Slashdot Mirror
US Charges Edward Snowden With Espionage
cold fjord writes "Further developments in the controversy engulfing Edward Snowden and the NSA. From the Washington Post: "Federal prosecutors have filed a sealed criminal complaint against Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked a trove of documents about top-secret surveillance programs, and the United States has asked Hong Kong to detain him on a provisional arrest warrant,... Snowden was charged with espionage, theft and conversion of government property ... The complaint was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, a jurisdiction where Snowden's former employer, Booz Allen Hamilton, is headquartered, and a district with a long track record in prosecuting cases with national security implications...it is thought that he is still in the Chinese territory. Hong Kong has its own legislative and legal systems but ultimately answers to Beijing, under the so-called "one country, two systems" arrangement. The leaks have sparked national and international debates about the secret powers of the NSA to infringe on the privacy of both Americans and foreigners. Officials from President Obama down have said they welcomed the opportunity to explain the importance of the programs, and the safeguards they say are built into them. Skeptics, including some in Congress, have said the NSA has assumed power to soak up data about Americans that were never intended under the law."""
To know that's what was going to happen.
I thought that only those with something to hide needed privacy?
We were no expecting USA to hail him as a hero obviously. It is hilarious though how he exposed Obama's lies today about the NSA not being capable of spying on citizens though.
I hope if in this country Zimmerman can get a public and (hopefully) fair trial, then Snowden should as well.
is that you, Dick? How's the shotgun?
If Obama's arming of al-Qaeda friendly rebels in Syria isn't "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid...", I don't know what is.
In Liberty, Rene
Only if you consider American citizens enemies of the American government.
FYI, the petition to pardon Snowden is just a few thousand short of the 100,000 mark as of midday on Friday. There is still time to sign. Probably a waste of time, but it might be worth it. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD
Just in case you weren't aware, there is a White House petition to pardon Snowden that is almost at the 100K signature threshold:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD
You apparently don't know what it is, then. You can't even identify what "enemy" is being comforted. Perhaps the enemy is the American people. There is no war declared that permits the legal definition of an enemy, and not much evidence that the spying has any actual effectiveness at combating terrorism. It is massive surveillance of all forms of electronic communication. Professional terrorists are unlikely to use communication that will be intercepted in this way. The information will almost certainly eventually be used for criminal prosecutions, probably including everything from drug to copyright violations.
Snowden swore an oath when he took his security clearance. It is essentially the same one sworn by soldiers.
The first thing he does is swear to protect the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. And finally to follow the orders of his chain of command and perform the duties of his position.
Snowden was put in a position where following the last part of the oath would violate the first part, and following the first part would violate the last part.
And he chose his duty to the constitution and the citizens it protects over the dictates of his chain of command. And that makes him a hero.
The problem with treason is that it sounds like it might be a political crime, which makes it more likely for a nation to give him political asylum. This really complicates extradition. Of course, it is a political crime, but the US Government doesn't want to go there right now.
Obama has openly admitting to planning to arm Al-Queda associated rebels in Syria. That is the DEFINITION of treason. Edward Snowden has not given anyone weapons. He has merely aired Obama's dirty laundry. If this country was run by the people rather than a bunch of plutocrats, Obama, Bush, Cheney, et. al would be on trial for crimes against humanity.
How people voted for this guy is beyond me. I knew Obama was a liar from day one. Democrats and republicans work for the same causes and the same people; any perceived differences are merely staged for the benefit of the American voters and never go deeper than the surface. It is classic divide and conquer and the end result is that this country is effectively run by a two-party dictatorship that stays in power by manipulating and rigging the elections to exclude competition and creating staged conflicts on trivial issues like gay marriage (which *IS* a trivial issue compared to the fact that this country is descending into a police state). When it comes to the things that matter, both parties act in lockstep and it is NOT to the benefit of the American people or to the cause of freedom. The only people the Republicrat party answers to is their corporate masters.
In the empire of lies, truth is treason.
-Ron Paul
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Haven't you been paying attention? They are
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
I'd say our constitution-trampling government is aiding and comforting our enemies more than Snowden.
He exposed crimes against the American people perpetrated by the US government. He is the exact opposite of a traitor.
Report a crime, go to jail.
With the trial of Private Manning underway, and Snowden now indicted, it looks like it will be a summer full of heated discussion.
Here is a discussion topic that seems to be somewhat overlooked at the moment.
Why did a low ranking army private like Manning have access to the high level info that he leaked? Why did a low level private contractor like Snowden have access to the high level info that he leaked? Sure an army private or low level contractor may need access to some secret info to do their jobs but both seem to have had access to or knowledge of way too much.
