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.
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?
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.
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...
We owed them the money for over 30 years, after all. That's how far from "new" it was.
The thing is, Iran paid us the money for military equipment right before they experienced regime change, and then afterwards we weren't willing to give them the weapons. However much we hate their new government, we do have to give the money back. They paid us real cash money for products that we refused to deliver. They were owed a refund.
But relations were so bad, even though we knew we owed them the money we never got along with them well enough to even be able to hand it over to them. Eventually it happened, because of the nuclear deal.
There is real diplomatic value in paying it, because it has always been an important propaganda point for them. Now the story is, in the end the Americans paid the money they owed, with all the interest, in the amount that was determined by arbitration. Because the American government always pay its debts.
And we had to pay in euros, because Congress. wtf, why does Congress hate dollars?
It's only treason if you lose. If you win, it's revolution.
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
Article III, Section 3:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
If Enemies is a subset of Everyone, then giving Aid and Comfort to Everyone is an act of Treason, at least until the US makes peace with Everyone. Specifically what Snowdon exposed was the difficulty the US Government has in distinguishing between Everyone and Enemy.
"Eddard Stark: What you suggest is treason.
Petyr 'Littlefinger' Baelish: Only if we lose."
Only if the facts of what he leaked and why are completely ignored, along with his Oath of Office, the definition of Treason, the 4th Amendment...
Federal laws meant to cover up shredding of our 4th Amendment rights. But hey, we gotta have priorities, like talking about how Snowden must must must face trial, while ignoring the fact that each and every warrantless NSA wiretap is punishable by 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
The current government only prosecutes peons and gives themselves exception, so they will never face trial. Hell when the White House itself committed treason a few years back for violating the same law as Snowden (the Espionage Act of 1917) by releasing a CIA agent's name and it was pretty much laughed off as a mistake. Pretty much the same thing happened in Plamegate.