Espionage is a crime in every nation that signed the Declaration of Universal Rights.

[pnwmom]

And it is a crime that precludes the person from claiming a right to asylum. It isn't surprising that he's having trouble finding a new home.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/07/no-way-out.html

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 14, sets out that right.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations

The idea that Edward Snowden has a "right to asylum" is preposterous, and centers around the even more idiotic idea that Snowden is being persecuted in the United States for political reasons. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ed Snowden is being charged with stealing and distributing classified information under the Espionage Act, and espionage is a legitimate crime in every country that signed the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Snowden's applications for asylum are an abuse of Article 14.

If Snowden had broken into the Oval Office to steal the president's classified daily national security briefing, he would be charged with essentially the same thing, plus breaking and entering. That is what he essentially did - he stole information, smuggled it out of country, and disclosed it to a foreign organization (The Guardian), in the process helping our enemies. Edward Snowden is not being charged for his political views; he's being charged because of his actions. There's only group of people bringing politics into this, and they are Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald and their supporters. There is no political right to divulge national security information for one's own political gain.

There's this idea out there among the Snowden backers that if they like the crime a criminal has committed, then that crime is automatically political in nature, and the criminal therefore deserves asylum. Under the Snowden theory of what constitutes a political crime, Dick Cheney's top aide should have been able to seek asylum for leaking Valerie Plame's name, and so would the subjects of the Left's favorite prosecution demands - who would, after all, have to be charged for lying a country into a war and playing .. ahem... politics with soldiers' lives. Not to mention asylum would become the right of every person committing a hate crime or assassinating a political leader.

SNIP

[Mojorabbit]

1. Luckily most people in the country are discerning

and polling shows they believe he is a whistle blower instead.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. ^^^^_____^^^^^. This....

The department of truth will need to kick this to overdrive.

[sigmasix]

9. the law isn't "what most people think" though. He has been charged

Did you read the OP? "Mob rules" is not legal oversight. It makes no difference if a law breaker is popular among some members of the population, He's still a criminal and has been charged as such. The OP is very clear about the difference between a whistle blower and espionage. It is pretty clear to anyone with common sense that has been paying attention that snowden's willfull act of espionage has damaged America and threatens the safety and lives of our brave intelligence and defense agents in the field.
Thank you for this OP- it is right on target as far as truth and hero snowden is concerned.

[99th_Monkey]

14. "The Law of the land" is the US Constitution

... NOT what our government secretly decides it is. It's high time We
The People shut down this whole notion, that secret laws are somehow
in everyone's best interests, because it's NOT, it's a big fat lie.

Source: The US Constitution itself.

[NYC Liberal]

19. The US Constitution says federal laws and treaties are supreme.

Espionage is a federal crime and the statute making it such is most certainly constitutional.

[99th_Monkey]

24. This is where we agree to disagree.

unless you have any proof whatsoever(as in a reliable source link) of your
claims that the US Constitution is completely trumped by any and all "federal
laws & treaties" on the books, even ones that directly contradict the US Constitution.

I feel what you are saying is absurd on its face.

[NYC Liberal]

35. "Supreme law of the land" means the Constitution,

federal laws, and treaties trump state constitutions and laws.

You say the constitution is the law of the land. It is... and so are the laws and treaties made under it. That's what this...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

means.

You'll have to prove that the constitution protects espionage, thus making any laws banning it unconstitutional. Good luck with that.

[99th_Monkey]

40. This part --> "Laws of the US ...

...which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... is key.

The "in pursuance thereof" refers <BACK<to the US Constitution, as
the foundational reference point FROM WHICH laws are SUPPOSED
to be based.

What do you think SCOTUS is for? if not for rendering any final "legal"
decisions as to whether laws thus made, are actually consistent with
their supposed "foundational" point zero.

Is this not civics 101?

[NYC Liberal]

42. Right. So show me which section of the constitution

in your opinion protects espionage. If the constitution does not protect espionage then laws providing for penalties for it are constitutional. And thus Snowden has no claim. He can face the charges and argue he is is not guilty, but the law itself would be perfectly valid.