Because if you want to know the truth, it's the grunts who have to spend all day long with their hands down in the dirty stuff.
The brass are "too important" to be bothered with such details. They only really care about the Executive Summaries. Plus, they're usually part of the problem, so don't expect them to rush to be part of the solution.
Only if you consider American citizens enemies of the American government.
Apparently you confuse the Taliban, al Qaida, the People's Republic of China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, et. al., with American citizens. You tell the world and everybody knows, including the very terrorists against whom you are trying to protect the American people. He could have gone to the inspector general or Congress, but didn't. Who knows what the damage will be?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The American People? Are we the enemy?
for the crimes it's committed?
The NSA is charging Snowden with spying?
I suppose " the logic of their position demanded it."
May the Maths Be with you!
You're probably trolling, but the simple answer here is
a) He has not levied war against any of the States or the whole of them, and
b) If he has given aid or comfort to enemies, then you should be able to name those and state the aid and/or comfort given them.
If you can spin either of those into a charge that will hold up in court, I'll be impressed.
May the Maths Be with you!
Only if you consider American citizens enemies of the American government.
Apparently you confuse the Taliban, al Qaida, the People's Republic of China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, et. al., with American citizens. You tell the world and everybody knows, including the very terrorists against whom you are trying to protect the American people. He could have gone to the inspector general or Congress, but didn't. Who knows what the damage will be?
The Inspector General and Congress are part of the problem.
Terrorism isn't dangerous on its own. It never was and never will be. The point of terrorism is to provoke a disproportionate response that harms the target more than the terrorists would be able to do directly. The world's terrorists' primary partners are western governments. The United States have spent over a trillion dollars in the last 10 years to "fight terrorism," with absolutely no indication that they're doing anything other than breeding resentment and planting the seeds for greater terrorism in the future. If you want to know why world leaders are willing to spend so much money to "fight" something that causes similar physical harm to bee stings, look at who received those trillion dollars and their relationships with governments.
Additionally, it's extremely unlikely that anything Snowden shared about spying will have any impact on our espionage efforts against "terrorists." So far it's all been information about spying on Americans and foreign noncombatants. Furthermore, everyone who's cared to pay attention in the last twenty years already believed the strong but indirect evidence of exactly this sort of spying. In other words: the terrorists already knew about these programs, or something like them. The only people who see this as a revelation are naive American citizens and our allies, and the only thing in jeopardy is the NSA's unjustified unaccountability.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Snowden swore an oath when he took his security clearance. It is essentially the same one sworn by soldiers.
The first thing he does is swear to protect the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. And finally to follow the orders of his chain of command and perform the duties of his position.
Snowden was put in a position where following the last part of the oath would violate the first part, and following the first part would violate the last part.
I am not an expert of US laws, but in reasonable countries, there is a hierarchy of laws. An oath cannot be enforced against a law, and a law cannot be enforced against the constitution.
An individual or group who believes it is acting in the interests of the state cannot objectively evaluate whether it is correct. Snowden did what he thought was right, based on his understanding of documents that he says came from Executive Branch organizations. We can assume from this official charge that he compromised some security, not that he shared factual information. And he could be prosecuted just based on his own statements, with his defense being that he fabricated the documents to support things he actually misunderstood.
On the other hand, a government organization is just as incapable of deciding whether it is acting in the interest of the country or just in its own self-preservation. After all, the American revolutionaries would be called domestic terrorists today, since the purpose was to overthrow the government. Taxation without representation, and other abuses of King George's court against the colonies, were clearly not in the interests of the governed people. In hindsight, Britain lost the tax revenue and resources of the colonies, and lots of colonists got shot. So it wasn't good for either side.
We had a little disagreement about slavery and states rights, with opinions so staunchly held that we fought each other. And both sides thought they were right, that they were acting in the best interests of the people. Timothy McVeigh thought he was going to spark a revolt against tyranny, and all he accomplished was killing a lot of people. Maybe he was right, but that stopped the moment he set the bomb off and failed. If he had tried another approach, maybe he could have started a change that meant something and been a hero. But no, he's just a delusional mass murderer.
Note: I'm not saying McVeigh was right about anything. He saw a government that had to change direction, and thought he could start turning that boat around. He believed he was just as good for the country as George III did, and as the revolutionaries did.
If Snowden exposed abuses without compromising US interests, he's a hero. But we don't know everything he has, and the impact it will have. He could expose abuses, and reveal information that is as damaging as what the Rosenbergs revealed, and they were executed.
Of course, exactly what the Rosenbergs revealed is still in question, even after numerous memoirs, interviews, transcripts, etc. Their intent seems pretty clear, but what they accomplished is not. And that's really the point. History will reveal the intent of BOTH parties. The truth may never be known, or multiple truths may be known as in the case of the Rosenbergs.
