So what should happen to Edward Snowden? - Page 2

Bob001 · 3rd November 2020, 10:12 AM

Snowden's book is a pretty compelling explanation of his actions and the thought processes behind them.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...snowden-review
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/13/b...sultPosition=3

theprestige · 3rd November 2020, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Snowden is Jabba-ing, basically going "Unless everyone already agrees I've won before we even start, I won't start because it's not fair."

There's whistleblowing protection laws which are a very, very good thing and this "I identify as a whistleblower therefore you can't even look at what I'm doing" mentality that Snowden seems to have.

"I identify as a whistleblower therefore you have to take into account my reasons for breaking the law when you decide whether I broke the law."

Mumbles · 3rd November 2020, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yeah Snowden much more strikes me as someone who's drank the "Amerika is da great Satan" Koolaid since he's idea of who to run to when America is mean to him is Russia.

ZThis is very much my view as well - as well as most people involved in similar hijinks, such as Julian Assange and Glenn Greenwald (although he's more of a "destroy the democratic party and everything will be great after that" fool).

The major exception in this is actually Chelsea Manning - although I think it's fairly clear that she was prone to manipulation and not particularly mentally well (due to depression and the like, not due to being trans), that led her to being manipulated by a crapfactory like Wikileaks. And for reference, this makes her extended solitary confinement even worse.

theprestige · 3rd November 2020, 04:04 PM

Incidentally, this is where I think it makes sense for a reporter to have anonymous sources.

"There's something wrong going on here and the legal channels for whistleblowing have been compromised. Obviously I can't leak the info to you directly, and you can't name me as a source, but I can give you enough hints anonymously that you can uncover the truth and report it legally."

The reporter goes to his editor, they do what they can to verify the anonymous source is on the up-and-up. Then they take a close look at where the source is pointing, do some investigative journalism, talk to their other sources, and work on breaking the story.

Now, if the source were to decide that none of this is working, and they're just gonna illegally publish the material themselves... Well, do the crime, do the time.

theprestige · 3rd November 2020, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

"Necessity" is a legitimate defense to a criminal charge. So is acting in the public interest. Other countries allow a defendant to claim them.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...y-defense.html
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/whist...-hum_b_6903544

I would accept a necessity defense in very narrow circumstances. Not in whistleblowing cases.

trustbutverify · 22nd November 2020, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Mumbles

ZThis is very much my view as well - as well as most people involved in similar hijinks, such as Julian Assange and Glenn Greenwald (although he's more of a "destroy the democratic party and everything will be great after that" fool).

The major exception in this is actually Chelsea Manning - although I think it's fairly clear that she was prone to manipulation and not particularly mentally well (due to depression and the like, not due to being trans), that led her to being manipulated by a crapfactory like Wikileaks. And for reference, this makes her extended solitary confinement even worse.

Couldn't agree more.

Roger Ramjets · 22nd November 2020, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Maybe it'd be a kindness to offer him a stiff prison sentence in the US. But perhaps being a useful idiot in Vladimir Putin's Russia is still preferable to being a convicted criminal in a US federal prison.

Ex-KGB Major: The Russians Tricked Snowden Into Going To Moscow

Quote:

Ex-KGB Major Boris Karpichko told Nigel Nelson of The Mirror that spies from Russia’s SVR intelligence service, posing as *diplomats in Hong Kong, convinced Snowden to fly to Moscow last June.

“It was a trick and he fell for it,” Karpichko, who reached the rank of Major as a member of the KGB’s prestigious Second Directorate while specializing in counter-intelligence, told Nelson. “Now the Russians are extracting all the intelligence he possesses.”

Karpichko said that the Kremlin leaked Snowden’s planned flight to Moscow to provoke the U.S. into revoking Snowden’s passport, which Washington did on June 22. Assange also advised Snowden that “he would be physically safest in Russia.”

Former KGB General Olig Kalugin recently told VentureBeat that “the Russians are very pleased with the gifts Edward Snowden has given them. He’s busy doing something. He is not just idling his way through life.”

Useful idiot indeed.

