[deleted]
U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal
21–30 of 113 posts
Re: U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal
#22Since there are multiple comments about how the US government must/should pardon Snowden now, I'd like to make a top level comment to clarify some things about how this does not obligate the government to change his status.
1. The court only found that a single program exposed by Snowden was illegal. Snowden released a bunch of other information that was a violation of the NDA he signed when he was given a security clearance.
2. Even if all the information he disclosed revealed illegal activity, Snowden's actions make him ineligible for whistleblower protection. Whistleblower protection for the intelligence community[1] is only provided if a person follows the proper procedure to securely notify their Inspector General and/or Congress. Since he's not automatically protected, it would take Congress or the President to decide to offer him protection. Snowden (allegedly) did not even attempt to notify the proper authorities before going public with the information, so not only is he ineligible, it's not likely that anyone will take pity on him.
3. There's a chance that this ruling won't stick as the legal system chugs along and a few more judges look at it, and even if they were willing to help Snowden, nobody in Congress is going to take action until there is some permanence with the ruling. IANAL, but I think this would be decided if the Supreme Court either decides to decline or hear the case. If it's declined, then it's pretty much final. If they decide to hear the case, then it could be another year or so before they make a decision.
[1] IC whistleblower protection is a little different than standard whistleblower protection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Community_Whistle...
Re: U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal
#23Time to give a massive apology and a full pardon to Mr Snowden then.
Having read Barton Gellman’s book that describes and alludes to some of the details of what were in the actual (never published) Snowden files, I do not believe that the US IC would let him continue to live, even if he were fully pardoned. I doubt it will ever be safe for him in the US again, despite his legal status.
Sounds like fascism.
Re: U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump's pardoning of Snowden would lose more presidential election support than it would win. Sure, there are plenty of people who would support the decision to pardon Snowden, but I can't see them being the type of people to vote for Trump based on that. Existing Trump supporters, on the other hand, I could see "punishing" Trump for his weakness in pardoning a "traitor who fled to Russia".
He can pardon him to test the effects on polling. If it helps, great. If it hurts him, get Snowden back, arrest him, and claim it was a trick to get the traitor that Obama couldn't get all along.
Is un-pardoning a thing? I'd have figured that a pardon would mean that Trump wouldn't be able to follow it up with his arrest and claiming the pardon was a 'trick'.
Just writing that, though, it feels dirtily and precisely "Trump".
edit: grammar
Re: U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal
#25Since there are multiple comments about how the US government must/should pardon Snowden now, I'd like to make a top level comment to clarify some things about how this does not obligate the government to change his status. 1. The court only found that a single program exposed by Snowden was illegal. Snowden released a bunch of other information that was a violation of the NDA he signed when he was given a security c…
1. All of the other things he exposed should also be illegal
2. He tried they denied him. I think the entire process of "exposing" illegal acts that has to be done through the very system that is committing the illegal acts is asinine, and anyone that is defending that process is complacent in the abuse of human rights
3. Highlighting the pure and total corruption that is the 3 branches of government, no longer is there a check and balance they have combined into a single corrupt abusive state
Re: U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal
#26Time to give a massive apology and a full pardon to Mr Snowden then.
Having read Barton Gellman’s book that describes and alludes to some of the details of what were in the actual (never published) Snowden files, I do not believe that the US IC would let him continue to live, even if he were fully pardoned. I doubt it will ever be safe for him in the US again, despite his legal status.
what kind of things does the book allude to?
Re: U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal
#27Since there are multiple comments about how the US government must/should pardon Snowden now, I'd like to make a top level comment to clarify some things about how this does not obligate the government to change his status. 1. The court only found that a single program exposed by Snowden was illegal. Snowden released a bunch of other information that was a violation of the NDA he signed when he was given a security c…
I think this is true and that is why fleeing to Russia was the correct choice. Because the whistle blower channels don't work.
Re: U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
He can pardon him to test the effects on polling. If it helps, great. If it hurts him, get Snowden back, arrest him, and claim it was a trick to get the traitor that Obama couldn't get all along.
Is un-pardoning a thing? I'd have figured that a pardon would mean that Trump wouldn't be able to follow it up with his arrest and claiming the pardon was a 'trick'. Just writing that, though, it feels dirtily and precisely "Trump". edit: grammar
You pardon certain crimes. As an example, you pardon Snowden for "all crimes related to NSA leaks," and then charge him with some kind if tax avoidance. It'd be dirty as hell, and make any trial much longer, but it's possible.
Re: U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal
#29I think it's time to get into discussing how Snowden should be judged or pardoned.
(1) There is no question that he broke the law, he is not denying it.
(2) There is very strong evidence and argument to be made that legal routes were blocked and/or broken and the only way forward was to go public outside the US.
Snowden paid attention to what happened to three earlier attempts to report illeagal activity using leagal means in the NSA global surveillance program–Roark, Binney, Wiebe, Drake and Loomis–for example.
They complained to their superiors, to the NSA general counsel, to the Defense Department Inspector General Office, and to both the Senate and the House intelligence committees. The DoD Inspector General Office violated confidentiality agreement and gave their names to the FBI and falsely accused them of leaking. FBI raided their houses and started to investigate them instead.
Pardon exists just for cases like this. Breaking the law for common good can be morally justified, even heroic.
Re: U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal
#30Since there are multiple comments about how the US government must/should pardon Snowden now, I'd like to make a top level comment to clarify some things about how this does not obligate the government to change his status. 1. The court only found that a single program exposed by Snowden was illegal. Snowden released a bunch of other information that was a violation of the NDA he signed when he was given a security c…
What you're saying is that the existing whistleblower protections are inadequate:
> 1. The court only found that a single program exposed by Snowden was illegal. Snowden released a bunch of other information that was a violation of the NDA he signed when he was given a security clearance.
Requirement of perfection and a superhuman level of ability to sift through more information than any individual could before sharing it with anyone who could help with doing so.
> Whistleblower protection for the intelligence community[1] is only provided if a person follows the proper procedure to securely notify their Inspector General and/or Congress.
Requirement to do something that can get you put on a list, and thereby either lose access to the information or get put under surveillance so that you can no longer release the information if the official channels are fruitless.
Moreover, "official channels" even when they work don't disclose the existence of the program to the public, which is a necessary public good, because otherwise even if that gets it shut down, the structures and incentives that led to its creation aren't addressed and it just happens again until they get it running with a group of people not willing to risk their own careers to report it up the chain.
> There's a chance that this ruling won't stick as the legal system chugs along and a few more judges look at it
So a whistleblower has to spend how many years in exile before they get their vindication?