US Charges Edward Snowden With Espionage 442
cold fjord writes "Further developments in the controversy engulfing Edward Snowden and the NSA. From the Washington Post: "Federal prosecutors have filed a sealed criminal complaint against Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked a trove of documents about top-secret surveillance programs, and the United States has asked Hong Kong to detain him on a provisional arrest warrant,... Snowden was charged with espionage, theft and conversion of government property ... The complaint was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, a jurisdiction where Snowden's former employer, Booz Allen Hamilton, is headquartered, and a district with a long track record in prosecuting cases with national security implications...it is thought that he is still in the Chinese territory. Hong Kong has its own legislative and legal systems but ultimately answers to Beijing, under the so-called "one country, two systems" arrangement. The leaks have sparked national and international debates about the secret powers of the NSA to infringe on the privacy of both Americans and foreigners. Officials from President Obama down have said they welcomed the opportunity to explain the importance of the programs, and the safeguards they say are built into them. Skeptics, including some in Congress, have said the NSA has assumed power to soak up data about Americans that were never intended under the law."""
Didn't need to be the NSA (Score:5, Insightful)
To know that's what was going to happen.
Re:Didn't need to be the NSA (Score:4, Funny)
To know that's what was going to happen.
Still, I draped a thread over a string I saw running through the neighborhood and tied it to my own tin can and heard pretty much that.
Helping the NSA transcend to abundance thinking (Score:2)
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2773253&cid=39629001 [slashdot.org] ..."
"To start with the bottom line: the very computers that make the new NSA facilities possible mean that the NSA's formal purpose is essentially soon to be at an end. Nothing you or I say here will reverse that trend. The only issue is how soon the NSA as a whole recognizes that fact, and then how people there choose to deal with that reality.
A further elaboration on that theme:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/on-dealing-with-social-hurricanes.html [pdfernhout.net]
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I was expecting the charge to be "counter espionage", after all, he spied on the spies.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
but I'm relatively indifferent to spying on foreigners.
Even foreigners have rights. If we're not at war with them and the countries they live in very likely aren't going to harm the US, they should not be spying on anyone, and should also have to prove that the individuals they wish to spy on are most likely dangerous.
Re:Didn't need to be the NSA (Score:4, Insightful)
but how do you know they aren't going to harm the US
You need to prove that they're likely going to, which is more or less the same thing they have to do to get a warrant for such matters.
There is no need to be 100% certain of anything, so I'm not sure why you asked that question. The same thing could be said about normal civilians, which would lead to us spying on them to find out if they're actually dangerous (which is what we already do in some cases, and it's morally wrong).
Instead we had to try to brute force it.
We should have never been playing world police to begin with.
or sold goods to germany before ww2 (Score:3)
So who sold computers, punch cards, boots, oil, etc.. to Germany during and before ww2?
Even if it was via 3rd parties which shipped it to Germany.
Re:dude iraq is different, thats war (Score:4, Informative)
Dude, spying on iraq before the war is different to spying on people in UK or Singapore, ok.
The nice thing about spying on friendly nations like the UK or Singapore, is that their spy agencies cooperate with ours, and have similar restrictions about spying on their own citizens, but are free to spy on other citizens including Americans. So if the NSA/CIA wants to get some dirt on an American in America, they have the Brits do the spying. We return the favor whenever they ask. Everybody wins (or loses, depending on your perspective).
Re:dude iraq is different, thats war (Score:4, Funny)
"The USA isnt going to do a full invasion of the UK."
You brits keep telling yourself that....
Now if you dont increase the shipments of PG Tips, HP Sauce and start sending us Dutchy Biscuits... We might have to go looking for WMD's in your country...
Re:Didn't need to be the NSA (Score:5, Insightful)
Yea well, if the NSA doesn't have a positive ID on you (and they don't try very hard) you get the foreigner rules applied [eff.org] to you.
Enjoy.
Re:Didn't need to be the NSA (Score:4, Insightful)
Yea well, if the NSA doesn't have a positive ID on you (and they don't try very hard) you get the foreigner rules applied [eff.org] to you.
Enjoy.
Plus, I take it from GP's stance that you don't mind at all if foreigners (most of the world) are spying on you, even if that involves foreign intelligence agencies sharing such wide-net intel with the FBI, Customs, and Secret Service (or Homeland Security) on request.
So even if you aren't considered a foreigner due to them not being able to guarantee you're actually a US citizen, this is still a bad precedent to set.
