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

251–260 of 363 posts

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#251

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

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.

Binney, Drake, Radack, Edmunds, Tice, how many people have to try and fail with the silly "legit" whistleblower farce before people realize that it doesn't work, and isn't ever going to work.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#252

Post by malandrew »

genwin wrote: post #159
malandrew wrote: post #148

Personally, I would want him to stand trial on two conditions: (1) He and Glenn Greenwald are allowed to have an open, public televised debate with President Obama, the congressmen that are members of the intelligence committee, and the judges that sit on the FISC court. This would be done in 3 sessions Frost/Nixon style. (2) He is promised fair just treatment, that is made public so that he cannot be subjected to so…

He'd need to get low-cost bail. To the US gov't, fair treatment is solitary confinement, waterboarding, etc.

Yeah, but as I said in another comment, it is common practice for certain countries to only extradite someone in capital cases if the country requesting extradition guarantees that they won't seek the death penalty. He could appeal to Hong Kong to only allow extradition on the condition that solitary confinement and other cruel and unusual punishments cannot be used.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#253

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

eli wrote: post #130
gohrt wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, espionage != theft.

My understanding is that he took laptops belonging to the government.

Who cares? We're talking about widespread malfeasance and lawbreaking by the gov't against every citizen, and the world, vs a few crappy laptops.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#254

Post by bobwaycott »

timr wrote: post #187
jychang wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Soldiers are supposed to disobey their military superiors if told to commit crimes against humanity." Well, no. A soldier isn't supposed to say "I think that command is illegal under international law, therefore I will choose not to follow it." They'll be court-martialed, and rightly so. Choosing to make that call is intentionally risky, because it's supposed to be rare. Likewise, Snowden will be prosecuted...and ri…

> * They'll be court-martialed, and rightly so.*

Rightly so?

You are saying that a soldier who understands an order to be in violation of law (in this instance, to commit some unspecified crimes against humanity) would be justly court-martialed, and that it should happen?

The entire point of refusing to obey orders that violate the law, or of refusing to abide by an unjust law, or refusing to be complicit in systemic abuses of secret interpretations of a given law that one believes to violate other laws and/or established principles (e.g., the Constitution) is to call attention to the wrongness of that which one is refusing to do. It is to call attention to wrongdoing, whether that be to actions or laws that violate the greater body of law and principles of a given civil society. The proper response would be an evaluation and public reflection upon the practices/acts to which the public's attention has been focused.

In Snowden's case, as with other whistleblowers, it is extremely difficult to properly blow the whistle without breaking some law(s). There are so many laws out there, that if everyone who broke a law was prosecuted, we'd wind up with 100% of the adult citizenry with criminal records and jail time. The goal of justice is not to indiscriminately prosecute every person who attempts to protect and improve our society by refusing to follow unjust laws and their associated actions. Would that more citizens and public officials would refuse to act in a way that even remotely resembles violating anyone's constitutionally delineated rights, and all those not so delineated, which are reserved to the states and to the People.

If indiscriminate prosecution was the goal of justice, we'd better update our positions accordingly on everything. That means we need to look back and say a good century's worth of prosecuting black people for drinking from the wrong fountain was just. We should start prosecuting those who violate laws that prohibit you from throwing away mail that isn't addressed to you. We should stand up and call for the prosecution of homosexuals and heterosexuals under state sodomy laws and, when they are so prosecuted, we should sit back in our armchairs, cross our legs, and declare, "Rightly so."

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#255

Post by bobwaycott »

timr wrote: post #222
mpyne wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, in the U.S. servicemembers are supposed to refuse to follow orders that are not lawful. You are right that such cases are (and are meant to be) exceptionally rare. The U.S. Supreme Court gives exceptionally wide latitude in what counts as a lawful order, and as far as I know no servicemember has ever been tried (much less convicted) for following a valid order (even if they thought it was illegal). But with…

"The U.S. Supreme Court gives exceptionally wide latitude in what counts as a lawful order, and as far as I know no servicemember has ever been tried (much less convicted) for following a valid order (even if they thought it was illegal)." Yes, exactly. And of course, there have been many examples of soldiers who were court-martialed for disobeying orders. The risk of disobeying is on the soldier -- they're taking th…

Snowden is not, nor ought he be treated like or held to the standard of being, a soldier.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#256

Post by trobertson »

anigbrowl wrote: post #213
betterunix wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if what you reveal is unethical but legal. Laws are not handed down from the heavens; laws are created by a notoriously corrupt set of human beings (politicians), and can easily become disconnected from morality.

laws are created by a notoriously corrupt set of human beings (politicians) Your argument is flawed, because you're mistaking your personal opinions for fact and then trying to build logical arguments on them. Politicians are people, they're not 'a notoriously corrupt set of human beings' distinct from the normal mass of humanity.

Even disregarding the corruption part, his point still stands. Laws are made by people. People are not infallible. People make mistakes. It is therefore obvious that there is potential for bad and unjust laws.

Adding in the corruption part, you can then see that there is potential for laws and policies that are purposefully unjust.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#257

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

neurotech1 wrote: post #146
zacharyvoase wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The role of the prosecutor is to prosecute the interests of the State, which in this case they have done. I’m wondering how grand juries play into this—the Fifth Amendment states that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury” (except for those in the military, which I think he wouldn’t classify as). There’s a great article her…

I remember reading several points(Wikipedia) 98% Grand Juries return an indictment, rarely narrowing or broadening the charges; 90% of Federal Criminal Cases are Plea Bargained before trial; 90% of Federal Criminal trials result in a conviction; This is why the Aaron Swartz was so wrong, once the prosecutor decided to overzealously present the charges to a grand jury, the odds were stacked against him. Snowden is in…

Snowden will still be in HK courts after the next presidential election.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#258

Post by dragonwriter »

malandrew wrote: post #248
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.

Any such contract clauses would only affect civil litigation between BAH and the employee based on the contract, not effect proper venue for criminal cases brought against the employee by the government.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#259

Post by beedogs »

jmduke wrote: post #59
brwr wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't worry, the NSA will take care of everything! They wouldn't remove signatures from a petition they disagree with just because they can.

Are you really implying the NSA is trying to sabotage a WhiteHouse.gov petition?

sarcasmdetector.com

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#260

Post by res0nat0r »

betterunix wrote: post #155
rdl wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going to NSA IG or the PSCI's in Congress are protected (the whole point of NSA IG is internal malfeasance, it's not just for stealing cafeteria trays...). The problem is that route of reporting may be ineffective, and once you start, you'll lose all future access, come under suspicion, and may actually still be charged (the whistleblower stuff helps more with not getting convicted). I was originally thinking "he sho…

"Going to NSA IG or the PSCI's in Congress are protected" Protected and utterly pointless . Congress already knew what was happening. The NSA's IG is not an unbiased observer . Unfortunately, the official channels are broken here. You have members of Congress talking about how these revelations are just the tip of the iceberg . That means that they know more , that they know details that will shock people, and that t…

Do we know for sure that the charges he is alleging are actually illegal? That I think is the crux of this whole situation. Many people in Congress might know about it and not be doing anything because like we've seen with 'enhanced interrogation techniques', is that the law has been interpreted such that all of this is technically lawful. That looks to be the real problem here.
Post reply on HN