Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Knight to queen's bishop 3 - Snowden charged with espionage.
Renegade:
From the article:
One source of concern is the jury. Snowden says his leaks revealed an unconstitutional and undemocratic system of surveillance. Polls suggest that many Americans agree. Even if the judge instructs the jury to set aside its views on the rightness or wrongness of Snowden’s acts, there is no guarantee it will. Jurors might be tempted to acquit Snowden, not because they believe he is factually innocent but because they believe he was morally justified.
It has happened before—in England. In 1985, Clive Ponting looked destined for prison after leaking Ministry of Defence documents that called into question the official story of the Falklands War. Ponting fessed up to being the source. The jury voted to acquit him nevertheless, and in so doing helped catalyze a movement to liberalize the laws against unauthorized disclosures.
--- End quote ---
For a judge to instruct a jury like that is deceptive and criminal. Well, most judges regularly engage in criminal activity (fraud), but that's another story...
The formal phrase for that is "jury nullification". It's a well established part of common law. However, judges never instruct juries properly so it is rarely used - juries are rarely aware of their right to nullify. (The general concept is called "nullification" and in the US also extends to individual states to nullify any federal law - i.e. the 10th amendment.)
In short, any jury can find any defendant not guilty completely in contravention to whatever the law is. i.e. ALL juries can vote with their conscience. They are under ZERO obligation to listen to the judge's instructions.
So, if you are called to be a juror for let's say a marijuana possession charge, you can find the defendant not guilty irrespective of whatever the law is. (This applies to jurisdictions that are based on common law, and not something like Napoleonic law, etc. So, it includes Canada, the UK, Ireland, Australia, etc.)
If Snowden were brought to trial, and the jury were informed about their RIGHT to nullify, does anyone thing they'd convict him?
Well, if the prosecution used its infinite number of juror dismissal tickets to get the exact right jury to convict, then probably they would. Barring that gross abuse of power though, would a normal jury convict if they were informed of their right to nullify? I doubt it.
dr_andus:
What Happens When We Actually Catch Edward Snowden?
the denouement to this drama may be unpleasant not just for Snowden, but for his captors as well...
--- End quote ---
-40hz (July 17, 2013, 08:10 AM)
--- End quote ---
As I suggested earlier in the thread, it does not actually look like the US really wants to catch him and bring him back onto US soil, for the reasons now described in this article as well. So the tug-of-war with Russia over Snowden might be just a charade, to make it look like they're after him, while in the meantime increasing his chances of getting asylum elsewhere and keeping him away.
I wouldn't be surprised if they've actually explicitly agreed to play this game with Russia, judging from Putin's jovial statements on the matter in public. Putin gets a bit of domestic political capital out of it, while the US comes out looking stern but achieving its objective of not apprehending Snowden.
Renegade:
Full article may be found here.
-40hz (July 17, 2013, 08:10 AM)
--- End quote ---
Sigh... Might as well...
The kind of utter nonsense in most articles like that is simply astounding. Here's a very brief quote and brief rip/rant...
Conspiracy theories and Big Brother fears always swirl at the margins of respectable opinion, threatening to go mainstream.
--- End quote ---
"Conspiracy theory" is a CIA psyop designed to marginalize anyone that does any homework. It has been extraordinarily effective. (You can search to verify that.)
So, we can effectively rewrite that quote as:
"The opinions of people that read and do their homework" always swirl at the margins of respectable opinion, threatening to go mainstream.
--- End quote ---
Shortening that somewhat...
"Informed people" always swirl at the margins of respectable opinion, threatening to go mainstream.
--- End quote ---
Do I need to elaborate? Probably a bit. (I'll keep it short.)
The author simply sickens me with his "at the margins of **respectable** opinion" silliness. He's attempting to sway opinion through some pretty low tactics. (I'll skip the argumentation theory/logic here as it's boring for most people.)
Search for some of these "conspiracy theories":
* MK Ultra
* Northwoods
* Gulf of Tonkin
* etc. etc. etc.
* Click here for an "offensive" "conspiracy theory" (Don't shoot the messenger!)
Ooops. They're all true and on record.
Why must unpleasant truth be such heresy?
Find out what questions you're not allowed to ask, and you're on the right trail.
40hz:
^There's also something to be said for a "reality check."
The big problem with conspiracy theories in general is that they can (and are) used to explain any and everything through attributions of unproven causality.
;) 8)
@Ren - did you actually read the entire article? Because I'm amazed the main thing you seem to have taken away from it was what you saw as a diss on conspiracy theories. That's awesome! ;D
tomos:
Do I need to elaborate? Probably a bit. (I'll keep it short.)
-Renegade (July 17, 2013, 10:57 AM)
--- End quote ---
lol no you dont ;D -
actually you've made a good and valid point - and one that I agree with.
But:
although the article is written from a conservative perspective, I dont think that affects the validity of it's content.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version