Re:Didn't need to be the NSA (Score:4, Interesting)
Plus, even if they do later find out that you are a US citizen, they still get to keep the data that they hold about you.
It's completely backwards. Any purely domestic phone call should be presumed to be between US people (citizens, legal residents). The bill of rights does not make a distinction between citizens and other people living in the USA, probably because, at the time of writing, many immigrants did not bother to become citizens. Email may be a little more difficult, but the ISPs could be asked to provide only communications that originate from, are delivered to, or are accessed (webmail, imap, pop) from a non-US IP address.
Re: (Score:3)
So if foreigners have no privacy and are legitimate targets for mass surveillance why get so upset when Wikileaks publishes secret US documents?
the root of the problem is that usa legalized for them spying, killing and whatever they want to do to whoever they want to do provided they're a foreigner. that is the start of the slippery slope which lead to them taking rights to kill whoever they want without apprehending even if they're US citizens.
so they started with a group of people who have no inherent rights of any kind( "everyone else in the world" ) and it just started going downhill from there. I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would have
Re:Didn't need to be the NSA (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's okay, because many foreigners are equally indifferent to your rights as well.
Which leads to the current situation, where NSA outsources spying on you to foreign entities, who in turn outsource spying on their citizens to NSA. Result: you have NSA have all the spy data on yourself, through this outsourcing. It's awesome just how your selfish assholery comes and bites you square in your face. And you still remain ignorant of it.
Re:Didn't need to be the NSA (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes it is. That is their whole point, and it should be only the whole.
I'm from Ireland, so it's actually OK for the NSA to spy on me and my communications. Americans should actually expect that the NSA is up to this and indeed a few shady activities abroad. That is what a spy agency is for, and should be paid for,
However, a spy agency is not for spying on domestic citizens. The NSA and CIA are absolutely not supposed to monitor domestic US citizens. That is not what they are for, or what they should be paid for.
This isn't very complicated. The NSA is an intelligence weapon, and can be compared to a missile or bomber. Americans might argue about targets, but most will agree that the US should have missiles and bombers and should use them abroad when nessessary. Most Americans would be outraged to discover that those missiles were being used at home on US citizens, and should be equally outraged that the NSA is being used at home as well.
Re: (Score:3)
indifferent to spying on foreigners.
The hypocrisy is strong with this one.
Re: (Score:3)
you're right to take issue with this:
but you left out one glaring option that would have allowed him to keep his (IMHO fictional/hired) girlfriend and sweet Booze/Allen job and...AND write a bestseller and be on TV news spouting his opinions...
anonymous leak
too late now...his best bet is to prove he was being defrauded and manipulated to do this by criminals/chinese/illuminati...otherwise he should anticipate Federal Prison
why do people think he's going to get waterboarded at a black site like Kalid Shake Mohammed or w/e? There really is no reason to assume the current admin will do the worst of what the *previous* admin did...especially when the current admin has allowed so much to become public and eliminated torture practices...
You are out of your fucking mind if you think things have got better. Secret courts where you can't hear the eveadence or what you are being charged with let allow face your acusure. Hell you're lucky if you get a trail at all as the the US kills it's very own citizens with no trial at all over seas in the wrong part of the world not to mention all the journalist we have maimed or murdered while the chopper pilots laugh... Yeah things are so much more transparent and we follow or own laws now... Not like
Why is it a sealed criminal complaint? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought that only those with something to hide needed privacy?
Re:Why is it a sealed criminal complaint? (Score:5, Insightful)
its to protect the innocent secret government programs that might become victims of false accusations.
Re: (Score:3)
Like spying on diplomats in G20?
Which diplomat was a potential terrorist? Or spying on him was useful for the purpose?
You are either naive or a liar. If intelligence data had 20 major usages , only one of them would be anti-terrorism.
Re:Why is it a sealed criminal complaint? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought that only those with something to hide needed privacy?
Because:
Officials from President Obama down have said they welcomed the opportunity to explain the importance of the programs
Oh wait....
Re:Why is it a sealed criminal complaint? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because:
Officials from President Obama down have said they welcomed the opportunity to explain the importance of the programs...
But only to secret judges on secret courts.
Re: (Score:2)
Because:
Officials from President Obama down have said they welcomed the opportunity to explain the importance of the programs...
But only to secret judges on secret courts.
