Wow, that certainly leads to unfair trials.
Printable View
Wow, that certainly leads to unfair trials.
Not to mention that they'll throw the book at him and probably accuse him of 100+ different crimes with a 1,000 years of prison total. Or some other nonsense your justice system deigns to use in those cases.
Or have you forgotten Swartz?
I mean, take stuff like this:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...thirteen.shtml
And, wham, one "crime" becomes 9.Quote:
The new filing basically realleges all the original charges but ups the felony count by providing specific dates for each action, turning each marked date into its own felony charge.
and I doubt he wants to experience the isolation (including having to sleep naked) that Manning went through, or the 1000 days of confinement without trial.
We'll never know, because half the trial will be conducted in secret. They'll probably tell his keepers to torture and thoroughly damage Snowden however :noob:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Is it lies or the truth?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Because that's what we do with American prisoners. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
It's not in the American public interest to reveal this information whether it's true or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Which says nothing about the fairness of the trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Khen, you're basically in kat land by claiming that the American judicial system does not provide fair trials.
How very anti-First Amendment of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
WTF, revealing state secrets is covered by the first amendment? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3389446.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...n-treatment-un
So, yes, that may in fact be precisely what you do with a certain category of American prisoners. How frickin' retarded is it, btw, to assume someone who's been brutalized for the better part of three years will have a truly fair (but secret!!!) trial :bulb: for Snowden, the best bet is to not end up in a secret trial in the US. Let's face it, you're arguing from the position that "fair trial" = "a trial that ends in execution or brutal and painful life in prison".
No, I'm arguing that your knowledge of the American legal system seems to be as solid as kat's knowledge of the American political system. The American legal system is far from perfect, but it's no worse than your average Western legal system. To claim that America does not provide fair trials to American citizens is about as intelligent as claiming that America isn't a democracy.
Manning's problem is that he's in the military, and military trials are not the same as civilian ones. Not that there's any evidence that he won't get a fair trial.
That's just a load of nonsense. As if fairness is a binary either-or trait where it's either North Korea or The West :rolleyes: As if anyone's asserting that all trials in the US are unfair :rolleyes: As if the US legal system is no worse than the average western legal system :rolleyes:
You're right about one thing: it's as intelligent to claim that the US isn't a democracy as it is to claim that no US citizen gets anything like a fair trial. You are of course as usual also completely wrong about what anyone in the discussion is actually saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Minx, you're assuming far too much about conditions here. There is absolutely nothing there that suggests any actual abuse. Solitary confinement is not torture and the use of solitary no more means Manning is being brutalized then the presence of a campfire means you're getting burned. It creates a situation where it is possible to suffer or inflict harm if you screw up. Now you are perfectly free to say that you don't trust prison officials, the US military, the US government, or anyone else to show intelligence (the board's libertarians say this all the time, after all) but that doesn't mean you can turn that lack of trust into the definitive claims above without backup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I find the complaint at the end of the Guardian article, about the lack of privacy in communications, to be particularly hilarious. All prisoner communications are monitored, regardless of whether you've been convicted or are just being held pending trial. In US law there are three areas of privileged communication: legal, medical, religious. Attorney/client, physician/patient, and priest/confessional communications are guaranteed confidence. Everything else gets monitored. And this is an espionage case. At its base insufficiently monitored communication is what led to the alleged crime. Of course they're going to be strict in enforcing those restrictions.
The first article kinda amused me, since a bunch of the complaints (no good picture of the suspect, for example) are more standard over here - odd to complain about that considering a bunch of us complained about the 'perp walk' DSK got. And in a trial involving espionage, it's hardly surprising that good parts of it are closed.
I'm curious about one thing: is whistleblowing an accepted defense? I mean, it's pretty clear in both cases they did break the law. Can an excuse of 'the people have a right to know' stand up in court, legally?
No, "whistleblowing" is not a defense against criminal charges. It might be a reason to refrain from prosecuting but really, whistleblowing as a protected practice is something you're supposed to be communicating to watchdog authorities, not the general public or private interests, including the media. Protected whistleblowing against the federal government pretty much means trying to convince Congress-critters that there's a politically/electorally useful investigation to be made, in which case they'll shield you from the Executive branch. Providing documents to anyone but an investigatory office in the government is always, always going to leave you exposed to some sort of legal action and probably guilty/liable for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Na hes screwed. what he did is the definition of treachery in UCMJ. Unless by some miracle he gets it thrown out on technicality later on.
