Non-Binding Resolution: EU States Should Protect Snowden 210
The New York Times reports that the European Parliament has voted to adopt "a nonbinding but nonetheless forceful resolution" urging the EU's member nations to recognize Edward Snowden as a whistleblower, rather than aid in prosecuting him on behalf of the United States government. From the article:
Whether to grant Mr. Snowden asylum remains a decision for the individual European governments, and thus far, none have done so.
Still, the resolution was the strongest statement of support seen for Mr. Snowden from the European Parliament. At the same time, the close vote — 285 to 281 — suggested the extent to which some European lawmakers are wary of alienating the United States. ...
The resolution calls on European Union members to "drop any criminal charges against Edward Snowden, grant him protection and consequently prevent extradition or rendition by third parties."
Also at Wired, USA Today and many others; Snowden himself has tweeted happily about the news.
Sovereignty (Score:2, Funny)
Breaking news: EU Parliament grudgingly acknowledges the remaining limited sovereignty of member states.
Re: (Score:2)
>The European Parliament is a next to useless organization.
The primary goal of the European Parliament is to create a political union that works to prevent a repeat of the march to war that led to world wars 1 and 2. It has worked well for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
>> a political union that works to prevent a repeat of the march to war that led to world wars 1 and 2
No, I think that was NATO. I thought the EU was about a common currency and set of laws that would allow it to function as a united bloc against powers like the US and China.
Re:Sovereignty (Score:4, Informative)
No he's right, it was a political union designed to bind Europe together to make another war unthinkable. NATO was designed to stop Russia (well, the USSR at the time) marching into Europe to undo all of that which is exactly as Russia is trying to do again now with it's invasion into Ukraine and it's funding of far right europhobic political groups like France's FN, the UK's UKIP, and Greece's Golden Dawn whose main policies are to pull their respective countries out of the EU, hence weakening the EU and opening the door further for Russian intrusion.
Both were certainly primarily created to keep Europe from war, although NATO also protects the likes of Canada's northern borders and Alaska too of course.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right that NATO is nothing without the US (the US made sure about that for obvious reasons), but the rest of your post is based on a common misconception. You confuse NATO with the various short-term alliances the US has formed for military interventions such as invading other countries, but the key clause of the NATO treaty, Article 5, has only been invoked once during its history, namely in response to 9/11. Perhaps you had ISAF as another larger alliance in mind, to which NATO has lent some of its
Re: (Score:3)
>> a political union that works to prevent a repeat of the march to war that led to world wars 1 and 2
No, I think that was NATO. I thought the EU was about a common currency and set of laws that would allow it to function as a united bloc against powers like the US and China.
EEC (1951) -> Schengen Agreement (1985) -> EU (1993 - Maastricht Treaty) --> EMU (Economic and Monetary Union - spread over the 1990s) .
It's about all of the above. Preventing internal wars, defining Europe as a Western power, economic improvement through freedom of goods, currency and labour.
Re: (Score:2)
You sound insecure.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The primary goal of the European Parliament is to create a political union that works to prevent a repeat of the march to war that led to world wars 1 and 2. It has worked well for a long time.
Europe was at war with itself from the collapse of the Roman Empire until 1945, with very few years of peace. When the most efficient way of killing people was to hit them with a sword, and the economy was largely agrarian, wars didn't really kill lot of people.
With the rise of the modern state, and industrial revolutions, wars killed progressively more and more people, ( the 30 years war of 1618 to 1648 killed maybe 25% of the population of Germany for instance).
Wars also became steadily more global, wi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't please eurosceptics. The EU isn't strong enough to deal with the refugee crisis. The EU has too much power, always dictating to member states.
Re: (Score:2)
The Euroskeptics also, astonishingly, whined horribly when the EU decided to regulate oven gloves. Apparently pre-regs the oven golves were wildly unsafe and to be sold as such had to only be rated up to something like 160 or 180C (well below the 250C which is the lowest maximum temperature found in any domestic oven).
