Slashdot Mirror
Daniel Ellsberg: Snowden Would Not Get a Fair Trial – and Kerry Is Wrong
Daniel Ellsberg, no slouch himself in bringing to public awareness documents that reveal uncomfortable facts about government operations, says that "Edward Snowden is the greatest patriot whistleblower of our time." Ellsberg says, in an editorial at The Guardian pointed out by reader ABEND (15913), that Snowden cannot receive a fair trial without reform of the Espionage Act. According to Ellsberg, "Snowden would come back home to a jail cell – and not just an ordinary cell-block but isolation in solitary confinement, not just for months like Chelsea Manning but for the rest of his sentence, and probably the rest of his life. His legal adviser, Ben Wizner, told me that he estimates Snowden's chance of being allowed out on bail as zero. (I was out on bond, speaking against the Vietnam war, the whole 23 months I was under indictment). More importantly, the current state of whistleblowing prosecutions under the Espionage Act makes a truly fair trial wholly unavailable to an American who has exposed classified wrongdoing. Legal scholars have strongly argued that the US supreme court – which has never yet addressed the constitutionality of applying the Espionage Act to leaks to the American public – should find the use of it overbroad and unconstitutional in the absence of a public interest defense. The Espionage Act, as applied to whistleblowers, violates the First Amendment, is what they're saying. As I know from my own case, even Snowden's own testimony on the stand would be gagged by government objections and the (arguably unconstitutional) nature of his charges. That was my own experience in court, as the first American to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act – or any other statute – for giving information to the American people." Ellsberg rejects the distinction made by John Kerry in praising Ellsberg's own whistleblowing as patriotic, but Snowden's as cowardly and traitorous.
and never saw a day in prison.
Unlike evil Tricky Dick Nixon, President Obama is a constitutional scholar. You have nothing to fear.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
which further reduces the changes of Snowden having any chance at a life, or a glimpse of sunlight. IMPHO he can only come home after being granted a full and unconditional pardon. try that in the face of spy bureaucracy in full sway.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
All traitors.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
That was back in the days when honour still meant something in America.
Nowadays your military and intelligence services use the word "honour" as a get out of jail free card while murdering innocents and have no idea what that word really means.
Come on back
You point out widespread malfeasance among the ruling class, and you will be made an example of.
Until the American public stands up and demands that the people responsible for turning the USA into a surveillance state ALSO see their day in court, there can be no fairness. That needs to happen not for some low level NSA guy made to take a fall, but to the very top, up to and including the current and former POTUSes.
Our society was built around not having a "ruling class" except from the law, and a "ruled class" against whom the law is used. We need to return to this. Alas, that won't happen if the American public continues to care more about Kim Kardashian than the freedom of their society.
First, Snowden took more than just the documents that have been published by the Guardian, this was confirmed by the Guardian in the first days of the leaks. Snowden asked them "to use their judgement and not publish anything 'seriously damaging'", which means there is more than just what the public has been made aware of.
Which is not relevant, you dont even know what the unpublished documents are or whether they have any bearing on anything whatsoever.
Second, it is almost certain that ALL of that information was given over to the governments of the countries he traveled to.
So the Espionage Act CAN be applied quite easily to Snowden for any classified information given to foreign governments that was not also part of the information leaked to the media.
And thankfully "almost certain" is a meaningless term that you use because you want it to be true to support your point of view but you have no proof, you then use this baseless assertion to attempt to justify application of the Espionage Act.
"Second, it is almost certain that ALL of that information was given over to the governments of the countries he traveled to.
So the Espionage Act CAN be applied quite easily to Snowden for any classified information given to foreign governments that was not also part of the information leaked to the media"
There is absolutly no evidence of this supposition at all.
If that's true at all, he broke the law in the same sense that a person jaywalking to inform the police officer on the other side of the street of an impending murder broke the law. The jaywalking is insignificant in comparison to the prevention of the murder.
At least that order of magnitude exists here between what Snowden did, and what he acted to prevent.
And we also know that those processes don't work, and that going through those processes poses a decent risk of termination or at least crippling your career advancement.
Except we have claims that he actually did go through a lot of those processes without success.
Treason is giving nuclear secrets to the USSR during the Cold War, not making the NSA look like assholes.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I don't know why you dumb down the whole story to "OMG he leaked gud stuff!" Did you read my post? My point is (using your analogy) he exceeded simple jaywalking to report a crime. He picked the locks on random cars on the way in and reported the contents of gloveboxes. He broke into the cop's patrol car and broadcast the officer's notes on an ongoing investigation.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
However you feel about Snowden this isn't debatable. And, he's basically pissed away the whistleblower defense by breaking the leaker's code (make all your evidence publicly available to all members of the media, discriminating in what information you leak to focus on wrongdoing by your government, and attempting to reduce "harm"). So, regardless of fairness he'd be accepting the reality of a long jail term if he comes back to the US.
That isn't what happened. And so what if it did? How we feel about Snowden is debatable, you just want us to think it's not. I don't accept your reality because it's flawed.
Be seeing you...
If Mr. Snowden is a traitor, we need to fix the laws until he ISN'T a traitor. He performed a valuable service to the citizens of this republic, and to the citizens of many other nations around the world.
Snowden is no patriot.
If the revelations were to cause a significant turnover in congress (like 100%) and the executive, I would consider him one of the greatest patriots of our times. If not, well, at least he tried. At least that's what I like to think. Even the release of the Pentagon Papers had no effect on the elections at all. Switching back and forth between democrats and republicans does not count. Putting Nixon out to pasture did no harm to the party whatsoever. It is still business as usual.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Reporting, revealing, and refusing to take part in criminal activity is non-treasonous, lawful, and required by the military. I have no idea if the FBI or other TLAs (three letter acronyms/agencies) have that clause, but I wouldn't be surprised.
You are clearly either an idiot or a shill.
"There are processes in place to deal with law violations committed under the veil of state secrecy. Snowden did not lift a finger for even a moment to follow those processes, electing instead to break the law himself and go straight to the public."
If that was even true he would have had good reason to do that. Two of his predecessors had their lives completely ruined after they tried to follow process.
One of my favorite lines (gleaned from a post here as a matter of fact) is, do you really expect to win a rigged game by playing by the rules?
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
it is almost certain that ALL of that information was given over to the governments of the countries he traveled to
If Snowden is every standing before a jury I hope they have a better grasp of "reasonable doubt".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
However you feel about Snowden this isn't debatable.
Oh ok, you have made up your mind that he broke the law and so that means he doesn't get a fair trial. Do you understand what a trial is? Actually that's rhetorical, your statements prove without doubt that you obviously don't.
And, he's basically pissed away the whistleblower defense by breaking the leaker's code
Then a fair trial will identify this, but you don't want him to have a fair trial. You have already made up your mind and you fear that a fair trial may bring a result that runs contrary to what you want.
So, regardless of fairness he'd be accepting the reality of a long jail term if he comes back to the US.
Just because he may have done some parts of this wrong doesn't preclude the necessity for a fair trial.
He who comes to a fistfight with a gun is the one who is a coward. Kerry could man up and guarantee Snowden bail and a trial in an open court with no special evidence and testimony restrictions. "We'll keep everything secret and tell the public that we did the good thing" is not a sign of bravery. In this case it is not a sign of patriotism either, at least not patriotism to a free and democratic state.
-- Steve Wozniak
If it fails, keep appealing it until it reaches the SCOTUS.
Just not American patriot. Was American citizen, da . . . but is patriot of largest nation ever, is hero to workers' paradise. Would be citizen, but bear does not want to taunt eagle too much.
I think it would be easier to ask "Does anyone think Snowden would get a fair trial?" It would be a much shorter list. And most of the people answering yes can be easily identified as flat out liars. (Kerry and pretty much any politician.)
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
It's not just the spy bureaucracy. According to polls most of the American people do not approve of his actions. And this is a democracy, so that matters.
Snowden's core problem is that the American people approve of a good half of the programs Greenwald has outed. Spying on people like Angie Merkel is the entire reason we instructed our Congress to spend $30-$40 per person on an NSA. Period. End of story. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Same goes for most of the other NSA revelations (spying on Brazil's government, helping the Aussies spy on Indonesia, etc.). Pretty much the only thing he's revealed that most Americans actually care about was the mass surveillance on US Citizens, and a lot of that was oversold.
It doesn't help that he ended up in Russia. With the Crimea mess he just looks like Putin's puppet. To an extent that can be blamed on the "spy bureaucracy," but if Snowden knew he was gonna piss of the State Department, and he knew that he'd only be allowed to travel if State didn't revoke his documents, then he probably should not have gone through Moscow. Moreover I suspect our spy bureaucracy is actually good enough to get the timing right on that. There wasn't that much time between boarding a plane in HK and switching flights. I suspect the Chinese didn't want him, so they let him through with revoked documents, and then Putin him decided to keep him in a glass box.
To an extent I sympathize with him, but what's that old saying about the Game of Thrones? You win or you die? Snowden could have chosen to leak his documents anonymously through a Congressman. Amash would have loved to blame Obama for evil. Wyden is always good on these issues. And he probably could have done so anonymously, because the NSA can't piss off Congress or they all get fired, and Congress doesn't like it when the Executive branch hinders them in their core duty of making life difficult of said Executive branch. But he went through the media, which meant nobody in power in the US had any particular reason to protect him, so now he's Putin's bitch. It would be nice if this was Star Trek and shit like this didn't happen, but it ain't.
He isn't a traitor.
Treason is defined in the Constitution (Article 3, Section 3. Learn it, love it, live it), and what he allegedly did doesn't fit the definition.
And this ignoring the fact that a treason conviction requires (according to Article 3, Section 3) two witnesses to the same (treasonous) overt act.
Since there aren't two witnesses to what he did, and what he did does NOT fit the definition of treason, he can't be convicted of treason no matter how hard the Constitutional Scholar tries....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
What're you people expecting, jury nullification? Unfortunately, one of the problems here is that Snowden will never be given a jury trial - and if he is, he'll be denied the right to provide a defense for himself. Also unfortunately, regardless of what his motives were his actions were clearly espionage.
"These are the facts of the case . . . and they are undisputed."
So where would you put 'almost certain' on the scale of 'beyond reasonable doubt' and 'preponderance of the evidence'?
Sadly, while it's clear that he should face some sanction for his action it's nearly certain that the punishment he will receive for his crime will be horribly out of proportion to the severity of it. Too bad; I guess he didn't think everything out all the way. He forgot that pawns are expendable - and in the final analysis, he was just a pawn.
