Discussion for article #224698
“She also argued that returning to the United States would allow Snowden to continue the “debate” he wished to start by leaking the information.”
IMHO I think this has turned into something a little more than a debate.
2 Likes
Continued the “debate?” Is that how we treat those who commit espionage now? Oh, he didn’t really do much that was wrong, he was just trying to start a “debate.”
6 Likes
The Power Elite in this case want to prosecute Snowden but not any of the NSA principals or corporate execs who broke the law brazenly and with contempt, including those who lied under oath while testifying to Congress. Sauce for the goose is supposed to be sauce for the gander. But I’ll believe it when I see it.
3 Likes
I think you meant “sham trial”, Hillz.
4 Likes
Hillary Clinton accurately describes the American legal system.
Let’s see how controversial we can make this seem. Get to it, internet commenters!
5 Likes
Her “description” flies in the face of reality with regard to “national security” cases.
Glenn Greenwald, despite his many faults, is absolutely correct when he describes the “trial” that Snowden would receive. It would look something like this:
Judge: “The prosecution may begin.”
Govt: "We have all this evidence, which we can’t show you or the defendant, but trust us, he’s guilty.
Judge: “Ok. Any defense?”
Defense: “How can we defend against evidence we’ve never been allowed to see?”
Judge: “Ok. Guilty.”
Her “description” is a fantasy.
10 Likes
Zero chance of a happy ending for Snowden regardless.
He accepted the yoke he now wears by fleeing.
The best status available to him is martyrdom.
But he can’t achieve that in exile.
He could return IMHO.
And, yes, while he would be incarcerated, he could still begin the debate upon which he chose to shine a light.
It’s a long-haul proposition.
But if it’s truly what he believes?
Then he needs to commit to the chance of success no matter how unlikely.
Snowden may never again personally experience the type of freedom he once enjoyed.
That was the decision he made by performing those acts.
But if he still believes is wasn’t a mistake?
It is possible to exchange that yoke-- for a hero’s mantle-- in an historical context.
Though not likely to benefit his chase to restore his personal freedom-- in his lifetime.
Despite the logistics of where and when he ended up?
No right-minded, clear-thinking individual could have assumed this present situation-- exile-- wasn’t going to be the reality he would face.
HRC is right.
The ball is in Snowden’s court.
jw1
10 Likes
Hillary’s straddling the fence, as usual – one of many reasons why I’m not her biggest fan. At least she mentioned the possibility of a trial. That should be enough to get the Snowden/Greenwald fanboys into a nice lather.
1 Like
Nailed it.
And as far as incarceration, I’d say Obama’s handling of Ahmed Abu Khatallah is a fairly good yardstick. Grampy and Mizz Lindsey were screaming for him to go to Gitmo, but Obama threw him right into custody in the U.S… No way Obama buries Snowden without a trial. Any legacy he has (including ACA) would go up in smoke.
6 Likes
This isn’t the best fence to be straddling either, and her wording was rather poor in this instance. And it doesn’t take much to get the Leave Snowdon alloooonnneee fanboys into a lather.
1 Like
So true. In fact, here they come in 3… 2…
3 Likes
Hillary is really good at playing stupid on this. As if Snowden would have anything resembling a fair trial on his return to the USA.
What an absolute crock of shit.
2 Likes
If there is anything Hillary is adept at, it’s straddling.
Right up there with her lying and triangulating skill set.
Yup. One eagerly swallowed by the DNC dead-enders.
2 Likes
Wait, but doesn’t Snowden have evidence that he is in fact a whistleblower? He is either a whistleblower, as currently defined by law, or he is not. Snowden claims to be a whistleblower. His only defense would be to prove that he in fact is protected as a whistleblower under current United State’s law.
If Snowden doesn’t technically and legally qualify as a whistleblower, but has a case to be made that he should be considered a whistleblower anyway with respect to the enormity or severity of what he has done then he and his lawyers should go for it, especially in the court of public opinion, which Clinton accurately points out is an important part of this specific process.
Last time I checked, “I’m totally innocent, but I can’t actually defend myself, because I don’t trust the Government, so you’ll just have to trust me” is not an actual legal defense. It makes for good headlines and internet outrage, but I really can’t see it holding up in a court of law.
But again, let’s see just how much controversy and F.U.D. can be generated with an accurate and basic explanation of the American legal system. Freak out! Outrage all around!
3 Likes
Hillary Clinton is full of shit. Full Stop.
Snowden’s legal team have stated that lack of recourse to a public interest defence is a key obstacle to the whistleblower returning to the US.
Ben Wizner, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, said: "The laws would not provide him any opportunity to say that the information never should have been withheld from the public in the first place.
“And the fact that the disclosures have led to the highest journalism rewards, have led to historic reforms in the US and around the world – all of that would be irrelevant in a prosecution under the espionage laws in the United States.”
3 Likes
Kevin Gosztola:
Hillary Clinton still appears to know nothing about whistleblower cases or leak prosecutions http://bit.ly/1o7KtXY #Snowden
The only evidence that prosecutors need in this case is evidence that has already been made public on the front pages of every newspaper around the world. It is illegal to leak classified documents, unless the leaker qualifies for whistleblower status. All the prosecution needs to do is prove that Snowden in fact leaked classified documents and that his actions do not fit the legal definition of whistle blowing. From a prosecutorial standpoint, it seems to be an open and shut case, even without resorting to secret evidence.
The entire trial would revolve around two very simple questions: Did Snowden break the law by leaking classified documents? Is Snowden a whistleblower and therefore protected against prosecution?
There is already enough evidence out in the open for the prosecutors to make a case.
Why is this so difficult for people to understand?
6 Likes
Independent of your opinion of HRC’s opinion?
He either comes back to the U.S. and fight-- or he doesn’t.
No amount of teeth-gnashing or linking to contemporary alternative opinions change that dynamic.
So? What’ll it be?
Snowden stays in exile for a lifetime?
Snowden returns to fight the battle he started?
No large chunks of other’s cut & pasted content is required.
Just a straight answer.
jw1
6 Likes