Exec order, donate to Snowden defense, have your property confiscated

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
There goes all of his followers claims that he blew anything wide open, informed any person of anything new, or did anything special that wasn't done before he ever even got a job. He did end up in Russia though and was probably keeping his comrade handlers up to date on the latest capabilities.

Snowden did something previous whistleblowers didn't do. Willem Binney, Thomas Drake, J Kirk Wiebe, Ed Loomis. These are all whistleblowers that predate Snowden and they all revealed largely the same things, but missing a few details.

All of these people ended up free (one of them, I think it was Drake did 5 years in prison), but not fine. Want to know the difference between Snowden and them though? Snowden didn't just reveal programs... he leaked documents that proved it. It wasn't just a whistleblower making claims. Snowden delivered actual factual undeniable proof, and he didn't mention just one or two programs, he mentioned a bunch of them.

a reply to: MysterX

That's precisely why they don't want this to happen. A major part of Snowdens defense hinges on if what he exposed was illegal. In which case he was legally obligated to make it known, and he did so through journalists. If it goes to a jury it gets even more complicated due to jury nullification.

The government very much does not want this to get a serious trial because it means as an outcome of the trial a judge could very well shut down significant parts of the NSA. Effectively, any trial on Snowden is a trial on the NSA due to the whistle blower nature. They know it's wrong, and they know it's illegal. They have to prevent a competent trial.

double

originally posted by: everyone
Quite interesting though that Bush senior's father was caught and convicted of treason during WWII dealing with the nazi's but instead of getting the death penalty or jailtime his son ended up becoming head of the CIA and then president of the united stated followed by his son becoming potus aswell.

Bush was in Dallas the day Kennedy was shot, there's photos of him. He has always lied about where he was. There were also very close ties between him and John Hinckley. Do you not find it odd that a guy involved with the murder of JFK becomes the head of the CIA, then VP, then is closely involved with the guy who tried to kill Reagan (which would have made him president), and then just 8 years later his son becomes president in an election where the counting of the tie breaking ballots were overseen by his other son?

originally posted by: crazyewok
US does have whistle blowing channels and laws?

In theory yes, but in practice no. The US is VERY anti whistle blower, people who blow the whistle are generally looked upon as traitors and deserve what they get. For example there has been a long string of people blowing the whistle on banks and oil companies. For some reason the people that do this all like to commit suicide. In one case, I think it was against Exxon there was a group of 20 people who came forward with abuses. Before it could ever goto trial every single one of them decided to kill themselves with things like 2 bullets to the back of the head, or jumping in front of trains, or going for a hike with a couple of new friends, then never returning.

There have been many people who predate Snowden I mentioned them a couple posts up. Binney, Drake, Wiebe, Loomis. These guys were prosecuted for treason, had their assets seized, careers ruined, and more. They tried to blow the whistle through official channels. Some went to their bosses others went to congress. Today they are free, but they are not "whole" and others spent years in jail. Snowden was very much influenced by the treatment of these people and that's why he left the country first.

Had we actually stuck with the whistle blower protections that are theoretically in place, Snowden never would have ran.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Snowden was right to blow the lid on domestic spying.

Snowden was wrong to blow the lid on foreign spying.

Two issues wrapped in the same package. Releasing any information on foreign government activities is treasonous. That's why his butt is in a sling.

What happens when the two are one in the same? If any part of your data is outside the bounds of US soil (such as being routed around the world, or one party on an international phone call). The US can and will spy on it. In revealing that this is done to citizens, you must also reveal that it is being done to others.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
He is still leaking classified stuff while in exile. That is criminal activity and anyone aiding him while he does that could get charged.

No, he isn't. After meeting with Greenwald and the others he had no classified information on him. He handed all of it over, precisely so that he couldn't be intercepted and have it taken.

He is not leaking anything today, all the information that comes out comes from Greenwald, Poitras, and the others he shared the information with. They are leaking the information Snowden gave them. He is not directly leaking anything, and as a condition of his staying in Russia, Putin even demanded that he not leak anything.

Hmm. Much like Canadian politics. Rather than present a valid argument, shut out the opposition. Good form.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
He is still leaking classified stuff while in exile. That is criminal activity and anyone aiding him while he does that could get charged.