They were arguing vociferously that essentially shops ought to be able to sell unfit, unsafe goods. I, personally had no idea that oven gloves had such a pathetically low rating. The reasoning
Re: (Score:2)
The worst one was the "straight bananas" debacle. Howls of rage at the EU forcing us to adopt draconian rules on the size and shape of our fruit, costing British business millions of pounds and forcing up prices for everyone. Front page headlines in major newspapers, hours of TV coverage in an age where there were only four channels.
What they failed to notice is that the EU had actually just adopted the existing UK rules. Nothing at all changed for us, except that it became a little easier for UK businesses
This seems contradictory (Score:5, Interesting)
This seems entirely contradictory to their stance on Assange.
I wonder why.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Snowden isn't accused of a sex crime as Assange is, and that ultimately is the only difference really that I can see. ...
Wonder why not? You'd think it'd be just as easy to find (and fund) a few women to accuse Snowden of sexual assault. It's not like US prosecutors have never used such tactics in the past.
One conjecture is that the US government keeps thinking it can get an assassin in to take him out, but that's turning out to be a bit trickier in Russia than it was in Pakistan or a few other countries we might list. Maybe the judicious thing would be to abandon that approach, and revert to the tried-and-true sex accu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen no evidence that Sweden would send him to the US under any circumstances. I've seen a lot of unsupported claims.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is at least one other difference: Snowden didn't commit his alleged crime inside a member country (Asange's alleged sex crime happened in Switzerland). Moreover Snowden's revelations didn't seriously harm or indict any member governments (except the UK though to a much lesser degree than the US) while Asange has targetted all governments and embarrassed the EU and several member countries more than once.
I would like to believe the former aspect is the decider here, but the cynic in me suspects the lat
Re:This seems contradictory (Score:5, Interesting)
This seems entirely contradictory to their stance on Assange.
I wonder why.
It's a wild guess, but perhaps Snowden being a whistle blower that helped (indirectly) the EU in their privacy concernings, in contrast with Assange, that is a whistle blower that fsckd up every single Country in the World, can be a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
helped (indirectly) the EU in their privacy concernings
Oh horsepoo. The EU were a willing party in the campaign to spy on citizens of the world. They are only a bit pissed when it turned out senior government figures were being spied on too.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh horsepoo.
Lisias. Nice to meet you. :-)
The EU were a willing party in the campaign to spy on citizens of the world. They are only a bit pissed when it turned out senior government figures were being spied on too.
Exact. They want to spy citizens of the world, they don't want the world spying THEIR citizens.
Being the reason I stated " *their* privacy concernings", not mine of yours. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
This seems entirely contradictory to their stance on Assange.
I wonder why.
It's a wild guess, but perhaps Snowden being a whistle blower that helped (indirectly) the EU in their privacy concernings, in contrast with Assange, that is a whistle blower that fsckd up every single Country in the World, can be a reason.
Assange is offically not wanted by the US, and he already have the right to be in EU. Snowden needs an Asylum to protect him from being extradicted, and to be allowed to stay in EU in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Assange is offically not wanted by the US, and he already have the right to be in EU. Snowden needs an Asylum to protect him from being extradicted, and to be allowed to stay in EU in the first place.
Humm... Do you realize that Assange is the one in confinement inside the Ecuador's Embassy IN LONDON in order to avoid extradition, don't you?
Re:This seems contradictory (Score:4, Informative)
IOW, Snowden was blowing the whistle to try to stop the train to save it. Assange and Manning were trying to derail the train.
Re: (Score:3)
What train, the train of surveillance? That train needs to be derailed.
Re: (Score:2)
None of that should matter for Assange though. Manning, sure... To get the intel job, she would have had to get a security clearance; which includes a secrecy oath and informed agreement to the non-disclosure paperwork. That's in addition to the oath of service that goes along with joining the armed forces in the first place. On top of all that, Manning is a US citizen and was inside the country when she leaked the docs. Whether you agree with the release or not, there's a pretty clear rationale for the
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen an anti-Assange witch-hunt yet. I've seen completely unsubstantiated claims of one. My personal read on this is that Assange doesn't want to go back to Sweden and face the rape charge, and is trying to save face by making up an international conspiracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes there is. 18 for boys, 16 for girls
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
People actually believe the rape accusations which coincidentally happened right after he embarrassed the US military by publishing the truth?
