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.
I accept and believe Snowden performed treason. No doubt in my mind. But I don't think making a movie about it, absent any other strong ties, amounts to support; we have all sorts of movies about criminals as well as current events that happen to be illegal. Without some actual ties, I'd prefer to err on the side of having robust public discussion of these matters rather than worrying about this kind of thing.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
How much money have they confiscated from the paid military advisors for the movie Blackhawk Down? While others have been accused, and found guilty, for releasing this same information they were allowed to cash a check.
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
You're going to grumble about how the way used are words nowadays don't fit some ancient definition nobody cares about anymore, while using the word "fascist" that way? That seems a bit odd.
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
is dead!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
For all of their clams to be a body that monitors the Supreme court, they sure are pretty unclear on some pretty basic principles.
1. Publishing classified info that shows the U.S. government has broken the law is protected under First Amendment freedom of the press, as firmly established in the Ellsberg/Pentagon Papers precedents.
2. While laws allowing perpetrators of crimes to be stripped of any earnings have been upheld, forbidding artistic representations of the events involved (as in Stone's films) by other parties is one of the most blatant examples of an overreaching prior restraint I have ever heard of. You simply can't ban discussion of a certain topic. It's doubly true when the message is a political one, yet JW pisses and moans that the film presents him as a hero. Guess what? I could make a film saying that Snowden is the second coming of Jesus, and that he, Hitler, and Osama Bin laden will ride in on white stallions to save our country from Trump and his army of human-animal hybrids by installing the Sharia law we so badly need, and no matter how abhorrent that might seem to you, it's protected political speech.
3. It's even clearer for the documentary, which is press reportage and protected in black letter law right there in the freaking first amendment.
4. They try to get around this by calling Stone and the Citezenfour producers "co-conspirators." But guess what? Sympathy for or even open support of Snowden's actions doesn't constitute conspiracy if it happened ex post facto. Which is what did happen. The fact that terrorists might have been helped in some way by the releases (which there is no actual proof for) doesn't mean that Stone/Citizenfour are somehow materially supporting them.
In short: JW are a bunch of hacks who know nothing about the actual law.
But what would I know? I've only actually studied Constitutional law.
"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."
It's not surprising he has a different viewpoint than that of these conservative bloggers... after all, he's from Kenya.
#DeleteChrome
OK, it's a 'conservative site' that presents this argument against Snowden. And here, for a mostly progressive audience, it is presented as a troll to bait the eager readers to reply with venom. It is a common tactic at slashdot to rile up the readers and it's commonly called clickbait.
It's an election season in the US and more than usual we see the polarity between left and right, progressive vs conservative. And here we may be encouraging the divide between Americans to assure there is no middle ground.
I have always thought of slashdot readers as more astute than most. I don't do Fecebook or others because they seem less astute, more strident. I hope to see some balance in this particular discussion. If some consider Snowden to be a criminal, let's examine their motivations and see if there isn't some compelling reason for that belief.
...omphaloskepsis often...
I realize that you're an ignorant AC and not capable of much thought and too ashamed of what you say to post under your own account, but even you might want to re-read what you posted and spens a few hours considering if it makes sense.
You might also consider the foolishness of believing that something is treason just because some America haters say it is.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
It is a shame that Snowden isn't old enough to run for president. Otherwise, with our current two despised candidates, he might have been able to win for a third party. I would very much like to see him in the office.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
The claim that Snowden's act constitutes 'Terrorism' is an example of the abuse of the term - and of legislation if it does - that needs to be highlighted. From first principles it can be argued that Snowden shouldn't benefit from his actions, or not, but the use of 'terrorism' legislation should be unacceptable...
That's because he's openly racist, misogynistic and authoritarian.
does not equate to being convicted of a crime.
As he has yet to stand trial ( especially since it would be a one sided joke of a trial ) they would be hard pressed to follow through since he has not been convicted.
Except in very selected public opinion circles that is.
The fact that terrorists might have been helped in some way by the releases (which there is no actual proof for) doesn't mean that Stone/Citizenfour are somehow materially supporting them.
Right, that's an insanely irresponsible argument that if an action you take later "supports or benefits terrorists" then it can be considered terrorism in itself. I mean, jeez, if that were the case Twitter and Facebook would be considered the most dangerous terrorist organizations on the planet.
Snowden worked for Booz Allen Hamilton, a contractor to the NSA, at the time he leaked classified documents. 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.
And if Snowden HAD been a government employee, he would have been covered by the Federal Whistleblower law and would not be at risk of prosecution for the leaks, since he proved that the US government was breaking the law.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
If I were Snowden I'd be looking at every possible media outlet to get the word out about the disgusting things I've learned. Some of those media outlets require money/funding, and inevitably will return some kind of profit (ticket sales for movies for example). But them trying to play that card on Snowden in the first place is just proof that they need to examine his motives and his position as someone who wants to stop the breaking of laws and constitutional foundations that his country was founded on by its own government. Relating him, even remotely, to "terrorism" is appalling and insulting to his integrity and willingness to essentially throw his life away for the sake of informing people that their government isn't playing by its own rules.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Oh you poor deluded soul ...
"Free-Speech Zones" ring any bells? Ya know, those nice fenced-in places for protestors to cool their heels, far enough away from any event that the general public won't be bothered by them? First used sometime 'round the 60s? Also a nice place for less "cooperative" journalists to get tossed into?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
When you live in a sick society, just about everything you do is wrong.
