It's pretty shitty to throw the term "tinfoil hat" in an argument, especially so when discussing Snowden. It's also pretty silly to make the assumption that there hasn't been some sort of secret equivalent of conviction given everything we've learned about how opaque our government is.
You're simply wrong. FISA courts exist because Congress created them and gave them jurisdiction. There is no such thing as a secret conviction under US law. There is no such thing as a secret criminal trial, where the accused has no opportunity to defend themselves, under US law. Does not exist period.
Just like there's no such thing as domestic mass surveillance under US law? And who said he was tried in our criminal court system? If it's a matter of "national security" all due process flies out the window.
My point is there is literally no way for you to know and claiming people are wrong and dismissing them with "tin foil" arguments is shitty.
Just because you don't understand why it's not possible, doesn't mean that it is. A US citizen cannot be imprisoned without due process or being found in contempt of court (and in that case, only until the moment they comply with the court order). This is a basic premise of shelves upon shelves worth of Supreme Court decisions, and is guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
Even without those amendments, what you suggest is not possible because Congress has passed no law establishing a body with the authority to imprison people in such a matter. And even then, only "Article III tribunals" (i.e. federal courts) have the authority to deprive civilians of liberty under federal law. "Article I tribunals" only have limited authority to decide civil matters, and to hear court-martials of servicemen.
You're also making totally false claims like:
>If it's a matter of "national security" all due process flies out the window.
There are multiple recent Supreme Court decisions directly contradicting that. For example, and very relevant to this exact discussion, the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Further, given that Snowden is not a combatant in any armed forces or insurgent group, he is not subject to any military jurisdiction. He can only be tried in US federal courts.
Where was the due process for Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a 16 year old American who was killed by a drone strike without any evidence of being involved as a combatant or part of an insurgent group? As far as I can tell, there was never any official comment by any government official about this despite countless inquiries. Never any accountability.
Hence my argument, due process is less relevant than ever these days. It is not at all out of the question for Snowden to be considered an enemy combatant, especially since we apply that same logic to any adult male in the vicinity of a drone target.
