Snowdon is a dummy

@BillRM,

Cite me an example where a negotiation was reached while a wanted fugitive was still on the run, political asylum or not. There could be a case, but there is a lot I don't know, and I don't if there is such a case. Regardless of what you think, Snowden was the one who broke the law by stealing the government's property, not the press. I suppose it could be argued Glen Greenwald was complicit in taking stolen property, however, this thread is about Snowden. The deal Snowden wants is basically for the government to concede there was a necessity for Snowden to steal government property and they would idiots for doing so considering all the lawsuits pending.

2 Replies

@revelette2,

Why does there need to be a precedence as you describe it? 1. We are a country of laws. 2. Our fundamental rule of law is the Constitution. 3. All elected officials swear to uphold the Constitution.

Those ARE the precedence for the US.

Since the government is the one who charged Snowden with breaking the law, Snowden is guaranteed a trial by jury at his request. That's also in our Constitution.

What's your problem? You want to trash the Constitution?

0 Replies

@revelette2,

Yes indeed over the years I had read about terms being given before someone who is beyond the reach of the government surrender and when I have a moment I will do the research to link to such cases.

Next this thread is indeed about Snowden however when people like you claimed that the government is not flexible in both who they charge and what they charge pointing out that the receivers of those "stolen" goods are not being charge due to the fact that they are far too powerful to be charge seems more then appropriate.

The laws in this case are being used as a political tool by people who themselves should facing charges such as spying on congress and lying to congress and so on.

0 Replies

You two have said nothing new on the whole issue of his guilt vs. the government's guilt, were I to respond, I would only be saying stuff I have already said numerous times. Consider it said.

Holder has said, if he came home and made a plea, they would work with his lawyers on a resolution. Perhaps that is hint, they may accept a deal where he could go free if he accepts his responsibility in stealing classified documents and returns any undisclosed documents he may have if he has any. I think everyone could live with that. At least I know I could.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

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

No...I want a fair trial. What you want is a non-fair trial...which will exonerate him no matter what.

You are the one with the prejudice...not I.

1 Reply

Was Snowden doing it for us? Or for our enemies.

You guys are terrible at discussing important issues - it's very ironic how you insult others, when you, yourself, the order of this information cannot sustain that information without losing grip.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

Quote:

I think everyone could live with that. At least I know I could.

Let see we have the people in power that had proven to be willing to lied to the American people, and congress and likely the courts but Snowden should for some very strange reasons should trust in their good intend!!!!!!

As far as returning documents, I would once more suggest that the executive branch should look to the people who have openly stated in the newspaper that is consider the world newspaper of record, that they are the ones who have them not Snowden.

Hell they are the ones who are still in the process of releasing them!!!!!

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Define "fair trial". If that does not include to right to a defense that's not hand-picked by the accusation, then you don't know what a fair trial is.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
I think everyone could live with that. At least I know I could.

Let see we have the people in power that had proven to be willing to lied to the American people, and congress and likely the courts but Snowden should for some very strange reasons should trust in their good intend!!!!!!

As far as returning documents, I would once more suggest that the executive branch should look to the people who have openly stated in the newspaper that is consider the world newspaper of record, that they are the ones who have them not Snowden.

Hell they are the ones who are still in the process of releasing them!!!!!

What Snowden "should do"...is either to stay in asylum in whatever way he is able to fashion...or to come back and settle the matter in a trial.

As far as I am concerned...it will be a fair trial.

But that seems to be the only way it can truly be settled...unless the government sees an advantage to settling by a plea bargain. In which case, that is the way things will go.

But a reckoning must come...or Snowden must stay out of the country and try to avoid the reach of the legal system. For the government...there is absolutely no alternative but to actively and diligently pursue Snowden in an attempt to bring him to trial on the charges now in place.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

If it goes to trial, he will have a chance to make his plea, if he pleads not guilty because of necessity, then a judge, not the ones accusing him, will decide if he gets to use it. What you guys want is new laws written just for him, not a fair trial with the laws we have in place right now, tried by a judge and a jury of peers.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

The idea of Snowden returning undisclosed documents was an idea floated by various lawmakers, not Holden. All Holden said was that if he returned and made his plea, a resolution might be worked out with his lawyers, but the idea of clemency is too far.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

It goes both ways, rev. The government makes up its own rules to justify its flaws.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

What Snowden "should do"...is either to stay in asylum in whatever way he is able to fashion...or to come back and settle the matter in a trial.

What is the statute of limitations for those crimes he's accused of?

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

I don't think the charge of espionage has a statute of limitations.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Quote:

If it goes to trial, he will have a chance to make his plea, if he pleads not guilty because of necessity, then a judge, not the ones accusing him, will decide if he gets to use it.

I find totally absurd a system where somebody else picks your defense for you, but if it's your system, so be it.

Quote:

What you guys want is new laws written just for him, not a fair trial with the laws we have in place right now, tried by a judge and a jury of peers.

Not at all. But if a legal system does not deliver justice more often than not, it looses credibility with the public. If your laws are unfair and your justice system incomprehensible and unreliable, people will end up taking the law in their own hands... The recent acquittal of this Florida guy who killed a kid in the street is a case in point. So it is futile to say that the courts and only the courts can decide this or that. If the courts **** up too often, the people will decide. And that's what happened with Snowden: he simply did not trust the US legal system to deliver justice, and thus he took justice in his own hands.

And if your nation wants to try him, you'll have to prove to him that you can administer a fair trial, not a Spanish inquisition remake. And if you're not prepared to prove that, well, screw you!

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

It's only murder here what doesn't have a statute of limitations Treason is 20 years, espionage between three and 20 years (depending according to what some is accused of).

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

What Snowden "should do"...is either to stay in asylum in whatever way he is able to fashion...or to come back and settle the matter in a trial.

As far as I am concerned...it will be a fair trial.

What, exactltly, does "fair" mean here?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olive, is it possible that Snowden was planning on sharing the information with our enemies. Yes, or no?

3 Replies

@One Eyed Mind,

Define "enemy".

0 Replies

@One Eyed Mind,

Absolute "no." Why would he want to destroy his primary purpose of revealing our government's illegal activities that already destroyed his freedom?

Your kind of imagination belittles his kind of sacrifice.

Unless you have any evidence to the contrary, you shouldn't be spreading this kind of rumor.

1 Reply

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know