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.'"

Comments

Someone start a defense fund

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Someone start a defense fund

[stanIyb]

And if it turns out that he just blew what might have prevented several 9/11 level attacks?

Freedom is more important than security, drone.

Re:Someone start a defense fund

[h4rr4r]

I think unconstitutional spying is far more betraying democracy than releasing some information. Democracy without an informed populace cannot work.

I was not comparing the relative moralities only the headcount. Terrorism is simply too rare to dedicate so much resources too. It would be like the government spending billions to protect the populace from lightning.

Re:Someone start a defense fund

[Anonymous Coward]

And if it turns out that he just blew what might have prevented several 9/11 level attacks? We're talking about saving lives here. He should be prosecuted, no doubt.

When you let your wildest fears direct your policy, you can justify almost anything.

Re:Someone start a defense fund

[harlequinn]

Not to someone who's already brainwashed into believing that giving up essential liberties for the illusion of safety is a good thing.

Re:Someone start a defense fund

[popo]

The Nuremburg trials are the defacto case setting the record *very* clear that humans have a moral obligation to defy the rules when the rules violate natural or moral rights. Privacy has *long* been established as a natural right and is codified in the highest legal document in the nation. Ergo, the responsibility was on Mr. Snowden to come forth with the information.

That the government is appalled, mortified and furious is clear. But what is even more clear is that there was a horrific abuse of power taking place and a voice of moral conscience stepped forward at great personal risk to protect you, me and all of us.

This is a hero. He deserves the protection of the public at large. And those within the government who have neglected their responsibilities, abandoned the cause of freedom and violated our constitutional and natural rights deserve prosecution to the full extent of the law.

What is just as disheartening as the government's efforts to extradite Snowden, is the total lack of silence in terms of desire to prosecute the actual wrongdoers.

Who were they? What were their names? How high did the chain of command go? When will there be a trial? How many dozens of people (or hundreds?) will be serving 20 year sentences? THESE are the questions that need to be answered. Not whether Mr. Snowden has violated the requirements of his day job.

Serious crimes have been committed. Snowden wasn't part of them.

Re:Someone start a defense fund

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

And if it turns out that he just blew what might have prevented several 9/11 level attacks?
We're talking about saving lives here. He should be prosecuted, no doubt.

Do tell me, because I'd like to hear an actual argument to this effect, how his revelations threaten much of anything, except the wounded self-importance of the people behind the program...

It is customary to keep the existence of a specific wiretap a secret for a period of time, until the evidence has been gathered and is ready for use. The logic here is obvious: If wiretap orders were public, John Smith could just check the daily wiretaps RSS feed and determine whether he is being listened to, thus destroying the value of the wiretap.

For extraordinarily broad, no-end-in-sight, wiretaps, though, essentially no useful information is provided to any suspect by the revelation of the program. If all I know is that the NSA demands every phone metadata record in the US and has swift, privileged, access to the who's who of internet companies, that tells me absolutely nothing of use. All the paranoids and skeptics already strongly suspected that this was the case, so this merely provides proof in writing of what any sensible perp would have already assumed, and the scope of the programs is so vast that it is impossible to infer anything about your specific case that would make it easier to hide.

Obviously, the program was secret because its operators didn't want any inconvenient 'questions' or 'displeasure'; but that isn't a good reason, just an attractive one.

Had he leaked "The NSA knows Muhammad Ibn Al-Jihad's 4 phone-numbers-he-thinks-are-secret and is recording all of them", that'd be the sort of leak that would be obviously damaging and irresponsible. "The NSA tracks all calls routed through US telcos", though, tells nobody anything specific to them. Plus, the program is supposedly all-totally-legal-and-on-the-up-and-up-and-whatnot, so being exposed shouldn't even threaten its continuation(unlike the previous illegal wiretapping program that we threw some after-the-fact legality on when it was revealed).

So, please, let's hear an argument about why revealing this program is harmful. I'd be interested to hear a good one; because so far I haven't even heard bad ones.

Re:Someone start a defense fund

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Isn't it obvious? There is nothing more destructive to democracy than allowing the electorate to know what they are voting for! How can you possibly get things done with a bunch of 'constituents' whining about what is being done in their name?