"Write-in Campaign... Assange 2016!!!" --The USA already has an egocentric unpleasant candidate for POTUS. Why would you want to extend that to th VP?
I haven't seen a front-page article here that criticized a conservative anything in a long time.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Any one else following what's going on with Manning? There's a whistle blower if there ever was one and the U.S. tortures him/her endlessly.
:T:R:A:N:S:
So acting against corrupt spooks to tell citizens of the USA what they were getting up to is treason now? That sounds like something Putin would have said when the remains of the KGB were taking over Russia.
Keep in mind that Snowden leaked to Americans and the it was the Washington Post etc that told others, but they are not being accused of treason.
The DOJ ought to arrest the conservative advocacy site Judicial Watch for treason. Not treason against the nation but treason against their own conservative values.
Time was an authentic 'conservative' understood the need for privacy, individual liberty, and freedom. The government was potentially dangerous and had to be kept limited. Also, there's this little known and widely abused document called the Constitution that conservatives used to like a lot. Time was.
Snowden is more 'conservative' by these measures than Judicial Watch. Or maybe Judicial Watch just got a little too excited by the election season, saw a chance to take a shot at Obama, and went off their meds. In this explanation Snowden is just the bait.
By this nature. They are arguing that if you make money from the Snowden story. You have no rights to free speech. That in of it's self is a scary concept. Imgnine other things the government could make rules saying you can't say because someone might make money?
Judicial watch? Why not save everyone the time and link to the enquirer or Onion instead? At least their bullshit is entertaining.
They have no comment section, no way of telling anyone that reads this site to be able to inform their readers that Snowden was not a "federal employee" like they claim.
Shouldn't he be charged with treason? After all he leaked confidential material to his mistress/biographer. Or are we only allowed to go after people who aren't in the boys club?
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.
I love how neo-cons/tea# are coming to this site always screaming and lying about O or Hillary. So what can O do? Snowden lives in Russia and published via China. Exactly what can O do? Nothing.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
US journalists must not report it? Ok, the internet is big and US laws don't apply in Russia, so I guess I have to turn to RT from now on for more Snowden reports...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Hillary seems to have had no problem profiting from the information (and influence) she gained as a government employee, both in terms of donations to her "foundation" and in terms of speaking fees. But I suppose she just can do no wrong.
The right wing is dangerous. And ordinary, well intended laws can be dangerous as well. That is because the right wing treats laws like a rubber band that can be stretched to enormous sizes and intrude into things the laws were never intended to touch. For example by bringing this to light the right wing is promoting Snowden and reaping the financial benefit of re-election . There fore they are benefiting by the supposed crimes and the right wing should be arrested.
Sure, you can make it illegal to reveal state secrets. You can't make it illegal to disucss revealed former secrets.
That's because an restriction on speech has to be narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate public purpose. In other words bullshit excuses for power grabs aren't accepted.
Before a secret is revealed, there is a legitimate public purpose to restrict discussing them: to keep them out of enemy hands. Once they are revealed this purpose no longer applies; the reasons for going after people discussing them is to target domestic political opponents. That won't pass Constitutional muster.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You have heard of the Declaration of Independence, haven't you? The signatories of that document 'turned themselves in' by publicly announcing their intentions to 'defy (British) authority' - they didn't publish their treasonous document under a pseudonym or 'leak' them to the press. Their act of defiance was literallythe worst-kept secret in the 13 colonies at the time.
Ken
The signatories of that document 'turned themselves in' by publicly announcing their intentions to 'defy (British) authority'
That's not turning themselves in. If they turned themselves in, they'd have handed themselves over to the crown. Snowden, like them, associated his real name with his actions. Snowden, like them, did not hand themselves over to the authorities to be arested.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
When was Snowden tried and convicted of treason?
linquendum tondere
Obama's administation has done plenty to further this cause.... I mean the way Hillary Clinton was allowed to walk, scot-free, and without even a slap on the wrist for her violations of US Security Secrets protocols which actually led to the deaths of Americans over-seas. Therefore, Snowden's leak which merely woke the American people up to the gross violations of the Constitution by the American government, causing no deaths, is surely no longer an issue, and he can come home the hero and savior of the soul of this Country he truly is!!! "He can't you say? Will still possibly face a death sentence or life in prison you say??? But Hillary just got off, and she caused deaths.... How is that fair or even possible?"
But I can't take any "conservative" website seriously when these people -- who used to champion ideas like small government and personal freedom -- are lining up to vilify the man who did more to tell us about how the US government and its partners spy on their own citizens than anyone else ever has.
I can understand people who argue that Snowden should be tried in a court of law and punished for his actions. I may not *agree* with them, but I can at least understand it. But the idea that we should ignore the entire question of government overreach? I don't think that's something that ought to be swept aside -- and once upon a time, 20-30 years ago, I would've expected the GOP to be loud critics of this kind of surveillance.
How times change.
If they dare attack Oliver Stones retelling of one of the pivital events of modern history, or ever comes under fire in any way than this new law must be struck down! Disallowing criminals to profit from criminal acts is nothing new, but disallowing other people from retelling their story for profit would be a gross violation of the First Amendment. One could argue the judicial ban on profiting from a crime is a violation of the freedom to contract which is also a violation of the constitution! But people forget about the freedom to contract clause. Whats more interesting is this same administration has the gall and balls to try to through the book at Snowden who caused no loss of life, but allows Hillary to walk scot-free who caused the death of the embassedor and embascy thing in Africa!