Putin: Russia can't turn over Snowden • Hacker News Board

Re: Putin: Russia can't turn over Snowden

#51

Post by mikeyouse » Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 6:03 PM UTC

columbo wrote: post #45

mikeyouse wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's accused of three things[1]; 1. Theft of Government Property 2. Unauthorized Communication of National Defense Information 3. Willful Communication of Classified Communications Intelligence Information to an Unauthorized Person Is there some chance that he's innocent of any of those charges, and will be wrongly convicted? They all seem pretty obvious and there are Federal laws in place to guide penalties and fine…

> Why is everyone convinced he won't have a fair trial? http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/manning-treatment-i... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#C... > Is a result where he ends up in jail an unfair result? NO. If we had set a high bar for wanting a free and fair trial (which we haven't) then the case would be decided in an open manner which could very well end in jail time, communit…

Manning was a military officer and is at trial through the UCMJ, his rights are not the same as a private citizen. Additionally, the 'inhumane' treatment that is described in the UN report would mean that pretty much all the prisons in the US should be shut down (an outcome I wouldn't really oppose), but it seems about average for military justice. Keep in mind that the 'punitive' suicide watch kept him in solitary for about a week longer than he should have been there [1]. It's not like he was waterboarded.

    “On two occasions … a medical officer determined that suicide risk
    status was no longer warranted and the brig staff did not immediately
    take PFC Manning off the suicide risk status,” Galaviz wrote in his
    February 23 findings. In one instance, the suicide watch continued
    for five days after doctors recommended it be canceled and in another
    it went on for two to three days, the review found.

And I'm not sure what Guantanamo has to do with anything, there have never been any americans held there, and if it weren't for obstruction in congress, that hell hole would be shut down already.

[1] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58991.html#ixzz2XF...

Re: Putin: Russia can't turn over Snowden

#52

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 6:04 PM UTC

vinceguidry wrote: post #50

dragonwriter wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are confusing "rational" with "fitting my aesthetic ideal of how things should be".

How would you define "rational," then? Philosophy, or "love of wisdom", of which law is a branch, is all about trying to apply aesthetic ideals to the real world.

> How would you define "rational," then?

Following a consistent internal logic given its factual and aesthetic premises.

> Philosophy, or "love of wisdom", of which law is a branch, is all about trying to apply aesthetic ideals to the real world.

This would be something other than a non-sequitur if "philosophy" was equivalent to "reason" rather than the latter being a tool used by the former but which is not coextensive with it.

Re: Putin: Russia can't turn over Snowden

#53

Post by copperred » Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 6:12 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #36

mikeyouse wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This train of logic doesn't make any sense. the primary goal of the government should be preventing foreign powers, potentially hostile ones, from getting access to the secrets he possesses. Publicly threatening to arrest and try him for serious and potentially capital offenses like espionage while he is in territory not subject to the US or any close ally that would be likely inclined to cooperate given the circumst…

I think you are confusing two different issues: publicly threatening to arrest and prosecute him for capital offenses while he is outside of the practical reach of the US government and seeking to arrest and prosecute him . You can do the second without doing the first; indeed, the first can be actively counterproductive to the second, since he cannot be arrested and prosecuted without first being brought within the…

You are advocating for arrest first, charge second. You seem to think that keeping the desire to arrest and prosecute Snowden a secret would somehow help the government's position. What kind of precedent would it set if this information was kept secret and folks could then seek asylum citing a presumed yet not stated threat from their government. When asked about it, how should the government respond?

Plus assuming that anyone would actually think that there is no desire to prosecute Snowden is foolish, as would be your suggestion for the government to keep its intentions a secret, especially given the nature of this case.

Re: Putin: Russia can't turn over Snowden

#54

Post by mikeyouse » Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 6:18 PM UTC

abraininavat wrote: post #47

mikeyouse wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's accused of three things[1]; 1. Theft of Government Property 2. Unauthorized Communication of National Defense Information 3. Willful Communication of Classified Communications Intelligence Information to an Unauthorized Person Is there some chance that he's innocent of any of those charges, and will be wrongly convicted? They all seem pretty obvious and there are Federal laws in place to guide penalties and fine…

Your stance seems to be that, since he committed the actions he's accused of, and since those actions happen to be illegal, that he therefore should end up in jail. Is that really your stance? It's not a very nuanced one. I'm curious, would you have begrudged a slave for escaping from his slave-owner, given that that action was clearly illegal?

