Snowdon is a dummy

@revelette2,

By the way by logic if the NYT have some constitutional protections to publish the documents then anyone who is in the chain in getting those documents to the NYT should enjoy the same protections.

Both Snowden and the NYT have the spirit of the constitution on their side but I question if any court would offer protections to either the NYT or Snowden.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Ah, revelette2, the best you can do is a thumb's down. Figures; all your BS just backfires. That means you don't know much about our Constitution or our legal system.

1 Reply

Revelette...don't worry about it. The genius ci...with his vast legal background and education...will inform you of all the things you need to know about American law.

ci berating you on your legal background...is almost too laughable.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I have been in the kitchen cooking sunday dinner, wasn't doing any thumbing. I get thumbs or thumbs down all time, no need to get uptight about it.

Anyway,

Justification

Quote:

1: the act or an instance of justifying
2 : something that justifies ;specif : a legally sufficient reason or cause (as self-defense) for an act that would otherwise be criminal or tortious
3 : the affirmative defense of having a legally sufficient justification compare excuse -

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I don't think it works that way, logic or not.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

From Wiki.

Quote:

Right to a fair trial
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Criminal procedure
Criminal trials and convictions
Rights of the accused
Fair trial Speedy trial Jury trial Counsel Presumption of innocence Exclusionary rule1 Self-incrimination Double jeopardy2

The right to fair trial is an essential right in all countries respecting the rule of law. A trial in these countries that is deemed unfair will typically be restarted, or its verdict voided.
Various rights associated with a fair trial are explicitly proclaimed in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as numerous other constitutions and declarations throughout the world. There is no binding international law that defines what is or is not a fair trial, for example the right to a jury trial and other important procedures vary from nation to nation.

[quote]The Right to Trial by Jury
The reason it matters whether a jury or a judge finds facts preliminary to sentencing is that the Sixth Amendment (as incorporated against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment) guarantees criminal defendants the right to a trial by jury.

- See more at: http://verdict.justia.com/2013/07/10/what-does-the-sixth-amendment-right-to-jury-trial-protect#sthash.6fTPzhTW.dpuf[/quote]

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

So what? You said there was no justification defense, I showed you there is.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

The government already charged Snowden with a crime. The Constitution guarantees Snowden a fair trial. Justifiable defense is an oxymoron. It has no meaning when a crime is charged, and the defendant can demand a trial by jury - or fair trial.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Justifiable defense is a legal defense. It could be self defense or some kind of circumstance which justifies the defendants actions even though the action itself is against the law. I am aware he is entitled to a Jury by his peers, he is also allowed to plead for a justifiable defense as his defense. What in the world is so hard to understand about it?

2 Replies

@revelette2,

I'm not sure how your 'justifiable defense' applies to the Snowden's case. Sounds more like the "stand your ground" laws of Florida and some other states, but that's a completely different situation. The topic of this thread is Snowden.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

For over a year, you guys have been saying Snowden is justified in his stealing (well, some of you for over a year anyway)classified documents because the information he stole has been informative for the public and has started a needed debate about the balance of privacy and security. There is his justifiable defense. He can claim he that yes he stole classified documents and gave them to unauthorized persons, but he did to inform the public of the mass spying which has been going on at NSA. He can claim informing the public outweighs the harm of his actions. (obviously use better legal words) His lawyers can even bring up the President has even weighed in and has made changes, congress has to. There are lots of ways he can try to prove his justification in his actions. If the judge allows that defense. I am not really sure how that works, to be honest.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Snowden caught the government with its industrial hands in the cookie jar. There is no other reason to argue this, unless Snowden originally intended to give that information to our enemies.

That's it. There's nothing else that should be on the Snowden Table. Address the two points, nothing more.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I'm not sure how your 'justifiable defense' applies to the Snowden's case.

The legal concept come under the necessity defense not justifiable defense.

An example that come to my own mind is if you would find yourself trap out in the woods in a winter storm and are in real danger of dying from exposure and in trying to save your own life you break into an unoccupied cabin you came across.

The defense for the crime of breaking and entering into the cabin would be the necessity defense.

In Snowden case, there was the necessity of warning his fellow citizens of an out of control government that is breaking at least the spirit and very very likely the letter of the constitution in secret by releasing those documents.

Quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity

In U.S. criminal law, necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law

That other more specific provision of law is the Constitution. It overrides (or should) all other laws of the land. Isn't that why all elected officials swear to uphold the Constitution? If not, what use is the Constitution.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

Justifiable defense is a legal defense. It could be self defense or some kind of circumstance which justifies the defendants actions even though the action itself is against the law. I am aware he is entitled to a Jury by his peers, he is also allowed to plead for a justifiable defense as his defense. What in the world is so hard to understand about it?

ci is completely lost in this discussion, Revelette.

His response to this comment of yours shows just how lost he is. He honestly is not following what is being argued.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
I'm not sure how your 'justifiable defense' applies to the Snowden's case.

The legal concept come under the necessity defense not justifiable defense.

An example that come to my own mind is if you would find yourself trap out in the woods in a winter storm and are in real danger of dying from exposure and in trying to save your own life you break into an unoccupied cabin you came across.

The defense for the crime of breaking and entering into the cabin would be the necessity defense.

In Snowden case, there was the necessity of warning his fellow citizens of an out of control government that is breaking at least the spirit and very very likely the letter of the constitution in secret by releasing those documents.

There was no "necessity"...or at least a jury could easily find that there was no necessity...and there was no need to steal and release the documents to get done what Snowden supposedly intended to get done.

Under any circumstances...it is up to a jury to decide these things...and the only way for a jury to decide them is for Snowden to stand trial.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

The constitution is the framework of our government and what our elected leaders had sworn to protected and follow it however is not a law and there is no law that I know of that would cover Snowden actions in taking ex-legal steps to protect it from men that are not following their oaths ,in this matter.

The laws dealing with classify materials are not in themselves unconstitutional and the problem only arrived when the oath breakers in our government used those laws to try to hide their anti-constitutional actions from the people.

So once more the necessary defense seems to fit this situation at least in my opinion.

Like the man in the snow storm he needed to take illegal actions to prevent far greater harm.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

A fair trial is one where the defendant can actually defend himself. What you want is to lynch Snowden, not try him.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

There was no "necessity"...or at least a jury could easily find that there was no necessity...and there was no need to steal and release the documents to get done what Snowden supposedly intended to get done.

Under any circumstances...it is up to a jury to decide these things...and the only way for a jury to decide them is for Snowden to stand trial.

No surprise, I'm sure, but I agree. I have no idea how a jury would decide, if the judge allowed that defense.

Would that determination be decided in preliminary hearings? Or is he allowed to just enter his justification or necessity defense at his arraignment?

In any case, my point with all this is that it seems Snowden tried to plea bargain before turning himself in and that isn't how the justice system works. If the government agreed, they would practically be conceding wrong doing which could be used in court against them, wouldn't they?

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Quote:

that isn't how the justice system works

BULLSHIT as this would hardly be the first time there was negotiations before someone surrender and given that they are not even brave enough to try to bring charges against the NYT employees for example the idea that those running the legal system do not take into account other factors beside legal issues is beyond silly.

1 Reply

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know