Edward Snowden

[GostHacked]

How about if the Russians exchanged Snowden for Alexander Poteyev.......The Russians already had a trial for Poteyev, then the Americans could put Snowden before the courts.....

You and I know that Snowden would never see the light of day again.

NSA spying good, Snowden bad.

[dre]

How about if the Russians exchanged Snowden for Alexander Poteyev.......The Russians already had a trial for Poteyev, then the Americans could put Snowden before the courts.....

How about they exchange Obama for someone that believes in constitutional rights and liberty

[cybercoma]

How about they exchange Obama for someone that believes in constitutional rights and liberty

Then who would corporate America bribe?

[Guest Derek L]

Or maybe he will be pardoned! If his actions result in changes to this program, or one of constitutional challenges is successful it will be pretty hard for the government to keep saying what he did was wrong.

And the program is a pretty blatant violation of the 4th amendment.

Still... what you are saying is possible. It wouldnt suprise me if the US made a secret deal, to bring him back and face a secret trial, for dislosing their secret programs.

Theres certainly lots of little authoritian yes boys cheering for this guy to get strung up!

I don't know about secret trial......but it's a fair bet that after the Russian SVR mines him, they'd flip him to the Americans (who have sinced mined Poteyev) for the convicted Russian spy.....I’d suggest that such an exchange would have bipartisan support among the Democrats and Republicans, hence doing away with any domestic political theatrics, so I fail to see why he wouldn’t be given a fair trial……

[dre]

I don't know about secret trial......but it's a fair bet that after the Russian SVR mines him, they'd flip him to the Americans (who have sinced mined Poteyev) for the convicted Russian spy.....I’d suggest that such an exchange would have bipartisan support among the Democrats and Republicans, hence doing away with any domestic political theatrics, so I fail to see why he wouldn’t be given a fair trial……

Well we would never know if it was fair or not, because it would be in secret. How much of the Bradley Manning trial did you watch on TV?

In any case its unlikely. Poteyev is a defector... he helped the US break up soviet sleeper cells. Sending him to do 25 years in a Russian prison would not exactly send a good message to other potential defectors.

And my guess is the US government is sick of this being all over the news, and is looking to change the subject to something other than than their failure to honor peoples civil rights and uphold the constitution. They are probably just fine with him staying in Russia.

Edited August 12, 2013 by dre

[Guest Derek L]

Well we would never know if it was fair or not, because it would be in secret. How much of the Bradley Manning trial did you watch on TV?

What trial......did he not plead guilty in exchange for reduced charges?

In any case its unlikely. Poteyev is a defector... he helped the US break up soviet sleeper cells. Sending him to do 25 years in a Russian prison would not exactly send a good message to other potential defectors.

This is true, but like a trade in hockey, both sides have to give up something........depends how much the United States Government wants Snowden.

[dre]

What trial......did he not plead guilty in exchange for reduced charges?

This is true, but like a trade in hockey, both sides have to give up something........depends how much the United States Government wants Snowden.

Trading imprisoned spies is quite common. Trading defectors is exremely rare and unlikely.

Still... its a possibility.

[Guest Derek L]

Trading imprisoned spies is quite common. Trading defectors is exremely rare and unlikely.

Still... its a possibility.

I’ve no doubt that eventually Snowden will be returned to the United States, handcuffed with an FBI agent as opposed to gagged in the back of stealth black helicopter (ala Zero Dark Thirty), given his day in court, found guilty, given 15-20 years and sometime later this decade, during either the Clinton or Bush administration, will be allowed to give an interview to 60 minutes from behind bars…….

[jbg]

How about they exchange Obama for someone that believes in constitutional rights and liberty

Would Canada take Obama? We'll take Harper.

[dre]

I’ve no doubt that eventually Snowden will be returned to the United States, handcuffed with an FBI agent as opposed to gagged in the back of stealth black helicopter (ala Zero Dark Thirty), given his day in court, found guilty, given 15-20 years and sometime later this decade, during either the Clinton or Bush administration, will be allowed to give an interview to 60 minutes from behind bars…….

That depends. If it turns out that what the government is doing is illegal, and that seems quite likely.... then it will get pretty awkward for the government to keep chasing this guy around.