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? He's well known to be an asshole on a personal level. Just because he's a "publisher of the truth" doesn't make him incapable of "rape". Especially under Sweden's rather low bar for calling things "rape".
Did he do it? No idea. That's what him going back to have a trial would be all about.
What I do know is that he's hiding from charges in an embassy because he's concerned that his being charged with rape means he's going to be turned over to the US, which honestly could have happened at any po
Re: (Score:2)
The British will certainly arrest him for breaking his bail. The British, however, would have to get an extradition request from the US, and for that the US would have to file charges. None of that has happened.
And then the British would have to hand him over to the US, instead of handing him over to Sweden, who asked first.
Sure, the US government could get their hands on him if they tried hard enough. One could certainly argue that they have a case for it under law. What is very unlikely is that he wil
Re: (Score:2)
For the US to have a case under law, they'd have to find something Assange allegedly did that violated US law seriously enough. Publishing secrets is not illegal in the US, revealing them is, and Manning is already convicted.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Meaningless Gesture (Score:2)
Unless those member states are willing to violate their extradition treaties with the United States, the resolution is more or less meaningless.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless those member states
This is not a resolution by the member states. The member states are represented at the EU level by the EU Council of Ministers. The European Parliament is the (only) directly elected part of the EU structure, which often is at odds with the Council of Ministers (where the ministers often think more of national interests than of EU interests) and the Commission (which tends to do the opposite, or is too much steered by bureaucrats).
are willing to violate their extradition treaties with the United States, the resolution is more or less meaningless.
You piqued my interest, so I looked up the extradition treaty between the US [mcnabbassociates.com]
Re:Meaningless Gesture (Score:5, Informative)
Not one extradition treaty in an EU member state overrules the European Convention on Human Rights which all EU member states are signatories to and members of.
The lack of the US' ability to guarantee Snowden will be granted a fair trial, means that any extradition treaty will be irrelevant in the face of a European Court of Human Rights challenge using the European Convention on Human Rights and it's implementations.
This is precisely why the convention and court exist - to prevent any member state treating someone unfairly in violation of their fundamental rights by acting as a higher power that can determine if a member government is treating people within it's borders fairly or not. It's a fine example of the importance of it all, it's one entity that can tell governments it doesn't give a shit how much they wish to kowtow to the US, fundamental human rights come first.
Of course a nation state could break protocol and ignore an ECHR ruling, but then it also doesn't get to dictate to places like China, Russia, and so forth about human rights anymore, because it would then be hypocritical and meaningless to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think he'd not get a fair trial in the US?
It isn't like we take US citizens, even on the past with WORSE spy cases, and don't give them a trial with counsel, etc. While I'd not advise Snowden to come back to the US (he'd get a trial, but it is pretty open and shut IMHO that he broke the law)...I would say he would get a fair trial, it isn't like he's gonna be extradited and "disappeared"....
I'm cynical but not TH
Re: (Score:3)
In the past, we've also given full trials and due process to criminals much worse than anyone we're holding in Guantanamo Bay. Granted Nuremberg was an international thing, not just a US procedure. But still, we had open trials, not a indefinite detention in an extraterritorial prison camp.
Sadly, we've fallen from what we were before 9/11. And not only do we maintain that gulag in Cuba, we also have a network of black sites in eastern Europe and Asia where we shuffle people off to be tortured and murdere
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that it happened on an international level does rather mitigate that factor.
There is however rather more to it than that. Firstly - the death penalty was by no means assured and several of the Nazi's charged got away with lesser punishments notably Rudolph Hess.
Albert Speer only got 20 years (you can get that for robbing a bank) because of the remorse he showed (and probably a bit of a kickback because his testimony helped secure the cases against most of the other accused). He got to live quite a
Re: (Score:2)
Correction: Goering claimed that starting an aggressive war was legal, despite the Kellogg-Briand pact.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuremburg was a fair trial in that the offenses were laid out, the accused had legal counsel, and the results of the trial were not foregone conclusions. Some people wanted to just shoot all the defendants.
