Snowdon is a dummy

cicerone imposter wrote:

The idea that Snowden will get a fair trial can't be based on how our government operates. That would be very naive.

Obama has the authority to put any citizen into prison without charge and legal representation.

I wonder how Frank thinks Snowden will get a fair trial?

When he stands trial...he will have very adequate representation...and he will have a jury of his peers.

The trial should be fair.

Humor me.

You've been saying since last summer that Snowden needs to return to the US and stand trial. You may or may not have used the term "jury". I don't care enough to look. Has it been your assumption that Snowden could/would have an opportunity to plead not guilty/innocent/anything other than guilty? If so, and you were to learn that there is no mechanism for such a plea, how would you define a "fair trial"?

An answer from Frank will humour all of us! LOL

Except that the government has already established the base rule; he must first plead guilty.

When does anyone charged with a crime has that choice?

Edward Snowden can get a fair trial in the US. Here's how
Though the court would have to follow unorthodox procedures, the American public – through a jury trial – could decide if Snowden's revelations outweigh his crimes

Depending on your view, former NSA contractor Edward Snowden is either a patriotic whistleblower or a misguided traitor. He either revealed extensive violations of Americans’ constitutional rights or aided our enemies’ efforts to do us harm. He either deserves clemency for his disclosures or life in prison for his crimes.

How do we resolve this debate? The same way we resolve similar disputes in courts throughout the United States – with a public trial by an impartial jury. Unfortunately, criminal trials are not well suited to decide when the government has overstepped its bounds.

If Snowden were arrested today, extradited to the United States, and brought to trial, the rules of evidence would prevent him from arguing that his actions were necessary to reveal governmental wrongdoing. Nor would the jury hear about the legal challenges to the programs he has disclosed.

More importantly, the judge would instruct the jury that neither Snowden’s good intentions nor the fact that he may have revealed illegal activities are a defense to the charges against him. If this were a normal case, the jury would be asked to answer one question, and only one question: based on the evidence, did Snowden steal government secrets and intentionally disclose them? According to Snowden’s own statements, that answer is clear. But this is not a normal case.

Recently, a federal judge ruled that a program Snowden disclosed violates the constitution and must end. An internal document Snowden leaked from the NSA’s oversight division acknowledged that the agency flouted court rules and legal authorities on thousands of occasions.

And Snowden’s disclosures have forced James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, to admit that he previously provided “clearly erroneous” testimony to Congress about the NSA’s activities. As a result, Snowden’s defenders argue that putting him on trial for revealing classified information ignores the bigger picture – that his actions were necessary to expose egregious government misconduct.

... ... ... ... ... ...

But Snowden’s trial need not be typical. The Department of Justice and Snowden’s attorneys could agree to conduct it by a slightly different set of rules, rules that would permit the jury to consider the full extent of the alleged governmental wrongdoing he uncovered along with the full scope of his alleged crimes. For example, perhaps as part of an agreement for Snowden to return to stand trial, federal prosecutors could allow him to present evidence about the legality of the programs he disclosed and, ultimately, argue that his actions were justified by the alleged wrongdoing he revealed.

I'm asserting that he would not be allowed to mount a legal defense of that plea.

And, the only discussion the DOJ will undertake in discussing his return is in exchange for a guilty plea.

“If Mr. Snowden wanted to come back to the United States and enter a plea, we would engage with his lawyers. We would do the same with any defendant who wanted to enter a plea of guilty,”

Me neither, Frank.

That's why I rely on the opinion of his legal team and the statements of the DOJ. He wouldn't be allowed to mount a public interest defense, which is his only defense, and the DOJ won't discuss any alternative other than a guilty plea. So, no, I don't withdraw the statement. He is not allowed to return to this country other than to plead guilty.

Eric Holder wrote:

“If Mr. Snowden wanted to come back to the United States and enter a plea, we would engage with his lawyers. We would do the same with any defendant who wanted to enter a plea of guilty,”