Kerryworld Logic: Will the U.S. deport asylum seekers?

[JackRiddler]

I've learned from the present Secretary of State that "patriots don't run." For some reason, he thinks Snowden, who has stood up to speak truth to power at great personal sacrifice (and who is defamed on this board every day) is a "runner."

Going by Kerry's logic, what about this?

between 2009-2011 the U.S. granted asylum to 1,222 Russians, 9,493 Chinese, and 22 Ecuadorians, not including family members, among many others from a variety of countries. The U.S. acknowledges these people as patriots, men and women who took a dangerous and principled stand against a government they felt had gone wrong. A double-standard is no standard at all.

The reality:

Having watched Manning, Snowden (and Kerry if he’d admit it) knows what he could expect from American justice. Trials under the Espionage Act, which the U.S. says is how Snowden will be charged, quite specifically prohibit discussion of anything except proof or rebuttal that the accused did leak classified information. A jury is not allowed to rule on, or even hear about, motive and intent.

John Kiriakou, the former CIA officer who was the first to go on-the-record with the media about waterboarding, pled guilty in his Espionage Act case last year partially because a judge ruled he couldn’t tell the jury about his lack of intent to harm the United States. In the case of State Department official Stephen Kim, the judge ruled the prosecution “need not show that the information he allegedly leaked could damage U.S. national security or benefit a foreign power, even potentially.” In the Espionage Act case against NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake, the government filed motions to make sure the words “whistleblowing” or “overclassification” would never be uttered at trial. In Chelsea Manning’s trial, Manning’s defense wanted to argue she intended to inform the public, that the military was afflicted with a deep and unnecessary addiction to overclassification, and that the government’s own internal assessments showed she caused no real damage to U.S. interests. All this information was ruled inadmissible.

A SuperMax cell is not a very good bully pulpit. Kerry is either lying, or his hopelessly ignorant.

John Kerry, here’s a deal Snowden might accept: When the Department of Justice agrees to charge James Clapper, national director of intelligence, for lying under oath to Congress about the surveillance of Americans, Snowden will know American justice is fair and equally applied, and come home for a trial. Better yet Kerry, promise that both trials will be televised live with no sealed documents or secret sessions. Deal?

http://wemeantwell.com/blog/2014/05/29/kerry-tells-snowden-to-man-up-and-come-home/

[Thinkingabout]

1. Now this logic is getting off base. If using your logic it could be said the Snowden Fan

Club secretly wants to be criminals wanted and on the run.

[JackRiddler]

2. Totally incoherent but thanks for the kick.

[whatchamacallit]

3. Lol, yeah I couldn't decipher it either

[Thinkingabout]

5. Is as coherent as your post about Kerry.

[JackRiddler]

9. Uh, that's got to sting.

I'm devastated.

Thanks again!

[Aerows]

14. When the shoe is on the other foot

suddenly, limping in free speech is unconscionable. Got it.

[cali]

43. could you elaborate, please? As it stands, what you wrote makes no sense.

[karynnj]

4. Unlike you, I doubt Kerry equates the justice system of China, Russia or Equador to that of the US

While you may believe that, I know that former prosecutor, John Kerry, does not.

Not to mention, I think that Snowden is a little more complicated than someone who spoke truth to power. Had he just spoken of the overreach (in his opinion - not that of the Congresses that wrote the legislation on FISA) of the domestic spying, you might have a case. However, that discussion could have been had without even leaking secret information. The Congressional record has plenty of detail -- and debate -- on the FISA Act. Had some classified documents expanded or changed the view of that process, you could argue truth to power.

It is not truth to power to go to China and disclose US covert actions. It is not truth to power to take over a million documents - more than he could even have read! - and give them to "trusted" reporters. (As to Manning a random dump of thousands of State Department cables is - if anything more disconcerting. )

One question is would you argue the same innocence if you disagreed with the agenda of the leaker? For instance, what about Jonathan Pollard - who gave Israel US information that he thought benefited both the US and Israel to do so? In my opinion, his motive was not the issue. The issue is that people with access to classified information need a steep barrier against leaking.

[ProSense]

6. Snowden defenders are

"Unlike you, I doubt Kerry equates the justice system of China, Russia or Equador to that of the US"

...lashing out at Kerry with dumb rhetoric because he called for accountability.

They tried the stupid argument of trying to equate Snowden to a dissident and a stateless person. It was stupid then, and it still is.

There Are 12 Million Stateless People Around The World, But Edward Snowden Isn’t One Of Them
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023149095

[JackRiddler]

8. Kerry called for accountability?

Not for the criminals who engineered the war of aggression on Iraq, not for the lawmakers, such as himself, who made it possible by voting for it.

