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!"
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD
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.
I assume they are worried about what else he plans on releasing. If he has much more damning evidence (Which I assume he does) they want to get into the fold of Mother USA's arms to squeeze... hug him into silence before he says much more.
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 ?
We have an obligation to do what is right and proper above any other law. In the sense of the USA government, the Constitution is the highest law and lies out what is right and proper. If our government is unjust and doing something unethical and against the constitution, then we must first do what is right and proper to protect the constitution.
Our Government is given power by the people, if they steal powers without consent of the governn than the highest law calls us to correct the misdeed and that trumps the laws on secrecy, etc. A soldier need not follow an illegal order!
Now that being said: Breaking confidentiality on top-secret stuff is no laughing matter. It's treason, a capital offense. But that doesn't mean we aren't called to follow the higher law if the top-secret stuff is in itself illegal.
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!
Guess we'll find out if Hong Kong was a good choice. The extradition attempts should be interesting.
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.
We should find out who 'some people in Congress' are, post their names, and make sure constituents in their voting jurisdiction fill their inboxes. And, parade their names all over the Internet so the other people in Congress will see them be vilified. Nobody here wants to see us continuing in the direction of a totalitarian police state.
According to the article, the people in Congress that are named are 'Republican head of the House intelligence committee, Mike Rogers' and 'Peter King, the chairman of the House homeland security subcommittee'.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
And the "damage" done is that the people, finally got informed on what's going on, really. They now need to determine to what extent and what will be needed to remedy the situation. Extradition and severe prosecution after that is a message to all others potential whistleblowers.
Funny how every time there's a " information leak" like this, it reveals that the Gov and/or Companies are doing some bad stuff, and nothing else happens.
They'll not stop surveillance or testing experimental drugs on poor countries children, it will be just swept under the rug and whistleblower put to jail and then they gonna pretend everything is ok, while people will stop caring until it starts directly affecting them and their lives.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD879 --- 8979 signed on in two days.
Also, over 4000 for repeal of the PATRIOT act so far and over 2000 for the impeachment of Roger Vinson, whose signature authorized some ridiculously broad data collection orders. And 11825 for the resignation of President Obama. I mention this last because people have been calling for his head for years and it's not clear what issue is the biggest factor in people calling for his resignation.
I hear they do a really good B&B deal.
... how they placed a high school dropout in such a position of trust. Quoting the Guardian "Snowden is a 29-year-old high-school dropout who trained for the Army Special Forces before an injury forced him to leave the military. His IT credentials are apparently limited to a few “computer” classes he took at a community college in order to get his high-school equivalency degree—courses that he did not complete. His first job at the NSA was as a security guard. Then, amazingly, he moved up the ranks of the United States’ national security infrastructure: The CIA gave him a job in IT security. He was given diplomatic cover in Geneva. He was hired by Booz Allen Hamilton, the government contractor, which paid him $200,000 a year to work on the NSA’s computer systems." .. Wtf are people smoking in the US?
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.
... why have not those in the position to, not prosecuted Obama for violating the US constitution and Bill of rights?
All the evidence of Obama intent and his execution of his intentis in his own words and actions of signing, and there is plenty of this on youtube and executive orders.
Exposing the facts of such violation does not break laws, simply because the Constitution and Bill of Rights over rule all other laws and attempted to get around the founders establish basis of our laws. For example, it is not considered legal to make a contracts to kill someone as that violates the base and as such is not recognized as being legal.
"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,
The above is a key comment. Did Snowden violate the law, yes, he violated the agreements he made when he obtained his security clearance. This the US violate the laws by implementing this kind of program, probably. Was public disclosure the right way to go about it, absolutely not.
There are mechanisms in place for whistle blowers when it comes to classified information. Is it affective, well, I do not have an answer for that. Did Snowden follow channels first before going public, we don't know that yet either.
Whether we like it or not, there are process and procedures in place, and the Gov will do what the Gov does (if you think any other country does not do similar crap, you are probably deluding yourself). Follow the appropriate path, if no fruitful resolution comes from that, then public release is a possibility, but expect consequences.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
Nor to hide abuses of power and privilege, nor to protect traitors who have betrayed the trust which the public has placed in them that they will execute their offices faithfully and defend and preserve the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
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 worked for the DoD for 8 years of my life in my twenties.. You don't talk about fight club, regardless.. This is definitely a case of "Two wrongs don't make a right"
I am interested in issues of privacy, and considering that Google has left China over such an issue, the original story sounded quite implausible to me.
I have read the original document that was supposedly leaked about PRISM. I still have to be convinced of its authenticity.
Even more so after reading a quite sensible account of this whole story, gathered by eight contributors to the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-bristling-concede-to-government-surveillance-efforts.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
If people are led to believe that everything we do online is available to the NSA in the manner described in the supposedly leaked document, it will be much more difficult to lead campaigns about real threats, like SOPA, etc.