[99th_Monkey]

46. Whistle-blowing is NOT "espionage", by any stretch of the imagination

save yours, and the NSA, et. al.

The whole fucking world KNOWs what Snowden is doing, and
it isn't committing "espionage". Please spare us this amnesiatic
nonsense, as if everyone has suddenly forgot the difference
between whistle blowing and being an "enemy spy".

[NYC Liberal]

50. Then he can argue his innocence at his trial,

just like everyone else does.

Laws against espionage are constitutional. Snowden is not wanted because of his political beliefs; he is wanted on charges under a legitimate law.

Just because he or you believe he's innocent doesn't mean he can just run away and not face the charges.

[99th_Monkey]

55. Three guesses as to why I find this post to be hilarious?

and the first two don't even count.



HINT: 7 letter name, staring with "M"

[reusrename]

25. Snowden has committed a purely political act.

They've all been extra careful in that regard.

He saw crimes being committed and he blew the whistle. I don't understand how someone can even question whether or not what he did was right. I really don't.

Espionage is spying for a foreign entity. If what he did was spying at all, he did it for the American public. Get it. A political act.

This is EXACTLY the scenario where political asylum applies.

[NYC Liberal]

34. No he has not. It's not political at all.

He is being charged with a crime, not being persecuted for his political beliefs.

[reusrename]

45. That's always the case isn't it?

Really.

The Egyptians, Greeks, and Hebrews recognized a religious "right of asylum," protecting criminals (or those accused of crime) from legal action to some extent. This principle was later adopted by the established Christian church, and various rules developed to qualify for protection and just how much protection it was.

According to the Council of Orleans in 511, in the presence of Clovis I, asylum was granted to anyone who took refuge in a church, in its dependences or in the house of a bishop. This protection was given to murderers, thieves or people accused of adultery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_asylum

Again, telling the America people what's going on is not the same thing as espionage.

It just isn't.

It IS a political act, however.

[jmowreader]

41. Snowden doesn't know what the hell he saw

Can Edward Snowden absolutely, positively, GUARANTEE that he OBSERVED crimes taking place?

Because Mr. Snowden is not an intelligence officer, he cannot.

Because Mr. Snowden never sat rack, he cannot.

Because Mr. Snowden doesn't actually understand what is in those slides, he cannot.

Look at this slide and it will prove Mr. Snowden is completely full of shit:



Specifically, look at the "FBI Electronic Communications Surveillance Unit" between the PRINTAURA server and the FBI DITU. "Research & Validate NO USPERs"

A USPER is a US Person - someone USSID 18 (the regulation that says "you are not allowed to spy on Americans&quot says we're not supposed to be spying on. USSID 18 DOES say it's legal to keep metadata on US targets for two reasons: to prevent collection on those targets, and to facilitate communication against legitimate targets. I went through those slides and didn't see anything to suggest they're going beyond that. The slides don't say "obey USSID 18" for the same reason cookbooks don't say "avoid drinking raw chicken juice." You're just going to. It's what we do.

Also check the "Special FISA Oversight and Processing (SV4) Stored Comms Review/Validation" and the "Targeting and Mission Management (S343) Final Targeting Review and Release" which are also being used to weed out improper collection.

So, basically, all this shit y'all are praising Snowden for revealing has several safeguards to make sure Fort Meade isn't doing what Snowden claims they are.

(jmowreader is a 1986 graduate of the Analysis course at the US Army Intelligence School, Goodfellow Air Force Base, Texas.)

[reusrename]

43. Well Mr. Graduate of the Analysis course at the US Army Intelligence School, riddle me this:

There is no other human input required by the software modules shown on the slide.

Only the analyst has input, right?

So exactly what function does your "FBI Electronic Communications Surveillance Unit" actually perform?



(You may be perfectly correct about this stuff, but I sure don't see any of it in the slide.)





My answer:

I understand the skepticism here, I used to share it. This system is designed such that the analyst perform the function of robosigner. (Remember that term from the fraudulent bank forclosures? Where people were hired to sign affidavits about having reviewed stuff they never even saw? This is perfectly analogous, except that here we have it as official policy which may (or may not) make it legal.)

