Obama administration charges NSA whistleblower Snowden with espionage

Me? I think this is just another ruse to continue to flesh out the Snowden character. We have to really believe they didn't do this on purpose and that this guy isn't an actor.

The guy, joins army where he is expected to kill yet finds it immoral to tap phones. LOL Him leaking is one thing but acting like he is some saint is annoying. Hope he enjoys his privacy in China, Russia where ever he ends up. Who didn't know the NSA was listening to phones from suspected people?

Originally posted by TheMagus

Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by SloAnPainful
reply to post by Sankari

 

ETA: Just realised they changed the name of the headline and I can't go back and edit it...

-SAP-

edit on 21-6-2013 by SloAnPainful because: (no reason given)

'They changed the name of the headline.'

Yeah, right. And I've got a 30 foot giraffe in my back yard.

I'm LOLing at all the sheeple in this thread who blindly accepted the 'execution' claim without even bothering to check it.

So much for 'denying ignorance.'

pics re your giraffe please
btw and here is proof of Slo's "lies" and your Ass-umptious "intelligence"

ignorance denied

I couldn't resist.

So... I wonder why they changed the title?

reply to post by sonnny1


Incorrect information is what I came up with. He wasn't going to be "executed" but "extradited". Funny how they did that isn't it?

It certainly grabbed my attention when I saw the word "executed". Misleading for clicks.

-SAP-

Originally posted by SloAnPainful
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Incorrect information is what I came up with. He wasn't going to be "executed" but "extradited". Funny how they did that isn't it?

It certainly grabbed my attention when I saw the word "executed". Misleading for clicks.

-SAP-

I see it grabbed a lot of folks attention !

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by Moshpet

 

I've attempted to mentally piece together what kind of individual desires to live in a world in which their government is privy to every move they make, listens in on every word they utter, watches everywhere they go, knows every medical, financial, interest, opinion, food, drink, car, tv, address, phone call, email, letter, job, sport, weapon, political preference, sexual habit, thought, enemy, desire, clothing and shoe size, facial expression, barber, fantasy, dream, and any other freaking thing that you and I might hold within our daily routine or the very depths of our soul. In the process of my reflection I discovered something; that individual is not a human being by any definition of the word.


Don't be an authoritarian enabler.

Oh please, don't be an authoritarian enabler.... seriously? What planet are you living on? Just up and say you think my opinion stinks. However, I am entitled to my own opinion, I went into the Army to defend those rights, and your right to them too. But don't expect me to join the pity party for that traitor Snowden or Manning for that matter.

When someone has clearance to access classified or secret information, they have to fill out forms and sign them with the full knowledge of what the penalties are for violating those secrets. When some one gives classified or secret information to a third party, who does not have clearance for that information, you break many laws. When you give that information or materials to a foreign national, you step from just merely move from breaking the law to becoming a traitor or spy.

The issue of what the government is doing with the information is above my pay grade. When I became a soldier, all of my data ended up in the system anyways. (That includes my shoe size too. :roll eyes: ) As a Veteran I go the VA frequently, and all that biometric data is already in their hands.

Not to mention when a person goes to get a State or Federal Drivers license your thumb prints and pictures end up in a state/federal the database as well. The same with your birth certificates, wedding license and visas. You've added yourself to that system with your eyes wide open. You, yourself, put your information in their hands. (Height, Weight, DOB, Glasses, Organ Donor.... Blood type. Footprints (proof of live born, blood type, Father and mother, likely their SSN too.) Oh and your OWN SSN, and tax returns. Congratulations you put your data in their hands and don't even bother to think it through.

As for your entertainment and purchase information, you already give that out every time you use your credit/debit/ card and or surf the web. The grocery stores use an inventory meta data as to what is selling so they can see what is popular to their customers. Amazon tracks your interests and suggests items that you may also like as a part of their own meta-data and planned sales.

Your Entertainment via TV has been monitored ever since you had cable or satellite TV. Add in the fancy new fiber-optic High-speed television receiver and DVR and you have given them a complete look into what you like. Have one of those Kinect accessories with your Xbox or what ever, and you have an open doorway for someone to listen or look at you.

Legally own a registered gun, smile your data is in their hands on that too. Not to mention you car registration....

You, are already being tracked by your (meta) data; and you gave it to them willingly.

Ok, so you've just pretty much hoisted yourself by your own petard (paragraph block).

I've attempted to mentally piece together what kind of individual desires to live in a world in which their government is privy to every move they make, listens in on every word they utter, watches everywhere they go, knows every medical, financial, interest, opinion, food, drink, car, tv, address, phone call, email, letter, job, sport, weapon, political preference, sexual habit, thought, enemy, desire, clothing and shoe size, facial expression, barber, fantasy, dream, and any other freaking thing that you and I might hold within our daily routine or the very depths of our soul. In the process of my reflection I discovered something; that individual is not a human being by any definition of the word.

Congratulations, now the question you need to ask yourself is, "Am I human?"
But that's a question only you can answer and it may keep you up at night.