Anyways at least he is safe for now, and he has also established for everyone else which places are safe to flea to and some that arent. One can only hope others around the world follow his example.

[dre]

What trial......did he not plead guilty in exchange for reduced charges?

No they dragged him before some kangaroo military court, and it found him guilty of most charges but not guilty of the most serious one (aiding the enemy)

[Guest Derek L]

That depends. If it turns out that what the government is doing is illegal, and that seems quite likely.... then it will get pretty awkward for the government to keep chasing this guy around.

.

If what the Government was doing was illegal, you would have seen any bipartisan support dissolve long ago, fore the Republicans would love to dislodge Obama…..It’s not, nor will it be found to be.

Anyways at least he is safe for now, and he has also established for everyone else which places are safe to flea to and some that arent. One can only hope others around the world follow his example.

I don't know that he's "safe"........Safe would have been hiding somewhere on a beach with a false ID/Passport, maybe some plastic surgery, and then disclosing through a third or fourth party.

[Guest Derek L]

No they dragged him before some kangaroo military court, and it found him guilty of most charges but not guilty of the most serious one (aiding the enemy)

That's the key difference between Manning and Snowden......Clearly Manning was a member of the Armed Forces a separate society governed by separate laws…Manning was aware of this when he signed up….As the old saying goes, they don’t practice Democracy, but protect it…..I’ll save you any clichés from A Few Good Men though…….

This is why, coupled with the greater media attention, that Snowden would get a fair civilian trial, that no doubt will be a media circus…….

[dre]

If what the Government was doing was illegal, you would have seen any bipartisan support dissolve long ago, fore the Republicans would love to dislodge Obama…..It’s not, nor will it be found to be.

Well, if the courts rule this constitutional that would be a completely departure from previous jurisprudence. You need a warrant to sieze someones communications on a case by case basis. And the courts know that if they DO rule this constitutional it wont just be the NSA that does it. It will be law enforcement in general, and they will be opening the door to virtually any net-cast surveillance imaginable.

[Guest Derek L]

Well, if the courts rule this constitutional that would be a completely departure from previous jurisprudence. You need a warrant to sieze someones communications on a case by case basis. And the courts know that if they DO rule this constitutional it wont just be the NSA that does it. It will be law enforcement in general, and they will be opening the door to virtually any net-cast surveillance imaginable.

Not at all, the NSA isn't "Law Enforcement"....but if you wish to bark up that tree, read up on the Special Needs Doctrine and United States Supreme Court first.......It allows the suspension of certain 4th Amendment rights.....like drug testing of airline pilots and railroad workers and your regular old Roadside drunk driving checks... It was ruled that a minimal intrusion on the public’s privacy was justified to combat an overwhelming public danger….And yes,. Terrorism is determined to be a “public danger”….

[ReeferMadness]

That's the key difference between Manning and Snowden......Clearly Manning was a member of the Armed Forces a separate society governed by separate laws…Manning was aware of this when he signed up….As the old saying goes, they don’t practice Democracy, but protect it…..I’ll save you any clichés from A Few Good Men though…….

This is why, coupled with the greater media attention, that Snowden would get a fair civilian trial, that no doubt will be a media circus…….

Oh, yeah. The same crowd that set up Guantanamo, declared waterboarding an "enhanced interrogation technique", and practises extraordinary rendition could totally be trusted with Snowden's rights.

You a funny guy, Derek.

[ReeferMadness]

Not at all, the NSA isn't "Law Enforcement"....but if you wish to bark up that tree, read up on the Special Needs Doctrine and United States Supreme Court first.......It allows the suspension of certain 4th Amendment rights.....like drug testing of airline pilots and railroad workers and your regular old Roadside drunk driving checks... It was ruled that a minimal intrusion on the public’s privacy was justified to combat an overwhelming public danger….And yes,. Terrorism is determined to be a “public danger”….

Nice theory but your premise only works in practise if the degree of freedom you're giving up is commensurate with the risk. The FBI has become quite adept at making paper terrorists out of people who are disgruntled and/or mentally ill but lack the capacity to do any real damage. The FBI finds these people, plant a mole who can supply them with "explosives" and suddenly you have headlines about the terrorist plot "foiled" by the FBI.

