Who broke the law, Snowden or the NSA?

[CaseyJones]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/17/opinion/wiebe-snowden-amnesty/


Edward Snowden deserves amnesty and the ability to return to the United States without fear of being incarcerated for reporting crimes by people in high places in the U.S. government. Monday's ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon that the NSA's widespread collection of millions of Americans' telephone records was unconstitutional bolsters this view.

But for some, whether to give Snowden amnesty is not an easy matter to reconcile. After all, they say, he broke laws in divulging classified information.

Indeed, some say he is a traitor. But just as a member of the U.S. military is not required to follow an unlawful order, it is proper that an employee of the United States intelligence community -- NSA, CIA, DIA and others -- should report any information that concerns law-breaking by the intelligence agencies or their employees.

An NSA official's suggestion that amnesty for Snowden could possibly be put on the table was undoubtedly welcome news for Snowden, yet NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander rejected the suggestion.

But how can anyone believe that Snowden would not be deserving of amnesty? Clearly it is the government and its senior officials who committed the crime -- people who took oaths to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic and who failed to take to heart the words they swore to uphold. Indeed, Snowden did not -- nor does any government employee -- swear allegiance to the president of the United States, or even to the secretary of Defense or the director of NSA. No, he swore to uphold and defend the Constitution.

[Ronin Truth]

Technically both, but I don't care about Snowden's.

[ZENemy]

the U.S government is "breaking" the supreme law of the land.

Snowden may have broke some legal fiction or other statutes.

[DamianTV]

If a Law or Statute is not Constitutional, it is not Valid or Enforcable.

Did Snowden violate Federal Laws? Yes.

Were those Federal Laws Constitutional? No.

Is Snowden accountable for violation of Unconstitutional Federal Laws? No, because they are Invalid and Unconstitutional.

Thats my take. Does Judge Napolitano have anything to say specifically about Snowden breaking the law?

[osan]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/17/opinion/wiebe-snowden-amnesty/

Snowden broke no law. He violated statute.

Statute <> law.

Law is about right and wrong.

Statute is perforce arbitrary.

Therefore, law >> statute.

Case closed.

[Henry Rogue]

Who broke the law, Snowden or the NSA?Where's the poll? i vote NSA.

[VBRonPaulFan]

the NSA has basically stolen all the information it has on everyone, nobody voluntarily gave that stuff over.

so the NSA is saying that Snowden is a criminal because he "stole" stuff that the NSA stole to begin with? does not compute.

[angelatc]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131217/11261425589/wall-street-journal-calls-snowden-sociopath-insists-any-rolling-back-nsa-programs-would-harm-everyone.shtml

Don't need another Snowden thread, but just wanted to point out that the editors of the WSJ think that Snowden is a sociopath, and the NSA should have even fewer restrictions.

That's the old school Repubican position, I would imagine

[Grubb556]

So Snowden can't get asylum for revealing unconstitutional activities ?

[Contumacious]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/17/opinion/wiebe-snowden-amnesty/

Federal Government , of course.

.

[tod evans]

See avatar.

<<<<<

[JK/SEA]

Snowden, guilty as hell. I nominate Pete King to get his shit together, go find him, and bring him back alive...by himself.

[heavenlyboy34]

the NSA has basically stolen all the information it has on everyone, nobody voluntarily gave that stuff over.

so the NSA is saying that Snowden is a criminal because he "stole" stuff that the NSA stole to begin with? does not compute.
Welcome to Statist Logic 101. :P

[69360]

Both but Snowden has the moral high ground.

[acptulsa]

I just thought of a Constitutional Amendment I would like to see.

Exposure of a violation of the Constitution can never, ever be a violation of federal, state or local U.S. law.

Or, if that can't be made to work, anyone who exposes a violation of the Constitution and violates a statute in the process must immediately be pardoned by the president. Any president failing to pardon this person is considered to have committed a felony, and is therefore subject to immediate impeachment. And not only is the president subject to impeachment, but to prevent a House dominated by the president's party from 'losing' this impeachment in committee, articles of impeachment are automatically put on the very next session of the House docket and entered into the Congressional Record. Therefore, the House, and if they say yea, then the Senate are forced to judge whether the president is correct in his decision that the person like Snowden did not in fact expose a violation of the Constitution.

I say that would be the best Amendment to the Constitution in over 150 years (or at least as good as the 19th and 21st). In fact, I'm so proud of this idea I'm inclined to contact Rep. Bridenstine and suggest it.

[acptulsa]

How about this?


