Slashdot Mirror
USA Calling For the Extradition of Snowden
Taco Cowboy writes "Edward Snowden, the leaker who gave us the evidence of US government spying on its people is under threat of being extradited back to the U.S. to face prosecution. Some people in Congress, including Republican Peter King (R-NY), are calling for his extradition from Hong Kong to face trial. From the article: 'A spokesman for the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, said Snowden's case had been referred to the justice department and US intelligence was assessing the damage caused by the disclosures.
"Any person who has a security clearance knows that he or she has an obligation to protect classified information and abide by the law," the spokesman, Shawn Turner, said.'"
Seriously ... if there is anyone out there who is a lawyer, or is knowledgeable enough to take this on ... this is your issue. Start a fund. Start it now.
This is a textbook example of the government trying to apply "do as I say, not as I do." If they want us to respect the spirit and letter of the law, they first need to do the same.
And the masses cried out, "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!"
Like, say, the 4th amendment protecting against unlawful search and seizure? Bastards were caught with their hands in the cookie jar and are trying anything to deflect attention.
You can have him back after you impeach and convict your traitorous president and dismantle your illegal domestic espionage complex.
These BASTARDS talk about the law even as they wipe their asses with the Constitutions. If ANYONE should be black bagged, it's these SCUM.
>"Any person who has a security clearance knows that he or she has an obligation to protect classified information and abide by the law," the spokesman, Shawn Turner, said.'"
Does security clearance prevail on a breach of the constitution ?
Even Snowden knew this would happen. There's a reason he's gone public with his identity. Now he can't be killed or disappeared without everyone knowing exactly what's going on.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Isn't widespread domestic spying without a specific purpose and a warrant against the law?
This guys is brave for identifying himself and releasing this information, but I fear he's going to get absolutely destroyed in this process.
I fear governments have tipped over to the point where security and paranoia will completely obliterate any privacy and anonymity.
Of course, the biggest fear is that now that Microsoft, Google, and almost everyone else have rolled over to help the US do this spying, every other country is going to demand the same. I'm hard pressed to see how they could refuse given the precedent they've set.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Breaking confidentiality on top-secret stuff is no laughing matter. It's treason, a capital offense.
It's treason to tell the American people that their government is spying on them? I don't think so.
Mr Obama,
Can you please give me access to all your email and phone conversations? If you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
What does that have to do with anything? Maybe he is skilled enough to actual advance without having a degree. Other people doing it all the time.
It is more a question if he did the right thing or not by coming forward with this information to the people of America, so they actual know that their government is spying on them, not matter what their rights might be. Anyone with 2 cents should know the correct answer to that one.
Do you think there's a chance he received just a tiny bit more training at Booz Allen? Maybe a teenie tiny bit?
But more importantly, don't you see the irony that his "poor education" allowed him to know the difference between right and wrong where apparently you don't?
Extreme hypocrisy exhibited by:
He WAS abiding by the law by exposing illegal activities carried out by the government on an ongoing basis. How is what he did illegal or wrong, by any stretch of the imagination? A law instructing any citizen to not report any illegal activity is itself an illegal law.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I question the justification for most "top secret" government information. The track record of declassified information ever having been material that justified the classified status is pretty poor.
Usually the important things to classify are the details, not the existence of big programs. Walker was a traitor for giving codes to the USSR, but it was hardly a secret that we encrypted naval communications. Similarly the existence of almost all US weapons systems, and their basic construction and approximate capabilities, are public knowledge. The Pentagon talks about them in press releases! What's secret is their exact capabilities and the details of their construction. When the government attempts to keep the existence of big programs like this secret, it's usually to keep it from the public, not the bad guys. If we're dealing with terrorists who don't realize that their electronic communications may be monitored, then we have nothing to worry about.
And exactly what good is impeaching Obama going to do? You believe that Biden is secretly against these things and is the white knight that is going to come to our rescue? Or have you not actually thought that far ahead? Wait, let's say we impeach everyone till a republican gets back into office. Do you not remember who it was that signed the patriot act in the first place? I agree change needs to happen, however before rallying a cry for change, let's make sure the change will actually have a meaningful impact and give us the results we want.
I fixed your typo.
I do not think you realize just how serious of a matter this is. This is exactly the sort of thing the US government criticizes other nations for. The People, as in the Citizens of The United States of America should not put up with this. If we take the future of our nation seriously we need to start no confidence recall elections where state constitutions allow it, demand the immediate impeachment and conviction or resignation of Barack Obama, and vote out the rest of the trash where state constitutions do not provide for recall elections.
