42
   

Snowdon is a dummy

Forums: Politics, Snowden, Asylum, Nsa, Snowdon
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Mon 8 Sep, 2014 12:42 pm
@One Eyed Mind,
If you consider a Guardian-journalist to be an enemy of the United States of America: clearly "yes".
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Mon 8 Sep, 2014 12:43 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

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?


Beats me.
One Eyed Mind
 
  3  
Mon 8 Sep, 2014 12:47 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I was asking. Your rash behavior towards questions because of your emotional commitment is far more erroneous and damaging to people's innocence than I asking a question.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Mon 8 Sep, 2014 12:49 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

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.


So you would favor a system where someone could use the defense, "I just felt like doing it?"

What are you saying?


Quote:

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!


Our nation does NOT have to prove anything to him.

He is accused of several very serious crimes here...and he should stand trial on those charges.

But he has managed to escape to a country where he has been granted asylum.

Fine.

Stay there for as long as they will have him...or try to move somewhere else using whatever means he can.

Maybe someone will set up an underground railroad for him...and he can move to asylum somewhere else.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Mon 8 Sep, 2014 12:50 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

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?


Beats me.
Well, if similar had happened here, the person who did it could return after five or ten years (20 years, if the prosecution thinks it's 'treason').
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Mon 8 Sep, 2014 12:51 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

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?



Ummm..."fair?"

He should stand trial just as anyone else in the US would stand trial...under existing laws.

He undoubtedly will have a very competent defense team...and may well "beat the rap."

But a fair trial is a fair trial...a trial before his peers.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Mon 8 Sep, 2014 12:55 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

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?


Beats me.
Well, if similar had happened here, the person who did it could return after five or ten years (20 years, if the prosecution thinks it's 'treason').


I see.

I have no idea of what the law is here on that issue, Walter.

The charges are quite specific...and if there is a statute of limitations on those specific charges...then they would apply...unless they do not apply if he is evading arrest. If he is evading arrest...that may be a new charge...with a new start.

Perhaps Joe could clear that up if he is following this thread.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Mon 8 Sep, 2014 01:01 pm
@Frank Apisa,
If a dude feels like using "I just felt like doing it?" as his defense, why now?

Quote:
Our nation does NOT have to prove anything to him.

Yes it does, if you want him to surrender to you.
One Eyed Mind
 
  4  
Mon 8 Sep, 2014 01:02 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank, you should know that the "justice" system "just is". It has cheated its cases time after time again - it cannot be trusted. The system does not care about our people - it makes money off of the games it plays. Remember Casey Anthony? The lawyer got a raise, for what? After the case was over, people completely disregarded the child she allegedly killed. There's a reason why business people are rarely on the news - business partners cover each other up. Lawyers should be called Liewars.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Mon 8 Sep, 2014 01:14 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

If a dude feels like using "I just felt like doing it?" as his defense, why now?


Why not?

Let him use it.

Let Snowden use whatever he wants.

But that doesn't mean that the courts have to buy into it.

So what is your point?

Quote:
Quote:
Our nation does NOT have to prove anything to him.

Yes it does, if you want him to surrender to you.


No they do not. They can WANT him to surrender without proving anything to him.

He does not have to surrender...nor have I suggested that he HAS to.

He can stay right where he is.

Are you thinking this through before posting...or are you just posting whatever comes into your mind?
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Mon 8 Sep, 2014 01:51 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Or Tico, also a lawyer, if he is following the proceeding here.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Mon 8 Sep, 2014 02:40 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Let Snowden use whatever he wants. But that doesn't mean that the courts have to buy into it. So what is your point?

My point is that a jury of his peers should be able to hear his defense, unfiltered by some judge telling him what he is allowed to say. Otherwise the trial is simply unfair.

Quote:
They can WANT him to surrender without proving anything to him.

You're playing with words here, and it's not even remotely funny... Try and be honest for a change.
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Mon 8 Sep, 2014 02:58 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Let Snowden use whatever he wants. But that doesn't mean that the courts have to buy into it. So what is your point?

My point is that a jury of his peers should be able to hear his defense, unfiltered by some judge telling him what he is allowed to say. Otherwise the trial is simply unfair.


Why do YOU get to decide that?

Are you sure you do not mean that if it is so...YOU think it to be unfair?

Here in America our laws do not allow a jury to hear things without a judge "filtering" what is heard. We consider it UNFAIR to allow a jury to hear things without a judge "filtering" what is heard. Judges "filter" what a jury can hear in EVERY trial held in this country.

And when a defendant considers a judges rulings (filterings) to be erroneous...the defendant is allowed to appeal the rulings...all the way up to the Supreme Court...

...which we consider fairer than allowing YOU to make the decisions.

Quote:
Quote:
They can WANT him to surrender without proving anything to him.

You're playing with words here, and it's not even remotely funny... Try and be honest for a change.


I am being honest, Olivier. Your comment was incorrect. If you meant to say that YOU think it might make Snowden more likely to surrender if...such and such...you ought really to have said that.

But..."they" CAN want him to surrender without proving anything to him.

Think before you post...and you can avoid this kind of thing.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 8 Sep, 2014 03:01 pm
@Olivier5,
I thought it was totally funny! Give up all his rights under the Constitution by the very government who broke the laws of our country. LOL
One Eyed Mind
 
  3  
Mon 8 Sep, 2014 03:02 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Frank's face looks red. I'm going to assume their blood pressure is not up to speed, next to their ability to think.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Mon 8 Sep, 2014 04:06 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
We consider it UNFAIR to allow a jury to hear things without a judge "filtering" what is heard.

Strange. Why do you consider that unfair?
revelette2
 
  4  
Mon 8 Sep, 2014 04:15 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
I've been searching for a while, I imagine others could find better, but in any case, I don't there is a set statue of limitation for espionage. Although he hasn't strictly been charged with espionage, just some parts of it.

Quote:
Espionage Statute of Limitations

Although federal statute USC 3282 provides for a five-year statute of limitation for the vast majority of federal crimes, this statute of limitations does not necessarily stand in the case of espionage prosecution. It is generally agreed by legal scholars that acts of espionage can be prosecuted for at least ten years after the alleged act. Certain executive acts and extenuating factors may provide for prosecution after an even longer period of time.


Quote:
â—¾Organizations including WikiLeaks and alleged federal government leaker Edward Snowden have been considered for or charged with counts related to federal espionage.


source

0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Mon 8 Sep, 2014 04:38 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
We consider it UNFAIR to allow a jury to hear things without a judge "filtering" what is heard.

Strange. Why do you consider that unfair?


The law says it is unfair to allow a jury to hear things without a judge "filtering" what is heard...and I accept that.

If you find it strange...that is your right.
One Eyed Mind
 
  3  
Mon 8 Sep, 2014 04:50 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You look nicer, Frank.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  0  
Mon 8 Sep, 2014 05:17 pm
@Frank Apisa,
And why does the law consider it unfair?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snowdon is a dummy
  3. » Page 515
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.17 seconds on 11/25/2024 at 10:53:48
▲ ▼