Clapper openly admitted he lied to congress. Snowden openly admitted to espionage (he may define the term differently, but the law defines what he did as espionage and he admitted to the acts). I think the chances of either getting a trial any time soon is pretty slim. All of this is hypothetical.

I would like to see fair trials for everyone accused of crimes. This is an article about Snowden, so I commented on Snowden. I'm sorry if other people decided that my commenting on-topic has implications about my views about off-topic subjects. If Slashdot has a story tomorrow about government officials admitting to crimes, I will happily say they're guilty too, and should get a fair trial with all the same legal rights that Snowden should get. I think trials are a good thing. I think due process is a good thing. I think our justice system that includes jury nullification, appeals, commutations, and pardons is a good thing. Apparently that offends some people. Who knew?

Obviously by a trial I mean a fair trial. That's why I said "I would very much like to see him get a fair trial" in my original post. So no, I don't think I'm wrong. I think you're trying to turn me into a straw man. What I said was all pretty reasonable if you don't read into it any more than what I specifically said.

Espionage is defined a specific way under the law. Snowden can deny he's committed espionage all he likes, but are you trying to say that he hasn't admitted to doing the things that the law defines as espionage? He has absolutely admitted to doing those things.

This is like saying "no, I didn't murder anybody, but I did stab them repeatedly until they died." Yeah, you're a murderer according to the law whether you want to call yourself one or not. A prosecutor doesn't need to prove that you think that should be called murder, only that you stabbed somebody repeatedly until they died, and that the law defines that as murder which is illegal. The prosecution's case, seriously, would be over very quickly in the Snowden trial. All they have to do is read Snowden's statements back, and explain what laws he was admitting to breaking, regardless of what personal definition he might hold for that.

It'd be up to Snowden's defense to try to argue for jury nullification. They could very well prevail in court. If they don't prevail in court, they can appeal, and appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court. If that doesn't work they can lobby for a commutation or a pardon. If the laws he broke are unjust, or unjustly applied in his case, it's going to take a trial to change those laws or the application of those laws. Internet posting won't accomplish anything. Personally, I'd like to see something accomplished. Wouldn't you?

They didn't turn themselves in because they would not have gotten a trial of their peers under the American justice system. They would have been hanged immediately by a squad of soldiers. Isn't that obvious? This is part of the reason why they later wrote the US Constitution.

I am not advocating that Snowden gets hanged by a squad of soldiers. Quite the opposite. Happy now?

I really don't understand who you're arguing with, but it's definitely not me. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Trials are a good thing. It is how we as a society decide truth and reach justice. It's also how the citizens of this country nullify laws that they don't like that the politicians won't change. No amount of internet posting is going to accomplish what you want to accomplish here. A trial can. Jurors can decide to ignore the law if they don't like it. If he's found guilty of the crimes he's already confessed to, then he can appeal, perhaps up to the Supreme Court, get a commutation from a future friendly president, or even an outright pardon. All of these things would accomplish what you want. Him hiding in a foreign country means he's a fugitive forever and nobody ever gets justice. He doesn't get justice, the American people don't get justice.

I also don't believe our justice system can only handle one case at a time. By all means, let's prosecute everyone who's broken the law. Let them have their day in court. But this is an article about Snowden, and that's the article I was commenting on. If you want to imagine a strawman and call him an authoritarian monarchist, please do so without my username attached.

Well first you need a grand jury to indict them before they go on trial. I'm sure there's a lot of evidence to go over before that happens. Justice rushed is not justice.

I would like the lawbreakers in government to get fair trials too, by the way.

Did you actually read my post? I didn't say he deserves to go to jail. I said that he should get a fair trial, and outlined several scenarios in which he could escape serious prison time despite his admitted guilt.

In another post on this story I say that it's a good thing the American people learn of the government doing things the American people doesn't want them to do. I'm glad Snowden revealed PRISM and programs like it. I'm less glad he revealed details about the NSA doing it's job, like spying on foreigners, but that's another issue.

I happen to believe in trials. So did the founding fathers. The alternative is summary judgement or an assassination. Would you prefer those? Certainly some authoritarians and monarchists do.

2) It wasn't an execution, it was an armed conflict on a battlefield. Americans were shot at from and inside the house. There was every reason to believe that Osama would have a suicide vest or otherwise resist violently to capture. Osama made no attempt to surrender and was therefore a combatant. Of course they shot him on sight. If they'd found him face down naked and spread eagle on the floor screaming "I surrender" they would have taken him alive.

3) As you say, it was a military incursion into a neutral country. There was also the fact that the compound was close to a lot of Pakistani military units. Having the Commander-in-Chief in the room to give immediate orders or call up foreign leaders in the event something went wrong with the raid makes a lot of sense. There wasn't any popcorn.

I agree that crossed a line. I'm not sure the line was that of treason or not, but it certainly went against his purported claims of doing this to reveal government wrongdoing against American citizens.

Spy agencies spy on other countries. That's what they're supposed to do. Everyone spies on everybody else, friend or ally. If you disagree or find that surprising you're a naive idealist.

But mass warrantless surveillance of American citizens is not cool, and we need to know about that.

Let's face it though. He is guilty. He admits what he's done. We can argue about what the law should be, but not what the law is. It's illegal to take classified documents like Snowden did, and start giving them away to everybody like Snowden did. His reasons for doing what he did are irrelevant as it pertains to his legal liability. The fact that he or even the public sees himself as a whistle blower over illegal actions by the government are irrelevant as they pertain to his legal liability.