This is a very serious issue and I for one am grateful that we have brave people like Snowden in the NSA who are unwilling to violate the Constitution and are willing to put their own lives at stake to report it to the people via the most public means possible.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Am I the only one with their jaw on the ground that the NSA and CIA are hiring contractors as full time employees in top secret positions with access to everything, instead of doing actual short term janitorial type of work that contractors are supposed to be used for? If they need a printer installs, sure, use the contractor. Need to have a recorded wire tap scanned and sent over to secret building #2, use a contractor? REALLY??
Not just Obama - ALL of both houses of Congress. The entire federal government is rotten to the core. Plenty of senators knew about PRISM and other domsetic spying programs and they did nothing to stop it. In fact they are the ones who had to authorize funding for these programs. When they are ousted from office, revoke all privileges associated with the office, including pensions, health care, security details, aides, security clearance, and whatever fringe benefits they normally enjoy. In fact I would go so far as to recall any salaries they have collected to date because they held office in bad faith.
Kick out ALL incumbents and actually vote in statesmen who recognize that the making of a great leader is one who wants to serve the people; not a person with an entitlement attitude.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
You have to man up, impeach Obama, and judge him and all his cronies for crimes against humanity.
It's a dog and pony show. Clinton was impeached... for lying about an affair.
Bush wasn't impeached, for warrantless wiretapping, torture, and war crimes (civilian deaths in an unjust war).
There is no way Obama is getting impeached given the legal framework Bush helped build.
If you really want to "do something", besides jerk off with both hands by bloviating online, donate to the EFF or ACLU, where actual attorneys can file the right kinds of lawsuits. Yes that means petitioning your own "corrupt government". Some people realize that the government isn't a hive mind, and there are checks/balances to be applied (granted they may be rusty).
So if you were witnessing illegal behaviour in the DoD, you're saying you shouldn't report it or whistleblow?
Dude. That is just so wrong.
no taxation without representation!
There is something ironic about needing to have a registered account at whitehouse.gov and using it to publicly sign a petition claiming the whitehouse should pardon a guy who disclosed tracking / spying ability for anyone the gov't doesn't like. It seems like you'd end up on that "list" right after signing, right?
Come play Moral Decay!
This is what you've been keeping your beloved guns for. Use them.
No, it really isn't. The guns aren't useful for that. We could use the guns to assassinate him, but he would simply be replaced by someone even worse as the nation entered a state of hysteria, so that would be a very bad idea even if there were no other repercussions, which there certainly would be.
The guns are only useful for revolution if most of us are on the same page. But the political problem with our nation is very much our artificial polarization.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Unfortunately, trading the set of seasoned, competent crooks for naïve, incompetent crooks just opens the floodgates for the very experienced lobbying and bribing industries to fully ensnare them at a tender age.
I still like a three-strikes constitutional amendment for federal politicians: if you vote to pass (or sign into law) three bills that are later overturned by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional, you were incompetent and/or corrupt, you enabled the theft of rights from the citizenry, and you get a 15 year prison sentence - no statute of limitations, just a 3:30 AM ninja raid and you go to prison. There should be consequences for stealing our rights through the misuse of the force of law.
John
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Unless we are the enemy, I don't see how this definition fits what this guy did. I don't have all of the details, so I hesitate to comment on whether this guys is a hero or a scoundrel, but on its face, without the facts. I do not see how this man has even broken the law. If he had to take the oath all federal employees take:
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) thatI will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Then he has lived up to his oath. If he did not take that oath, then everyone else in the room presumably did. I am sure he signed a contract that lays out the details of his clearance. But no contract is superior to The Constitution. The Constitution is our contract with our government. If they fail to live up to their end of the contract we vote them out.
I saw a comment earlier in this post or another that basically said, "I don't understand why Americans aren't marching in the street over this." The answer is simple. While we do not always have faith in our government, we do have faith in our Constitution. We understand that no matter what the issue is, we have the power to fix it. We have the government we have chosen and therefore the one we deserve. We understand that every congress critter, president, judge and federal employee has the obligation to determine, independently, what is proper under the constitution. We understand in the end, if we really want the government to change what they are doing, all we have to do is vote.