    I'm curious, would you have begrudged a slave for escaping
    from his slave-owner, given that that action was clearly illegal?

Speaking of a lack of nuance...

Slavery was clearly unconstitutional, and was made even explicitly so by passing the 13th amendment. Is your stance that releasing confidential intelligence is an act that deserves constitutional protection? Of course not, so I'm sure it's more like, "Releasing confidential intelligence that exposes illegal programs should be protected." But there's no indication that the programs were illegal, I'm sure they had teams of lawyers sitting next to the engineers who were designing the systems. So then you're left with a judgement call about the severity of the leak and the public good it served. Who's going to make that call?

My stance is that he committed illegal acts, so he should be arrested and undergo a trial, like everyone else that commits illegal acts. If he feels his acts shouldn't be illegal, he can appeal to the Supreme Court which will make a ruling on the constitutionality of laws against releasing confidential information. If he feels that his illegal acts were a public service, he can lobby for a pardon. It's clear that the popular sentiment is on his side, he has some very high profile supporters, it might not be a long shot.

Speaking of, I also think that anyone who lied under oath about the NSA programs should be arrested and undergo a trial, as should anyone who abused the capabilities of the NSA's programs, as should any CIA employees who were illegally monitoring US citizens.

I'm a bit surprised that support for the laws of our country is a controversial position.

Re: Putin: Russia can't turn over Snowden

#55

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 6:31 PM UTC

copperred wrote: post #53

dragonwriter wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are confusing two different issues: publicly threatening to arrest and prosecute him for capital offenses while he is outside of the practical reach of the US government and seeking to arrest and prosecute him . You can do the second without doing the first; indeed, the first can be actively counterproductive to the second, since he cannot be arrested and prosecuted without first being brought within the…

You are advocating for arrest first, charge second. You seem to think that keeping the desire to arrest and prosecute Snowden a secret would somehow help the government's position. What kind of precedent would it set if this information was kept secret and folks could then seek asylum citing a presumed yet not stated threat from their government. When asked about it, how should the government respond? Plus assuming t…

> You are advocating for arrest first, charge second.

No, I'm not.

> You seem to think that keeping the desire to arrest and prosecute Snowden a secret would somehow help the government's position.

No, I said that not making the kind of public threats they are making would improve their ability to serve a particular, clearly specified national security interest, if it was their goal.

> What kind of precedent would it set if this information was kept secret and folks could then seek asylum citing a presumed yet not stated threat from their government.

People can (and do) seek asylum on those grounds now.

> When asked about it, how should the government respond?

They could point out that they don't share information about ongoing investigations.

Or that confirming or denying anything related to the matter could potentially adversely impact national security.

Or...

Re: Putin: Russia can't turn over Snowden

#56

Post by codex » Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 6:32 PM UTC

JulianWasTaken wrote: post #42

codex wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed--there needs to be some sort of decision making process (or "trial") to objectively determine whether what somebody did was OK or not.

Good -- I agree with that as well :) Which means I think we're in agreement that whether fleeing is appropriate depends on the probability of fair trial.

Not really. :-) A society needs an objective process ("trial") to determine whether someone's acts were good or bad. It also needs need an objective process to determine whether that trial will be fair. That process, which must be independent from political pressures, rests with a judge in the United States and/or an appellate court.

One can't excuse flight by waving one's hands claiming "unfair process", without subjecting that process to objective scrutiny (via a judge and appellate court). In Snowden's case the process hasn't even begun yet. If that's all it took, every criminal in the would use it to successfully flee their respective countries.

Nor does the determination of "unfair process" rest with a banana republic which hates the United States (as in the case of an asylum request), or with wannabe superpowers with axes to grind.

Re: Putin: Russia can't turn over Snowden

#57

Post by abraininavat » Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 6:55 PM UTC

mikeyouse wrote: post #54

abraininavat wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your stance seems to be that, since he committed the actions he's accused of, and since those actions happen to be illegal, that he therefore should end up in jail. Is that really your stance? It's not a very nuanced one. I'm curious, would you have begrudged a slave for escaping from his slave-owner, given that that action was clearly illegal?

