> He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers -- not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime.
Not sure what I was expecting.
Not sure what I was expecting.
During the selection process for the Boston Bomber, a jury was selected of which only people willing to sentence him to death were allowed on.
Snowdon would get a similar filtration. They would filter away any techies, etc until all that's left are people who will take the governments word as gospel.
Ignoring the fact that the charges he's been charged with already don't allow for fairness, the trial process wouldn't make things any better.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/11/06/jury-selection-...
If the law states that a possible punishment for theft is putting the thief in prison, it makes no sense to allow people on the jury who morally object to the idea of prison.
And both sides are involved in jury selection. But who cares about the truth when you can just spread antigovernment FUD?
After you grab a million files constituting nearly half a terabyte of top secret data and abscond with it to China (and then Russia), despite what your very best intentions may be, I don't think the title "whisteblower" is still applicable.
A few Western journalists in their flats and offices does not a secure facility for storing highly classified information make.
"A few Western journalists in their flats and offices does not a secure facility for storing highly classified information make."
They might have done better if the NSA had not been deliberately undermining our ability to secure ourselves.
Snowden keeps control, works with reliable people, and only releases things that need to be released. Snowden, much more than Manning and Assange, is the kind of hero we need.
Would he really be judged by his a jury of his peers? I was under the impression that he would forever be put to jail for treason the minute he stepped on American soil.
That's the way they like it.
Weev got the same treatment.
But then they would have a trial. It would likely take a very long time (and he would likely be in jail during it).
The term 'jury of his peers' means regular American citizens (not judges or other government officials). Sadly, the government has done a good job of convincing many people that all their spying on us is for our own safety. They'd just need to work to get 12 people that believed that (while Snowden's attorney's would work to get at least one that didn't). Though anyone that already (openly) had an opinion on his guilt or innocence wouldn't be allowed on the jury.
(note: this is assuming a civilian trial. I think they'd have a very hard time trying to give Snowden some sort of military tribunal)
At worst, the juror would be held in contempt of court (or similar) and become another victim of that same corrupt justice system.
Of note: the Espionage Act forbids a public interest or whistleblower defense. His conviction would be a foregone conclusion.