Edward Snowden: why extradite if you can't convict him?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Novelty_Bobble

the link you give shows precisely that common usage under the legal one. As do many other dictionaries.

… I could swear that wasn’t there when I posted it. :smack: Objection withdrawn.

[UltraVires]

Note to self: If I commit a crime in the future and wish to flee, don’t commit a minor crime. I’ll be on the first plane home. Better go ahead and commit a capital crime so I can remain free for years.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@dropzone

Does that mean you don’t want to argue anymore?

And to RNATB as well,

In the words of my wife (when I was checking whether my common usage was way out)

“you do find some pointless thing to argue about don’t you? If the other people are involved in the legal profession then of course they are going to care about definitions”

As with so many things, she is right and seeing as the subject of potential extradition and subsequent trial most certainly is important, then best to get back to that.

Personally, I think that this is a case that a jury could easily comprehend and judge the reasonableness of his actions and decide accordingly. If that is acquittal I wouldn’t have a problem. I’m not particularly squeamish about covert surveillance but if the security services have such a flimsy system that one, single lowly employee can bring it all crashing down then I suspect he’s doing them a favour by exposing that and getting them to rethink their techniques.

[Mr_Quatro]

If the crime Snowden commited evers makes it to trial a small fact remains that he signed an agreement with the US Government not to disclose any state secrets.

It would be very hard not to convict him on this alone.

Have they filed any charges yet? Have they requested his extradition from Hong Kong (which could take yers alone)?

[BrokenBriton]

Hugely interesting and informative live Q&AS with Snowden going on right now here:

Edward Snowden: NSA whistleblower answers reader questions

[BrokenBriton]

Best quote so far:

Further, it’s important to bear in mind I’m being called a traitor by men like former Vice President Dick Cheney. This is a man who gave us the warrantless wiretapping scheme as a kind of atrocity warm-up on the way to deceitfully engineering a conflict that has killed over 4,400 and maimed nearly 32,000 Americans, as well as leaving over 100,000 Iraqis dead. Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him, Feinstein, and King, the better off we all are.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@BrokenBriton

Best quote so far:

That’s certainly an odd quote for someone who fled to the People’s Republic of China, that bastion of freedom.

I’ll confess to not being surprised that he supposedly identified himself as an egalitarian.

I certainly think it would be amusing if he wound up sharing a cell with Jonathan Pollard.

[BrainGlutton]

@BrokenBriton

If you need 12 or 11 members of a jury to agree to convict, and only 30% of the jury population of the USA believes Snowden has committed any crime . . .

That’s what voir dire is for.

[dropzone]

@Novelty_Bobble

In the words of my wife (when I was checking whether my common usage was way out)

“you do find some pointless thing to argue about don’t you? If the other people are involved in the legal profession then of course they are going to care about definitions”

I believe the lesson you should draw from this is to never speak to your wife about anything she didn’t bring up.

dropzone, married 36 years and counting

[Asympotically_fat]

@ticker

Not quite (unless it has changed radically in the 20 years since I was on a jury - always possible). In the UK the prosecution and defence are allowed to object to up to 3 jurors, or in trials with multiple defendants each defence team gets 3 objections. They may not, however, question any juror. The whole selection process takes less than an hour, including swearing in, rather than the whole circus that can occur in the US system.

That’s not true (in England and Wales) and AFAIK has never been the case, the defendant can object to any juror as they come to the book to be sworn for cause, but “for cause” really does mean that their must be genuine reason, such as the juror is known to them. If there is a reason to the Judge may ask the jurors a list of pre-agreed questions if there’s concerns about jurors knowing people involved in the case or having some prior knowledge (though if the case is high profile some prior knowledge may be unavoidable), however this is not the norm. It actually takes about 5-10 minutes to swear a jury in the UK and hour (not including delays) is pretty much unheard of.