|
On August 12 2013 03:36 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 00:53 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2013 00:51 Talin wrote:On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM. If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public. In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero. Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish. So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM? That sounds... bizarre to say the least.
As someone said, it is the most direct way. You can also change the law or change the constitution, both of which are much more difficult.
A court proceeding is the simplest way to change the law, but courts are not allowed to randomly change the law. They have to do so as it pertains to a case.
On August 12 2013 03:40 Ballack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 03:32 LegalLord wrote:
He should've stayed in the US and stood trial. That way he would have had a trial for leaking, and a legitimate case for whistleblower status.
Right now, more than anything he is a traitor. He would probably be convicted of treason if he were sent back. You saw what just happened to Manning right? While one can still somewhat question if all he leaked was neccessary, getting over 100 years in prison is not exactly fair, imo. In these cases you can't really trust the government/courts to be on your side as a whistleblower. You see the government wants these leaks to end, so they will convict them with insanely hard-hitting sentences. It's probably the smart thing to run away. He has already sacrificed a life with his family and in his home country. Calling him a coward (which many of those who share your opinion calls him) is truly misguided.
What you seem to ignore is the fact that Manning was a soldier, which means he agreed to being stripped of many rights when he joined the service. Keep in mind that all US soldiers are volunteers, so he was never even coerced into signing such documents - he did so of his own free will. Also, Manning never was punished for anything he didn't deserve to be punished for. Despite everything, he received a fair trial. The fact that you think he was a whistleblower doesn't change reality.
Snowden is a civilian and his crimes were much lesser and more reasonable until he went to China and Russia. Now he's very possibly a traitor.
|
There is no constitutional court in the US ? In France it is their job to see if something is constitutional or not.
|
On August 12 2013 04:59 WhiteDog wrote:
There is no constitutional court in the US ? In France it is their job to see if something is constitutional or not.
That's the job of pretty much every higher court. There's just no specific court for that.
|
On August 12 2013 05:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 04:59 WhiteDog wrote:
There is no constitutional court in the US ? In France it is their job to see if something is constitutional or not. That's the job of pretty much every higher court. There's just no specific court for that.
Yeah, except it can mobilise itself, it does not need a "case", and can (need to ?) review any newly voted law.
|
On August 12 2013 03:36 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 00:53 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2013 00:51 Talin wrote:On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM. If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public. In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero. Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish. So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM? That sounds... bizarre to say the least.
When Snowden leaked to the media, he could only be trials for breaking his confidentiality agreement and for leaking to the media.
Him running off to a different country is the only reason he'd be trialed for treason. If he didn't run away, the courts would have to publicly define and discuss PRISM. As is, he will only be trialed for running to China and Russia and not at all for PRISM.
|
On August 12 2013 05:05 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 05:02 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2013 04:59 WhiteDog wrote:
There is no constitutional court in the US ? In France it is their job to see if something is constitutional or not. That's the job of pretty much every higher court. There's just no specific court for that. Yeah, except it can mobilise itself, it does not need a "case", and can (need to ?) review any newly voted law.
The US does not like random government employees randomly changing and redefining law at will. Everything is based on public court cases acting as precedent for decisions.
|
On August 12 2013 05:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 05:05 WhiteDog wrote:On August 12 2013 05:02 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2013 04:59 WhiteDog wrote:
There is no constitutional court in the US ? In France it is their job to see if something is constitutional or not. That's the job of pretty much every higher court. There's just no specific court for that. Yeah, except it can mobilise itself, it does not need a "case", and can (need to ?) review any newly voted law. The US does not like random government employees randomly changing and redefining law at will. Everything is based on public court cases acting as precedent for decisions.
that's what senators do all the time tho.
In germany the constitutional court can review and veto any new law that has been made by the congress. They have to work in the framework that our constitution set up (we dont really have a constitution but that's another matter). In the US you seem to rely on your elected people to do that work which imo is foolish.
This veto power is part of the american presidency but this is dangerous as it puts a lot of power into a persons hands which allready has an agenda and can lead to a stalemate where nothing moves because the president vetos laws made by the opposing party
the constitutional court does not change laws either. If it deems a law as not fitting into our constitution the congress has to redo it.