Even the goons admit that Snowden did try those channels and it went directly into the round file, so no.
What has he revealed that aided or comforted an enemy of the United States?
I doubt the governments got the documents.
He could easily arrange it so that only the reporters got his copy of those documents, by storing them all on a single thumb drive, and he's probably got them encrypted pretty thoroughly. He knows enough about political reality that he probably did precisely that.
I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out he's let stuff slip to the Russians. They probably have cameras on him 24/7, and they control who gets to talk to him, which means that if the head of the FSB is really curious about some technical trick they can send somebody over to weedle it out of him. They may even have made "privileges" like not being sent to a "special apartment" with no heat in Moscow in January were dependent on him leaking some things. Whether that rises to the level of espionage is not something I'm equipped to say.
I'm sure the "trial" would be such that it would "prove" any damn crazy thing the feds want it to "prove".
patriot: A person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors.
Snowden has been consistent in explaining his motivation as exposing the misuse of government power against American citizens. Whether or not you agree with his method of doing so, it is hard to see that it was unpatriotic (unless your particular definition of patriotism is an unquestioning allegiance to his employer).
Anyway, you have to understand that from the point of view of the rest of the world, we don't really care whether or not Snowden is a patriot. What we care about is that NSA have been working to undermine systems of trust, whether those are the encryption of communications, or even the relationships between friendly countries. And much of this done without significant goverrnment oversight, let alone public discussion. You are naive if you think that the trial of a whistleblower is more important than these subversive actions of the NSA.
Right. The NSA isn't chartered as a counter-intelligence operation, with the task of spying on adversaries. It's mission is to spy at the deepest level on the heads of state of our Allies. Not just spies, and not just agencies in idenitified enemy countries.
Your Realpolitik sucks, dude. Maybe you should go read another Tom Clancy novel.
There aren't any 'Old Sayings' from the Game of Thrones. It's a modern work, not a classical work. But you said 'this isn't Star Trek' so to a limited degree, you appear to base yourself in reality, not drugstore Fiction thrillers.
He could have simply shut up and lived the good life while being complicit in the spying machine that has rendered the freedoms of the US a joke. The real criminals have got away without a scratch and the spying continues without restriction or modification. Obama has betrayed the spirit and law of the Constitution, as did Bush. Unlimited power corrupts.
Snowden is no patriot. Not by any definition of the word.
My government, the USA, has been doing things that would have made our Founding Fathers take up arms.
Spying on Americans.
Detaining Americans without due process.
Confiscating property without due process.
ALL enabled by the PATRIOT Act,. and the previous laws passed for these "Wars" on Drugs, Terrorism, Child Pornography, etc ....
And I might add, all of those laws went through without so much as a peep from the general public (just from those "Liberals").
Why no peep?!
Because John Q. Public was stupid enough to think that "if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about." and that our Government is good and follows the American way - because America is ALL good. And the ONLY reason our government needed those powers is to fight "evil" - which makes my skins crawl when I hear people talk like that. They sound like children.
No sir,, Snowden opened up a lot of people's eyes on how out of control our Government has become.
If I were Edward Snowden I would not want to route a series of flights to South American, where he was originally intending to go, that would take me through airports in American-friendly countries. Going to Russia on an Aeroflot flight to Moscow and then to Cuba and then from there to somewhere in South American would have been the smartest thing to do. I doubt the US would be willing to piss off the Russians by sending out the F-15s to intercept a Russian-flagged airliner. And as Snowden has pointed out, once in Russia he was unable to go any farther except back to the US because the State Department had revoked his passport. However, it is rather fortuitous that Snowden is in Russian. That is probably the best place for him to be, especially now because Putin is not going to be doing any favors for the American government.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
Re "Second, it is almost certain that ALL of that information was given over to the governments of the countries he traveled to."
Thats a big leap AC. Russia and China would not touch anything gifted to them by a CIA/NSA/contractor as a walk in while talking about the press.
Russia and China have had decades of gems from ex staff but with a lot of expensive CIA/MI6 junk in the mix.
China has its own path of internal growth, EU/US supporters and a collection of very smart students around the world.
China is doing fine in globally with its exports, brand building, loans and political charm that gets deals done. They know the West ability - surrounding listening stations, Western owned container ships with listening equipment, subs, optical taps, junk crypto, junk hardware/software, banking access, cults/NGO, protests - sorting a pile of 'free' docs for gems is just not worth it.
Russia will just take one look at the person and think back to how many times it has been fooled by the CIA and MI6.
They did not find this person, work with them, test them, build them up. They have their own vast skilled networks of trusted people doing great work over generations.
Sorting a pile of 'free' pre sorted docs for gems is just not worth it for Russia or China. They did what they had to politically - transit and a work permit.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I'd wave it and make those who repeat stupid bullshit reflexively mule-kick themselves in the balls. Treason is the only crime spelled out in the Constitution, and for good reason - so fuckhead monarchists like the AC here can't sling it against anyone they don't like.
Speaking of fuckheads, what about the lawbreaking revealed by Snowden? You guys out yourselves as pathetic hacks when you aren't demanding the impeachment and incarceration of top level officials, from Clapper to Alexander to the POTUS himself, at the same time that you're demanding Snowden's head.
Yes re "the Pentagon Papers had no effect on the elections at all" :)
It woke up a generation of historians, the press and students to the ability of the mil to spin a story and have a generation fooled into taking sides in a distant civil war.
The other aspect is the two tracks of US mil thought - the correct view that you cant win a civil war vs more air support, cash, real troops, local death squads will win every time no matter realities on the ground.
US political power, section of the mil got to hide their mistakes pushing it all on planners
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
If his actions are Treason then the US Government is at war with the US people.
If he returns to the US, Snowden will never again see the light of day. Look at what happened to insiders like Thomas Drake (an NSA guy with 30 years in) who developed an analysis tool named "Thin Thread". He added constitutional protections. The NSA removed them. He complained. He was then threatened with 1000 years in prison by Federal Prosecuters (Persecutors?). Included was gag orders on just about everything, constant surveilence, seizure of this computers (home/work/wherever). Wiretaps, harrasment, intimidation, threats of physical violence, physical violence, etc. And he was an inside guy. Then take a look at what happened to the guy who was running Lavabit. Gag orders prohibiting him from talking to his lawyer, gag orders preventing him from talking to anyone, judges imposing arbitrary fines of $5000 per day, he isn't even allowed to see the charges against him! This is sick! The US Constitution is an ideal that the US Government cannot live up to (and they have no intention of trying). If he returned to the US, what would happen to Snowden would best be described as "Punitive, Vindictive, and Arbitrary".
Guys like me have been yelling about Echelon, Magic Lantern and half a dozen other "conspiracy" theories for decades now. The only change Snowden's 'revelations' made was that people have stopped telling me to take off my tinfoil hat (which I did some time ago - the radio waves coming through the tinfoil made it hard to hear the voices).
Snowden's acts are by definition, treason. The penalty for treason is death.
You wouldn't know who is on the side of the people of the US if you were given
a program which explained it in language so simple even your
simple minded ass could grasp it.
The people who are spying illegally on US citizens within the US without
warrants are breaking the law. Snowden exposed this and for his efforts
many millions in the US feel that Snowden is a hero and a patriot in the truest
sense of those words.
They believe the propaganda, not the reality. There's a big difference.
Traitor or not, he Pwned their ass. The NSA look like complete idiots, and continue to do so, and Snowden has shown them up at every turn. Remind me what we are paying billions of dollars for again? Whether or not you can lock up Snowden, the NSA needs its plug pulled for utter incompetence.
and what he allegedly did doesn't fit the definition.
He allegedly adhered to enemies of the United States ("islamic terrorists"), giving them aid and comfort: in the form of disclosure/spoiling of secret information about government practices used to locate, investigate, and suppress activities specifically of the enemy.
There might or might not be an ability to find two witnesses to the act, or to get a confession in open court; however, in principal, he could be tried with treason, if there were.
No. Rather, he upheld his oath to defend his country from enemies foreign AND domestic. In this case, rather more the domestic kind.
The right to free speech does not include treason, which Snowden is guilty of, without a doubt.
Then tell us where and when, exactly, did Edward Snowden levy war against the United States? Where and when did he provide aid comfort to the enemies of the United States? Please enlighten us, as this is the only definition of treason according to Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution
Edward Snowden is in no way levying war against the US. And last time I checked, he hasn't provided aid and comfort to any enemies, either. Unless, of course, you feel that a somewhat chilly relationship with the Kremlin makes Russia an enemy. Or is it the American people you consider to be the enemy?
So yes, there is very much all the doubt in the world that Edward Snowden is guilty of treason. In fact, there are, without a doubt, zero grounds with which to pursue a charge of treason. The definition is enshrined in the constitution and is very narrow. This was done on purpose so that "disagreeing with the ruling class" could not be used as a witch-hunt for "traitors". However, you seem to be longing for a simpler time under the rule of King George so that all the filthy peasants can be rounded up and sent to the gallows for having the temerity to think for themselves.
You, sir, disgust me.
If you look around and see how other people doing "Whistleblowing" ended up http://cryptome.org/2013-info/... ... and just wanted better pay, conditions, advancement, had staff issues, had personal issues... a short human interest story at best. Your job is over, your security work is over, you face jail. No change.
You can talk to your boss - your job is over, your security work is over. No change
You can talk to a cleared US court - your job is over, your security work is over, you face jail. No change.
You can talk to a supportive US political leader and face a security court - your job is over, your security work is over, you face jail. No change.
You can talk to the supportive US press to face spin that your on the far left, right or a unionist, faker, just a contractor
A lot of people have tried the legal system and the cleared legal teams, the political support and US press. No change.
Try something new. No change in the US political or legal system but the individual is now more aware of the brands/crypto/maths/hardware/software that fooled them.
You can now buy/support/code for any different brand, learn about real crypto beyond tame junk gov standards, write about the small brand changes you have made.
Ellsberg showed generations how historical spin works.
Snowden showed generations how junk crypto and tame brands are sold.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Ellsberg really must have forgot that you are looking to win twit if the year award.
You first point i so valid it hurts that you attempt to use it to back up your bullshit second statement.
Almost certainly Snowden made certain that the countries he travelled to do not have ALL of the information, precisely because he is an American who cares more about his country and citizens than the politicians and his superiors at the three letter agencies.
