USA Calling For the Extradition of Snowden 955
Taco Cowboy writes "Edward Snowden, the leaker who gave us the evidence of US government spying on its people is under threat of being extradited back to the U.S. to face prosecution. Some people in Congress, including Republican Peter King (R-NY), are calling for his extradition from Hong Kong to face trial. From the article: 'A spokesman for the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, said Snowden's case had been referred to the justice department and US intelligence was assessing the damage caused by the disclosures.
"Any person who has a security clearance knows that he or she has an obligation to protect classified information and abide by the law," the spokesman, Shawn Turner, said.'"
Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
Murrica (Score:5, Insightful)
Abide by the law? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck that (Score:3, Insightful)
These BASTARDS talk about the law even as they wipe their asses with the Constitutions. If ANYONE should be black bagged, it's these SCUM.
The damage to the freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
>"Any person who has a security clearance knows that he or she has an obligation to protect classified information and abide by the law," the spokesman, Shawn Turner, said.'"
Does security clearance prevail on a breach of the constitution ?
Anyone who is surprised is a fool (Score:5, Insightful)
Even Snowden knew this would happen. There's a reason he's gone public with his identity. Now he can't be killed or disappeared without everyone knowing exactly what's going on.
Re:Murrica (Score:5, Insightful)
I just find it amazing that no one has raised the argument that the Stop SOPA, PIPA, etc protests were a tremendous waste of time.
The PRISM program looks like the Govt has been making their own rules for some time now and with the surveillance revelations of the EAGLE program which Assange addressed in the past (but nobody really cared about because it may or may not of been speculative). I'd say with better judgement that that NSA is not the only organisation doing this.
BTW I recommend the Ghostery app for Chrome, great little tool, wont help with any of this but still an eye opener on what big business does.
Re:Abide by the law? (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, a helpful Government spokeman is making hand gestures and saying:
These are not the rights you're looking for. Your privacy has not been violated. You may go about your business. Move along, move along. . . .
Of course ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't widespread domestic spying without a specific purpose and a warrant against the law?
This guys is brave for identifying himself and releasing this information, but I fear he's going to get absolutely destroyed in this process.
I fear governments have tipped over to the point where security and paranoia will completely obliterate any privacy and anonymity.
Of course, the biggest fear is that now that Microsoft, Google, and almost everyone else have rolled over to help the US do this spying, every other country is going to demand the same. I'm hard pressed to see how they could refuse given the precedent they've set.
Re:Doing what is right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Breaking confidentiality on top-secret stuff is no laughing matter. It's treason, a capital offense.
It's treason to tell the American people that their government is spying on them? I don't think so.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
So still less people than car accidents?
Why don't we prosecute unsafe/elderly drivers? That would save far more lives and not risk loss of freedom.
Request to Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you please give me access to all your email and phone conversations? If you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:4, Insightful)
and betraying democracy
When did that happen? What does that even mean in this case?
Seriously, this guy is a criminal
Even if that's true, he did nothing wrong. He merely shed light upon some of the government's wrongdoing.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
And if it turns out that he just blew what might have prevented several 9/11 level attacks?
Freedom is more important than security, drone.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
I think unconstitutional spying is far more betraying democracy than releasing some information. Democracy without an informed populace cannot work.
I was not comparing the relative moralities only the headcount. Terrorism is simply too rare to dedicate so much resources too. It would be like the government spending billions to protect the populace from lightning.
Re:Murrica (Score:5, Insightful)
but the government is following the law
But they're not following the constitution; other laws are irrelevant.
Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... (Score:5, Insightful)
What does that have to do with anything? Maybe he is skilled enough to actual advance without having a degree. Other people doing it all the time.
It is more a question if he did the right thing or not by coming forward with this information to the people of America, so they actual know that their government is spying on them, not matter what their rights might be. Anyone with 2 cents should know the correct answer to that one.
Re:It really annoys the hell out of me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think there's a chance he received just a tiny bit more training at Booz Allen? Maybe a teenie tiny bit?
But more importantly, don't you see the irony that his "poor education" allowed him to know the difference between right and wrong where apparently you don't?
Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Extreme hypocrisy exhibited by:
He WAS abiding by the law by exposing illegal activities carried out by the government on an ongoing basis. How is what he did illegal or wrong, by any stretch of the imagination? A law instructing any citizen to not report any illegal activity is itself an illegal law.