ARTICLE XXVIII

Articles of impeachment shall not be subject to committee consideration prior to being introduced for consideration by the full House of Representatives. Upon being introduced by any duly elected or duly appointed member of the House, any articles of impeachment of the President of the United States shall be introduced for debate by the full House as the first order of business of the current, or the very next, session of the House.

Any person or persons who violate any federal statutes or regulations of the United States of America, or any state, county or local statutes for any jurisdiction therein, in the process of exposing a violation of the Constitution of the United States by any federal office holder, secretary or employee of any federal agency, bureau or department, any cabinet members, ambassadors, or members of their staffs or any Congressional office holder's staff, or any contractor or subcontractor in active federal employ, shall be pardoned for that specific violation of the law by the President of the United States. Failure to pardon this person or these persons for the crimes they committed in the process of exposing this Constitutional violation shall be considered a felonious act by the President of the United States, and grounds for immediate impeachment proceedings.

[Grubb556]

I just thought of a Constitutional Amendment I would like to see.

Exposure of a violation of the Constitution can never, ever be a violation of federal, state or local U.S. law.


Isn't that implicit though ? I know in Canada, some guy broke a law (using narocotics), but the court ruled it unconstitutional and thus the guy didn't actually break any laws.

[acptulsa]

Isn't that implicit though ? I know in Canada, some guy broke a law (using narocotics), but the court ruled it unconstitutional and thus the guy didn't actually break any laws.

Seems to me like it should be. But Snowden is still on the run.

There has been a lot of talk around these forums for all of the six years (well, five years fifty one and a half weeks) I've been here about giving the Constitution teeth to enforce itself. I think this might be one good way to do that.

[AngryCanadian]

The NSA, GW Bush, Obama and previous American governments whom were in favor of these surveillance programs. Why should an NSA leaker get the blame but not the NSA itself? nor the patriotic act?

[osan]

the NSA has basically stolen all the information it has on everyone, nobody voluntarily gave that stuff over.

so the NSA is saying that Snowden is a criminal because he "stole" stuff that the NSA stole to begin with? does not compute.

But... but... global warming... corporations...

Meps...
Meps...
Meps...

[mrsat_98]

I say Snowden committed misprision of a felony up until he went public. See 18 USC 4

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

The people are in civil and military authority as the Sovereigns of the country. If he did not do it the way he did it would have been swept under the rug.

[Anti Federalist]

John Bolton thinks he should be hung.

John Bolton: Edward Snowden 'Ought To Swing From A Tall Oak Tree'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/17/john-bolton-edward-snowden_n_4461196.html

Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton spoke out against former government contractor Edward Snowden for leaking classified details on the National Security Agency's controversial surveillance practices, suggesting Snowden should "swing from a tall oak tree" as punishment.

Speaking on Fox News on Monday, Bolton, who served under former President George W. Bush, characterized Snowden's actions as treason, and urged against any public talk of amnesty.

"I must say absent some other important piece of information, it has to be one of the dumbest things that I've seen in a long time, to be speculating about it publicly, even if they are contemplating a deal with Snowden some kind of amnesty," Bolton said. "The last thing that people ought to be doing is speculating about it publicly. It will inevitably make it a political football and enhance Snowden's bargaining power."

Bolton continued, "My view is that Snowden committed treason, he ought to be convicted of that, and then he ought to swing from a tall oak tree. But even if you don’t believe that, if you’re gonna say anything publicly, that is closer to what you should be saying to enhance our own bargaining leverage."

Bolton's remarks came in response to NSA official Rick Ledgett's suggestion it is "worth having a conversation about" amnesty for Snowden.

"I would need assurances that the remainder of the data could be secured and my bar for those assurances would be very high," Ledgett told CBS News during an interview that aired on Sunday's "60 Minutes." "It would be more than just an assertion on his part."

NSA Director Keith Alexander, however, disagrees with Ledgett.

"I think people have to be held accountable for their actions," Alexander told CBS. "Because what we don't want is the next person to do the same thing, race off to Hong Kong and to Moscow with another set of data knowing they can strike the same deal."

[DamianTV]

Both but Snowden has the moral high ground.

And the support of the people who are now fully aware they have been stabbed in the backs by the same traitors that are trying to stab Snowden in the back so they can continue stabbing us in the backs. Yep, lots of backstabbing going on. I wouldnt put it past the NSA to use their trove of data to blackmail / further blackmail elected representatives into getting even more power. The only real injury the NSA is incurring is shooting themselves in their own foot, so to speak. Its not Snowden thats the Criminal. The NSA called him a Criminal because he revealed they were the true Criminals, and they cant have that. They shot themselves in the foot by using their spying methods so frequently that damn near everyone knows enough about it that people can safely assume to have zero trust in anything electronic. Thus, they are actually making it more difficult for themselves to catch them pesky terrorists because their own actions have driven them much much further underground. Won a Battle with the People and it is going to cost them the War.