The four counts were waging aggressive war (against Kellogg-Briand), war crimes (against various Hague and Geneva conventions), crimes against humanity (I don't know what the legal basis for this was offhand, but I think we can agree that genocide is a crime), and conspiracy to do those things.
Three
Re: (Score:3)
> What makes you think he'd not get a fair trial in the US?
Given the extraordinary nature and extent of the documents, the trial would not possibly be open, Judge and jury (if there was one) and defense attorneys would operate under extraordinary limitations of access to witnesses and documents that would establish justification for his whistle blowing, and various intelligence agencies would likely operate extra-legally to insure his conviction or even his early murder.
Re: (Score:3)
And how would that be authorized by the Constitution?
Seriously, this is a fucking simple trial. This is what happens:
1) The Prosecutor reads the statute, which bans leaking of Classified info.
2) The Prosecutor shows a document, any document, from the stash that Snowden leaked.
3) The Prosecutor cues up a video of him explaining why he leaked it.
4) The defense does something, probably involving blaming Karpeles, because it is literally illegal for them to mention to the Jury that Snowden thought the leak was
Re: (Score:2)
> because it is literally illegal for them to mention to the Jury that Snowden thought the leak was in the public interest
No, it's not "literally illegal". to mention that. The judge may give explicit directions against it, but intent is a critical and normal part of a legal defense, especially if Mr. Snowden cited the protections of the various "whistleblower" laws. There's also a great tendency of judges to shut down any attempt by a defense attorney to invoke "jury nullification", which is always avai
Re: (Score:2)
> because it is literally illegal for them to mention to the Jury that Snowden thought the leak was in the public interest
No, it's not "literally illegal". to mention that. The judge may give explicit directions against it, but intent is a critical and normal part of a legal defense, especially if Mr. Snowden cited the protections of the various "whistleblower" laws. There's also a great tendency of judges to shut down any attempt by a defense attorney to invoke "jury nullification", which is always available to a jury even when the judge explicitly says "you must only convict or acquit on *this* basis".
> There's no need for secrecy, special assassination teams, or anything special.
There's also "no need" for the excessive and abusive monitoring that Mr. Snowden disclosed.
Ever heard of the Pentagon Papers?
The government got that Judge to rule that Ellsberg could not present a public interest defense. That meant no witnesses saying "it's great he leaked this, I needed to know that," no documents saying he should have leaked it, if his attorney seems to be getting in a bunch of digs and questions that would give the Jury the impression it was a good idea he leaked it the only way to make the Trial fair for the Prosecution (remember: "Fair Trial" goes both ways) is let them pre
Re: (Score:2)
I actually remember the Pentagon Papers, though not well from reading about them: it was roughly 50 years ago. But if you're referring to the charges filed against Ellsberg, please actually review the case, and then please try to claim that an accused whistleblower can get a fair trial as a matter of course. Even that one ruling by Judge Byrne that Ellsberg could not discuss his _intent_ for revealing the documents was grounds for appeal, and as best I could tell from the time part of a campaign to publicly
Re: (Score:2)
Dude,
They don't challenge the legality of a law at trial. The Jury's role in deciding whether a law should be enforced is restricted solely to Jury Nullification, a practice that every Judge ever appointed has done his damndest to minimize because of it's unsavory use in the past. That means that if you're talking about the legality of a law, and you're using any legal phrase that includes the word "trial" you're being unforgivably imprecise. Trial is a completely different stage of the process, a challenge
Re: (Score:2)
There are a number of issues with the US justice system that act as barriers for extradition and that a number of requested extraditions to the US have been denied on. The two issues are:
- The US has a terrible modern track record on justice relating to national security cases both because of Guantanamo bay, and the way other whistleblowers such as Manning were treated. Typically this sort of thing can be dealt with with legal guarantees to the extraditing nation, but I believe the US has reneged on some of
Re: (Score:2)
>What makes you think he'd not get a fair trial in the US?
