Re:Spy or whistleblower? Should Obama settle with Snowden?
by snowwrestler on Saturday July 16, 2016 @10:06PM
(#12108727)
Snowden himself has stated that he knowingly and intentionally violated the law.
What he wants is an opportunity to present a whistleblower or "public interest" defense. These are affirmative defenses--you admit you committed the crime, but that you had a really good reason for doing so, which should excuse you from punishment. "Self-defense" is a well-known affirmative defense against prosecution for a violent crime.
Re:Spy or whistleblower? Should Obama settle with Snowden?
by tootie on Saturday July 16, 2016 @10:54PM
(#12108836)
You're confusing the colloquial and legal definitions. Snowden knowingly and proactively committed an illegal act. Even if he thought he was morally justified, his action was deliberate and intentional. Hillary committed an act of negligence. From a legal standpoint, she had no criminal intent and Snowden absolutely did.
Snowden didn't have criminal intentions either, but many people want to prosecute him to the fullest anyway. But I also believe that Hillary's lack of charges is absolutely politically motivated. Some people are more equal than others.