Re:Doing what is right... (Score:5, Insightful)
I question the justification for most "top secret" government information. The track record of declassified information ever having been material that justified the classified status is pretty poor.
Usually the important things to classify are the details, not the existence of big programs. Walker [wikipedia.org] was a traitor for giving codes to the USSR, but it was hardly a secret that we encrypted naval communications. Similarly the existence of almost all US weapons systems, and their basic construction and approximate capabilities, are public knowledge. The Pentagon talks about them in press releases! What's secret is their exact capabilities and the details of their construction. When the government attempts to keep the existence of big programs like this secret, it's usually to keep it from the public, not the bad guys. If we're dealing with terrorists who don't realize that their electronic communications may be monitored, then we have nothing to worry about.
Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
and betraying democracy
When did that happen? What does that even mean in this case?
Seriously, this guy is a criminal
Even if that's true, he did nothing wrong. He merely shed light upon some of the government's wrongdoing.
He publicized information that was tagged as Top Secret. You know how Bradley Manning is in some hot shit, for close to 100,000 "secret" documents? This is basically as bad as that, but with ONE document. He may be morally in the right, to expose egregious abuse of power and trampling of the 4th amendment (and generally trampling human rights even if the US Constitution isn't the law of the land to whoever was spied on) but he is in some DEEP shit because it was classified the way it was. He stands no chance at avoiding a life sentence, whether we like it or not.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
And if it turns out that he just blew what might have prevented several 9/11 level attacks? We're talking about saving lives here. He should be prosecuted, no doubt.
When you let your wildest fears direct your policy, you can justify almost anything.
Re:The right and wrong way to go about these thing (Score:5, Insightful)
I fixed your typo.
I do not think you realize just how serious of a matter this is. This is exactly the sort of thing the US government criticizes other nations for. The People, as in the Citizens of The United States of America should not put up with this. If we take the future of our nation seriously we need to start no confidence recall elections where state constitutions allow it, demand the immediate impeachment and conviction or resignation of Barack Obama, and vote out the rest of the trash where state constitutions do not provide for recall elections.
This is a very serious issue and I for one am grateful that we have brave people like Snowden in the NSA who are unwilling to violate the Constitution and are willing to put their own lives at stake to report it to the people via the most public means possible.
More shocked that they hired contractors as FTE. (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I the only one with their jaw on the ground that the NSA and CIA are hiring contractors as full time employees in top secret positions with access to everything, instead of doing actual short term janitorial type of work that contractors are supposed to be used for? If they need a printer installs, sure, use the contractor. Need to have a recorded wire tap scanned and sent over to secret building #2, use a contractor? REALLY??
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to someone who's already brainwashed into believing that giving up essential liberties for the illusion of safety is a good thing.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
The Nuremburg trials are the defacto case setting the record *very* clear that humans have a moral obligation to defy the rules when the rules violate natural or moral rights. Privacy has *long* been established as a natural right and is codified in the highest legal document in the nation. Ergo, the responsibility was on Mr. Snowden to come forth with the information.
That the government is appalled, mortified and furious is clear. But what is even more clear is that there was a horrific abuse of power taking place and a voice of moral conscience stepped forward at great personal risk to protect you, me and all of us.
This is a hero. He deserves the protection of the public at large. And those within the government who have neglected their responsibilities, abandoned the cause of freedom and violated our constitutional and natural rights deserve prosecution to the full extent of the law.
What is just as disheartening as the government's efforts to extradite Snowden, is the total lack of silence in terms of desire to prosecute the actual wrongdoers.
Who were they? What were their names? How high did the chain of command go? When will there be a trial? How many dozens of people (or hundreds?) will be serving 20 year sentences? THESE are the questions that need to be answered. Not whether Mr. Snowden has violated the requirements of his day job.
Serious crimes have been committed. Snowden wasn't part of them.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
And if it turns out that he just blew what might have prevented several 9/11 level attacks?
We're talking about saving lives here. He should be prosecuted, no doubt.
Do tell me, because I'd like to hear an actual argument to this effect, how his revelations threaten much of anything, except the wounded self-importance of the people behind the program...
It is customary to keep the existence of a specific wiretap a secret for a period of time, until the evidence has been gathered and is ready for use. The logic here is obvious: If wiretap orders were public, John Smith could just check the daily wiretaps RSS feed and determine whether he is being listened to, thus destroying the value of the wiretap.
