> We already get a trial that is as fair as humanly possible so asking for a "fair" trial is ridiculous. Is every other trial unfair?
No, but every other trail is not conducted under the restrictions of the espionage act, as has already been explained in this thread. What Snowden is asking for is what most of us can expect should we find ourselves on trial.
Look at what "they" did to Manning. (And to be clear, in the case of Manning, they were rightfully jailed, IMHO). But, their treatment after the trial was brutal [1].
Snowden himself thought being Gitmo'd was a real possibility [2]
At the time when this happened, there were loud, vocal calls for violence against Snowden by people in powerful positions [3][6]
Snowden has said: "I would like to return to the United States. That is the ultimate goal. But if I'm gonna spend the rest of my life in prison, the one bottom line demand that we have to agree to is that at least I get a fair trial. And that is the one thing the government has refused to guarantee because they won't provide access to what's called a public interest defense," Snowden told "CBS This Morning."
The Government has refused a simple guarantee, meaning they have no interest in a fair trial. Had the Government offered a guarantee, and Snowden refused, you may have a point, but as things are now, no.
The Council of Europe believed strongly enough that Snowden would not get a fair trial [5]
But did they break laws or is your imagination running wild with hypothetical scenarios? You can't use some imagined alternate timeline/scenario as supporting evidence for your claim.
It is a matter of public record that the USGov has (a) assassinated American citizens abroad and (b) used "extraordinary rendition" hundreds if not thousands of times to lock people up on black sites for torture or worse with absolutely zero due process.