He can't be both a hero and a traitor, so until we know the whole story, we can't really declare him anything. It's way too early to take sides.
So who sold computers, punch cards, boots, oil, etc.. to Germany during and before ww2?
Even if it was via 3rd parties which shipped it to Germany.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
> Does 'spy' mean 'embarrassing to the government'?
That's one of the traditional meanings.
Spy:
1. Steals secrets from one government to give to another for military or economic advantage.
2. Steals and reveals embarrassing secrets.
Ellsburg though got off because he was illegally wiretapped. I don't know if that's possible any more.
Public Law 107-40 does not mention al Qaida or identify any specific enemy. It is useless for the purpose of trying to prove treason.
Treason requires not mere revelation of information or provision of aid, but an actual intentional betrayal of loyalty. Snowden did not engage in this.
You may want to study the following.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/2195/Treason-Elements-offense.html
From which the salient point is:
"In treason cases, however, the prosecution must prove that the accused had a specific intent to levy war or aid enemies."
How ignorant of you.
You have a cartoonish perspective of the world.
You voted for Obama because you believed the total shit that his people threw up against the wall about the people who were running against Obama.
I'd be pretty fucking embarrassed if I were you.
I voted twice for Clinton, Twice for Bush, but by god, I never voted for Obama. I think of myself as having slowly gotten a fucking clue.
Let us know when/if you ever do.
No. I believed *Romney* when he said he loaded his dog on the roof of his car, and kept him up there until he was covered in his own shit. I believed *Romney* when he said the 47% would never take personal responsibility and care for their lives. I watched in horror as Romney went to England, and in a canned, pre-arranged situation any moron could have handled, managed to say exactly the wrong thing to the wrong people at the wrong time. I heard him say "Corporations are people" when I know damn well they are not. I listened in amazement when he demonstrated that his science knowledge stopped at about 3rd grade, when he plaintively queried why they can't open the windows in an airplane when it's on fire. I laughed when he said "Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea" demonstrating his geographical knowledge was right "up" there with his science.
By the time the ballot box rolled around, I was quite sure that Romney was a complete idiot and a tool.
Under Obama, some good things got done; he had failed at others, and particularly so when blocked by the republicans in congress. But we got consumer credit reforms, we got a reverse in the jobs mess the republican administration had presided over, we got a marked improvement in gay rights, and most importantly, we got the ACA, which, while not what Obama had asked for -- congress really mangled it -- is at least a step in the right direction.
So my choice was more of the latter, or pick the man who hadn't a clue, and no idea what do do when sent off with a clue in his pocket. The decision was easy.
Now, compare my post to yours. There are some differences. You might want to think about that.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa
Dude, spying on iraq before the war is different to spying on people in UK or Singapore, ok.
The nice thing about spying on friendly nations like the UK or Singapore, is that their spy agencies cooperate with ours, and have similar restrictions about spying on their own citizens, but are free to spy on other citizens including Americans. So if the NSA/CIA wants to get some dirt on an American in America, they have the Brits do the spying. We return the favor whenever they ask. Everybody wins (or loses, depending on your perspective).
Espionage is an over charging, clearly. You've committed espionage when you've divulged state secrets FOR ANOTHER COUNTRY. So even though Israel is a friendly nation, we still kick their spies out and or jail them.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/espionage/
But Snowden didn't release state secrets to and for a foreign country. He did it for Americans.
It's prosecutorial overreach and worse for the prosecution, is likely to be perceived as such by potential juries. I feel an acquittal on the espionage charge forthcoming, even in absentia.
So the question arises at least in my mind- is this a dog and pony show, with Snowden perhaps unwittingly playing the role of a dog?
Is the government using Snowden to leak this information and if so, why?
To acclimate citizens to this level of scrutiny? To see if we'll swallow it? Maybe.
Or is it a bid on the part of , possibly some subset of, the intelligence community to get the program revised and toned down because they're afraid of the corrupting power unlimited access to the most personal secrets of lawmakers and other power players could put into the hands of a Cheney or a set of true believers like the neocons?
It's not that far fetched. Consider that the neocons twice now have attempted, once successfully, to foment wars based on false intelligence they produced through Team B efforts, efforts which the intelligence community deeply resented and still resent especially since many Americans wrongly cite the CIA as the producer of faulty intelligence in the run up to the war in Iraq.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/military/news/2004/08/18/988/its-time-to-bench-team-b/
http://www.proudprimate.com/Placards/teamb-cahn.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B
What this means is they're liars who will play WAY out of bounds to get their way, where WAY out of bounds includes LYING and DISTORTING intelligence and using intelligence to destroy domestic political opponents including exposing the identities of covert operators working for the CIA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame
see: Plamegate.