Venom · 22nd November 2020, 07:53 PM

Boris Karpichkov LOL.

The man has made some questionable at best claims from Putin bombing Flight 9268 to Gareth Williams being a victim of the Russian special services.

I mean this would be the least outrageous of his claims, but he's a favorite of the British tabloids.

theprestige · 24th November 2020, 07:29 AM

Was Karpichkov one of the agents involved in the ruse? Or is he just guessing at what happened?

Either way, I doubt anyone in Snowden's position would have been fooled by an offer from "Russian diplomats" to seek refuge in Russia.

Bob001 · 24th November 2020, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Was Karpichkov one of the agents involved in the ruse? Or is he just guessing at what happened?

Either way, I doubt anyone in Snowden's position would have been fooled by an offer from "Russian diplomats" to seek refuge in Russia.

The story at the time was that Snowden was trying to get to Ecuador but got stuck in Moscow when the U.S. cancelled his passport. He spent a month at the Moscow airport while authorities decided what to do with him. It's not like Putin welcomed him with open arms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden

TragicMonkey · 24th November 2020, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

It's not like Putin welcomed him with open arms.

What? But Putin's such a warm, friendly guy, always hugging people! He's the Ellen of dictators. If you ever meet him ask him to do a funny dance, you'll be glad you did.

dudalb · 24th November 2020, 04:25 PM

I see some people are still drinking the "SNowden is a great heor" kool aid.

theprestige · 24th November 2020, 04:46 PM

I guess it depends what a "heor" is.

Bob001 · 24th November 2020, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

I see some people are still drinking the "SNowden is a great heor" kool aid.

You don't have to think he's a hero to believe he shouldn't have to spend the rest of his life in prison or exile. People have negotiated pleas to resolve far more serious crimes.

TragicMonkey · 24th November 2020, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

You don't have to think he's a hero to believe he shouldn't have to spend the rest of his life in prison or exile. People have negotiated pleas to resolve far more serious crimes.

Of course. But the thing is, they negotiate these things through the same criminal justice system everybody else has to use. They can't hide out in foreign countries until they get promises of special treatment and decide they'll accept it. He needs to come back, get some lawyers, and do things the correct way.

Heroes don't share a hot tub with Roman Polanski and wonder why they aren't universally beloved.

Matthew Ellard · 24th November 2020, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

"Necessity" is a legitimate defense to a criminal charge.

You have to be kidding! It is exactly the opposite. In first year, all law students study R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273 DC

"The case is one of a few criminal cases taught to all law students in England and Wales and in many, though not all, former British territories and has long been so. ..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Du...phens#Judgment

angrysoba · 24th November 2020, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yeah Snowden much more strikes me as someone who's drank the "Amerika is da great Satan" Koolaid since he's idea of who to run to when America is mean to him is Russia.

I don't really know much about the ins and outs of his case, but my understanding of it is that he argues that America is mean to its citizens in that it was illegally collecting data on them from their phones etc...

According to what I have heard, it was in fact those who were trying to prosecute him who were breaking the law.

Maybe I have this all wrong. I am more than willing to say I don't know anywhere near enough about the case:

Where did he break the law?

Is it true that he exposed wrongdoing by the security services?

My understanding about him being in Russia (which again may be me naiively taking him at his word) is that he was in transit there when his passport was cancelled.

Beelzebuddy · 24th November 2020, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Where did he break the law?

The illegal activity he exposed was classified. Arguably classified because it was illegal, but classified nonetheless.

It's damn near guaranteed that if he were ever to face "trial" in the US, it'd be made an open and shut case about leaking national secrets with no opportunity to argue for any kind of whistleblower defence. He would be put in a hole in solitary confinement and left there, like Chelsea Manning.

dudalb · 24th November 2020, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

You have to be kidding! It is exactly the opposite. In first year, all law students study R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273 DC

"The case is one of a few criminal cases taught to all law students in England and Wales and in many, though not all, former British territories and has long been so. ..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Du...phens#Judgment

Necessity might help you get a lighter sentence. but won't change your guilt.