...conducting hearings during a full moon in months with an 'R' in them.
suddenly the Committee pulled up to the curb in an arcane dodge dart and Bob 'The Atomic Carp' was heard to say, 'How arcane!!'
Re:Why is it a sealed criminal complaint? (Score:4, Insightful)
no, the judges aren't secret. The courtroom is one of those faraday cages, though.
from wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Judge[13] Judicial district Date appointed Term expiry
Reggie Walton (presiding) District of Columbia May 19, 2007 May 18, 2014
Rosemary M. Collyer District of Columbia March 8, 2013 March 7, 2020
Raymond J. Dearie Eastern District of New York July 2, 2012 July 1, 2019
Claire Eagan Northern District of Oklahoma February 13, 2013 May 18, 2019
Martin L.C. Feldman Eastern District of Louisiana May 19, 2010 May 18, 2017
Thomas Hogan District of Columbia May 18, 2009 May 18, 2016
Mary A. McLaughlin Eastern District of Pennsylvania May 18, 2008 May 18, 2015
Michael W. Mosman District of Oregon May 4, 2013 May 3, 2020
F. Dennis Saylor IV District of Massachusetts May 19, 2011 May 18, 2018
Susan Webber Wright Eastern District of Arkansas May 18, 2009 May 18, 2016
James Zagel Northern District of Illinois May 18, 2008 May 18, 2015
Roger Vinson, the guy who rubber-stamped the leaked Verizon order, is no longer on the court-- his seven year term expired.
Re:Why is it a sealed criminal complaint? (Score:5, Insightful)
Same story, different day. They are speaking publicly, but not everyone is listening, paying attention, or caring.
Actually, pretty much anyone who has been paying attention to the leaks has seen those "disclosures" and also seen just how flimsy they are - full of carefully parsed wording meant to mislead, statements that contradict public testimony in the trials and even a refusal to answer the question of how much the NSA participation was key rather than ancillary to stopping the plots.
Re:Why is it a sealed criminal complaint? (Score:5, Interesting)
Furthermore, this story has already been discredited. There was no plan. The "extremist" asked for a document about the NYSE, got a one-page brief that he discarded and dropped any further plans. The intelligence that the NSA got had no impact on the outcome.
Re:Why is it a sealed criminal complaint? (Score:5, Informative)
Because:
Officials from President Obama down have said they welcomed the opportunity to explain the importance of the programs...
But only to secret judges on secret courts.
Same story, different day. They are speaking publicly, but not everyone is listening, paying attention, or caring.
NSA director: Surveillance foiled 50 terror plots [usatoday.com]
FBI deputy director: NSA foiled NYC bombing plots [washingtonpost.com]
NSA director says surveillance foiled plot against Wall Street [komonews.com]
Intelligence officials last week disclosed some details on two thwarted attacks - one targeting the New York subway system, one to bomb a Danish newspaper office that had published the cartoon depictions of the Prophet Mohammad. Alexander and Sean Joyce, deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, offered additional details on two other foiled plots, including one targeting Wall Street.
Under questioning, Joyce said the NSA was able to identify an extremist in Yemen who was in touch with an individual in Kansas City, Mo. They were able to identify co-conspirators and thwart a plot to bomb the New York Stock Exchange.
Joyce also said a terrorist financier inside the U.S. was identified and arrested in October 2007, thanks to a phone record provided by the NSA. The individual was making phone calls to a known designated terrorist group overseas.
It doesn't matter how much they disclose if you don't listen. Maybe they should send the stories to Wikileaks, maybe then it would get people's attention.
Both of those specific instances were calls made overseas, and many people are ok with the NSA looking at international calls. So remind me again why they are watching all of our domestic calls? If they see a call to a foreign terrorist organization, they can use a good old fashioned court order to get the phone records from the domestic end of the call. No need for the NSA to collect all of the data.
There's also exactly zero evidence that those plots were even real.
Re: (Score:3)
"So waddya gonna do, eh? Vote republican????"
Actually, getting off your lazy ass and demanding the repeal of the PATRIOT act will solve it completely.
This will not happen though, Most people are bored with the story already.
