General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA number of people think Snowden would not have received a fair trial in federal court
If that's the case, then that's an indication that our justice system is broken.
Perhaps Obama was right when he decided against prosecuting Bush and Cheney. It would look rather odd for a sitting president to prosecute a previous president for the first time in history using a broken justice system.
msongs
(67,478 posts)or worse!!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,249 posts)hlthe2b
(102,491 posts)see how horribly Manning was treated in the considerable time leading up to trial. There is widespread concern about our government's policy of declaring an American an enemy combatant and thereby justifying fatal drone attacks overseas--sans trial. A lot of us are very concerned about those who appear to be innocent, but may never be released in Gitmo. These are but a few of the many examples of problems with our "rule of law" and how it is carried out.
So, yes, there are problems that justify the concern many have--regardless of how they feel about Snowden.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...I can't help but read the OP title as "A number of people think Snowden would be convicted at trial seeing as the evidence is overwhelming.... and... umm... NO FAIR!"
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)there's a credible argument that the law is an ass in this regard, and that what he did shouldn't be illegal, but on the law there's no credible argument that his conduct was legal
treestar
(82,383 posts)good catch
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)But what would he be tried for? Ah, that's the question! Notwithstanding Secretary Kerry's fatuous statement about Snowden coming back to the United States to "make his case," the trial of Edward Snowden would take several years in the making. During that time, the Attorney General would very carefully bring charges designed to do anything but allow Snowden to "make his case." A criminal trial, unlike a civil trial, isn't an adversarial proceeding where both sides get to put on the evidence they have or to make the case they want to make. In a criminal trial, the prosecution decides what charges it will bring, and if a charge begins sailing too close to an inconvenient place, they simply drop the charge. The government doesn't have to answer any charges, only the defendant.
A recent example is Cecily McMillan, convicted and sentenced to jail for elbowing a cop during an Occupy protest. Evidence of the cop's misconduct was carefully excluded from the trial, and the prosecution focused solely on McMillan's resistance to the cop. McMillan's motivation for being at the demonstration, the crimes and sins that inspired her protest, and the actions of the cop leading up to his getting elbowed - none of that got into evidence or was presented for the jury's consideration. Just the assault on the police officer.
I called Kerry's statement fatuous, and that's because he's as aware of what I've laid out here as anyone. His statement was very disappointing for anyone who cares about the rule of law in this country, and sadly the numbers of that tribe seem to dwindle daily.