Olmstead · 24th November 2020, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Of course. But the thing is, they negotiate these things through the same criminal justice system everybody else has to use. They can't hide out in foreign countries until they get promises of special treatment and decide they'll accept it. He needs to come back, get some lawyers, and do things the correct way.

Heroes don't share a hot tub with Roman Polanski and wonder why they aren't universally beloved.

Maybe his lawyers told him that there is no way he is getting a fair trial?

Bob001 · 24th November 2020, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

You have to be kidding! It is exactly the opposite. In first year, all law students study R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273 DC

"The case is one of a few criminal cases taught to all law students in England and Wales and in many, though not all, former British territories and has long been so. ..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Du...phens#Judgment

Your link is to a case about cannibalism. Snowden didn't kill and eat anybody and claim he had to. Necessity is not a defense against a murder charge. But "necessity" more broadly is recognized as a legitimate defense in common law and by statute.

Quote:

The necessity defense has long been recognized as Common Law and has also been made part of most states' statutory law. Although no federal statute acknowledges the defense, the Supreme Court has recognized it as part of the common law. The rationale behind the necessity defense is that sometimes, in a particular situation, a technical breach of the law is more advantageous to society than the consequence of strict adherence to the law. The defense is often used successfully in cases that involve a Trespass on property to save a person's life or property. It also has been used, with varying degrees of success, in cases involving more complex questions.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedict...essity+defense

Quote:

Duress and necessity are affirmative defenses. With them, a defense attorney can—if the evidence agrees—argue that the defendant did something that’s typically illegal, but that doesn’t constitute a crime because of extraordinary circumstances. Some courts look at the policies behind the duress and necessity defenses and blend them together into one defense. These defenses, however, are historically different and many courts treat them as such. (U.S. v. Bailey, supra; State v. Cole, 403 S.E.2d 117 (S.C. 1991).)

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...necessity.html

angrysoba · 24th November 2020, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

The illegal activity he exposed was classified. Arguably classified because it was illegal, but classified nonetheless.

It's damn near guaranteed that if he were ever to face "trial" in the US, it'd be made an open and shut case about leaking national secrets with no opportunity to argue for any kind of whistleblower defence. He would be put in a hole in solitary confinement and left there, like Chelsea Manning.

Right, so if that's the case, it makes sense to me that he would not want to return to the US to argue his case, if that's what people have argued he should do.

What then, is the argument from those who want him to be prosecuted? Is it simply that he broke the law and should face penalties for that? Or is it that the classified information that he leaked was so valuable that nobody should ever have leaked it?

From a utilitarian standpoint, is it better that he leaked it or would it have been better left concealed?

Bob001 · 24th November 2020, 11:35 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Necessity might help you get a lighter sentence. but won't change your guilt.

Intent is a factor in a criminal charge. Shooting somebody might be an accident or self-defense or murder depending on your intent. Snowden's defense would be that he intended to serve the public good and not harm America. His concern is that he won't be allowed to make that case to a jury.

Bob001 · 24th November 2020, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by Olmstead

Maybe his lawyers told him that there is no way he is getting a fair trial?

That is precisely the conclusion he and his lawyers have reached.

erlando · 25th November 2020, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

That's not the way it works. If you want to be a hero you have to face the consequences. You can't be a martyr if you flee from your martyrdom. By running he's not a brave crusader for justice, he's a whiny criminal trying to evade justice.

A fighter has to actually fight.

Snowden has repeatedly stated that he would gladly return to the US to face the courts if he could get a fair trial but the US has repeatedly stated that they would not allow a public interest defence to be heard.

Quote:

He said he wanted a jury to be granted permission by a judge to consider his motivations in leaking America’s classified secrets. If that does not happen, the jury would only be able to determine whether a law was broken — which Mr Snowden said “defeats the purpose of a jury trial”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9109121.html

TragicMonkey · 25th November 2020, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by Bob001

That is precisely the conclusion he and his lawyers have reached.