So, in one hand you have the Illegal redistribution of top secret files and in the other hand, the whistle blowing nature of these files prove these are illegal activities unto themselves.
Now the US government wants their pound of flesh. Go figure.
This is really serious and I believe that POTUS is gonna have to intervene, if only to either save face and disavow and/or acknowledge the wrongness of the situation.
In a way, Snowden is being the ultimate patriot here, and you can't blame him for releasing this info.
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??
I never thought I'd see the day when an American is seeking political protection in China.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Anyone who has suffered management consultancy hogwash about "best practices" or "core values" should experience schadenfreude in Booz Allen agonize over providing a defective worker to the NSA at 200K+ a year. I say give Snowden a free pass on this one and instead imprison senior Booz Allen employees at Gitmo!
"That's because he's a clueless IT support geek, and not a real engineer."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Official channels are worse than useless when the corruption is top-down.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
...they broke the Law, they shouldn't get to use it anymore. I stand with Snowden, if what he has exposed shows criminality, then he did not break the Law. Simple as.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Edward H Snowden
(Age 65+) Retired Porn Star @
State of California Dept. of Adult
Films & Education
I figured the guy is probably legitimate then. That info is enough to make anyone want to stop looking, and makes him sound pretty "spooky." Of course, the NSA knows where to find him anyway, so he's probably SOL.
They will be ruthless. May not James Bond type assassinations anymore, but years in jails and courts as Manning, Assange and dozens of Anonymous have learned.
This is the other side of the "just following orders" coin. When people don't just follow orders, and instead choose to do what they feel is right, we have the weight of huge global government coming down on individuals.
The only way this is a crime is if actual information is released that hurts national defense. Congress has repeatedly resisted or failed to make the disclosing of classified information illegal, in and of itself.
I am not sure one could consider this national defense information.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
"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,
The above is a key comment. Did Snowden violate the law, yes, he violated the agreements he made when he obtained his security clearance. This the US violate the laws by implementing this kind of program, probably. Was public disclosure the right way to go about it, absolutely not.
There are mechanisms in place for whistle blowers when it comes to classified information. Is it affective, well, I do not have an answer for that. Did Snowden follow channels first before going public, we don't know that yet either.
Whether we like it or not, there are process and procedures in place, and the Gov will do what the Gov does (if you think any other country does not do similar crap, you are probably deluding yourself). Follow the appropriate path, if no fruitful resolution comes from that, then public release is a possibility, but expect consequences.
hmm
so what you're saying is that he should have blown the whistle to the guy paying the bills for doing what was worth blowing the whistle on? how does that logic work for you? just saying that every government breaks their own stated laws is nothing to defend the action with.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Contractor use is how they get around other aspects of US and [especially] Constitutional legal restrictions and limitations.
Problem with the military code, rules or laws? No problem -- hire contractors. Got a problem with accountability and being tracked or with requirements of reporting your activities? Just use contractors. Easy to blame and easy to fire.
Not shocking, but quite disgusting. We put these government controls into place to prevent all sorts of government abuse and they just route around it. And no one is called to the floor for these practices.
It should not be illegal to expose when government acts illegally.
The goverment tells you they want you to blow the whistle.. They have put laws to protect that very thing.. unless you blow the whistle on them..
Am I lying when I tell you that im telling the truth? Or am I telling the truth when I say that Im lying?
...the fun begins.
On one side Snowden, who knows the repercussions of what he did, but chose this path. Bravo. He did not go the Wikileaks route, very impressive.
On the other side whoever who were "appalled" US government is snooping indiscriminately - the list starts with Ron Paul. Lets see if Ron Paul will take a stand and publicly defend Snowden.
Then we have POTUS - who probably would have personally supported Snowden if he were not the POTUS. The more POTUS and his administration squeaks about "grave danger to US" and other nonsense and proceeds to harm Snowden, the more out of touch, elitist and a tool he will look.
Excellent drama. I sincerely hope Snowden can go home to a heroes reception.
Tat Tvam Asi
"Hey, is this the Whistle Blowing Dept? I work on classified info for the CIA and found out the US Govt is spying on every American citizen. I want to report it."
"Oh, hey there... No, no no this is the Resolve Embarassing Situations Quickly Dept. We made an extra secure compound for you guys down in Cuba. I'll call them up and get you a free flight. Don't worry about the black fabric bag they put on your head; It's to keep the place extra super secret!"
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
If Snowden is ever brought to trial, and not droned or Gitmo'd, his only defense will be to prove he was exposing/preventing a greater crime.
The discovery motions alone will be surreal, and what about jury selection? Appellate trial transcripts? Sworn testimony from agency honchos?
I sure hope Groklaw is cranking up for this one. This might be the trial of the century, if it happens.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
Actually there is no criminal law regarding the release of classified information. It is actually only a crime if it harms National Defense.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
"The term Muslim Brotherhood is an umbrella term for a variety of movements. In the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried al-Qaeda as a perversion of Islam," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told a congressional hearing in Feb 2011.
