Edward Snowden should have right to legal defence in US, says Hillary Clinton

[malaise]

The former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton has said Edward Snowden should have the right to launch a legal and public defence of his decision to leak top-secret documents if he returns to the United States.

"If he wishes to return knowing he would be held accountable and also able to present a defence, that is his decision to make," Clinton said in a video interview with the Guardian on Friday.

The broadly worded law makes no distinction between a spy and a whistleblower and affords Snowden almost no recourse to a defence.

When Clinton was asked if she believed the Espionage Act – passed in 1917 – should be reformed in order to allow Snowden a defence, she claimed not to know what the whistleblower had been charged with as they were "sealed indictments".

"In any case that I'm aware of as a former lawyer, he has a right to mount a defence," she said. "And he certainly has a right to launch both a legal defence and a public defence, which can of course affect the legal defence.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. What I'm curious about is...

if the government feels he has broken laws, then even if he's not available, can't they try him 'in absentia'? He'd certainly know whether or not it was in his interests to return to the states or not after a verdict came in.

[MADem]

4. Don't they usually try people in absentia who have

been here to be charged, and then escaped custody, or done a bunk while on parole?

They've got to indict him and go through all that happy horseshit before they get to the point of a trial.

[Luminous Animal]

5. In the U.S. in absentia trials a unconstitutional in the

Vast majority of cases. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_in_absentia

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

7. I actually read that article before I posted my comment.

It seemed like there have been multiple decisions allowing it over time. In fact, it even allows him to specifically waive his right to be present if he wants.

[Luminous Animal]

20. Yes. Used under specific conditions, none of which apply to Snowden. He is free to wave his

Constitutional rights. But he hasn't.

[OnyxCollie]

8. Anwar Al-Awlaki was tried in absentia in a Yemeni court.

It was good enough for government work.

[Luminous Animal]

21. Yemen's kangaroo court decision had nothing to do with our secret "legal" memo to assassinate him.

[OnyxCollie]

40. Just trying to extend a fig leaf of legitimacy to the US's actions.

But, you are correct; the US doesn't need any judicial action to assassinate a citizen.

[merrily]

27. I did not know that. Thanks.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Fine. As long as he gets to present all the evidence....unredacted.

[Thinkingabout]

6. Snowden is entitled to a trial, this is the same opportunity he currently has.

If he did not want to be charged then the decision not to steal files and divulge information about the NSA. Life would be much simpler for him if he made better decisions.

[riderinthestorm]

12. They charged him under the Espionage Act. That's what Hillary is referencing I presume

http://pando.com/2014/01/22/how-whistleblowers-are-barred-from-defending-themselves-in-court/

He can't mount a defense

[Thinkingabout]

13. Do you think he was aware of being charged with espionage when he decided

To divulge information?

[riderinthestorm]

14. I have no idea but the Obama admin has to know how destructive this is

The deliberate decision to charge him under that Act ensures he can never receive fair justice.

Not to mention the chilling effect on other potential whistleblowers.

[Thinkingabout]

15. Either he did not read what he signed or he intentionally violated his cindition of

Employment. The only way this can be against the Obama administration is because the Espionage Act was passed in 1917 and it did not have a clause in which Snowden had the right to violate this act. The ACLU may be trying to make a point here or just trying to mount a defense for Snowden's premeditated choice of violating the Espionage Act. The polls does not set up a defense of innocent no more than it sets a decision of guilt. The ACLU is playing with words here.

[riderinthestorm]

16. Snowden doesn't dispute what he did but claims it was to.protect the greater public good

That the NSA was breaking the law and as a whistleblower he had a higher authority to report that. That's exactly what whistle blowers do. Violate the rules to disclose wrongdoing by state and federal agencies. They're supposed to be protected instead of charged.

The Obama administration didn't have to charge him under the Espionage Act. In fact they didn't have to charge him at all. There's any number of ways they could have taken with Snowden without resorting to this.

Did you even read my.link? It explains all this.

Hillary Clinton is saying that charging Snowden under the Espionage Act was a mistake since he can't defend himself under that. Her comments are actually pretty clever. She's signaling to us and the Snowden defense team that she's willing to negotiate (if/when we elect her - lol!)

[Thinkingabout]

17. You accuse the NSA of breaking the law, Snowden has broke the law. You may not

Agree with the Espionage Act but it is the law. In the Whistleblower Act it excludes security, NSA is included in the exclusion of whistleblower act therefore he is not a whistleblower. I read the article, have you read the Espionage Act or the Whistleblower Act? Snowden is excluded from using the Whistleblower Act as his defense. He wants to the activist then he has to deal with his wrong doing. He has knocked Humpty Dumpty off the wall and broke him into pieces and he can't put him back together again.