He's screwed because he blatantly broke the law and the military code, not because he won't get a fair trial. Anyway, he's lucky he did this in the 21st century, or he'd be facing more than life in prison.
Jesus Christ, this is the standard you're holding to? :haha: :up: :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Do you even have a point? He's screwed because there's overwhelming evidence against him, not because he won't get a fair trial. :bored:
So who do you whistleblow to when its the big government your whistleblowing against?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
You don't. You keep your mouth shut and continue to be a good Orwellian cog in the machine.
Yeah, keep yourself telling that. Again, Swartz.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Then again, it just landed the US government in a lot of hot water regarding the EU, specifically Germany. Not too happy with Britain either, by the way.
The big government knows whats best for you. In particular if it not your own government. :up: :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
And Die Muddi can't turn a blind eye on this one, it's election year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
I agree best on this issue I think with Rand Paul: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...eliana-johnson
Snowden may have broken the law but I think that the public had a right to know what was going on and when Congress is being lied to on the issue its rich Loki to claim he was going against the interests of all of America's public. If the public is being spied on while Congress and the public are explicitly being told they're not then yes I think the truth is in their interests.
I think it would be totally acceptable if Snowden would get asylum in the EU. Probably no government other than the British government would dare extradite him.
I disagree. It wouldn't surprise me if they would - maybe not immediately.
We definitely would.
I don't think you have any idea of how angry the Germans are.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Pah, just more German anti-tech lunacy and neo-luddism.
Only if they want to permanently poison relations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
You don't think you might be overstating the impact just a little?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
No, I'm not. There was a good story about why Russia and China are unwilling to give Snowden asylum; the basic premise was that they might be competitors of the US, but they don't want to become enemies. Any EU country stooping to a level that China and Russia were unwilling to stoop to would find itself in the doghouse for decades. Not only would it cause an immediate fury, but any time Snowden would make an appearance on television, relations would plummet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
It wouldn't be the first time winning an election was more important than the US relations. Why would you risk power if you're relation to the US are worth shit anyway. That's the main problem the US has at the moment, the "with us" option is getting less lucrative every day while the alternatives are getting more interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Especially if 'with us' still means you're treated as if you are an enemy. Which is the way US spying on the EU in general and Germany in particular is viewed. It wouldn't surprise me if Germany pushes through with criminal investigations into people who facilitated the NSA.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
And one has to ask, which justification does the US government think can make it acceptable that they bugged EU missions?
Then again Russia and China aren't much in the way of trusting allies of the US who've been offended by the extensive NSA surveillance. Russia and China are competitors and always one small step removed from being enemies. The EU is a slighted friend, it has more wiggle-room as well as the moral high-ground.
Exactly, the US actively damaged the interests of the EU and Snowden has served those very interests by telling the world. The last of the fall-out of this we have not yet seen. There are calls already to suspend the free trade talks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Just imagine the SPD would win just because of this :mad:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/...aven-in-EuropeQuote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
Relations with whom? I don't get the impression that many in the American public are calling for Snowden's head, (in fact one poll I saw showed the majority surveyed believed this leak serves the public interest) and I certainly don't see the kind of outcry from the masses that you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I just said. Congress. It's spelled out right there in the middle of the text you quoted. The formal checks to abuse by the government are the application of checks and balances. If you want legal protection from retaliation via the exercise of state power by one of the branches of government, you need to go to one of the other branches. This is both an exercise in basic logic and common sense. There are internal mechanisms for whistleblowing within the Executive branch as well but they are somewhat ineffective even within their limited scope and are certainly not useful when you're trying to expose high-level policy or entire programs.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Yes he is. Given that America is embarrassed by revelations they are spying on their allies embassies and Kerry is having to be apologetic about it - if one of those allies give asylum (I don't think they will) what will America really do about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Given the revelations that have come out - and the fact Congress was lied to about it - it's hard to see what Snowden did as being especially bad even if illegal.
If the government is acting illegally/unethically and misleading Congress about its actions is it terrible to whistleblow the truth?
Had he wanted to make these revelations to Congress:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
1: Would Congress have heard him/let him speak?
2: Could he still be prosecuted?
Free speech via the media has always been an alternative means of disclosing the truth and official malfeasance. Hence it's First Amendment protection.
LA Times is reporting that Snowden is asking ~15 countries for asylum. No way the US is getting this guy back