$200K job without only a GED (high school equivalency). Home in Hawaii. I am impressed. story
Speaking as someone who has seen systemic corruption first hand, reporting it via official channels is useless 90% of the time and will just get you outed as a troublemaker. For me it was absolute proof that someone was fired in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act, and the company actively took measures to hide that fact. For the specific case, a woman was found to have breast cancer and the company took very specific steps to ensure that she would be fired and they wouldn't have to deal with it or pay for it. I suspected that there was some pressure from their insurance company as well, since they'd be allowed to drop her after she got fired. They set her file up in a clever way, without needing her to sign anything, to show that she had 'ongoing problems relating to work performance and absenteeism.' She was one of the hardest workers there and never missed a day. Her time clock in the past was redone to make it look like she was absent once or twice a month. She received a warning at one time about not showing up for work and not calling in, but this was due to being evacuated over a chemical spill in her area, and not having access to a phone...they appended it to say that the reason was bunk, but this appending was removed.
So a week after she went on leave under the FMLA, she was officially terminated for not showing up for work for a week without calling in. They simply threw away her paperwork and were done with it. I took the findings and reported them via official channels. Nothing happened. I took the findings and reported them to an agency that was supposed to investigate these things. Nothing happened. Finally I took the findings and reported them to the person that they happened to. What happened next was a settlement of undisclosed value from the company to her. The undisclosed value was enough to hit a company of that size pretty hard.
Were there any changes in the company? No. Not a single one. If a woman that worked there got breast cancer next week, you can bet your ass they'd still end up fired for a no call no show. Would I ever have worked in that industry again had they figured out who I was? No. Would I ever have a job again if they figured out who I was? No. Would I likely go to jail for 'hacking' when seeing those things was part of my everyday job? Yep.
This is the country...no...the world that we live in. Get used to it folks. People primarily want three things: Food, shelter, and socialization. Guess what can ensure all three? Money and power. That's what people seek. No one is going to know about the evil things you did to get them when you're retired somewhere nice and warm and have a million dollars in the bank. Even if half the civilized world cares, there's still plenty of fish in that other half.
Want my advice? Well, I don't really care if you want it or not, here it comes. You can just as easily have food, shelter, and socialization, by living a decent life as a decent human being. The difference is that if you're filthy rich, you can have it all on your own terms. You can decide exactly what food to eat, exactly what shelter to hide under, and exactly who you mingle with. It isn't nearly as grand a choice as it seems at first glance.
Here in America, being a lower-middle class citizen, I think I'm pretty damn rich. I've got two cars in good condition, a house, a bank account, and food on the table. I can go to Walmart right now and pick from a whole bunch of different foods to eat, clothes to wear, books to read, and leisurely activities to pursue. This is the grandest life that the average person has known at any time throughout all of history. You think we have it bad? Imagine being in the middle ages. Your pantry is nearly dry. You'll be lucky to have stale bread to eat this week, you'll be even luckier if you get to eat meat this year. Imagine 100 years ago. You've never had a cold drink in the summer before. Electric power is something for big cities and rich people. Half your friends just died from the Spanish Flu, and all that can be done is for a nurse to check on you and ask you if you're still alive.
“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
Martin Luther King Jr.
Snowden is a hero. Someone already posted the Whitehouse petition. You should sign it. Try to save a real patriot.
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...
The Constitution, for excellent reasons, limits treason charges to making war against the US or joining its enemies.
You shouldn't be. It's easier to fire a contractor if they screw up. You basically cannot fire a civil service (i.e. government employee non active duty) employee after their three year "probation" period is over when first hired. No matter how incompetent or how bad they screw up they will always have a job and even make one if they have to. (I wish I were making that up I truely do). Its also cheaper to find a contractor that already has a clearance and/or experience than to pay for a clearance wait for it to go through and then show them what to do. The government has this mentality that a person when hired for a specific job should be able to do every aspect of that job 100% from day one as if they've been doing it all their life. So its easier for them to contract it out instead of hiring and training someone. IT Contractors get hired for projects so they are full time employees but for a pre-defined time period depending on the contract.
A secret service is only as strong as its members feel loyal to their government. But the US government has shown many times that they are not necessarily the good guys - look at the way the Occupy movement was crushed, and how the fat bankers were saved, time and again. Yes, some in the secret service just might have an opinion about economic inequality in the US, just to mention one topic of interest.
So, you're saying that the NSA didn't use the secret FISA courts to get questionably legal status to track every cellphone on every US carrier?
In spite of the multiple government security officials saying it's OK that they were doing that.
You're funny.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
No...I am not shocked. I worked for a defense contractor as contractor from another company. I had clearance. Its pretty common. There are several levels of clearance. Everyone knows about secret and top secret, but there are other levels that don't even have names. In addition to that, you have compartmentalization through program clearance. Which basically means, even if you have super duper top secret clearance, you still don't get to see anything until you are briefed on the specific rules of the specific program. The government hire contractors like BH for their ability to specialize.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels.
