Posted on Feb 21, 2016
Snowden: I Would Return to U.S. With Guarantee of Fair Trial
2.05K
19
13
3
3
0
Do you think Snowden can even get a fair trial? Does he deserve one?
Snowden: I Would Return to U.S. With Guarantee of Fair Trial
Posted from theblaze.comPosted in these groups: 
Justice
Justice
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 7
5
5
0
Everyone deserves a fair trial, and our Framers outlined the Protection to a Fair & Speedy Trial in the 6a, as well as other Protections of that ilk in the Bill of Rights.
As for whether he would be Guaranteed a Fair Trial? Debatable. The Government, the DoJ, and the Intelligence Community (et al) got their collective "hands" slapped over the Snowden Fiasco, and they will do everything in their Power(s) to ensure that he is "disappeared" for as long as possible.
When it really boils down to it, he broke the Law. He knows he broke the Law. He admits he WILLFULLY broke the Law. The question is whether the Law was "just" or "Right" or "Constitutional" and whether that allowed him to take matters into his own hands. It does not. You can refuse an order (a passive response) to an Illegal Order, but he took an ACTIVE step and flaunted the Law.
A "Fair Trial" would put him in Jail, even though he may have been Correct to break the Law. Just because you are Right doesn't mean there won't be Consequences. Let me reiterate that. Just because you do the correct thing, doesn't mean you won't suffer Consequences for your actions.
This is something Mr. Snowden has never seemed to grasp. He thinks just because he "did the Right thing" he should walk. No. He may have done the Right thing, but he ALSO broke the Law. Those are not mutually exclusive. You can end up getting punished for doing the Right thing. Because the world isn't Fair, even though we guarantee a Fair Trial.
CC: Capt Richard I P. Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette
As for whether he would be Guaranteed a Fair Trial? Debatable. The Government, the DoJ, and the Intelligence Community (et al) got their collective "hands" slapped over the Snowden Fiasco, and they will do everything in their Power(s) to ensure that he is "disappeared" for as long as possible.
When it really boils down to it, he broke the Law. He knows he broke the Law. He admits he WILLFULLY broke the Law. The question is whether the Law was "just" or "Right" or "Constitutional" and whether that allowed him to take matters into his own hands. It does not. You can refuse an order (a passive response) to an Illegal Order, but he took an ACTIVE step and flaunted the Law.
A "Fair Trial" would put him in Jail, even though he may have been Correct to break the Law. Just because you are Right doesn't mean there won't be Consequences. Let me reiterate that. Just because you do the correct thing, doesn't mean you won't suffer Consequences for your actions.
This is something Mr. Snowden has never seemed to grasp. He thinks just because he "did the Right thing" he should walk. No. He may have done the Right thing, but he ALSO broke the Law. Those are not mutually exclusive. You can end up getting punished for doing the Right thing. Because the world isn't Fair, even though we guarantee a Fair Trial.
CC: Capt Richard I P. Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette
(5)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
EDITED for clarity: 1. John not Stephen Oliver 2. Added Prison per recommendation)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS Good points. I would contend that the law he broke was civil law (NDA contract) and he asserts he did so when he found complying with the civil law conflicted with the Constitution to which he had sworn an oath. (There's a good interview on StarTalk Radio with Niel deGrasse Tyson where he comments on it. Further, by watching the award winning documentary Citizenfour you get a sense that originally he had intended to face the music of his actions, but events did what they do and he ended up fleeing. Finally, John Oliver's last week tonight interview with him does a good job of forcing him to confront the negative moral outcomes of his actions with respect to sources and methods disclosures that have observably helped bad people. I will also take issue with your assertion that a fair trial would necessarily put him in jail (oops meant prison), after all Juries are entitled to judge laws, not merely actions. If they find the law he violated unjust and/or in conflict with a higher law, finding him not guilty could be considered a just outcome.
There's a lot of speculation about his motivation, possible status as a FIS agent or compromise. I tend to take the Occam's razor approach. He probably means what he's said in these contexts, and is conflicted.
