Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

When Snowden Speaks, Future Lawyers (and Judges) Listen

Posted by Soulskill on from the everybody-else-is-watching-duck-dynasty dept.

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?

15 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. Snowden by Kaenneth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Right or Wrong, he's a brave man.

    1. Re:Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right or Wrong, he's a patriot.

      FTFY

    2. Re: Snowden by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is your point? When his peers were fired for whistleblowing on this issue, the activity continued without review, the public didn't know and neither did Congress, his actions seem perfectly rational if 1. He knew the U.S. government was acting and was going to act like an asshole (obvious from the whistleblowing) and 2. Had conviction that he wasn't doing anything wrong and therefore didn't think he deserved to be punished for doing the right thing.

        If he (or we) could trust the government to give him a fair trial (not obvious given Assange and Manning), maybe he wouldn't have had to flee to our enemies for protection from us.

      I mean, after all, he didn't slip our enemies our secrets under cover or for profit, he threw them to the public and to the media and then sought asylum. It isn't like he is living like an aristocrat in Russia.

      What he did was illegal, but I can't say that it was wrong.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    3. Re:Snowden by rholtzjr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This man stood up to the oath "protect from foreign and domestic" threats. And they now want to persecute him for espionage?
      Totally disgraceful!!!
      I still think we need to fire all Judicial, Legislative and Executive branch members and start over.
      Or better yet hold them responsible for the lack of over site.

    4. Re: Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He never intended to stay in Russia. The U.S. bullied every single country into submission to ignore rights, rules and laws to either deny snowdon asylum and/or deny the right to cross their countries by air. Including revoking his passport. Which is a first.

      They even violated diplomatic protection by treating the head of state (the president) of Equador (?) like a criminal and searched the presidential plane for Snowdon. I wonder how you would react if someone detain the U.S. president and storm the Air Force one with dogs and machine guns in search for someone.

    5. Re:Snowden by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right or Wrong, he's a traitor

      Edward Snowden is indeed a _traitor_ to those who want to turn the United States of America into the United POLICE States of America

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    6. Re: Snowden by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Wrong" and "illegal" are not necessarily synonymous. For those of us living in the US (as in most democracies), I think most of the time they coincide reasonably well. That's the entire point of our legal system, of course - to codify and enforce societal mores and pass judgment on those that break from them.

      Governments, however, are made up of people, and people have a penchant for pushing limits and boundaries, or ignoring rules when it suits them, or outright breaking them when it's more convenient to do so. I don't think the NSA does what they do maliciously for the most part - most of them probably really do want to catch bad guys who wish to do the US harm. I do, however, think the way the NSA is going about it is both unconstitutional and wrong. Snowden apparently thought so too, and so had to make a decision to break laws for what he considered to be the greater good. Bear in mind this was *after* he had tried to go through legitimate channels.

      The fact that, even after public disclosure, the program is continuing demonstrates the futility of working from within to stop the mass surveillance. The government simply doesn't see it as an abuse of power at all. Unfortunately, apparently a significant portion of our population either doesn't care or thinks the wiretapping is fine. So, in terms of "right" or "wrong", as defined by public mores, this probably lands in a decidedly gray area.

      BTW, when you say "You have no proof that he didn't take money from anyone, or that he didn't give copies of the documents to anyone in secret.", that's an argument you could make about anyone at any time. It's impossible to prove a negative, of course. Instead, show me any sort of proof that Snowden benefited from his revelations in any way at all (other than notoriety, which is fame that sane people don't want to have), and I'll re-think my position. It's hard to argue that he's in any way better off than if he had simply clammed up about what he saw.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    7. Re:Snowden by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Russia thinks so. China does too.

      Can you be a patriot to more than one country?

      Russia and China were happy because Snowden embarrassed the US government, with whom they're not exactly on the friendliest terms with. That perspective is important. They don't give a shit if he's a patriot or not, but they'll call him one if it means pouring salt in the US gov's wounds.

      From my perspective, Snowden more or less took a bullet for the entire country's right to privacy, and from what I could see, did so because of his principles. Still, no one can look inside someone else's heart. All I can see is that he had everything to lose and nothing to gain by what he did. That means he's either insane or incredibly principled, and he doesn't strike me as an insane sort.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    8. Re: Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think so. Cold Fjord is worse because he may actually be just another citizen that believes that the State is right to invade the privacy and build profiles of everyone on the globe.

      What is scary is that if he represents the views of a large enough block of people, then recovering any sense of privacy and liberty is lost for a long, long, long time.

      captcha: repulse...I swear this thing is an AI. Is the NSA powering slashdot now?

    9. Re:Snowden by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I forget the source, but it's been said that a true patriot honours all nations.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    10. Re: Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apparently some people think only gov can decide what is a threat and what is not. With such thinking gov itself will never be a threat. Dangerous, if you ask me.

    11. Re:Snowden by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      His supervisors at the NSA certainly did. I think we can be reasonable that the head of the NSA, and the upper levels of management, knew the extent of this monitoring, even if they didn't know the day to day details. They're the ones who should be facing prosecution in this case.

  2. Not just "unreasonable". by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What the NSA is doing is billions of counts of illegal wiretapping. A This kind of mass data gathering is precisely what the fourth amendment prohibits, and any person involved with this program is violating their oath and committing felonies on a routine basis.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Not just "unreasonable". by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One more point, a court can't do anything on it's own. It has to wait until someone can show they were harmed by the NSA through the wiretapping and brings the case to the courts. Good luck with that.

      The violation of rights IS the harm, and it's done on such a massive scale against the entire populace that it can only be considered treason.

  3. Re:Fuck Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    snowden is a hero, you sir are a moron.