Processes and procedures: that's what we need, not people willing to point out we are marching people into gas chambers, no, we need more processes and procedures!
A low-level contractor is brought in for a compartmentalized, one-off job. he's given a clearance higher than is really called for. He talks to some bottom-rung agents who bullshit him to lord their status over a mere civilian. He get his hands on a single crappy deck of slides that are so vague they could mean anything. He puts these together and imagines he's stumbled onto the mother of all conspiracies.
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.
Saw a comment on Boing Boing, that I liked:
There have been no whistle blowers since 2000, only traitors and spies...
This is what you've been keeping your beloved guns for. Use them.
I doubt civil war will solve anything... and talk like that only makes it easier for the government to say: look it's only criminals and lunatics who has something to hide.
Please do sign the petition. It's not enough but it's better than talk.
I'm not a US citizen, so I don't have a say: it's your mess, your government and your responsibility!
Oh, well... I suppose I'll never be voting for any politicians who are found of the US.
And it is the obligation of every US citizen to defend the Constitution from being destroyed. The United States had checks and balances throughout the government to prevent this kind of thing. Sadly the Patriot Act has removed all the checks and balances. The US government has placed too much power in too few hands. At this point they might as well put "Bill of Rights" toilet paper in the whitehouse bathrooms.
And I say this coming from a country that has a significant security threat against it -- Israel. It's a tricky balance to ensure that the rights of every citizen are maintained while ensuring the safety of said citizens. The US government has overstepped its bounds. While outing this program is likely to help terrorists in the short term (now they know not to use Verizon, etc) but in the long term the foundations of the country seemingly have been sacrificed.
I call bullshit on this.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the human rights activists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a human rights activist.
Then they came for the terrorists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a terrorists.
Then they came for the people with Verizon,
and I didn't speak out because I don't like getting charged that much for a phone plan.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
Even if that's true, he did nothing wrong. He merely shed light upon some of the government's wrongdoing.
Regardless of the rightness of what he did, he is likely to be a price to pay for doing it. Acts of defiance, no matter how justified, are rarely without consequence to the person doing them. Nation states tend to not like to be embarrassed and they are very powerful even when what they are doing is wrong.
Apparently reading comprehension is low here today. I did not say not to go public.
What I did say, is follow procedures put in place, and if that does not work, go public, and expect consequences.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
Did Snowden violate the law, yes, he violated the agreements he made when he obtained his security clearance. This the US violate the laws by implementing this kind of program, probably. Was public disclosure the right way to go about it, absolutely not.
There are mechanisms in place for whistle blowers when it comes to classified information. Is it affective, well, I do not have an answer for that. Did Snowden follow channels first before going public, we don't know that yet either.
So you don't know whether Snowden followed internal channels, or whether those channels would have been at all fruitful. But you know that he absolutely did not go about this in the right manner. Got it.
Whether we like it or not, there are process and procedures in place, and the Gov will do what the Gov does (if you think any other country does not do similar crap, you are probably deluding yourself). Follow the appropriate path, if no fruitful resolution comes from that, then public release is a possibility, but expect consequences.
Do you expect that if he had gone up his chain of command, whatever that was, that he would have been heard out and this program would have been made public? I do not. I expect it would have been kept quiet, and he would have been fired. He'd be a target at that point, having made known his opinions. No, the only way to make this program public knowledge was to leak it to the press, just as he did.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
"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...
Material undeniable proof.
none
So in other words, he's right but our system will prosecute him anyway.
We don't actually know if he is right at this point but it is correct that he is likely to face prosecution.
Isn't that the definition of a corrupted system? We should change our system and demand a pardon
No, it's how the system is designed to work. The government thinks you broke a law and so you go to trial where the legality of the matter is adjudicated. If the law is in violation of the Constitution, we have a Supreme Court to deal with that. Congress can intervene as well in theory. What would make the system corrupt is if the person was jailed in spite of being obviously innocent of the law as written. In this case he may be "right" but he may also have broken the law which we'll need a trial to decide. Whether the NSA was breaking the law or not is a separate issue which will be separately adjudicated. Even if the government is misbehaving the laws relating to release of confidential information are rather clear when it comes to the consequences of releasing such information. In any case the wheels of justice are likely to turn slowly and I think he is in for a rough couple of years even in the most optimistic scenario.
This domain was registered as of last evening (by somebody else, privately).
I have some Free Edward Snowden bumper stickers coming from "makestickers.com".
Not very hopeful for this brave guy, though, and I generally think of bumper stickers as a cheap "feel good" sentiment. I just wanted to be proactive.
Of course, I'm not feeling so good right now. Just got an email from Barack Obama saying I could have save 40 percent if I had ordered 100 stickers.
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.