[karynnj]

10. Thanks - missed that one

I have been mentally wrestling with the problem of a suspect not being able to use motivation when tried under the Espionage Act. It is a tough question -- and one problem is someone's perfect justification will be seen as not sufficient by others. (I have mentioned Jonathan Pollard, strongly disliked on DU, who thought he was justified.)

No one is allowed access by the government without the clearance and the need to know - and to get that clearance they sign that they will not disclose it. The law is open and shut - you can not - for any reason - leak classified information. However, what of the possibility that the only way to prove that something very wrong is happening is to disclose the information?

I know one answer is that prison may be the cost of doing what has to be done. It may be that the recourse in the rare cases where a person has exposed previously unknown wrong doing and did so revealing the minimum required to make the case may be a pardon. If a person is widely seen as having acted in good faith, one would expect that there would be large grassroots efforts lobbying for a pardon. I suspect that the question might extend to the Presidential nomination - if the current President does not act.

In Snowden's case, it really does not fit. Regardless what his motivation was, there is no justification in taking over a million documents and giving them to journalists. As he could not have read all of them, he obviously can't argue that it was important to spread them.

[JackRiddler]

7. I did not equate these at all.

Clearly, the U.S. justice system is currently in a league of its own.

U.S. Has World's Highest Incarceration Rate
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/us-incarceration.aspx

It's laughable to even mention Ecuador as comparable.

And while China and maybe Russia may be worse for dissidents, and China and Russia have their gulags, it's hard to believe anyone exceeds the cruelty and criminality of the prison at Guantanamo, where people have been held for a dozen years without charges.

In any case, all of that is entirely beside the point. The point being, these dissidents fled their countries, and they are considered right to have done so, and the U.S. provided them with asylum. Only authoritarians would therefore brand them as "traitors," or suggest they should willingly subject themselves to injustice and maltreatment, and allow themselves to be silenced, because this is the macho thing to do. ("Man up"!) Such rhetoric is out of place here. Kerry, who in a previous life stood for the right thing, was made victim of very similar and equally mindless accusations by the extreme right wing. Now he is the one doing the "swiftboating."

Snowden exposed criminal and unconstitutional action against the U.S. population and against even allied nations around the world, by a powerful and aggressive state that murders people routinely around the world without regard for borders, laws or whether or not there is a state of war. And he chose to do it in a highly effective way. He's smart enough not to have been silenced and imprisoned, he's still able to answer openly the lies coming from the State Department, and this is why, yes, he has been taken as a hero by the majority of the world.

[karynnj]

12. What nonsense Kerry is NOT swiftboating Snowden

Kerry has accused him of stealing US classified information and disseminating it. That is what Snowden did.

Kerry has also said it was harmful to US diplomacy - and he is in the best position to know that. Just reading the coverage Pre-Snowden and Post-Snowden, it is easy to see that Snowden had an impact -- and it was negative. Just a few weeks ago, there were reports that Obama and Merkle still have a very cold relationship - that traces back to Snowden.

I disagree that Snowden exposed criminal and unconstitutional action against the US population. The NSA collection was allowed under the FISA act, which was passed by Congress. The Supreme Court has not called that law unconstitutional. You may disagree with teh law, but that does not make it Unconstitutional.

The way to deal with that is to demand changes - and in the wake of Snowden's revelation of what was already known at least since 2005, but which got a new blast of coverage - Obama and Congress have recommended changes.

In addition, the stuff that caused the most trouble and damage is the huge dump of documents, some not even about the US actions. To me, there is no way to justify giving over a million documents which he could not have read all of them to Greenwald.

He is at best a very flawed hero.

[ProSense]

13. See what I mean?

[JackRiddler]

16. Good, I got a ROFL.

[treestar]

20. The rate of incarceration has nothing to do with Eddie

Now you are just generally ranting against the US as if you could come up with enough US sins to justify complete disregard of its laws.

[JDPriestly]

36. "I doubt Kerry equates the justice system of China, Russia or Equador to that of the US"

Let's see. Maybe Kerry does not. But a secret court -- the FISA court -- that issues orders that require the production of massive numbers of telephone pen registers, the Manning trial in which relevant information and plausible defenses were not permitted, trials of other whistleblowers in which relevant arguments and evidence was excluded?

We have our own kangaroo court problem. Not as bad as Russia's maybe. But we are on our way.