"Fair" doesn't mean "will result in an outcome I like". It means "everyone gets the same treatment". If he doesn't like that then he can choose, as he did, to remain a criminal on the run. In Russia, no less, a place not exactly famous for its fairness in law. But it is famous for being completely against America's good.

theprestige · 25th November 2020, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by Bob001

That is precisely the conclusion he and his lawyers have reached.

It's precisely the narrative they've pitched. But this is just a repeat of the same exact discussion we had in this thread a couple weeks ago. Do you have anything new to add?

Olmstead · 25th November 2020, 08:14 AM

Was the right thing to do to keep his mouth shut?

Beelzebuddy · 25th November 2020, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

What then, is the argument from those who want him to be prosecuted?

Martyr complex. A hero would have done the right thing even if it meant facing persecution, ergo he can't be a hero until he comes back and lets us persecute him.

Olmstead · 25th November 2020, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Martyr complex. A hero would have done the right thing even if it meant facing persecution, ergo he can't be a hero until he comes back and lets us persecute him.

I don't think he wants to be a hero.

Beelzebuddy · 25th November 2020, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by Olmstead

I don't think he wants to be a hero.

Then he's a traitor! When jingoism is on the line there's no room for basically decent people just trying to do the right thing in murky ethical circumstances!

Besides it's only a little bit of persecution, honest. And after that we'll feel super bad about it, we swear.

Bob001 · 25th November 2020, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

"Fair" doesn't mean "will result in an outcome I like". It means "everyone gets the same treatment"
.....

At a minimum, "fair" would mean that the outcome is not pre-ordained. And espionage trials are handled differently from others. In any other criminal case, the defendant would be allowed to present evidence of motives and intent. That's what Snowden wants. Under present circumstances, Snowden has no chance of winning.

Bob001 · 25th November 2020, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

It's precisely the narrative they've pitched. But this is just a repeat of the same exact discussion we had in this thread a couple weeks ago. Do you have anything new to add?

Do you?

theprestige · 25th November 2020, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by Bob001

Do you?

Nope! Hence me not bumping the thread just to repeat the same stuff we covered last time.

ponderingturtle · 25th November 2020, 09:30 AM

Look he is a rat like that bastard Serpico why should he expect fair treatment? You cover up the illegal activities of your agency and its agents not expose them. That is the american way.

It is like expecting the military to not torture people when ordered to, crazy and unamerican. The laws meant to constrain government action mean nothing.

trustbutverify · 25th November 2020, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

"Fair" doesn't mean "will result in an outcome I like". It means "everyone gets the same treatment". If he doesn't like that then he can choose, as he did, to remain a criminal on the run. In Russia, no less, a place not exactly famous for its fairness in law. But it is famous for being completely against America's good.

I'm sure the Kremlin could find a way to fly him to any nation of his choice, willing to grant him asylum. Not to mention the fact that many of those nations have intelligence services that could use some whistle-blowing.

trustbutverify · 25th November 2020, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Olmstead

I don't think he wants to be a hero.

What makes you think that?

trustbutverify · 25th November 2020, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Look he is a rat like that bastard Serpico why should he expect fair treatment? You cover up the illegal activities of your agency and its agents not expose them. That is the american way.

No, he's a hero trying to make America great again.

TragicMonkey · 25th November 2020, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

At a minimum, "fair" would mean that the outcome is not pre-ordained. And espionage trials are handled differently from others. In any other criminal case, the defendant would be allowed to present evidence of motives and intent. That's what Snowden wants. Under present circumstances, Snowden has no chance of winning.

The outcome is not "pre-ordained". Have you canvassed the future votes of the future jury? It is neither novel nor outrageous for a particular line of defense to be disallowed.

Bob001 · 25th November 2020, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

The outcome is not "pre-ordained". Have you canvassed the future votes of the future jury? It is neither novel nor outrageous for a particular line of defense to be disallowed.

The only question the jury would be allowed to consider at present is whether in fact he exposed secret documents. That's why the verdict is pre-ordained.