How about you read the goddamn Constitution before you open your mouth to spew nonsense. Not that I forsee that happening, as you're probably either a paid shill for the NSA/Obama/Kerry, or just a flat out idiot.
Which is why calls were 100 to 1 against telecom immunity in 2008, from across the ideological spectrum. Because if there's one thing a majority of Americans want, it's corrupt unaccountable Big Brother spying on the entire planet. And that's before getting to the naked hackery of NBC's polling. You run a poll asking 'do you support Snowden taking classified documents to Putin's Russia?!?!?' and are surprised at the results? How about 'do you support whisteblowers when they reveal top officials breaking the law hundreds of times a second every day of the week'?
Is this perfromance art, or did you bring enough hallucenegic drugs for everybody? Cuz you're on some mighty powerful acid if you're seriously suggesting we need to spend hundreds of billions to tap the personal communications of our closest allies.
It doesn't work to blame Snowden for ending up in Putin's Russia when it was Clinton's State Department who canceled his passport on his way to South America. And for having the president of Ecuador's plane forced down because he might have been carrying Snowden on board.
According to polls most of the American people do not approve of his actions. And this is a democracy, so that matters.
Its a Constitutional Democracy. So what the mob thinks doesn't make it right. We have a Bill of Rights which Snowden (and others) claim is being violated.
Opinion poll results to the effect that Snowden did wrong point out another problem with him returning: How is he going to get a fair trial with practically every potential juror having read stories (propaganda) about him and having an opinion already?
Have gnu, will travel.
I guess he discovered living in Russia is not as good as he thought,
and Anna Chapman is a lousy lay.
I know, I know, I'm taking the bait and feeding the troll.
thief on a massive scale
He didn't steal anything, he copied it. Perhaps he is guilty of copyright violation though.
a breaker of oaths
He is less than of a breaker of oaths than any of the higher-ups or politicians involved. When a politician takes office, they take an oath to uphold the constitution. James Clapper not only took and oath to uphold the constitution (probably multiple times, as he was a general), but he also took an oath before congress to tell the truth but then lied, and Snowden exposed his lies and perjury. Clapper was not charged with treason or perjury. Obama and Bush both swore very publicly to uphold the constitution (twice each), and yet they are a party to these constitutional violations and not been impeached for breaking their oaths. Apparently, there is no negative consequence to oath-breaking. And if Snowden had ever sworn to uphold the constitution (or even said the pledge of allegiance, the American flag stands for upholding the constitution and the freedom of its citizens, not violating the constitution and taking away those freedoms), then he was in fact keeping those oaths.
naive idiot
Not really. He knew what he was doing, and what would happen. That makes him neither naive nor an idiot. He saw constitutional violations, and did what he could to make the American public aware of it after he tried to go through the "proper" process. He was ignored when trying to go up the food chain, so he knew the only way to stop or expose those constitutional violations was to make them public. He knew that as a result of that, he would be persecuted, not hailed as a hero. He knows there is no way in hell that he will get a fair trial. Regardless of whether or you think the government should be allowed to continue grossly violating the constitution in secret, his actions do not show he is a naive nor an idiot.
Maybe he's also a traitor in the pay of one or more foreign governments.
Maybe the Earth will implode tomorrow. Maybe Lindsay Lohan will win a gold medal in weightlifting at the next Olympics. Maybe politicians will all start being honest and doing what's best for their constituents. All of these statements are equally ridiculous and have no basis in reality.
TBD, let's have the trial.
The whole point of this article is that there's no way in hell he would get a fair trial, so having a trial wouldn't mean jack shit.
Has it occurred to anyone that Snowden may have leaked documents concerning American game planning to Russian aggression in the Ukraine?
Not that Putin needed a lot of help in making Obama his bitch.
Wrong. Aid and comfort must be material, and must be given directly and intentionally. That is, he must have handed information directly to terrorists which materially aided their terrorist-related endeavors. Assuming the leaks were material**, it was still neither direct nor intentional. He gave it to a free press to be published at their discretion.
Were it otherwise, then simply espousing pro-Jihadist views in public could be construed as treasonous, because you could construe moral support as aid and comfort, especially if it resulted in donations to terrorist organizations.
** What's material? Well, information relating to tapping Angel Merkel's cellphone is not material. Most of what Snowden leaked likely wouldn't be material, although probably some might be considered such.
The most recent and relevant case law can be found by reading the opinion in Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cramer_v._United_States
I couldn't find a full copy of Melville B. Nimmer, “National Security Secrets v. Free Speech: The Issues Left Undecided in the Ellsberg Case", but for anyone who wants to dig in, here's a link to a preview of the article in jstor. It says you can sign up for free and you get to rent articles for 14 days.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/...
How, exactly, do Snowden's actions in leaking information to the media of a staunchly allied country fit the definition of treason?
In most times, most places, by most people, liars are considered contemptible. - Ursula Le Guin
I think there's a tendency to lose sight of why Snowden blew the whistle: The NSA, CIA, Homeland Security, DEA, and thousands of private security contractors that've sprung up since 9/11 are creating the aparatus of a security state. It's important to take a good, hard look at the other end of that road. Where does the security state lead to? I haven't heard it put better than this: "Christopher Hitchens - The Axis of Evil revisited", Fora.tvt, 2009 https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's worrying that Washington is doubling down on its efforts to establish its security state now that it's been made public.
Treason is defined in the Constitution (Article 3, Section 3. Learn it, love it, live it), and what he allegedly did doesn't fit the definition.
The Constitution is not being followed and/or defended.
The definitions are changing my friend. Everything you know is wrong. Everyone is a traitor and terrorist these days. Copyright infringers are dirty stealing thieves. Unlimited means limited.
It is more wrong to point out wrong-doing, than the wrong-doing.
Copying Michael Jackson's music is a more serious offense than killing him.
He is less than of a breaker of oaths than any of the higher-ups or politicians involved.
And frankly, breaking an oath that requires that you remain silent about egregious violations of the constitution and fundamental liberties is the moral thing to do; you'd be immoral not to.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Along with the traitors he exposed I presume?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Spying on people like Angie Merkel is the entire reason we instructed our Congress to spend $30-$40 per person on an NSA. Period. End of story. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Same goes for most of the other NSA revelations (spying on Brazil's government, helping the Aussies spy on Indonesia, etc.).
[Citation Needed]
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wh-us-not-monitoring-german-chancellor-angela-merkels-phone/
Merkel complained to President Barack Obama on Wednesday after learning that U.S. intelligence may have targeted her mobile phone, saying that would be "a serious breach of trust" if confirmed. The two leaders spoke by phone, Carney said.
"The president assured the chancellor that the United States is not monitoring and will not monitor the communications of the chancellor," said Carney. "The United States greatly values our close cooperation with Germany on a broad range of shared security challenges."
Why did Obama promise not to spy on Merkel if that's what "we instructed our Congress to" do?
(Who's "we" by the way? I sure as hell didn't instruct anyone do to that.)
7 months later and Merkel is still pissed off about it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/03/world/europe/merkel-says-gaps-with-us-over-surveillance-remain.html
Ms. Merkel, who last fall declared that âoespying between friends is simply unacceptableâ and that the United States had opened a breach of trust that would have to be repaired, said at the news conference that âoewe have a few difficulties yet to overcome.â One remaining issue, she said, was the âoeproportionalityâ of the surveillance.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Snowden did not lift a finger for even a moment to follow those processes, electing instead to break the law himself and go straight to the public.
Huh. So, I guess this story from three days ago is all bunk?
To quote the relevant portion:
Snowden told NBC's Brian Williams "he had tried to go through channels before leaking documents to journalists, repeatedly raising objections inside the NSA, in writing, to its widespread use of surveillance. But he said he was told, "more or less, in bureaucratic language, 'You should stop asking questions.'" Two U.S. officials confirmed Wednesday that Snowden sent at least one email to the NSA's office of general counsel raising policy and legal questions."
But, despite his explicit claims of having gone through proper channels, and government officials' confirmations that he also tried to reach someone who's job it is to care about this stuff, I'm supposed to take what you've said at face value and believe that he didn't "lift a finger for even a moment to follow those processes", rather than believe that you're talking out of your ass regarding a topic of which you've already demonstrated your ignorance?
Go, educate yourself, and come back when you're ready to talk some more. I'm not claiming that the guy's perfect (tip: none of us are perfect), but if you're gonna claim he screwed something up, at least get your facts right.
So technically the definition of treason encompasses ANY whistleblower about ANY National Security issues.
Again we see overbroad and unnecessary interpretations of The Law which serve NO PURPOSE other than to silence dissent.
Sure we have oversight, and if you come forward raising your concerns we'll ignore you (and destroy your career) and if you go public in ANY way we'll accuse you of treason and destroy your entire life.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Yes, amazing that people will listen when presented with proof rather that speculation...
Seems his actions made a lot more difference than yours considering he is even a topic of discussion.
How, exactly, do Snowden's actions in leaking information to the media of a staunchly allied country fit the definition of treason?
The argument is that because he revealed details about foreign operations he "aided the enemy" (insert extremely rubbery definition of 'aid').
In the same way that far too many crimes are IMMEDIATELY proclaimed TERRORISM (for the sole reason that they have harsher penalties and lower requirements for proof, due diligence, etc)
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Isn't that a good thing? First step to any problem is acknowledging it. Just because nothing is happening today doesn't mean it won't tomorrow.
Let's hear the testimony under oath, subject to cross examination.
Read the parent article. Ellsberg asserts, based on his own experience of an Espionage Act trial, that if Snowden is ever brought to trial he will not be allowed to testify.
I believe those govie shills are following the rendition of their master's definition, in which everyone including the country's allies AND the general U.S. population are the Enemies of the United States. Its easy if you can redefine things isn't it.
whether he is guilty or not is not a subject of voting and opinion polls. The percentages in favor or not have nothing to do with whether he guilty of committing a crime, whether the laws used to prosecute him are appropriate and constitutional, whether the governments efforts at pursuing a conviction are proper and correct, whether the public service and expression of rights done by Snowden overrides the intent of the law, etc. etc. All having nothing to do with a focus group or opinion poll
That'd be the same Wyden who already knew a lot of what Snowden revealed and felt he couldn't say anything because it was all classified? The same Congress that discovered they'd been lied to, openly, baldly and repeatedly, and did diddly squat because it was a high ranking member of the security state who did it?
Good one. Snowden did what he did because the entire US political structure has been subverted by the military to such an extent that there is nobody left who will hold them genuinely accountable. The press won't do it. Congress won't do it. The courts won't do it. The only guy left who will do it was a 30 year old former spy. That's what America is, now.