The FISA court should be abolished. If the NSA wants a warrant, let them go to a normal federal court in which the interests of the person whose information is to be searched is adequately protected.

The FISA court needs to go. We don't need secret courts in this country. Our traditional legal system can protect us very well. Thank you.

[JackRiddler]

11. Who makes more sense? Kerry or Ellsberg?

Pentagon Papers Whistleblower: Snowden Won't Get a Fair Trial
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014815601

[mylye2222]

15. Complete nonsense.

As a Senator Kerry pleaded numerous times on behalf of refugees thretened with déportation.

Dan Ellseberg didnt fleed the contry after Pentagone Papers....

[JackRiddler]

17. Ellsberg went underground.

This was how he was able to feed the papers to a series of newspapers, because courts kept granting injunctions on publication as each paper broke its story. When he came forward, he feared for his freedom. It was a close thing to get the charges dropped, or he might have been in for decades. He was called traitor and attacked for his supposed character flaws in an effort to distract from the real story, which is that the government had been lying about the reasons for the Vietnam war. Today, he is the biggest defender of Wikileaks and Snowden both. He speaks for himself very eloquently -- thus there is no need for you to speak for him.

And thanks for pointing out that Kerry pleaded for refugees facing deportation. What do you think that shows? Of course it argues for what I'm trying to say. Because it is all the more surprising and hypocritical that Kerry is now in the role of the repressive state apparatchik. He is demanding extradition of a political dissident whom he wants to lock up forever under bogus "espionage" charges.

[ProSense]

18. Ellsberg:

&quot I was out on bond, speaking against the Vietnam war, the whole 23 months I was under indictment)"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025024549

[JackRiddler]

23. Ellsberg, in his own words:

www.ellsberg.net

I’m proud and honored to announce our new Freedom of the Press Foundation board member, Edward Snowden.

Here’s what I said in today’s press release:

[Snowden] is the quintessential American whistleblower, and a personal hero of mine, Leaks are the lifeblood of the republic and, for the first time, the American public has been given the chance to debate democratically the NSA’s mass surveillance programs. Accountability journalism can’t be done without the courageous acts exemplified by Snowden, and we need more like him. . . .

The secrecy system in this country is broken. No one is punished for using secrecy to conceal dangerous policies, lies, or crimes, yet concerned employees who wish to inform the American public about what the government is doing under their name are treated as spies. Our ‘accountability’ mechanisms are a one-sided secret court, which acts as a rubber stamp, and a Congressional ‘oversight’ committee, which has turned into the NSA’s public relations firm. Edward Snowden had no choice but to go to the press with information. Far from a crime, Snowden’s disclosures are a true constitutional moment, where the press has held the government to account using the First Amendment, when the other branches refused.

[ProSense]

29. What does that have to do with the point you made or my comment? n/t

[JackRiddler]

31. You have no comment.

Just trying to abuse Ellsberg, as if he wasn't alive and supporting Snowden and Snowden's strategy all the way.

And distracting from the reality of an authoritarian surveillance state violating human rights and the Constitution on a global scale.

Fuck the NSA.

[JackRiddler]

33. Falsehood.

"I mean, you even demanded someone delete a thread about the e-mail."

Untrue. You are confused, at best. Show or retract.

"I am free to comment on Ellsberg's statements."

Sure, you are. You don't have anything to say, however.

[ProSense]

34. You're right, I confused you with someone else.

Same initial.

I apologize.

[JackRiddler]

35. Okay, accepted.

[treestar]

19. What twisted crap

Snowden was not persecuted in the sense of which an asylum seeker proves in his case. Such as being jailed for political opinion. Eddie would be jailed for disobeying the law of a country where the law is decided by elected officials and subject to the Bill of Rights, challengeable in court. Jaysus! New stupid twisted talking point. People who get asylum come from countries where you are jailed for your political opinion alone, or for being in a certain religion, in danger of your life due to laws that we would never have here.

[JDPriestly]

37. Snowden would be persecuted for his political opinion.

His political opinion is that the NSA overstepped and has violated the rights of Americans.

That's his political opinion.

A lot of asylum seekers broke the letter of the law in the country from which they came. They seek asylum because they face prison sentences or worse in their countries of origin.

[treestar]

38. Bullshit

He is prosecuted for disobeying a law. Sheesh. Try being in countries where you can be jailed for "insulting the head of state" or some such shit. It's not prosecution for political opinion where you disobey a law subjected to the Bill of Rights (and he can challenge that in court) and passed by people elected under the Constitution.

