Snowdon is a dummy

I wonder, does the fact that he disclosed secret information after signing a pledge not to, count for anything?

I wonder, does the fact that he disclosed secret information after signing a pledge not to, count for anything?

Given the nature of what the US government was doing and still is doing no it does not matter to me.

What the US government was and is doing is: trying to stop terrorist murders of US citizens,

I wonder, does the fact that he disclosed secret information after signing a pledge not to, count for anything?

RABEL222 wrote:

I wonder, does the fact that he disclosed secret information after signing a pledge not to, count for anything?

Here, it would be the court(s) to decide that.

Quote:

What the US government was and is doing is: trying to stop terrorist murders of US citizens,

Bullshit none of those billions had been shown to had stop one terrorist attack all those billions are doing is taking away the privacy rights of US citizens to the degree that no other nation on earth had done before to it citizens including all the police states in the history of the human race.

He will not only get a fair trial, I suspect he will have a legal team that will be referred to as "the new dream team."[/b]

Snowden can get a "fair" trial. We have thousands of "fair" trials every day.

The UN special rapporteur on torture has formally accused the US government of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment towards Bradley Manning, the US soldier who was held in solitary confinement for almost a year on suspicion of being the WikiLeaks source.

Juan Mendez has completed a 14-month investigation into the treatment of Manning since the soldier's arrest at a US military base in May 2010. He concludes that the US military was at least culpable of cruel and inhumane treatment in keeping Manning locked up alone for 23 hours a day over an 11-month period in conditions that he also found might have constituted torture.

"The special rapporteur concludes that imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence," Mendez writes.

The findings of cruel and inhuman treatment are published as an addendum to the special rapporteur's report to the UN general assembly on the promotion and protection of human rights. They are likely to reignite criticism of the US government's harsh treatment of Manning ahead of his court martial later this year.

Frank Apisa wrote:

He will not only get a fair trial, I suspect he will have a legal team that will be referred to as "the new dream team."[/b]

Until now, his (German and Russian) lawyers and the US-government's lawyers are only discussing ... his probable return.

I think, he (his lawyers) and you (the US-Government side) have different opinions about what a fair trial is.

I'd love to have seen a ferocious, brave guy like you stand up and say that kind of stuff in regimes headed by Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, or Adolf Hitler. But you wouldn't dare![/b]

It would be okay with me...and with lots of other Americans...if he stayed right there...where his privacy is guaranteed.

I doubt that...but I think people like you...and I have different ideas.

There are people who think a fair trial means a trial that frees him no matter if he broke the law or not.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I'd love to have seen a ferocious, brave guy like you stand up and say that kind of stuff in regimes headed by Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, or Adolf Hitler. But you wouldn't dare![/b]

Although you didn't direct that question to me: I don't know if I would stand up and say something like that under the above mentioned regimes.
The reasons are quite simple: I don't know how I would have reacted in a different period, on a different continent/in a different country, in a different culture ... I really can't imagine how I had been socialised there and then.


But obviously you can do so, at least, you know what Bill would have done.

I suspect people like you will take a conviction to mean there was no fair trial.

]It would be okay with me...and with lots of other Americans...if he stayed right there...where his privacy is guaranteed.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I suspect people like you will take a conviction to mean there was no fair trial.

How did you come to that conclusion? A conviction or verdict of not guilty can be the result of an unfair and/or fair trial.