When Snowden Speaks, Future Lawyers (and Judges) Listen 221
TheRealHocusLocus writes: We are witness to a historic first: an individual charged with espionage and actively sought by the United States government has been (virtually) invited to speak at Harvard Law School, with applause. [Note: all of the following links go to different parts of a long YouTube video.] HLS Professor Lawrence Lessig conducted the hour-long interview last Monday with a list of questions by himself and his students.
Some interesting segments from the interview include: Snowden's assertion that mass domestic intercept is an "unreasonable seizure" under the 4th Amendment; that it also violates "natural rights" that cannot be voted away even by the majority; a claim that broad surveillance detracts from the ability to monitor specific targets such as the Boston Marathon bombers; him calling out Congress for not holding Clapper accountable for misstatements; and his lament that contractors are exempt from whistleblower protection though they do swear an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic.
These points have been brought up before. But what may be most interesting to these students is Snowden's suggestion that a defendant under the Espionage Act should be permitted to present an argument before a jury that the act was committed "in the public interest." Could this help ensure a fair trial for whistleblowers whose testimony reveals Constitutional violation?
Some interesting segments from the interview include: Snowden's assertion that mass domestic intercept is an "unreasonable seizure" under the 4th Amendment; that it also violates "natural rights" that cannot be voted away even by the majority; a claim that broad surveillance detracts from the ability to monitor specific targets such as the Boston Marathon bombers; him calling out Congress for not holding Clapper accountable for misstatements; and his lament that contractors are exempt from whistleblower protection though they do swear an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic.
These points have been brought up before. But what may be most interesting to these students is Snowden's suggestion that a defendant under the Espionage Act should be permitted to present an argument before a jury that the act was committed "in the public interest." Could this help ensure a fair trial for whistleblowers whose testimony reveals Constitutional violation?
Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
Right or Wrong, he's a brave man.
Re:Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
This man stood up to the oath "protect from foreign and domestic" threats. And they now want to persecute him for espionage?
Totally disgraceful!!!
I still think we need to fire all Judicial, Legislative and Executive branch members and start over.
Or better yet hold them responsible for the lack of over site.
Re: Snowden (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently some people think only gov can decide what is a threat and what is not. With such thinking gov itself will never be a threat. Dangerous, if you ask me.
Re: (Score:3)
Call it Catch 22, but, someday we'll ask " Where are the Snowdens of Yesteryear?"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right or Wrong, he's a patriot.
FTFY
Re: Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
If he (or we) could trust the government to give him a fair trial (not obvious given Assange and Manning), maybe he wouldn't have had to flee to our enemies for protection from us.
I mean, after all, he didn't slip our enemies our secrets under cover or for profit, he threw them to the public and to the media and then sought asylum. It isn't like he is living like an aristocrat in Russia.
What he did was illegal, but I can't say that it was wrong.
Re: Snowden (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
lol.. You have some silly beliefs here.
No, he provided a small amount to the public. Then went to China to come out of the closet and claim it was him. From there, he went to Russia and got temporary asylum before more information that he took was disclosed. Now the bulk of the rest of the information
Re: Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
He never intended to stay in Russia. The U.S. bullied every single country into submission to ignore rights, rules and laws to either deny snowdon asylum and/or deny the right to cross their countries by air. Including revoking his passport. Which is a first.
They even violated diplomatic protection by treating the head of state (the president) of Equador (?) like a criminal and searched the presidential plane for Snowdon. I wonder how you would react if someone detain the U.S. president and storm the Air Force one with dogs and machine guns in search for someone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Snowden (Score:5, Interesting)
1. He has to reveal himself to make it impossible for the U.S. government to deny everything and call it FUD/hoax/lie/whatever. By revealing himself and explaining it the U.S. was forced to act against him and thus actually confirm his leaks.
2. He had to go from Hong Kong as China advised him to go to avoid kerfuffle with the USA. (This even China was bullied). Russia was Snowdons only viable option as Russia is (surprisingly) the only nation where US law doesn't apply and the USA can't to jackshit.
Re: (Score:3)
Whistle blower = Bank Robber??
Re: (Score:3)
No, he provided a small amount to the public. Then went to China to come out of the closet and claim it was him.
What choice did he have? That's a serious question. As others have pointed out, look at what was done to Assange and Manning.
Even if he didn't care about getting punished, as a government captive he would not have been able to keep supplying more of the information he had gathered.