Re:Why is it a sealed criminal complaint? (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama Obama Obama. Enough with this partisan nonsense. Watch the documentary 'Enemy of the State', what 16 years old now or more, this surveillance is nothing new. You don't get to call yourselves the land of the free when you're being monitored around the clock in case you might say or do something upsetting to your betters. And no I don't care if terrorists are the excuse, if you're going to put the USA on a pedestal, hold yourselves to a higher standard than totalitarians.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why is it a sealed criminal complaint? (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama Obama Obama. Enough with this partisan nonsense. Watch the documentary 'Enemy of the State', what 16 years old now or more, this surveillance is nothing new. You don't get to call yourselves the land of the free when you're being monitored around the clock in case you might say or do something upsetting to your betters. And no I don't care if terrorists are the excuse, if you're going to put the USA on a pedestal, hold yourselves to a higher standard than totalitarians.
I think the Obama bashing is coming out because Obama said he was going to bring about change that America needs and he even spoke out specifically against secret spying on citizens. No one (well few) think that a Republican in the Whitehouse would be any better since nearly all of the opposition against the Patriot Act renewals has come from the democrats.
http://www.cfr.org/us-election-2008/obamas-speech-woodrow-wilson-center/p13974 [cfr.org]
That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution
works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.
This Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no short-cuts to protecting America, and that is why the fifth part of my strategy is doing the hard and patient work to secure a more resilient homeland.
Yet not only is he aware of the secret spying programs, he is actively defending them.
Re:Why is it a sealed criminal complaint? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet not only is he aware of the secret spying programs, he is actively defending them.
If it had happend on the watch of any previous president they would have done the same thing. The game isn't us against the terrorists, it's us against the new aristocracy.
Re:By voting for Obama, one voted against Romney (Score:4, Insightful)
No. I believed *Romney* when he said he loaded his dog on the roof of his car, and kept him up there until he was covered in his own shit. I believed *Romney* when he said the 47% would never take personal responsibility and care for their lives. I watched in horror as Romney went to England, and in a canned, pre-arranged situation any moron could have handled, managed to say exactly the wrong thing to the wrong people at the wrong time. I heard him say "Corporations are people" when I know damn well they are not. I listened in amazement when he demonstrated that his science knowledge stopped at about 3rd grade, when he plaintively queried why they can't open the windows in an airplane when it's on fire. I laughed when he said "Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea" demonstrating his geographical knowledge was right "up" there with his science.
By the time the ballot box rolled around, I was quite sure that Romney was a complete idiot and a tool.
Under Obama, some good things got done; he had failed at others, and particularly so when blocked by the republicans in congress. But we got consumer credit reforms, we got a reverse in the jobs mess the republican administration had presided over, we got a marked improvement in gay rights, and most importantly, we got the ACA, which, while not what Obama had asked for -- congress really mangled it -- is at least a step in the right direction.
So my choice was more of the latter, or pick the man who hadn't a clue, and no idea what do do when sent off with a clue in his pocket. The decision was easy.
Now, compare my post to yours. There are some differences. You might want to think about that.
Re:Why is it a sealed criminal complaint? (Score:5, Insightful)
It looks to me like he kept his promise, and people just didn't pay attention to what that promise was...
That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens.
Because it's been made legal.
No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime.
But anyone they want to spy on is, by definition, "suspect".
No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war.
Sure, you can protest misguided wars and not be tracked for that. But there's probably other stuff they can track you for.
And so on. Obama voted for warrantless wiretaps just months before being elected in 2008. It was covered right here on Slashdot! [slashdot.org] If you're suprised by his stance now, it's only because you hadn't been paying attention.
Re: (Score:3)
Yet not only is he aware of the secret spying programs, he is actively defending them.
This makes me wonder exactly what secrets he knows about that we don't. Such a vast turnaround, and not even being terribly subtle about it sincerely makes me wonder just what has him so afraid.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why is it a sealed criminal complaint? (Score:4, Funny)
That and future winners of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award, which some future President will be forced to give this guy.
I'm betting you could run a pretty good election campaign just on that alone, because the demonizing isn't going to well except among the circle jerks in DC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm betting you could run a pretty good election campaign just on that alone, because the demonizing isn't going to well except among the circle jerks in DC.
Get of the slashdot technerd bubble and I think you will be amazed at just how well the demonization is going. Yesterday I dropped by Little green footballs [littlegreenfootballs.com] a blog famous for doing a 180 on islamaphobia a few years back and calling the bigots out for what they are.
Turns out those guys fucking hate Snowden. This surveillance shit is ridiculous bordering on evil to anyone like us, but the people who aren't like us make up a majority of the country and they just can't grasp the implications.
Re: (Score:3)
Point this to them [eff.org], see if that helps change their tune.