Of course, we do have jury nullification in the common law system. A jury could very well say, okay, well he did the crime, the evidence is overwhelming, but we're not going to say he's guilty because we don't agree with the law. That's quite possible. Sure, the prosecutor and judge will try to tell the jury that's not allowed, but it is, and it can happen. The jury system exists specifically so the people can check the government's power.

This is all a separate matter from trial fairness, of course. If I was Snowden, I might not be so inclined to trust a US federal court with my fate. The judge might disallow evidence or testimony that would give Snowden and his lawyers a chance to argue however subtlety for jury nullification. The judge might not sustain valid objections from the defense. The judge could give a horribly unfair instruction. All kinds of things could happen. Considering the overwhelming political pressures that are sure to be placed on any kind of trial, Snowden might very well find himself screwed. He might also think it was all worth it anyway.

Then of course we have the appeals system and of course the presidential pardon. Even if Snowden doesn't get a jury to nullify, that's hardly the end of it. He might get his case to the Supreme Court and have a fairer chance there. He might also have a groundswell of popular support that results in a pardon or at least a commutation of his sentence.

Personally, I would like to see Snowden prosecuted for the crimes he's accused of and given a trial by his peers. I would very much like to see him get a fair trial, with all the evidence and arguments heard. The outcome of such a trial would be of great interest to me, as well as whatever happens afterwards. We would all learn something from it. It might suck for Snowden, but he thinks he's doing all of this to teach the American people about their government. The way his trial is conducted would certainly teach us all about our government.

Rolls off our backs like water? Men are overwhelmingly the victims of violence and murder. We practically celebrate the prison rape of men in this culture, and certainly don't do anything to stop it. When a young boy is molested or raped by a woman, we blame the victim for "wanting it" and the press talks about how hot she is and how lucky he is. Female health issues like breast cancer research are much better funded and publicized than male health issues like prostate cancer. Men are overwhelmingly the casualties of war.

Women are graduating from college in greater numbers than men. It's a shame that even with their advantages, few can be bothered to get a degree in computer science. But whose fault is that really? In high school there was a single girl in my AP computer science class. In college, my first computer science class had three women. By the second computer science class, there was one. I never saw another after that.

If you want a job in an industry, you have to show up and get qualified for it. I hear a lot of pro diversity folks lamenting about how there's not enough diversity, well either there's something about females that makes them disinclined to go into certain fields and we should accept that, or something wrong is happening long, long before Google starts a round of hiring.

Is it that little girls are being discouraged from trying math and science at an early age? If that's true, then blame the overwhelming majority of elementary school teachers who are female. One platform issue of early feminism was to take over society's early educational systems. The plan worked brilliantly. Male teachers are now discriminated against teaching any students younger than middle school, and the result has been lower academic performance and achievement by male students, and the now majority of college degrees going to women. But still, girls aren't going into science and math. So that can't be it...

Maybe, the answer is really as obvious as it is to anyone who has actually been in a classroom studying technical subjects like computer science. Women just don't care to be in those jobs. Maybe that's a bad thing, maybe it's a neutral thing, maybe it's a good thing? Certainly plenty of companies have been successful advancing our computer technology without a large number of female employees. Maybe we should just shrug and worry about more important issues, like violence?

I agree they are ineffectual, because they don't understand us and never will. Their ideology is opposed to understanding others. I don't believe they can win.

I also don't believe fascism or communism could have ever won. We still considered those threats to be existential threats. Not because they could actually destroy us, but because it was their stated goal to destroy us. The same is true of fundamental islam. We ignore them at our own peril, of course, because while they can't win the war, they can certainly cause a lot of damage fighting it.

I also agree with you that we need to give the secular and cultural muslims (cultural in the way that there are cultural Christians who exchange presents at Christmas but don't go to church every Sunday) a chance to thrive and suppress their fundamentalist neighbors. Right now our strategy of doing so is by killing the fundamentalists. Can you think of a better strategy? I would really like to hear of one, and I'm sure our military would too. Sadly, when we try to ignore the problem, instead of preempting their attacks, they blow up our embassies, naval ships, and skyscrapers. When all we did was bomb their training camps, they stopped training in camps and started training in civilian centers. When we invaded a country overtly supporting them, they moved across borders into countries that are only covertly supporting them. Should we go to full scale war in a dozen countries? It seems a lot cheaper, and less dangerous, and yes, even less impactful to the civilians in those countries, if we simply launch a small, targeted missile from a drone.

But if you have a better idea, please, do tell.

I actually have read the qur'an, and hadith, and the writings of islamic scholars who studied both. Have you?

What I have read, the terrorists have, and the reason they do what they do is because they believe in it. They say as much all the time, have you not been listening?

I believed very much as you do, once. But after seeing how terrorist leaders tend to be more affluent than most, and the foot soldiers come from every economic background, I wanted to find out for myself the actual causes of jihad.

So I'll ask you, have you bought into a narrative? Have you done your own research or are you just listening to what others tell you? Have you read the qur'an and hadith, and the writings of islamic scholars who have studied islamic scripture? Seriously, go do your own studying of the issue and reach your own conclusions. I was surprised by what I found and you will be too.

I am not advocating genocide, here. I recognize that there are secular muslims who do pay only lip service to islam to prevent from getting killed by those who do more than just pay lip service. I would much rather empower them and make them our allies. But I don't think we should do nothing while the fundamentalists are killing us. This is a war that mohammed himself declared on all non-believers, and there will be no peace negotiation because the only acceptable end to them is the extermination of our way of life and all who oppose them. Again, not everyone who calls themselves a muslim thinks that way, but those who don't are considered heretics and the terrorists want to kill them too.

It's only unfounded if you don't think the qur'an and hadith are the foundation of terrorist ideology.