Hacker News Reader

Comment by djtriptych | Hacker News Reader

I'm glad Edward Snowden leaked what he did, but I'm not sure a pardon makes any sense at all.

Judging by Chelsea Manning's treatment post-pardon, Snowden would be rather foolish to act upon it and return to the United States anyway. But it might be a good opportunity to get a valid visa and travel to another country that lacks US extradition agreements.

I think it’s unlikely Snowden would ever receive a fair trial, therefore a pardon is the best course of action, erring on the side of compassion versus “justice” typically dispensed by the US justice system. What he revealed about the domestic surveillance apparatus violating US law and citizens’ rights had significant value to nation.

Regardless, if this is how the pardon comes about, I happily support it even if it’s not ideal.

> What he revealed about the domestic surveillance apparatus violating US law and citizens’ rights had significant value to nation.

That would be only one of the charges. And a reasonable Snowden defence would be to recite the oath he swore to the Constitution. If this were the only charge, I don't rule out a fair trial.

But the second charge would be revealing NSA programs operating outside inside USA borders. This was the reason Obama didn't want to write a pardon, and the reason Pompeo sides with executing Snowden. The accusation that Snowden was working for a foreign intelligence agency hinges on two questions: why did he reveal those overseas programs, and how did he get onto (or know to get onto) Aeroflot without a passport.

This is why he can be simultaneously a patriot and traitor. Trump (or his predecessor) could have written a pardon the first charge and deliberately left out the second. Whether Snowden would want to take his chances with a trial on the second charge would be a tough choice.

I wonder what a fair trial means to people...his own admissions include describing his own illegal activity...

Without going too deep down the "jury nullification" rabbit hole, I'll just say that it's entirely reasonable to admit taking an action that is prohibited by law, while pleading not guilty to violating the same law. You may argue that there were extenuating circumstances that pre-empt the law in the specific case, or you may argue that the law itself is inherently wrong, etc. Yes, it's difficult to win an acquittal like this, but it does happen.

That we can't just mechanically apply the law like the axioms of mathematics is part of the very reason that we have judges, juries, and the adversarial system, to allow for some measure of human judgement in the process.

Jury nullification is so rare and really relies on a particular jury thinking a particular way...

A jury can even be sympathetic... and still convict him.

I hear folks talk about a fair trial but he's already admitted to crimes... so is the "fairness" only determined by a highly unlikely outcome, I'm not sure that's about fairness.

You can admit guilt and plead innocent. It's weird, but it's true. And the jury can acquit in spite of overwhelming evidence of guilt. That's how the anglosaxon system of criminal justice works (or used to; perhaps this is only true now in the U.S.?).

A jury can...but that really depends on the opinions of the jury.

It's not like a legal argument about what you knew or when and what the law says about your responsibility / actions.

A jury ignoring admissions of crimes is pretty rare and a roll of the dice.

I get why people would want that to happen, but expecting that random chance of an outcome and using it to measure fairness, I dunno, they're likely to be disappointed.

I think it's impossible to have a fair trial when the guy has made an entire career out of detailing precisely what illegal actions he has taken.

Demonstrating gross breach of legality and trust by intelligence agencies? In other countries, leadership of those agencies who lied to Congress (or their version of the legislative branch) would’ve done time.

It boggles the mind that some can attempt to justify the egregious actions of the US intelligence community while supporting the railroading of a whistleblower. Perhaps the intelligence community could be more responsible and compliant with statute, negating the need for whistleblowers to reveal their illegal activities.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com