If you listen to the interview between Greenwald and Snowden (on http://democracynow.org/ you will see that Snowden could have released a lot of information that could have made him a lot of money and pretty much taken down the whole program by exposing specific details about programs and individuals. He did none of that. It should be up to the American people to decide if we want such surveillance. If we do then keep these programs. If not then the answer is obvious.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
Privacy has *long* been established as a natural right and is codified in the highest legal document in the nation.
There is no express right to privacy in the US Constitution. The word privacy does not appear anywhere in the document. Several amendments including the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 9th, 10th and 14th as well as various case law rulings indirectly guarantee some rights we regard as privacy rights. You don't need to refer to a generalized right to privacy here. It appears that the primary issue here is that the NSA has violated the 4th amendment right against unreasonable search. Speaking for myself, the government has no probable cause to need such information about me or my activities. Presumably the same is true for most US citizens.
I don't doubt for a moment that the NSA finds the information useful. I also think they are violating the law by merely gathering the information. If any arm of the government genuinely needs this information they should have to get that right publicly approved by Congress. A competent enemy of the state would have assumed they were gathering such information anyway so keeping the existence of the program a secret serves no purpose other than to hide activity in violation of the law.
Given tendencies over the last 5+ years I predict nothing will happen. Few will bat an eye if Snowden gets extradited, tried and convicted.
Every time some scandal has surfaced it's followed the same pattern:
1) It's dismissed as fabrication until evidence surfaces. The day I heard of this spy program the reports were all pointing out that everyone was denying this program existed.
2) The story is trivialized, the talking heads can't understand why the story persists and dismiss it as opponents trying to vilify the president. I've heard this repeated time again on CNN and elsewhere.
3) Dredge up some action from the prior administration to establish moral equivalency. There's a lot to blame Bush for, and he helped enable a lot of the problems we're seeing now, but a lot of stuff unfolding doesn't come close to being on the same level. If it had been we would probably had seen riots in the streets.
4) Dismiss it as one of those things that just happens or attribute blame to the prior administration. This, again, another attempt to marginalize the situation as overblown. I've noticed as tendency to see every little bit of news as evidence the story is a fabrication even when the pieces clearly don't add up. If Bush had been president these same people would have latched onto these stories with all fervor and demanded his hanging.
That's the fundamental problem here; how blindly loyal people are to Obama. The most telling aspect is that people were taking to the streets in protest during Bush's rule over less and now they're conspicuously silent. It goes to show that all that was more about ideology than any real principle. The problem isn't that people were complaining then, it's that they're not doing so now. Without question Bush had his own flock of sheep, but conservatives were generally a lot more critical towards him than I'm seeing with liberals and Obama today. The Tea Party, before being co-opted by Republicans and turned into a joke, came to rise during the Bush administration. And that's when they aren't also making a joke of the Green or Libertarian party.
For a wide variety of reasons Republicans have been in turmoil because conservatives don't feel they're being properly represented. One of the big reason being that they don't like being forced to tick off every conservative box. I've yet to see a similar response to Democrats, they certainly seem unified to a fault. When, for example, a liberal site lavishes praise on someone like Barney Frank, corrupt and having had a hand in the real estate bubble, you've really got to question the legitimacy principles. If you can't identify the problems in your own party and find good ideas in others, there are some real problems.
I will acknowledge that the response on Slashdot has been far more balanced than I've seen elsewhere. I'm actually impressed because it's a far better environment for discussion than it was back in 2008.
Dear NSA, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
Ou sont les Neigedens d'antan?
Be who you are...and be it in style!
Commentary is that Hong Kong was a terrible choice for sanctuary (as they extradite). Does Snowden know something that we do not?
If he is captured, has he prepared the release of more damaging documents?
Does Ecuador have an embassy in Hong Kong? If so, I hope the couches are comfortable, and it's close to Snowden's hotel.
Does anybody on eiher side think the government won't use this system to track everyone here who posts in support of this guy?
Dear lord, please just let me be a paranoiac.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD
There is a necessary trade off between intelligence gathering for the purpose of law enforcement and national security and citizens' right to privacy. Public sentiment at this point may be that the NSA has overstepped an ethical boundary and possibly Constitutional principles. What concerns me is the motivation that drove them to do so and what we can do in the future to keep them (and other agencies) clear of these boundaries.
Giving our government the power to peer into our private lives in return for security is one thing. But I don't recall a Constitutional clause permitting Booz Allen Hamilton to do so. I fact, I suspect that a lot of the NSA/FBI/CIA motivation for these huge data collection projects is the lobbying being done by contractors getting a piece of the action. Given a law restricting access to citizens' personal data only to civil servants and elected officials, I suspect that these agencies will reign in their data collection efforts to those absolutely necessary for their charters.
I don't have a problem with the NSA hiring contractors to put up a data center. But lets restrict its operation to direct employees alone and I'll bet they will be a lot more careful with their espionage dollars. Such a law will also go a long way toward putting a stop to another issue I haven't seen too much discussion on. That is; private contractors utilizing their access privileges to sensitive data for their own benefit. Having worked inside the 'military-industrial complex' for a few decades, I have seen numerous instances in which access to foreign intelligence product was used for purely economic advantage by private contractors. Inevitably, giving private contractors access to citizens' personal data will be leveraged for profit. Its one thing if a Google or Microsoft does this within the boundaries of the law. But given the trust we give to government agencies, having their data go right out their back door is just wrong.