Now the bulk of the rest of the information- and amount we will never know and if the government even has a clue to how much, they are sitting quiet claiming they are clueless too, is sitting with some journalist from the UK who is attempting to profit off of it.
And who would YOU give it to? Let's get real here. Anybody inside the U.S. who had it was likely to be arrested and confined.
I mean seriously. You aren't looking at ANYTHING from his point of view. As an actual, practical m
Re: (Score:2)
\All I said was that China and Russia call him a patriot and asked if you could be a patriot for more than one country.
"Patriot" is a characterization. That makes it a matter of perception, rarely if ever debatable among people who disagree. If I call the last Bush patriot or coward, venal shill or statesman, does that make any of them true? Skeins of the Russian and Chinese elite are known for self-serving characterization far more preposterous to American sensibilities than the most blatant jingoist blather dribbled out over the media here. Does any so much as remotely considerable number of U.S. citizens rely on forei
Re: Snowden (Score:4, Interesting)
What he did was illegal, but I can't say that it was wrong.
I'm not in the least convinced that it was illegal. Revealing classified info which reveals the existence of criminal behavior is not necessarily illegal (at least as of one of my early briefings when having a clearance bestowed upon my august presence).
Re: Snowden (Score:5, Informative)
Quote :
The US has never tried Assange, and he isn't wanted by the US.
You might want to reconsider that claim :
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/13/wikileaks.investigation/
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/may/11/us-opens-wikileaks-grand-jury-hearing
http://m.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/revealed-us-plans-to-charge-assange-20120228-1u14o.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/wikileaks-stratfor-emails-a-secret-indictment-against-assange-20120228
To shut you down : All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Mass violation of the constitution, mass intrusion of privacy of innocent people throughout the world, destruction of trust, violating foreign countries sovereignty and bullying then to violate their own laws and/or change to please the U.S. *is* evil.
Let me tell you. For many, many people outside the U.S., the NSA is more evil than IS and Al-quaida combined. And I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of US citizens wouldn't feel the same.
IS are insane asshole on a regional level. The NSA is an insane psychopathic asshole on a global level.
Do you work in Fort Meade?
Re: Snowden (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think so. Cold Fjord is worse because he may actually be just another citizen that believes that the State is right to invade the privacy and build profiles of everyone on the globe.
What is scary is that if he represents the views of a large enough block of people, then recovering any sense of privacy and liberty is lost for a long, long, long time.
captcha: repulse...I swear this thing is an AI. Is the NSA powering slashdot now?
Re: (Score:2)
America also suffers from the fact, if you really started any citizens movement, without the consent/intrest of at least some power player, it would likely get denounced as "terrorist" pretty quickly, and disbanded by government agents. Later it might be rehabilitated when some drunk celebrity decides they need a makeover.
We have a slim portion of
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there is a Wikileaks investigation - one which has been declared all but impossible [washingtonpost.com] to charge Assange in. There are no charges. The GP is correct.
Even Mr. Conspiracy Theory, Assange himself, doesn't believe the "Stratfor endictment" [truthdig.com]. Stratfor for the most part is just people BSing about what they read from things that are in the public record. The most hilarious example was when Wikileaks retweeted [csmonitor.com] from one of their Stratfor docs, "New #Stratfor docs: US soldier stealing $22M from Iraq?" What was this
Re: (Score:3)
There are no charges. The GP is correct.
mmm...since when has the US needed charges to pluck a non-US citizen off the streets of a foreign country? After all, there's "lacunae in the relevant legal frameworks" [yale.edu] that allows our agents to "arrest" wanted individuals anywhere else in the world without nary a charge being filed.
Re: (Score:3)
Right. So the US didn't care enough to Assange to even watch him and inform the Swedes when he left the country, nor to inform the UK police (or simply stop him) when he jumped bail and fled to the Ecuadorian embassy... but despite not even taking the time to watch him they're instead planning an outright abduction and to "disappear" him outside of the courts system? When even Manning, the source of the leaks, the person who actually broke her military oaths and wasn't even arguably a journalist, will only
Re: (Score:2)
Right. So the US didn't care enough to Assange to even watch him and inform the Swedes when he left the country, nor to inform the UK police (or simply stop him) when he jumped bail and fled to the Ecuadorian embassy... but despite not even taking the time to watch him... [snip].
LOL, nobody needed to watch or keep track of Assange - that media whore announced his friggn' location everywhere he went. Anyways, I was just responding to the assertion that charges even matter when it comes to this sort of thing. If the US wants a non US citizen residing almost anywhere - especially western Europe - the US will have them. If you believe otherwise, well...OK then.
Re: Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
"Wrong" and "illegal" are not necessarily synonymous. For those of us living in the US (as in most democracies), I think most of the time they coincide reasonably well. That's the entire point of our legal system, of course - to codify and enforce societal mores and pass judgment on those that break from them.
Governments, however, are made up of people, and people have a penchant for pushing limits and boundaries, or ignoring rules when it suits them, or outright breaking them when it's more convenient to do so. I don't think the NSA does what they do maliciously for the most part - most of them probably really do want to catch bad guys who wish to do the US harm. I do, however, think the way the NSA is going about it is both unconstitutional and wrong. Snowden apparently thought so too, and so had to make a decision to break laws for what he considered to be the greater good. Bear in mind this was *after* he had tried to go through legitimate channels.
The fact that, even after public disclosure, the program is continuing demonstrates the futility of working from within to stop the mass surveillance. The government simply doesn't see it as an abuse of power at all. Unfortunately, apparently a significant portion of our population either doesn't care or thinks the wiretapping is fine. So, in terms of "right" or "wrong", as defined by public mores, this probably lands in a decidedly gray area.
BTW, when you say "You have no proof that he didn't take money from anyone, or that he didn't give copies of the documents to anyone in secret.", that's an argument you could make about anyone at any time. It's impossible to prove a negative, of course. Instead, show me any sort of proof that Snowden benefited from his revelations in any way at all (other than notoriety, which is fame that sane people don't want to have), and I'll re-think my position. It's hard to argue that he's in any way better off than if he had simply clammed up about what he saw.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that very much. Most likely many of the ridiculous laws on the books are not enforced (like laws on sexual position), but that's not the same as what's illegal being roughly synonymous with what's wrong. It's a much repeated claim that pretty much everyone breaks some law at least once per day in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
If Snowden had a good Washington lawyer here, it's likely that lawyer would have some history in Washington, isn't it? Serving on public committees, perhaps even in a government post, under some administration or another. The best lawyers have fat resumes full of stuff like that. Maybe he should have a country lawyer from the Urals...
BTW, have we offered to send an American lawyer over there to represent him? As you lay out all these little things against him, it's obvious that your mind was already made up
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The surveillance programs were backed by Congress, the President, and some were even subject to the courts.
What courts have ruled on the legality of any NSA surveillance program? I wasn't aware that there have been any such rulings, at least pre-Snowden.
Re: (Score:2)
"You have no proof that he didn't take money from anyone"
Just as I have no proof that you have stopped beating your wife. Should we also take that fact into consideration?
"lied repeatedly for years"
Oh goodness. He broke his word, to the men in charge, once, after the fact. That hardly counts as lying at the time, which implies that this was his plan from day one out of high school.
He found himself faced with a choice between his word to men and his word to the Constitution. In his mind, it came to that.
Here
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Snowden (Score:4, Interesting)
tell me cold, if you were in the NSA, and you were witnessing the constitutional wrong doings, and you had no legit way to get that information to the american public who rightfully deserved to know the abuses being done in our name??? not a trap i legitimately want to know how you would go about getting us the information in a way that, in your mind, does not make you a traitor (saying we dont need to know is not an answer)
Re: (Score:3)
Cold Fjord is a Fed or a shill for the Feds, thus, he doesn't give a rat's ass about the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Right and wrong know zero boundaries.
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that other countries have never benefited from another country's patriotism? That it's somehow unusual?
Re: (Score:3)
Russia thinks so. China does too.
Can you be a patriot to more than one country?
I think it's highly probable that both Russia and China already had much of what Snowden took with him on his laptop. If there was any intelligence value for those countries, it would have been to validate their sources. On the other hand, the propaganda value was limited at best. Both countries are not exactly ruled by law and they aggressively suppress dissent. On the one hand, they can use Snowden as an example of American double speak, but OTOH they don't want their own citizens to be getting the same i
Re: (Score:2)
....They also moved off from computers to typewriters for some highly sensitive documents. If they already knew all that Snowden stole, why would they do that now? Why not earlier?
There's more than one way of looking at that. 1) by moving to typewriter, they were trying to protect their information from the Americans - your theory. or 2) they saw how easy it is for an insider to electronically copy a library of documents and leave the country. Personally, I think 2) is much more plausible based on that Snowden actually revealed. Secure Russian or Chinese communications would not have been a part of normal internet or telephone traffic that the US was monitoring anyway. Another point
Re: (Score:2)
> Russia thinks so. China does too.
The Russians and the Chinese think he is an *American* Patriot.
> Can you be a patriot to more than one country?
Sure. People have dual citizenships and they can act in the better interests of both countries. Most first generation Americans have dual loyalties that are not in conflict.
Re:Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
Russia thinks so. China does too.
Can you be a patriot to more than one country?
Russia and China were happy because Snowden embarrassed the US government, with whom they're not exactly on the friendliest terms with. That perspective is important. They don't give a shit if he's a patriot or not, but they'll call him one if it means pouring salt in the US gov's wounds.
From my perspective, Snowden more or less took a bullet for the entire country's right to privacy, and from what I could see, did so because of his principles. Still, no one can look inside someone else's heart. All I can see is that he had everything to lose and nothing to gain by what he did. That means he's either insane or incredibly principled, and he doesn't strike me as an insane sort.
Re:Snowden (Score:4, Insightful)
I forget the source, but it's been said that a true patriot honours all nations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My opinion is it needs to be fixed when it concerns the citizens of the USA and should continue concerning foreign nationals and other countries.
My opinion is also that he likely would have been revered unniversally as a hero if he filtered ehat was exposed and did the release entirely within the US instead of to a foreign journalist on foreign soil while giving foreign countries access to all the information before it is even revieled.
Re: (Score:2)
my opinion is that we should stop caring if one man is a hero, patriot, or traitor. That issue is not really important.
We are doing nothing to fix the problems he exposed.
This is a larger problem in the USA, where
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I used to think like this but I'm not so sure anymore. If we had planetary rule, it might be all rosy and ponies like the Federation of Planets, but it might also (maybe more probably) be corrupt and abusive. With multiple exclusive jurisdictions, at least there are areas to which one can escape (if escape is possible) when things get too bad because there is a border drawn around the corruption and abuse. It's almost certainly true though, that all governments are just institutionalized repositories for
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right or Wrong, he's a traitor
Edward Snowden is indeed a _traitor_ to those who want to turn the United States of America into the United POLICE States of America
Re: (Score:2)
Id rather let everyone in the world know we were acting like assholes (we were, and still are) than you know, do nothing about the fact that we are assholes
Re: (Score:2)
he did, and to any normal american, he did the right thing
I only wish that were true. Sadly, most people seem to be braindead drones who think the government can do no wrong and that infringing upon the constitution and our individual liberties is okay in the name of safety. Add to that the fact that they keep voting for the 'lesser of two evils'? Yeah, they're completely worthless.
I'd change "normal" to "freedom-loving."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Snowden badly damaged not only US intelligence but also the intelligence services of many of its allies by leaking massive numbers of classified documents as well as causing numerous diplomatic problems. He leaked far, far more than just aspects of operations that might have a civil rights dispute. Snowden is no patriot.
This is a valid and welcome point of view in the discussion. Will you pussies who modded it -1 Troll please stop??
I see 'patriot' as a personal point of view that becomes Patriot-capitalized over time, maybe hundreds of years, usually in some self-serving context. But of course the Founding Fathers were Patriots! Snowden (unlike Assange) has refrained from using his press conduits to leak names which might compromise the safety of individuals involved in covert operations, if he even had access to them.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a valid and welcome point of view in the discussion.
No, it isn't. He repeats the same trash over and over again in any privacy-related discussion and openly despises the constitution and the very concept of freedom.
'Real' freedom, to him, is as follows:
1) You have the freedom to be warrantlessly spied on by your government in a mass surveillance program.
2) You have the freedom to be shoved off into free speech zones.
3) You have the freedom to be arrested for having drawings of children having sex, because the community doesn't like that sort of thing.
4) You
Re: (Score:2)
cold fjord in a nutshell.
The lawful act of stalking "cold fjord" [slashdot.org] reveals a penchant for gainsaying, short posts and a rolling rally of rebuttal. This can have the effect of people wishing you would just shut up. The post I responded to was more than a 'zinger' and does represent the view of many including some in the military who would gladly take Snowden out in a black op given the chance.
But then again, the lawful act of stalking "TheRealHocusLocus" [slashdot.org] shows a preponderance of blustery paragraph-rich prose that goes off --- o
Re: (Score:2)
Cry me a fucking river. When the Feds started violating the constitution, they lost all legitimacy and became nothing better than thugs. Mere gangbangers. A fetid swamp of pestilent human garbage.
But of course, as their greatest apologist -- and if you aren't getting paid you're a total retard -- they can do no wrong. If the NSA said they needed to eat baby brains to boost their mental ability to crack codes, you'd be donating your sperm to them on an hourly basis. I'm sure it takes little more than a
Re: (Score:2)
What he exposed is a government that simply ignores any and all tenets of freedom and democracy is exposes.
But lets be honest, the only time we really seem to care is when we are bombing, some other country, or egging on protestors to an unfriendly regime.
Otherwise the US doesn't give a rats ass about democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Right or Wrong, he's a traitor
FTFY
Actually you're the traitor. Like all domestic enemies you are an unseen, unknown anonymous coward undermining democracy for everyone.
History has shown that when the clubs and batons come out to suppress the freedom of ordinary people, you're the unidentified one dressed in black beating up some poor kid or torturing some human rights campaigner. You cause terrorism because you never answer for your crimes like a festering wound on society.
You are an anonymous coward because you are hated, even by your ow
Re: Snowden (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
His supervisors at the NSA certainly did. I think we can be reasonable that the head of the NSA, and the upper levels of management, knew the extent of this monitoring, even if they didn't know the day to day details. They're the ones who should be facing prosecution in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
That's on the 700 Club, isn't it?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not just "unreasonable". (Score:5, Informative)
They wouldn't be committing felonies as that would require a violation of law rather than violations of constitutional restrictions against government. The law, constitutional or not, allows the NSA to do what they are doing else a lowly court could shut it all down by a simple low level prosecutor bringing charges to a grand jury. Once it is in the grand jury's hands, the government cannot order the prosecutor to stop anything and it is almost impossible for the administration to stop as the judicial branch is separate. Congress would have to pass a law barring the judicial branch from taking the case up or proceeding with the case which would only work if a court didn't find constitutional issues with the case before it was passed.
Do not construe this comment to be in support of the NSA, just reality as it is presented to us today.
Re:Not just "unreasonable". (Score:5, Informative)
241. If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
242. Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Re: (Score:2)
As you see it maybe. But as the government sees it, it doesn't violate the constitution and it is legal which is why even after popular protest, they continue doing it.
But if you look at those sections of law, you will see that 241 that you actually have to conspire to- conspire actually means intend in this sense because two or more people are attempting to work out how to do whatever the law says is a violation. But if congress which is barred from passing unconstitutional laws passes a law making it lega
Re: (Score:2)
if congress which is barred from passing unconstitutional laws passes a law making it legal,
Nothing stops Congress from passing unconstitutional laws.
then it really isn't conspiring to violate someone's rights
Sure it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Very nice, but I see you neglected to quote any of the legislation authorizing the activities of the intelligence agencies.
Any reason for that?
It's irrelevant. If there is a recognized civil right that is being violated, then 18 USC 241/242 apply, regardless of other legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
> They wouldn't be committing felonies as that would require a violation of law
Please review the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act and your state's wiretapping statutes. Completely unrestricted wiretapping is a federation under numerous statutes.
Re: (Score:2)
Please reviee the FISA and Patriot act laws which specifically allow violations of those laws which supersede the felonies you suggest.
Also, both sets of laws you brought up have exceptions for law enforcement engaged in legal activities which those other laws do satisfy.
Re: (Score:2)
> Please reviee the FISA and Patriot act laws which specifically allow violations of those laws which supersede the felonies you suggest.
Neither act protects against prosecution for state laws against wiretapping, which can still apply although they're difficult to enforce against a federal agency. And I'm afraid that the NSA, according to Snowden's leaks and according to the Stratfor documents available at Wikileaks, is in egregious violation of both sets of laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, a federal law will trump any state law. The supremecy clause of the constitution makes it supreme. That is your dificulty in applying them to a federal agency.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for reminding me of "federal preemption". But the federal statutory exceptions for law enforcement in FISA and EPCA enforcement are far from absolute. A prosecutor woou'd have to work around them, to prosecute for acts that are not _specifically_ allowed by the statute. The facts from Edward Snowden's published documents that the NSA is in clear violation of even those statuses would allow prosecution even under FISA and ECPA.
The battle to De-fund, De-construct and Defame (Score:2)
They wouldn't be committing felonies as that would require a violation of law rather than violations of constitutional restrictions against government. The law, constitutional or not, allows the NSA to do what they are doing else a lowly court could shut it all down by a simple low level prosecutor bringing charges to a grand jury.
Which is why no one in Congress can be expected to cast the first stone at the NSA. Whether they are in a position to know of its effectiveness or not, they will shy away in mortal political terror of NSA producing clear evidence that mass surveillance has "kept us safe". Still waiting. Likewise, pure judicial challenges run into stone walls as courts circularly argue over jurisdiction.
Or in the case of Hepting v. AT&T [wikipedia.org] the Ninth Circuit committed to a sorry-ass monkey fuck decision where the case was
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. To me each count looks like a separate act of malfeasance.
Re: (Score:2)
FISA lays out those felonies: 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine for each offense. Right off the top that's going to mean prison sentences measured in thousands of years - for each NSA worker - as well as billions in fines.
Re:Not just "unreasonable". (Score:5, Insightful)
One more point, a court can't do anything on it's own. It has to wait until someone can show they were harmed by the NSA through the wiretapping and brings the case to the courts. Good luck with that.
The violation of rights IS the harm, and it's done on such a massive scale against the entire populace that it can only be considered treason.
Re: (Score:3)
Treason is specifically defined, and so I don't think you can make treason stick. But you should be able to get hundreds of thousands of count of malfeasance....were there any justice.
Re: (Score:2)
It's treason. They're adhering to the enemies of the US. Those enemies just happen to be domestic.
Re:Not just "unreasonable". (Score:4, Informative)
First, a court cannot exactly enforce any decision ruling or anything else. That gets passed on to the executive so I'm not going to argue the futility you expressed as it is more than appropriate. We saw this first hand several times in history- one of which was when FDR's new deal legislation was declared unconstitutional and FDR basically said "so what" forcing the court to expand the interstate commerce clause into the monster it is today in order to avoid a constitutional meltdown.
But even if a government official can lie in court, it doesn't mean they will win when it is known they are lieing. As for a pardon, yes, a president can pardon anyone for any violation of any law. It would stop the court proceeding but a pardon implies guilt with no consequences or at minimum the equivalence of no contest without the ability to punish the person. That provides sort of a quirky area where the court can still rule on the case but not impose punishment. Or in other words, a pardon on a person would not prevent the court from saying the program must stop because it is unconstitutional. The pardon does not remove a court order declaring the program unconstitutional and ordering it shut down as matter of fact within the case. At that point, it will be up to the electorate if they want to keep someone in office who violates the law and constitution or not. I suspect that the answer will be no and they will demand congress impeach the president or vote overwhelmingly for any person of another party who pledges to end the program.
As for showing cause, you are correct, and if a law existed that did not allow the NSA to collect the crap that we all know violates the constitution, cause could be shown. In fact, cause was shown before and a case was advancing which is why congress passed a law allowing the collection and implemented the retroactive immunity for the telecoms. I think it was Hepting v. AT&T [eff.org] another seems to be advancing on what was learned from that case and NSA whistle blowers but is directed at the government itself [eff.org] which doesn't have the immunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever said the constitution was "not" law? I said violations of it was not a felony unless a law makes it so. Being the highest set of laws doesn't matter when the constitution gives only congress the ability to define felonies.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh.. Where in the constitution does it delve into any punishment for any violation of anything within it? There is a limit on punishment but nowhere does it prescribe any punishment or prison sentence. Congress has to make laws that do that. Therefore a violation of the US constitution cannot be a felony unless a law makes it so.
I know what I wrote. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean you can change it just to challenge it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just a shame that it doesn't result in punishment; that was a pretty bad idea. People who openly ignore the constitution and infringe upon our liberties really do need to be put behind bars. Then again, even if it was supposed to result in people being punished, the government would likely just not enforce it anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
High crimes and misdemeanors are such immoral and unlawful acts as are nearly allied and equal in guilt to felony, yet, owing to some technical circumstance, do I not fall within the definition of "felony." State " v. Knapp, 6 Conn. 417, 16 Am. Dec. 68.
Law Dictionary: What is HIGH CRIMES? definition of HIGH CRIMES (Black's Law Dictionary) [thelawdictionary.org]
High crimes can include felonies but does not mean felonies. Misdemeanors and other offenses or a combination of offenses that are not felonies or not criminal can be inclu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the Patriot Act creates a limited state of emergency that each president finds very convenient. The result is that the US has morphed into a partial dictatorship.
Concise way to put it but these declarations are easy to challenge on the basis of this or that President. To add to your statement and share responsibility, the people of the United States have failed to challenge the idea of this perpetual state of emergency because they were blindsighted by anger on 9/11, but also because they have not picked up on parallel clues of history such as the Weimar Republic, lulled by Hitler into the dissolution of its own government. Americans (and Congress) have been conte
Re: (Score:2)
while there are so many medieval crazies running around alternately shouting Hallelujah, Death To The Great Satan and beheading followers and non-believers alike, the Patriot Act will stay.
isn't that why they produced those medieval crazies in the first place, and why they're producing more of them by the minute?
What's Keith Alexanders new company doing? (Score:5, Interesting)
There's no way companies are paying Alexanders new company a million $ a month to consult. He's not allowed to reveal secret info, and public info is free. So what would the be paying for. There's no way the current NSA CTO is moonlighting for it and nobody in the NSA bats an eyelid. You would never have a part time employee in that position in the NSA, the money would be a conflict of interest.
What does make sense, is if this company is a conduit from banks and telcos to NSA.
You can't legally search US bank records, but if his company received those records and resold them, then a conduit like that could conceal the source of the data. So this is what makes a more plausible role for that company that would be worth the millions per year, laundering the source of the data into the NSA.
A data broker for data that the NSA legally can't obtain from the original source. When they ask the NSA if it obtained US Bank data, it says no (pretending it doesn't know the data it bought from this conduit company came from banks), when they ask them if they obtained telco data they again say no.
Likewise foreign partners like GCHQ, are spying on Brits via companies like BT & Vodafone and sending the data to the NSA. But suppose instead they simply sold data for some company to process, and that company happened to resell that data to some other company which then lands in the NSAs database.
Q. Did NSA get any data from Vodafone.
A. Not to my knowledge.... says the NSA man.
A million dollars worth of plausible deniability. Now that *does* seem a more plausible role for his new company and its what I suspect is behind it.
NSA Theme song (Score:5, Funny)
Jury Nullification (Score:2)
The whole purpose of juries is to create the possibility of nullification. However, the government hates this limitation of its preferably unfettered powers and tries to prevent jurors being informed of their right to strike down unjust prosecution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... [wikipedia.org]
http://reason.com/blog/2014/10... [reason.com]
Re: (Score:2)
dude that's kind of harsh. why all the hate for a guy who's just doing his thing? he didn't do anything to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Snowden isn't some harmless guy "just doing his thing." He committed crimes that carry the death penalty. Snowden screwed America and its citizens, much of Europe, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, even if you don't recognize it, or even cheer him for it.
he just publicly showed proof of how rotten government is in america and much of europe. it's those governments who screwed their citizens.
if you believe this deserves death penalty _for_the_messager_ then you are the traitor, but more than that you are a sick piece of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no enemy, since the US isn't in a state of war with anybody.
Get us a declaration of war as mandated by the Constitution, and then we'll start talking about an enemy.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no enemy, since the US isn't in a state of war with anybody.
I thought we were at war with Eastasia? Or was it Eurasia? I'm so confused.
Re: (Score:2)
How very Kim Jong Un of you. Obviously, the civics classes didn't stick and you have no understanding of American values.
Re: (Score:2)
sorry, europe calling. don't trivialize. us hate has way more serious roots, it isn't for what retarded psychos like this one you respond to may spew on internet. how do you know he is an us citizen at all? dipshits like this are everywhere.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
snowden is a hero, you sir are a moron.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's great. We are not in a Revolutionary War right now.
Even if we were, that wouldn't make it right. Stop seemingly defending privacy violations.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought freedom was more important than privacy.
Freedom is more important than safety. Privacy is part of freedom.
Furthermore, the government infringing upon your freedoms makes the government (supposedly by the people and for the people) your enemy, and morally, that's the worst result of all, even if the alternative is being destroyed.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, just like chemtrails didn't exist before radio was invented, ISIS didn't exist before Snowden leaked those documents and this government certainly seemed clueless about them until they beheaded a gold club and a few citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Chemtrails don't exist, period. IS does. Your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Is that an admission of accomplice to murder?