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.
>"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!
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!
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.
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.
Oh there is plenty of stuff that probably justifies a top secret stamp.
Examples:
1) Landing location for a major offensive in a declared war. [Eg how much better could Germany have prepared, in WWII, if they knew exactly which beaches we were planning on using and what day we were going to launch our offensive...]
2) Technical specifications for NEW military hardware
===> Once the hardware is out there for a few years, say 7 years, the secret rating probably isn't as justified
3) Technical specifications for Nuclear bombs (no age limit...)
4) Identities of Our Spies operating in foreign countries
===> Note, I'm not stating that spying on folks is a correct thing. But if you accept that we must do it, because everyone else does it, then the spies identities must also be protected.
And probably lot's of other examples.
... 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.
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.
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
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)
It's no laughing matter, but it's not treason. Treason is defined in the Constitution and this ain't it.
It's worth noting that 'treason' is one of the very few(possibly only, I can't remember if there are any others) offenses specifically defined in the constitution, rather than being left to "eh, congress will write some laws when they get together, and the several states already have things in place to keep murder and cannibalism to a minimum". And that's because the framers knew how... versatile... 'treason' can be if you allow it to be defined by whatever butthurt government is vexed with somebody at the moment.
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!
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.
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.
...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
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.
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...
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.
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)
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.
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.