U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#231

Post by mpyne » Sat, Jun 22, 2013, 2:17 AM UTC

shawnz wrote: post #217

mpyne wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The better question is: Are you a whistleblower in a legal sense if what you reveal is legal? The government doesn't operate on unicorns and happy thoughts, it operates on the law. It's the job of the people to elect representatives such that the law conforms as much as possible to unicorns and happy thoughts.

Yes (or at least, possibly). > A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if it takes or fails to take (or threatens to take or fail to take) a personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant because of any disclosure of information by the employee or applicant that he or she reasonably believes evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; a…

Looking up the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 [1] even more closely, it appears it won't apply to Snowden here. If the material is protected from disclosure by law or E.O. (like this was) then you can only report it to the Office of Special Counsel or the agency I.G. and receive whistleblower protection.

It's in fact arguable that things like PRISM even violated any of those provisions, which makes it risky (on a legal basis) to leak even if he wasn't in the intelligence community.

[1] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c101:1:./temp/~c101m8S...:

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#232

Post by brandall10 » Sat, Jun 22, 2013, 2:18 AM UTC

georgemcbay wrote: post #182

bertm wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It happened in the 70s to Daniel Ellsberg, the Pentagon Paper's leaker. "Judge Byrne dismissed all charges against Ellsberg." "He and Russo faced charges under the Espionage Act of 1917 and other charges including theft and conspiracy, carrying a total maximum sentence of 115 years." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg

The charges against Ellsberg were dropped on what was basically a technicality, though.

If the public sentiment sways in such a direction, I'm sure a technicality will be found in this case as well.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#233

Post by baddox » Sat, Jun 22, 2013, 2:19 AM UTC

wisty wrote: post #18

fragmede wrote: post #6

Interestingly, according to that article, he hasn't been charged with treason, 'just' espionage, theft and conversion of government property. Someone more qualified than I can elaborate, but treason is a much harder crime to prove than espionage (like murder vs. manslaughter). Edit: According to the video link provided by spdy, the crime needs to exist in both systems (ie Hong Kong and the US) in order for an extradi…

Can you imagine a jury of 12 all believing that what he did was not in the interests of his country?

Yes. Very easily. I suspect that well over half of jury-eligible people would consider him a traitor.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#234

Post by baddox » Sat, Jun 22, 2013, 2:21 AM UTC

charonn0 wrote: post #79

jdp23 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: The complaint was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, a jurisdiction where Snowden’s former employer, Booz Allen Hamilton, is headquartered and a district with a long track record of prosecuting cases with national security implications.

Yes, I read that part. But the Sixth amendment says nothing about where the defendant's employer is headquartered or the convenience of the prosecutors, judges, etc. To me, the choice of Virginia as the original jurisdiction is clearly unconstitutional. Also, Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states: Unless a statute or these rules permit otherwise, the government must prosecute an offense in a distr…

It's pointless to reference US law or an amendment to the Constitution. If that were relevant, none of these events would have occurred.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#235

Post by olefoo » Sat, Jun 22, 2013, 2:23 AM UTC

The fact that Holder and Obama chose to drop their charges into public view smack in the middle of the friday night news blackout shows that they lack confidence and feel weak in the face of negative public opinion.

We are entering into the seminal stages of a struggle for the 21st Century; will the future be defined by unaccountable power?

Will we all live in the Panopticon with the sole exception of the ODNI or whatever Cabal is the inner circle of the Intelligence Community?

Will the US (and the world) be ruled by secret laws negotiated as "trade treaties"; that give corporate organizations greater power than any legislature accountable to the citizenry?

Snowden's revelations are merely one set of secrets that we deserve to know. There many more, and every one of those secrets deserves exposure. We, the people of earth; deserve to know what is being done to us by our leaders.

