the people have no say in the matter no matter what geek fantasy about jury nullification exists. The only people who have a say are our rulers.

Why is fleeing not valid in the context of civil disobedience? Especially when facing what is essentially a certain slow death sentence after trial based on Kangaroo Court procedures? There is no requirement that a person be a martyr to engage in civil disobedience.

Examples of how ludicrous the martyr requirement sounds are easy to come by, even without Godwinning this comment. Let's say a person is a N. Korean coyote, or whatever the term is there for helping people across the border illegally. If that person gets wind that the government is after him, should he not flee? Should he stay to face what is certainly death or close to it? Does staying and being destroyed set a good example for other coyotes? Does that really do anything to make the situation better for those who need coyotes?

All being a martyr does is annihilate our coyote -- nothing else. He should absolutely flee, I would say he has a DUTY to flee if the situation arises because by fleeing, he can be an example of how to get around unjust laws and live, rather than be an example of how to commit suicide.

Notable to Ellsberg's case, the government massively fucked up by breaking into his psychiatrists office, stealing documents, and getting caught red handed plus some other illegal wiretapping. This is the reason Ellsberg walked -- not because he managed to overcome the espionage act, but because the government screwed itself. In other words, Ellsberg won the lottery but nobody else has since.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

re: jury nullification, appeals, commutation, pardon

You are so deluded about the trial process it isn't funny.

Jury nullification basically never happens, and when it does, it's usually of the type that lets a lyncher go free. The appeal would only work if there was some procedural error -- the appeals court will give the trial court great deference on factual matters. As for the president --- buy lotto tickets. Better chance.

Our "justice system" operates on two tiers -- one tier which excuses the rich and politically connected, another tier that grinds up everyone else. You seem to be a man of great faith -- pray you never end up with a serious issue to be decided by the courts -- it's basically a crap shoot unless you are in tier 1.

Let me summarize your position: It's 1950, you aren't white, drink out of the "White's Only" fountain. You deserve to be in jail because you're a criminal.

Secondly -- there is no such thing as a "fair trial" -- even if a person is innocent and prevails, there is the fear, anxiety and financial devastation they had to go through.

Finally, Clapper would be allowed to mount a defense. Snowden would not because of the way trials are conducted under the espionage act. Snowden would get a show trial like you would expect in N. Korea -- he wouldn't even get the normal "destroy your life even if innocent" type of trial.

I understand that trials are better than summary assassination, but as a lawyer it is also somewhat sad to see how reverentially people look at the trial process. In the end, it is an ugly, dirty process that not infrequently perpetuates injustice -- and that's in fair trials where both sides are allowed to make a case. The way Snowden would be tried however, would basically mean that only the Government could present evidence. That's about as close to a summary proceeding as you get without just relying purely on the President's opinion.

So ... a big Fuck You to all the "Snowden should face trial" idiots who aren't aware that a trial is just a religious pageant for the faithful who've sold their Bill of Rights for a Bill of Goods. And to those who are aware of this and perseverate on "face the music," like the Bushes, Obamas and Clappers of the world -- here's to hoping they get a slow acting extremely painful cancer.

RTFG

"As Feared: House Guts USA Freedom Act, Every Civil Liberties Organization Pulls Their Support"

http://www.techdirt.com/articl...

Exactly -- this bill just "legitimizes" the assault on the 4th Amendment. The Constitution is basically dead.

You weren't asking for facts -- you were being an asshole pedant. A person gave a hypothetical based on widely known and scientifically studied data, and you oh so innocently asked about newspaper citations. RTFG.

Given that knowledge about the disparity in treatment in the court system is widespread, well reported, and scientifically studied, if you are unaware and making a comment, you are myopic, and to have managed to avoid being made aware, you must be a cloistered. To comment on what you do not know know, makes you an idiot.

Don't be a myopic pedantic idiot.

The racial disparities are staggering: despite the fact that whites engage in drug offenses at a higher rate than African-Americans, African-Americans are incarcerated on drug charges at a rate that is 10 times greater than that of whites.

https://www.aclu.org/criminal-...

Race is associated with economic power.

Or just google the word: affluenza

I will admit that I have more of interest in why he was fired than the sentence etc. I wonder to what extent the employer deserved it.

I guess you missed the example where you aren't guilty, but circumstances make you the prime suspect, and everything you say is the nail in your coffin.

Seven digit fool, you need to spend a little time in a dictionary because what you wrote, makes no sense.

[From what/where] is [likely/suitable] to take [control] of [earth].

You need a noun in there, and "whence" is not a noun.

except if the people don't drown, they move to you.

It is appropriate to criticize the lowest janitor of any organization that does evil. What would the CEOs/Directors/Generals/Honchos do if they had nobody to boss? They'd shrivel up and die. Every person who works at the FCC is culpable -- same rules apply to any organized evil.