[Peace-discuss] Snowden Should Refuse To Play “Alice In Wonderland”

Wed Jul 9 21:41:02 EDT 2014

  Snowden Should Refuse To Play “Alice In Wonderland”

Snowden in Wonderland
Educate! <http://www.popularresistance.org/category/educate/> Criminal 
Justice and Prisons 
<http://www.popularresistance.org/tag/criminal-justice-and-prisons/>, 
Edward Snowden <http://www.popularresistance.org/tag/edward-snowden/>, 
Espionage Act <http://www.popularresistance.org/tag/espionage-act/>, 
Hillary Clinton <http://www.popularresistance.org/tag/hillary-clinton/>, 
John Kerry <http://www.popularresistance.org/tag/john-kerry/>, NSA 
<http://www.popularresistance.org/tag/nsa/>
By Kevin Zeese, www.PopularResistance.org <http://www.PopularResistance.org>
July 8th, 2014
   Powered by Translate <https://translate.google.com>
20 
<http://www.popularresistance.org/snowden-should-refuse-to-play-alice-in-wonderland/#>
Print Friendly 
<http://www.printfriendly.com/print?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.popularresistance.org%2Fsnowden-should-refuse-to-play-alice-in-wonderland%2F>

    *Clinton and Kerry Call On Snowden To Submit To Sham Security State
    Trial*

Edward Snowden submitting to prosecution in the United States would be 
like Alice going into the courtroom in Wonderland.  Alice stood before 
the King and Queen of Hearts who served as the judges. Knaves were 
chained on the ground before them. The jurors, Alice realizes are 
‘stupid things.’ The first witness against her was the Mad Hatter who is 
as mad as the culture he represents. The guinea pigs who protest are 
immediately “suppressed” by having the mouths tied up and being put into 
a bag and sat on by the King so their protests cannot be heard. The most 
important evidence in the trial was secret, a poem for which the author 
is unknown and concludes:

For this must ever be a secret,
Kept from all the rest,
Between yourself and me.

Alice realized the court room; with the icons of a justice system – a 
judge, jury, witnesses – was really a sham that mocks a legitimate legal 
process.  To confirm her realization the King said after the meaningless 
secret poetry evidence, that it was “the most important piece of 
evidence” and “Let the jury consider their verdict.” The Queen retorts 
“No, no!  Sentence first; verdict afterwards.”

Last week former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined 
<http://www.popularresistance.org/hillary-urges-snowden-come-home-to-face-indictments/> 
with the current Secretary of State John Kerry in urging 
<http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/john-kerry-urges-edward-snowden-to-return-to-the-us-1> 
Edward Snowden to come home and face prosecution.

Clinton told The Guardian that he should “return knowing he would be 
held accountable and also able to present a defense.” When asked about 
whether he could really present a defense, Clinton said:

“In any case that I’m aware of as a former lawyer, he has a right to 
mount a defense. And he certainly has a right to launch both a legal 
defense and a public defense, which can of course affect the legal defense.”

In fact, under current US law Snowden would face a criminal process with 
virtually no defense, a pre-ordained outcome and he would be silenced 
during the process. The law he would be charged under, the Espionage 
Act, provides for no real defense and the due process afforded would be 
inadequate resulting in an unfair trial and lengthy sentence.

On June 14^th federal prosecutors in Alexandria, VA filed espionage 
charges 
<http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/21/19079389-us-charges-nsa-leaker-snowden-with-espionage?lite> against 
Edward Snowden. Snowden became the eighth person to be charged 
<http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/06/21/snowden-becomes-eighth-person-to-be-indicted-for-espionage-by-the-obama-justice-department/> under 
the 1917 Espionage Act during the Obama presidency, more than double all 
previous presidents combined.  As a result there is recent experience 
with how these cases are prosecuted. Under the three current felony 
charges Snowden faces up to 30 years in prison. The prosecutors could 
add additional charges when Snowden is indicted.

Recent court decisions, including the prosecution of Chelsea Manning 
<http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2014/04/14/chelsea-mannings-new-lawyers-to-challenge-espionage-act-convictions-they-consider-frightening/>, 
have interpreted the Espionage Act to not to require proof that the 
person accused intended to commit espionage. If the person intended to 
blow the whistle on illegal activity and was acting in the public 
interest, as in the case of Snowden and the NSA, that would not be a 
defense.