I'm curious, would you have begrudged a slave for escaping from his slave-owner, given that that action was clearly illegal? Speaking of a lack of nuance... Slavery was clearly unconstitutional, and was made even explicitly so by passing the 13th amendment. Is your stance that releasing confidential intelligence is an act that deserves constitutional protection? Of course not, so I'm sure it's more like, "Releasing c…

You haven't answered the question. If a runaway slave showed up at your door, would you ask him to turn himself in? Would you suggest to him that he should go through the justice system, which he has good reason to perceive as being hostile to his cause?

The way you mince words is quite adept, actually. Are you a politician? You mention slavery being "clearly unconstitutional." Then you contrast that with the surveillance programs, saying "there's no indication the programs were illegal." You've set two very different bars. You blatantly omit the following two bits: that there are convincing arguments that the government surveillance programs are unconstitutional, and that 150 years ago there was no indication that slavery was illegal in slave states.

Re: Putin: Russia can't turn over Snowden

#58

Post by vinceguidry » Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 7:06 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #52

vinceguidry wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you define "rational," then? Philosophy, or "love of wisdom", of which law is a branch, is all about trying to apply aesthetic ideals to the real world.

> How would you define "rational," then? Following a consistent internal logic given its factual and aesthetic premises. > Philosophy, or "love of wisdom", of which law is a branch, is all about trying to apply aesthetic ideals to the real world. This would be something other than a non-sequitur if "philosophy" was equivalent to "reason" rather than the latter being a tool used by the former but which is not coextens…

> This would be something other than a non-sequitur if "philosophy" was equivalent to "reason" rather than the latter being a tool used by the former but which is not coextensive with it.

I'm having trouble seeing this as anything other than a purely semantic distinction.

Re: Putin: Russia can't turn over Snowden

#59

Post by nivertech » Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 7:11 PM UTC

eatitraw wrote: post #15

iandanforth wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does he actually say there is no extradition treaty? That is very surprising.

Yes, he really said this: http://lenta.ru/news/2013/06/25/putin/ (just put the link in the google translate if you want). Here is my crude translation of the relevant part: "Considering possible extradition somewhere, we can extradite people only to the countries which have extradition treaty with us. We don't have such agreement with the USA. Snowden haven't committed any crimes in the territory of Russia". Note: Pu…

More exact translation:

"Considering possible extradition somewhere, we can extradite people only to the countries which have extradition treaty with us. We don't have such agreement with the USA. Snowden haven't committed any crimes in the territory of Russia, thanks God".

Putin's cynicism?

Re: Putin: Russia can't turn over Snowden

#60

Post by mikeyouse » Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 7:30 PM UTC

abraininavat wrote: post #57

mikeyouse wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious, would you have begrudged a slave for escaping from his slave-owner, given that that action was clearly illegal? Speaking of a lack of nuance... Slavery was clearly unconstitutional, and was made even explicitly so by passing the 13th amendment. Is your stance that releasing confidential intelligence is an act that deserves constitutional protection? Of course not, so I'm sure it's more like, "Releasing c…

You haven't answered the question. If a runaway slave showed up at your door, would you ask him to turn himself in? Would you suggest to him that he should go through the justice system, which he has good reason to perceive as being hostile to his cause? The way you mince words is quite adept, actually. Are you a politician? You mention slavery being "clearly unconstitutional." Then you contrast that with the surveil…

    You haven't answered the question.

I assumed you couldn't possibly be serious when comparing Snowden's actions to those of a runaway slave.

    150 years ago there was no indication that slavery was illegal in slave states.

Not remotely true. Many argued that it was unconstitutional for decades before the civil war or 13th amendment (Lysander Spooner[1] most famously).

    That there are convincing arguments that the government surveillance programs are unconstitutional

That's a fair point, I would agree that the programs probably are unconstitutional, but that's a determination for the Supreme Court to make. And I'm not sure how that's relevant to Snowden avoiding arrest. It still stands that he released confidential details of programs that weren't illegal -- the difference between illegal and unconstitutional is an important one.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner