Jump to content

Edward Snowden


Recommended Posts

As Hudson points out, the case of Bradley Manning is an example of what would have happened to Snowden if he had decided to "face the music". Manning endured over 2 years of cruel and unusual punishment before his trial; I doubt any of you "face the music" people would volunteer for 2 years of psychological abuse.

And "legal channels" is BS; the legal channels are entirely in the control of the people who cooked up this scam in the first place.

-k

That would be the United States Congress and Senate and the President of the United States in concert with the federal judiciary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 741
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Rosa Parks took the law into her own hands and changed things for the better. Strange to turn this positive action and the positive results into something that feels wrong.

Refusing to get out of a bus seat is many orders of magnitude different from stealing classified information and presenting it to your country's enemies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry... a charge is simply an allegation by the state. Youre not legally guilty of a crime unless theres a guilty verdict.

That's a legal concept but in the real world there is no question he's guilty. He's acknowledged his guilt, bragged about it, in fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonsense. He is a criminal fleeing prosecution and it has every right to pursue him in concert with his allies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it seems some people fail to realize that the US constitution is bigger than the US government and any secondary legislation that they pass. They fail to realize that the Constitution is the primary law, upon which all other law is bound.

Sure, and if anyone thought the US government was violating its constitution, well, two thirds of the world's lawyers are in that country and I'm sure by now they would have filed all kinds of legal challenges. Which, as far as I know, has not happened. That in turn suggests that, despite Snowden's indisputable mastery of American constitutional law, none of that country's lawyers agree with his analyses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. We have a legal law, but it violates the constitution. With the Constitution being the law of the land, all laws need to fall inline with it. The US government is violating the constitution, that much seems obvious. So how can Snowden be faulted for breaking the law when the US government has been working to marginalize the Constitution and breaking constitutional law.

Well, for one thing, you're presupposing that this law runs afoul of the US constitution. Oddly, the judges who take part in it don't seem to feel that way, but then, what do THEY know...

You ARE a scholar of American constitutional law, right? You and Cyber?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is considered "treason" in the US is mighty effed up, if this guy is a traitor to his country (while actually standing against unconstitutional acts) and yet nothing is likely to happen to other "traitors" in government like people responsible for this PRISM program, or members in the Bush admin who lied to their country to start a war, or people like Lyndon B. Johnson and Nixon who never spent a day in jail for their wrongs against their country.

I like how all you people are suddenly experts in US constitutional law, able to instantly decide what is and is not constitutional regardless of what American judges, the US Justice department, congress, and the legions of lawyers there think...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He hasn't been convicted of being a traitor, has he? - and of course that charge would be in regards to whether another country had access to any sensitive information that he had on the laptops he took into China, Russia, where ever he ends up. But then, he hasn't even been charged with treason.

He hasn't been convicted of anything but the US gov sure has a manhunt on for him. Many publically want him arrested and prosecuted, and many in government and Congress have called him a traitor.

"Speaker of the House John Boehnerand Senators Dianne Feinstein and Bill Nelson called Snowden a traitor, and several senators and representatives joined them in calling for Snowden's arrest and prosecution" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#United_States

So how many Canadian government officials have been charged for their "traitorous" acts? How many have spent jail time for their "wrongs against their country?"

Not enough, that's for sure!

And why isn't Canada offering asylum to Snowden?

Even if they wanted to they'd be punished by the US in some way if they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how all you people are suddenly experts in US constitutional law, able to instantly decide what is and is not constitutional regardless of what American judges, the US Justice department, congress, and the legions of lawyers there think...

It doesn't take a lawyer or "experts in US constitutional law" to read the freaking Fourth Amendment and see that what the PRISM program was doing was unconstitutional. And I really don't give a crap if lawyers and judges disagree with me because it's quite clear the meaning and intent of the Fourth Amendment: government stay the hell out of my private business and property unless you have a warrant or darn good reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

He hasn't been convicted of anything but the US gov sure has a manhunt on for him. Many publically want him arrested and prosecuted, and many in government and Congress have called him a traitor.

Of course there's going to be a "manhunt" out for him, he's in possession of laptops with sensitive security information on them. And why wouldn't they want him arrested? He broke the law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laws are changed in congress by elected representatives. If anyone had an issue with those laws they were certainly passed through a democratic and public process and people certainly could have protested at the time.