Re:Why is it a sealed criminal complaint? (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like the Orwellian surveillance program the government has been hiding?
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
(the proper all caps invoked
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Link [documentcloud.org]
Not much there.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know why ya'll are so worried. President Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize.........just like Mother Teresa.
And Yasser Arafat.
Re:Why is it a sealed criminal complaint? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is almost certainly classified information to protect in the case.
I don't think that's the point. The point is that a number of people (not pointing at anyone in particular) have said something along the lines of, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." These same people would probably argue that while the government is trying to hide something here, that hiding things isn't necessarily bad, which is inconsistent.
Re:Why is it a sealed criminal complaint? (Score:5, Informative)
The point is that a number of people (not pointing at anyone in particular) have said something along the lines of, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."
Could you remind me which people in government were saying that? I know it is very popular on Slashdot, but I don't recall it being common coming from the national security establishment. I think I do recall them saying things along the lines of they don't target ordinary Americans, which is a very different thing.
Here's an example:
Senator Lindsey Graham:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130607/18020323369/sen-lindsey-graham-verizon-customer-im-glad-nsa-is-harvesting-my-data-because-terrorists.shtml [techdirt.com]
“I’m a Verizon customer. I don’t mind Verizon turning over records to the government if the government is going to make sure that they try to match up a known terrorist phone with somebody in the United States. I don’t think you’re talking to the terrorists. I know you’re not. I know I’m not. So we don’t have anything to worry about.”
Re:Why is it a sealed criminal complaint? (Score:4, Insightful)
Big summer coming (Score:2)
With the trial of Private Manning underway [washingtonpost.com], and Snowden now indicted, it looks like it will be a summer full of heated discussion.
Here is an overlooked discussion ... (Score:2)
With the trial of Private Manning underway, and Snowden now indicted, it looks like it will be a summer full of heated discussion.
Here is a discussion topic that seems to be somewhat overlooked at the moment.
Why did a low ranking army private like Manning have access to the high level info that he leaked? Why did a low level private contractor like Snowden have access to the high level info that he leaked? Sure an army private or low level contractor may need access to some secret info to do their jobs but both seem to have had access to or knowledge of way too much.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With the trial of Private Manning underway, and Snowden now indicted, it looks like it will be a summer full of heated discussion.
Here is a discussion topic that seems to be somewhat overlooked at the moment.
Why did a low ranking army private like Manning have access to the high level info that he leaked? Why did a low level private contractor like Snowden have access to the high level info that he leaked? Sure an army private or low level contractor may need access to some secret info to do their jobs but both seem to have had access to or knowledge of way too much.
Because if you want to know the truth, it's the grunts who have to spend all day long with their hands down in the dirty stuff.
The brass are "too important" to be bothered with such details. They only really care about the Executive Summaries. Plus, they're usually part of the problem, so don't expect them to rush to be part of the solution.
Not News (Score:3, Funny)
We were no expecting USA to hail him as a hero obviously. It is hilarious though how he exposed Obama's lies today about the NSA not being capable of spying on citizens though.
I hope if in this country Zimmerman can get a public and (hopefully) fair trial, then Snowden should as well.
Re: (Score:3)
It is kind of weird. A murder trial in Florida compared to someone outing the NSA. I bet Snowden does a lot more time than Zimmerman even if Zimmerman gets convicted. Murder isn't nearly as big a deal as telling secrets.
What, no computer fraud? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't give them ideas, or they might amend the charges.
They are going for the big stuff and things that l (Score:2)
They are going for the big stuff and things that let the bypass some rights and parts of the courts system.
Petition to pardon Snowden (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Petition to pardon Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not the petition to pardon Snowden, that's the volunteer list for hidden cameras in your dwelling.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no rule of law anymore, no matter what they can violate your privacy, your liberty or even send in a drone to kill you. No
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Congress skeptical? (Score:2)
Typical politicking now, trying to distance themselves from any controversy so they get re-elected. They should be the ones charged and throw in front of a firing squad.
Sign the White House petition! (Score:5, Informative)
Just in case you weren't aware, there is a White House petition to pardon Snowden that is almost at the 100K signature threshold:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD [whitehouse.gov]
Re:Sign the White House petition! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sign the White House petition! (Score:5, Informative)
Snowden must be convicted first, then the President can pardon him.
Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford would like a word with you.
