The law is a service, not a system. Or at least that is the position that someone making the argument you're responding to probably holds.

No one cares what the law says. Decide whether what he did was good and if so it wasn't a crime. If the law says it was then do what it takes to avoid injustice.

Same goes for your analogy.

Agreed--there needs to be some sort of decision making process (or "trial") to objectively determine whether what somebody did was OK or not.

Good -- I agree with that as well :)

Which means I think we're in agreement that whether fleeing is appropriate depends on the probability of fair trial.

Not really. :-) A society needs an objective process ("trial") to determine whether someone's acts were good or bad. It also needs need an objective process to determine whether that trial will be fair. That process, which must be independent from political pressures, rests with a judge in the United States and/or an appellate court.

One can't excuse flight by waving one's hands claiming "unfair process", without subjecting that process to objective scrutiny (via a judge and appellate court). In Snowden's case the process hasn't even begun yet. If that's all it took, every criminal in the would use it to successfully flee their respective countries.

Nor does the determination of "unfair process" rest with a banana republic which hates the United States (as in the case of an asylum request), or with wannabe superpowers with axes to grind.

So... what you've said is that it depends on whether or not you can get a fair trial, only you've assumed that it is. All I've said is that that isn't necessarily the case.

If you (a "criminal") determine that there might not be a chance that you'll be treated fairly I have 0 problem with you running.