Historically, that didn't and can't now sit well with people at the CIA who consider accurate, unbiased intelligence assessments to be the crown jewel of nation's defense capability.
So is has the level of invasiveness which this program makes possible been gamed out somewhere at Langley, with one side playing the neocons and Cheney and using the techniques of deception, lying, distortion of information and targeting of dissenters through any means, legal or illegal, short (we think) of murder and the other side the CIA and other intelligence agencies upholding the letter and spirit of the law?
Perhaps such games revealed a gaping strategic disadvantage through which a coup by a Cheney and the neocons would be successful 100% of the time.
After all, we game out scenarios against all enemies foreign and domestic, if it's a threat to the US, it gets considered.
Perhaps one of the conclusions was- this intelligence program is a serious, mortal threat to the Republic.
Perhaps they took the result of this gaming to the President, who agreed with their conclusions. Perhaps a plan was hatched to subvert it, all the while making it look like they're only and intensely interested in doing the opposite.
I know it sounds too weird to be true, but this IS how intelligence agencies and covert missions work on a good day. This is the games they play.
If Obama tried to unilaterally quietly retire the program, it would just come back for the next administration who wanted it, and we know what admin would want it. Without the p
"The USA isnt going to do a full invasion of the UK."
You brits keep telling yourself that....
Now if you dont increase the shipments of PG Tips, HP Sauce and start sending us Dutchy Biscuits... We might have to go looking for WMD's in your country...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
you're right to take issue with this:
but you left out one glaring option that would have allowed him to keep his (IMHO fictional/hired) girlfriend and sweet Booze/Allen job and...AND write a bestseller and be on TV news spouting his opinions...
anonymous leak
too late now...his best bet is to prove he was being defrauded and manipulated to do this by criminals/chinese/illuminati...otherwise he should anticipate Federal Prison
why do people think he's going to get waterboarded at a black site like Kalid Shake Mohammed or w/e? There really is no reason to assume the current admin will do the worst of what the *previous* admin did...especially when the current admin has allowed so much to become public and eliminated torture practices...
You are out of your fucking mind if you think things have got better. Secret courts where you can't hear the eveadence or what you are being charged with let allow face your acusure. Hell you're lucky if you get a trail at all as the the US kills it's very own citizens with no trial at all over seas in the wrong part of the world not to mention all the journalist we have maimed or murdered while the chopper pilots laugh... Yeah things are so much more transparent and we follow or own laws now... Not like was before.
The US government has officially invoked the Espionage Act in response to whistleblower Edward Snowden’s leaks of the massive and continuing violation by the NSA of the National Security Act, plus federal court rulings over the last few years, as well as portions of the onerous USA PATRIOT Act.
We are constantly bombarded with the disingenuous drivel about our country being “a nation of laws,” yet consistently we see that the laws are selectively applied against the enemies of the plutocrats or overclass!
Under existing laws, and after both the public admissions and public lies uttered by the Director of National Intelligence, Gen. James Clapper and the NSA Director Gen. Alexander, the immediate arrests of these two culprits should be undertaken.
Not to arrest Clapper and Alexander is in complete contradistinction of existing law.
To fully uphold the aforementioned laws, impeachment proceedings should commence against President Obama, Vice President Biden and Attorney General Holder, along with the arrests of previous federal lawbreakers, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Roberto Gonsales.
Obviously, as these actions aren’t underway, America is not a nation of laws, and any such proclamation is blatantly fictional!
Just as President Obama has repeatedly stood before the American people and brazenly and falsely proclaimed that the banksters broke no laws (perhaps one should say his banksters, since he is in their pocket?), his administration once again flaunts those very laws he has sworn an oath to uphold (and claims to understand).
Lawlessness rules across America, with the overclass making the rules.
Since the passage of the national defense legislation in 2006, during the Bush administration, which exempted the Department of Defense (Pentagon) from Freedom of Information Requests (FOIA), and the NSA comes under the purview and provenance of the DoD, the only possible way to ascertain when the NSA is breaking federal laws is when a whistleblower, such as Mr. Snowden, comes forward.
Obama’s holy war on whistleblowers continues unabated!
There is something about the US television coverage of this story that i find... odd. Ive seen coverage on several networks, and the anti-Snowden bias of the coverage is almost universal. Honestly Jon Stewart's daily show seems to be the only one NOT taking the "He's a traitor" stance. CNN, Fox ... Even Letterman seem to be treading very lightly and no one wants to side with Snowden even though he presents a reasonably logical and convincing case against the government. It's like the expected righty, lefty bias is out the door and there is now universal pro government bias. I find this really unsettling.