Hacker News Reader

>what is missing are people who are consistent nuisance to the powers that be

Assange was one of them, and look what happened to him.

>Can you imagine what happens if Snowden sneaks back into the US and courts arrest by the Dems while they chant about defending privacy, and ideally does it exactly when some inevitable privacy/data exploitation related fiasco happens?

The news would cover the arrest, he would go to jail, and after a couple of months there would be a short news item about how Snowden was convicted under the Espionage act and sentenced to life in prison.

There is no way to do a public interest defence when you are charged under the espionage act, so the outcome would be a forgone conclusion, and I don't see the mainstream media being interested in that fact.

If you look how little coverage there is of the actual details of the Assange case (or the Donzinger case for that matter) in the mainstream media, it is clear to me that there is no way Snowden would get anything done by facing 'justice'.

There would be some reporting on the fact that it happened, but there would be no reckoning or analysis of root causes (outside of places like Democracy Now).

> There is no way to do a public interest defence when you are charged under the espionage act

Of course there is. At a trial, whether you lay legal arguments or political arguments in your favor is not a matter of what the law says precisely. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_defense

As far as I understand it there really isn't, at least you could defend yourself that way, but it wouldn't matter for the outcome because the only requirement for being convicted is if you actually leaked the documents, which is hard to dispute. I'm not a lawyer so would love to be refuted on this.

>Although Snowden’s revelations exposed a disturbing expansion of surveillance powers by the National Security Agency, the Espionage Act does not allow the public interest in the information disclosed to be considered as a defense or in mitigation of penalty, and does not require proof of harm or intent to harm. U.S. law is significantly out of step with other democracies concerning penalties (see Penalties for Unauthorized Disclosure of National Security Related Secrets [PDF]) and available defenses (see study of 20 European countries [PDF]).

https://www.justiceinitiative.org/voices/europeans-urge-us-a...

>Procedurally, prosecution under the Espionage Act is problematic due to the nature of evidence related to national security matters and the elements required to prove unlawful disclosure of classified information. Relevant evidence may be considered classified, and thus concealed from the defendant, making a fair trial inaccessible. As applied to the disclosure of classified information, the Act is problematic because it disregards intent, a typical element required for conviction of many criminal offenses. As such, it does not protect whistleblowers who provide journalists with information in order to expose illegal government actions, rather than to aid foreign countries in injuring the United States. Because national security is at issue, the standard is low.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/crsj-fe...

> it wouldn't matter for the outcome because the only requirement for being convicted is if you actually leaked the documents

Well, it's just like for any other "crime". But to my knowledge, there's very few laws and legal systems where having broken the law forces the judge to condemn you (otherwise no judge would be needed!). Here in France, Sarkozy then Macron tried to pass such "peines planchers" (minimum sentences) but so far we've avoided that kind of dystopian catastrophe where nobody's interested in the context and reasons for actions (which is like the opposite of "justice").

In the meantime, you may be found non-guilty of a "crime" you have committed, despite the judge recognizing you have acted against the law. This is a common occurrence in political trials, and whatever our opinions of that is, is a foundational aspect for all "civil disobedience" movements. I am not a lawyer, but i am an activist, and have witnessed many trials including political trials: whatever sentence you receive (or don't) is never directly related to the offense you're accused of, there's a lot of social/political factors coming into play.

That's also why a lot of people are condemned on bogus charges despite ample evidence that they were setup by police. For example, it's really common in France for people who were victims of police abuse to be trialed and condemned for "rébellion" and "outrage" (insults to an officer/institution), even when the testimonies of cops directly contradict one another and the only person with wounds at the trial is the person on the stand. To take another example, Zone d'Expression Populaire (ZEP) was initially condemned for criticizing/insulting France's (neo-)colonialism in a song called Fuck France (Nique la France), but they pleaded for their "right to insolence" and were finally acquitted from all charges during the appeal. It can go both ways, the point is whatever sentence you receive is NOT determined by what technically happened and how it technically breaks the law.

It seems to me that Indians on average cared a lot more about independence than Americans on average care about freedom from the government spying on them, so I am not sure that Snowden coming back to America would really change much. I think that Snowden has already done more for Americans' freedom than almost anyone else in the world has done and I think that it is understandable if he would rather continue to live outside America rather than risk himself for the hope of changing things further. His initial revelations faded from the media spotlight within months. Even the potentially explosive Epstein case and Epstein's death faded from the media spotlight within months. It is hard for me to imagine that Snowden coming back to America would be likely to accomplish much more than what his initial revelations accomplished. Plus, it is possible that his continued freedom will actually inspire more future activists than him losing it would.

The solution, in this case, would be to come home and face the grand jury before arguing infront of the supreme court.

To be honest, that path does hold a certain academic interest, despite it being impractical. It would surely 'make a difference', is clearly not what the prosecution would like to happen.

You said it!

And let me add this. The social media sites like reddit/twitter/hackernews act as places to 'safely contain' people with such potential.

Because it gives them the feeling of doing something, but its effects does not cross out into the real world. Even if it come down to that, these people can be quickly silenced in the online world, and they wouldn't know what to do, apart from commenting/tweeting..

As someone said, it's humanly to make mistakes, but to really fuck it up, you need computers. Ah the gift of the internet!