The fact that there is no public-interest defense for federal whistle blowers (despite the fact that the need for one is a blatantly obvious self-evident truth) is enough to make it absolutely impossible to *give* him a fair trial no matter how good the intentions of the government or even the judge may be.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you are complaining about the laws, not the process. Snowden would get a fair trial, and would undoubtedly be convicted. I know of no whistle-blower protections that apply to people who reveal secrets about international relations; it's usually for people raising concerns in the system. I think he should be pardoned, myself. I don't want to see laws distorted to acquit him, just because he's an exceptional case.
Re: (Score:2)
Not one extradition treaty in an EU member state overrules the European Convention on Human Rights which all EU member states are signatories to and members of.
And how is the European Convention on Human Rights related to a non-binding resolution passed by a body which does not have the legal authority to make a binding resolution in the first place?
The lack of the US' ability to guarantee Snowden will be granted a fair trial, means that any extradition treaty will be irrelevant in the face of a European Court of Human Rights challenge using the European Convention on Human Rights and it's implementations.
He's accused of leaking classified information. He did it. He's admitted as much in several public interviews. There is no leaker's defense in the US.
The absolute last person in the world who wants a fair trial is Ed Snowden, because a fair trial results in a conviction. The absolute last people in the world who want t
Re: (Score:2)
"And how is the European Convention on Human Rights related to a non-binding resolution passed by a body which does not have the legal authority to make a binding resolution in the first place?"
I'm not sure you know how such conventions work. European conventions are imposed on member states as things that must be implemented. Each member state has a legal implementation that is binding, and that can be ruled upon by the European Court of Human Rights (they can also rule whether the implementation meets the
Re: (Score:2)
"And how is the European Convention on Human Rights related to a non-binding resolution passed by a body which does not have the legal authority to make a binding resolution in the first place?"
I'm not sure you know how such conventions work. European conventions are imposed on member states as things that must be implemented. Each member state has a legal implementation that is binding, and that can be ruled upon by the European Court of Human Rights (they can also rule whether the implementation meets the standards of the legally bound to implement convention).
This thread is not about a Convention.
It is about a non-binding resolution passed by a Legislative body which would not have the authority to pass a binding resolution.
If you want to change the subject to the ECHR you can do that, but you'll have to explain why the ECHR would apply.
"He's accused of leaking classified information. He did it. He's admitted as much in several public interviews. There is no leaker's defense in the US."
None of which has any relevance as to whether he'd get a fair trial. I'm not sure you really get how this whole justice thing works - hint: judgements are not decided upon what did or didn't happen in the spotlight of the media, only what happens in the court room.
I;'m not sure you uinderstand the meaning of the term fair trial.
A fair trial is a trial where the defendant has the right to properly respond to the evidence. If said evidence is truly overwhelming, the tiral is basically a form
Re: (Score:2)
"If you want to change the subject to the ECHR you can do that, but you'll have to explain why the ECHR would apply."
Well that's already been done, but you seem unable to stick to the thread of discussion. I should you step right back to the beginning and start again, because you're arguing that I can't bring something up, that is relevant to the actual thread of discussion based on the summary. Believe it or not, discussions on forums can arch from the strict bounds of the original summary.
"A fair trial is
Re: (Score:2)
"If you want to change the subject to the ECHR you can do that, but you'll have to explain why the ECHR would apply."
Well that's already been done, but you seem unable to stick to the thread of discussion. I should you step right back to the beginning and start again, because you're arguing that I can't bring something up, that is relevant to the actual thread of discussion based on the summary. Believe it or not, discussions on forums can arch from the strict bounds of the original summary.
Here's my problem with that:
Nobody (except me) has presented any reason why the ECHR should intervene that actually uses legal terms correctly.
In particular you tech geek types seem so fixated on the "fair" bit of "fair trial" that you literally cannot comprehend that, legally speaking, a Fair Trial for Ed Snowden always results in a conviction; and therefore the ECHR is not able to keep him in Europe due to the likelihood of an unfair trial.