[elias49]

23. I think you're playing with some of the same words

you accuse the ACLU of playing with.

[Thinkingabout]

24. Since we are both playing with the same words does ACLU think he should stand trial?

They are trying to come up with a way to defend his actions, I am not, I think he should accept the return to the US and face trial and whatever his sentence turns out to be then he is responsible for serving. He could turn states evidence and out the whole scheme and would probably not get very much of a sentence.

[riderinthestorm]

33. The ACLU is defending Snowden so they are going to do what's needed to keep him free

and out of jail. Considering the Obama Administrations outrageous actions against Chelsea Manning, Drake, Kiriakou and other whistleblowers, Snowden was smart to run. Who knows? Maybe a plea deal is in the future under President Hillary Clinton. If I were him, I'd wait it out too.

FWIW, Snowden has already "turned" state's evidence and "outed" the whole scheme. For that he is charged under the Espionage Act and if he came back to the US and faced justice under their terms its clear he would get a very, very, very long sentence. This admin has already demonstrated the viciousness of its vindictiveness against whistleblowers. Snowden would fare the worst of them all in a US court of law.

[Thinkingabout]

36. He would not be charged with espionage if he had made the right decision, don't blame the Obama

administration for Snowden's legal problems, since Snowden is not protected by the Whistleblower Act, he will not be considered as a whistleblower. If you want to bring in vindictiveness this reminds me all during the Bush Administration when illegal wiretapping was occurring, Snowden supported the presidential aspirations of Rand Paul, liked the Bush administration so in his act of vindictiveness he has broken the laws of the US, he chose to leave the US so he will have to live in his vindictiveness exile of the US. He could come back and go through the legal system or he can chose to live in exile. He is a thief and spy who lies frequently.

[riderinthestorm]

37. There's so much wrong with your post I'm not even going to attempt to address it

Especially with that word salad.

I'll let you have the last word here....

[Thinkingabout]

38. Send him a care package of cookies, etc

[riderinthestorm]

32. Those of us who care about our privacy rights are GLAD he knocked "humpty" off the wall

and hope to god that "he" can't be put back together again.

I have read the two acts and disagree with your assertion that he had to be charged under the Espionage Act. Full stop. That was a mistake by the Obama Admin and clearly Hillary Clinton agrees.

[randome]

19. Snowden reported nothing that is against the law.

Everything his pal, Greenwald, has published has been about the NSA spying on other countries or about the state of technology that the NSA could use against us. But no proof of anything illegal. When Brian Williams pressed him to name one illegal act of the NSA, he came up empty.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[Thinkingabout]

25. Maybe because he did not know of anything illegal the NSA has done. To report activities and

programs the NSA is doing is illegal on Snowden's actions.

[MannyGoldstein]

26. He also swore an oath to protect the Constitution

So he had to violate *something* - he was in a no-win situation.

The NSA and the rest of the Executive branch is utterly violating the plain meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

[JDPriestly]

31. He expected that his life would be made very,very difficult.

He said that in his first interview. I don't know whether he expected to even survive the disclosures.

He did it for his country. He knowingly made a huge sacrifice. If the US government harms him in any way, he will gradually become a martyr. Because what the NSA is doing very successfully, placing many people under surveillance in order to achieve political goals, has been tried before with less success and in spite of the failures of prior governments who tried it, has always led to totalitarianism. The mindset that places citizens and allies under such surveillance is in and of itself totalitarian.

[merrily]

28. Maybe she meant a statutory defense. (I like his decision.)

[bunnies]

9. ummmm. He does not?

[riderinthestorm]

10. He was charged under the Espionage Act so no defence is possible

Here's a good article that explains it

http://pando.com/2014/01/22/how-whistleblowers-are-barred-from-defending-themselves-in-court/

[bunnies]

11. Thank you.

I wasnt aware of that. wow. wtf?

[malaise]

34. Freaking wow

Thanks for this

[winter is coming]

18. Come home, Edward. None is forgiven. n/t

[woo me with science]

22. The fascists who aimed a surveillance machine at the American people should be on trial.

Edward Snowden deserves the Medal of Freedom for revealing the abuse of power.

[merrily]

29. There's a secret statute repealing the 4th amendment.

j/k

[snooper2]

30. are you talking about FISA or something else?

76K foreign surveillance targets I remember reading from one of Snowy's slides---

how do we get these 1000+ people on trial again>?

[LittleBlue]

35. You mean a US citizen gets a trial?

How kind of you, Hillary

[randome]

39. Well, if Snowden was consistent, he would need to first shoot himself in the balls.

Then turn himself in.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]