Also the court only becomes active when someone is making a lawsuit, so it kinda is the last way how the "people" can influence government decisions
|
On August 12 2013 05:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 03:36 Talin wrote:On August 12 2013 00:53 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2013 00:51 Talin wrote:On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM. If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public. In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero. Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish. So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM? That sounds... bizarre to say the least. When Snowden leaked to the media, he could only be trials for breaking his confidentiality agreement and for leaking to the media. Him running off to a different country is the only reason he'd be trialed for treason. If he didn't run away, the courts would have to publicly define and discuss PRISM. As is, he will only be trialed for running to China and Russia and not at all for PRISM.
No they wouldn't have to at all. They'd convict Snowden on the basis of leaking classified information, the specifics of which would even be hidden from the court making the ruling. PRISM wouldn't even play a role in the process, let alone that it would be challenged in court during it.
I'm not sure what you mean by getting trialed for running to China and Russia, seeing how that's not actually a criminal act by itself. Unless you have evidence he sold state secret to those nations, the charges, wether he stayed in or out the US remain the same. It's all a pretty pointless discussion though, Snowden is never coming back. Had he stayed he'd have been imprisoned the rest of his life, so good for him.
Also, as far as I'm aware on constitutionality, all you need is an affected party. One US citizen whose privacy has been violated can start a court case, Snowden isn't in a unique position to challenge it just because he leaked it. I imagine its near impossible to prove an individual is an affected party though.
|
Another interesting question is: Why aren't the people who leaked about the great Al Qaeda meeting not behind bars yet? That was a much more dangerous leak than what Snowden did.
It seems the American government is very selective about what leaks they intend to punish people for.
|
On August 12 2013 06:23 Skilledblob wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 05:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2013 05:05 WhiteDog wrote:On August 12 2013 05:02 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2013 04:59 WhiteDog wrote:
There is no constitutional court in the US ? In France it is their job to see if something is constitutional or not. That's the job of pretty much every higher court. There's just no specific court for that. Yeah, except it can mobilise itself, it does not need a "case", and can (need to ?) review any newly voted law. The US does not like random government employees randomly changing and redefining law at will. Everything is based on public court cases acting as precedent for decisions. that's what senators do all the time tho. In germany the constitutional court can review and veto any new law that has been made by the congress. They have to work in the framework that our constitution set up (we dont really have a constitution but that's another matter). In the US you seem to rely on your elected people to do that work which imo is foolish. This veto power is part of the american presidency but this is dangerous as it puts a lot of power into a persons hands which allready has an agenda and can lead to a stalemate where nothing moves because the president vetos laws made by the opposing party the constitutional court does not change laws either. If it deems a law as not fitting into our constitution the congress has to redo it. Also the court only becomes active when someone is making a lawsuit, so it kinda is the last way how the "people" can influence government decisions
American senators and presidents are more democratically accountable, whereas American judges are less accountable to the people and more independent, which is why it is essential that they have less power.
|
On August 12 2013 06:33 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 05:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2013 03:36 Talin wrote:On August 12 2013 00:53 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2013 00:51 Talin wrote:On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM. If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public. In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero. Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish. So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM? That sounds... bizarre to say the least. When Snowden leaked to the media, he could only be trials for breaking his confidentiality agreement and for leaking to the media. Him running off to a different country is the only reason he'd be trialed for treason. If he didn't run away, the courts would have to publicly define and discuss PRISM. As is, he will only be trialed for running to China and Russia and not at all for PRISM. No they wouldn't have to at all. They'd convict Snowden on the basis of leaking classified information, the specifics of which would even be hidden from the court making the ruling. PRISM wouldn't even play a role in the process, let alone that it would be challenged in court during it. I'm not sure what you mean by getting trialed for running to China and Russia, seeing how that's not actually a criminal act by itself. Unless you have evidence he sold state secret to those nations, the charges, wether he stayed in or out the US remain the same. It's all a pretty pointless discussion though, Snowden is never coming back. Had he stayed he'd have been imprisoned the rest of his life, so good for him. Also, as far as I'm aware on constitutionality, all you need is an affected party. One US citizen whose privacy has been violated can start a court case, Snowden isn't in a unique position to challenge it just because he leaked it. I imagine its near impossible to prove an individual is an affected party though.
Actually, no, that's not how it works.
If snowden stayed in the US, and kept publicly stating that he was doing something to reveal unconstitutional searches and seizures, then the only way they could put him on Trial would be to charge him with what he did, breaking a non-disclosure agreement.
Which he would then be questioned about why he did what he did, when did it, etc...
The whole trial would be about the validity of his actions.
