A number of people think Snowden would not have received a fair trial in federal court

[Cali_Democrat]

If that's the case, then that's an indication that our justice system is broken.

Perhaps Obama was right when he decided against prosecuting Bush and Cheney. It would look rather odd for a sitting president to prosecute a previous president for the first time in history using a broken justice system.

[msongs]

1. a president will not prosecute predecessors for things he/she is doing her/himself. nt

[Whisp]

3. Obama = Bush

or worse!!

[geek tragedy]

7. what war did Obama lie us into? nt

[bowens43]

2. There is no 'justice' system.

[Tarheel_Dem]

4. I see what you did there!

[hlthe2b]

5. I'm not sure that's the case. I think a lot of people (regardless of how they feel about Snowden)...

see how horribly Manning was treated in the considerable time leading up to trial. There is widespread concern about our government's policy of declaring an American an enemy combatant and thereby justifying fatal drone attacks overseas--sans trial. A lot of us are very concerned about those who appear to be innocent, but may never be released in Gitmo. These are but a few of the many examples of problems with our "rule of law" and how it is carried out.

So, yes, there are problems that justify the concern many have--regardless of how they feel about Snowden.

[gcomeau]

6. Yeah, being familiar with the general sentiment displayed on the issue around here...

...I can't help but read the OP title as "A number of people think Snowden would be convicted at trial seeing as the evidence is overwhelming.... and... umm... NO FAIR!"

[geek tragedy]

8. the real issue is that he's undoubtedly guilty under the law as it's written

there's a credible argument that the law is an ass in this regard, and that what he did shouldn't be illegal, but on the law there's no credible argument that his conduct was legal

[treestar]

9. true, the justice system is "broken" or not depending on convenience

good catch

[gratuitous]

10. Snowden would absolutely receive a fair trial

But what would he be tried for? Ah, that's the question! Notwithstanding Secretary Kerry's fatuous statement about Snowden coming back to the United States to "make his case," the trial of Edward Snowden would take several years in the making. During that time, the Attorney General would very carefully bring charges designed to do anything but allow Snowden to "make his case." A criminal trial, unlike a civil trial, isn't an adversarial proceeding where both sides get to put on the evidence they have or to make the case they want to make. In a criminal trial, the prosecution decides what charges it will bring, and if a charge begins sailing too close to an inconvenient place, they simply drop the charge. The government doesn't have to answer any charges, only the defendant.

A recent example is Cecily McMillan, convicted and sentenced to jail for elbowing a cop during an Occupy protest. Evidence of the cop's misconduct was carefully excluded from the trial, and the prosecution focused solely on McMillan's resistance to the cop. McMillan's motivation for being at the demonstration, the crimes and sins that inspired her protest, and the actions of the cop leading up to his getting elbowed - none of that got into evidence or was presented for the jury's consideration. Just the assault on the police officer.

I called Kerry's statement fatuous, and that's because he's as aware of what I've laid out here as anyone. His statement was very disappointing for anyone who cares about the rule of law in this country, and sadly the numbers of that tribe seem to dwindle daily.