[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

[abraininavat]

Certainly a politician. You still evade the question, but that's all the time we have for now.

We'll be back next Sunday, because if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.