By filling in the form or template at the top of the diagram, they ensure that all of the "legal" requirements to gain access to the content are met.

They get immediate access to the data.

Each module that you see on the slide is there to accommodate a specific requirement in the law, and each requirement is automatically met when the initial template or form is completed.

Then, sometime during the next few days, a request for the warrant is forwarded to the FISA court, in accordance with the law.

The FISA court automatically approves the requests since each "legal" requirement has been fulfilled when the initial form or template is filled in, including an affidavit stating that if we don't have a peek then we will all die, or some such.

All that is necessary in order for the analyst to have legal access to the content is verbal authorization from either the Director of National Security or the Attorney General. That's spelled out right in the law itself.

[jmowreader]

59. The ECSU looks like the interface between the phone company's call database and the NSA's systems

In the US intelligence community, the only agency that has a domestic mission is the FBI. Anything that contacts US persons has to go through them, which is what ECSU would do. These systems can be programmed to require approval by supervisors before they'll do anything. (My bet: the "supervisor" they're talking about is a watch officer, who's generally an Army or Air Force captain or Navy lieutenant.)

They used to be REALLY fucking bad: the revision of USSID 18 that we worked under when I was still doing this didn't contain an "imminent danger" provision. Let us say that Sergeant Smith at Field Station Key West heard some Spanish-speaking bad guys claim they were going to blow up Wahoos Bar and Grille in Islamorada, Fla., in ten minutes. In the 1980s, Key West would have to notify the indications and warning center at Fort Meade, who would notify the watch office at the FBI, who would then contact the state, who would eventually contact the Islamorada ambulance squad...by the time all these guys got notified the bad guys would have already blown the place up. Now, under "imminent danger," the watch office at USAFS Key West could just directly call the Islamorada Police Department to try to stop the act from happening.

[reusrename]

61. Well, I think that's the whole point of what Snowden is talking about.

One would normally assume that this watch officer would have to approve something "before they'll do anything."

The way it appears to be set up, and the slide also supports this notion, is somewhat different. In reality the ECSU pre-approves the request whenever certain criteria are met, and certified to, in writing. The analyst has the legal authority to make such written certifications.

The law seems to allow for the retention and legal use of "inadvertently acquired" domestic communications whenever they contain usable intelligence, information on criminal activity, threat of harm to people or property, are encrypted, or are believed to contain any information relevant to cybersecurity.

Everything appears to be working exactly as Snowden claims. The policy he describes is one possible interpretation of the law, and that does seem to be what certain senators are squealing about. They seem to complaining that the administrations particular interpretation of the law is abusive and circumvents the spirit of the law.

So, basically, when the analyst fills out the form or template requesting a peek at a communication, there is some box he checks somewhere that certifies the communication content is related to some crime (possible eco-terrorism in the case of those opposing the XL pipeline, for example) and the ECSU module in the slide you posted logs this certification in order to satisfy any legal requirements that the FBI must meet in order to legally release the communication for review. The system is completely automatic and it's all driven by these "robosigners" who have the authority to look at anything in the entire database.

By the way, the database that stores content does not really have anything to do with the call database. It is really just a copy of all digital communications, and they are mostly pulled directly from the backbone of the interwebs and from cell phone towers. The content and the metadata are apples and oranges and they come from completely different sources.

Bottom line, it appears that it all works exactly as Snowden claims. There has been no official denial of his claims, just a lot of misdirection and subterfuge. By all accounts he was a very good systems analyst and he seems to have a damn good handle on exactly how the software is designed and implemented.

