Snowdon is a dummy

my personal feelings are unimportant, especially seeing as how this is merely a message forum where one expresses one's own opinion in response to another, while hopefully respecting each other in exchange.

Presumption of Innocence
A principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence.

The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of Criminal Law, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

In practice the presumption of innocence is animated by the requirement that the government prove the charges against the defendant Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. This due process requirement, a fundamental tenet of criminal law, is contained in statutes and judicial opinions. The requirement that a person suspected of a crime be presumed innocent also is mandated in statutes and court opinions. The two principles go together, but they can be separated.

The Supreme Court has ruled that, under some circumstances, a court should issue jury instructions on the presumption of innocence in addition to instructions on the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt (Taylor v. Kentucky). A presumption of innocence instruction may be required if the jury is in danger of convicting the defendant on the basis of extraneous considerations rather than the facts of the case.

The presumption of innocence principle supports the practice of releasing criminal defendants from jail prior to trial. However, the government may detain some criminal defendants without bail through the end of trial. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that excessive bail shall not be required, but it is widely accepted that governments have the right to detain through trial a defendant of a serious crime who is a flight risk or poses a danger to the public. In such cases the presumption of innocence is largely theoretical.

in a truly fair trial, Snowden may very well be found innocent.

I agree. This is why we have trials to determine just such a verdict.

Well, mit was assuming that a fair trial will land Snowden in jail... That's not presumption of guilt?

Do you want a fair trial for the guys in Gitmo, Frank?

You have trials... Like for the Gitmo boys?

True; the presumption of innocence is no longer possible, since the government already charged Snowden with espionage. Under US law, that's a crime punishable by execution.

The State has a right to sue its citizens, so that's not the issue. The point I'm trying to make is that MIT is assuming Snowden's guilt.

Moment-in-Time wrote:

A "fair trial" will ultimately see Snowden getting jail time

really

what happened to presumption of innocence until proven guilty?

or have you taken the roles of judge and jury upon yourself?

Personally, I'm hoping for a lot more treasonous bastards to rise up and blow the whistle as regards the behavior of the intelligence community and the military and the huge for-profit entities making bazillions who are trying to keep citizens stupid (uniformed, misinformed) about what they are up to.

Quote:

Edward Snowden Charged With Espionage By US Government
from the and-off-we-go dept
This isn't a huge surprise, but the Washington Post is reporting that US federal prosecutors have filed a sealed criminal complaint against Edward Snowden charging him with espionage under the Espionage Act, along with theft and conversion of government property -- and have asked Hong Kong authorities to detain him. Just this morning, we were discussing the Obama administration's war on whistleblowers, prosecuting six different whistleblowers under the Espionage Act, twice the number of all other presidential administrations combined. Now we're up to number seven apparently. Update: The complaint has been unsealed (also embedded below).

Did Snowden break the law? Possibly -- but charging him with espionage is ridiculous, just as it has been ridiculous in many of these cases. Snowden wasn't doing this to "aid the enemy" but to alert the American public to the things that the administration itself had been publicly misleading to downright untruthful about. His actions have kicked off an important discussion and debate over surveillance society and how far it has gone today. That's not espionage. If he was doing espionage, he would have sold those secrets off to a foreign power and lived a nice life somewhere else. To charge him with espionage is insane.

In terms of process, the Washington Post explains:
By filing a criminal complaint, prosecutors have a legal basis to make the request of the authorities in Hong Kong. Prosecutors now have 60 days to file an indictment, probably also under seal, and can then move to have Snowden extradited from Hong Kong for trial in the United States.

Snowden, however, can fight the U.S. effort to have him extradited in the courts in Hong Kong. Any court battle is likely to reach Hong Kong's highest court and could last many months, lawyers in the United States and Hong Kong said.
It also notes that while the US and Hong Kong have an extradition treaty, there is an exception for "political offenses."

While this certainly was not unexpected, it's still a disappointing move from the administration. The crackdown on whistleblowers does not make the US look strong. It makes our government look weak, petty and vindictive in the face of actual transparency. It's shameful.

Capital punishment by the United States federal government
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The United States federal government (in comparison to the separate states) applies the death penalty for certain crimes: treason, espionage, federal murder, large-scale drug trafficking, and attempting to kill a witness, juror, or court officer in certain cases. Military law allows execution of soldiers for several crimes. Executions by the federal government have been rare compared to those by state governments. Twenty-six federal (including military) executions have been carried out since 1950. Three of those (none of them military) have occurred in the modern post-Gregg era. This list only includes those executed under federal jurisdiction. The Federal Bureau of Prisons manages the housing and execution of federal death row prisoners. As of January 19, 2014, fifty-nine people are on the federal death row for men at the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute, Indiana; while the two women on the federal death row are at Federal Medical Center, Carswell in Fort Worth, Texas.[1]

U.S. Can Confine Citizens Without Charges, Court Rules

By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 10, 2005
A federal appeals court yesterday backed the president's power to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil without any criminal charges, holding that such authority is vital during wartime to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.

The three charges are out in the public domain.

The attitude of Americans who hate their own country is what is shameful.

From Wiki.

Quote:

Capital punishment by the United States federal government
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The United States federal government (in comparison to the separate states) applies the death penalty for certain crimes: treason, espionage, federal murder, large-scale drug trafficking, and attempting to kill a witness, juror, or court officer in certain cases. Military law allows execution of soldiers for several crimes. Executions by the federal government have been rare compared to those by state governments. Twenty-six federal (including military) executions have been carried out since 1950. Three of those (none of them military) have occurred in the modern post-Gregg era. This list only includes those executed under federal jurisdiction. The Federal Bureau of Prisons manages the housing and execution of federal death row prisoners. As of January 19, 2014, fifty-nine people are on the federal death row for men at the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute, Indiana; while the two women on the federal death row are at Federal Medical Center, Carswell in Fort Worth, Texas.[1]

Frank Apisa wrote:

The three charges are out in the public domain.

The attitude of Americans who hate their own country is what is shameful.

Well, those haters include quite a few law professors, who ask for instance, when a release of confidential information may cause damage to US interests. Or why prior to the last decade, the federal government did not aggressively pursue criminal charges against government employees who leaked information to the press but punished such leaks if at all, via internal disciplinary actions. ... ...

A prosecution will be justified here — Snowden knowingly broke the law. Trying to lock him up for decades may not. If the government is convinced that the leaks had the serious potential to put lives at risk, make that case. If Snowden's worst crime is embarrassing the administration, it would make sense to seek charges that carry enough punishment to induce great caution in those with access to such secrets, but not so much as to terrorize those who would expose serious abuses of power.

Well, mit was assuming that a fair trial will land Snowden in jail... That's not presumption of guilt?