For extraordinarily broad, no-end-in-sight, wiretaps, though, essentially no useful information is provided to any suspect by the revelation of the program. If all I know is that the NSA demands every phone metadata record in the US and has swift, privileged, access to the who's who of internet companies, that tells me absolutely nothing of use. All the paranoids and skeptics already strongly suspected that this was the case, so this merely provides proof in writing of what any sensible perp would have already assumed, and the scope of the programs is so vast that it is impossible to infer anything about your specific case that would make it easier to hide.
Obviously, the program was secret because its operators didn't want any inconvenient 'questions' or 'displeasure'; but that isn't a good reason, just an attractive one.
Had he leaked "The NSA knows Muhammad Ibn Al-Jihad's 4 phone-numbers-he-thinks-are-secret and is recording all of them", that'd be the sort of leak that would be obviously damaging and irresponsible. "The NSA tracks all calls routed through US telcos", though, tells nobody anything specific to them. Plus, the program is supposedly all-totally-legal-and-on-the-up-and-up-and-whatnot, so being exposed shouldn't even threaten its continuation(unlike the previous illegal wiretapping program that we threw some after-the-fact legality on when it was revealed).
So, please, let's hear an argument about why revealing this program is harmful. I'd be interested to hear a good one; because so far I haven't even heard bad ones.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't it obvious? There is nothing more destructive to democracy than allowing the electorate to know what they are voting for! How can you possibly get things done with a bunch of 'constituents' whining about what is being done in their name?
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
So in other words, he's right but our system will prosecute him anyway.
Isn't that the definition of a corrupted system? We should change our system and demand a pardon.
Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just Obama - ALL of both houses of Congress. The entire federal government is rotten to the core. Plenty of senators knew about PRISM and other domsetic spying programs and they did nothing to stop it. In fact they are the ones who had to authorize funding for these programs. When they are ousted from office, revoke all privileges associated with the office, including pensions, health care, security details, aides, security clearance, and whatever fringe benefits they normally enjoy. In fact I would go so far as to recall any salaries they have collected to date because they held office in bad faith.
Kick out ALL incumbents and actually vote in statesmen who recognize that the making of a great leader is one who wants to serve the people; not a person with an entitlement attitude.
Re:Request to Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
The real irony here is that as a citizen, you should have more rights to request access to Obama's communication information than he has to request access to yours...
Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to man up, impeach Obama, and judge him and all his cronies for crimes against humanity.
It's a dog and pony show. Clinton was impeached... for lying about an affair.
Bush wasn't impeached, for warrantless wiretapping, torture, and war crimes (civilian deaths in an unjust war).
There is no way Obama is getting impeached given the legal framework Bush helped build.
If you really want to "do something", besides jerk off with both hands by bloviating online, donate to the EFF or ACLU, where actual attorneys can file the right kinds of lawsuits. Yes that means petitioning your own "corrupt government". Some people realize that the government isn't a hive mind, and there are checks/balances to be applied (granted they may be rusty).
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
I might go so far as to claim that he has even adhered to it's enemies (those who seek to undermine the Constitution), giving them aid and comfort, and should therefore be tried for treason.
Re:Don't talk about fight club.. (Score:5, Insightful)
So if you were witnessing illegal behaviour in the DoD, you're saying you shouldn't report it or whistleblow?
Dude. That is just so wrong.
Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
That a government may want something kept secret hardly means that it is wrong to reveal the secret. Yes, it will be a crime, but the debate here is not whether he committed a crime ore not, but whether what he did was right or not.
Re:Murrica (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry if you don't like it - perhaps Americans should elect better politicians and not succumb to fear mongering manipulation tactics next time
The thing is, it is well known how to get the masses to do what you want them to do. I don't want to get all Godwin up in here, but Hermann Goering told us about it decades ago. As he said, it works in any country. So members of the government know that if they tell people they are being attacked and are in danger, the people will let them do what is necessary to keep them safe. Do we really expect people to disbelieve what they see on the news and hear from government spokes people, who after all are supposed to have so much more knowledge and expertise in these things? It's not reasonable. Most people will defer to authority; that's the point of authority.
But really, it's straight up manipulation. The same people who tell us what a dangerous world it is, tell us what must be done to protect the "Homeland". We know the threat of terrorism is being used for political purposes, because Tom Ridge told us as much when he left office. If you think things are different now because the Blue team is in charge you don't know how this game is played.