Have gnu, will travel.
What is collected from a telco is "Call Data Records", which is everything except the voice recording of the phone call.
This includes:
Number(s) Called / Number(s) Calling
Time of Call
Duration
Button presses during the call (call transfers, etc.)
If it is a cellular call:
SMS text messages
Cell tower connected to
Coarse location of phone (Tower triangulation)
Granular location of phone (GPS coordinates)
Registration / Keep Alives
Allowing you to:
Subject Adam received a 2 minute call from Subject Eve at 8:30 p.m.
At 8:45 p.m. both Subject Adam's and Subject Eve's phones registered their location at the "No Tell Motel" down on State Street.
At 9:25 p.m. both Subject's departed the Motel
Now change that from Subjects Adam and Eve to Adam and Steve. Care to "out" someone?
How about if one (or more) of the parties are married -- and not to each other? No leverage for blackmail THERE.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
I hope China denies the request. It's really scary when whistle blowers will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
The front page of the petition website *still* clearly says:
âoeMy administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and efffectiveness in government.â
â" President Barack Obama
*Still* negative function...
It is the powers of government that are limited under US Law.
That doesn't change the fact that there is no enumerated right to privacy in the Constitution nor is there an explicit prohibition against violation of such either - at least not directly. There are some limitations put on the government but they are hardly all encompassing when it comes to privacy issues. There is not even a coherent definition of the term privacy as it relates to our laws. What we have is a patchwork of various laws, findings and traditions which make up what we somewhat inaccurately call our "right to privacy". Unfortunately from time to time our government seems to feel it necessary to test the limits of its authority and we get problems like this NSA dragnet.
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.
yes, of course they aren't listening to the call.
(cough! Qwest! cough! Qwest!)
It's not that surprising. CIA is in the business of intelligence. They're not necessarily going to be experts at making the tools they use. Do you expect a carpenter to know how to manufacture a spirit level or a saw blade? People tend to forget that sometimes it's really best to farm things out.
A buddy of mine has top secret clearance working for a company that built computer systems to ... well I don't really know because he couldn't tell me. But even with clearance, there was always an officer escorting him everywhere. Even the bathroom.
I don't know what I find more disturbing the fact that he was able to smuggle out these PowerPoint presentations, or that the slides are just so god-awful.
We have enough trouble with 3 letter depts in government, but when they get contractors it all gets so much worse - especially when those contractors can do the SAME SERVICES for anybody.
A corporation is a government defined, sanctioned, regulated creation. Without government, there are no corporations at all. Therefore, how can the government create an organization which it can then hire to circumvent all the constitutional limitations on government power?
Just a few years ago there was a court case saying the government couldn't circumvent the law by hiring 4rd parties (because the law said no 3rd party hiring so they hired a 4th party until the judge stopped the ridiculous exploit.)
A corporation shouldn't be allowed to do anymore than the government can. I don't care if they are initialized and run by citizens; it is no different than the government paying an assassin to kill you and claiming they didn't violate your rights - the assassin did it. Oh, wait... they are doing that one directly already.
How we can let these lawyers get away with obvious word games that insult basic reasoning? I'd like to know.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
"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 persecution."
No Law or Act can be construed as to compel any person to conceal the commission of a crime, including crimes committed by government against its Citizens.
Snowden's actions seem pretty well justified. After all, didn't he swear an oath before he started his job which went something like this:
I do solemnly swear that I 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.
Oh, wait. That's the oath that Congressmen have been taking for the past 130 years, but apparently ignore whenever it gets to be inconvenient. Never mind.
In this sort of position, if you are using contractors because "they are easier to fire", then you're using the wrong people. Period. Contractors have no loyalty other than to make sure their parent company is getting enough out of them to pay their bills. These are also the people you do NOT want in this type of position. Contractors fill temporary (contracted) roles. They are never meant to be used for permanent positions. I'm not trying to bash contractors here too much, as I was one for many years. But they fill certain roles, and being anywhere near classified government data, is not one of them!
Beyond the legal benefits of hiring contractors, there are also budget considerations. An agency might have only a small amount of their budget allocated to staffing, but they can spread the larger share allocated to contracting, and thereby get the contractor's work force. Often it's cheaper to hire a contractor than to get a federal employee.
It all goes back to Congress being unable to set a budget. When budgets get tight, essential positions get contracted out to people who may not deserve them. You get what you pay for, even -- especially -- in government.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Does the government typically extradite people for breach of contract?
Even the minority who think are fed garbage by the "press" which is in bed with the government. Remember the New York times sat on the Pentagon Papers, US Torture (before the 2004 election,) ignored Manning and printed Cheney's lies about WMD as a "leak". They only say anything after the fact when there is no alternative; or are caught printing lies. and they are "the best" newspaper we've got?
