Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Conservative Site Argues Profiting from Snowden 'Treason' May Violate Law (judicialwatch.org)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the lawyers-vs-law-breakers dept.

"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. "

8 of 236 comments (clear)

  1. But.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This "Conservative site" is also profiting from Snowden with their bullshit click-bait article.

    1. Re:But.... by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This "Conservative site" is also profiting from Snowden with their bulls**t click-bait article.

      That about sums it up. Their analysis is fundamentally flawed. As a general rule, "Son of Sam" laws make it illegal to profit from your own crime. Snowden can't legally sell his movie rights. They don't prevent him from giving those rights away, nor prevent anyone from making a movie about him or profiting from it, so long as those people were not involved in the original crime. Any law that went further than that would almost certainly fail a first-amendment challenge.

      More significantly, those laws apply only after conviction for that crime, or in some cases after a plea bargain. In this case, he hasn't been tried (even in absentia), so those laws don't factor in.

      And that's assuming those laws even pass constitutional muster. Many of these laws have been overturned for unconstitutionality. And because laws can't generally be overturned until someone can show harm from the law, the fact that they haven't been overturned yet does not necessarily mean that the laws are constitutional, because there may not have been anyone with standing to challenge them yet.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  2. treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Not a strong enough tie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  4. Why stop there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Except he wasn't by duckintheface · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re: Except he wasn't by duckintheface · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The attempts to smear Snowden continue to this day. Within days of the leaks becoming public, all the news outlets were telling us that he was a college dropout and that his girlfriend was a poledancer. They didn't mention that the NSA was paying him $200,000 per year and that his girlfriend was a ballet dancer who did pole dancing as part of performance with an acrobatic troupe in Hawaii.

      Snowden should get the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his defense of the Constitutional protection of the 4th Amendment.

      --
      "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
  6. Re:"treason" "terrorism" by Uberbah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think you could at least argue treason

    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...

    Certainly what he did violated Federal laws.

    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.