Snowden in talks on returning home: lawyer
reuters.com
reuters.com
If he returns to the US soon, we will see massive demonstrations in the street demanding his release. I doubt he'd end up serving more than a couple years in prison. Even then, life abroad is no doubt preferable to life in the federal pen. It's smart for him to be putting feelers out right now, but its still far from certain that he's coming stateside anytime soon.
Here's the thing: Snowden, regardless of morals, upset a lot very powerful and influential people. These people might have calmed down a little since they were calling for him to get the death sentence, but these aren't the kind of people who won't try to get revenge if given half an opportunity.
Just look at what they did to Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley Manning), he got 35 years(!) for leaking a bunch of embarrassing diplomatic cables where key US politicians wrote what they really thought about foreign leaders and diplomats.
Snowden upset people in the US government just as much. He essentially took a bunch of power away from them, and people in those positions shrive on power. Do you really think they won't get every pound of fat out of Snowden that they can? Because I do. 35 years if he's lucky.
Chelsea Manning is a woman. Most women go by she. I'm sure this was just a typo, but intentional (and malicious) misgendering of transgender people is common enough to where you probably want to avoid doing it accidentally. People might get the wrong idea about you.
They will give him diesel therapy the moment he enters BOP to prevent any media getting at him and after a few months of that stash him in a CSHU where even guards won't be permitted to talk to him. He's not going to get magically pardoned and appear on Ellen to show off his medal of freedom.
What Snowden did can be justifiable, and still be a crime. Although I suppose it's a moot argument to make if one assumes no such thing as a fair trial can exist.
In Germany there are three prongs to a crime, all of which must be fulfilled: elements of the crime, lawlessness and guilt.
Self-defense voids the lawlessness, thus the property of being a crime.
If you do it differently, how do you handle ancillary legal question, like civil compensations and damages? Are there special rules for that?
But, at the very least, it takes a trial to be found not guilty, so it seems there is a crime to be found not guilty of.
I think he's too smart to believe any platitudes about a "fair trial." Of course it will be a fair trial, just like manning got along with his years of solitary - completely fair and normal.
As for a presidential pardon, I don't think that can happen without a conviction. Can you get a preemptive pardon?
Worked for Ford and Nixon: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Proclamation_4311
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/05/opinion/l-constitution-all...
Presidential pardon power is plenary, can apply to any and all offenses against the US, and can be applied before any criminal process has started. (Probably not apply to acts committed after the pardon is issued, though, so not really preemptive.)
her
And before someone kicks me for being pedantic, the above comment is being equally as pedantic with that correction.
Ian M. Banks did this in one of the Culture stories (in a single paragraph) - I thought it was a succinct way of denoting the current gender identity.
He could be granted immunity by the Justice Department.
What a horrible, slanted, and incredibly unfactual title for this article.
Of course he's negotiating. Why not?
He is wanted by the government to face criminal accusations therefore he is a fugitive. The word doesn't imply guilt of anything beyond not turning oneself in.
He used to do work for the CIA and NSA therefore he is an ex-U.S. spy. The word spy is only being modified by ex-U.S., it isn't implying that he is a current spy or has worked for any other government.
I predicted some time ago that Snowden would eventually come back, be imprisoned, and pardoned by Obama on leaving office, possible along with Chelsea (nee Bradley) Manning. I stand by that prediction.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/...
Particularly in a case where a source or citation is extremely easy to find, asking for one comes off as less of an honest inquiry and more of a rhetorical device designed to discredit the person making the assertion, regardless of intent.
But, they are not remotely equal, because Obama is an outgoing president with no more elections to face. There is virtually no chance that any candidate for president, or president who will be a candidate again, could pardon Snowden.
Snowden is a true American hero, but most Americans don't understand what he did. Most also believe that illegal domestic spying is acceptable if it's "to fight terrorism"[1].
Politically, it would be suicidal to pardon Snowden. Obama doesn't have to worry about that anymore, so Obama is basically Snowden's best and only hope of that happening.
(It still won't happen, though.)
[1]; http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-ph...
There's nothing I'd consider out of bounds for possible retaliation, not even a "heart attack" or "engine problems."
From a government apparatus that's blithely accepting of "parallel construction", and given such a high profile "enemy of the state", he could easily be done away with and the truth mis-reported across all major networks.
I say this as someone who others might declare as a "card carrying liberal" - the current administration and the US intelligence community as a whole are anything but sympathetic towards Snowden.
There must be another reason why this is being floated.
At this point, what would anyone gain from that?
They have to show they're still in the game - more important than near objectives in the said game.
This may or may not apply to the situation.
Chilling
Flag away, good sir. I'm more than happy to disagree with you.
But I don't think it's impossible. He's done more damage to one of the most powerful organizations in the world than anyone in modern history. Spooks are vindictive types.
The FISA court is no such thing. It was created by Congress review execution action that doesn't Constitutionally require judicial oversight in the first place. It's not empowered to try people for crimes or anything of the sort.
EDIT: how about a counter argument instead of reflexive down votes -- yeah it sucks our government kills US citizens without much due process but that's the truth, try not to avert your eyes.
Certainly not everyone agrees with this but that's the counter argument you asked for.
The whole point of due process is that the pesky "if" part needs to be proven. Otherwise your argument is entirely circular.