People in the USA cannot get asylum for real, period. Eddie's asylum in Russia is bullshit. Politics by Putin. NO one ins the USA can be persecuted in the sense that people get asylum for.

[JDPriestly]

39. If insulting the head of state is against the law, you can be persecuted for doing it.

It isn't a question of whether you are violating a written law. I don't want to go into the details on this. Call an immigration lawyer who specializes in asylum law and ask them. Lots of lawyers will talk to you over the phone for free.

It is never easy to obtain political asylum anywhere.

The reason that Snowden would have difficulty getting asylum is that he is in such danger, few countries that are strong enough to protect him would want to offer asylum to someone who is being persecuted by the US, which is still the strongest country in the world from a military point of view.

So Snowden is almost certainly stuck in Russia unless he goes to a country like China. Ecuador has been very helpful to people who have offended the mighty eagle, America.

We should be less easily offended. We are strong enough to be magnanimous. And Snowden really did start a conversation in our country that we vitally needed. If nothing else, Snowden has hopefully caused the NSA internally to think more clearly about how far its programs should go.

In the interview, Snowden explained that some or all NSA employees who perform certain tasks can watch us as we type on the internet, watch us correct our texts. He said they can actually monitor us at our monitors so to speak. If that is not an unconstitutional way to chill speech, I'd like to know what is. Thank you, agent Mike.

It's great to be America, America all the way. America is a wonderful country. But it takes critics and public input to keep it that way.

And that is what Snowden and those of us who criticize the NSA are: critics offering public input about the limits that surveillance should have in our country. Our license plates and the ubiquitous cameras are enough. We don't need to have every word that we transmit electronically under potential surveillance.

How many "Whasups" does the NSA need to have access to?

[struggle4progress]

21. Is there any connection between the claim Clapper lied and Snowden's acts?

[JackRiddler]

22. No escaping Clapper's lie

SEN. RON WYDEN (D-Ore.): “This is for you, Director Clapper, again on the surveillance front. And I hope we can do this in just a yes or no answer because I know Senator Feinstein wants to move on. Last summer, the NSA director was at a conference, and he was asked a question about the NSA surveillance of Americans. He replied, and I quote here, ‘The story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people is completely false.’

“The reason I’m asking the question is, having served on the committee now for a dozen years, I don’t really know what a dossier is in this context. So what I wanted to see is if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question, does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”

Director of National Intelligence JAMES CLAPPER: “No, sir.”

SEN. WYDEN: “It does not?”

DIR. CLAPPER: “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly.”

SEN. WYDEN: “Thank you. I’ll have additional questions to give you in writing on that point, but I thank you for the answer.”

[struggle4progress]

24. I remember that exchange. But you're not addressing the question I asked

[JackRiddler]

25. I am addressing the falsehood you told.

It is not a "claim" that Clapper lied.

Clapper lied. Under oath in testimony to the Senate.

And that is the obvious connection. Documents released by Snowden demonstrate beyond any doubt that Clapper lied.

[struggle4progress]

26. So -- what's the relation between Clapper in the Senate and Snowden?

[JackRiddler]

27. This.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5028071

[struggle4progress]

28. I already read that post, which you have explained as an effort to dismiss

what you regard as falsities embedded in my question. I reworded my question to side-step that.

Now let me ask yet again. In your OP, you wrote:

... When the Department of Justice agrees to charge James Clapper, national director of intelligence, for lying under oath to Congress about the surveillance of Americans, Snowden will know American justice is fair and equally applied, and come home for a trial ...

What is the logic in your statement? What, in your thinking, is the relation between Clapper's testimony in the Senate and Snowden's acts?

[JackRiddler]

30. Documents released by Snowden

demonstrate beyond any doubt that Clapper lied.

Clapper is an unindicted criminal.

Snowden is supposed to go down on bogus "espionage" charges against which no defense is allowed.

In a related case, architects of the supreme international crime, a war of aggression, prosper in retirement, travel freely, are awarded medals and honors. The helicopter murderers are free. Chelsea Manning was held in solitary, tortured, convicted. Only she pays the price, for showing the truth.

So far Snowden's learned that lesson and outsmarted your authoritarian state, no mean feat. More power to him.

[JDPriestly]

40. Both, I believe, are punishable by law.

Clapper committed perjury.

[JackRiddler]

41. One exposed the other, however.

[msanthrope]

42. Indeed..one wonders why Wyden has not initiated a proceeding. Perhaps

because while Clapper may have lied, it is not perjury?

[JDPriestly]

44. Perhaps because Wyden is one person on a committee of cowards.

[msanthrope]

45. He doesn't need a committee. nt