General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNYT editorial: Surveillance: Snowden Doesn’t Rise to Traitor
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
For several top lawmakers in Washington, Edward Snowden committed the ultimate political crime when he revealed to the world just how broadly and easily the government is collecting phone and Internet records. Hes a traitor, said John Boehner, the House speaker. Its an act of treason, said Senator Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee.
Among prosecutors and defense lawyers, theres a name for that kind of hyperbole: overcharging. Whatever his crimes and he clearly committed some Mr. Snowden did not commit treason, though the people who have long kept the secrets he revealed are now fulminating with rage.
<...>
Clearly, Mr. Snowden did not join a terror cell, or express any hostility toward the United States, when he turned over documents to The Guardian and The Washington Post. (He was also not nearly as reckless as Bradley Manning, the soldier on trial on charges with giving classified materials to WikiLeaks, who seemed not to know or care what secret documents he was exposing.) Mr. Snowdens goal was to expose and thus stop the intelligence community from what he considered unwarranted intrusions into the lives of ordinary Americans. My sole motive, he told The Guardian, is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them.
While that principle is the right one, he should brace himself for the charges and possible punishment that may come in its wake. Most likely, he will be charged with disclosure of classified information under the Espionage Act, which carries a possible 10-year jail term for each count. Mr. Snowden broke the agreement he made to keep these materials secret. He appeared forthright in confessing to the act and can use his testimony, should he be brought to trial, to make the case that he exposed a serious abuse of power (though, technically, he did not blow the whistle on fraud or criminal activity).
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/opinion/surveillance-snowden-doesnt-rise-to-traitor.html
We don't know all the facts. Whether or not it's treason, Snowden is going to be prosecuted.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)TPTB will never want him to come to trial.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)They can't have the plebes hearing about all their criminal violations of the 4th Amendment and development of a Stasi-style surveillance apparatus. That's bad for business!
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)stasi! omerta!
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Unless it's not "feasible."
THEN IT'S SEND IN THE DRONES, BABY! WOO!
HERE'S YOUR DUE PROCESS! FUCK YEAH!
Just like Anwar Al-Awlaki (and his meddling 16 year old son) got their day in court, right ProSense?
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)In an office where he used to work, he used to join paperclips together into long chains because he never did any work and other people had to UNCHAIN THEM so that they could be USED.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Reminds me of Ron Paul.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Assassination by drone is all Obama.
Own it.
Coward.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Rand.
By Steve Benen
In March, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) launched a high-profile filibuster on the Senate floor, bringing attention to drone strikes and civil liberties questions that too often go ignored. But as the spectacle faded, a problem emerged -- Paul didn't seem to fully understand the issue he ostensibly cares so much about.
The Kentucky Republican wanted to know if the Obama administration feels it has the authority to "use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil." Attorney General Eric Holders said the "answer to that question is no." For many involved in the debate, the answer was superficial and incomplete -- who gets to define what constitutes "combat"? what about non-weaponized drones? -- but Paul declared victory and walked away satisfied.
Today, the senator went further, saying he's comfortable with drones being used over U.S. soil if the executive branch decides -- without a warrant or oversight -- there's an "imminent threat." Paul told Fox News:
"...I've never argued against any technology being used when you an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it's different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities."
I realize it's difficult to explore complex policy questions in detail during a brief television interview, and perhaps if the Republican senator had more time to think about it, he might explain his position differently. But as of this afternoon, it sounds like Rand Paul is comfortable with the executive branch having the warrantless authority to use weaponized drones to kill people on American soil suspected of robbing a liquor store.
But flying over a hot tub is where he draws the line.
- more -
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/23/17881782-disappointing-those-who-stand-with-rand
Drones to kill people "suspected of robbing a liquor store."
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)(When you try to get crafty with your talking points, your message is less coherent.)
http://theweek.com/article/index/245446/did-edward-snowdens-leak-make-americans-less-safe
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), among others, called Snowden, 29, a traitor. "The disclosure of this information puts Americans at risk," Boehner said. "It shows our adversaries what our capabilities are. And it's a giant violation of the law." Similarly, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper claims the leaks did "huge, grave damage" to U.S. intelligence gathering efforts.
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/304573-sen-feinstein-snowdens-leaks-are-treason#ixzz2W0uHc6B4
Feinstein said that she doesnt see National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden as a hero or a whistle blower.
I don't look at this as being a whistleblower. I think it's an act of treason, the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told reporters.
The California lawmaker went on to say that Snowden had violated his oath to defend the Constitution.
He violated the oath, he violated the law. It's treason.
"Puts Americans at risk" "huge, grave damage" "traitor"
That doesn't sound like robbing a liquor store. Are you saying they are wrong, and that Snowden's leak is nothing more than petty crime?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-24/obama-releases-new-rules-for-drone-strikes/4710038
The guidance includes requirements that a target must pose a continuing "imminent" threat to Americans, and says lethal action can be used only if a suspect cannot feasibly be captured, and there is a legal basis for acting.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Are you equating Snowden's leak with robbing a liquor store?"
...is Rand Paul the President?
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)I don't know why you even brought him up, other than to deflect from the Obama administration's use of drones to assassinate US citizens who are an "immediate" threat and cannot feasibly be captured, like Anwar al-Awlaki and his sixteen year old son. (Although Abdulrahman was "not specifically targeted," he was turned into FreedomMist just the same.)
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...for all of those who support the massive surveillance state.
Like Glenn Greenwald? Ooooh, he's a Ron Paul supporter (or once expressed such support); therefore, you are too!
Don't like drones? Ooooh, Ron Paul doesn't either; therefore, you remind me of him; ergo, you must be a Ron Paul supporter.
What a load of crap.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)I'm not quite there yet to label him a traitor or a spy, or that I ever will without evidence.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Imagine Google, but purpose-designed to violate privacy, with the NSA's monster datacenters powering it, with tentacles all over the world's telecommunications infrastructure using law-enforcement backdoors.
That's what he saw. Essentially, he could do the equivalent of a Google search and violate anyone's privacy he wants, assuming he was in the relevant access-control-lists on the servers.
LeftInTX
(25,331 posts)Dzhokhar declared an "enemy combatant". It's a bunch of hot air.
randome
(34,845 posts)His followers claimed "See? The government is really out to get him!"
But now it's "Boehner? He's an ass."
And the thing is, Boehner really is an ass.
Politicians shooting off their mouths before the facts come in, whether it's Joe Biden or John Boehner, should be discounted right out of the gate.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)No doubt he will be prosecuted for those offenses. Treason does not apply, however.
Anyone with a security clearance is informed about those laws and the penalties that can be applied if the laws are broken. People sign documents saying that they have been informed. People with security clearances who work with classified information get briefings on those laws, too. The higher the security clearance's level, the more frequent and persistent those briefings are. Even if you leave a job that requires a security clearance, you'll get another briefing, explaining the laws that will still apply to you.
Nobody is ignorant of those laws who is in that business.
Snowden is engaging in civil disobedience. Part of civil disobedience is knowledge that you may be prosecuted for it.
cali
(114,904 posts)He will likely be prosecuted, but how open will any trial be?