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

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#291

Post by intelliot » Sat, Jun 22, 2013, 5:49 AM UTC

matchu wrote: post #209

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.

Down to 5.5k two hours after your comment. At this rate, we should be done pretty darn soon.

Down to 1.9k six hours after his comment. Good progress :)

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#292

Post by nebula » Sat, Jun 22, 2013, 5:49 AM UTC

matchu wrote: post #209

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.

Down to 5.5k two hours after your comment. At this rate, we should be done pretty darn soon.

Only 2.7K needed now.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#293

Post by XorNot » Sat, Jun 22, 2013, 5:55 AM UTC

bobwaycott wrote: post #255

timr wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

He signed the relevant NDAs and was granted Top Secret clearance. He's being held to the standard of anyone else who does that without enjoying some type of exceptional legal protection.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#294

Post by nsns » Sat, Jun 22, 2013, 5:56 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #120

GabrielF00 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only civilians executed for espionage in the US were the Rosenbergs in 1953 and that is widely seen as an overreaction that occurred in the context of the hysteria of the early Cold War. Only three people have been executed by the Federal government for any crime since 1963. It is incredibly unlikely that Snowden would be executed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_Unite...

You see, when "slippery slope fallacy" mode is fully engaged, information like that has no relevance. "They used it in 1953, they can do it again!"

Right, not to mention that US citizens have already been executed without trial on foreign soil.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#295

Post by XorNot » Sat, Jun 22, 2013, 5:57 AM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #134

Can someone explain how he can be charged with espionage? Is there some meaning of that which covers leakers of information, like leaking the Pentagon Papers, when it's to the press (and not to another government or company)?

Well you know, he has been leaking details of NSA operations against foreign powers to those foreign powers. That's espionage by any definition.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#296

Post by mkhattab » Sat, Jun 22, 2013, 6:10 AM UTC

mililani wrote: post #176

More and more over the past several years, I've wondered what has become of this country. I mean, in my 39 years of life in the U.S., I don't think there was ever a time where I thought, this country has gone to the pits. And, not only is it the the government, it's the U.S. Citizens. These people are placated to the point that if you don't take away their celebrities and entertainment, you could literally shit on th…

I disagree. To "shit on their mothers" would actually motivate those who are placated and apathetic to act and mobilize. In my mind, only very few persons would take to the streets and sacrifice their livelihoods and personal convenience for abstract ideas and principles. Case in point, Edward Snowden.

Until the effects of corruption has reached, in a literal sense, the doors of most Americans, we might see citizens act and begin to stand for abstract ideas such as privacy, due process, etc. But I think they would only continue until it becomes most inconvenient for them.

I guess this is a cynical way of looking at people but maybe I'm not in a good state of mind at the moment.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#297

Post by samaparicio » Sat, Jun 22, 2013, 6:25 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.

The charges against Ellsberg were dropped when it became public that the government had spied on Ellsberg by wiretapping Ellsberg's psychiatric visits.

So maybe all Snowden has to do is to show the government spying on him. Which would be kind of meta, as it would put the government on trial for PRISM itself, while probably acquitting Snowden

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#298

Post by pinaceae » Sat, Jun 22, 2013, 6:37 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…

hey, non-US citizen here. assuming you're a US citizen based on your "outrage".

the point of your defence budget (how large is it again) is to project power through the military and intelligence services.

it is ASTOUNDING that only now you seem to have realized what the US intelligennce apparatus is doing. of course they are collecting all the data, they are basically replicating google to be able to search within digital data. maybe only on foreigners, but what kind of stupid distinction is that? we have a found an al-kaida member, but he is US so hands off?

welcome to the rest of the world. ever travelled? your data is one of many intelligence databases.

i am human being, but somehow it is ok for you to spend gobs of money on monitoring ME, but once you realize it might affect YOU you suddenly get "outraged".

seriously, what DID you THINK all those intelligence services with multi-billion budgets were DOING?

looking forward to the protest by US neckbeards around the country. hope time-warner produces enough guy fawkes masks, should raise the price too. USA USA USA.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#299

Post by o0-0o » Sat, Jun 22, 2013, 6:44 AM UTC

coolhandluke wrote: post #239

blueprint wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The charges are sealed.

Re: U.S. charges Edward Snowden with espionage

#300

Post by o0-0o » Sat, Jun 22, 2013, 6:53 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…

I believe since he stole the laptops from his employer there, they can charge him there. At least, this theory may explain why that bogus little charge was included.