Link

the raw statistical data say that Americans have a significantly better chance of being struck dead by lightning than of being killed in a terrorist attack here at home.

In many cases they’re mentally ill or they’re economically desperate. An undercover informant or agent posing as an Al-Qaeda operative gives them everything they need… gives them the transportation, gives them the money if they need it, and then gives them the bomb and even the idea for the terrorist attack. And then when that person pushes a button to detonate the bomb that they believe will explode—a bomb that was provided to them in whole by the FBI—agents rush in, arrest them and charge them with conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction and then parade that person out to the public saying, “Look at us. We caught a terrorist. This is us keeping you safe.”

[Guest Derek L]

Oh, yeah. The same crowd that set up Guantanamo, declared waterboarding an "enhanced interrogation technique", and practises extraordinary rendition could totally be trusted with Snowden's rights.

You a funny guy, Derek.

Do you have any evidence to suggest Snowden would not receive a fair trial? Even John Walker Lindh got one and the DoJ didn’t even seek the needle……and that was under the “evil Bush regime”

[Guest Derek L]

Nice theory but your premise only works in practise if the degree of freedom you're giving up is commensurate with the risk. The FBI has become quite adept at making paper terrorists out of people who are disgruntled and/or mentally ill but lack the capacity to do any real damage. The FBI finds these people, plant a mole who can supply them with "explosives" and suddenly you have headlines about the terrorist plot "foiled" by the FBI.

Link

It’s not a “theory” , but a decision from the United States Supreme Court, from either 1988 or 1989 (I can’t remember which year to be exact)…….

[dre]

It’s not a “theory” , but a decision from the United States Supreme Court, from either 1988 or 1989 (I can’t remember which year to be exact)…….

Youve pointed out a case where constitutional rights have been limited. That does not mean that the courts will approve industrial scale surveillance and seizure of the information from 300 million people over a threat that is 1/7th as likely to kill an American as lightening.

[Guest Derek L]

Youve pointed out a case where constitutional rights have been limited. That does not mean that the courts will approve industrial scale surveillance and seizure of the information from 300 million people over a threat that is 1/7th as likely to kill an American as lightening.

The FISA court already has....based on Smith vs Maryland....another Supreme Court ruling......

The lawyers and judges involved in this program didn't get their law degrees from the University of Phoenix...

[cybercoma]

If what the Government was doing was illegal, you would have seen any bipartisan support dissolve long ago

This suggests that there has never been bipartisan support for any law that has ever been overturned by the Supreme Court. It does not follow that there would not be bipartisan support for a law, simply because it's illegal.

[cybercoma]

Not at all, the NSA isn't "Law Enforcement"....but if you wish to bark up that tree, read up on the Special Needs Doctrine and United States Supreme Court first.......It allows the suspension of certain 4th Amendment rights.....like drug testing of airline pilots and railroad workers and your regular old Roadside drunk driving checks... It was ruled that a minimal intrusion on the public’s privacy was justified to combat an overwhelming public danger….And yes,. Terrorism is determined to be a “public danger”….

MINIMAL intrusion for OVERWHELMING public danger. What the NSA is doing with these surveillance programs is drug testing everyone on the planet, just in case a pilot on a single route might be on drugs. Edited August 13, 2013 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Do you have any evidence to suggest Snowden would not receive a fair trial?

Do you have evidence that God does not exist?

Meanwhile, it seems very highly unlikely that he would get a fair trial given what has happened to whistleblowers before him and the fact that he has already been convicted in the media by the government.

[cybercoma]

The FISA court already has....

And the FISA court is not the Supreme Court. More importantly, the FISA court approving these programs is like Wall Street executives trying their own cases of white collar crime. Or police investigating misconduct by other police. Or a Conservative committee investigating misconduct by Conservative senators. It's a joke and even President Obama has said that people have a legitimate concern that these proceedings were biased towards surveillance and not enough attention was given to liberty. So even the POTUS, who stands firm behind these programs, says the process was biased, but the programs were and still are necessary.