By running to China/Russia they will never charge him for breaking confidentiality, they would charge him for treason. Which has nothing to do with PRISM. They would charge him with sharing secrets. The whole trial would never be about the right or wrongness of the NSA.
|
On August 12 2013 05:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 03:36 Talin wrote:On August 12 2013 00:53 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2013 00:51 Talin wrote:On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM. If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public. In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero. Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish. So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM? That sounds... bizarre to say the least. When Snowden leaked to the media, he could only be trials for breaking his confidentiality agreement and for leaking to the media. Him running off to a different country is the only reason he'd be trialed for treason. If he didn't run away, the courts would have to publicly define and discuss PRISM. As is, he will only be trialed for running to China and Russia and not at all for PRISM.
I'm no expert, but that doesn't sound very believable at all.
Leaking classified information to the media is pretty much equivalent to leaking it to everyone who listens. It wouldn't be hard to spin the case as him releasing information sensitive to national security to the ever-ambiguous "enemies of America" even if he never set foot outside the States. One also doesn't physically need to be present in Russia and China to share other kinds of classified secrets.
If there is no reliable mechanism to get PRISM to the court other than by Snowden appearing in court and it's simply going to be ignored by the institutions just because one guy isn't there, there's no wonder that such a system doesn't really inspire much confidence to begin with.
Either way, running away was the most sensible decision he could have made. Even more so in hindsight, when the public reactions to PRISM and him whistleblowing started popping up and it became apparent that neither the American public nor the institutions are capable of dealing with a case like this on their hands.
|
You must be kidding me if you don't think China and Russia made him talk. They have every interest in knowing and they have the leverage to make him do so. All the US government needs is proof, which won't be all that hard to come by, and there's a good case for treason in the making.
|
On August 12 2013 08:21 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 05:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2013 03:36 Talin wrote:On August 12 2013 00:53 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2013 00:51 Talin wrote:On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM. If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public. In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero. Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish. So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM? That sounds... bizarre to say the least. When Snowden leaked to the media, he could only be trials for breaking his confidentiality agreement and for leaking to the media. Him running off to a different country is the only reason he'd be trialed for treason. If he didn't run away, the courts would have to publicly define and discuss PRISM. As is, he will only be trialed for running to China and Russia and not at all for PRISM. I'm no expert, but that doesn't sound very believable at all. Leaking classified information to the media is pretty much equivalent to leaking it to everyone who listens. It wouldn't be hard to spin the case as him releasing information sensitive to national security to the ever-ambiguous "enemies of America" even if he never set foot outside the States. One also doesn't physically need to be present in Russia and China to share other kinds of classified secrets. If there is no reliable mechanism to get PRISM to the court other than by Snowden appearing in court and it's simply going to be ignored by the institutions just because one guy isn't there, there's no wonder that such a system doesn't really inspire much confidence to begin with. Either way, running away was the most sensible decision he could have made. Even more so in hindsight, when the public reactions to PRISM and him whistleblowing started popping up and it became apparent that neither the American public nor the institutions are capable of dealing with a case like this on their hands.
Its the limits set on Judges and the Supreme Court in order to prevent them from becoming tyrants.
The judicial system is limited to only what is presented to them; they are not allowed to actively change laws "just because."
So while Judges aren't allowed to simply say "NSA is unconstitutional" they are also prevented from simply saying "Pro-Life is automatically law."
And yes, there is a big difference between "leaking to the media" and "leaking to enemy powers."
Its a lot easier to accuse someone who ran off to a country after revealing secrets of treason than it is to accuse someone of treason who stays in US land and publicly talking to US citizens. It's not treason to "divulge" to fellow Americans. For them to prove he is guilty of treason for talking to Americans they would have to prove that he was in talks with country X.
Now, Snowden is not required for the judicial system to go after the NSA. What is required, is someone to make the accusation and argument that the NSA is unconstitutional. That person needs evidence of the unconstitutional actions, to get that evidence he needs either the NSA database or a witness giving his testimony (someone like Snowden).
IE; all the courts needs is an accuser and evidence. The only evidence we currently have is Snowden unless you think the current NSA guys will make the public statement against NSA.
|
On August 12 2013 08:35 LegalLord wrote:
You must be kidding me if you don't think China and Russia made him talk. They have every interest in knowing and they have the leverage to make him do so. All the US government needs is proof, which won't be all that hard to come by, and there's a good case for treason in the making.