Everyone is in on scaring the fuck out of the American people. Politicians love it because it gets them more power and money. Big business loves it because they get fat government contracts. The media love it because it gets ratings and clicks. So hardly anyone is going to come out and tell people threat is completely overblown and that interested parties are perpetuating it for their own gain. As George Carlin said, they've got us by the balls. So I don't think it's completely fair to blame the American people for their ignorance when they are being kept that way on purpose.
Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest (Score:4, Insightful)
This is what you've been keeping your beloved guns for. Use them.
No, it really isn't. The guns aren't useful for that. We could use the guns to assassinate him, but he would simply be replaced by someone even worse as the nation entered a state of hysteria, so that would be a very bad idea even if there were no other repercussions, which there certainly would be.
The guns are only useful for revolution if most of us are on the same page. But the political problem with our nation is very much our artificial polarization.
Re:It wont do much, but at least register interest (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, trading the set of seasoned, competent crooks for naïve, incompetent crooks just opens the floodgates for the very experienced lobbying and bribing industries to fully ensnare them at a tender age.
I still like a three-strikes constitutional amendment for federal politicians: if you vote to pass (or sign into law) three bills that are later overturned by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional, you were incompetent and/or corrupt, you enabled the theft of rights from the citizenry, and you get a 15 year prison sentence - no statute of limitations, just a 3:30 AM ninja raid and you go to prison. There should be consequences for stealing our rights through the misuse of the force of law.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole program that he exposed was essentially search without warrants on every damn US citizen.
That's the fucking crime.
Or can you really not see that?
Re:Anyone who is surprised is a fool (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure he's quite nervous.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
He publicized information that was tagged as Top Secret.
Remind me again what classifying information as Top Secret has to do with democracy.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't have a problem with the government gathering this data to fight terrorism.
Every US citizen is not involved in terrorism.
Why would you not have a problem with the US spying without warrants on every US citizen with a phone?
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
The secret surveillance police state itself is a betrayal of democracy.
This man is a HERO of democracy.
Re:Doing what is right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Unless we are the enemy, I don't see how this definition fits what this guy did. I don't have all of the details, so I hesitate to comment on whether this guys is a hero or a scoundrel, but on its face, without the facts. I do not see how this man has even broken the law. If he had to take the oath all federal employees take:
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) thatI will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Then he has lived up to his oath. If he did not take that oath, then everyone else in the room presumably did. I am sure he signed a contract that lays out the details of his clearance. But no contract is superior to The Constitution. The Constitution is our contract with our government. If they fail to live up to their end of the contract we vote them out.
I saw a comment earlier in this post or another that basically said, "I don't understand why Americans aren't marching in the street over this." The answer is simple. While we do not always have faith in our government, we do have faith in our Constitution. We understand that no matter what the issue is, we have the power to fix it. We have the government we have chosen and therefore the one we deserve. We understand that every congress critter, president, judge and federal employee has the obligation to determine, independently, what is proper under the constitution. We understand in the end, if we really want the government to change what they are doing, all we have to do is vote.
Here is a hint: Stop voting for republicans and democrats, at least for congress. The collusion that happens between politicians to forward the goals of the party (which is only to get an elected majority) is causing a large percentage of the problems we are seeing today.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't buy into authoritarian framing (Score:4, Insightful)
Security supposedly means protecting our freedom. If so, they are one and the same, and there can't even theoretically be a tradeoff.
Not to mention that the entire point of the leak was that the government is deliberately spying on non-terrorists.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:4, Insightful)
Serious crimes have been committed. Snowden wasn't part of them.
The problem with his position is that his leak included no actual documenting of those crimes; no details about what information was obtained, if any of it was obtained on a US citizen without a warrant, or who authorized/oversaw it. It sure as hell *sounds* bad but none of it is specific enough to force a "house cleaning".
If as you say the whistleblower provided no supporting documentation and only his allegations... what possible grounds are there for extradition?
A charge of simply "trash-talking/slandering former employer" doesn't pass the smell test, and would run afoul of the 1st amendment (for what little that's worth these days).
Is perjury a crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the government will punish the real guilty parties here to the same extent that they punished the criminal activities Manning revealed...
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly he is not in a position to definitively say if any given intel classified as "top secret" is information that, if made public, will not harm the safety (and ultimately freedom) of US citizens or their allies.
That's a valid argument in Bradley Manning's case, where he disclosed so many documents that he couldn't possibly have even read them all. I don't see that here. He released two documents which he understood very well, and which were simply secret court orders giving broad surveillance authority to the government.
