[mikeyouse]

>In other words, considering how US has promised to treat him

You mean the promises to arrest him for releasing confidential information? I'm honestly confused why people don't think he should be arrested. If he had released weapons designs instead of NSA documents, would you support his galavanting across HK and Russia?

The question, "Is the NSA program unconstitutional?" is a far different one than "Should those who release confidential documents be arrested?" Unless you think that there should be no state secrets, it makes absolute sense to arrest and prosecute Snowden. I'm grateful that he shed some light on a very troubling program, but that doesn't just grant him immunity from prosecution. It would be far more honorable to accept responsibility rather than to continue this mess.

[columbo]

> You mean the promises to arrest him for releasing confidential information?

Being arrested and facing a fair trial isn't anyone's fear.

Being arrested, placed in solitary confinment for months on end, subjected to technically-not-torture-torture, threats against your family all the while having your entire character destroyed thread by thread until the day you stand in front of a show room to argue why you should only receive 50 years of prison time instead of 500 is another story.

If we truly lived in a fair and free society I would be championing his arrest, if anything simply for the truth to come out. As it stands it is hard to believe a truly fair trial is something that even exists anymore.

[mikeyouse]

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 fines.

Why is everyone convinced he won't have a fair trial? Is a result where he ends up in jail an unfair result?

[1] http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-vs-edwar...

[columbo]

> 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, community service or some equivalent. I fully support that process.

[mikeyouse]

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...

[abraininavat]

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?

[mikeyouse]

    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.

[abraininavat]

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.

[mikeyouse]

    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

[dragonwriter]

> You mean the promises to arrest him for releasing confidential information? I'm honestly confused why people don't think he should be arrested.

If the government believes that he still has valuable intelligence potentially damaging to national security that may not have already been released, and if the government's primary concern with his actions is addressing the national security impact (which all public statements point to), 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 circumstances is, from that perspective, quite foolish.

[mikeyouse]

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 circumstances is, from that perspective, quite foolish.

If the government were to take that tack, it would only encourage leakers and 'spies' to grab the most valuable documents possible, in essence blackmailing their way out of prosecution.

If you're the US government, your default assumption must be that Putin has a hard drive with everything that Snowden took. If that's the case, it makes absolute sense to publicly threaten to arrest him and charge him with the most severe of consequences.

Look at it from a game theory perspective; the US government 'lost' the first game to Snowden. The only reason they are still engaging with him is that the US is playing a repeating game. They need to make the penalty for leaking high enough to persuade other potential leakers to stay quiet.

[dragonwriter]

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 practical reach of the US government, which the public threats to him (and the public threats to other sovereign states) have made less, not more, likely.

> Look at it from a game theory perspective; the US government 'lost' the first game to Snowden. The only reason they are still engaging with him is that the US is playing a repeating game. They need to make the penalty for leaking high enough to persuade other potential leakers to stay quiet.

Making public threats that make acheiving the stated goals of those threats less likely, thus demonstrating impotence, is not a particularly effective method of doing that.

[copperred]

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.

[dragonwriter]

> 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...

[copperred]

The government is not making threats - they are stating their intentions. I find your stance laughable and I don't think it would work once, and certainly not twice.

[vinceguidry]

> I'm grateful that he shed some light on a very troubling program, but that doesn't just grant him immunity from prosecution.

This doesn't seem like a rational position. Either Snowden performed a service or he committed a crime. He can't have done both. The fact that it's really a subjective call speaks to its political nature. As such, there is no dishonor in absconding to a country with more favorable politics.

[dragonwriter]

> Either Snowden performed a service or he committed a crime. He can't have done both.

He actually can have done both. That something has value to the public does not mean it is not within the scope of prohibition of a criminal statute. (Further, even if there was a blanket "public service" exception to the applicable criminal laws, its quite possible that some of the information he absconded with and released could be "service" and the rest could still be "crime".)

[vinceguidry]

I'm aware that the law can prohibit actions that are ultimately good for society. That doesn't make it rational.

[dragonwriter]

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

[vinceguidry]

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.

[dragonwriter]

> 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.

[icebraining]

Either Snowden performed a service or he committed a crime.

Isn't that what a trial - after arrest and prosecution - is supposed to determine?

The problem is not prosecution, it's that a fair trial is hardly guaranteed.

[codex]

38% of Americans think that Snowden shouldn't be prosecuted. While not 50%, it's reasonably high. That, combined with jury selection and sequestration, ought to do the trick--but if OJ Simpson can get away with murder, anything's possible in the U.S.

[vinceguidry]

Why submit yourself to prosecution if you've no hope of a fair trial?

[codex]

Someone murdered your parents, to 100% certainty. They're found not guilty in court, and cannot be retried. They are 100% certain to kill again. You kill them and are found guilty of murder. You've performed both a service and committed a crime.

The law is a system. For the system to work, it must be enforced fairly and without political considerations.

[JulianWasTaken]

The law is a service, not a system. Or at least that is the position that someone making the argument you're responding to probably holds.

No one cares what the law says. Decide whether what he did was good and if so it wasn't a crime. If the law says it was then do what it takes to avoid injustice.

Same goes for your analogy.

[codex]

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

[JulianWasTaken]

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.

[codex]

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.

[hnriot]

or both, it's not a binary thing.

[tymekpavel]

> If he had released weapons designs instead of NSA documents, would you support his galavanting across HK and Russia?

I think you're missing the point. The fact is he didn't release weapons designs; he released information pointing to surveillance programs that violate the 4th amendment.

> The question, "Is the NSA program unconstitutional?" is a far different one than "Should those who release confidential documents be arrested?"

The two questions you ask are not mutually exclusive, because whistleblowers need protection when surfacing evidence of illegal behavior. You seem to be taking arguments to their absolute extremes rather than considering the fact that there are instances where there is a reasonable expectation that individuals should be protected. That doesn't mean there should be no state secrets, it means there should be protections for individuals who reveal state secrets that demonstrate the government is not acting in accordance with the law. Furthermore, I would argue that state secrets that hide evidence of wrongdoing from the public should most certainly be leaked.

[mikeyouse]

Whistleblowers do indeed need protection. Unfortunately for Snowden, current whistleblower laws only protect him if he leaked to his agencies IG;

    Disclosure of information that is required by law or Executive Order
    to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct
    of foreign affairs is unprotected, unless made to the agency’s Inspector
    General, to “another employee designated by the head of the agency to
    receive such disclosures” or to the Office of the Special Counsel.

Obviously these laws need to be improved, but selective enforcement leaves a ton of room for politics to infiltrate the whistleblowing. It was only a few years ago that Bush's special council at the OSC was arrested for doing precisely that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Counsel#Scott...

[skynorth]

Didn't you just answer your own question?

Because many people consider him to be a whistle-blower. If he truly believes that he is exposing a large and direct illegal activity, he should be protected under law.

[throwaway10001]

You mean the promises to arrest him for releasing confidential information?

Arrest, a fair trial and humane treatment is different from what Bradley Manning suffered. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/stripped-naked-b...

Also, need I remind you all the statements made against him by politicians?