Here is a hint: Stop voting for republicans and democrats, at least for congress. The collusion that happens between politicians to forward the goals of the party (which is only to get an elected majority) is causing a large percentage of the problems we are seeing today.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels.
Security supposedly means protecting our freedom. If so, they are one and the same, and there can't even theoretically be a tradeoff.
Not to mention that the entire point of the leak was that the government is deliberately spying on non-terrorists.
Snowden claims that one of the specific reasons why he chose to act is because the NSA was deliberately lying to congress. If that isn't a crime, it should be. IMO it should be considered treason, but the very least I think it is a clear-cut case of perjury.
Of course, the government will punish the real guilty parties here to the same extent that they punished the criminal activities Manning revealed...
I question the justification for most "top secret" government information. The track record of declassified information ever having been material that justified the classified status is pretty poor.
You should look up the case United States v. Reynolds. It is the case that established the state secret doctrine that allows the government to keep information out of court cases on national security grounds. It turns out that in this seminal case, the government used the threat of damage to national security to hide negligence. So yeah, I question whether a lot of classified material really needs to be classified, and whether it's being done for honest reasons.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Snowden publicized Top Secret information on U. S. Government surveillance of all Americans in their use of email, cell phones, and internet searches. The NSA is allegedly performing this surveillance under the auspices of the Bush-era 'Patriot Act' which was enacted as a means to locate and monitor terrorists. Prior to the PA, the government had to go to court and obtain wiretap authorization for specific individuals for a specific purpose and for a limited amount of time. Before the PA, the U.S government certainly could have prevented a lot of domestic criminal and terrorist activity if it had been allowed to continuously monitor all landline communications. That type of monitoring and surveillance was infamous and routine in the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea, East Germany, and many other totalitarian governments but we Americans were sheltered by our constitution. Of course, the first landline networks didn't appear until the dawn of the 20th century. The 19th century had widespread telegraph networks that the government could have routinely monitored which would have certainly prevented criminal and terrorist activity. The point here is that it is not the technology that has changed, nor the constitution, but our willingness within ourselves to accept 24/7 surveillance by our government to make us safer. We are willingly giving up our constitutional right to privacy to be safe. Of course, there has never been an actual vote on this but our public acceptance of the unfortunate fate that will befall the courageous Mr. Snowden is reflective of what the outcome of such a vote might be.
"Any person who has a security clearance knows that he or she has an obligation to protect classified information and abide by the law,"
I would say the latter part trumps the former and a pretty good case could be made that spying on US citizens is illegal unless you change the constitution.
Mind the frickin' laser...
Re: he had clearance, and orders, and trusted access... the U.S. itself insisted in 1945, rightly so, that individuals must listen to their conscience, regardless of their official obligations.
A lot of comments are about the morality of releasing the documents (constitution vs. obeying orders) seem to be missing the larger point. In Snowden's own words from his interview with the Guardian, the American people need to decide if this federal data collection problem is right or wrong. From all appearances, both major parties (Democrat and Republican) are firmly in the grip of the industrial-security complex. How can we change this? How can we make the government respect the will of the majority of its citizens with regards to individual privacy rights and due process? President Obama said that "he welcomes the debate". Would he have welcomed the debate last week? How can we have an honest public debate when anyone who provides documents is immediately threatened with life in the slammer?
As long as both parties tow the same common line on security issues, I hope that there will be more and more Snowdens and Mannings, because for a lot of these people, there is no other recourse than to go the press and hope that public opinion comes down on their side. If these programs really do save lives, the government needs to finally come clean and stop just saying "just trust us." I wish Snowden good luck and hope that he finds asylum somewhere safe, and I hope that if someday sanity returns to the federal government, he can come home without being threatened.
What in the world do you mean? Do you think it is fine that the government was secretly monitoring everyone's phone records?
Not at all. I merely mean that we do not have all the facts yet. On the surface it looks pretty damning of the government but I'd be shocked if we know the whole picture at this point.
What additional facts do you expect? No one is disputing the veracity of the document he leaked, and not only has the government not denied that the domestic surveillance is going on, but that we should all just accept it because it's been going on for years.
What possible facts could come out to make this seem better? We all know that they claim to be doing it under the guise of anti-terrorism, but many people aren't willing to give up privacy and allow all of their electronic audit trails to be cataloged by the government in return for some small reduction in terrorism. And I really think that blanket surveillance is going to have only a modest effect against terrorism since there are many ways for a terorrist cell to communicate without arousing suspicion.