[arely staircase]

36. so you think the espionage laws are unconstitutional? nt

[FarCenter]

15. Jesse James was a hero to many in his day, even tho he was a murdering bank and train robber.

[arely staircase]

38. didn't work out too well for him. nt

[ProdigalJunkMail]

10. he is not a 'whistleblower'

when he turns over state secrets to a foreign gov't...

sP

[rhett o rick]

20. Where did you get the information that he turned over state secrets to a foreign government? nm

[ProdigalJunkMail]

32. um... he's already shown information to a chinese newspaper...

which might as well be their gov't and you'd be a complete fool to believe that his time in Russia has not benefited them greatly!

sP

[rhett o rick]

54. I would greatly appreciate some links. And dont call me a fool. You lose all credibility. nm

[ProdigalJunkMail]

56. i am not going to 'research' something that has been all over

and yes, you would be a fool if you believe this has all been simply the Russians being nice... your foolishness in what you choose to believe in no way affects anyone's credibility.

sP

[rhett o rick]

57. You make outrageous statements and cant back them up and then call me a fool.

Go insult someone else.

[woo me with science]

16. Yup. The US government is abusing its power, and there is no more dangerous lawbreaking than that.

It's not a difficult concept.

[indepat]

52. What more dangerous domestic lawbreaking is there than the US government abusing

its power is a cogent question begging an answer.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. The UN says that Snowden needs protection.

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=151991

UN human rights chief Navi Pillay has commented on the case of former US intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, saying it showed the need to protect people who uncovered abuses.

Pillay called on all countries to protect the rights of those who uncover abuses and stressed the need to respect the right for people to seek asylum.

“National legal systems must ensure that there are adequate avenues for individuals disclosing violations of human rights to express their concern without fear of reprisals," said Pillay.

"Snowden's case has shown the need to protect persons disclosing information on matters that have implications for human rights, as well as the importance of ensuring respect for the right to privacy,” she added.

[msongs]

4. the complaints on du are because he dared challenge the policies of a certain current president nt

[Tx4obama]

8. Snowden admitted to committing crimes. Many folks are NOT supporting Snowden because he's a CRIMINAL

Snowden is the one the that made the decision to STEAL classified government documents, hatched a plan, stole the documents, and ran out of the county like a coward.

[rhett o rick]

21. And you are willing to overlook the laws that the NSA and Booz-Allen have broken

because...............

[Life Long Dem]

37. The laws that are legal, but you would like changed, doesn't make them illegal today.

[rhett o rick]

53. I believe there is a good chance that Booz-Allen and the NSA have violated the laws on a massive

scale. Let's look as Booz-Allen and the Carlyle Group before we worry about Snowden.

[leftstreet]

48. +1 He'd be getting DU Valentine hearts if Bush was still Prez n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

62. that is the maddening part - 90% to 99% of the animosity against Snowden here on this site is coming

Last edited Mon Jul 15, 2013, 08:36 AM - Edit history (1)

from people who would be canonizing him as St. Edward if Bush or any Republican were in office which makes their attacks on him utterly and completely disingenuous.

[DirkGently]

5. No serious person considers what happened "espionage."

[99th_Monkey]

27. That fact hasn't stopped some on DU to pontificating that US Const. is 100% trumped by

any and every last "federal law" that has ever existed, including ones that directly
contradict the US Constitution itself.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3244568

[leveymg]

6. Your argument isn't at all convincing - most asylees have broken the laws in their countries.

What you call prosecution others call persecution, what you call espionage is politics from another perspective.

There is NO bar to asylum under the UN Convention to persons who have committed political crimes, including Espionage (and this is not to concede that what Snowden did was actually Espionage. There would be no right of asylum -- and no refugees -- if that were the case.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about, and shouldn't waste your time arguing this falsehood - it has no basis in the way the real world system of refugees and asylees actually operates.

[SidDithers]

7. DU rec...

Snowden's not a refugee, he's a fugitive.

Sid

[dairydog91]

11. Agreed. Espionage is a crime in all countries.

Considering what Snowden has revealed, the President and Director of the NSA will soon be extraditing themselves to the countries which the US has been spying on.

[Savannahmann]

12. No, you'll screw up the meme

[Union Scribe]

13. more outsourced spin from a shitty blog. nt

[Luminous Animal]

17. Espionage is considered a political crime.

[woo me with science]

18. There is no more serious and dangerous lawbreaking than government abuse of power,

Last edited Sat Jul 13, 2013, 06:57 PM - Edit history (1)

simply because of the dread power of governments.