The first reason for the prisoner exchange was that the White House feared after years of negative coverage that the American people would realize that they and their super delegates elected the USA's first Black Racist, Barak 'Saddam' Hussein Obama, as President.
Second reason: the 5 Taliban Officers will formulate an attack on the USA in June 2016 thus allowing Obama to declare Marshal Law, Outlaw the USA Constitution, Arrest the members and staffs of the Supreme Court and Congress and suspend all State Governments and issue kill-on-sight orders for State Government Officials.
In June 2018, Obama will appoint Mullah Norullah Noori as Interior Minister of the USA under terms of the Obama Second Regime.
Sure, and two weeks later the NSA / CIA would have given him concrete boots to go talk to the fishies off the coast of Hawaii.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
In that case it was to get a trade secret about the manufacture of clove cigarettes. Still happy about your taxpayer dollars at work? Risking relations with two allies presumably because someone in the NSA got bribed by a cigarette company.
That's a good point. One thing Snowden revealed is that the NSA is a vast shambolic petty empire run by horse judges owed favours with many points of entry for a professional espionage organisation to exploit. Since Snowden could get all that stuff as a contractor it's likely that anyone interested with the funds to cover a gambling debt could have bought their own contractor with the same access. China, Russia and drug cartels probably have their own live feed from the NSA.
Maybe Snowden wanted to improve his own country and keep it from becoming like some other police state hellholes? He seems to be doing a far better job than the scumbags in the government.
And he did not just give them to Russia; he released them to a free media which released them to everyone. If you say otherwise, you're profoundly ignorant.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You do know that that would be against the principles that this country is supposed to aspire to, as well as violate the constitution, right? Yet, you don't seem to care about that. It's always funny to see people say they want to live in a free country, and yet support policies (In your case, murder without trial.) that take us in the exact opposite direction.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re China, Russia and drug cartels probably have their own
They would not be sending emails about legal questions. They would be part of the herd, passing tests, exams, going for promotions, always wanting to be seen ready to get new skills, pacing their work. Nothing to make fellow staff want to block them, flag them, report them, always good enough to be part of the next project, sharing the glory, a team player who really shines.
Been betrayed or almost discovered would be the only reason to pull them out. They have the smarts to stay and the faith, connections to stay loyal to their real cause.
Very hard to find once in the middle and upper levels and with privatized background database only entry level screening - a free for all to try. Every cult, faith group, country, crime syndicate, gang will be channel stuffing entry level staff - some might make it up the ranks.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Yes, amazing that people will listen when presented with proof rather that speculation...
Speculation!? Echelon and such (Project MINARET, etc.) have been known about for some time. The NSA's egregious violations of the constitution and people's fundamental liberties didn't just start recently, and anyone who says otherwise is utterly ignorant.
I like to think that Snowden just gave us the specifics of what was happening. What he revealed, however, was not surprising to anyone who was paying attention.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
unless your particular definition of patriotism is an unquestioning allegiance to his employer
That is, sadly, what usually passes as "patriotism" these days.
Are you wearing your flag pin on your lapel, tovarisch?
You might have to say that about most of the rest of the world, then. The NSA is not chartered, at least publicly, to spy on everyone outside the US, including the heads of government of our Allies.
At least all the whistle blowers are giving us the transparency Obama promised but failed to deliver.
I cant even watch the news, its all playing the public for fools. Democrats this, Republicans that. Corporation ABC gets approval to fuck more customers with blessing of its bought and paid for chairmen in power. Corruption in our courts and police are on par with third world countries. Every day we have more innocent people being slaughtered by police officers.
Where are the Military men with honor running our Country? We get lawyers, LAWYERS, the scum of the earth who sold their soul and ideals for money.
There is no Honor in our Government. How many people are still going to prison for minor drug offenses for non violent use, Obama said he would stop that, he hasn't.
And all you people will still vote a Democrat or Republican into office thinking things will change.
Why anyone thinks they can get a fair trial, a system that makes you plead so you dont get LIFE in prison. We have the largest prison population in the world and its not from finding people innocent. We have an estimated 12-15% of innocent men in prison so what, 220,000 thousand innocent people in prison. How many extra are there for non violent drug use? 50%?
I'd like to bitch more, but Game of Thrones is on. Maybe I'll rant on facebook, that will do just as good as my slashdot post.
I think of it more as "revealing the NSA are assholes" than "making the NSA look like assholes".
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
This article (at least based on the snippet here) talks about solitary confinement for entire sentence as if it was somehow unique and shocking punishment but solitary confinement for multi decade sentences is already a standard practice in the US despite of the mountains of data that show that it's inefficient as a rehabilitation method and leads to an astounding number of repeat offenders, mental illness and inability to cope with the outside world. It is one of the most horrific practices in US and still it's spreading in usage.
Just because the evidence is not going to be remotely in your favor doesn't mean you won't get a fair trial. That, and given what he has done, solitary confinement for ~30 years is relatively light compared to execution. That, and if they finally decide to prosecute people that have helped him, without regard to profession, they might not get too bad of a deal.
On the other hand, what Snowden and his friends are asking to not have a fair trial, since they want exceptions here and there. In addition, there were people unfortunate enough to lose clearances to his actions yet they will not get the same ability to call that privilege.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The trial was necessary and he got what he deserved from a fair trial. Not Guilty.
There are some comments which read very much like those from Cold Fjord but then they are all posted under "AC"
Where is Cold Fjord ? Or has Cold Fjord decided to start posting anonymously ?
So technically the definition of treason encompasses ANY whistleblower about ANY National Security issues.
Perhaps, so.
It is mostly an academic point, however. There are plenty of crimes the feds can charge Snowden with.
Including the theft of data, CFAA violations including wire fraud, willful unauthorized disclosure of classified intelligence, unauthorized disemination of national defense information, and espionage charges.
They can essentially put him in jail for a few hundred years, or get the death penalty already: without having to even invoke treason as a charge against Snowden.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof
You don't need extraordinary proof. It's the basic bones of the NSA's charter. They monitor overseas communications with an eye on collecting information that can help people in this country make informed security, military, and foreign policy decisions and actions. That's their entire reason for existing. It's why they're separate from the FBI.
Why did Obama promise not to spy on Merkel if that's what "we instructed our Congress to" do?
Because, as he's caught red handed doing on a regular basis about all sorts of things, he was once again lying. Of course our intelligence operations will continue to try to learn what other governments are up to, just like they do to us and everyone else.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Even the goons admit that Snowden did try those channels and it went directly into the round file, so no.
Citation needed. I've seen only one mention of a very luke-warm single email exchange that could even begin to be Snowden attempting any such thing. Cite your "admit" event, in detail.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
come to think of it not all German citizens are US best friends. Some of them never were and after NSA there is even more of those unfriends there. Some of the people throwing airplanes into high buildings did study and got starting their plans in Germany. I am not saying Germany is not an ally but things are not as straight forward as this. Being German I actually do not care all that much about spying on Merkel. It was her own fault that she used unprotected phone. What worries me more is that the whole spying is done by crooks reinterpreting laws of own country (or creating new better suiting ones) in ways contrary to what the spirit and letter of the constitution was. Further what worries me is that they do it in a way that is so similar to what communists did back in the ol' good times. What worries me even more is that worked hand in hand with spooks in UK and other Western countries and part of this work was to reinterpret the laws of those countries so that their activities could be justified and hidden from eyes of their citizens. This has all signs of conspiracy the tin foil hat brigade was bragging about for years and that worries the hell out of me as if those lunatics were right then our perception of our legal system and how our state is supposed to work and more importantly there does not seem to be anything that can indicate - here and not further. You know like law sort of thing saying this is wrong and this is good. No limits to the spooks! Spooks international - how is that any better than communist international?
"The president assured the chancellor that the United States is not monitoring and will not monitor the communications of the chancellor," said Carney. "The United States greatly values our close cooperation with Germany on a broad range of shared security challenges."
Ms. Merkel asked whether the US had been monitoring her phone, and Obama replied that the US is not doing so. The omission of the past tense was glaringly obvious at the time - essentially an admission that the US had, in fact, being doing so until caught.
Why didn't Obama simply lie? He's a good enough speaker to pull it off, and has shown no reluctance in the past. It seems reasonably obvious that the US knew the Germans had found proof of the spying, and his statement was only intended to mislead the public at large.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
You don't need extraordinary proof.
Of course we need extraordinary proof.
That's why Snowden's documents are so explosive. Finally! Proof!
It's the basic bones of the NSA's charter.
Then provide a link to the NSA's charter and quote the portion you think is relevant.
Argument by Assertion is not an argument, which is exactly what I called out the GGP for.
Of course our intelligence operations will continue to try to learn what other governments are up to, just like they do to us and everyone else.
I'm talking specifically about spying on Heads of State,
so if you're saying that other governments are tapping Obama's cellphone,
don't even bother to hit reply, call your local FBI field office and give them your proof.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Here
Remarkably, during the post-interview analysis show that streamed on the web, NBC News anchor and correspondent Andrea Mitchell said in April 2013 he sent the one email to the General Counsel, which he talked about. She then acknowledged the NSA could be covering up “other emails” and Snowden could be right—that there is a “paper trail” showing he made “multiple attempts” to take his concerns to superiors.
So tell me, what makes you so quick to believe an organization that has proven on multiple occasions that it is willing to lie to the people and directly to Congress (and then spy on Congress) over the person who exposed the whole debacle, particularly when his claims about the efficacy of going through channels has been corroborated by others known to have gone through channels?
Well, yeah, he was caught holding the bloody knife standing over the body, but since he says the bystander never said 'stop', we'll just have to let him go."
Fine. I've got a new one: "Why are the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties such vicious cunts? Who represents the Party of Tits and Wine?"
(The answer is that we keep electing Democrats and Republican/Teahadists.)
Snowden's worst crime - in the eyes of the establisment - was that he showed us what was going on. But that's where he stopped, and I'm glad he stopped there. He can't, and shouldn't, try to do it all. Pre-Snowden, Americans were dupes. Post-Snowden, Americans had what they needed to know to make an informed decision and to vote accordingly. If his fellow Americans are willing to take the gamble that comes from permitting a democractic government to employ the mechanisms of totalitarianism, they might get lucky and defy all historical precedent, and then again, they might not.
As long as we keep electing Party officials, we'll get the Party's policies. If that's what we as Americans want, we deserve whatever the Party gives us. No tits or wine for us.