I have explained, several times, why a Fair Trial would always con
Re: (Score:2)
There are alternative explanations (Score:4, Interesting)
At the same time, the close vote — 285 to 281 — suggested the extent to which some European lawmakers are wary of alienating the United States.
Or, maybe European politicians are just sharply divided over the issue. That would be easy to believe, even if it doesn't fit the narrative of the poor little EU always cowering whenever the US clears its throat.
Re: (Score:2)
At the same time, the close vote — 285 to 281 — suggested the extent to which some European lawmakers are wary of alienating the United States.
Or, maybe European politicians are just sharply divided over the issue. That would be easy to believe, even if it doesn't fit the narrative of the poor little EU always cowering whenever the US clears its throat.
Perhaps they are considering that supporting Snowden will encourage whistle-blowing in their own countries, while those who voted not to prosecute Snowden are just for the photo ops, counting on the ineffectiveness of the resolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, maybe European politicians are just sharply divided over the issue.
That seems far more likely to me. They aren't shy about criticizing the US for pretty much everything else.
Re: (Score:2)
There are 2 different votes referenced on that page. The one about Snowden is the second one.
We strenuously object (Score:2)
The EU continues to be short for "bedwetting pansies" (French translation).
Or, those lawmakers might disagree (Score:2)
the close vote — 285 to 281 — suggested the extent to which some European lawmakers are wary of alienating the United States.
This could be the case, but it also could be that they simply don't agree with the proposed resolution. I know Snowden is quite popular on Slashdot (and thus this possibility isn't), but the fact is that not everyone on the planet supports Snowden's decisions.
What about Julian Assange, EU? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's not true. Politicians are quick to do the right thing if they have support to do it.
Re:Must be public pressure in Europe. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's really hard to extradite from the EU anyway even for non-politically-connected crimes. It took 8 years even to get Abu Hamza, which was about as open and shut as possible (including convictions in the UK) for about as hateable of a figure as possible for serious of crimes during a period where there was a major push to prosecute said crimes. The ECHR in particular is a major refuge for people arguing political prosecution. The right in many countries like the UK hates them, as they make it hard to prosecute many types of crime and force them to guarantee all sorts of rights for prisoners (like assisted reproductive services for sex offenders and such). In the case of Abu Hamza, they ruled that a variety of conditions in US prisons are "torture" and he couldn't be extradited until the US promised to make all sorts of restrictions on how he would be housed. They also had to agree to not seek the death penalty, and nearly required the US to not seek life in prison either. And if the US would ever break any of their promises, the ECHR would impose a general ban on extradition to the US (as they've done with many other countries), as it's against EU law to extradite to countries who do not have a track record of upholding their pledges concerning prisoners (it was imposed in the aftermath of the Agiza/Alzery case)
Now, this shouldn't be confused with moving people between EU states under the EAW process (surrender, not extradition), which is generally rather easy. EAWs bypass the executive branch entirely, and the automatic presumption is that the warrant is valid and should be enforced rather than the other way around.
Honestly, what would work out best for everyone would be if the US agreed to plea bargain with Snowden. He seems interested in it, the US would still send their message that "you can't run from the law forever", etc.
Re: (Score:2)
It's really hard to extradite from the EU anyway even for non-politically-connected crimes.
A big part of this is what is coincided punishment under the two jurisdictions. The EU has a very strong rule against the death penalty so when extraditing people that may face the it in the US it is very easy to argue that extradition could lead to cruel and unusual punishment under the EU rules.
The other issue is human rights, if there is any chance someone extradited might end up in Guantanamo Bay it once again makes a very easy case for the defendant.
Re: (Score:2)
If they were extradited to civilian law enforcement in the US, they wouldn't go to Gitmo, ever. That would be illegal under *US* law, let alone any other law.
People in the EU may have a problem with the place, but it is specifically for holding illegal combatants captured in the field by the military who are not POWs under the Geneva Convention. It's not a gulag or a concentration camp for political prisoners.
No one who is charged with an actual crime in the US gets sent to Guantanamo Bay. That's actuall
Re: (Score:2)
but it [Gitmo] is specifically for holding illegal combatants captured in the field by the military who are not POWs under the Geneva Convention.