3rd November 2020, 04:01 PM	#43
Mumbles Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,726	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Yeah Snowden much more strikes me as someone who's drank the "Amerika is da great Satan" Koolaid since he's idea of who to run to when America is mean to him is Russia. ZThis is very much my view as well - as well as most people involved in similar hijinks, such as Julian Assange and Glenn Greenwald (although he's more of a "destroy the democratic party and everything will be great after that" fool). The major exception in this is actually Chelsea Manning - although I think it's fairly clear that she was prone to manipulation and not particularly mentally well (due to depression and the like, not due to being trans), that led her to being manipulated by a crapfactory like Wikileaks. And for reference, this makes her extended solitary confinement even worse.
Mumbles Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,726

3rd November 2020, 04:04 PM	#44
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 63,086	Incidentally, this is where I think it makes sense for a reporter to have anonymous sources. "There's something wrong going on here and the legal channels for whistleblowing have been compromised. Obviously I can't leak the info to you directly, and you can't name me as a source, but I can give you enough hints anonymously that you can uncover the truth and report it legally." The reporter goes to his editor, they do what they can to verify the anonymous source is on the up-and-up. Then they take a close look at where the source is pointing, do some investigative journalism, talk to their other sources, and work on breaking the story. Now, if the source were to decide that none of this is working, and they're just gonna illegally publish the material themselves... Well, do the crime, do the time.
	Last edited by theprestige; 3rd November 2020 at 04:06 PM.

22nd November 2020, 11:00 AM	#46
trustbutverify Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 10,030	Originally Posted by Mumbles ZThis is very much my view as well - as well as most people involved in similar hijinks, such as Julian Assange and Glenn Greenwald (although he's more of a "destroy the democratic party and everything will be great after that" fool). The major exception in this is actually Chelsea Manning - although I think it's fairly clear that she was prone to manipulation and not particularly mentally well (due to depression and the like, not due to being trans), that led her to being manipulated by a crapfactory like Wikileaks. And for reference, this makes her extended solitary confinement even worse. Couldn't agree more.
	__________________ "To me, Hitler is the greatest man who ever lived. He truly is without fault, so simple and at the same time possessed of masculine strength" -Leni Riefenstahl Wollen owns the stage

22nd November 2020, 07:44 PM	#47
Roger Ramjets Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 6,043	Originally Posted by theprestige Maybe it'd be a kindness to offer him a stiff prison sentence in the US. But perhaps being a useful idiot in Vladimir Putin's Russia is still preferable to being a convicted criminal in a US federal prison. Ex-KGB Major: The Russians Tricked Snowden Into Going To Moscow Quote: Ex-KGB Major Boris Karpichko told Nigel Nelson of The Mirror that spies from Russia’s SVR intelligence service, posing as *diplomats in Hong Kong, convinced Snowden to fly to Moscow last June. “It was a trick and he fell for it,” Karpichko, who reached the rank of Major as a member of the KGB’s prestigious Second Directorate while specializing in counter-intelligence, told Nelson. “Now the Russians are extracting all the intelligence he possesses.” Karpichko said that the Kremlin leaked Snowden’s planned flight to Moscow to provoke the U.S. into revoking Snowden’s passport, which Washington did on June 22. Assange also advised Snowden that “he would be physically safest in Russia.” Former KGB General Olig Kalugin recently told VentureBeat that “the Russians are very pleased with the gifts Edward Snowden has given them. He’s busy doing something. He is not just idling his way through life.” Useful idiot indeed.
	__________________ We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

24th November 2020, 02:32 PM	#51
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 64,874	Originally Posted by Bob001 It's not like Putin welcomed him with open arms. What? But Putin's such a warm, friendly guy, always hugging people! He's the Ellen of dictators. If you ever meet him ask him to do a funny dance, you'll be glad you did.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

3rd November 2020, 10:12 AM	#41
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,336	Snowden's book is a pretty compelling explanation of his actions and the thought processes behind them. https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...snowden-review https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/13/b...sultPosition=3

3rd November 2020, 04:01 PM	#42
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 63,086	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Snowden is Jabba-ing, basically going "Unless everyone already agrees I've won before we even start, I won't start because it's not fair." There's whistleblowing protection laws which are a very, very good thing and this "I identify as a whistleblower therefore you can't even look at what I'm doing" mentality that Snowden seems to have. "I identify as a whistleblower therefore you have to take into account my reasons for breaking the law when you decide whether I broke the law."