[S.Shorland]

He should run like a fecking deer.'America' can't abide any slight to its self image.You can imagine what pressure or enticement was offered to Cuba to return the yacht escaping family recently.If Snowden returns,he will live in a gilded cage.No matter what he is promised,his life will never be his own again.

[osan]

I say Snowden committed misprision of a felony up until he went public. See 18 USC 4

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This is statute, not law. It is invalid. That doesn't mean Theye will not come for you and place you into a cage, which is the true meaning of "effect of law", but the normative truth stands in any event.


The people are in civil and military authority as the Sovereigns of the country. If he did not do it the way he did it would have been swept under the rug.

They'd have swept him under the rug as well.

[osan]

He should run like a fecking deer.'America' can't abide any slight to its self image.You can imagine what pressure or enticement was offered to Cuba to return the yacht escaping family recently.If Snowden returns,he will live in a gilded cage.No matter what he is promised,his life will never be his own again.


Absolutely correct. Rendering his life his own would necessitate a fundamental change in the very fabric of this land. Do not hold your breath on that. That said, Theye have long memories and they do not forgive. If it took them 40 years waiting for the right day, they would. And it would come to him under the most mundane circumstances, but he would be finished nonetheless and those who remembered would likely know it and the point will have been made.

We are in the clutches of a monster and no amount of lipstick and lingerie will change it into a fairy princess. You kill it outright or it dominates you. There is nothing in between.

[thoughtomator]

NSA broke the law - not only that but they are right now as we speak in the midst of a coup against Constitutional government.

Snowden broke only an illegal order. Secrecy laws cannot apply to illegal acts - either the law is in force, or it is not, can't have it both ways if we are being intellectually consistent.

Snowden is a global hero. The NSA ought to have all its execs and managers for the past decade plus rounded up and brought before an American version of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or perhaps something like East Germany did after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The full truth needs to be exposed, the key conspirators need to be hanged, and the information collected on the American people needs to be destroyed.

[osan]

And the support of the people who are now fully aware they have been stabbed in the backs by the same traitors that are trying to stab Snowden in the back so they can continue stabbing us in the backs. Yep, lots of backstabbing going on.

Very nice.


They shot themselves in the foot by using their spying methods so frequently that damn near everyone knows enough about it that people can safely assume to have zero trust in anything electronic.

I've assumed nothing was trustworthy from the beginning. Then again, I knew things about how IP worked before most others did. The medium seemed perfect for spying from day 1.

[DamianTV]

Very nice.



I've assumed nothing was trustworthy from the beginning. Then again, I knew things about how IP worked before most others did. The medium seemed perfect for spying from day 1.

The medium is a Tool that was already afforded the protections of the Constitution. But they decided to ignore those fundamental protections, which created a situation where that Tool was given the potential from abuse.

Im with you on knowing how IPs, internet, proxy, etc work in general and seeing that potential for abuse.

But the thing is, communications technology isnt the only place where the potential for flat out abuse exists. The potential is created by demanding that only one side exclusively retains the Right for using something. (technically, exclusive Rights are Permissions, not Rights). For example, Speech. If all People are restricted from saying anything without Govt permission, they are not permitted to report any abuses of the Govt. But Govt grants itself permission and will use its Power of Speech (in this hypothetical situation, not a Right) to convey Propoganda. With Guns, giving only Govt Guns leads to Govt abuse. It also creates the enviornment where Guns are used by some Non Law Abiding Citizens to abuse other Law Abiding Citizens.

Case after case, simply extending and replacing Internet with practically anything seems to hold true for the most part. Another example could be Religion. If only Christianity were permitted by Govt decree, the potential for abuse would be created against any Non Christians, even if those people were respectful, good, and peace loving. Replace Interwebs with Money and we see that granting an Exclusive Right to one group but not another creates the Potential for Abuse.

We could even extend it to granting Exclusive Rights (technically Permissions) to absurd things like Vitamins or Bacon. When Vitamins are Outlawed, only Outlaws will have Vitamins. Easily hot swappable. Transparency. When only Citizens have Transparency, that Transparency allows control by others, except by those who do not have Transparency. (Govt, NSA, etc)

I believe it is the Unequal Distribution of Rights (permissions) that creates the Potential for Abuse (by both other people, corporations, and govt) that ultimately leads to Civil Unrest.

[Snew]

An unjust law is no law at all. Edward broke no law.