Re:Someone start a defense fund

[MightyYar]

So in other words, he's right but our system will prosecute him anyway.

Isn't that the definition of a corrupted system? We should change our system and demand a pardon.

Re:Someone start a defense fund

[msauve]

Rep. Peter King should be impeached and prosecuted for violation of his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, a high crime.

I might go so far as to claim that he has even adhered to it's enemies (those who seek to undermine the Constitution), giving them aid and comfort, and should therefore be tried for treason.

Re:Someone start a defense fund

[tukang]

Unlike Bradley Manning who just dumped all the info he had access to, Snowden only released documents that showed how the gov't was infringing on people's rights. Snowden had access to "the roster of all agents and operating stations". I wish people would stop comparing him to Manning.

Re:Someone start a defense fund

[MightyMartian]

That a government may want something kept secret hardly means that it is wrong to reveal the secret. Yes, it will be a crime, but the debate here is not whether he committed a crime ore not, but whether what he did was right or not.

Re:Someone start a defense fund

[NatasRevol]

The whole program that he exposed was essentially search without warrants on every damn US citizen.

That's the fucking crime.

Or can you really not see that?

Re:Someone start a defense fund

[NatasRevol]

I don't have a problem with the government gathering this data to fight terrorism.

Every US citizen is not involved in terrorism.

Why would you not have a problem with the US spying without warrants on every US citizen with a phone?

Re:Someone start a defense fund

[MightyYar]

Certainly he is not in a position to definitively say if any given intel classified as "top secret" is information that, if made public, will not harm the safety (and ultimately freedom) of US citizens or their allies.

That's a valid argument in Bradley Manning's case, where he disclosed so many documents that he couldn't possibly have even read them all. I don't see that here. He released two documents which he understood very well, and which were simply secret court orders giving broad surveillance authority to the government.

We don't know enough facts about his situation

I'm not sure what you are referring to - the government has confessed to collecting broad swaths of data about all of us. Broad, constant surveillance at this scale should have every single American completely horrified. It is indeed the foundation of a surveillance state.

This guy broke the law, there's no question about it. Sometimes the law is wrong. This is one of those cases.

Re:Someone start a defense fund

[magic maverick]

Manning didn't just dump everything. He handed it over to professionals (Wikileaks and the newspapers) who worked to redact and pick out what to publish. The pros even offered to work with the US govt. to redact stuff that might have threatened people's safety, they said no.

The fact that at a later stage, through incompetence on the part of some of the pros, the whole lot got out, isn't the fault of Manning.

Also, I wish Snowden had published everything he could get his hands on. Fuck the secret government.

Re:Someone start a defense fund

[Nadaka]

You got that backwards bucko.

You are accepting whatever the government tells you.

I am standing up for a Hero was forced into a position where he had to chose between upholding the constitution (the first part of his oath) or following orders (another part of his oath). If he didn't blow the whistle, he would still be violating his oath.

Re:Someone start a defense fund

[bill_mcgonigle]

Why would you not have a problem with the US spying without warrants on every US citizen with a phone?

fear and cowardice. These are the true enemies of liberty.

Re:Someone start a defense fund

[Richy_T]

To uphold the constitution?

Re:Someone start a defense fund

[ImprovOmega]

And if it turns out that he just blew what might have prevented several 9/11 level attacks?

It would be worth a hundred 9/11 level attacks to preserve our liberties and defend the rights and principles this country was founded on. And one hundred such attacks would *still* be less than two-thirds of the brave American men who gave their lives defending that liberty during World War Two. Man up Nancy.

Re:Someone start a defense fund

[therealkevinkretz]

There's no Blue versus Red here. A Republican administration overstepped its bounds in creating this, and a Democrat administration overstepped its as well in continuing - and expanding - it. Legislators of both parties passed the law that enabled it, and legislators of both parties supported the program and allowed it to continue.

Re:Someone start a defense fund

[Mr. Slippery]

No, what is right for society is what is granted through consensus.

Consensus doesn't get to take away human rights. I don't care if 90% of the American population says it's ok, my right to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects still applies.