It would not be relevant that former US intelligence officials had given 
Snowden an award for integrity 
<http://www.popularresistance.org/edward-snowden-given-sam-adams-award-for-integrity-in-intelligence/> in 
intelligence. The fact that a judge on the FISA surveillance court, 
David Saylor, acknowledged 
<http://www.popularresistance.org/fisa-judge-says-snowden-sparked-debate-on-spying/>“The 
unauthorized disclosure . . . have engendered considerable public 
interest and debate…” Even the Director of National Intelligence, James 
Clapper, acknowledged “I think it’s clear that some of the conversations 
this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen.” And, 
that the reporters who worked with Snowden to publish the documents won 
the top journalism award, the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service 
<http://www.popularresistance.org/pulitzer-publishing-nsa-leaks-was-a-public-service/>. 
All of this would not be relevant under the Espionage Act.

The jury would not be allowed to consider how the leaks were a public 
service, not espionage. Almost certainly, the judge in Snowden’s 
prosecution would not allow any arguments along those lines and exclude 
all such evidence. Unlike other criminal laws violation of the Espionage 
Act is a strict liability law — there is no defense for a whistleblower 
who has admitted they leaked the documents, i.e. the fact of the leak is 
espionage even if the intent was to serve the public interest by 
exposing crimes by the government. As a result, even though Snowden was 
not a spy committing espionage — in the traditional sense of the term as 
someone spying for a foreign enemy – the law could still be applied to him.

In addition, rather than due process 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause> allowing a legitimate 
defense as is required by the Constitution, his trial would rely on 
warped procedures that actually prevent the basics of a fair trial. It 
is very likely that Snowden would be denied bail and held in prison 
pending trial despite the constitution providing for a right to bail 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>, 
especially since he fled the nation and sought political asylum in a 
foreign country. Being incarcerated pending trial makes mounting a 
defense very difficult and would result in communication with the public 
and the media being impossible. Clinton has it backward, unlike his 
current situation, where Snowden can explain himself and the importance 
of documents being released, he would be silenced.

As in the Manning and other national security cases 
<http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/TS111114.pdf/$file/TS111114.pdf>, 
it is likely that much of the evidence in the trial will be classified 
as secret which will limit the number of people who can see it and 
result in the public and the media not being shown all of the evidence, 
despite the Constitution requiring a public trial 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>.  
As in the case of Chelsea Manning, large portions of the trial will be 
out of public view because the government will claim national security 
secrets will be breached if the trial were a completely public trial. 
This will keep the public uninformed of the real nature of the facts and 
in the dark when the inevitable conviction results. Pundits supporting 
the security state will say “well, you can’t criticize the verdict 
because you do not know what the judge and jury knew; you did not see 
all the evidence.”

Finally, the trial will be held in federal court in Alexandria, 
Virginia. This is where the grand jury has been based.  The jurisdiction 
of this court includes the Pentagon, Pentagon City, Crystal City and 
Rosslyn, areas concentrated with military, security and intelligence 
contractors as well as people working in the Pentagon and their 
relatives. The Alexandria federal court is known to be very much a 
pro-security state court in part because of the make-up of the jury 
pool. Is this the “impartial jury 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>” 
the Constitution envisions?  Thus, it will be impossible for Snowden to 
get a fair trial.

Why should Snowden submit to a judicial process that would so unfair and 
obviously unjust? Surely Clinton, a former lawyer, and Kerry are well 
aware that Snowden would be prosecuted in a phony Kangaroo court where 
the deck would be stacked against him and the process would be unfair, 
so their comments are false rhetoric, like Kerry calling on Snowden to 
“man-up,” comments designed to confuse the public. They know that what 
they are suggesting would result in Snowden facing an unfair prosecution 
with a pre-ordained conviction resulting in a lengthy sentence.

Should Edward Snowden submit to this mocking of legitimate trials, where 
there is no real due process or any opportunity to prove his innocence? 
That is what US security state trials have become. A sham of justice, 
something that Edward Snowden should never submit to.

/To support Edward Snowden’s defense please visit //The Courage 
Foundation/ <https://www.couragefound.org/>/, and //join in their 
campaign/ <https://www.couragefound.org/stand-with-snowden/>/by sending 
in a photo showing your support and //donating to his defense/ 
<https://www.couragefound.org/take-action/>/./

/Kevin Zeese is an advisory board member of the //Courage Foundation/ 
<https://www.couragefound.org/advisory-board/>/. He is an organizer with 
//Popular Resistance/ <http://www.popularresistance.org/>/, serves as 
the //Attorney General of the Green Shadow Cabinet/ 
<http://greenshadowcabinet.us/member-profile/7533>/and on the steering 
committee of the //Chelsea Manning Support Network/ 
<http://www.chelseamanning.org/>/. /

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20140709/5c06f8b3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Snowden-in-Wonderland-e1404843733672.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 78786 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20140709/5c06f8b3/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: google_logo_41.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2357 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20140709/5c06f8b3/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pf-button.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1848 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20140709/5c06f8b3/attachment-0001.gif>