's convenient for Putin to be able to use the US as a punching bag, but Putin will not be in power forever. It's probably better for him to find an exit now and have a bit more control over his own destiny.
I'm not trying to single out Russia as a bad actor here -- the US behaved in a very similar fashion with Soviet spies and dissidents in the 70s and 80s. This is why you don't want to get involved with geopolitics - your future is controlled by situations outside your control. Snowden strikes me as a smart guy who knows all of this, which is why negotiating a return to the US makes sense for him.
But they did get what they want. They got a great idea of NSA/US SIGINT operations and a smear against the US government.
What else do you think Russia wants?
Perhaps. He may well have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. And if he did in fact do that, then his "illegal" whistle-blowing is in fact required of him in order to execute his oath. You know, the whole 4th Amendment re: unreasonable search or seizure.
I think he's too smart to believe any platitudes about a "fair trial." Of course it will be a fair trial, just like manning got along with his years of solitary - completely fair and normal.
As for a presidential pardon, I don't think that can happen without a conviction. Can you get a preemptive pardon?
He could be granted immunity by the Justice Department.
Worked for Ford and Nixon: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Proclamation_4311
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/05/opinion/l-constitution-all...
her
And before someone kicks me for being pedantic, the above comment is being equally as pedantic with that correction.
Ian M. Banks did this in one of the Culture stories (in a single paragraph) - I thought it was a succinct way of denoting the current gender identity.
Presidential pardon power is plenary, can apply to any and all offenses against the US, and can be applied before any criminal process has started. (Probably not apply to acts committed after the pardon is issued, though, so not really preemptive.)
What a horrible, slanted, and incredibly unfactual title for this article.
Of course he's negotiating. Why not?
He is wanted by the government to face criminal accusations therefore he is a fugitive. The word doesn't imply guilt of anything beyond not turning oneself in.
He used to do work for the CIA and NSA therefore he is an ex-U.S. spy. The word spy is only being modified by ex-U.S., it isn't implying that he is a current spy or has worked for any other government.
If he returns to the US soon, we will see massive demonstrations in the street demanding his release. I doubt he'd end up serving more than a couple years in prison. Even then, life abroad is no doubt preferable to life in the federal pen. It's smart for him to be putting feelers out right now, but its still far from certain that he's coming stateside anytime soon.
What Snowden did can be justifiable, and still be a crime. Although I suppose it's a moot argument to make if one assumes no such thing as a fair trial can exist.
In Germany there are three prongs to a crime, all of which must be fulfilled: elements of the crime, lawlessness and guilt.
Self-defense voids the lawlessness, thus the property of being a crime.
If you do it differently, how do you handle ancillary legal question, like civil compensations and damages? Are there special rules for that?
But, at the very least, it takes a trial to be found not guilty, so it seems there is a crime to be found not guilty of.
Here's the thing: Snowden, regardless of morals, upset a lot very powerful and influential people. These people might have calmed down a little since they were calling for him to get the death sentence, but these aren't the kind of people who won't try to get revenge if given half an opportunity.
Just look at what they did to Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley Manning), he got 35 years(!) for leaking a bunch of embarrassing diplomatic cables where key US politicians wrote what they really thought about foreign leaders and diplomats.
Snowden upset people in the US government just as much. He essentially took a bunch of power away from them, and people in those positions shrive on power. Do you really think they won't get every pound of fat out of Snowden that they can? Because I do. 35 years if he's lucky.
Chelsea Manning is a woman. Most women go by she. I'm sure this was just a typo, but intentional (and malicious) misgendering of transgender people is common enough to where you probably want to avoid doing it accidentally. People might get the wrong idea about you.
They will give him diesel therapy the moment he enters BOP to prevent any media getting at him and after a few months of that stash him in a CSHU where even guards won't be permitted to talk to him. He's not going to get magically pardoned and appear on Ellen to show off his medal of freedom.
Just thinking it certainly would be nice if Obama used that card on the way out given he's not up for re-election.
I suppose he has to be convicted first, but maybe he could convict him and pardon him on the same day!!
Yes.