Re:Someone start a defense fund

[Anonymous Coward]

The law is wrong. There's something seriously wrong with a law that says a court can issue a secret order swearing the unwilling party to that order to secrecy, so much so that they can't even challenge it in the courts without running into "state secret" privilege. The people subject to these orders have no recourse. It's "do this or you're violating the law, and, no, you can't challenge the law because revealing the existence of the order would be violating the law". It's utterly ridiculous. Doesn't matter if it is a person or a company subject to it. Something in the law has to change so that there is a public rationalization of these things and some way to challenge them.

Secrecy is justified in many cases for legitimate reasons, but if the government can sign away people's basic rights by signing orders that declare the matter a state secret, before or after the fact, then there is something wrong. Sure, if I sign up to keep classified material secret and then I violate that agreement, I'm obviously guilty of breaking the law. I made the deal, I have to abide by it. But ordinary citizens didn't sign on to that. If you're watching over a process that violates OTHER people's rights every single day in an unjust and questionably legal process, then I might be tempted to break the law in order to tell the public about it too, because there is a greater violation going on here and no other way to get that fact out to the people.

For years the government has obstructed many court cases that have attempted to probe exactly what has been going on. Legislators were even willing to change the law so that it retroactively absolved telecommunications companies of any past criminal activities while compelled to implement these programs. Something like this disclosure was bound to happen eventually when every legitimate channel for doing it through the courts was being vigorously blocked. Even if they shouldn't be privy to the operational details, the public has a *right* to know what is going on and to be able to challenge it in *some* forum. If that has to happen because of an illegal disclosure of classified material, well, thank goodness someone had the principles to finally do it after so long, because it doesn't seem legislators or the courts were looking out for the public interest or bothering to consult us about it.

Re:Someone start a defense fund

[Hatta]

It was supposedly approved by the FISA courts.

And the FISA courts are approved by Congress which is constitutionally prohibited from approving searches without probable cause.

Im not sure if it was legal, but if you're not a lawyer I imagine you are also not in a position to determine that.

If you know English, you can read the fucking 4th amendment. The Constitution is valid because it was ratified by The People. If The People aren't capable of understanding it, then they aren't capable of consenting to it. Either the Constitution is understandable in plain English by the common person, or it is not valid at all.

Re:Someone start a defense fund

[SandFrog]

Yep. He is just as guilty as Rosa Parks.

Murrica

[TitusC3v5]

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.

Re:Murrica

[stanIyb]

but the government is following the law

But they're not following the constitution; other laws are irrelevant.

Re:Murrica

[kilfarsnar]

Sorry if you don't like it - perhaps Americans should elect better politicians and not succumb to fear mongering manipulation tactics next time

The thing is, it is well known how to get the masses to do what you want them to do. I don't want to get all Godwin up in here, but Hermann Goering told us about it decades ago. As he said, it works in any country. So members of the government know that if they tell people they are being attacked and are in danger, the people will let them do what is necessary to keep them safe. Do we really expect people to disbelieve what they see on the news and hear from government spokes people, who after all are supposed to have so much more knowledge and expertise in these things? It's not reasonable. Most people will defer to authority; that's the point of authority.

But really, it's straight up manipulation. The same people who tell us what a dangerous world it is, tell us what must be done to protect the "Homeland". We know the threat of terrorism is being used for political purposes, because Tom Ridge told us as much when he left office. If you think things are different now because the Blue team is in charge you don't know how this game is played.

Everyone is in on scaring the fuck out of the American people. Politicians love it because it gets them more power and money. Big business loves it because they get fat government contracts. The media love it because it gets ratings and clicks. So hardly anyone is going to come out and tell people threat is completely overblown and that interested parties are perpetuating it for their own gain. As George Carlin said, they've got us by the balls. So I don't think it's completely fair to blame the American people for their ignorance when they are being kept that way on purpose.

Abide by the law?

[cuncator]

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.

Anyone who is surprised is a fool

[intermodal]

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.

Request to Obama

[muffen]

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.

Re:It really annoys the hell out of me...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It really annoys the hell out of me...

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Doing what is right...

[ebno-10db]

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.

Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest

[MasseKid]

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.

Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest

[thoth]

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).

Is perjury a crime?

[foreverdisillusioned]

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...

remember the Nuremberg Principles

[echtertyp]

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.