I doubt the governments got the documents.
The government already had all information it needed. What NSA does is the responsibility of the government and if NSA fails to report what it does the government has to cut funding and shut it down.
including wire fraud,
Given that phones are now internet connected computers, pretty much everything down to jaywalking while on the phone could get you 10 years under the wire fraud laws.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
That'd be the same Wyden who already knew a lot of what Snowden revealed and felt he couldn't say anything because it was all classified? The same Congress that discovered they'd been lied to, openly, baldly and repeatedly, and did diddly squat because it was a high ranking member of the security state who did it?
Good one. Snowden did what he did because the entire US political structure has been subverted by the military to such an extent that there is nobody left who will hold them genuinely accountable. The press won't do it. Congress won't do it. The courts won't do it. The only guy left who will do it was a 30 year old former spy. That's what America is, now.
That's another reason he better not turn himself in. He would be convicted of a felony and would not be eligible running for president once he's old enough for that.
There will be no candidate standing in for the American constitution surviving the large parties' primaries in the next 50 years unless the spell is broken. Remember: Obama is a "constitutional lawyer" which should be the best starting point you can imagine, and look what he has turned out to be.
It's sad that one has just one person with a conscience to work with in the U.S. political system, but that makes it more important not to waste him prematurely.
Idiot he admired his guilt in public. There is no need for a trial.
If he claimed he was innocent, sure, give him a trial. Then if hes proven innocent by a reasonable doubt then let him go. If not, execute him ( that's what we do with traitors ). But he made no such claim, so the only thing left is sentencing.
Execution is not murder, idiot.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
1 He exposed no traitors. He 'exposed' people working to insure our safety.
2 If he did, and they claimed innocence, then they get trial. If they claim guilt, then no trial.
Simple enough for you?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
... how governments are portrayed as separate entities even though they are (should be) representatives of the people and WE the people give them such power.
Why in the fuck haven't we taken it away from them and dictated some SANE laws for once in our goddamn history??
he can't be convicted of treason no matter how hard the Constitutional Scholar tries....
Oh, sure he can be. Constitution monstitution, we have secret courts here.
You do realize it was controversial to execute the Rosenbergs, right? Executing Snowden is thus batshit insane by comparison.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
... He is guilty. He admits what he's done. We can argue about what the law should be, but not what the law is. It's illegal to take classified documents...
A legitimate defense to any accusation of a crime is the necessity defense. Basically, it means if you have to commit a smaller crime to prevent a greater wrong, then what you did is excusable and not even a crime. For example, if you have a passenger in your car who is bleeding to death, and while you are headed to the hospital you encounter a red light, legally, you can run the light and you would *not* be breaking the law.
(||) Nehmo (||)
Idiot he admired his guilt in public. There is no need for a trial.
There is always a need for a trial. Confessions mean little, especially in a case as complex as this.
Have you considered that a jury may decide to use jury nullification? Have you considered that laws might be struck down as unconstitutional? Have you considered anything that might happen during a trial that would differ from simply executing him? Everyone needs a fair trial.
Also, your definition of "traitor" is silly. I know he didn't betray me or the principles this country is supposed to stand for. What he did doesn't even meet the constitutional definition, unless you interpret it as being so broad it could be applied to anyone.
Execution is not murder, idiot.
Government thugs killing people (citizens) without trial is murder.
Also, execution is morally wrong. That you advocate murder shows that you're an authoritarian asshole.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
So there was ONE email, and then SPECULATION by Andrea Mitchell that there COULD have been others.
That is not evidence that Snowden repeatedly attempted to blow the whistle on spying.
This. It really doesn't matter whether he's charged with treason, data theft, or jaywalking - or tax evasion, for that matter. He's upset the apple cart of the people who re-interpret the law, and if he's ever out from under the protection of a nation the USA can't intimidate, he'll burn for it.
Snowden is a spy alright. He is a spy FOR the Obama administration.
Snowden will get a fair trial, and then be thrown in jail for the crimes he has already confessed publicly to doing.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
I'm not sure if I want a government agency that is spying on my every move having an insurance policy on me, as that would give them motivation to kill me, and the NSA is certainly not 'ensuring' our safety either, as we would be safer if they didn't exist.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Reporting, revealing, and refusing to take part in criminal activity is non-treasonous, lawful, and required by the military.
In theory. In practice, they tried to have Hugh Thompson killed by putting him in the most dangerous places. When he retired from service, he got frequent threats, dead animals at his doormats and so on.
Several decades after he saved about a dozen lives resisting the chain of command in the My Lai massacre, people started thinking about what message they want to project and gave him a medal.
They bothered doing a trial on a single soldier for My Lai, for about twenty proven brutal uncalled for murders of defenseless victims. His penalty was immediately changed by presidential decree into a bit of house arrest to be served in his unit.
Yes, they say that as a soldier you have the duty to resist criminal orders. But woe on you if you do. You'll be spit upon for decades.
all the local State-run media outlets seems to somehow miss this information?
He's an idiot! The man knows nothing but what is told to him, he is incapable of independent thought.
It's not just the spy bureaucracy. According to polls most of the American people do not approve of his actions. And this is a democracy, so that matters.
Well no, it's an oligarchy, masquerading as a democracy.
Snowden could have chosen to leak his documents anonymously through a Congressman.
Not necessarily trivial. They weren't watching Snowden, but you can bet your ass that the NSA watches all congresscritters _very_ closely.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If the revelations were to cause a significant turnover in congress (like 100%) and the executive, I would consider him one of the greatest patriots of our times. If not, well, at least he tried. At least that's what I like to think.
Snowden is a great patriot, it's the American people that are found wanting in the patriotism department. Got plenty of jingoism, though.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
One of my favorite lines (gleaned from a post here as a matter of fact) is, do you really expect to win a rigged game by playing by the rules?
"Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." -- Lazarus Long
... follow those [violation] processes."
Back on topic: "Snowden did not
If you're afraid of following problem/complaint escalation procedures upwards, that sounds more of like an overall management problem to me. (Now he still could have been stupid, lazy, not cared, or just a troll out to get attention; but at this point I'm more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here.)
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
Pretty much the only thing he's revealed that most Americans actually care about was the mass surveillance on US Citizens, and a lot of that was oversold.
You are pointing to a discredited article written just as the Snowden revelations started to come out. Really?
Actually, Snowden (the one who has yet to be caught in a lie) says there are more. The NSA (the guys who have lied repeatedly to anyone and everyone, even under oath, and spied on anyone and everyone including Congress) claims that's it. How many gallons of cool aid do you have to drink to find the NSA more credible?
Snowden (the one who has yet to be caught in a lie)
You mean other than, just for starters, the lies he told his co-workers in order to get their system credentials? Or the fundamental lie that he told as he swore not to divulge classified information to places like China and Russia? He was lying on that most recent job from the moment he sat down, never mind when he started harvesting other people's passwords so he could gather all of that classified info he's spreading around.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
so if you're saying that other governments are tapping Obama's cellphone, don't even bother to hit reply, call your local FBI field office and give them your proof.
It's agencies like the NSA that - among other things - are tasked with making internal US government communications a lot harder to hack than a lot of other countries' systems are. But if you think for a second that dozens of intelligence agencies around the world don't make every effort to get inside info on communications between US government officials (from agency staffers right through the military and up through the administration to the top) then you're absolutely clueless. You're confusing "ARE tapping Obama's cell phone" with "would LOVE to be tapping Obama's cell phone given any means and opportunity to do so."
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
To a creative prosecutor, there are crimes that I'm sure you are guilty of too citizen.
I cannot get this to load with the classic view. Only BETA comes up even after switching to classic and doing the ?nobeta=1 thing! I've about had it with this interface.
There is a process to follow. Releasing classified information and then running to Russia is not in the procedures.
He 'exposed' people working to insure our safety.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
If the polls are true, then it's a shame that that the U.S public are so easily distracted by Edward Snowden and they know so little or care so little about holding the NSA and it's actions to the law. When people like Clapper can lie directly to congress and nothing happens, when the NSA can shit all over the constitution and do mass surveillance of ALL the world(which obviously includes all US citizens), store ALL data/communications for years('metadata', contents of phone calls/emails/search histories etc etc), and nothing happens, then that's a damn shame and it shows that the 'American people' cannot be trusted to hold their politicians and police state accountable to the law of the land. If it's not the American peoples fault, then the blame can be put on the mainstream media, who has completely failed to also hold the government and authorities to account. They are more focused on Snowden and basically are just a mouthpiece for the government/3 letter intelligence agencies these days, they have basically lost all credibility in my eyes. Only people like Greenwald and sites like the Guardian are worth anything these days. The NYT even is pretty shit these days, or perhaps they've always been in terms of 'us vs them'(as in U.S.A vs the world) or 'foreign policy issues' rather than purely domestic issues.
And how exactly does the American people see him as Putins puppet? It was/is the U.S state department etc that revoked his passport and forced him to stay in Russia. Snowden wants NOTHING more than to return home to the U.S to 'face the music' and have his day in court, but like he said(and as we all know based on Mannings treatment and also from Snowdens lawyer and Ellsberg too), there would be no chance for him to have a fair trial and there will be no justice to be served. This is a shame, and it should be what everyone is focused on, rather than Snowdens motivations, whatever they may be. But like i said, even if he comes back now, he will not even be given a chance to explain his motivations for doing what he did, just like how they gagged Ellsberg in his trial and in Mannings trial(he was already found guilty before he could even say anything). So if you are right and it 'looks bad' for Snowden because he's in Russia, then i guess that worked out well for the U.S.
So sad that people fell so easily for the inevitable smear campaign against Snowden since that was basically the only hand they had to play.. it's basically nothing more than a distraction while they hope for the public to 'forget' about them shitting on the constitution, not enforcing the rule of law(Clapper lying to congress, torture being used and officially condoned, Guantanamo), etc etc.
When the U.S and the relevant officials 'face the music', the rule of law is restored(Clapper facing the music, guantanamo and the rest of Bush/Cheney etc facing the music for torture etc) and Snowden has a chance of a fair trial, then perhaps i will consider him as anything less than rational and a U.S patriot. Until then, the issue of Snowden himself being prosecuted is nothing of importance when compared with the greater threat of the rule of law and the constitution being shit all over on by politicians and the intelligence community running rampant, where not even the Senate Intelligence Oversight Commitee seems to know what is going on(Feinstein even said that they had no idea about them spying on the heads of state of US allies, and this apparently also included the president himself if Feinsten was to be believed, which would either make them ignorant/daft/useless and/or it would mean that the NSA etc are also playing the oversight committee and congress for fools and means they are running rampant with no real oversight). And this is only talking about domestic US law and not even talking about international law..
All these moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain..
Our judicial system is to judge based on existing laws. New laws come from the legislative branch (separation of powers and all that). The most a court can legally do is to rule a law unconstitutional. Snowden broke the law. He talks about civil disobedience back in the 1960s, but there's a big difference. Back then participants were willing to accept the consequences of their actions in the hopes of bringing about change. Snowden thinks the consequences of the laws he admittedly broke are too harsh, but would consider turning himself in for "a little jail time". Mr. Snowdern, which is more important: informing the public about the egregious acts of the federal government or saving your own bacon?
Which is why calls were 100 to 1 against telecom immunity in 2008
Really? Do you have a source for that? I was one of those 100 callers, but I felt very alone. I could get geeks riled-up about it, but most people around me seemed to think that the government could do whatever they wanted. Perhaps those people just didn't call. Even if the calls were 100 to 1, I think public sentiment overall was in favor of telecom immunity.
Or was he simply lying?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
He has never lied to me or to you. The NSA has, repeatedly.
Bolivia, not Ecuador. just saying... If I had typed "Chicago, California" instead of "Chicago, Illinois" you guys would be writing letters to your Congresscritters demanding a formal declaration of war against me.
You're assuming that the NSA and their new apparatus would play fair with the existing three branches of government.
They won't, because they're an unconstitutional fourth branch of government that now has no checks and balances. All they have to do is declare something a security risk, or claim someone is a terrorist, WITHOUT PROOF, and that's it. Fair trial? No hardly. All testimoony would be sealed as it's a security risk that none of us is capable of hearing. If the law doesn't do what they want, they'll hold you in Guantanamo until a new law is passed that's more favourable, and *boom* /then/ they'll convict.
If they can lay hands on you, you're in jail forever.
Clearly, we're not a democracy anymore.
While I don't disagree with your poll assessment about American's disapproving of his actions, I'd have to ask how many of those polls ask questions about what they know about his revelations.
Right after the NBC special last week, it was running about 2 to 1 IN FAVOR of Snowden... clearly people who watched the hour he was on, and perhaps part of the panel discussion following.
It would also be nice to have asked the respondents if they approve of the US Government having illegal access to their phone records, emails, and browser history.
What do you think the public's answers to those questions would be?
The real problem is the lack of security on the part of the government. They should have learned a lesson from Manning in that access privileges to sensitive information needs to be limited. Both Snowden and Manning simply walked in, got the goods, and walked out. Government needs to shut the doors. While I'm concerned about rights, I am also concerned about competency.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
1. I want to join this Tits and Wine party.
2. Congress has a 10% approval rating. Yet all of the congressmembers that were up for relection got reelected. Less than 50% of the US population votes. We have no one to blame but ourselves.
A comment on the first two paragraphs: horse hockey. Meadow muffins.
Bullshit.
The polls i see, not from Faux "news", show Americans at 59% to 41% approving of Snowdon. And no, people do NOT "approve" of the mass collection, aka Big Brother style spying. This is the level that the former Romanian dictator could only dream of.
Go read what Ellsberg says. And perhaps you might read wikipedia, or something more reliable, on just who Ellsberg is.
mark
Yo ass munch, he'll go to jail for the rest of his life. But I guess the fact he won't receive a fair trial doesn't bother you.
Pissed of does not quite cover it. Hierarchy is important in Germany and you 'dismissed' that fact. Every country/culture has sensitivities that are not easily forgotten.
I'm sorry but not everything he did was right.
1) let the American people know our own government is spying on us - fine
2) let the world know which countries our government is spying on - not fine. that's the job of the NSA, CIA etc
> Its a Constitutional Democracy. So what the mob thinks doesn't make it right.
Right, only the lawyers can decide that here.
And for having the president of Ecuador's plane forced down because he might have been carrying Snowden on board.
Just a nitpick: It was Bolivias president airplane.
I agree that the NSA has over stepped its bounds in several cases, but even if criminal, i dont consider them traitors. Misguided, out of control, etc, but *not* traitors.
But the topic was about Snowden, not the NSA, who i do consider a traitor and should be treated as one. He may not think he is, but the crimes he committed, and admitted to, were the classic definition of being one.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Yo ass munch, he'll go to jail for the rest of his life. But I guess the fact he won't receive a fair trial doesn't bother you.
He knew the law and the proscribed punishment before breaking it. You are free to choose your actions, but you aren't free to choose the consequences thereof.
I don't know if Snowden will get a fair trial or not; I don't even know if that's possible given that he publicly admitted to his crimes. I don't know what a fair trial in his case even means. If he broke a law with a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison, then he should spend at least 10 years in prison. If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime. He used social engineering to hack into a system he didn't have rights to, stole a boatload of confidential data, then released it.
Snowden is a traitor to the government, but not the people. The NSA are traitors to the people.. I don't care at all about being a traitor to the government, and you shouldn't either.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I think he is both.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Which is why calls were 100 to 1 against telecom immunity in 2008, from across the ideological spectrum. Because if there's one thing a majority of Americans want, it's corrupt unaccountable Big Brother spying on the entire planet. And that's before getting to the naked hackery of NBC's polling. You run a poll asking 'do you support Snowden taking classified documents to Putin's Russia?!?!?' and are surprised at the results? How about 'do you support whisteblowers when they reveal top officials breaking the law hundreds of times a second every day of the week'?
Dude, welcome to fucking politics. If you were right, and the American people were so far behind you that they didn't care what he told Putin, the poll wouldn't say what it said. Most American people simply aren;t true believers. They'll default to "I am an independent thinker, therefore I must oppose some of what Snowden does and support the rest."
Moreover they tend to be extremely confused about basic facts:
Is this perfromance art, or did you bring enough hallucenegic drugs for everybody? Cuz you're on some mighty powerful acid if you're seriously suggesting we need to spend hundreds of billions to tap the personal communications of our closest allies.
You sure you ain't on acid?
The NSA budget is $11-12 Billion in total. Even assuming you meant a 10-year budget window, and that all the money went to tapping her phone, we're nowhere near $200 Billion.
It doesn't work to blame Snowden for ending up in Putin's Russia when it was Clinton's State Department who canceled his passport on his way to South America. And for having the president of Ecuador's plane forced down because he might have been carrying Snowden on board.
And if he was a little bit smarter he probably never would have gotten on a plane to Russia.
Like many people who oppose one of America's policies, he apparently divided the world into two camps. As an anti-American he thought Putin would protect him for a few hours. That turned out to be total BS. He'd have been a lot better off flying direct to someplace in Latin America, where anti-American political leaders would have protected him without using him.
I'm not arguing he had good options. But his bad options all flowed from his initial decision to flee to an oppressive state in the wrong hemisphere, where he revealed the info via the media.
Under our system of Checks and Balances Congress should have been his first try. If he's going some country besides the US it's up to him to understand that all those countries are full of real human beings, who are just as complicated as white Americans, and therefore their politics will be exactly as complicated as the BS that goes on in DC. Which means that an anti-American government activist depending on their goodwill had damn well better know exactly how all political actors in the country will act.
And if he fucks it up (as he did by assuming the Chinese would protect him, and risk their exports; or by assuming Putin would ignore a revocation of his passport), it's on him. He took the risk and he lost.
"NSA Charter?" Where are you from? In the US the only organizations that have charters are cities. The NSA is authorized by a combination of statutes passed by Congress, and Executive Orders signed by various Presidents. There is no charter.
I'd guess you're not from the UK because you refer to Merkel as a "Head of State." She isn't The Germans have a system similar to the British/Canadian/Irish/Indian etc. system whereby there's a powerless head of state (in Germany's case President Joachim Gauck), and a powerful Head of Government (Merkel) who does all the actual work.
As for the equivalent of the NSA charter: the NSA is a Signals Intelligence Agency. That means they get information (both licitly and illicitly) by tapping other country's signals.
Merkel is a Head of Government, therefore tapping her phone is, indeed, the NSA's entire job. It is a signals intelligence agency. Her conversations are intelligence, and her phone communicates via a system of electronic signals.
Snowden chose to be the guy whose face was ion these press releases. he chose to do it from Hong Kong. I honestly can't figure out why in God's name he thought Hong Kong would be a good place to do this (it's not like the Chinese are going to want an information freedom activist inside their country), but he chose to do that. Then he ended up in Russia.
He's playing the geopolitical game, it's not necessarily his fault that he lost this fight, but it is definitely his fault that he chose a fight he could not win.
BTW, has it occurred to you that the people actually stopping him from getting on the flight were all Russian? If Putin's people wave him through regardless of his US Passport then he's safe in Cuba.
It doesn't work to blame Snowden for ending up in Putin's Russia when it was Clinton's State Department who canceled his passport on his way to South America. And for having the president of Ecuador's plane forced down because he might have been carrying Snowden on board.
You do realize that there's no angels who come down to heaven and smite countries that let you fly without the proper paperwork? So if Putin just told his airline that they "accidentally forgot" to scan Snowden's passport Ed would be in Cuba today?
In other words Clinton may have signed the paper Putin used to rationalize keeping Snowden as his pet, but Putin's the one who decided he wanted a Snowden pet.
The bill of rights only protects US Citizens from searches. It doesn't protect Angie Merkel.
Which means that his status as Bill of Rights hero is irrelevent to the question "Is revealing a tap on Angela Merkel's phone illegal?"
Dude,
Don't be intentionally stupid.
The NSA is a Signals Intelligence Agency. that means it's entire job is to tap the signals of foreign states, and other actors who can affect US policy. As a Head of Government that is Angie Merkel, by definition. If you have a specific US Statute that says allied countries don't get spied on then feel free to quote it.
Since no such statute exists, the statutes authorizing the NSA (by definition) require it to spy on people like Angie Merkel.
Note: treaties are irrelevant. A valid, signed, and ratified treaty can only affect the actual actions of the US Government if a) the President wants to obey the Treaty, and the Treaty is something the President can do on his own, or b) Congress passes a statute.
If you have a treaty that specifically says, flat-out, no fucking spying ( as opposed to a treaty that bans abstract BS such as "hostile actions") then you have proven Congress were dicks for not passing a statute. You have not proven that the statute authorizing the NSA bans spying on Allied states.
As for Merkel's reaction:
Who cares?
She needs the US National Security establishment because Putin just got ambitious, and Putin's buddies spied on her a lot worse then the NSA did.
She could probably afford her own national security establishment, but doing something like that would require her to spend lots of money on things like Strategic Transport Aircraft, military relationships with Poland/Lithuania/etc., Strategic Bombers, etc. Since she's too cheap to do that shit, she's dependent on us, and we'll apologize profusely for the camers and then carry on spying as usual.
Quite correct; however, unfortunately, it is not admissable in court as a defense against a charge to show that a specific law is so ill-defined that 50% of the population has broken it in some way, shape, or form, in the past 10 years.
Yeah, but nobody seriously argues over whether he committed a crime on Slashdot. They argue over whether he will be pardoned, so he can come home to a triumphal parade.
And whether he gets that pardon depends on the poll numbers.
I fully agree Congress sucks.
But it's not like we're gonna get a Congress with a Green/Libertarian coalition running things anytime soon, so if Congress can;t be relied upon to act then Snowden releasing the data himself is simply foolish.
Doing it himself really reduced the odds of success because it means he gets some of the credit for doing the job. Whether he deserves the credit is irrelevant, what's relevant is that the publicity whores we elect to run our governments are much less likely to support an idea if some other guy gets the credit.
More importantly if he'd tried to go through Congress he still would have had the option of doing it himself. If Wyden sits on the data then it's still a scoop for Greenwald to get the story.
He basically painted himself into a corner by fleeing to Hong Kong, which means he;'ll spend the rest of his life as the Czar's special toy and the NSA will continue more or less as-is,
A white man? You're arguing the US Intelligence Establishment would kill a white man, with no trial? Has that ever happened before? I mean there are plenty of Native Americans, black guys, a bunch of Arabs recently, etc. But white men? Fuck no.
I can see arguing that he'd be fired and arrested for spying, but it's really easy to get publicity for a white man being oppressed by Obama, and it's really hard to convict somebody for telling a Congressman on the Intelligence Committee stuff about US Intelligence.
You think Indonesia's an ally? Google "Major-non-NATO Ally." Indonesia ain't on the list.
If you got that fact wrong it shouldn;t be surprising your other fact is wrong. The Indonesia operation was at an international conference. On climate change, IIRC. We got a bunch of their phone numbers for future use. We don't spy for trade secrets.
Here's the thing:
Communicating with Wyden from a throw-away email address, using encryption, etc. would not actually have been harder then the shit he did to meet Greenwald.
And then if he gets arrested, or fired, or any clue that the NSA is on to him the story is "NSA thwarts Congressman's investigation," which is a lot better then the current story ("Snowden performs tricks for master Vladimir").
And then if he gets arrested, or fired, or any clue that the NSA is on to him the story is "NSA thwarts Congressman's investigation," which is a lot better then the current story ("Snowden performs tricks for master Vladimir").
It's better for your sensibilities, not for Snowden's freedom. I reject the notion that he should have given up his freedom to make you feel better.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That's not the industrial espionage of a cigarette company I mentioned above but a different operation. It tells me a lot about you that you appear to think it's justified because climate change is involved, but how about we get back on topic instead of dragging some luddite anti-science bullshit into the mix?
About ten years ago the Airbus versus Boeing case proved that a US government agency did spy for trade secrets and it was proved in a US courtroom.
Look, Snowden's trial will be perfectly fair. And if he has to live to 378 for it to start, well that's his problem.
Sheesh - next thing you know you'll be complaining that it's not fair for people to have to pay for the electricity supplied to their testicle-mounted heaters. You have testicle mounted heaters, don't you - like it says in the NSA's "Human Anatomy for Faceless Automata Guarding Traitors" text book. That's where you plug the mains power in to warm them up if they're cold, or cool them off if they're hot.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
I always love it when anti-American paranoids bring that up.
We have the biggest intelligence apparatus in the history of the human race. It leaks like a sieve (see: Snowden and Manning). It's broadly perceived by the entire world as being the kind of apparatus that would steal an actual trade secret (ie: the design of the new Playstation) to aid American companies (ie: Microsoft). Yet the only example any of you have of this actually happening is that one time they publicly exposed a bribe Airbus paid to a corrupt Saudi official. The rest is all ridiculous conjecture, generally based on the principle of "If they were really fucking evil, they could probably do this."
Don't you think that if this kind of shit actually happened you'd have a second example? Preferably one from outside the aircraft industry, because aircraft companies are so intertwined with their governments that there really isn't a whole lot of difference between them? And really ESPECIALLY not involving the French, whose economic policy has been based on defending "National Champions" (like Airbus) with state power (like spy data) for decades?
And then if he gets arrested, or fired, or any clue that the NSA is on to him the story is "NSA thwarts Congressman's investigation," which is a lot better then the current story ("Snowden performs tricks for master Vladimir").
It's better for your sensibilities, not for Snowden's freedom. I reject the notion that he should have given up his freedom to make you feel better.
I think you really just showed the reason why this whole campaign will fail. Snowden would prefer to live in a world where the NSA continues data collection, and he's not in US prison; to a world where he spends a few months awaiting trial.
So he'll keep his freedom.
If you can call it that.
I think you really just showed the reason why this whole campaign will fail. Snowden would prefer to live in a world where the NSA continues data collection, and he's not in US prison; to a world where he spends a few months awaiting trial.
That is a false dichotomy. In fact, the choice as far as his actions are concerned today is between a world where the NSA continues data collection, and he's not in US prison; and a world where the NSA continues data collection, and he is in US prison. Because there is nothing about a trial of Snowden that will be injurious to the US government. Evidence will be denied precisely as in the Ellsberg case (at least read the comments here on Slashdot if you cannot be bothered to familiarize yourself with the story otherwise) and even if he does manage to evade prison, no further revelations will be revealed due to the case.
So he'll keep his freedom. If you can call it that.
It sounds to me like you're bitter that Snowden isn't a magician who can wave a wand and save us all from our inattention and apathy. That's not how it works. At your age, which is clearly more than five, I should not have to explain to you that if you want magic in the world, you make it yourself — and not by howling for a trial which can only ever be unfair.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I think you really just showed the reason why this whole campaign will fail. Snowden would prefer to live in a world where the NSA continues data collection, and he's not in US prison; to a world where he spends a few months awaiting trial.
That is a false dichotomy. In fact, the choice as far as his actions are concerned today is between a world where the NSA continues data collection, and he's not in US prison; and a world where the NSA continues data collection, and he is in US prison. Because there is nothing about a trial of Snowden that will be injurious to the US government. Evidence will be denied precisely as in the Ellsberg case (at least read the comments here on Slashdot if you cannot be bothered to familiarize yourself with the story otherwise) and even if he does manage to evade prison, no further revelations will be revealed due to the case.
*woosh*
I just proved he had better odds of success by going through Congress. There is a 0% chance of a trial because there's no law against telling Congress things. If the US Government actually tries to charge him then he's gonna beat them in Court, and they'll have a whole mess of trouble not admitting what they're doing in the public record of the trial proceedings.
Which means that the choice before him was superior odds, and going through Congress, or inferior odds and going through the media. He went through the media, largely because he did not understand that the Constitution precludes the trial he feared.
So he'll keep his freedom. If you can call it that.
It sounds to me like you're bitter that Snowden isn't a magician who can wave a wand and save us all from our inattention and apathy. That's not how it works. At your age, which is clearly more than five, I should not have to explain to you that if you want magic in the world, you make it yourself — and not by howling for a trial which can only ever be unfair.
What's more magical:
The idea that if you tell Congress things, they may theoretically do the right thing; or the belief that if you tell the media things (and the media tells Congress), then Congress will do the right thing?
Hell what's more magical:
The belief that Snowden would be arrested for talking to Congress, despite the fact there's no statute against talking to Congress; or the belief that Snowden would be arrested for talking to the media (and most law enforcement thinks there's statutes against that).
Nice squirrel, but that does.....what to prop back up the Big Lie that Snowden chose to end up in Russia?
Ah, "pet". You forgot to include "traitor" in the list of required junk authoritarian talking points. Short of Putin putting Snowden on a Russian navy fleet chartered for Havana, it's going to be somewhat difficult for him to get to South America when the U.S. has shown how far it's willing to go to get him. But I'm sure Puting declining to spend tens or hundreds of thousands to fly Snoden pro-bono is still Snowden's fault. Somehow.
So, have you always been a fan of corrupt hypocritical authoritarianism, or just since Obama was elected?
I just proved he had better odds of success by going through Congress.
No, you didn't.
There is a 0% chance of a trial because there's no law against telling Congress things.
He would have to admit to a congresscritter that he had illegally accessed confidential information. I don't trust those guys as far as I can crap them.
What's more magical:
The idea that if you tell Congress things, they may theoretically do the right thing; or the belief that if you tell the media things (and the media tells Congress), then Congress will do the right thing?
Again, you are incapable of anything better than logical fallacy. This is yet another false dichotomy. There's also the idea that if you tell the media things, and they tell the public things, that the public may force the government to do things about those things. History tells us that the government only works in the best interest of the people when the people actually make it do that, so while it's not a sure bet it's still the best bet.
Hell what's more magical:
The belief that Snowden would be arrested for talking to Congress, despite the fact there's no statute against talking to Congress;
The belief that you would exercise some reading comprehension ability is the most magical of all. Now go back and reread my comments in this thread until you understand that I suggested that the NSA is watching congresspeople (on average) more closely than they're watching media contacts (on average), or at least they were. There's the possible mechanism for his arrest due to communication with congress, which in the absence of strong protections for whistleblowers is a violation of federal law. Now address my comment, or admit that you're just blathering.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Why is it "anti-American" to draw attention to out of control agencies being taken to task by less out of control portions of the State?
You cannot count or pretending not to be able to - that is two examples so far in this thread alone.
Nope.
There's one. Boeing and Airbus. The "second" is something you apparently made up about clove cigarettes.
Nice squirrel, but that does.....what to prop back up the Big Lie that Snowden chose to end up in Russia?
Nothing.
This particular post isn't intended to prove anything about Snowden's choices.
It's intended to prove that Putin is as much to blame for Snowden being stuck in Russia as Clinton is.
Ah, "pet". You forgot to include "traitor" in the list of required junk authoritarian talking points. Short of Putin putting Snowden on a Russian navy fleet chartered for Havana, it's going to be somewhat difficult for him to get to South America when the U.S. has shown how far it's willing to go to get him. But I'm sure Puting declining to spend tens or hundreds of thousands to fly Snoden pro-bono is still Snowden's fault. Somehow.