Re:Sign the White House petition! (Score:4, Informative)
Actually a pardon is not law enforcement. It is specifically an executive order outside and above the law made for just such an occasion. Snowden must be convicted first, then the President can pardon him. The pardon does not stop anything. It simply supersedes it after the fact.
Not true. Most famously, Ford pardoned Nixon before he'd even been charged, and made it a blanket pardon for any and all crimes he might have committed while in office. Similarly, Carter granted a blanket amnesty to all Vietnam-era draft dodgers, which was effectively a pre-emptive pardon on a large scale.
The issue has even come before the Supreme Court. Andrew Johnson pardoned A. H. Garland in 1865, before he'd been charged with anything, and the Supreme Court held in Ex Parte Garland [findlaw.com] that the pardon power "extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment."
Double standards (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama has openly admitting to planning to arm Al-Queda associated rebels in Syria. That is the DEFINITION of treason. Edward Snowden has not given anyone weapons. He has merely aired Obama's dirty laundry. If this country was run by the people rather than a bunch of plutocrats, Obama, Bush, Cheney, et. al would be on trial for crimes against humanity.
How people voted for this guy is beyond me. I knew Obama was a liar from day one. Democrats and republicans work for the same causes and the same people; any perceived differences are merely staged for the benefit of the American voters and never go deeper than the surface. It is classic divide and conquer and the end result is that this country is effectively run by a two-party dictatorship that stays in power by manipulating and rigging the elections to exclude competition and creating staged conflicts on trivial issues like gay marriage (which *IS* a trivial issue compared to the fact that this country is descending into a police state). When it comes to the things that matter, both parties act in lockstep and it is NOT to the benefit of the American people or to the cause of freedom. The only people the Republicrat party answers to is their corporate masters.
Re: (Score:3)
How people voted for this guy is beyond me. I knew Obama was a liar from day one.
Because he's the world's greatest orator.
Re:Double standards (Score:4, Informative)
"It's class warfare. My class is winning, but they shouldn't be." - Warren Buffett (2005)
"There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." - Warren Buffett (2006)
In the empire... (Score:5, Interesting)
-Ron Paul
Lesson to be learned (Score:5, Insightful)
Report a crime, go to jail.
Re: (Score:3)
Lesson Learned - if you're going to report a crime involving State secrets, you should probably use more discretion.
Preferably, enough discretion that the State can quietly quash your report. If the government isn't actually embarrassed by it, they'll be less motivated to go after you. Though they may have to take steps to ensure that your discretion is permanent.
The unlikely, but fair response (Score:2)
Who prosecutes the NSA (Score:3)
Irony Much? (Score:4, Funny)
The NSA is charging Snowden with spying?
I suppose " the logic of their position demanded it."
Holy shit (Score:3)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa [guardian.co.uk]
Overcharged (Score:3)
Espionage is an over charging, clearly. You've committed espionage when you've divulged state secrets FOR ANOTHER COUNTRY. So even though Israel is a friendly nation, we still kick their spies out and or jail them.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/espionage/ [uslegal.com]
But Snowden didn't release state secrets to and for a foreign country. He did it for Americans.
It's prosecutorial overreach and worse for the prosecution, is likely to be perceived as such by potential juries. I feel an acquittal on the espionage charge forthcoming, even in absentia.
So the question arises at least in my mind- is this a dog and pony show, with Snowden perhaps unwittingly playing the role of a dog?
Is the government using Snowden to leak this information and if so, why?
To acclimate citizens to this level of scrutiny? To see if we'll swallow it? Maybe.
Or is it a bid on the part of , possibly some subset of, the intelligence community to get the program revised and toned down because they're afraid of the corrupting power unlimited access to the most personal secrets of lawmakers and other power players could put into the hands of a Cheney or a set of true believers like the neocons?
It's not that far fetched. Consider that the neocons twice now have attempted, once successfully, to foment wars based on false intelligence they produced through Team B efforts, efforts which the intelligence community deeply resented and still resent especially since many Americans wrongly cite the CIA as the producer of faulty intelligence in the run up to the war in Iraq.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/military/news/2004/08/18/988/its-time-to-bench-team-b/ [americanprogress.org]
http://www.proudprimate.com/Placards/teamb-cahn.htm [proudprimate.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B [wikipedia.org]
What this means is they're liars who will play WAY out of bounds to get their way, where WAY out of bounds includes LYING and DISTORTING intelligence and using intelligence to destroy domestic political opponents including exposing the identities of covert operators working for the CIA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame [wikipedia.org]
see: Plamegate.