In some cases these elected people are voting on laws when they have not even read the legislation. How democratic do you think that is?

Rand Paul calling them out on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, and if anyone thought the US government was violating its constitution, well, two thirds of the world's lawyers are in that country and I'm sure by now they would have filed all kinds of legal challenges. Which, as far as I know, has not happened. That in turn suggests that, despite Snowden's indisputable mastery of American constitutional law, none of that country's lawyers agree with his analyses.

I like how you're suddenly an expert in the legal challenges brought on by the PRISM revelation, yet a 10-second Google search shows you are wrong:

June 11, 2013

American Civil Liberties Union

Lawsuit filed against the NSA citing that the "Mass Call Tracking Program" (as the case terms PRISM) "violates Americans' constitutional rights of free speech, association, and privacy" and constitutes "dragnet" surveillance, in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution, and thereby also "exceeds the authority granted by 50 U.S.C. § 1861, and thereby violates 5 U.S.C. § 706."[156] The case was joined by Yale Law School, on behalf of its Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic.[157]

June 11, 2013

FreedomWatch USA

Class action lawsuit against government bodies and officials believed responsible for PRISM, and 12 companies (including Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Skype and their chief executives) who have been disclosed as providing or making available mass information about their users' communications and data to the NSA under the PRISM program or related programs. The case cites the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, as well as breach of 18 U.S.C. §§2702 (disclosure of communications records), and asks the court to rule that the program operates outside its legal authority (s.215 of the Patriot Act). The class includes the plaintiffs and[158] "other American citizens who, in addition to being members of the Nationwide Class, had their telephone calls and/or emails and/or any other communications made or received through Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube, Skype, AOL, Sprint, AT&T, Apple, Microsoft and/or PalTalk actually recorded and/or listened into by or on behalf of [the] Defendants."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#Litigation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

How can you say he broke the law if you just said he hasn't been convicted of anything yet?

Good grief. We knew that Li broke the law by cutting off McClean's head before he was convicted of anything. We know Li broke the law even though he wasn't held criminally responsible after a trial. We know that Snowden broke the law by going to the media rather than going through legal channels. Snowden knew that. His dad knows it. Anyone familiar with the law knows it.

He broke the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for one thing, you're presupposing that this law runs afoul of the US constitution. Oddly, the judges who take part in it don't seem to feel that way, but then, what do THEY know...

You ARE a scholar of American constitutional law, right? You and Cyber?

One does not need to be a constitutional lawyer.. or even an American to understand that indefinite detention of Americans ON US soil, without any charges being applied clearly violates unreasonable stops, searches, seizures. All you need to be is a suspect of terrorism and you can lose it all.

Both articles like the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA violate many rights of American citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good grief. We knew that Li broke the law by cutting off McClean's head before he was convicted of anything. We know Li broke the law even though he wasn't held criminally responsible after a trial. We know that Snowden broke the law by going to the media rather than going through legal channels. Snowden knew that. His dad knows it. Anyone familiar with the law knows it.

He broke the law.

Well clearly you don't care that your government violates your laws and your right to privacy.

Many people do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Well clearly you don't care that your government violates your laws and your right to privacy.

Many people do.

Don't speak for me. This thread is about Snowden and his breaking the law. I expect him to act within the law. I expect him to respect the position he was given as he agreed to, and I expect him to not jeopardize the security of the country. You, apparently, think some people can pick and choose when to obey the law? Ironic, in light of your declaration that I don't care if my government violates the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. You, apparently, think some people can pick and choose when to obey the law?

Yes it happens all the time. Snowden is just one of dozens of whistle-blowers that have leaked things like the pentagon papers, disclosed the fact that the US government was intentionally infecting black people with syphylous, disclosed illegal CIA torture and all kinds of other things.

These people are very important... Its important in a democracy for the government to get caught when they abuse power. Snowden did what he thought was right, and most Americans are glad he did. Just not state power sycophants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for one thing, you're presupposing that this law runs afoul of the US constitution. Oddly, the judges who take part in it don't seem to feel that way, but then, what do THEY know

Well theres many decades of jurisprudence, and a whole shitload of caselaw and precidents that demonstrate warantless siezure of communications violations the fourth amendments. The government can monitor your communications, but they need a warrant for each person whos communcations they sieze. Are you just hearing about this now? You dont think theres a reason why the police didnt start doing mass untargeted phone taps decades ago? Its illegal...