When a government has so profoundly violated the people's trust as ours; questioning it's legitimacy is... legitimate.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#236

Post by gaadd33 » Sat, Jun 22, 2013, 2:30 AM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #205

dllthomas wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the Bradley Manning link: "the White House may decline to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or similar matters properly within the jurisdiction of federal departments or agencies, federal courts, or state and local government." This is a petition to pardon, which is solely the power of the President. They can't - with any legitimacy - claim that commenting on this would be stepping on s…

> This is a petition to pardon, which is solely the power of the President. They can't - with any legitimacy - claim that commenting on this would be stepping on someone else's toes. They can, as at this point he hasn't convicted. Promising to pardon (or declining to do so) in advance of trial would indeed be stepping on the legal system's toes.

That hasn't seemed to stop the executive branch from pardoning people who have been charged but not convicted of anything. (Off the top of my head Marc Rich comes to mind, probably Nixon and a few others too)

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#237

Post by coolhandluke » Sat, Jun 22, 2013, 2:30 AM UTC

skwirl wrote: post #85

stefanix wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was it one of these polls where they only call landlines? Not sure this means anything without exactly specifying how the poll was conducted.

No. Most of the major polling organizations call cell phones now, except for automated ones like Rasmussen. This was from Pew. From http://www.people-press.org/methodology/our-survey-methodolo... : "The typical Pew Research Center for the People & the Press national survey selects a random digit sample of both landline and cell phone numbers in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. As the proportion of Ame…

> "People under 30 are the only age group in which a clear majority (60%) says that the release of classified information about the NSA phone and email data collection program serves the public interest."

I wonder if that's because, as if often said, that the people in this age group have grown up in a time when posting your "private information" (including your activities, who you associate with, etc.) is the norm.

Many of the so-called "Facebook generation", for example, seem to not give a damn about the surveillance and spying (based upon my admittedly small sample size) that is being conducted. They are already accustomed to so much more of their "private" data being public -- many of them, in fact, are quite happy to make it public.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#238

Post by techtalsky » Sat, Jun 22, 2013, 2:32 AM UTC

evilduck wrote: post #97

DanielRibeiro wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pardon petition also only needs more 7k signatures: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snow... Remember that the goal is to get the government address the issue, and show that the people are not fine with the NSA's actions. It would be nice to get them to actually pardon him, but that is a much harder goal.

Has any whitehouse.gov petition ever led to actual action being taken?

My opinion about it is that it's ONE way for them to take the temperature of the people. Of course 100,000 signatures alone isn't going to create meaningful action but it does allow for a certain amount of visibility into what's bubbling up to the surface. Thus, it's valuable... just not as valuable as some hope it will be.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#239

Post by coolhandluke » Sat, Jun 22, 2013, 2:32 AM UTC

blueprint wrote: post #143

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #7

So now is the time to identify the federal prosecutors who filed this and petition the government to have them fired. In addition, of course, to asking for a complete pardon for Snowden. It also should be noted that any of the Congressional investigations into this mess are perfectly capable of giving Snowden a grant of immunity from prosecution. People ask what to do. There are at least two avenues open to nip this…

How should we go about identifying the federal prosecutors?

The charging documents (which should be public) will contain an affirmation/confirmation section that includes the prosecutor's name and signature.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#240

Post by throwaway10001 » Sat, Jun 22, 2013, 2:34 AM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #7

So now is the time to identify the federal prosecutors who filed this and petition the government to have them fired. In addition, of course, to asking for a complete pardon for Snowden. It also should be noted that any of the Congressional investigations into this mess are perfectly capable of giving Snowden a grant of immunity from prosecution. People ask what to do. There are at least two avenues open to nip this…

So now is the time to identify the federal prosecutors who filed this and petition the government to have them fired.

That's the wrong target, Snowden clearly broke the law, and that's what the prosecutors are alleging. You could argue that the laws are unjust (Call Congress!) and so on but apparently everything NSA did was rubber stamped by judges so they have the seal of approval. Snowden knows it too, he himself said that he will be made to suffer.

Obama will never pardon him, imagine the precedent? He will have to take whatever is coming and let history judge him, espionage or civil disobedience?