It's not a hard concept, all the attempts at spin and propaganda notwithstanding.

[rhett o rick]

22. Can we call this an obsession yet? nm

[Laelth]

23. Wow! What an interesting collection of comments following that blog entry!

Who are those people posting on a "progressive" blog?



-Laelth

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. In Sweden, "Espionage is considered a ‘political offense’" - Justice Dept

The Justice Department on Thursday announced the indictment of a former State Department employee for allegedly spying on behalf of Cuba, but it is unable to arrest her because she lives in Sweden, a country that does not extradite citizens accused of espionage.

Marta Rita Velazquez, 55, a graduate of Princeton University and Georgetown University Law School, was indicted nearly a decade ago on charges of conspiracy to commit espionage. Velazquez lives in Stockholm and is aware of the charges against her, the Justice Department said. But the extradition treaty between the United States and Sweden does not allow extradition for spying.

“Espionage is considered a ‘political offense’ that, therefore, falls outside the scope of Sweden’s extradition treaty,” said Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd. Swedish officials declined to comment on the announcement of the indictment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/woman-indicted-in-cuba-spy-case-is-in-sweden-and-out-of-us-reach/2013/04/25/de27da3c-ade7-11e2-8bf6-e70cb6ae066e_story.html

So, we see that the premise of the blog falls apart at first inspection.

[tavalon]

28. First you have to adequately parse espionage from whistleblowing.

Once you have done this and you have not done this. Then we can discuss levels of culpability and actual right behavior. This conversation hasn't gone nearly far enough along sanity lane to justify an end decision as to what has actually occurred here.

[burnodo]

29. So the espionage that Snowden revealed?

How does that square with international treaty?

[Egalitarian Thug]

60. Shh. You're not supposed to notice that part. n/t

[Spider Jerusalem]

30. Espionage is almost universally considered a political offence.

Most extradition treaties specifically exempt persons accused of political offences from extradition. Therefore this entire argument is nonsense upon stilts.

As far as using the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a basis for argument? You might want to have a look at Article 5: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

The United States of America, alone among Western countries, makes routine and widespread use of solitary confinement of prisoners; this is treatment Snowden may reasonably expect. And guess what? It's considered torture by the UN and there are calls to have it banned. See also the treatment in prison of Bradley Manning, which certainly qualifies as cruel and degrading.

[idwiyo]

31. Snowden is a whistleblower.

[Cleita]

33. He didn't commit espionage. To do that you have to steal state secrets

and leak them to another government. I don't see that he has done that. Yes, some say he's given everything to China and Russia but no one can prove that he did.

[kenny blankenship]

44. And yet according to you guys, they all engage in it.

What awful hypocrites they are!

[former9thward]

47. I guess we should re-prosecute Daniel Ellsberg.

He got away with it the first time. Turns out Nixon was right.

[Number23]

49. The VAST majority of nations. And definitely the ones everyone here talks about running to

when they get sick of living in the US.

[liberal N proud]

51. Many here are blind to the crime because they only see the exposure of another crime.

Similar to the gun nut who shot some one on the street because he thought they were committing another crime, that person is still a criminal.

[ConcernedCanuk]

58. "charged" does not = guilty

.
.
.

I was recently charged with criminal activity regarding firearms.

Cost over 3 grand, but I didn't just beat the charges, they were withdrawn because they were phony and had the good fortune to have the funds for a good lawyer.

And as for being "tried" by the media, or message boards . . .

We don't REALLY know anything about Snowden, only what different media sources tell us.

Only people that know anything about him are those that have talked to him directly, and even then, Snowden may be cautious about what he says.

NSA and various other agencies are overstepping their authority peeking into other's lives.

Quite sure it is happening here in Canada as well - especially since we supply over 25% of USA's oil, which without it, USA's war machine would grind to a halt - and we can't let THAT happen.

HarperDude is on that - he'd sell out Canada in a heartbeat if he thought could get away with it - raping the land in Alberta to keep the oil flowing . .

and so on . . .

CC