Bush setup the legal groundwork for domestic spying, tried to do it for torture (in a totally bogus way,) and did make claims they could kill people like Obama is doing now. Bush didn't use all the stuff he setup. I think Bush could have gone further but didn't have the guts; so the next guy did it. I don't think Obama has taken things that far at all; Bush didn't use all the powers he claimed.
It is oversimplification to flatly compare it to when Bush did it. History doesn't repeat. It rhymes. This rhymes, the tables are turned. The outrage today is because the formerly blind are waking up, it is their turn to get upset-- and the formerly upset can take their turn defending it... It rhymes. We didn't do jack about Bush's illegal actions and even turned around and passed laws to legitimize/legalize his crimes after the fact. So now when Obama does it with some legal backing it is not the same situation and more people are used to it.
We've been Tony Blaired. It's all one big good cop/bad cop game the whole time - with the UK, you know who the bitch is; but who is the real master of the USA?
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
It might seem trivial to many readers here, but I just wanted to remind the younguns here what does a Constitution mean, what it is for, and who should not be its authors.
I speak of all Constitutions, not just the one in the US.
So whether you're in France, Spain, Denmark, Honduras or any other country (except Canada, UK, NZ and Israel), there is a document, called the Constitution that is specifically crafted to restrict what all branches of government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) of the land can do against you. It's created as a protection against abuses. Any law passed must first and foremost not run afoul of the Constitution otherwise it's non enforceable (that's the primary goal of the Constitution).
In light of this, let me ask you the question: who should write a country's Constitution? Do you believe it would be in your interest to have politicians, lawyers, or judges write your Constitution? What do you think would happen if that were the case?
Now, let me ask you another question: what do you do when all 3 branches collude to bypass the Constitution? In theory, you'd have the military involved to remove the offenders and restore the system. In fact, modern societies work the way they do only because of the threat of their own military. Without it, any group large enough could overpower the police and replace by force the current political/judiciary/legislative power with one of its own.
In light of this, it is *critical* that the military branch abides by its Constitution, even if it's in opposition to what they have been commanded to do by any branch of government having power to order or to restrict the military.
That said, what you have here in the case of an individual who chose to be under the umbrella of the Constitution of the United States of America. According to this Constitution, the government is not allowed to spy on its citizen. He reported the unconstitutional conduct of its government to the public and in theory should be protected by the US military, who should also intervene if the other branches won't.
In summary, a government in place is expected to obey its Constitution the same way that you, a citizen, are supposed to obey the laws that government made.
Please note I'm not advocating a political system over another or praising its workings, only stating that textbooks say about the Constitution. In my opinion (and you're free to disagree with me), any document crafted by man, no matter how well-intentioned, will necessarily be faulty, and its enforcement will be just as faulty.
"The hallmark of humanity is the ability to move beyond sensory inputs" - Mary Helen Immordino-Yang
Republicans should be taking the high road on this, expressing outrage, giving Snowden a pardon, and then hold Obama responsible. But I suspect both parties are deeply enough involved in this that neither wants it to come out.
State and local governments are worse? When is the last time a city started a war that killed tens of millions? Government is a necessary evil, but make no mistake, it is evil. The larger the government, the greater the evil it can perpetrate.
Snowden was a character in Catch-22.
He came to a bad end.
You can't make this stuff up.
Just realize that in his situation if he had done A), he probably wouldn't have been able to do B).
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
what about your own responsibilities to serve the people and follow the law? You're all a bunch of fucking hypocrites and if you had any ethics you'd be ashamed of yourselves. But no, instead you'll do what you can to make this man out to be the evil while ignoring your own complicity in eroding what the United States was founded on.
Fuck you.
When both Republicans and Democrats are calling for his head, you know there has to be something going on. I believe both sides use our intelligence services (and other Federal agencies) for their own benefit, both politically and financially. They want power and know no bounds to getting that power.
There are two sides in this debate, and they're not the usual left vs right or Republican vs Democrat. It's the government vs the people, and the government is not too happy when we the people discover just how dirty and corrupt they are.
I heard the Snowden interview. He's right; they're wrong. He's a patriot; they're out for themselves.
This country is fast becoming a police state with a totalitarian government. When are the people going to wake up and take the power back?
I remember years ago, under the Bush administration that the Telcoms were caught recording this information. It was a big deal in the news for about 2 days and then gone. Absolutely no one was held accountable. No one promised to stop recording this information. Sometime later Congress passed a bill giving the Telcoms immunity for collecting this information. No one would reasonable assume that the activity was stopped because this information came out. The only real surprise to me is that they are not recording the contents of the calls. I seem to recall that the Telcoms recorded this at the behest of the NSA, but I can recall reading similar stories that the FBI are also collecting similar information. I also remember how Quest was the only Telcom that did not comply and that the CEO is now in jail for insider trading. I don't think his jail time is simply a coincidence. I also remember some group that tried to sue the government over this data collection, but were ultimately denied because the government did not waive their right to be sued on this matter. Sorry, I don't remember any of the details of the above. The government has simply decided that this information is not private, because it flows through servers owned by other people. I don't agree with this argument, but it has been upheld by the courts. Is the only bit of new information here the fact that this activity was not stopped when previously discovered?
