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

241–250 of 363 posts

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#241

Post by bobwaycott »

dragonwriter wrote: post #144
bbatsell wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here are the ones I can recall off the top of my head: * CISPA veto threat/defeat [ https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/cybersecurity-legi... ] * New open-access rules [ https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/increasing-public-... ] * Halting use of animals in military training [ https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immediately-halt-c... ]

The animals one obviously doesn't count [1], since the petition was created September 27th , 2011, and the order halting the use of animals was issued September 20th , 2011. [1] Barring time travel

Perhaps the order and the petition were quantumly entangled, thus allowing for the measurement of the petition to affect the known outcome of the order.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#242

Post by dllthomas »

gaadd33 wrote: post #236
ceejayoz wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)

Nixon wasn't even charged, as I understand it, and there have been others.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#243

Post by PavlovsCat »

mtgx wrote: post #168
eli wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There actually are whistleblower protections he could have taken advantage of... but it would have meant working within the system (for example, taking his concerns to Congress or the NSA's Inspector General rather than a reporter) and it only applies if he uncovered fraud or illegal activity. AFAIK there isn't any proof that he uncovered anything illegal .

Binney tried to do exactly that - and they sent the FBI to raid his house.

Nothing like having a gun pointed at you while you're in the shower to say "We aren't brownshirts, we are just so excited to hear your genuine criticism; please speak your mind freely."

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#245

Post by dllthomas »

rayiner wrote: post #131
outside2344 wrote: post #12

I think we have to march on this one and be loud. For San Francisco, we should show up in force somewhere - is Tuesday too soon to plan something - say show up in force at Union Square at 8pm?

Nobody on the east coast cares about what people in San Francisco happen to be protesting about on any given day. If you want to march somewhere, come down to D.C. where someone relevant might actually see you.

Pelosi probably cares what her constituents are protesting, and perhaps what people are protesting in front of them, if it's likely to effect how they vote. Boxer and Feinstein less so, but perhaps a tiny bit...

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#247

Post by sevenatenine »

The government obviously needs to set a precedent by charging Snowden. Even though what the government is doing is controversial and many people support Snowden, there might be somebody else down the line who thinks, "If Snowden was able to do it, then I can too because I believe this thing I'm exposing is wrong."

Of course, massive public outrage over what the NSA is doing could make it a moot point and put the focus on the government. But like many things, this isn't a one sided issue and many people are indifferent or support the NSA. The media is asking "How should we feel about this?" and any white house petition will likely get a weak answer reinforcing the government's decision.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#248

Post by malandrew »

charonn0 wrote: post #54

Why is he being charged in the Eastern District of Virginia when the alleged crime was perpetrated in Hawaii? Shouldn't any prosecution be under the original jurisdiction of the District of Hawaii/9th Circuit? Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed[...]

Completely agree, however, it may also depend on his employment contract with Booz Allen Hamilton. For example, many tech companies are Delaware C-corps but all legal issues involving employees are resolved in the state of employment, i.e. California in most cases. It would be great if a BAH employee can share details on the jurisdiction of disputes, arbitration and other legal issues in their employment contract.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#249

Post by foobarqux »

_delirium wrote: post #170
jsmeaton wrote: post #154

Let's assume this charge is legal and correct for a moment. Why aren't the newspapers (guardian and the post?) and their writers/editors also being charged? Why aren't the newspapers having their paypal and all their bank accounts frozen? We live in very scary times as far as I'm concerned. The US is prosecuting its own citizens for standing up and saying "what you're doing to the rest of the world is not OK". But if…

W.r.t. why the Guardian isn't also being charged: While the act of leaking classified information is a crime, publishing classified information leaked to you by someone else isn't a crime. Here's a law-review article discussing that: https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/cerl/conferences/ethics...

Except the government has recently taken the view that journalists are co-conspirators and therefore criminals.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#250

Post by jhart3333 »

dllthomas wrote: post #68
mindstab wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly that's not how your legal system works any more. I don't have the link handy but it came up here recently with that environmental activist who just got out of jail for breaking up an illegal auction of land. He thought he'd be fine but when the prosecution found that many of the jurors had received a juror's rights pamphlet out lining the basic foundations of your country like that jurys are supposed to be a so…

I think you're talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

This used to go by another name: it was called a jury.
Post reply on HN