To the OP question: yes everyone deserves a fair trial, no I do not think he would likely get one. Therefore his de-facto sentence is exile to lands where personal freedom is far below the infringements his revelations were designed to call attention to. Reminds me of some of the Athenian defectors to Sparta in the Peloponneseian wars.
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS Good points. I would contend that the law he broke was civil law (NDA contract) and he asserts he did so when he found complying with the civil law conflicted with the Constitution to which he had sworn an oath. (There's a good interview on StarTalk Radio with Niel deGrasse Tyson where he comments on it. Further, by watching the award winning documentary Citizenfour you get a sense that originally he had intended to face the music of his actions, but events did what they do and he ended up fleeing. Finally, John Oliver's last week tonight interview with him does a good job of forcing him to confront the negative moral outcomes of his actions with respect to sources and methods disclosures that have observably helped bad people. I will also take issue with your assertion that a fair trial would necessarily put him in jail (oops meant prison), after all Juries are entitled to judge laws, not merely actions. If they find the law he violated unjust and/or in conflict with a higher law, finding him not guilty could be considered a just outcome.
There's a lot of speculation about his motivation, possible status as a FIS agent or compromise. I tend to take the Occam's razor approach. He probably means what he's said in these contexts, and is conflicted.
To the OP question: yes everyone deserves a fair trial, no I do not think he would likely get one. Therefore his de-facto sentence is exile to lands where personal freedom is far below the infringements his revelations were designed to call attention to. Reminds me of some of the Athenian defectors to Sparta in the Peloponneseian wars.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Capt Richard I P. - Keep in mind that I'm looking at the "entirety" of this issue as opposed to just the aftermath.
"I will also take issue with your assertion that a fair trial would necessarily put him in jail, after all Juries are entitled to judge laws, not merely actions."
"If" he returns to the US, he is going to JAIL (not necessarily PRISON). He'll sit there until Due Process takes place. He has already shown he is willing to Flee the Consequences of his actions (Flight Risk) and therefore I find highly unlikely he would be granted bail. The Government is going to throw the proverbial book at him including Insurrection, if Not Treason (there's a pretty solid argument on that one since he has admitted to doing it, and fled to "traditional enemies". Not saying I agree with it.) A speedy trial can be 24~ months in the Future for something of this magnitude.
"I will also take issue with your assertion that a fair trial would necessarily put him in jail, after all Juries are entitled to judge laws, not merely actions. If they find the law he violated unjust and/or in conflict with a higher law, finding him not guilty could be considered a just outcome."
I'm not saying he won't EVENTUALLY be found Not Guilty... but "... will do everything in their Power(s) to ensure that he is "disappeared" for as long as possible." The Justice System is supposed to be balanced, however we're talking about two adversarial teams where one side has the full weight of the US Government and "infinite resources" while the other may or may not be able to completely leverage all the information, due to things like "national security." Add in that the jury will have to be "vetted" to see if they are even allowed to hear specific evidence... and the stones start piling against our defendant.
Could letting him go free be considered "Just," absolutely. Is it realistic based on our system, the crimes, etc. No. I think he'll would end up with a "Fair" trial, to which he goes to jail unless his lawyer is exceptionally good at Jury Selection. Too much stacked against him for a Nullification outcome (which leans towards Just as opposed to Fair, if that makes sense).
"I will also take issue with your assertion that a fair trial would necessarily put him in jail, after all Juries are entitled to judge laws, not merely actions."
"If" he returns to the US, he is going to JAIL (not necessarily PRISON). He'll sit there until Due Process takes place. He has already shown he is willing to Flee the Consequences of his actions (Flight Risk) and therefore I find highly unlikely he would be granted bail. The Government is going to throw the proverbial book at him including Insurrection, if Not Treason (there's a pretty solid argument on that one since he has admitted to doing it, and fled to "traditional enemies". Not saying I agree with it.) A speedy trial can be 24~ months in the Future for something of this magnitude.
"I will also take issue with your assertion that a fair trial would necessarily put him in jail, after all Juries are entitled to judge laws, not merely actions. If they find the law he violated unjust and/or in conflict with a higher law, finding him not guilty could be considered a just outcome."