We don't know enough facts about his situation
I'm not sure what you are referring to - the government has confessed to collecting broad swaths of data about all of us. Broad, constant surveillance at this scale should have every single American completely horrified. It is indeed the foundation of a surveillance state.
This guy broke the law, there's no question about it. Sometimes the law is wrong. This is one of those cases.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
Manning didn't just dump everything. He handed it over to professionals (Wikileaks and the newspapers) who worked to redact and pick out what to publish. The pros even offered to work with the US govt. to redact stuff that might have threatened people's safety, they said no.
The fact that at a later stage, through incompetence on the part of some of the pros, the whole lot got out, isn't the fault of Manning.
Also, I wish Snowden had published everything he could get his hands on. Fuck the secret government.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
You got that backwards bucko.
You are accepting whatever the government tells you.
I am standing up for a Hero was forced into a position where he had to chose between upholding the constitution (the first part of his oath) or following orders (another part of his oath). If he didn't blow the whistle, he would still be violating his oath.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:4, Insightful)
Unlike Manning, he targeted a specific program of domestic spying. Under the Espionage Act this would only be considered a criminal act if it directly harms national defense. Since I find it hard to believe that a wide net surveillance program that violates the constitution is required for our national defense I am wondering how they will charge him.
Re:Abide by the law? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, here's the 1979 supreme court case ruling that your phone records are not private: Smith v. Maryland [wikipedia.org]
Re:Doing what is right... (Score:5, Insightful)
I question the justification for most "top secret" government information. The track record of declassified information ever having been material that justified the classified status is pretty poor.
You should look up the case United States v. Reynolds. It is the case that established the state secret doctrine that allows the government to keep information out of court cases on national security grounds. It turns out that in this seminal case, the government used the threat of damage to national security to hide negligence. So yeah, I question whether a lot of classified material really needs to be classified, and whether it's being done for honest reasons.
Just to put this in a historical perspective... (Score:4, Insightful)
Snowden publicized Top Secret information on U. S. Government surveillance of all Americans in their use of email, cell phones, and internet searches. The NSA is allegedly performing this surveillance under the auspices of the Bush-era 'Patriot Act' which was enacted as a means to locate and monitor terrorists. Prior to the PA, the government had to go to court and obtain wiretap authorization for specific individuals for a specific purpose and for a limited amount of time. Before the PA, the U.S government certainly could have prevented a lot of domestic criminal and terrorist activity if it had been allowed to continuously monitor all landline communications. That type of monitoring and surveillance was infamous and routine in the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea, East Germany, and many other totalitarian governments but we Americans were sheltered by our constitution. Of course, the first landline networks didn't appear until the dawn of the 20th century. The 19th century had widespread telegraph networks that the government could have routinely monitored which would have certainly prevented criminal and terrorist activity. The point here is that it is not the technology that has changed, nor the constitution, but our willingness within ourselves to accept 24/7 surveillance by our government to make us safer. We are willingly giving up our constitutional right to privacy to be safe. Of course, there has never been an actual vote on this but our public acceptance of the unfortunate fate that will befall the courageous Mr. Snowden is reflective of what the outcome of such a vote might be.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would you not have a problem with the US spying without warrants on every US citizen with a phone?
fear and cowardice. These are the true enemies of liberty.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
good, then lets have a trial. at least a really good examination of the policies. I dont care if a "tool" is compromised at this point. The enemy this tool works against is a bogeyman. As the govt likes to say, if they have done nothing wrong, then they should have no fear in letting us see the truth.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:4, Insightful)
Please. Obama will release a comment that he's not going to comment until the facts of the case have been ascertained and he is able to make a good decision. He'll probably also add some script about how releasing classified material is not something he can take lightly, and that appropriate regulations exist for a reason.
Point being, you need to create the petition AFTER all the facts come out and there is a resolution or Obama will just say, "we're watching the situation closely, and by the way, don't even THINK of doing that yourselves if you have a clearance." I doubt that petition would even cause him to break stride.
Re: Someone start a defense fund (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:4, Insightful)
So we're just supposed to trust the govt. on this. IMHO, the govt. hasn't earned that level of trust on this.
Arguably, /no/ government has earned that level of trust. No government should ever be granted that level trust.
I'd have qualms if my best friend did stuff that affected me and refused to divulge his reasons. I'm certainly not going to allow a bureaucracy that sort of license.