3rd November 2020, 04:14 PM	#45
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 63,086	Originally Posted by Bob001 "Necessity" is a legitimate defense to a criminal charge. So is acting in the public interest. Other countries allow a defendant to claim them. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...y-defense.html https://www.huffpost.com/entry/whist...-hum_b_6903544 I would accept a necessity defense in very narrow circumstances. Not in whistleblowing cases.

22nd November 2020, 07:53 PM	#48
Venom Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: United States Posts: 6,080	Boris Karpichkov LOL. The man has made some questionable at best claims from Putin bombing Flight 9268 to Gareth Williams being a victim of the Russian special services. I mean this would be the least outrageous of his claims, but he's a favorite of the British tabloids.

24th November 2020, 07:29 AM	#49
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 63,086	Was Karpichkov one of the agents involved in the ruse? Or is he just guessing at what happened? Either way, I doubt anyone in Snowden's position would have been fooled by an offer from "Russian diplomats" to seek refuge in Russia.

24th November 2020, 10:43 AM	#50
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,336	Originally Posted by theprestige Was Karpichkov one of the agents involved in the ruse? Or is he just guessing at what happened? Either way, I doubt anyone in Snowden's position would have been fooled by an offer from "Russian diplomats" to seek refuge in Russia. The story at the time was that Snowden was trying to get to Ecuador but got stuck in Moscow when the U.S. cancelled his passport. He spent a month at the Moscow airport while authorities decided what to do with him. It's not like Putin welcomed him with open arms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden

24th November 2020, 04:25 PM	#52
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 57,259	I see some people are still drinking the "SNowden is a great heor" kool aid.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

24th November 2020, 04:46 PM	#53
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 63,086	I guess it depends what a "heor" is.

24th November 2020, 07:45 PM	#54
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,336	Originally Posted by dudalb I see some people are still drinking the "SNowden is a great heor" kool aid. You don't have to think he's a hero to believe he shouldn't have to spend the rest of his life in prison or exile. People have negotiated pleas to resolve far more serious crimes.

24th November 2020, 08:01 PM	#55
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 64,874	Originally Posted by Bob001 You don't have to think he's a hero to believe he shouldn't have to spend the rest of his life in prison or exile. People have negotiated pleas to resolve far more serious crimes. Of course. But the thing is, they negotiate these things through the same criminal justice system everybody else has to use. They can't hide out in foreign countries until they get promises of special treatment and decide they'll accept it. He needs to come back, get some lawyers, and do things the correct way. Heroes don't share a hot tub with Roman Polanski and wonder why they aren't universally beloved.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

24th November 2020, 08:18 PM	#56
Matthew Ellard Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 4,094	Originally Posted by Bob001 "Necessity" is a legitimate defense to a criminal charge. You have to be kidding! It is exactly the opposite. In first year, all law students study R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273 DC "The case is one of a few criminal cases taught to all law students in England and Wales and in many, though not all, former British territories and has long been so. ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Du...phens#Judgment

24th November 2020, 08:37 PM	#57
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 33,740	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Yeah Snowden much more strikes me as someone who's drank the "Amerika is da great Satan" Koolaid since he's idea of who to run to when America is mean to him is Russia. I don't really know much about the ins and outs of his case, but my understanding of it is that he argues that America is mean to its citizens in that it was illegally collecting data on them from their phones etc... According to what I have heard, it was in fact those who were trying to prosecute him who were breaking the law. Maybe I have this all wrong. I am more than willing to say I don't know anywhere near enough about the case: Where did he break the law? Is it true that he exposed wrongdoing by the security services? My understanding about him being in Russia (which again may be me naiively taking him at his word) is that he was in transit there when his passport was cancelled.
	__________________ Слава Україні! **** Putin!