Even if he never talked. All the US needs to show is that Russia/China knows something that they aren't supposed to know, and that Snowden also knew that information prior to going to Russia/China.
The argument would be "China/Russia is not supposed to know _____, but ever since Snowden went there they they now know about it." they would then say "We asked China/Russia to hand him back, but they refused. They obviously had need of him."
|
On August 12 2013 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 06:33 Derez wrote:On August 12 2013 05:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2013 03:36 Talin wrote:On August 12 2013 00:53 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2013 00:51 Talin wrote:On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM. If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public. In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero. Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish. So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM? That sounds... bizarre to say the least. When Snowden leaked to the media, he could only be trials for breaking his confidentiality agreement and for leaking to the media. Him running off to a different country is the only reason he'd be trialed for treason. If he didn't run away, the courts would have to publicly define and discuss PRISM. As is, he will only be trialed for running to China and Russia and not at all for PRISM. No they wouldn't have to at all. They'd convict Snowden on the basis of leaking classified information, the specifics of which would even be hidden from the court making the ruling. PRISM wouldn't even play a role in the process, let alone that it would be challenged in court during it. I'm not sure what you mean by getting trialed for running to China and Russia, seeing how that's not actually a criminal act by itself. Unless you have evidence he sold state secret to those nations, the charges, wether he stayed in or out the US remain the same. It's all a pretty pointless discussion though, Snowden is never coming back. Had he stayed he'd have been imprisoned the rest of his life, so good for him. Also, as far as I'm aware on constitutionality, all you need is an affected party. One US citizen whose privacy has been violated can start a court case, Snowden isn't in a unique position to challenge it just because he leaked it. I imagine its near impossible to prove an individual is an affected party though. Actually, no, that's not how it works. If snowden stayed in the US, and kept publicly stating that he was doing something to reveal unconstitutional searches and seizures, then the only way they could put him on Trial would be to charge him with what he did, breaking a non-disclosure agreement. Which he would then be questioned about why he did what he did, when did it, etc... The whole trial would be about the validity of his actions.
That's hilarious. U.S. trials involving any sort of national interest are ABSOLUTELY NOT unbiased and fair proceedings. Look at how the U.S. approaches international relations: spying on allies or grounding presidential jets because they can get away with it and it benefits them. The approach is no different in the courts. Justice does not enter into the equation, only power and fear. If they can get away with it, and it benefits them, they will do it. The trial would be just another opportunity to send a message to future whistle-blowers, the result never in doubt.
|
On August 12 2013 08:47 KnowNothing wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2013 06:33 Derez wrote:On August 12 2013 05:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2013 03:36 Talin wrote:On August 12 2013 00:53 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2013 00:51 Talin wrote:On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM. If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public. In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero. Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish. So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM? That sounds... bizarre to say the least. When Snowden leaked to the media, he could only be trials for breaking his confidentiality agreement and for leaking to the media. Him running off to a different country is the only reason he'd be trialed for treason. If he didn't run away, the courts would have to publicly define and discuss PRISM. As is, he will only be trialed for running to China and Russia and not at all for PRISM. No they wouldn't have to at all. They'd convict Snowden on the basis of leaking classified information, the specifics of which would even be hidden from the court making the ruling. PRISM wouldn't even play a role in the process, let alone that it would be challenged in court during it. I'm not sure what you mean by getting trialed for running to China and Russia, seeing how that's not actually a criminal act by itself. Unless you have evidence he sold state secret to those nations, the charges, wether he stayed in or out the US remain the same. It's all a pretty pointless discussion though, Snowden is never coming back. Had he stayed he'd have been imprisoned the rest of his life, so good for him. Also, as far as I'm aware on constitutionality, all you need is an affected party. One US citizen whose privacy has been violated can start a court case, Snowden isn't in a unique position to challenge it just because he leaked it. I imagine its near impossible to prove an individual is an affected party though. Actually, no, that's not how it works. If snowden stayed in the US, and kept publicly stating that he was doing something to reveal unconstitutional searches and seizures, then the only way they could put him on Trial would be to charge him with what he did, breaking a non-disclosure agreement. Which he would then be questioned about why he did what he did, when did it, etc... The whole trial would be about the validity of his actions. That's hilarious. U.S. trials involving any sort of national interest are ABSOLUTELY NOT unbiased and fair proceedings. Look at how the U.S. approaches international relations: spying on allies or grounding presidential jets because they can get away with it and it benefits them. The approach is no different in the courts. Justice does not enter into the equation, only power and fear. If they can get away with it, and it benefits them, they will do it. The trial would be just another opportunity to send a message to future whistle-blowers, the result never in doubt.