EDIT: parent asked for a source for secret courts, the "disposition matrix" is just that, except it doesn't even involve the judicial branch only the executive and has resulted in the deaths of 3 Americans, one purposely and two 'accidentally' whether killing Americans on purpose or on accident is worse or better I'll leave as an exercise for the readers imagination.
Still, expect surveillance and general intimidation of defense attorneys and judges on the same scale.[1]
[1] http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/...
I agree "national security" would be invoked to hush it all up but it would certainly add to the body of evidence that the people in charge got to go.
Or heck, name him an "enemy combatant" and just detain him indefinitely in some Polish blacksite. People will forget his name in time.
The Supreme Court has already struck down, on constitutional grounds, application of the UCMJ to military contractors deployed with the military on foreign military missions, under express language in the UCMJ applying it to them (the motivation for the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which applied US federal civilian criminal law that otherwise applies within the US territorial and special maritime jurisdiction to them.)
So I don't see that argument surviving the inevitable habeas petition.
> Or heck, name him an "enemy combatant" and just detain him indefinitely in some Polish blacksite. People will forget his name in time.
Not in time to mitigate the short term political consequences of being seen disappearing him.
Rotting in solitary while the court case slowly plays out is likely just as good for the supposedly aggrieved as a victory in court with the subsequent incarceration.
Just thinking it certainly would be nice if Obama used that card on the way out given he's not up for re-election.
I suppose he has to be convicted first, but maybe he could convict him and pardon him on the same day!!
Yes.
His chief demand will likely be that the government not charge him under the espionage act, which is so broad and inflexible it would not even allow him to present a defense. No idea what other legal statutes he could be charged under, but whatever they are would have to at least allow the possibility of raising the "I did this in the best interests of the country, not the best interests of our military contractors and bureaucrats" defense.
Oh, and also that the trial will be a media circus and keep the NSAs surveillance programs in the news for the greater part of the next decade.
That's rather extreme, and I'm not aware of the slightest shred of evidence for it. As far as we know, he's still living a fairly normal life with his girlfriend in Moscow. He could be concerned about Russia not renewing his status in the future, though.
> That's rather extreme, and I'm not aware of the slightest shred of evidence for it.
It's winter. Even diehard Russians who will gladly give their life for Mother Russia want to leave.
On a more serious note, I don't believe there is a place on earth he could expect to get treated fairly.
What I did get out of Citizenfour is that Snowden understands international politics, and that he would know his existence in Russia will last only as long as Putin needs him for. But given the increasing distrust in Russia towards all things American right now, it can't be a particularly welcoming environment for someone who considers himself a crusader of truth and freedom.
"what they want"? he entered the country without any of the documents if those are what you're referring to. his safe life in russia acts as a snub to washington at a time when US/russian relations are at a historic low, which is presumably the entire reason they gave him a visa and refuse to extradite him to begin with. it's no great expenditure on the part of the russian state to host him, he's just a guy living with his girlfriend
Eventually, Russia will want to warm up relations with the US. When that day comes, Snowden's time in Russia will be at an end. It's convenient for Putin to be able to use the US as a punching bag, but Putin will not be in power forever. It's probably better for him to find an exit now and have a bit more control over his own destiny.
I'm not trying to single out Russia as a bad actor here -- the US behaved in a very similar fashion with Soviet spies and dissidents in the 70s and 80s. This is why you don't want to get involved with geopolitics - your future is controlled by situations outside your control. Snowden strikes me as a smart guy who knows all of this, which is why negotiating a return to the US makes sense for him.
But they did get what they want. They got a great idea of NSA/US SIGINT operations and a smear against the US government.
What else do you think Russia wants?
Perhaps. He may well have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. And if he did in fact do that, then his "illegal" whistle-blowing is in fact required of him in order to execute his oath. You know, the whole 4th Amendment re: unreasonable search or seizure.
That may be the case, but keep in mind, in some way this story isn't news. Snowden has always said he'd like to come home. That hasn't changed.
IMO the best political outcome for the democrats would be to have Obama pardon him as part of the presidential pardons every president issues on his last day in office. Bush actually gave last-day pardons to people accused of much more dangerous leaks of classified information (the whole Valerie Plame scandal), so it's not unprecedented.
I can't see how it couldn't trump other laws!
Think about it. If you can pass a new law which trumps the Constitution via a method that doesn't involve a Constitutional amendment, then you've just done an end-run around the theoretically supreme law of the land. And if you can do that, the Constitution is completely meaningless.
The whole point of the document is that it outlines some bedrock stuff and it's neigh impossible to change unless everyone in the country really agrees that it needs to via a 3/4 majority of the states ratifying.
I would argue that the Constitution absolutely overrides laws to the contrary and we see this play out all the time with the Supreme Court. Things get struck down all the time as unconstitutional and that's the end of it.
I can't see how the founding document of our government can somehow be subverted by other laws unless those laws are deemed as important via ratification.
We're agreeing with each other? It's up to each person who takes an oath to defend the Constitution, to ignore and even fight against unconstitutional laws, i.e. ones that in an ideal world would be overridden by a fair Supreme Court.
Couldn't reply earlier due to "you're posting too fast" limitation, even after a day. I may have to wait several days to reply again.