24th November 2020, 09:47 PM	#58
Beelzebuddy Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 9,286	Originally Posted by angrysoba Where did he break the law? The illegal activity he exposed was classified. Arguably classified because it was illegal, but classified nonetheless. It's damn near guaranteed that if he were ever to face "trial" in the US, it'd be made an open and shut case about leaking national secrets with no opportunity to argue for any kind of whistleblower defence. He would be put in a hole in solitary confinement and left there, like Chelsea Manning.
Beelzebuddy Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 9,286	Last edited by Beelzebuddy; 24th November 2020 at 09:48 PM.

24th November 2020, 10:56 PM	#59
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 57,259	Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard You have to be kidding! It is exactly the opposite. In first year, all law students study R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273 DC "The case is one of a few criminal cases taught to all law students in England and Wales and in many, though not all, former British territories and has long been so. ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Du...phens#Judgment Necessity might help you get a lighter sentence. but won't change your guilt.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

24th November 2020, 11:08 PM	#60
Olmstead Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 1,350	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Of course. But the thing is, they negotiate these things through the same criminal justice system everybody else has to use. They can't hide out in foreign countries until they get promises of special treatment and decide they'll accept it. He needs to come back, get some lawyers, and do things the correct way. Heroes don't share a hot tub with Roman Polanski and wonder why they aren't universally beloved. Maybe his lawyers told him that there is no way he is getting a fair trial?

24th November 2020, 11:29 PM	#61
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,336	Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard You have to be kidding! It is exactly the opposite. In first year, all law students study R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273 DC "The case is one of a few criminal cases taught to all law students in England and Wales and in many, though not all, former British territories and has long been so. ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Du...phens#Judgment Your link is to a case about cannibalism. Snowden didn't kill and eat anybody and claim he had to. Necessity is not a defense against a murder charge. But "necessity" more broadly is recognized as a legitimate defense in common law and by statute. Quote: The necessity defense has long been recognized as Common Law and has also been made part of most states' statutory law. Although no federal statute acknowledges the defense, the Supreme Court has recognized it as part of the common law. The rationale behind the necessity defense is that sometimes, in a particular situation, a technical breach of the law is more advantageous to society than the consequence of strict adherence to the law. The defense is often used successfully in cases that involve a Trespass on property to save a person's life or property. It also has been used, with varying degrees of success, in cases involving more complex questions. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedict...essity+defense Quote: Duress and necessity are affirmative defenses. With them, a defense attorney can—if the evidence agrees—argue that the defendant did something that’s typically illegal, but that doesn’t constitute a crime because of extraordinary circumstances. Some courts look at the policies behind the duress and necessity defenses and blend them together into one defense. These defenses, however, are historically different and many courts treat them as such. (U.S. v. Bailey, supra; State v. Cole, 403 S.E.2d 117 (S.C. 1991).) https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...necessity.html
	Last edited by Bob001; 24th November 2020 at 11:36 PM.

24th November 2020, 11:29 PM	#62
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 33,740	Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy The illegal activity he exposed was classified. Arguably classified because it was illegal, but classified nonetheless. It's damn near guaranteed that if he were ever to face "trial" in the US, it'd be made an open and shut case about leaking national secrets with no opportunity to argue for any kind of whistleblower defence. He would be put in a hole in solitary confinement and left there, like Chelsea Manning. Right, so if that's the case, it makes sense to me that he would not want to return to the US to argue his case, if that's what people have argued he should do. What then, is the argument from those who want him to be prosecuted? Is it simply that he broke the law and should face penalties for that? Or is it that the classified information that he leaked was so valuable that nobody should ever have leaked it? From a utilitarian standpoint, is it better that he leaked it or would it have been better left concealed?
	__________________ Слава Україні! **** Putin!

24th November 2020, 11:35 PM	#63
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,336	Originally Posted by dudalb Necessity might help you get a lighter sentence. but won't change your guilt. Intent is a factor in a criminal charge. Shooting somebody might be an accident or self-defense or murder depending on your intent. Snowden's defense would be that he intended to serve the public good and not harm America. His concern is that he won't be allowed to make that case to a jury.
	Last edited by Bob001; 24th November 2020 at 11:57 PM.

