DOUGLAS HAGMANN of the Northeast Intelligence Network writes on the Snowden case:

Amid all of the drama that exists pertaining to where Edward Snowden will likely end up, there is a simple, viable solution that would benefit all involved that no one seems to be talking about – perhaps for good reason. As it stands today, should Snowden return to the United States, he would not be permitted the same rights as any other citizen under the U.S. Constitution to have an open and fair trial or answer the charges against him based on the “contract” he signed for his clearance. In reality, he could and likely would be tossed in prison indefinitely, denied access to legal counsel, and denied all of the normal and customary rights granted to American citizens accused of a crime. He would have less [sic] rights than murders [sic]and most terrorists, and the proceedings against him could, and likely wood [sic] take place well outside of the purview of American citizens.

All of this could be avoided while still forcing him to answer the charges against him. With the stroke of a pen, the President could simply sign an order that would allow Mr. Snowden to return to the United States and be subjected to be tried in the American criminal justice system, in open court, in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United States that would afford him the normal judicial and constitutional protections as an American citizen.

Knowing this, perhaps the appropriate question that one that no one is asking, is what is this administration afraid of by allowing this case to proceed in this manner? Are the risks of multiple international incidents more palatable or easily manageable than a system of transparent judicial process? If so, something is terribly wrong.

— Comments —

James P. writes:

I am not sure why we should think Snowden “would be tossed in prison indefinitely, denied access to legal counsel, and denied all of the normal and customary rights granted to American citizens accused of a crime.” The President does not have to sign an Executive Order that would allow Snowden to be tried in open court with the normal judicial and constitutional protections — we do that all the time in espionage cases. We have tried and convicted many people for spying for Russia, China, Cuba, and other countries. I am not aware of any American citizen who has vanished into a black hole and been denied his rights.

What prevents Snowden from returning to the United States is not fear that he would vanish unconstitutionally, but the certainty that he would be convicted constitutionally and spend life in prison like many other properly convicted spies.

Buck writes:

I haven’t read past the Snowden headlines. I can’t get into it. Mr. Hagmann could be correct in his conclusion – that U.S. citizens, as citizens, lost a lot of privacy, but little or nothing in national security. I don’t know. He claims that Edward Snowden revealed “nothing…that any potential enemy of the U.S. did not already know” but that “Snowden made a conscious decision to expose a massive, draconian system of spying on American citizens.”

Mr. Hagmann seems a tad authority-inflated. His “investigative process” is the mystery to me. He writes as if he knows more than just about anyone else, but he reveals nothing. “I found that there is a lot of misinformation and outright disinformation that exists about his actions.” Yet, he provides no information, no examples, no sources, no particulars at all.

Maybe it’s his writing style, his irregular syntax, but something doesn’t sound right.

Mr. Hagmann writes: “At the time Edward Snowden received his security clearance, he signed away certain constitutional rights in exchange for his loyalty to the government, and to operate at the mercy and direction of the office of the President or his designate.” That sounds like Snowden (the hero) made a voluntary pact with the devil, going in. When you enlist or are commissioned in the U.S. military you “sign away certain constitutional rights”, but not “in exchange” for your loyalty. You do it because of your loyalty. These “rights’ are the obvious and trivial freedoms, for the time being; association, speech, movement, etc., nothing that diminishes citizenship. Snowden, I speculate, should have resigned like a commissioned officer, if it came down to his patriotism. Obviously he didn’t. That means that he willingly took on a higher level of responsibility and culpability when he acted outside of any oath, security clearance or regime of rights and loyalties. Is Snowden a true patriot? Who knows. I have no idea.

But, whether or not any of Hagmann’s speculations are correct, his “solution” seems ludicrous. Why would anyone involved, especially Snowden and Obama, other than a total anarchist, want Snowden examined and cross-examined in a U.S. federal courtroom? Kunstler, Ramsey Clark? I can’t imagine how a Snowden courtroom “drama” playing out on cable news for weeks, could be a good thing for this dysfunctional, slowly debilitating country.

Lydia Sherman writes:

Why does he need a trial at all?

Mrs. Sherman sends this recent statement from Snowden in Moscow:

One week ago I left Hong Kong after it became clear that my freedom and safety were under threat for revealing the truth. My continued liberty has been owed to the efforts of friends new and old, family, and others who I have never met and probably never will. I trusted them with my life and they returned that trust with a faith in me for which I will always be thankful.

On Thursday, President Obama declared before the world that he would not permit any diplomatic “wheeling and dealing” over my case. Yet now it is being reported that after promising not to do so, the President ordered his Vice President to pressure the leaders of nations from which I have requested protection to deny my asylum petitions.

This kind of deception from a world leader is not justice, and neither is the extralegal penalty of exile. These are the old, bad tools of political aggression. Their purpose is to frighten, not me, but those who would come after me.

For decades the United States of America has been one of the strongest defenders of the human right to seek asylum. Sadly, this right, laid out and voted for by the U.S. in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is now being rejected by the current government of my country. The Obama administration has now adopted the strategy of using citizenship as a weapon. Although I am convicted of nothing, it has unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me a stateless person. Without any judicial order, the administration now seeks to stop me exercising a basic right. A right that belongs to everybody. The right to seek asylum.

In the end the Obama administration is not afraid of whistleblowers like me, Bradley Manning or Thomas Drake. We are stateless, imprisoned, or powerless. No, the Obama administration is afraid of you. It is afraid of an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised – and it should be.

I am unbowed in my convictions and impressed at the efforts taken by so many.

~ Edward Joseph Snowden

Don Moir writes:

The Hagmann passage you quote says:

“…and be subjected to be tried in the American criminal justice system, in open court, in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United States that would afford him the normal judicial and constitutional protections as an American citizen.”

That’s a statement made through rose-colored eyewear.

Here’s one case, for example, which I’m aware because of the tie to Canada. My guess is there are plenty of other examples. Steven Skurka’s book gives more detail. Even if a person can’t stand Conrad Black.

James P. writes:

Lydia Sherman asks why Snowden needs a trial at all.

It is clearly explained to everyone who holds a security clearance that it is against the law to divulge classified information. There are regular refresher briefings, at which attendance is required, that emphasize this point. Snowden knew he was breaking the law, and knows he will be prosecuted if he returns.

Please follow and like us: