Slashdot Mirror
When Snowden Speaks, Future Lawyers (and Judges) Listen
TheRealHocusLocus writes: We are witness to a historic first: an individual charged with espionage and actively sought by the United States government has been (virtually) invited to speak at Harvard Law School, with applause. [Note: all of the following links go to different parts of a long YouTube video.] HLS Professor Lawrence Lessig conducted the hour-long interview last Monday with a list of questions by himself and his students.
Some interesting segments from the interview include: Snowden's assertion that mass domestic intercept is an "unreasonable seizure" under the 4th Amendment; that it also violates "natural rights" that cannot be voted away even by the majority; a claim that broad surveillance detracts from the ability to monitor specific targets such as the Boston Marathon bombers; him calling out Congress for not holding Clapper accountable for misstatements; and his lament that contractors are exempt from whistleblower protection though they do swear an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic.
These points have been brought up before. But what may be most interesting to these students is Snowden's suggestion that a defendant under the Espionage Act should be permitted to present an argument before a jury that the act was committed "in the public interest." Could this help ensure a fair trial for whistleblowers whose testimony reveals Constitutional violation?
Some interesting segments from the interview include: Snowden's assertion that mass domestic intercept is an "unreasonable seizure" under the 4th Amendment; that it also violates "natural rights" that cannot be voted away even by the majority; a claim that broad surveillance detracts from the ability to monitor specific targets such as the Boston Marathon bombers; him calling out Congress for not holding Clapper accountable for misstatements; and his lament that contractors are exempt from whistleblower protection though they do swear an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic.
These points have been brought up before. But what may be most interesting to these students is Snowden's suggestion that a defendant under the Espionage Act should be permitted to present an argument before a jury that the act was committed "in the public interest." Could this help ensure a fair trial for whistleblowers whose testimony reveals Constitutional violation?
Quote :
The US has never tried Assange, and he isn't wanted by the US.
You might want to reconsider that claim :
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/13/wikileaks.investigation/
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/may/11/us-opens-wikileaks-grand-jury-hearing
http://m.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/revealed-us-plans-to-charge-assange-20120228-1u14o.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/wikileaks-stratfor-emails-a-secret-indictment-against-assange-20120228
To shut you down : All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Mass violation of the constitution, mass intrusion of privacy of innocent people throughout the world, destruction of trust, violating foreign countries sovereignty and bullying then to violate their own laws and/or change to please the U.S. *is* evil.
Let me tell you. For many, many people outside the U.S., the NSA is more evil than IS and Al-quaida combined. And I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of US citizens wouldn't feel the same.
IS are insane asshole on a regional level. The NSA is an insane psychopathic asshole on a global level.
Do you work in Fort Meade?