Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 363 posts

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#191

Post by neurotech1 »

skwirl wrote: post #49
spdy wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now the states he can move to just went up. Death penalty: Many countries, such as Australia, Canada, Macao, New Zealand, South Africa, and most European nations except Belarus, will not allow extradition if the death penalty may be imposed on the suspect unless they are assured that the death sentence will not be passed or carried out.

The U.S. would waive the death penalty to get him back from any of those countries, as they regularly do. I seriously doubt there is any chance they would seek it, anyway.

Some countries also prohibit extradition for life sentences. I remember hearing about one extradition case, they capped the sentence at 60 years, for that reason.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#192

Post by peripetylabs »

The Chinese authorities will hold him until they feel he has given them all he knows, then quickly extradite him to the US.

At that point he will probably try to get to Europe. If he makes it, his appeal to those governments on humanitarian grounds may be weakened by the fact the first country he picked practices capital punishment far more than the US (more than every other country in the world combined):

http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/death-sentences-and-...

He could have fled to Europe in the first place just as easily. For example, US citizens are exempt from visa requirements for short stays (90 days) in France -- la Patrie des droits de l'homme -- from where he would have had direct access to the ECtHR...

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#194

Post by alan_cx »

staunch wrote: post #47

For anyone else who thinks what he did was right: it's our job to make sure he gets pardoned. He did his part.

I like that idea.

Clearly the US government have to prosecute him with something. Cant encourage it and all that. And presumably he leaked this info knowing full well that the US government would have little choice but do this.

So, I suppose the perfect out come would be: go back to the US, get charged, go to court, admit guilt, get sentenced, then hopefully a President can pardon him.

Now, how one can ensure such an out come, I have zero idea.

All assuming he gets to go to proper civilian court with a jury. If its a military, kangaroo, secret, closed, court.... no way.

Yeah, I like the idea, I just cant see it working or having a viable chance.

Pity.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#195

Post by threeseed »

mtgx wrote: post #189

Time to take it to the streets on July 4th: http://www.reddit.com/r/restorethefourth "Restore the Fourth is a non partisan group of concerned citizens working to restore privacy and fourth amendment rights. We are planning nationwide protests in over 100 locations on July 4th."

I really wonder when people are actually going to wake up, understand how the system works and spend their efforts lobbying politicians instead of meaningless protests.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#196

Post by PavlovsCat »

rdouble wrote: post #160
LoganCale wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government spent the last week trying to convince the public that they never spy on U.S. citizens and do not store their data. The documents are a direct authorization from the Attorney General for all the ways in which they are allowed to do exactly that.

Right, but why is that a surprise?

Who cares? Why is it a surprise to you that some people care about things that are fucking wrong even though they are hardly surprises?

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#198

Post by mpyne »

betterunix wrote: post #151
brown9-2 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But he didn't do that. Are you a whistleblower if what you reveal isn't illegal?

Yes, if what you reveal is unethical but legal. Laws are not handed down from the heavens; laws are created by a notoriously corrupt set of human beings (politicians), and can easily become disconnected from morality.

The better question is: Are you a whistleblower in a legal sense if what you reveal is legal?

The government doesn't operate on unicorns and happy thoughts, it operates on the law. It's the job of the people to elect representatives such that the law conforms as much as possible to unicorns and happy thoughts.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#199

Post by mpyne »

timr wrote: post #187
jychang wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soldiers are supposed to disobey their military superiors if told to commit crimes against humanity. Breaking a law, especially when doing something obviously right, does not mean that you need to have charges brought against you. Say you see a dog about to drown in a creek on private property. If you ran in and saved it, the owner could charge you for trespassing. That doesn't mean they SHOULD.

"Soldiers are supposed to disobey their military superiors if told to commit crimes against humanity." Well, no. A soldier isn't supposed to say "I think that command is illegal under international law, therefore I will choose not to follow it." They'll be court-martialed, and rightly so. Choosing to make that call is intentionally risky, because it's supposed to be rare. Likewise, Snowden will be prosecuted...and ri…

Actually, in the U.S. servicemembers are supposed to refuse to follow orders that are not lawful.

You are right that such cases are (and are meant to be) exceptionally rare. The U.S. Supreme Court gives exceptionally wide latitude in what counts as a lawful order, and as far as I know no servicemember has ever been tried (much less convicted) for following a valid order (even if they thought it was illegal).

But with that said I agree with your overall point that Snowden did break the law with at least some of his disclosures. If so much as one document he leaked was found to describe action that was legal (even if unethical) he would fall afoul of various U.S. laws protecting classified information.

Likewise, even if he leaked information describing activities found to be illegal, he may still get in trouble for not following Congress's approved route for such leaks (I'm not sure if that would be technically criminal or administrative in nature though).

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#200

Post by glurgh »

timr wrote: post #187
jychang wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soldiers are supposed to disobey their military superiors if told to commit crimes against humanity. Breaking a law, especially when doing something obviously right, does not mean that you need to have charges brought against you. Say you see a dog about to drown in a creek on private property. If you ran in and saved it, the owner could charge you for trespassing. That doesn't mean they SHOULD.

"Soldiers are supposed to disobey their military superiors if told to commit crimes against humanity." Well, no. A soldier isn't supposed to say "I think that command is illegal under international law, therefore I will choose not to follow it." They'll be court-martialed, and rightly so. Choosing to make that call is intentionally risky, because it's supposed to be rare. Likewise, Snowden will be prosecuted...and ri…

Well, yes. Soldiers are very much supposed to disobey unlawful orders - following unlawful orders is what can get you courtmartialed and 'I was just following orders' isn't going to be an effective defense.

Of course, this is all a bit moot because Snowden definitely did something illegal and it's not clear yet whether anything he reported was itself illegal.

Post reply on HN