SO you just simply don't believe that kangaroo courts exist... how naive. What do you think of mandatory minimums, documented and proven IRS targeting, gitmo/wmds in Iraq, the prosecution of Aaron Swartz, or the fact that not a single person has stood trial for what Snowden exposed? How about we start there.
Anyways, 'omg that would never happen' to 'omg so long ago, hurrdurr' - you're not arguing in good faith. later.
I believe courts can make mistakes and are not perfect but to preemptively say Snowden would have been given a kangaroo court when he hasn't even been to court is a leap of faith. I can't argue the legitimacy of a trial before it's happened.
So where are the arrests and subpoenas for the crimes he exposed? Certainly, if the courts are as unbiased as you claim, that would have happened at some point in the last 10 years... right?
blatant violations of the Fourth Amendment amongst other things. You are being purposefully obtuse. Really sad I wasted my time on you but at least other people can see that there is no depth, honesty, or consistency to the perspective you've put forth.
Was it a Fourth Amendment violation or was it a crime? A court has ruled that they did violate the Fourth Amendment but that doesn't necessarily make it criminal is my point. Who would you charge with a crime and what would the punishment be?
Sure, perhaps he should be. He hasn't been, nor has he been convicted, so it's tough to say what the outcome would be. Have you considered that maybe he hasn't been because there is no case to build?
Devil's advocate: I'd be nervous answering those questions publicly when they are close to undoubtedly classified topics. Were there also closed door hearings?
There is precedent of just responding that you can't discuss that. Not committing perjury. Its plain as day and you are stretching remarkably far to excuse blatantly illegal and immoral behavior.
Anyways, 'omg that would never happen' to 'omg so long ago, hurrdurr' - you're not arguing in good faith. later.