I've heard a fair number of reputable politicians (including presidents) say the following on the matter:
"Court packing is impossible because as soon as you nominate your friends, they cease to be your friends."
It's true, more or less, with the exception of the few cases that really just depend on the judge's (or justice's) interpretation of the law, such as Obamacare.
On August 12 2013 08:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 08:35 LegalLord wrote:
You must be kidding me if you don't think China and Russia made him talk. They have every interest in knowing and they have the leverage to make him do so. All the US government needs is proof, which won't be all that hard to come by, and there's a good case for treason in the making. Even if he never talked. All the US needs to show is that Russia/China knows something that they aren't supposed to know, and that Snowden also knew that information prior to going to Russia/China. The argument would be "China/Russia is not supposed to know _____, but ever since Snowden went there they they now know about it." they would then say "We asked China/Russia to hand him back, but they refused. They obviously had need of him."
Might be a bit of a stretch; that's still circumstantial evidence. But it's pretty hard to believe that he didn't talk.
|
On August 12 2013 08:47 KnowNothing wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2013 06:33 Derez wrote:On August 12 2013 05:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2013 03:36 Talin wrote:On August 12 2013 00:53 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2013 00:51 Talin wrote:On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM. If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public. In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero. Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish. So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM? That sounds... bizarre to say the least. When Snowden leaked to the media, he could only be trials for breaking his confidentiality agreement and for leaking to the media. Him running off to a different country is the only reason he'd be trialed for treason. If he didn't run away, the courts would have to publicly define and discuss PRISM. As is, he will only be trialed for running to China and Russia and not at all for PRISM. No they wouldn't have to at all. They'd convict Snowden on the basis of leaking classified information, the specifics of which would even be hidden from the court making the ruling. PRISM wouldn't even play a role in the process, let alone that it would be challenged in court during it. I'm not sure what you mean by getting trialed for running to China and Russia, seeing how that's not actually a criminal act by itself. Unless you have evidence he sold state secret to those nations, the charges, wether he stayed in or out the US remain the same. It's all a pretty pointless discussion though, Snowden is never coming back. Had he stayed he'd have been imprisoned the rest of his life, so good for him. Also, as far as I'm aware on constitutionality, all you need is an affected party. One US citizen whose privacy has been violated can start a court case, Snowden isn't in a unique position to challenge it just because he leaked it. I imagine its near impossible to prove an individual is an affected party though. Actually, no, that's not how it works. If snowden stayed in the US, and kept publicly stating that he was doing something to reveal unconstitutional searches and seizures, then the only way they could put him on Trial would be to charge him with what he did, breaking a non-disclosure agreement. Which he would then be questioned about why he did what he did, when did it, etc... The whole trial would be about the validity of his actions. That's hilarious. U.S. trials involving any sort of national interest are ABSOLUTELY NOT unbiased and fair proceedings. Look at how the U.S. approaches international relations: spying on allies or grounding presidential jets because they can get away with it and it benefits them. The approach is no different in the courts. Justice does not enter into the equation, only power and fear. If they can get away with it, and it benefits them, they will do it. The trial would be just another opportunity to send a message to future whistle-blowers, the result never in doubt.
If you don't trust that the judicial system can correct a problem, then the only resolution is civil war.
You either believe that the mechanics of the system can be used to solve a problem, or you believe that you need to forcibly change the system. There is no "things will work out because that's what happens in movies" option.
