[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.

[vinceguidry]

> 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.

[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.

[JulianWasTaken]

So... what you've said is that it depends on whether or not you can get a fair trial, only you've assumed that it is. All I've said is that that isn't necessarily the case.

If you (a "criminal") determine that there might not be a chance that you'll be treated fairly I have 0 problem with you running.

[hnriot]

or both, it's not a binary thing.