You say "illegal combatants" as if it is an old, established concept in martial history -- as opposed to a fairly transparent sleight of hand to get away with gross violations of the GC. Same reason it is on Cuba, not in the US. Pesky laws and regulations.
It's not a gulag or a concentration camp for political prisoners.
So anything short of that is acceptable?
Re: (Score:2)
You say "illegal combatants" as if it is an old, established concept in martial history -- as opposed to a fairly transparent sleight of hand to get away with gross violations of the GC. Same reason it is on Cuba, not in the US. Pesky laws and regulations.
And you're missing the point. I'm not justifying it's existence. I'm only stating what the entry conditions are. These are going to be people taken in intelligence or military operations. They're not people who are handed over in extradition proceedings. You can verify that yourself, if you doubt it. The lists of people in the camp are more or less public.
No one in EU jurisdiction is an illegal combatant, and more to the point, no one from the EU would be extradited if the US was known to change the s
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I hit submit by accident... Meant to add that, given what happened to Chelsey Manning, the prospect of being locked up on US soil rather than Guantanamo is hardly reassuring.
Re: (Score:2)
I would have preferred that everyone remained professional about the Manning case in the sense of how he was treated, but Manning is now in military prison and has even had transition assistance. It's hard time, but a lot of people consider those actions treasonous, and certainly they have caused problems for the US. It could have gone a lot worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I hit submit by accident... Meant to add that, given what happened to Chelsey Manning, the prospect of being locked up on US soil rather than Guantanamo is hardly reassuring.
In the US the Military actually has it's own Court System [wikipedia.org], with it's own law-code [wikipedia.org].
Snowden would be in the civilian system. His conviction is pretty much a slam-dunk. Revealing Classified Info to people who don't have clearance is illegal,and he did that shit. Since Congress has not seen fit to adda public interest defense, or exception, or really anything of value to a Federal whistle-blower, you claims that he had to do it to reveal NSA misconduct are simply irrelevant legally.
Re: (Score:2)
There are legalities, and moralities. Snowden broke the law in a big way. He released classified information, and that's highly illegal for people with security clearances. If extradited, he'd be tried, convicted, and imprisoned in the normal course of things. That's what the legalities are.
Lots of people, including me, think that Snowden broke the law in a good cause, and should not be held legally responsible. This means we think that he should get a pardon, not that he didn't break the law.
Whet
Re: (Score:2)
If they were extradited to civilian law enforcement in the US, they wouldn't go to Gitmo, ever.
I realize that, I was just commenting broadly on the subject to try to explain why these things seem to be sticky in general.
Re:Must be public pressure in Europe. (Score:5, Insightful)
People in the EU may have a problem with the place, but it is specifically for holding illegal combatants captured in the field by the military who are not POWs under the Geneva Convention. It's not a gulag or a concentration camp for political prisoners.
Uhm, that's exactly what it is, which is why people in the EU have problems with it. Kidnapping people from the soil of sovereign countries and then holding them without due process for indefinite time without trial, oversight by third parties (e.g. Red Cross), way to appeal the imprisonment or access to a lawyer on some remote military base is the hallmark of injustice. It couldn't possibly get worse -- well, it could, if you additionally hold some of them in cages and torture them with sleep deprivation and waterboarding.
If you can't see the atrocity of this then I feel very, very sorry for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant. We are talking about people who would be extradited. Presumably, the people you're talking about were taken "off the streets" in some sort of intelligence operation. That isn't going to happen to Snowden or anyone else of his notoriety if they're in judicial custody of an EU state.
Re: (Score:2)
It's really hard to extradite from the EU anyway even for non-politically-connected crimes.
For politically connected non-crimes it's very, very easy.
Take for example that teenager who profited from running a torrent site of some sorts. It's perhaps not illegal here: the CPS stated explicitly that they don't know if it's illegal and would have to actually take it to court to find out. And yet he was all bundled off and nearly sent to the US, despite no one being sure if his acts were criminal in the UK.
