I believe everyone accused of a crime should be brought to trial and the trial should be fair. How is this not sinking in?

It's not my fault you are choosing to read my posts as some kind of support of the NSA. Like I keep saying, I don't know who you think you're arguing with, but it's not me. Stop trying to make me a straw man.

It gives Apple complete control over their own destiny, which is something Apple likes to have (not exactly news). They now have a language they can tinker with to their hearts' content and no external group or standards body can restrict what they do with it. They've made it very clear they intend to listen to developer feedback and tinker with it, at least in the near future. Certainly even if they do eventually open it up, they'll still be able to extend it however they like and whenever they like in the future, as well.

They had to pull off some pretty crazy stuff just to make Objective-C usable all this time, and it shows. That's the problem Swift solves. It solves it for Apple. It's dramatically new because Apple controls it completely. Apple can and is obviously deploying it. It's not a distraction since developers can still use Objective-C as much as they want, and will only switch to Swift if it offers significant advantages.

I freely admit that there are problems with the system too. But that's a discussion for another topic. I was only here to address specifically this news article. I didn't say anything terribly controversial with my very narrow focus, but unfortunately people decided to imagine my positions on other issues I did not address at all, positions I do not hold.

Geez, a guy can't come out in favor of fair trials without getting called an authoritarian. Who knew?

You are absolutely right. Rosa Parks was a criminal.

If you want to read more into that then there is, feel free, but don't pretend I'm the one saying it. The only thing I am advocating here is that justice be served. In case I was too subtle for you in describing four different ways by which Snowden could still "win" despite being a criminal, let me list those out again.

1) A jury could simply choose to ignore the law and let Snowden free (jury nullification).
2) Snowden can appeal his case if found guilty and get the verdict overturned.
3) If appeals fail, he can get his sentence commuted by a president.
4) If appeals fail, he can get pardoned by a president.

I thoroughly support our justice system. Those four things are part of our justice system. If politicians fail to repeal unjust laws, the system can still free criminals under those laws. Snowden is guilty. If the laws that make him guilty are wrong, staying a fugitive does nothing to change those laws.

Which is why I said "If I was Snowden, I might not be so inclined to trust a US federal court with my fate." I even explained possible scenarios that might deprive him of a fair trial. In case it wasn't clear, I'm not in favor of those scenarios.

But I do think he should get a fair trial. I am of course speaking hypothetically here since it's obvious there's not going to be any kind of trial any time soon. But he's accused of crimes and people accused of crimes are supposed to get a trial by jury and all that nice stuff. Unfortunately for his defense, he's admitted to the crimes he's accused of, which will be awkward when the prosecution reads his statements aloud in court. I did, however, outline four options for him to ultimately avoid a lengthy prison sentence. He should avail himself of those options.

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.