M.

Originally posted by buddha
GO! Snowden! give us truth and freedom.

Espionage?

obtaining information considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder

From Wikipedia.

as Snowden had permission to read the documents as part of his job.
he can not have committed espionage.
passing them on Yes!

When he gave that information to someone not cleared to have access to it, he knowingly broke the law. When he gave information to a foreign national he willingly broke even more laws, and thus fell under the regulations and laws that pertain to willingly becoming a spy or traitor.

That is a whole mess of fish on its own right.
M.

Originally posted by lambros56

Originally posted by Moshpet
Did he break the law? Yes.
Did he flee the country? Yes.
Is he a hero? Not in my book, all my heros actually put their lives on the line to physically save other peoples lives.

So yeah he's going to have to face a court of law.

M.

When did he break the law ?
Just because someone exposes the crimes of this government against the American people, they are deemed to have broken a law ?
Sorry but not in the eyes of the rest of the world.

When are the American people going to hold this government to account for the constant crimes against their people ?......instead of those who stand up against them.

When he gave that information to someone not cleared to have access to it, he knowingly broke the law. When he gave information to a foreign national he willingly broke even more laws, and thus fell under the regulations and laws that pertain to willingly becoming a spy or traitor.

When you or anyone get a clearance, you have to fill out forms that state you will not give out classified information to people not cleared to access it. Those forms state what the penalties can be for doing so. When you sign those papers you do so knowing full what what it entails to release that information to people not cleared for it. You are not just given carte' blanche to wade in hand hand out the goods, you are supposed to be investigated and cleared by an outside group, aka FBI or Secret Service to handle such information.

Snowden, knowingly broke the law(s) and regulation pertaining to classified and secret information. Knowingly. He's also given information to Canada and China.... Which crosses an even bigger line of rules, you might as well accept that he committed espionage when he did so. And he did so _knowingly_. For which he will end up in court or on the run for the rest of his life.

That is how the system works, or should have worked. I'm expecting there will be a hefty review of how he got clearance in any case. Someone skipped some checks and balances on what he access to.


As for when is the government going to face charges for any of this, likely no one will see the heads on the chopping block and the punishments met out. When you dabble in the realm of secrets and alphabet agencies the only thing you can be certain is that you can remain uncertain and clueless.

If you have problems with your elected officials you need to get off of the couch and vote them out, or run for office yourself. But, don't expect to win by exercising your right to vote. I'm a Blue voter in a Red state; 95% of the time my vote is nothing more than a protest. So when I don't get the elected officials I want, I don't blow a gasket. But when fate smiles upon me and someone I vote for wins, the tears and cries of anguish rest gently on my ears.

M.

reply to post by Moshpet


I think Snowden has a more than likely chance of saying he didn't break the law because his contract had him obeying unlawful orders. And I have a reasonable belief that he would fare well in that scenario, if a "jury of his peers" can be assembled.

Pertaining to him taking it to a foreign outlet....there is every reason to at least consider that in his role in the NSA, he had a pretty good view and understanding of how the US media has been subverted. Who is a greater enemy of The People? Our own media, or Hong Kong?

reply to post by smithjustinb

The government is not listening to your phone calls nor reading your emails without a warrant and probable cause. They only have access to numbers you call and numbers that call you.

not true. the government does directly listen to phone calls, emails, and texts.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls. National Security Agency discloses in secret Capitol Hill briefing that thousands of analysts can listen to domestic phone calls. That authorization appears to extend to e-mail and text messages too

news.cnet.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Moshpet

 

I think Snowden has a more than likely chance of saying he didn't break the law because his contract had him obeying unlawful orders. And I have a reasonable belief that he would fare well in that scenario, if a "jury of his peers" can be assembled.

Pertaining to him taking it to a foreign outlet....there is every reason to at least consider that in his role in the NSA, he had a pretty good view and understanding of how the US media has been subverted. Who is a greater enemy of The People? Our own media, or Hong Kong?

Oh I am sure he will try and say he wasn't breaking the law. Yet, when you come down to brass tacks, he did break the the law; and he had to have signed a document that established he knew what the law was; and the penalties involved. Not to mention non-disclosure agreements and the like.

I do a lot of beta testing, NDA's pretty much spell out what can happen if I were to take some companies property (code) and give it to a competitor freely or for payment. There are some pretty heft fines and fees any could face, spelled out in the NDAs. You either sign and accept that if you break the terms / law of the NDA you can and likely will be prosecuted. Snowden knew exactly what he was doing and he willing did it.

Personally, I don't think we are in a shooting war with Hong Kong, but every nation spies on the other nations, and even the best of trading buddies are going to be looking for a knife in the back they can use to secure a better bargaining position. Hell Israel, our own best friend (supposedly), spies on us. Keeping sensitive information out of the hands of other nations, and doing so via the regulations and laws pertaining to official secrets; is important and violators of such should face a court of law... and in some cases off the book executions.

