SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Globe and Mail reports that Edward Snowden's Russian lawyer Anatoly Kucherena says the fugitive former US spy agency contractor who leaked details of the government’s mass surveillance programs was working with American and German lawyers to return home. “I won’t keep it secret that he … wants to return back home. And we are doing everything possible now to solve this issue. There is a group of U.S. lawyers, there is also a group of German lawyers and I’m dealing with it on the Russian side.” Kucherena added that Snowden is ready to return to the States, but on the condition that he is given a guarantee of a legal and impartial trial. The lawyer said Snowden had so far only received a guarantee from the US Attorney General that he will not face the death penalty. Kucherena says that Snowden is able to travel outside Russia since he has a three-year Russian residency permit, but "I suspect that as soon as he leaves Russia, he will be taken to the US embassy."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday March 04 2015, @04:40PM
I get homesickness, but returning to the US would be really dumb. I hope and mostly believe that he is smart enough to know he cannot - absolutely cannot - trust the US government to treat it fairly.
His exile cannot come as a surprise. It's time to dig in and make a new life where he is. If he really, truly cannot stand Russia (and I can believe that they are placing some hefty restrictions on him), then he surely has the time to look for some other country that would grant him residency and guarantee not to extradite him. I'm not sure which countries would be willing, but there will certainly be some. I believe that Switzerland and Germany have both at least considered it, as have various others.
Returning to the US would be tantamount to accepting indefinite solitary confinement. Worse, there can be no impartial jury. Most people know about the case. Of those who know who Snowdon is, surveys show that most buy the government's line that he committed treason, and would be in favor of punishment. If you exclude people who already know about the case, well, I don't think a jury of blithering idiots is what he wants either.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Funny) by kaszz on Wednesday March 04 2015, @05:00PM
Get a waiver from USA (we will never request anything, ever..). Then apply for asylum in a European country of choice?
It could perhaps work.
(Score: 5, Informative) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday March 04 2015, @05:20PM
as was already mentioned, the only hope in a US trial would be for jury nullification.
problem is: you are effectively prohibited from even UTTERING those words inside a courtroom. comtempt of court often happens as a result. the judge gets pissed that you are aware of a legally guaranteed RIGHT that all americans have, but are not allowed to exercise.
voire dire (questioning you before they select you as a juror) weeds out those that admit they know about JN. if you lie and say you never heard of it, then invoke it once on the jury, the judge WILL fuck you over. hard. you'll become an example to stop others from exercising the right to nullify bad laws.
I really don't understand why judges and lawyers are so annoyed at JN, but they really are. I've had discussions with lawyers and they are offended that 'regular people can judge the law'. they say 'but dear, you are not QUALIFIED.'. that's what they say and they believe that. misguided fools...
so, you are barred from talking about it and most americans have no idea of its existence. which makes it a neutered law, really.
shame. it was a powerful control against an over-reaching and self-righteous state. and they do all they can to remove this right from us.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Wednesday March 04 2015, @10:45PM
I think you DO understand it, maybe you haven't really thought it through.
I say this because further on in your comment:
Which is the reason that it keeps getting 'swept under the rug'.
I can't blame Snowden for wanting to leave Russia, the way Putin has been acting lately. But Snowden is in a tough spot...where else can he go that will not have him extradited/snatched to the US?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday March 05 2015, @02:53AM
So, how does voire dire go about determining if you're aware of nullification, without making the ignorant aware of it? I'm absolutely not asking so that I can plan my answers to slip through the cracks without perjuring myself, should the opportunity arise...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @03:49AM
I spent a while thinking about ways to get around this without lying under oath. If they just ask, "Have you heard of 'jury nullification'?" I was thinking I could respond with something like, "Is that where the judge nullifies the jury's judgement?" or "Is that where the judge determines there's no need for a jury?". Responding with a question implies you've never heard of it without actually saying you haven't, and they'd likely only tell you what it is if they were planning on dismissing you anyway.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday March 05 2015, @04:57AM
It seems unlikely that they would ask point-blank like that in most cases - doing so may benefit the desired outcome of the particular trial, but runs the risk of raising social awareness and increasing its perceived legitimacy, which runs contrary to the apparently (semi-)organized attempt to make it fade away.