Historically, that didn't and can't now sit well with people at the CIA who consider accurate, unbiased intelligence assessments to be the crown jewel of nation's defense capability.
So is has the level of invasiveness which this program makes possible been gamed out somewhere at Langley, with one side playing the neocons and Cheney and using the techniques of deception, lying, distortion of information and targeting of dissenters through any means, legal or illegal, short (we think) of murder and the other side the CIA and other intelligence agencies upholding the letter and spirit of the law?
Perhaps such games revealed a gaping strategic disadvantage through which a coup by a Cheney and the neocons would be successful 100% of the time.
After all, we game out scenarios against all enemies foreign and domestic, if it's a threat to the US, it gets considered.
Perhaps one of the conclusions was- this intelligence program is a serious, mortal threat to the Republic.
Perhaps they took the result of this gaming to the President, who agreed with their conclusions. Perhaps a plan was hatched to subvert it, all the while making it look like they're only and intensely interested in doing the opposite.
I know it sounds too weird to be true, but this IS how intelligence agencies and covert missions work on a good day. This is the games they play.
If Obama tried to unilaterally quietly retire the program, it would just come back for the next administration who wanted it, and we know what admin would want it. Without the p
The Law of the Land (Score:3)
The US government has officially invoked the Espionage Act in response to whistleblower Edward Snowden’s leaks of the massive and continuing violation by the NSA of the National Security Act, plus federal court rulings over the last few years, as well as portions of the onerous USA PATRIOT Act.
We are constantly bombarded with the disingenuous drivel about our country being “a nation of laws,” yet consistently we see that the laws are selectively applied against the enemies of the plutocrats or overclass!
Under existing laws, and after both the public admissions and public lies uttered by the Director of National Intelligence, Gen. James Clapper and the NSA Director Gen. Alexander, the immediate arrests of these two culprits should be undertaken.
Not to arrest Clapper and Alexander is in complete contradistinction of existing law.
To fully uphold the aforementioned laws, impeachment proceedings should commence against President Obama, Vice President Biden and Attorney General Holder, along with the arrests of previous federal lawbreakers, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Roberto Gonsales.
Obviously, as these actions aren’t underway, America is not a nation of laws, and any such proclamation is blatantly fictional!
Just as President Obama has repeatedly stood before the American people and brazenly and falsely proclaimed that the banksters broke no laws (perhaps one should say his banksters, since he is in their pocket?), his administration once again flaunts those very laws he has sworn an oath to uphold (and claims to understand).
Lawlessness rules across America, with the overclass making the rules.
Since the passage of the national defense legislation in 2006, during the Bush administration, which exempted the Department of Defense (Pentagon) from Freedom of Information Requests (FOIA), and the NSA comes under the purview and provenance of the DoD, the only possible way to ascertain when the NSA is breaking federal laws is when a whistleblower, such as Mr. Snowden, comes forward.
Obama’s holy war on whistleblowers continues unabated!
Media coverage (Score:3)
Re:Should Have be Charged With Treason (Score:4, Funny)
is that you, Dick? How's the shotgun?
Re:Should Have be Charged With Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
If Obama's arming of al-Qaeda friendly rebels in Syria isn't "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid...", I don't know what is.
Re:Should Have be Charged With Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if you consider American citizens enemies of the American government.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Should Have be Charged With Treason (Score:4, Interesting)
Only if you consider American citizens enemies of the American government.
Apparently you confuse the Taliban, al Qaida, the People's Republic of China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, et. al., with American citizens. You tell the world and everybody knows, including the very terrorists against whom you are trying to protect the American people. He could have gone to the inspector general or Congress, but didn't. Who knows what the damage will be?
Re:Should Have be Charged With Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if you consider American citizens enemies of the American government.
Apparently you confuse the Taliban, al Qaida, the People's Republic of China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, et. al., with American citizens. You tell the world and everybody knows, including the very terrorists against whom you are trying to protect the American people. He could have gone to the inspector general or Congress, but didn't. Who knows what the damage will be?
The Inspector General and Congress are part of the problem.
Terrorism isn't dangerous on its own. It never was and never will be. The point of terrorism is to provoke a disproportionate response that harms the target more than the terrorists would be able to do directly. The world's terrorists' primary partners are western governments. The United States have spent over a trillion dollars in the last 10 years to "fight terrorism," with absolutely no indication that they're doing anything other than breeding resentment and planting the seeds for greater terrorism in the future. If you want to know why world leaders are willing to spend so much money to "fight" something that causes similar physical harm to bee stings, look at who received those trillion dollars and their relationships with governments.