Don't trust the government... and every time they ask you to just do so, you should probably suspect them of trying to do you wrong.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, the Supreme Court already rule that GPS tracking without a warrant is already illegal. Which is what this data gave the NSA. GPS data from the phone and/or cell tower.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/supreme-court-holds-warrantless-gps-tracking-unconstitutional/ [arstechnica.com]
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
It is like saying that bank robber can go free because he punked out the other 3 guys involved even though he drove the get away car and shot at someone.
We reduce sentences for cooperation all the time.
He is one of the spies who was doing this to us....
While that is true, he was just a pawn, just a "soldier following orders". He did the right thing in the end, and not out of self-interest like analogous bank robber.
Anyway, I'm not aware of his impending extradition based on spying on Americans - they are trying to get him for doing the right thing.
Abide by the law (Score:4, Insightful)
"Any person who has a security clearance knows that he or she has an obligation to protect classified information and abide by the law,"
I would say the latter part trumps the former and a pretty good case could be made that spying on US citizens is illegal unless you change the constitution.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
To uphold the constitution?
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
And if it turns out that he just blew what might have prevented several 9/11 level attacks?
It would be worth a hundred 9/11 level attacks to preserve our liberties and defend the rights and principles this country was founded on. And one hundred such attacks would *still* be less than two-thirds of the brave American men who gave their lives defending that liberty during World War Two. Man up Nancy.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that at a later stage, through incompetence on the part of some of the pros, the whole lot got out, isn't the fault of Manning.
That's a charitable reading. I'm sure the intelligence industry would say that it is the fault of Manning, because Manning released the information to people whose competence had not been verified.
remember the Nuremberg Principles (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:2, Insightful)
In my opinion, when you're dealing with the government, the cure is ALWAYS worse than the disease.. I'm FAR FAR more afraid of this government than any terrorist.. Its becoming clear that this government, to "protect" us from terrorism, is becoming a terrorist itself..
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:2, Insightful)
He publicized information that was tagged as Top Secret.
No he didn't! Something that's unconstitutional cannot be classified as Top Secret. Everyone knows this, especially the Supreme Court. That's why the Bush and Obama administrations have done everything they can to avoid a ruling on it.
The time has come to force a ruling and put an end to the persecution of whistleblowers.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no Blue versus Red here. A Republican administration overstepped its bounds in creating this, and a Democrat administration overstepped its as well in continuing - and expanding - it. Legislators of both parties passed the law that enabled it, and legislators of both parties supported the program and allowed it to continue.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
dangerous to our country.
It is far more dangerous to our country that the government is secretly watching all of our phone calls.
This is especially true if he though his acts were illegal
He knew what the government was doing was completely legal - that's the whole problem.
His act also sets a dangerous precedent that if others follow could cause real damage.
If more stuff like this is going on, I certainly hope more people come forward.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
Consensus doesn't get to take away human rights. I don't care if 90% of the American population says it's ok, my right to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects still applies.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:4, Insightful)
> He publicized information that was tagged as Top Secret
That's not "betraying" democracy, that's DEFENDING it.
He broke some law. Conflating that with "betraying democracy" is just retarded. You could say that he betrayed the current regime. Whether or not he betrayed the nation is a matter of dispute.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
The law is wrong. There's something seriously wrong with a law that says a court can issue a secret order swearing the unwilling party to that order to secrecy, so much so that they can't even challenge it in the courts without running into "state secret" privilege. The people subject to these orders have no recourse. It's "do this or you're violating the law, and, no, you can't challenge the law because revealing the existence of the order would be violating the law". It's utterly ridiculous. Doesn't matter if it is a person or a company subject to it. Something in the law has to change so that there is a public rationalization of these things and some way to challenge them.
Secrecy is justified in many cases for legitimate reasons, but if the government can sign away people's basic rights by signing orders that declare the matter a state secret, before or after the fact, then there is something wrong. Sure, if I sign up to keep classified material secret and then I violate that agreement, I'm obviously guilty of breaking the law. I made the deal, I have to abide by it. But ordinary citizens didn't sign on to that. If you're watching over a process that violates OTHER people's rights every single day in an unjust and questionably legal process, then I might be tempted to break the law in order to tell the public about it too, because there is a greater violation going on here and no other way to get that fact out to the people.