That may be part of it, but it's not the only thing going on. As a huge, clumsy organization with a lot of political baggage, the government sometimes has difficulty organizing itself to find the people they need to get a job done and pay them what they need to be paid. For better or worse (probably worse), it's sometimes it's easier for the government to just put out a contract request and let the contracting companies handle all the dirty HR stuff.
Complete with Slashdot and Internet access?
Liberals and conservatives are not both sides of the same coin. Not at all.
Yes they are !
You are confusing republican and democrat with conservative and liberal. The truth is that both democrats and republicans are conservative. Both are the enemy of America, the nation founded on liberal ideals
Correction:
The nation of the United States of America was founded on the LIBERTARIAN ideals, not "liberal"
Before you want to dispute what I've just said, I invite you to re-read all old documents left behind by the founding fathers, old documents such as the Constitution of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and so on
When you are re-reading those documents, try putting yourself in the authors' shoes, try feeling what the authors were feeling when they were penning those documents
The founding fathers fought the British because their liberties were at stake - them Brits were taking away one liberty and the next, until the colonials couldn't stand it no more, that was what has sparked the American Revolution
All the sacrifices of our forefathers shouldn't be in vain, my friend
We, the People of the United States, should once again, stand up for OUR LIBERTIES
If we fail to do that, there will be no more future for our children, and theirs
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Other than the (obvious & legally important) fact that Manning was sworn to uphold the Military Code of Justice.
Lawmakers think it's okay to invade the privacy of everyone on the internet. Then they make laws that say citizens are not even allowed to talk about it, so that then they can say "but it's legal". That's not transparency, that's a mafia.
After all the horrible IT projects gone wrong, the breaches of security, the proof of governmental stupidity, they have the sheer gall to say "Trust us. You can't know what we're doing, but trust us". No matter how wrong they are, if they keep getting more wrong it will somehow work itself out.
I'd call them fools, but /we/ voted them in. In my book, every single lawmaker currently sitting is responsible for this fiasco. They should all be voted out of office. They've torn up the constitution, and I'm afraid it's too late to get it back.
I keep waiting for the worst of the dastardly deeds, bad judgement, and horrible decisions to hit from the US government, so that the world can start trusting Americans again, and every year, maybe every month, is another example of how the American government is the worst possible global citizen. Preachy, sanctimonious, hypocritical, tyranical.
It's shaming to have an American passport at times like this, and now the criminals running the government are screaming that they want Snowden's head. I'd be surprised if he's not already upside down being waterboarded (oh, but not tortured, no...it's even /legal/!)
Perhaps the scariest thing of all? If I disappear tomorrow, /this/ post is why. I'd never have thought it possible that here in the west I'd have to say that.
good, then lets have a trial. at least a really good examination of the policies. I dont care if a "tool" is compromised at this point. The enemy this tool works against is a bogeyman. As the govt likes to say, if they have done nothing wrong, then they should have no fear in letting us see the truth.
He will have a secret trial, by a secret court with secret judges. All evidence will be classified and neither he, nor his defense counsel will be allowed to see it.
Anything else will compromise national security.
Come to think of it, he could also suffer a tragic drone accident. That would solve the problem nicely.
Honk Kong has an extradition treaty with the US,
Yes. With political exemptions.
And no, I don't know whether those exemptions will apply. His options are limited - while Russia and China (as distinct from HK) might grant him protection it'd probably be dependant upon him providing information as part of his commitment to the arrangement. I suspect his laptop is clean, brain not so much.
Ecuador is out as joining Assange is putting all your eggs in an unstable basket (Ecuador has the third largest oil reserves in SA - how long before they are "liberated"?). And Iceland while willing would prove difficult to access and the security is debatable as:- it's run by a right-wing government; the economy is weak; while not members of NATO they do have a joint military treaty with the US and the continuing ability to gain access to Iceland and it's communications; Iceland would welcome the US back; Snowden ain't Fisher (and leaking NSA secrets ain't breaking a (minor) economic sanction).
You forgot to demand free pot for all!
Why are all of you pro-pot, OWS, Ron Paul dick-sucking drug addicts so transparent? Do you have any idea that you're not fooling anyone other than yourself?
The NSA is only interested in calls from foreign persons of interest, and is only looking at that data. Ordinary Citizens have absolutely nothing to fear because, quite honestly, our government isn't interested in what you had for breakfast.
I..don't think I've ever read such an egregious example of concentrated stupidity leavened with willful naivete in my entire life. I am stunned. Congrats. And enjoy the Kool-aid.