Additionally, it's extremely unlikely that anything Snowden shared about spying will have any impact on our espionage efforts against "terrorists." So far it's all been information about spying on Americans and foreign noncombatants. Furthermore, everyone who's cared to pay attention in the last twenty years already believed the strong but indirect evidence of exactly this sort of spying. In other words: the terrorists already knew about these programs, or something like them. The only people who see this as a revelation are naive American citizens and our allies, and the only thing in jeopardy is the NSA's unjustified unaccountability.
Re:Should Have be Charged With Treason (Score:4)
Re:Should Have be Charged With Treason (Score:5, Interesting)
Snowden swore an oath when he took his security clearance. It is essentially the same one sworn by soldiers.
The first thing he does is swear to protect the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. And finally to follow the orders of his chain of command and perform the duties of his position.
Snowden was put in a position where following the last part of the oath would violate the first part, and following the first part would violate the last part.
And he chose his duty to the constitution and the citizens it protects over the dictates of his chain of command. And that makes him a hero.
Re:Should Have be Charged With Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
Snowden swore an oath when he took his security clearance. It is essentially the same one sworn by soldiers.
The first thing he does is swear to protect the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. And finally to follow the orders of his chain of command and perform the duties of his position.
Snowden was put in a position where following the last part of the oath would violate the first part, and following the first part would violate the last part.
I am not an expert of US laws, but in reasonable countries, there is a hierarchy of laws. An oath cannot be enforced against a law, and a law cannot be enforced against the constitution.
Re: (Score:3)
An individual or group who believes it is acting in the interests of the state cannot objectively evaluate whether it is correct. Snowden did what he thought was right, based on his understanding of documents that he says came from Executive Branch organizations. We can assume from this official charge that he compromised some security, not that he shared factual information. And he could be prosecuted just based on his own statements, with his defense being that he fabricated the documents to support th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say our constitution-trampling government is aiding and comforting our enemies more than Snowden.
Re:Should Have be Charged With Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
He exposed crimes against the American people perpetrated by the US government. He is the exact opposite of a traitor.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason prosecutors charged him with espionage is because its a much easier case to make, but this realy is a textbook case of treason. Just look at the damn US Constitution
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." If Snowden hasn't committed treason using this definition, I don't know what is then.
Who is the US engaged in war with that he has given aid and comfort to?
The war against drugs, is a war against Americans sure... So all of America.
Is it possible to commit treason when exposing violations of constitutional law?
The fundamental issue is US law sits on a foundation of honesty and transparent prosecution of the law.
A truth is the issue of meta data in these large quantities is powerful as heck.
In good and honest hands, no problem. In the hands of bad guys, big problem.
The good guys to
Re: (Score:3)
Public Law 107-40 does not mention al Qaida or identify any specific enemy. It is useless for the purpose of trying to prove treason.
Treason requires not mere revelation of information or provision of aid, but an actual intentional betrayal of loyalty. Snowden did not engage in this.
You may want to study the following.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/2195/Treason-Elements-offense.html [jrank.org]
From which the salient point is:
"In treason cases, however, the prosecution must prove that the accused had a specific intent to le
Re: (Score:2)
The real traitors are those who are giving aid to enemies of the US (Mexican drug cartels, arming Syrian rebels, etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Should Have be Charged With Treason (Score:5, Interesting)
You're probably trolling, but the simple answer here is
a) He has not levied war against any of the States or the whole of them, and
b) If he has given aid or comfort to enemies, then you should be able to name those and state the aid and/or comfort given them.
If you can spin either of those into a charge that will hold up in court, I'll be impressed.
Re: (Score:2)
"Ancient hebrewism has the man that rapes a young girl keep her."
You break it, you bought it.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to say that if he had I would have died from shock. For any figurehead in the oval office to stray from the script is unthinkable regardless of party affiliation.
Re: (Score:3)
> Does 'spy' mean 'embarrassing to the government'?
That's one of the traditional meanings.
Spy:
1. Steals secrets from one government to give to another for military or economic advantage.
2. Steals and reveals embarrassing secrets.
Ellsburg though got off because he was illegally wiretapped. I don't know if that's possible any more.