Hacker News Reader

Comment by caskance | Hacker News Reader

I didn't say capital punishment was or wasn't on the table. I said it wasn't a military trial. Those are two completely orthogonal issues.

If Snowden can't present a single piece of evidence in his defense that isn't classified, I don't think he's got much of a case. Last I checked, the constitution isn't classified.

View on HN

Come off it.

You can't have a fair trial where 99% of the evidence is not allowed to be submitted.

The US has Whistle-Blower laws for a reason, yet the US Government is not allowing them to cover his case.

Until a guarantee of a free trial, he has stated he'll remain where he's at. And that's entirely reasonable.

Regardless of what Snowden thinks, evidence submitted doesn't have to be made public. Due to his contractor status, it's unclear which whistleblower protections would cover him, but that's something that can be established during trial. It's clear that Snowden and his supporters believe that a "fair" trial means one where he's exonerated. That's unreasonable.

You clearly have not been following the entire story. Selective facts don't tell the entire narrative.

I'm pretty sure I know more than you do here, but I'll humor you. What facts do you think I'm missing?

Then you'd know it's not that the evidence presented at trial would remain sealed but that he wouldn't even be able to present it.

That's within the context of it being a trial open to the public.

> That's within the context of it being a trial open to the public.

Which the US Government is not allowing. We've looped back to the beginning here... and you still don't understand, don't accept, or don't know the entire narrative.

No, he won't be able to present evidence at any trial. It's much more than keeping some testimony sealed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com