Edited by dre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is about Snowden and his breaking the law. I expect him to act within the law.

I read the article you posted pages ago, and I agree with you 100% that Snowden should have tried every legal avenue he could have before he did what he did (which to my knowledge he didn't, but maybe we're both wrong?). If Snowden didn't try other legal avenues, I don't really have a ton of sympathy for the guy, other than appreciating the info he uncovered.

The guy seems to have had good intentions but made a bunch of really big mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

I read the article you posted pages ago, and I agree with you 100% that Snowden should have tried every legal avenue he could have before he did what he did (which to my knowledge he didn't, but maybe we're both wrong?). If Snowden didn't try other legal avenues, I don't really have a ton of sympathy for the guy, other than appreciating the info he uncovered.

The guy seems to have had good intentions but made a bunch of really big mistakes.

Agreed, though his "good intentions" certainly were misguided, making that questionable. Surely, in the position he was in, he had to have recognized that he was putting U.S. security in a perilous position, but 'arbitrarily took it upon himself to decide what's best for the country.' I'm paraphrasing from one of the articles I've read there, but that's the bottom line.

The fact is, he didn't try any legal channels. At all. And that's my main criticism, along with it resulting in his compromising U.S. security. There are legal channels he could have tried, he knew that, he was informed of that as part of the job. There's no excuse for not going the legal route before breaking the law and going to the media; for jeopardizing the country's security.

All of the emphasis in the following excepts are mine.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/06/11/in-nsa-leak-case-a-whistle-blower-or-a-criminal/edward-snowden-broke-the-law-and-should-be-prosecuted

The U.S. government allowed Snowden to achieve a position of trust in an area of vital interest to national security. Anyone who has held a clearance, as I did a few decades ago, gets routinely briefed on the necessity for maintaining security. Cleared personnel are also briefed on ways to blow the whistle on illegality, unethical behavior and other wrongdoing – through company management, through the agency that grants the clearance or, if need be, by going to Congress. None of these paths involve passing sensitive materials to the press.

Snowden may well have uncovered illegal and unconstitutional behavior. But he chose to leak the information rather than report it to proper authorities.

As I've said repeatedly, and sourced, had he tried the legal route first and failed and then went to the media, he would be in a different position. Good to see that you read said article.

We have to separate the leak, which is simply wrong, from concerns over the program itself. Surveillance for threats can be done legally. The conflating of multiple programs and the inaccurate description of some of these programs makes it is impossible to tell from news reports and government talking points alone if the program was administered properly. That process will now begin.

That said, individuals who suspect wrongdoing in government have legitimate options to bring this to the attention of responsible individuals in government and Congress without breaking the law.

Mr. Snowden decided it was fine to break the law, and he should be called to account for it. These leaks never occur without repercussions. One hopes that any damage to the nation's security does not cause loss of life. Some Americans may lionize Snowden, but there are terrorists who surely do.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/06/10/edward-snowden-heritage-foundation-editorials-debates/2410213/

Note that the main point is not that he shouldn't have done anything at all, but that he should have done it legally.

The Simple Fact Is That By Legal Definition Edward Snowden Is a Criminal.

Every adult, most children, and criminals in particular, understand there are consequences that logically follow actions that are deemed unacceptable by society regardless it is a child stealing their sibling’s favorite toy or an armed robber holding up a convenience store. It is doubtful that every American agrees with every law, but they certainly understand they are necessary to preserve order and protect the people from harm whether it is from criminals or foreign entities threatening national security.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/06/24/simple-fact-legal-definition-edward-snowden-criminal.html

His Dad, who again, recognizes that he did break the law, thinks he's being "manipulated" by WikiLeaks.

“I don’t want to put him in peril, but I am concerned about those who surround him,” Lonnie Snowden told NBC. I think WikiLeaks, if you’ve looked at past history, you know, their focus isn’t necessarily the Constitution of the United States. It’s simply to release as much information as possible.”

http://www.freep.com/article/20130628/NEWS/306280099/Snowden-s-dad-He-may-broken-law-didn-t-commit-treason

If this is true, and I tend to agree with him, then WikiLeaks is to be held to criticism, too; the Constitution should come before their agenda.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...