Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 01:14 AM Jun 2013

NYT editorial: Surveillance: Snowden Doesn’t Rise to Traitor

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. “He’s a traitor,” said John Boehner, the House speaker. “It’s an act of treason,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee.

Among prosecutors and defense lawyers, there’s 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. Snowden’s 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.
20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NYT editorial: Surveillance: Snowden Doesn’t Rise to Traitor (Original Post) ProSense Jun 2013 OP
Discovery's a bitch. grasswire Jun 2013 #1
He violated the Military-Industrial Code of Omerta. backscatter712 Jun 2013 #2
hyperbole much? arely staircase Jun 2013 #17
"Whether or not it's treason, Snowden is going to be prosecuted." OnyxCollie Jun 2013 #3
He'll probably get accused of "rape" like Julian Assange, or something similar. n/t backscatter712 Jun 2013 #7
He pointed at a cripple once and LAUGHED. sibelian Jun 2013 #16
"THEN IT'S SEND IN THE DRONES, BABY! WOO! " ProSense Jun 2013 #8
No deflecting on to Ron Paul. OnyxCollie Jun 2013 #9
Did I say "Ron," I forgot ProSense Jun 2013 #12
Are you equating Snowden's leak with robbing a liquor store? OnyxCollie Jun 2013 #13
Why ProSense Jun 2013 #19
No, he's not. OnyxCollie Jun 2013 #20
Ron Paul is the bogeyman du jour... ljm2002 Jun 2013 #14
He's a criminal Life Long Dem Jun 2013 #4
Basically, he saw the NSA's Google for Spooks, and was horrified enough to tell the world. backscatter712 Jun 2013 #6
Their remarks remind of when the neocons wanted LeftInTX Jun 2013 #5
Same thing happened regarding Assange. randome Jun 2013 #10
He broke a number of laws. MineralMan Jun 2013 #11
Much as you may wish it to be, it's not treason. cali Jun 2013 #15
He won't be tried in open court, that's for sure. n/t cherokeeprogressive Jun 2013 #18

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
2. He violated the Military-Industrial Code of Omerta.
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 01:22 AM
Jun 2013

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!

 

OnyxCollie

(9,958 posts)
3. "Whether or not it's treason, Snowden is going to be prosecuted."
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 01:37 AM
Jun 2013

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?

sibelian

(7,804 posts)
16. He pointed at a cripple once and LAUGHED.
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 11:36 AM
Jun 2013

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)
12. Did I say "Ron," I forgot
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 10:32 AM
Jun 2013

Rand.

Disappointing those who 'stand with 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)
13. Are you equating Snowden's leak with robbing a liquor store?
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 11:01 AM
Jun 2013

(When you try to get crafty with your talking points, your message is less coherent.)

Did Edward Snowden's leak make Americans less safe?
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.


Sen. Feinstein calls Snowden's NSA leaks an 'act of treason'
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/304573-sen-feinstein-snowdens-leaks-are-treason#ixzz2W0uHc6B4

Feinstein said that she doesn’t 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?

Drone strikes: Barack Obama sets new rules for lethal force
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.
 

OnyxCollie

(9,958 posts)
20. No, he's not.
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 01:34 PM
Jun 2013

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)
14. Ron Paul is the bogeyman du jour...
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 11:28 AM
Jun 2013

...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)
4. He's a criminal
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 01:39 AM
Jun 2013

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)
6. Basically, he saw the NSA's Google for Spooks, and was horrified enough to tell the world.
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 03:12 AM
Jun 2013

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)
5. Their remarks remind of when the neocons wanted
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 03:00 AM
Jun 2013

Dzhokhar declared an "enemy combatant". It's a bunch of hot air.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
10. Same thing happened regarding Assange.
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 10:27 AM
Jun 2013

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)
11. He broke a number of laws.
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 10:29 AM
Jun 2013

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)
15. Much as you may wish it to be, it's not treason.
Wed Jun 12, 2013, 11:30 AM
Jun 2013

He will likely be prosecuted, but how open will any trial be?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»NYT editorial: Surveillan...