For years the government has obstructed many court cases that have attempted to probe exactly what has been going on. Legislators were even willing to change the law so that it retroactively absolved telecommunications companies of any past criminal activities while compelled to implement these programs. Something like this disclosure was bound to happen eventually when every legitimate channel for doing it through the courts was being vigorously blocked. Even if they shouldn't be privy to the operational details, the public has a *right* to know what is going on and to be able to challenge it in *some* forum. If that has to happen because of an illegal disclosure of classified material, well, thank goodness someone had the principles to finally do it after so long, because it doesn't seem legislators or the courts were looking out for the public interest or bothering to consult us about it.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
It was supposedly approved by the FISA courts.
And the FISA courts are approved by Congress which is constitutionally prohibited from approving searches without probable cause.
Im not sure if it was legal, but if you're not a lawyer I imagine you are also not in a position to determine that.
If you know English, you can read the fucking 4th amendment. The Constitution is valid because it was ratified by The People. If The People aren't capable of understanding it, then they aren't capable of consenting to it. Either the Constitution is understandable in plain English by the common person, or it is not valid at all.
Missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of comments are about the morality of releasing the documents (constitution vs. obeying orders) seem to be missing the larger point. In Snowden's own words from his interview with the Guardian, the American people need to decide if this federal data collection problem is right or wrong. From all appearances, both major parties (Democrat and Republican) are firmly in the grip of the industrial-security complex. How can we change this? How can we make the government respect the will of the majority of its citizens with regards to individual privacy rights and due process? President Obama said that "he welcomes the debate". Would he have welcomed the debate last week? How can we have an honest public debate when anyone who provides documents is immediately threatened with life in the slammer?
As long as both parties tow the same common line on security issues, I hope that there will be more and more Snowdens and Mannings, because for a lot of these people, there is no other recourse than to go the press and hope that public opinion comes down on their side. If these programs really do save lives, the government needs to finally come clean and stop just saying "just trust us." I wish Snowden good luck and hope that he finds asylum somewhere safe, and I hope that if someday sanity returns to the federal government, he can come home without being threatened.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Abide by the law? (Score:4, Insightful)
""Any person who has a security clearance knows that he or she has an obligation to protect classified information and abide by the law," the spokesman, Shawn Turner, said.'"
Trying hard to say they're the same thing. It's unfortunate that modern legislature keeps ignoring the fact that the Nuremberg Defence has been well and truly established as no defence whatsoever....
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
No, he was wrong period. He exposed classified information and that's against the law and dangerous to our country. If he had such a moral issue with what was going on he should have used whatever internal chain of command to make his issues known. This is especially true if he though his acts were illegal - use the chain of command and report it INTERNALLY. Exposing this information was a very stupid and dangerous thing to do. His act also sets a dangerous precedent that if others follow could cause real damage.
It's clear that there was no chain of command to make his issues "known" when the president himself along with most (all?) of congress knew about the surveillance and thinks its just fine and we should all just shut up because it's been going on for years. And he may very well have tried to follow the normal chain of command only to have his issues dismissed because the surveillance was authorized by the Patriot act, so it was perfectly legal (whether or not it was morally wrong).
When there's no way to make your issues known to the people it affects (i.e. citizens of the USA), what other choice did he have to make the issues known?
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
Liberals and conservatives are not both sides of the same coin. Not at all.
You are confusing republican and democrat with conservative and liberal. The truth is that both democrats and republicans are conservative. Both are the enemy of America, the nation founded on liberal ideals.
Re:Yes he likely faces prosecution (Score:4, Insightful)
What in the world do you mean? Do you think it is fine that the government was secretly monitoring everyone's phone records?
Not at all. I merely mean that we do not have all the facts yet. On the surface it looks pretty damning of the government but I'd be shocked if we know the whole picture at this point.
What additional facts do you expect? No one is disputing the veracity of the document he leaked, and not only has the government not denied that the domestic surveillance is going on, but that we should all just accept it because it's been going on for years.
What possible facts could come out to make this seem better? We all know that they claim to be doing it under the guise of anti-terrorism, but many people aren't willing to give up privacy and allow all of their electronic audit trails to be cataloged by the government in return for some small reduction in terrorism. And I really think that blanket surveillance is going to have only a modest effect against terrorism since there are many ways for a terorrist cell to communicate without arousing suspicion.
Re:Someone start a defense fund (Score:5, Insightful)
He did go up the chain of the command. If we are indeed still a democracy then the people are the highest authority and ought to have a right to know what its government is doing.