So, have you always been a fan of corrupt hypocritical authoritarianism, or just since Obama was elected?
And now, since you have no idea how to respond to a post that indicates the United States is not the only evil country to ever exist, you insist I must be "authoritarian." As countries go we're far from perfect, but we're a lot better then most.
I haven't said anything about Snowden's choices in this post. A "pet" isn't necessarily happy about being held captive, that's why they escape. Whether he likes it or not that's what Ed Snowden is today. And it's what he'll remain for the foreseeable future, because Putin clearly wants to keep him.
As for Putin's choices, you do realize he has the second largest navy in the world Navy? Including carriers? And that it's very difficult to stop a commercial aircraft from flying through your airspace? Especially one that doesn't need to stop to re-fuel? What are you gonna do, kill 150 innocent passengers to skoosh Ed Snowden?
Snowden's problems with using Morales' plane were two-fold:
1) Bolivia is poor, so Morales plane did not have the range to go all the way in one go. He had to stop in Europe to refuel. Italy, Spain, and France all refused permission. If it had simply been a matter of airspace Spain would have been irrelevant, because you can't get to Spanish airspace from Moscow without going through Italy or France.
2) The French are (as pretty much always) playing a double-game. Publicly they'll condemn the hell out of the NSA. Privately their industrial policy is based partly on strategic industrial espionage, their foreign policy is based on having intricate (and intimate) relationships with a dozen or two former African colonies. This means they do a lot of fucking spying on fucking everyone. But they are also the designated America-skeptics, so last July they condemned PRISM. The day before Le Monde revealed that France had it's own PRISM program. This was all pretty embarrassing for the French, and it was July 4th or so. Morales plane had problems a few days before that. The French had to know Snowden's revelations would spread to their DGSE, so they had to be very unhappy with him.
Generally the way the US abuses it's relationships is not by forcing countries to do things. They generally simply say "fuck you US" on principle. The way the US abuses it's power is by doing things, and then daring anyone to call us on it. This pretty much our entire relationship to Pakistan. OTOH, the French generally work indirectly through their allies. This helps them sometimes (ie: just try getting a non-French oil company into a former French colo
The belief that you would exercise some reading comprehension ability is the most magical of all. Now go back and reread my comments in this thread until you understand that I suggested that the NSA is watching congresspeople (on average) more closely than they're watching media contacts (on average), or at least they were. There's the possible mechanism for his arrest due to communication with congress, which in the absence of strong protections for whistleblowers is a violation of federal law. Now address my comment, or admit that you're just blathering.
Still as trollish as the last time we tangled, I see, Mr. Poo.
That's a mechanism for the NSA to find out, and if you're naive enough to assume there are circumstances under which a WASPy white guy would be subject to extra-legal tactics in the US it could be a cause for concern.
But it is not a cause for arrest, because to be arrested in the US you have to violate a statute.
So you are calling me a lair just because you are ignorant of the subject matter?
Still as trollish as the last time we tangled, I see, Mr. Poo.
That's a mechanism for the NSA to find out
There's nothing trollish about it whatsoever. That is the mechanism which I described in an earlier comment which you ignored and asked me to explain again. Either you didn't read my comment, in which case shame on you, or you didn't understand my comment, in which case buh on you.
But it is not a cause for arrest, because to be arrested in the US you have to violate a statute.
You mean sharing confidential information? Yeah, done and done. And for you, duh and duh.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
How about Petrobras, Huawei and German communications companies then? Are Richard A. Clarke, Michael J. Morell, Geoffrey R. Stone, Cass R. Sunstein and Peter Swire wrong - yet you are somehow correct?
You're insulting your own intelligence as well as mine with a straw man that pathetic.
And the fact that he doesn't use that to transport Snowden to Ecuador pro-bono makes him as responsible as Obama for his current location on what planet? Try this again without the straw men or crap that's obvious nonsense the second it falls out of your mouth.
Thanks, got my destinations swapped around.
Nah, I've spent enough time around Scandanavians to hear what you meant instead of what you said.
And some got flight training in Florida - when does Shock And Awe: Miami debut? And almost all of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, which the last time I checked was a muslim theocratic dictatorship sitting on top of a big pile of oil. Where's their Freedom Bombs?
You're insulting your own intelligence as well as mine with a straw man that pathetic.
You accused me of being "authoritarian" because I pointed out the biggest authoritarian on the world stage was not doing something he could easily do, and I'm setting up straw men?
Pot meet kettle.
And the fact that he doesn't use that to transport Snowden to Ecuador pro-bono makes him as responsible as Obama for his current location on what planet? Try this again without the straw men or crap that's obvious nonsense the second it falls out of your mouth.
It's interesting that you ignore the possibility that he could just put Snowden on a plane. Snowden has already paid for a ticket, so that would not cost him anything.
Mr. Non-authoritarian, why are you claiming the US has sole responsibility for Snowden's location when Putin could fix the entire problem simply by telling somebody to forget to check the paperwork? Hell he could issue the paperwork himself. As a sovereign state Russia could issue travel documents to a gerbil. That's kinda the definition of being sovereign.
Snowden is exactly where Putin wants him. This serves the US to an extent, because it discredits Snowden, but Putin is the one whose actually keeping Snowden in Moscow.
BTW, blaming Hillary is exactly what all of Snowden;'s enemies want you to do. Anyone who thinks about it for 30 seconds will realize Putin is precisely as guilty in this as Hillary is, because if Vladimir Putin can ignore a solemn agreement not to annex Crimea why can't he ignore paperwork issued by the State Department? He's Vladimir fucking Putin, dictator of all the Russias, not Angie Merkel, head of the co-operative committee of Law-Abiding Northern European Politicians.
Which means anybody who thinks about your posts for 30 seconds is gonna conclude that either you are a)irrational on the issue, or b) in Putin's pay. Neither one is a convincing argument that the US should start be nice to Ed Snowden.
Are you going to link to some of these things?
I've heard people claim Petrobras as an example before, but a) Petrobras is a state-owned entity so it's a perfectly valid target for the NSA, and b) nobody's willing to link to the actual evidence that we used our info on them to help a private us corporation.
What I've seen so far is exactly what I'd expect to see if a major, controversial, country was not spying on other people's corporations for the benefit of it's own corporations: lots of people saying "this clearly happens all the time," lots of other people who generally support the major country's opponents asserting "it happened in this case, but I refuse to post evidence because you can google it" despite the fact google shows no such info, and almost no hard evidence that any private US Corporation ever received anything from the NSA.
And you still don't quote a statute, because you don't actually have a statute.
It's not illegal to share classified information with anyone with the proper security clearance. It's that simple. If I have a Top Secret clearance as a DoD analyst, and my wife has a Top Secret clearance from her work in the CIA, it's perfectly legal for me to give her anything I am allowed to see. Lots of Congressman have that clearance because they are on the committees that oversee classified crap, which means they have to be allowed to read it.
As for the rest of Congress, again oversight of intelligence agencies is their entire fucking job. A law that said you can;t snitch on said agencies to a Congressman would be obviously unconstitutional. Which is why you can;t name the statute that says Snowden could be legally sanctioned for snitching to Congress.
Are you gonna come up with a statute, or are you just gonna puff out your chest and scream BS again?
I gave you far more examples than you asked for but you just have petty excuses. Did you really study history? I seem to be doing better than you here as just an engineer that bothers to read a newspaper instead of ignoring the world.
Where is your apology for calling me a liar over the clove cigarette thing that was widely printed internationally? Your closest source is probably the New York Times since it's on their web page.
You didn't bother to link stuff to back up your assertions when you went as far as calling me a liar but I'm supposed to? Put aside those high school mass debating tricks and remember that you are supposed to be grown up now and have other resources at your disposal.
blockquote>nobody's willing to link to the actual evidence
Nobody? There was an inquiry and I helpfully named the prominent members for you above - providing the information of that for you directly instead of making you chase links everywhere.
Besides it's very clear that you are bluffing so I just have to state facts instead of convince someone who already knows about them but is pretending not to.
Don't you see it as somewhat pathetic that due to blindly following a party line you have lost in a "history fight" to an engineer? Get your head out of the sand, stop relying on being spoon fed and look the world for yourself. That military history stuff you wanted to be spoon fed is in the fucking library and if not there are interlibrary loans, conference papers etc. A degree is supposed to teach you how to learn and not be an endpoint.
What the hell brings a guy that thinks "have you ever read political science" is some sort of insult to this place in the first place (I suspect I read a textbook on the topic thirty years before you were born although I never formally studied the topic and find it a bit depressing currently to be honest). Are you some sort of "social media" worker paid to stir up trouble? What's with the denial of items that were major news stories internationally? What is motivating you so much that you do not are that your are making yourself look incompetent in your chosen field of study? Is it Soviet style revisionism in the hope that somebody in The Party will give you a plum job as Commisar?
Like I said upthread, I wish I had a magic wand, so anyone flinging bullshit of a certain level of stupidity would reflexively mule-kick themselves in the balls. You're overqualified, since you're stuck on the fuckwittery that Putin's a bad guy because he doesn't spend a few million dollars to transport Snowden on a flotilla with nothing in return.
Is there any limit on your willful stupidity? Not that it works - you've spent a whole lot of time blathering about Putin and Snowden but never got around to saying why everyone from Clapper to Alexander to Obama shouldn't be in prison for FISA violations. Cuz that's how you pathetic authoritarian hacks roll.
So now, not only are you setting up straw men, your entire argument is ad hominem.
And, as usual, you;re ignoring the actual meat of the argument: that if Putin simply had his people ignore some paperwork he could let Snowden go on his way for free.
I'd call you a hack, but I'm pretty sure you're trolling. Nobody could be this dumb on purpose.
Small correction, we were founded as a Constitutional Republic, we use democracy as a tool. Other than that, good post.
True democracy, to use a cliche, is 51 wolves and 49 sheep deciding whats for dinner. It is never what the founders of this country intended for what should be obvious reasons. Mob rule is tyranny. Because tyrants can sway an ignorant uneducated populace to do just about anything. Thats where the Constitution comes in, its a base set of rules that define what being an American means. The left, particularly progressives, in this country have done an outstanding job of taking the dolts it turns out through the DOE, and convincing them that we are a democracy and whatever the majority wants is whats right.
Nothing could be further from the truth or intentions of the founders of the USA.