|
On August 12 2013 08:47 KnowNothing wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2013 06:33 Derez wrote:On August 12 2013 05:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2013 03:36 Talin wrote:On August 12 2013 00:53 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2013 00:51 Talin wrote:On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM. If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public. In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero. Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish. So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM? That sounds... bizarre to say the least. When Snowden leaked to the media, he could only be trials for breaking his confidentiality agreement and for leaking to the media. Him running off to a different country is the only reason he'd be trialed for treason. If he didn't run away, the courts would have to publicly define and discuss PRISM. As is, he will only be trialed for running to China and Russia and not at all for PRISM. No they wouldn't have to at all. They'd convict Snowden on the basis of leaking classified information, the specifics of which would even be hidden from the court making the ruling. PRISM wouldn't even play a role in the process, let alone that it would be challenged in court during it. I'm not sure what you mean by getting trialed for running to China and Russia, seeing how that's not actually a criminal act by itself. Unless you have evidence he sold state secret to those nations, the charges, wether he stayed in or out the US remain the same. It's all a pretty pointless discussion though, Snowden is never coming back. Had he stayed he'd have been imprisoned the rest of his life, so good for him. Also, as far as I'm aware on constitutionality, all you need is an affected party. One US citizen whose privacy has been violated can start a court case, Snowden isn't in a unique position to challenge it just because he leaked it. I imagine its near impossible to prove an individual is an affected party though. Actually, no, that's not how it works. If snowden stayed in the US, and kept publicly stating that he was doing something to reveal unconstitutional searches and seizures, then the only way they could put him on Trial would be to charge him with what he did, breaking a non-disclosure agreement. Which he would then be questioned about why he did what he did, when did it, etc... The whole trial would be about the validity of his actions. That's hilarious. U.S. trials involving any sort of national interest are ABSOLUTELY NOT unbiased and fair proceedings. Look at how the U.S. approaches international relations: spying on allies or grounding presidential jets because they can get away with it and it benefits them. The approach is no different in the courts. Justice does not enter into the equation, only power and fear. If they can get away with it, and it benefits them, they will do it. The trial would be just another opportunity to send a message to future whistle-blowers, the result never in doubt.
It appears that you have very little understanding of how American courts operate. The adversarial system and respect for precedent, not to mention the highly skilled and independent background of each judge, ensure that trials are as unbiased and fair as possible.
(Yes, there are some unfortunate kinks in the system; for example, you cannot file claims against the government for illegal surveillance policies unless you can prove that you are clearly a victim of those policies, but you can't prove those policies if they are covert in the first place; however, at least the government has been doing more and more to provide greater oversight.)
|
On August 12 2013 10:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 08:47 KnowNothing wrote:On August 12 2013 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2013 06:33 Derez wrote:On August 12 2013 05:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2013 03:36 Talin wrote:On August 12 2013 00:53 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2013 00:51 Talin wrote:On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM. If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public. In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero. Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish. So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM? That sounds... bizarre to say the least. When Snowden leaked to the media, he could only be trials for breaking his confidentiality agreement and for leaking to the media. Him running off to a different country is the only reason he'd be trialed for treason. If he didn't run away, the courts would have to publicly define and discuss PRISM. As is, he will only be trialed for running to China and Russia and not at all for PRISM. No they wouldn't have to at all. They'd convict Snowden on the basis of leaking classified information, the specifics of which would even be hidden from the court making the ruling. PRISM wouldn't even play a role in the process, let alone that it would be challenged in court during it. I'm not sure what you mean by getting trialed for running to China and Russia, seeing how that's not actually a criminal act by itself. Unless you have evidence he sold state secret to those nations, the charges, wether he stayed in or out the US remain the same. It's all a pretty pointless discussion though, Snowden is never coming back. Had he stayed he'd have been imprisoned the rest of his life, so good for him. Also, as far as I'm aware on constitutionality, all you need is an affected party. One US citizen whose privacy has been violated can start a court case, Snowden isn't in a unique position to challenge it just because he leaked it. I imagine its near impossible to prove an individual is an affected party though. Actually, no, that's not how it works. If snowden stayed in the US, and kept publicly stating that he was doing something to reveal unconstitutional searches and seizures, then the only way they could put him on Trial would be to charge him with what he did, breaking a non-disclosure agreement. Which he would then be questioned about why he did what he did, when did it, etc... The whole trial would be about the validity of his actions. That's hilarious. U.S. trials involving any sort of national interest are ABSOLUTELY NOT unbiased and fair proceedings. Look at how the U.S. approaches international relations: spying on allies or grounding presidential jets because they can get away with it and it benefits them. The approach is no different in the courts. Justice does not enter into the equation, only power and fear. If they can get away with it, and it benefits them, they will do it. The trial would be just another opportunity to send a message to future whistle-blowers, the result never in doubt. If you don't trust that the judicial system can correct a problem, then the only resolution is civil war. You either believe that the mechanics of the system can be used to solve a problem, or you believe that you need to forcibly change the system. There is no "things will work out because that's what happens in movies" option.
In my opinion it is possible to resolve problems to an extent using the judicial system. However, that is only possible if the issues themselves are the central focus of the hearing, rather than the persecution or absolution of an individual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
