Hacker News Reader

Comment by aluhut | Hacker News Reader

Wouldn't he just disappear in one of these secret courts?

I don't understand how he ever believes he could get a fair trial. I commend him for the belief in the rule of law that the sentiment represents, but he embarrassed the world's most powerful intelligence establishment - you know, the people responsible for killing people who want to kill us in secretive ways.

There's nothing I'd consider out of bounds for possible retaliation, not even a "heart attack" or "engine problems."

not even a "heart attack" or "engine problems."

At this point, what would anyone gain from that?

There is this idea that some people just have to retaliate, regardless of whether it is in their interest.

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.

Revenge.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/americas-spies-want-edw...

“I would love to put a bullet in his head,” one Pentagon official, a former special forces officer, said bluntly. “I do not take pleasure in taking another human beings life, having to do it in uniform, but he is single-handedly the greatest traitor in American history.”

Chilling

Also love how they are completely ignoring the people who have literally assassinated a president.

Haha, I was wondering where the downvote came from.

Flag away, good sir. I'm more than happy to disagree with you.

I don't think anyone would gain - certainly I think the debate would suffer - and it would be even further evidence that the NSA et al are above the law. It would be a huge scandal, maybe even lead to the restructuring of the American intelligence establishment itself.

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.

Making an example of him for other prospective whistleblowers.

Deterrence. They don't want any more Snowdens.

He could get a fair trial in the U.S. for the same reason he's safe in Russia: because the whole world is watching (e.g. in the Reddit AMA he said: "If I show up with broken fingers, everybody will know what happened"). That's not a guarantee, but it does a lot for him. It's a lot harder to "disappear" a public figure.

But lets say he does show up with broken fingers, what then? Nothing can, or will, be done about it so if anything it just adds to the NSA's overarching goal of turning him into an example.

If the whole leak showed something, than that the Agencies just continue to work as they did. No matter what.

Accidents happen.

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.

Even at the height of U.S. paranoia during the Cold War, the guy who tried to assassinate the President got a fair trial, and was acquitted by reason of insanity. In fact, he's regularly let out to visit his mother in her home, up to 17 days at a time: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/20/us/john-hinckley-jr-fast-facts.

There has been a huge cultural shift in the US between then and now. If Hinckley were tried now, he probably would get the death penalty.

A shift in what direction? Use of the death penalty has decreased dramatically since the 1980's.

This is sort of ironic considering that a leading opposition politician in Russia was gunned down within yards of the Kremlin a few days ago.

Source for "secret courts" that try U.S. citizens? Even citizens captured fighting against the U.S. in Afghanistan were transferred to regular courts once their citizenship became apparent.

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.

"disposition matrix", although I don't think getting on that list even evolves a court, just an advisory panel made up people picked by the executive breach, but it is hard to know for sure since it is all considered secret.

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.

I think that most people are comfortable with the idea that if you join a foreign militia and take up arms against the United States you forfeit certain protections of citizenship.

Certainly not everyone agrees with this but that's the counter argument you asked for.

How about Abdulrahman al-Awlaki or Samir Khan? I suppose they didn't even get the semblance of due process, just were at the wrong place at the wrong time.

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.

Neither of those people were intentionally killed. Certainly we can argue about larger strategy and when the cost of collateral damage is worth military action but that discussion is orthogonal to one about a loss of due process.

No evidence exists that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was deliberately targeted, which makes him a bad example of the impact of a "disposition matrix". The target of the strike that killed him was Ibrahim al-Banna, an operational member of al Qaeda, who was among the confirmed dead in the strike.

That's an argument for why it's justified, but just because it's justified doesn't mean it's not a counterexample to the claim that US citizens always get normal civilian trials.

If you join a foreign militia and take up arms against the United States ..."

The whole point of due process is that the pesky "if" part needs to be proven. Otherwise your argument is entirely circular.

The kill list isn't a trial. Until the enemy combatants surrender they are fair targets of war. It is no different than Roosevelt ordering a bombing raid on a German train depot during WWII.

José Padilla was held for three and a half years in a military prison without trial. I don't know if it qualifies as a "secret court" to just be declared an enemy combatant by the President and sent straight to prison, but it's the same sort of thing. He did finally get a proper civilian trial, but that doesn't make that first part go away.

I think that part of what he desires is to be able to make any defense that he wants. As stated in CitizenFour and again in his AMA, a defense in this case would be severely limited in what it could claim, because the case involves espionage, he would be unable to make a defense claiming that the actual laws are unjust, for example.

He's too high profile to 'just disappear.' He would almost certainly face charges.

Sure, but they'd be argued in a quasi-fair court, specially purposed for the occasion.

I'd add here it would probably be a military tribunal, locked under the pretense of protecting state secrets, but they don't seem to be having a good time of it prosecuting the 9/11 defenders.

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 "get" how he could end up in a military tribunal because "laws be-damned" but not sure what sort of tortuous logic they could use to justify that. He was a civilian when he committed his acts so I believe he would legally be facing a civilian court system.

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.

I think they could make some tortured legal case that because he was working as a security contractor with a certain clearance and had access to XX information and signed XXX legal release forms, he could be tried as a member of the military.

Or heck, name him an "enemy combatant" and just detain him indefinitely in some Polish blacksite. People will forget his name in time.

> I think they could make some tortured legal case that because he was working as a security contractor with a certain clearance and had access to XX information and signed XXX legal release forms, he could be tried as a member of the military.

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.

Prosecution isn't the goal. It's to make an example of 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.

After a little while in court he'll just get really stressed out and commit suicide.

Suicide by two shots to the back of the head.

Infowars is that way -->

Given just the amateur research on remote-exploiting automobile control systems for auto-parking and such, I'd be astonished if the CIA didn't have plenty of experience in using modern cars as a weapon to kill the driver.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com