Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 363 posts

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#121

Post by wtallis »

genwin wrote: post #116
codex wrote: post #11

It looks like this charge can carry the death penalty because it involves "communications intelligence". From http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/794 : "(a) Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or…

> ... the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court , further finds ... Why even pretend it's a gov't for the people anymore?

Defendants can waive the right to trial by jury and instead be subjected to a bench trial. Laws like this need to account for the possibility that the finder of fact may be the judge instead of a jury.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#122

Post by eatitraw »

krapp wrote: post #74
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…

These are political charges, and as the governed we should stand up to the people who are supposed to be working for us and demand that they be dropped. Immediately. Did or did not Edward Snowden leak classified material to the press? Does or does not the government have a duty to attempt to prosecute him? You make it sound like he didn't actually break any laws, when he actually did break a couple. Whether the charg…

Why such obsession about the law? Some laws are good, and that's good that they are enforced. Some laws are bad, and it is bad that they are enforced.

The whole concept of "legality" is (sadly) appropriated by governments. The government invents the rules for itself and other organizations and individuums. They ca invent whatever rules they like. Gulag was perfectly legal. Nazi concentration camps were perfectly legal.

It is stupid to assume that one's actions are bad just because they are against the law.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#123

Post by rdl »

eli wrote: post #100
wildster wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That didn't work out very well for Thomas Drake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake

Well, sort of. All the charges against him were dropped except a single misdemeanor. He got one year probation and community service. A very different set of circumstances than Snowden, though.

And loss of pension (he was 5 years away), is now working in an Apple retail store, etc. Given that he was about as morally upstanding and cautious a whistleblower as I can imagine, it was still a pretty harsh punishment.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#124

Post by jychang »

krapp wrote: post #74
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…

These are political charges, and as the governed we should stand up to the people who are supposed to be working for us and demand that they be dropped. Immediately. Did or did not Edward Snowden leak classified material to the press? Does or does not the government have a duty to attempt to prosecute him? You make it sound like he didn't actually break any laws, when he actually did break a couple. Whether the charg…

Soldiers are supposed to disobey their military superiors if told to commit crimes against humanity.

Breaking a law, especially when doing something obviously right, does not mean that you need to have charges brought against you. Say you see a dog about to drown in a creek on private property. If you ran in and saved it, the owner could charge you for trespassing. That doesn't mean they SHOULD.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#125

Post by rdouble »

brown9-2 wrote: post #118
rdouble wrote: post #26

I have a feeling we're never going to see the rest of the data Greenwald supposedly has.

Don't you think that maybe they leaked the most interesting stuff first? This stuff has started to fall out of the news. It's past time to keep the story going. Perhaps there was a limit to the documents he was able to scavenge.

If I could gamble on this topic, my bet would be that there isn't any more interesting information. That said, I am interested in learning what the rest of the information is, so I can make up my own mind about the issue.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#126

Post by SCAQTony »

B0Z wrote: post #9
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…

Does anyone else smell "Friday Night News Dump"?

In a way that is good indicator that they are beginning to worry their timing so as limit the political damage from the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#127

Post by krapp »

eatitraw wrote: post #122
krapp wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are political charges, and as the governed we should stand up to the people who are supposed to be working for us and demand that they be dropped. Immediately. Did or did not Edward Snowden leak classified material to the press? Does or does not the government have a duty to attempt to prosecute him? You make it sound like he didn't actually break any laws, when he actually did break a couple. Whether the charg…

Why such obsession about the law? Some laws are good, and that's good that they are enforced. Some laws are bad, and it is bad that they are enforced. The whole concept of "legality" is (sadly) appropriated by governments. The government invents the rules for itself and other organizations and individuums. They ca invent whatever rules they like. Gulag was perfectly legal. Nazi concentration camps were perfectly lega…

I'm not obsessed about the law. And honestly, I agree personally with everything Snowden did.

I'm just disagreeing with the premise that even having a trial is itself unjust.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#128

Post by rayiner »

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…

"The Cold War period saw few prosecutions for treason. On October 11, 2006, a federal grand jury issued the first indictment for treason against the United States since Kawakita v. United States in 1952, charging Adam Yahiye Gadahn for videos in which he appeared as a spokesman for al-Qaeda and threatened attacks on American soil." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#United_States).

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#129

Post by dllthomas »

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 quite possible a statute or those rules permit otherwise...

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#130

Post by eli »

gohrt wrote: post #93
rdl wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually don't think charging him is inherently bad. If he in fact took 4 government property laptops with him, that's a crime, at the very least. Ideally, pre-trial investigation and a trial would be fair way to find facts. It's entirely possible minor crimes (violating classified NDA, taking laptops, etc.) would be non-conviction based on other information, but on its face, I don't really have a problem with init…

However, espionage != theft.

My understanding is that he took laptops belonging to the government.
Post reply on HN