Comment by rtpg | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rtpg | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

While I think he made the right call, this trope that the US will try to assassinate him/throw him in a secret CIA prison is so baseless. People have said over and over that the information he had was handed over to various org's, so killing him would only be bad. Justice dep't still has a legal obligation to try and get him home, but don't think they're going to be risking more diplomatic flack to get this guy home.

Also, I don't know why people don't think he wouldn't get a fair trial. Manning is military and they do their things how they do them, but it's not like the US civilian courts have a reputation for absolute tyranny. Plus, standing in the spotlight like that.... no way he wouldn't have gotten a fair trial. I agree with the article that he wouldn't get bail now that he try to run (which is consistent with how bail works), but I think he could've gotten bail otherwise, if he had surrendered instead of run. And while he admitted to having released the documents, if he could argue the illegality of the programs shown, then he could actually go through whistleblower protections.

Not saying he should have surrendered, just that this "The US has turned to tyranny" trope is tired and baseless.

Getting a fair trial is really not the issue since he clearly broke the law.

It all hinges on PR. If the government was able to smear him enough that the majority of people considered him a traitor, then they would do their damnedest to make an example out of him. On the other hand, if people came to see Snowden in a positive light they wouldn't dare martyr him. Given the general apathy that we've seen from so many Americans (even Ira Glass from This American Life basically said "meh, what do I have to hide?"), I can't help but to sadly feel he made the right choice.

but don't think they're going to be risking more diplomatic flack to get this guy home.

How can you claim that when this

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/edward-snow...

was absolutely inconceivable only some days ago, so much that the President explicitly claimed:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50149843n

This is curiosity, not trying to bring down your point, but:

Is there any article about the plane event that isn't prefaced by "Bolivia accuses that..."? I have yet to see any confirmation about what happened from the other side.

Which facts do you not beleive? We're on the internet, we can check the news on other languages, not only what's written in the English speaking media. I have the privilege of knowing a few more European languages but even better we can all use Google translate. Let me summarize the facts:

The plane with president Morales and his delegation wanted to fly back to Bolivia from Moscow. It's a plane that simply has to refuel for a trip like that. During the flight four European countries: Italy, Portugal, France and Spain withdraw the permission to fly over, effectively forcing the plane to ground. Spain admitted independently that "they have been given an information that Snowden is on that plane." The president spent more than 12 hours on Vienna's airport.

What do you question then?

I'm not questioning that Morales had to land in Vienna, I'm questioning the reasons behind it, because I haven't seen countries giving "Snowden was on the plane" as a reason to deny airspace.

4 days ago:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/05/european-states-...

"European states were told Snowden was on Morales plane, says Spain

Spanish foreign minister declines to say where information came from that NSA whistleblower was on Bolivian leader's flight"

Reuters, today:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/8899974/Spain-admits-US-...

"Spain has acknowledged that a US request had led it to delay approving an overflight by Bolivia's president, but said it had given the go-ahead after receiving an assurance from Bolivia that US fugitive Edward Snowden was not on the plane."

The U.S officially had no comment, last I checked.

Look at where the charges were filed, it was Alexandria, VA. A town where the largest employer is the DOD. The vast majority of potential jurors either work directly or indirectly for the government and have security clearance.

It's no different from what any other prosecutor would do in any other trial (i.e. picking a favourable court/jury), but it obviously has a significant impact on outcome.

How can he get a fair trial when most of it will be a secret trial because all of the evidence is classified?

I think it will be far more likely that they fabricate hidden bank accounts with money traced back to China or Iran or something to discredit him and then make it look like China had him killed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com