No, he isn't. After meeting with Greenwald and the others he had no classified information on him. He handed all of it over, precisely so that he couldn't be intercepted and have it taken.

He is not leaking anything today, all the information that comes out comes from Greenwald, Poitras, and the others he shared the information with. They are leaking the information Snowden gave them. He is not directly leaking anything, and as a condition of his staying in Russia, Putin even demanded that he not leak anything.

Why would Putin demand that if Snowden didn't have anything to leak? In this day and age you don't need anything on you, it can be digitally stored anywhere.

[/URL]
[/URL]

a reply to: TinfoilTP

I see what azz is saying. But I think he's only considering the secret information aspect of what Snowden could provide. To the Russians Snowden could potentially be a wealth of information about tactics and procedure in the NSA.

originally posted by: Hr2burn

[/URL]

[/URL]

" Judas gave up only one man, Arnold 3 million"

A letter from Benjamin Franklin to Marquis de Lafayette about Benedict Arnold.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Why would Putin demand that if Snowden didn't have anything to leak? In this day and age you don't need anything on you, it can be digitally stored anywhere.

Because it had just become knowledge a couple weeks prior that Snowden leaked a lot of public documents. A perfectly reasonable requirement on being allowed access to Russia would be that he's not going to leak something else and create an unfavorable situation for Russia.

originally posted by: Greathouse
I see what azz is saying. But I think he's only considering the secret information aspect of what Snowden could provide. To the Russians Snowden could potentially be a wealth of information about tactics and procedure in the NSA.

You don't think Russia doesn't already know those things? The US may have the best technology, but every major nation has an effective espionage division. Routine procedure would be one of those things that is widely known by everyone.

a reply to: Aazadan

I'm sure Russia knows many of those things. But they don't often get an opportunity to have someone that is familiar with current trends and behavior in the office. I mean he was there working with them he knows how everything ticks.

Interesting how this comes hard on the heels of that Last Week Tonight episode that interviewed Snowden. I wonder if John Oliver is in any trouble.

oh man, so you can't donate to the legal defense or salary, of those the us deem a threat to its hedgemoney?

what about the gov helping terrorists (rebel freedom fighters, gotta be pc) overseas? oh yea, that's right a different set of laws for them and us.

Sec. 9. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit the recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).

nice to know it's all about the money. and never about integrity which the white house doesnt have.

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes
Interesting how this comes hard on the heels of that Last Week Tonight episode that interviewed Snowden. I wonder if John Oliver is in any trouble.

I would doubt it, I watched that LWT and if anything they were pretty harsh on Snowden. Much more so than what I was expecting.

Interesting... the supreme court has ruled that money is "speech", so to declare that providing money to anybody would now be a violation of "freedom of speech"?

I want my America back

How do they intend to enforce this outside the US

What he has done is cause a lot of new companies to form outside the US serving our needs and brought this to our attention putting US companies in the spotlight in Europe.

I think he will get a lot of support from Europe alone, he shouldn't depend or hope on the Americans, they turned their backs on him long ago, he should focus on building a new life elsewhere. I know I would.

Than 10 or 20 years later, make a big financial claim to the US citizens and government representing them for MILLIONS for his lost life over that period.

Anyway we don't need to donate to him, he can get plenty of funding from his appearances on tv, news reports, interviews, books etc.

a reply to: lambs to lions

Good. He is a treasonous criminal and shouldn't be allowed to hoard money from his fan club to pay for some high-priced celebrity lawyer

No its a government that treats its citizens as criminals thats in the wrong. The man is a hero and stood by his moral conviction. More than can be said for the US government.

purp

I thought Obama was going to be our savior?

Obviously this is a very unConstitutional executive order and out of the legal realm of executive orders in general. Like Snowden or not, he has a right to a fair trial, and people have (or should) have every right to contribute to his defense.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: lambs to lions

originally posted by: Hr2burn
There are not many agencies carrying this story right now....they're probably gun shy considering the risks of upsetting our "leader". You can find the story in a few places but here is the executive order from the White House's website. They didn't like the money that was rolling in to defend Edward Snowden...so they made it illegal.

www.whitehouse.gov...

Good. He is a treasonous criminal and shouldn't be allowed to hoard money from his fan club to pay for some high-priced celebrity lawyer.

Exactly.
He is also under the control of Russia. Probably was long before we knew who he was.

What a sheeple comment.