24th November 2020, 11:36 PM	#64
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,336	Originally Posted by Olmstead Maybe his lawyers told him that there is no way he is getting a fair trial? That is precisely the conclusion he and his lawyers have reached.

25th November 2020, 12:33 AM	#65
erlando Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,360	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey That's not the way it works. If you want to be a hero you have to face the consequences. You can't be a martyr if you flee from your martyrdom. By running he's not a brave crusader for justice, he's a whiny criminal trying to evade justice. A fighter has to actually fight. Snowden has repeatedly stated that he would gladly return to the US to face the courts if he could get a fair trial but the US has repeatedly stated that they would not allow a public interest defence to be heard. Quote: He said he wanted a jury to be granted permission by a judge to consider his motivations in leaking America’s classified secrets. If that does not happen, the jury would only be able to determine whether a law was broken — which Mr Snowden said “defeats the purpose of a jury trial”. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9109121.html
erlando Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,360	__________________ "If it can grow, it can evolve" - Eugenie Scott, Ph.D Creationism disproved? Evolution IS a blind watchmaker

25th November 2020, 06:03 AM	#66
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 64,874	Originally Posted by Bob001 That is precisely the conclusion he and his lawyers have reached. "Fair" doesn't mean "will result in an outcome I like". It means "everyone gets the same treatment". If he doesn't like that then he can choose, as he did, to remain a criminal on the run. In Russia, no less, a place not exactly famous for its fairness in law. But it is famous for being completely against America's good.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

25th November 2020, 08:06 AM	#67
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 63,086	Originally Posted by Bob001 That is precisely the conclusion he and his lawyers have reached. It's precisely the narrative they've pitched. But this is just a repeat of the same exact discussion we had in this thread a couple weeks ago. Do you have anything new to add?

25th November 2020, 08:14 AM	#68
Olmstead Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 1,350	Was the right thing to do to keep his mouth shut?

25th November 2020, 08:15 AM	#69
Beelzebuddy Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 9,286	Originally Posted by angrysoba What then, is the argument from those who want him to be prosecuted? Martyr complex. A hero would have done the right thing even if it meant facing persecution, ergo he can't be a hero until he comes back and lets us persecute him.
Beelzebuddy Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 9,286

25th November 2020, 08:17 AM	#70
Olmstead Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 1,350	Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy Martyr complex. A hero would have done the right thing even if it meant facing persecution, ergo he can't be a hero until he comes back and lets us persecute him. I don't think he wants to be a hero.

25th November 2020, 08:23 AM	#71
Beelzebuddy Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 9,286	Originally Posted by Olmstead I don't think he wants to be a hero. Then he's a traitor! When jingoism is on the line there's no room for basically decent people just trying to do the right thing in murky ethical circumstances! Besides it's only a little bit of persecution, honest. And after that we'll feel super bad about it, we swear.
Beelzebuddy Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 9,286

25th November 2020, 08:51 AM	#72
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,336	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey "Fair" doesn't mean "will result in an outcome I like". It means "everyone gets the same treatment" ..... At a minimum, "fair" would mean that the outcome is not pre-ordained. And espionage trials are handled differently from others. In any other criminal case, the defendant would be allowed to present evidence of motives and intent. That's what Snowden wants. Under present circumstances, Snowden has no chance of winning.
	Last edited by Bob001; 25th November 2020 at 08:54 AM.

25th November 2020, 08:52 AM	#73
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,336	Originally Posted by theprestige It's precisely the narrative they've pitched. But this is just a repeat of the same exact discussion we had in this thread a couple weeks ago. Do you have anything new to add? Do you?

25th November 2020, 08:59 AM	#74
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 63,086	Originally Posted by Bob001 Do you? Nope! Hence me not bumping the thread just to repeat the same stuff we covered last time.

25th November 2020, 09:30 AM	#75
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,905	Look he is a rat like that bastard Serpico why should he expect fair treatment? You cover up the illegal activities of your agency and its agents not expose them. That is the american way. It is like expecting the military to not torture people when ordered to, crazy and unamerican. The laws meant to constrain government action mean nothing.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin