Slashdot Mirror
Conservative Site Argues Profiting from Snowden 'Treason' May Violate Law (judicialwatch.org)
"A federal appellate court has ruled that government employees, such as Snowden, who signed privacy agreements can't profit from disclosing information without first obtaining agency approval," writes the conservative advocacy site Judicial Watch. Slashdot reader schwit1 quotes their article:
This would make it illegal to profit from his crimes and the Department of Justice should confiscate all money made by the violators. Snowden is no whistleblower. In fact he violated his secrecy agreement, which means he and his conspirators can't materially profit from his fugitive status, violation of law, aiding and abetting of a crime and providing material support to terrorism.
In addition, they argue that both an upcoming movie about Snowden by Oliver Stone and the 2014 documentary Citizenfour "may be in violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act, which forbids providing material support or resources for acts of international terrorism... It's bad enough that people are profiting from Snowden's treason, but adding salt to the wound, the Obama administration is doing nothing about it. "
In addition, they argue that both an upcoming movie about Snowden by Oliver Stone and the 2014 documentary Citizenfour "may be in violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act, which forbids providing material support or resources for acts of international terrorism... It's bad enough that people are profiting from Snowden's treason, but adding salt to the wound, the Obama administration is doing nothing about it. "
This "Conservative site" is also profiting from Snowden with their bullshit click-bait article.
The current US administration has been caught spying in violation of the constutition. The penalty for treason includes death. I'm not sure why snowden gets brought up when I would like to see the current heads of the FBI and homeland security swinging from the end of a noose as justice demands.
You keep using those words, but I don't think you know what they mean.
Y'know what else was treason?
Back in the late 1700s, there was this infamous gang of subversives calling themselves the Founding Fathers. Oh, the things they did. It ended with bloody revolution.
Anyone that profits from anything they did back then should have all their assets seized, it is only right. Let's start with all the politicians.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Did Snowden have any choice? He couldn't blow the whistle as it would have been covered up and he would be in a very dark hole. What the government agencies did was illegal, unethical and they abused their powers without oversight. Should Snowden have remained silent?
The founding fathers certainly committed treason. The term doesn't necessarily mean something bad in every circumstance.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
I know conservative publications make a living by complaining about the president, but fabricating something new to be offended about every single day eventually leads to some really bizarre complaints. Like the $400 million payment to Iran that was part of a deal announced in January.
It's just not working anymore.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Plenty of congresscritters, state legislators, justices of the court, prosecutors, law enforcement, and military personnel who similiarly deserve a trip to hangtown for taking actions in direct contradiction to their oaths.
Did Snowden take an oath, or did he merely get security clearance and an NDA? Because if it was the latter then he's a hell of a lot less guity of wrongdoing that the aforementioned parties.
It's only treason if you lose. If you win, it's revolution.
Trump, as vile as he is, asked for previously stolen information to be turned over. Suggesting that Clinton's private email server is in any way related to "us" as in the United States is revolting. This concept that he asked Russia to hack the United States is partisan bull.
Quiet....this the year of no accountability. We can't have whistle-blowers running rampant in our federal government.
Did the Americans overthrow the King? Did they at least overthrow Parliament? Did they even get within 3000 miles of the King and Parliament? Or did a bunch of colonial governments in N. America decide to secede?
Secession is not a successful revolution.
Next people will be claiming that it is perfectly fine for the American Congress to pass laws limiting speech even though the 1st amendment to the American Constitution stops them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
When has a common sense interpretation of the law stopped prosecutors from twisting its purpose to suit their agenda, such as trying to force a plea bargain. By the time Snowden won on the law he could be $10M in debt.
Since he was NOT a government employee, he is not covered by the court decision mentioned in the article. Of course, Judicial Watch knows that.
Snowden was an CIA employee before going to work for Booz Allen, so he would have, like the former CIA employee Snepp in the court case, signed a standard agreement not to divulge classified information either during employment or after. In addition, he would also have to sign a similar document working for Booz Allen since it was doing contract work for the NSA and he couldn't gotten clearance otherwise.
So yeah, he was covered by the court decision.
No, he would be. Had he released just information related to NSAs illegal activities, then he would be fine. But, he detailed how spy on other nations and even terrorist groups. IOW, he is a traitor.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Not by the American definition of 'traitor', he isn't.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
Because 'Interesting' and 'Insightful' have a lot of overlap depending on the reader's state of mind.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
President Obama and President-to-be Clinton decide what the American definition of "traitor" is. You just listen and shut up.
Only, he would lose on the first round because his assets would all be impounded, and he couldn't afford to hire a lawyer in the first place.
I'm sure that is called by another name, yes, blackmail.