I'm not saying he won't EVENTUALLY be found Not Guilty... but "... will do everything in their Power(s) to ensure that he is "disappeared" for as long as possible." The Justice System is supposed to be balanced, however we're talking about two adversarial teams where one side has the full weight of the US Government and "infinite resources" while the other may or may not be able to completely leverage all the information, due to things like "national security." Add in that the jury will have to be "vetted" to see if they are even allowed to hear specific evidence... and the stones start piling against our defendant.
Could letting him go free be considered "Just," absolutely. Is it realistic based on our system, the crimes, etc. No. I think he'll would end up with a "Fair" trial, to which he goes to jail unless his lawyer is exceptionally good at Jury Selection. Too much stacked against him for a Nullification outcome (which leans towards Just as opposed to Fair, if that makes sense).
(1)
(0)
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Probably be any number of high priced attorney lawyer-types standing in line to represent him for free so he would have ample representation. If for some reason it was proven he did break a law people who support him would scream he did not receive a fair trial. It's a loose-loose situation on that score. He would be eligible for any number of appeals over time and probably be given a free out by a sympathetic like-thinking fellow-traveler at some point. Many feel he should be consigned to live in Russia for the rest of his unnatural life and be a drag on them and a pain in their buttskys.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
SSG (Join to see) Yes he can get a fair trial, however getting a fair trial doesn't mean the government fails to present it's case, it means they follow the rule of law.
Capt Lance Gallardo
Capt Lance Gallardo
(2)
(0)
Capt Lance Gallardo
I saw this today. What a joke. He WILL get a fair trial and then he WILL be sent to prison for a long time. He has no defense I can imagine to keep himself out of prison. He has given many public interviews about his motives for violating his Oath and the Law regarding the handling of classified materials. I don't think a jury nullification argument will fly (if it is even allowed by a Federal Judge) with a Federal jury. Snowdon knows this and he is just trying to play on the sympathies of people who like what he did. Now can he play the martyr card.
If you were willing to live the rest of your life in a 6x12 cell in some Federal Supermax facility then you release your classified materials , knowing you have given up the rest of your life, and you go to Federal prison. That is the type of civil disobedience that a Medal of Honor recipient Catholic Priest (now former Catholic Priest) and former Army Chaplain Charles Liteky did, when he and other Anti-Nuke protesters did by entering a nuclear facility and trespassed and beat on some hatches with some sledge hammers. He also got prosecuted for trespassing at the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, GA, and he renounced his MOH over the treatment of the Homeless, and left his MOH in a brown paper bag at the Vietnam War memorial. That is what a real courageous martyr does. You do your act of civil disobedience and you go to prison or jail for it, you don't run away with you stolen classified materials to Russia. And It still doesn't make you right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Liteky
If you were willing to live the rest of your life in a 6x12 cell in some Federal Supermax facility then you release your classified materials , knowing you have given up the rest of your life, and you go to Federal prison. That is the type of civil disobedience that a Medal of Honor recipient Catholic Priest (now former Catholic Priest) and former Army Chaplain Charles Liteky did, when he and other Anti-Nuke protesters did by entering a nuclear facility and trespassed and beat on some hatches with some sledge hammers. He also got prosecuted for trespassing at the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, GA, and he renounced his MOH over the treatment of the Homeless, and left his MOH in a brown paper bag at the Vietnam War memorial. That is what a real courageous martyr does. You do your act of civil disobedience and you go to prison or jail for it, you don't run away with you stolen classified materials to Russia. And It still doesn't make you right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Liteky
Charles Liteky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Charles James "Charlie" Liteky (born February 14, 1931), formerly known as Angelo Liteky, is an American peace activist who served as a United States Army chaplain in the Vietnam War and was awarded the U.S. military's highest decoration, the Medal of Honor. A Roman Catholic priest, Liteky received the award for braving intense fire to carry 20 wounded soldiers to safety during a 1967 battle. He later left the priesthood, became a social...
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google