Slashdot Mirror
Ex-CIA Director Says Snowden Should Be 'Hanged' For Paris Attacks (thehill.com)
SonicSpike writes with this excerpt from The HIll: A former CIA director says leaker Edward Snowden should be convicted of treason and given the death penalty in the wake of the terrorist attack on Paris. "It's still a capital crime, and I would give him the death sentence, and I would prefer to see him hanged by the neck until he's dead, rather than merely electrocuted," James Woolsey told CNN's Brooke Baldwin on Thursday. Woolsey said Snowden, who divulged classified information in 2013, is partly responsible for the terrorist attack in France last week that left at least 120 dead and hundreds injured. "I think the blood of a lot of these French young people is on his hands," he said.
Exploiting Emotions About Paris to Blame Snowden, Distract from Actual Culprits Who Empowered ISIS
There is NO "War on Terror"
--
PROTHERO: Do you believe this crap, Dascombe? DASCOMBE: It's not our job to believe it, Lewis. Our job is to tell the people –
It's a brilliant move.
* Make a politically charged statement during a time of real crisis that makes little sense yet evokes an emotional response.
* Get invited to Fox and Friends
* ???
* Profit!
Not a psychopath, just a propagandist. The idea is pretty simple: connect whistleblowing of illegal government surveillance to Paris terrorist attacks in order to assist your political positions on (1) being anti-encryption, (2) being pro-surveillance, and (3) being anti-whistleblower. He's blatantly violating his oath to defend the Constitution but is doing that because his (former) job is a lot harder if he has to follow the Constitution--and all the people who died in France, the CIA didn't see it coming, maybe because of Snowden.
Of course, if the NSA hadn't been collecting massive illegal surveillance of *Americans*, Snowden probably wouldn't have happened. While Snowden should be held to account for leaking classified information, the biggest blame by far goes to the NSA and the Senate Intelligence Committee for failure to oversee it properly.
Majority:
Richard Burr, North Carolina, Chair
Jim Risch, Idaho
Dan Coats, Indiana
Marco Rubio, Florida
Susan Collins, Maine
Roy Blunt, Missouri
James Lankford, Oklahoma
Tom Cotton, Arkansas
Minority:
Dianne Feinstein, California, Vice Chair
Ron Wyden, Oregon
Barbara Mikulski, Maryland
Mark Warner, Virginia
Martin Heinrich, New Mexico
Angus King, Maine[9]
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii
Ex officio:
John McCain, Arizona
Mitch McConnell, Kentucky
Jack Reed, Rhode Island
Harry Reid, Nevada
The man in question was forced to resign as CIA director in 1995.
However, after that he did not retire but worked as a lobbyist for several right-wing and warmongering groups in Washington.
This statement here, is just another lobbyist action in the same vein.
Most significant of Woolsey's allegiances, is, I would say his membership in the PNAC - a lobbyist group for a US invasion of Iraq, Iran and Syria. Woolsey was one of the signers of a petition to Clinton in the late '90s to invade - a petition with one of the stated objectives to snatch their oil for US interests.
When G.W.Bush became president, several leading members of the PNAC got high-ranking positions in that administration: vice-president Dick Cheney, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolwovitz are the most well-known.
When PNAC became the government, the PNAC's agenda became the agenda of the United States.
There is therefore no doubt that this ex-CIA director has a lot of blood on his hands. That whole clusterfuck in that region was caused by the Woolsey-supported invasion to thieve oil followed by gross mismanagement by US officials in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of civilians, soldiers and civilians have been killed, and millions of people are refugees from and in the region.
How can one even compare Snowden to that?
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
... and if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq, and disbanded their military afterwards, ISIS would never have existed. You're just another butthurt fascist republican that doesn't want to admit your fucked in the head republican neo-con politicians fucked over the world.. yet again. At least have the decency to not be a fucking coward.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
If it is helpful has absolutely nothing to do with the very technical question of if a person is guilty of violating an existing criminal statute.
It seems a lot of people become so blinded by disliking what the law is that they are no longer capable of remembering what it is. How do they still know they don't like it, if they can't even use its extant state in their analysis?
A fair trial and he would be found guilty, because he has admitted what he did in public. There is basically no factual difference between his account and the governments regarding what actions he took. The assertion that a 'fair' trial could end other than in a guilty verdict is silly.
It is perfectly reasonable to say that you don't believe he should be charged because [reasons]. But it is not obvious that allowing government workers to give away official secrets without penalty is some sort of "moral" objective. How is a law banning espionage by government employees inherently immoral? It seems an impossibly high hurdle to categorically show the espionage act to be immoral. That remains true even if you don't believe it should be applied in some cases.
I've heard a lot of people call for a pardon, for example. That seems a more reasonable basis of moral argument.
Anyway on a random jury only 2 or 3 people are going to want him hanged.
He was a sub-contractor as I recall. As such, he'd probably not have taken that oath. He probably would be, technically, guilty of a few crimes. However, that's what jury nullification is for. There's some secrets acts and probably a case to be made for being a traitor (albeit a weak case - but one the State could try) but, again, that's what jury nullification is for.
Jury nullification relies on a sympathetic and intelligence populace. Which, by all accounts, means's he's fucked. 'Tis a pity, too.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
It makes a huge difference. Nearly all whistle blowers are violating the law in a technical sense to reveal greater breaches of the law by others who are powerful. A fair trial means that all the nuances and subtleties of the crime are made known and an appropriate sentence passed, based on all the factors (including the fact that the NSA violated the law and the constitution), not just technical guilt. This is the kind of justice that the US has prided herself on for generations. And the lack of fear of going after powerful (usually) men in high places for their own crimes revealed. This ex-CIA man has confirmed what we've known for years. There will be no such fair trial for Snowden. His guilt has been known for years, but apparently the full sentence has been known already too. This is morally wrong. And clearly those that violated the constitution and acted in an unlawful fashion (IE crimes) against the American people have no intention of being responsible for their actions either in any courts of law.
Just check which groups you've hired for the false flag operation?
Duh.
Requiem for the American Dream
Ernest Becker, in his The Denial of Death, writes that human beings deal with their awareness of their inevitable demise by seeking heroism -- success at doing or contributing to something lasting. Each culture has its own hero-system. In a pluralist society, if one's need for heroism is not being met, one will turn to a system that does meet that need.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.