Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The only people I'm aware of that can publish classified information without punishment are journalists. POTUS can also do it.
When the president does it, it's not illegal.
That's why he/she can do it.
United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden
491–500 of 501 posts
Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden
#492Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden
#493Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're attributing that he's scared, when he is simply exercising his right to conduct his personal business privately.
This would be a perfectly reasonable argument for almost anyone in the world, but most certainly not for Donald Trump due to his position and his track record of statements on public record on Twitter, of all places.
By your example, I could argue that you posting publicly here in HN eliminates your right to keep your personal finances private.
You cannot authorize a different standard of law to a person without invalidating that law.
Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden
#494Earlier quoted context omitted.
That Navy sailor that took pictures inside the sub and got court martialed should get to go free too. And, those FBI memos that Comey took home and then kept after he was fired shouldn't result in his prosecution, either. /s You steal US Federal Government property, you're going to eventually go down.
None of the examples you have given is even remotely related to whistleblowing.
Maybe that's because the examples I gave and the original topic of discussion are related in that they deal with the theft of federal government property.
Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden
#495Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point being made by the press...
I don't get this response. It's not even an American press organization making the point for heaven's sake. Whom else would you logically expect to make this point who hasn't already? Obama? Trump? Me?
The press is saying, "Let us help you. We're your only hope." To me, it is self-serving.
Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden
#496Earlier quoted context omitted.
> None of his crimes are easy to prosecute while he is in office; the distractions won't have much effect once he is not in office. Sure, but that's purely a political constraint, not a legal one, and he's well aware of that. There doesn't appear to be any will in the democratic or republican leadership to advance motions to remove him from power. Given the lack of any interest in this regard, the constant onslaught…
> Sure, but that's purely a political constraint, not a legal one There is considerable debate on whether it is legal to criminally prosecute a sitting President, for different reasons applying to state vs. federal charges. At best, it would involve getting courts to resolve novel questions of Constitutional law about which the legal community has no consensus and which there is no direct on-point precedent. So, no,…
[deleted]
Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden
#497Earlier quoted context omitted.
> None of his crimes are easy to prosecute while he is in office; the distractions won't have much effect once he is not in office. Sure, but that's purely a political constraint, not a legal one, and he's well aware of that. There doesn't appear to be any will in the democratic or republican leadership to advance motions to remove him from power. Given the lack of any interest in this regard, the constant onslaught…
> Sure, but that's purely a political constraint, not a legal one There is considerable debate on whether it is legal to criminally prosecute a sitting President, for different reasons applying to state vs. federal charges. At best, it would involve getting courts to resolve novel questions of Constitutional law about which the legal community has no consensus and which there is no direct on-point precedent. So, no,…
Pelosi & Schumer have been fully complicit with their efforts to prevent timely removal of Trump. Action today, and certainly their brand of parlour politics, won't change that. Reading outside American media would give you a better sense of how much their values fall in line with the same republicans they pretend to oppose. They either aren't suited to deal with a politician who can control the media by saying racist things, or they legitimately don't have the values or will to focus on the good their roles can do.
You may be right, maybe the courts will rule that certain actions are legal or not. The fact that we're talking about this in the hypothetical is a clear indication of failure of leadership. The party is directionless and floundering. Trump is going to do just fine.
Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden
#498Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ... conflate what is moral with what is legal. We're not dealing with an authoritarian state. Laws by democratic governments are supposed to be mutable. It's possible say, that the laws haven't caught up to what we (as americans) consider moral. Or it's possible the laws themselves were driven by immoral actors. Or it's possible the law's were passed with good intentions but had side effects that were unforeseeable…
> So what are we to do? Is it more moral to work within the system to change the laws, or to break them entirely? The United States would not even exist without the latter. Imagine if the founding fathers had tried to "worked within the system" of British rule instead of carrying out what the latter would have considered an extraordinary act of treason. Previous whistleblowers like Thomas Drake and Bill Binney tried…
> Imagine if the founding fathers had tried to "worked within the system" of British rule.
Technically they couldn't since the colonies were without representation in the British Parliament, so they really couldn't, could they?
> Previous whistleblowers like Thomas Drake and Bill Binney tried to work within the system...
Sure but the Obama administration still looks bad for their handling of those whistleblowers. Binney and Drake still look like heros. No one said that whistleblowing was for the faint of heart. Nor were there any guarantees about your livelihood if you report on your employer or customers.
The only whistleblower statute I've known to be effective has been around medicare fraud -- first because medicare fraud is in the tens of billions, and second the reportee get's a cut of any future settlement or judgement.
It's unclear what Snowden's legacy will be. Sure, he informed us that the government might have been doing illegal things under the cloak of secrecy. But he released a lot of information and he didn't even try to go through the legal whistleblower channels first.
If he had gone through whistleblower channels I think it would have been harder for the US to use the word "traitor" to describe him.
Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden
#499Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, lets all blindly follow the will of the government without thinking for ourselves and in that way the government will be held accountable... oh wait. Can you name any major movements that created change without breaking a single law? Rosa parks not sitting on the back of the bus is a great example
> Rosa parks not sitting on the back of the bus is a great example Not that great an example. The only reason you know her name is because of her arrest and the lawsuit that followed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks#Parks_arrest_and_bu... Which - fortunately - does not apply to Snowden.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this comment; it supports my argument
Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden
#500Earlier quoted context omitted.
and now neither you nor anyone else who reads this comment are able to properly serve on the jury
I'd be curious to see an explanation of why just knowing about jury nullification would disqualify you from being on a jury - obviously if you intend to nullify or "helpfully" inform the other jurors about nullification you should disclose it and therefore be disqualified, but I do not see how knowledge of nullification counts as something that should disqualify you if you have no intention of nullifying.
I didn't say it would legally disqualify you, just that it would prevent you from doing jury duty properly.