Retired naval officer sues producers of Citizenfour for 'aiding' Edward Snowden

[Luminous Animal]

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/citizenfour-producers-sued-aiding-edward-snowden

Snowden's document leak revealed widespread, illegal global spying programs conducted by the U.S. and U.K. governments, among other regimes, which targeted both foreign diplomats and those countries' own citizens for surveillance. The files also identified numerous telecommunications companies as participating in the operations, handing over private customer data and metadata to government agents, even without warrants. Snowden's supporters call him a hero; his detractors call him a traitor.

Edwards, who filed the suit Monday at the Kansas federal court, is one such critic. According to the lawsuit, Edwards believes that the revelations—many of which are still being newly published—caused "irreparable damage to the safety of the American people." His suit aims to prevent "dangerous disruption of foreign affairs due to irresponsible conduct of disloyal government operatives and entertainment industry collaborators".

Among those named in the suit is investigative journalist and filmmaker Laura Poitras, who won a Pulitzer Prize for her work highlighting the leak and also directed and is one of the producers of Citizenfour—a first-person account of the meeting and collaboration in Hong Kong between Poitras, Snowden, and journalists Glenn Greenwald and Ewan MacAskill.

"This lawsuit seeks relief against those who profiteer by pretending to be journalists and whistleblowers but in effect are evading the law and betraying their country," Edwards writes in his suit. He also charges Poitras with "hiding [Snowden] in her hotel room while he changes into light disguise, accepting all of the purloined information to use for her personal benefit financially and professionally, filming Defendant Snowden’s meeting with a lawyer in Hong Kong as he tries to seek asylum."

[bemildred]

1. "Irrepariable harm", the same stupid argument the USSC used to make Bush the Lesser President. nt

[elleng]

4. 'According to the lawsuit,

Edwards believes that the revelations—many of which are still being newly published—caused "irreparable damage to the safety of the American people."'

In Bush v Gore, 'irreparable harm' was asserted, as is required by law when a STAY is sought: 'The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election.' is part of the Court's explanation of its decision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

Nothing 'stupid' about asserting irreparable harm in those circumstances. In the Snowden matter, it appears not to be relevant, as Edwards asserts 'irreparable damage to the safety . . . .'

[bemildred]

5. It is very stupid because it assumes harm to one side is more important than harm to the other.

And also because it argues in a circular fashion from an assumed Bush victory to the harm the loss of that victory would entail. Otherwise one must think that Bush might have lost and that that would irreparably harm him, to lose when he did lose; and actually I think that is closer to the "thought process" they went through, first assuming the desired outcome and then "reasoning" their way to it. Even they knew, hence the babble at the end about not setting precedents.

[grasswire]

2. what is his standing?

And if he can sue Poitras, can't I sue FOX News?

[Luminous Animal]

3. Good questions.

[msanthrope]

23. Serious? nt

[Luminous Animal]

26. I'm a glutton for a kick. Now, get off my lawn. Whippersnapper.

I need to harvest all my feeble old energy to herd Snowden's minions.

[msanthrope]

9. Well...he bought a ticket to the movie.....

I'm joking.....of course he did buy a ticket to the movie but the idea that this is even news worthy is kind of laughable. The plaintiff is 89 years old and his complaint is basically telling Edward Snowden to get the hell off his lawn.....

[Recursion]

30. As I'm reading it that's actually his legal theory (nt)

[msanthrope]

31. You are correct...that's what he thinks gives him standing.

Taitzian is the only way I can describe this suit.

[elias49]

6. Who put him up to this I wonder?

And when he says he's filing the suit "on behalf of the American public." he can count me out. Don't need or want his "help".

[Luminous Animal]

7. I can think of a few DUers who would happily support this lawsuit.

[msanthrope]

11. I support this lawsuit!!!

Look....the plaintiff is 89 years old..... and has filed a complaint that is the equivalent of telling Edward Snowden to get the fuck off his lawn.

Glenn Greenwald ought to do a mitzvah and file some answer back that'll make the older gentleman happy he was recognized and heard. Give him a real fight!

I wouldn't put the armor on for this one.....

[Luminous Animal]

16. You do have a flair for the dramatic. His attorney is Jean Lamfers. Perhaps you

could offer to assist.

[Downwinder]

8. How do you opt out?

[Luminous Animal]

10. It was suggested on twitter that we file our own amicus brief stating

that we reject Horace Edwards claim to speak for the American public.

[msanthrope]

12. He's an 89 year old veteran... but you guys cowboy up and defend

Snowden and Greenwald.......

Not for anything but if you read the complaint it truly is the equivalent of telling Edward Snowden to get the fuck off his lawn..... that anyone would be mobilising on Twitter to make a response to this speaks far more to the thin skinned fanbase of Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald than anything else.

[Luminous Animal]

13. Oops. I forgot. Veteran.

[msanthrope]

15. An 89 year old decorated naval veteran....

and there are Snowden and Greenwald fans actually mobilizing against him for an amicus????

What a worthy adversary you have found this evening.

[Luminous Animal]

17. It was a joke. I suggest you rein in that imagination.

[msanthrope]

21. I like your walkback. nt

[Luminous Animal]

22. Quick! Off to the Twittermobile! Whatever gets you through the night.

[Downwinder]

20. So I am a 75 yr. old veteran. I did not authorize him to speak

in my name. Every class action suit I have been involved in, I was given an option to opt out or to join.

[Luminous Animal]

24. Get off misanthrope's lawn! (Jeesh, could she be any more insulting?)

I talk with a 92 year old veteran nearly everyday and if I insinuated that his political engagement and activism were any way related to his age and status as a veteran, I believe that our conversations would take an abrupt end.

[BillZBubb]

28. Talk about thin skinned!

It bothers you that people want to defend the defendants in a silly, nuisance suit by an old right wing fool! Your skin is pretty thin on that one. That speaks far more to the national security state fanboys than anything else.

[msanthrope]

14. This is an 89 year old Navy veteran. But I'm glad you've tipped me off to the forces

mobilizing against him on Twitter, based on your prior posts.

This is an 89 year old naval veteran who has filed what can be charitably called an interesting lawsuit.....

But here comes the Snowden and Greenwald fans on Twitter... organizing a response.

well done!!!

[Luminous Animal]

18. People are largely making jokes about it on twitter. The amicus brief suggestion was a joke.

Have fun with your tip.

[msanthrope]

19. I like your walkback. nt

[Luminous Animal]

25. Quick! Off to the Twittermobile to defend Horace Edwards from Snowden's minions!

[Luminous Animal]

27. By the way. On another matter, I apologized as you requested.

and you claimed that if I did, you would deliver on some information that lawyers readily access to. To whit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5983774

"You can take a picture of the header which would show the case number, the court, the judge and the attorneys involved.

I am not trying to prove Greenwald did not represent Hale. In fact, I provided proof that he represented Hale on Constitutional grounds (see post #117). Cases that you have claimed do not exist and PRECEDE the copyright infringement cases.

Claim #1) Greenwald's first cases with Hale were in regards to copyright infringement. You've provided nothing to support this assertion. And you refuse to provide any proof. Also, I proved that the copyright case was litigated in 2002 and 'the google' reveals that Greenwald was involved in Constitutional cases with Hale in 2000. (See next claim.)

Claim #2) Greenwald did not litigate Constitutional cases for Hale. I proved you wrong in post #117. "

[BillZBubb]

29. You don't like, don't participate.

It is still a somewhat free country, no thanks to people who worship the national security state.