Only
Re: (Score:2)
This is the same EU that did this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
They have burned any trust they may have had. They will just cooperate secretly.
Re:Must be public pressure in Europe. (Score:4, Informative)
This guy? Looks like he was found VERY guilty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
How the fuck is misinformation considered worth moderating as "informative?"
C'mon now... The OP is blatantly lying. I've no idea why, but they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians never do something because it is the right thing to do. There must be a lot of pressure from the commoners motivating this.
No, it is the parliament. They do that sort of thing (right) all the time. It is basically a polical afterlife for politicians who were burned out at home, and have gone somewhere they have much less power, but what they have they can atleast use for good.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, he needs to come back and stand trial, and only punished if that is what the court decides.
(which it shouldn't, but that's not my decision)
Re:EU Should Mind Their Own Business (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:EU Should Mind Their Own Business (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no such thing as a fair trial when the prosecution can use any number of trump cards to ensure things go their way.
The big one being the State Secrets Privilege. Since all of the evidence is classified ( and the majority of it at Secret / TS level ) there is no way on the planet the intelligence community is going to allow that material to be presented in a courtroom. If you're unable to use any of the smoking gun evidence you've collected in your defense, I'm curious how you would consider the trial to be a fair one ?
To wit:
The state secrets privilege is an evidentiary rule created by United States legal precedent. Application of the privilege results in exclusion of evidence from a legal case based solely on affidavits submitted by the government stating that court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no such thing as a fair trial when the prosecution can use any number of trump cards to ensure things go their way.
You mean, like the truth? The fact that person on trial not only admits what he did, but is on record crowing about it? What else there to even discuss?
He doesn't need to present the content of stuff he stole to defend himself, because he's on the record as explaining that he did it, when he did it, how it did it, and why he did it. Case closed. Unless you're going to suggest that he'll deny everything he's said?
Re: (Score:3)
He should be safe under the whistleblower act
He had no interest in availing himself of the act's protections. He was showboating. Your cartoon fantasies about him dying by fake heart attack, etc., suggest you have exactly as immature and grandstanding-oriented as Snowden (who is clearly realizing what a mistake he made in thinking that treachery was going to count as "cool" for long enough to set him up for life in a place less crappy than Russia, where things are actually more like the cartoon fantasy evil empire crap he pretended to believe about t
Re: (Score:2)
He had no interest in availing himself of the act's protections.
Would you be willing to literally stake your life on the claim that he would have actually received the proper protections and not be mistreated but the famously moderate and careful US law enforcement? What about someone else's life? Would you stake the life of your partner or a child (if you have one) on that?
Re: (Score:2)
The act's protections did not apply to him as a contractor.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the protections offered by the Whistle-blower Protection Act were not dubious and routinely ineffective, at the time it did not apply to contractors including Snowden. It operates more as a trap to encourage whistle-blowers to reveal themselves so they can be properly persecuted.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you Americans have a Constitution containing a Bill of Rights that includes a clause that allows the people Freedom of Speech? IIRC it basically says that Congress will not pass a law abridging speech and yet you get 5 insightful for thinking that someone exercising his 1st Amendment rights should got to jail, for a long time yet, for simply breaking a non-disclosure agreement.
Or perhaps you think that your government should not have to obey the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They have better things they should be focusing on, like keeping the migrant hordes away from the borders.
Snowden is a fugitive from US justice, he must answer for the crimes he committed against the US government. This is none of the EU's business, this resolution is just a masturbatory exercise.
Snowden needs to be brought back to the US and punished.
It seems that he worked around that problem. Maybe the NSA should have behaved instead.
The EU is a fine example of why keeping the migrant hoards away from the borders is counterproductive. The sky did not fall in. The restaurants got better because they could get more native talent for their cuisine type.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There's no end to the punishment I would deliver to Ed.
First, I'd sentence him to a ticker tape parade.
Then he'd be made to suffer the receipt of one million ounces of gold.
Finally, I would inflict a lifetime exemption from all taxation - federal, state, county, and local - upon him and his descendants to the tenth generation.
I would be absolutely merciless.
Re: (Score:2)