It's all well and good to have a moral stance on what is legal and what is not, and when to break the law to expose the criminal or questionable activities. But both Snowden and Manning, went willing way past the lines of, "Hey! look here at this crime!" They went on to knowingly and willingly give classified and or secret information to foreign nationals. Which in the court of law, is what is going to put them in a box for a very long time.

Up to that line, they might have been heroic... but when they willingly jumped the goat, they became traitorous.

Needless to say, I want them to get the full measure of the law, given to them in a court of law.

M.

reply to post by Moshpet

Oh I am sure he will try and say he wasn't breaking the law. Yet, when you come down to brass tacks, he did break the the law; and he had to have signed a document that established he knew what the law was; and the penalties involved. Not to mention non-disclosure agreements and the like.

you're wrong. a non-disclosure agreement cannot be used to hide illegal activities, neither can categorizing a document as "classified".

the contract is void if illegal activities are involved, and declaring an illegal act "classified" in an attempt to hide it is in itself a crime. let me give you an example:

you sign a contract to live in a gated community, and one of the rules is that you cannot discuss or propagate information about the activities of your neighbors to those who don't live in the community (let's say it's a famous community that wants some privacy). you witness one neighbor taking inappropriate pictures of neighborhood kids, sneaking pictures and the like. you're invited over one day and find a collection of child pornography. what do you do? you're legally bound by the contract, right? no. a contract cannot be used in such a way.

the NSA program violated many amendments and constitutional law; it is a treasonous conspiracy, and legally binding contracts cannot be used to cover up illegal acts. same goes for classified documents. the legal act of classifying information cannot be used to support or hide illegal acts.

Originally posted by jaynxWho didn't know the NSA was listening to phones from suspected people?

How can they suspect 98 million people at once?

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Your gated community analogy is so far off the mark it is not funny. The fact of the matter is that Snowden broke the law, and no amount of barracks, backroom or arm chair lawyers is going to change that fact.

Here for your edification:


Link to article

The criminal complaint against Snowden that was released cited 18 U.S.C. 641 Theft of Government Property, 18 U.S.C. 793(d) Unauthorized Communication of National Defense Information, and 18 U.S.C. 798(a)(3) Willful Communication of Classified Intelligence Information to an Unauthorized Person; the two latter charges fall under the Espionage Act for “giving national defense information to someone without a security clearance and revealing classified information about communications intelligence,” that by all accounts certainly describe Snowden’s actions leading to the criminal complaint and extradition requests to authorities in Hong Kong where Snowden was hiding out. It is unclear where Snowden will end up finding “political asylum,” but his contention the Justice Department is seeking him for political retribution is both a pathetic attempt to justify his criminal acts and to garner asylum from a foreign entity.

He committed a crime, he knows he did, his supposed moral stance on the matter; is irrelevant.

This is America not Anarchy-Landia, just because someone has a moral stance on a subject, they do not have a right to break the law and escape justice because of it.

Without the rule of law and it's enforcement in the judicial system, any twit with a 'moral stance' could blow up your kid's school one the grounds that it violated his views on what education should be taking place. Not to mention all the bombings of abortion clinics, churches, mosques, federal buildings and courthouses; would be the norm, not the rare exception.

The fact that the government is working to use law to prosecute Snowden should be a hell of a lot more acceptable to us all, than the government just going out and killing him. As commonly happens in other countries where the rule of law isn't as important, Snowden and Manning would have been disappeared, likely with a good portion of their family, Assange would probably be dead too.

I know it just utterly sticks in people's craw that we have a government that wants to prosecute Snowden, but the alternative would be a government that just out right kills it's citizens when they break the law.

Your heros may be criminals, but mine are not.
M.

reply to post by Moshpet


You left out the part where Snowden swore to uphold the Constitution. At least some still take the oath seriously.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Moshpet

 

Oh I am sure he will try and say he wasn't breaking the law. Yet, when you come down to brass tacks, he did break the the law; and he had to have signed a document that established he knew what the law was; and the penalties involved. Not to mention non-disclosure agreements and the like.

you're wrong. a non-disclosure agreement cannot be used to hide illegal activities, neither can categorizing a document as "classified".

the contract is void if illegal activities are involved, and declaring an illegal act "classified" in an attempt to hide it is in itself a crime. let me give you an example:

you sign a contract to live in a gated community, and one of the rules is that you cannot discuss or propagate information about the activities of your neighbors to those who don't live in the community (let's say it's a famous community that wants some privacy). you witness one neighbor taking inappropriate pictures of neighborhood kids, sneaking pictures and the like. you're invited over one day and find a collection of child pornography. what do you do? you're legally bound by the contract, right? no. a contract cannot be used in such a way.

the NSA program violated many amendments and constitutional law; it is a treasonous conspiracy, and legally binding contracts cannot be used to cover up illegal acts. same goes for classified documents. the legal act of classifying information cannot be used to support or hide illegal acts.

The only option Snowden really has here is trying to prove his intent as that is really the basis for if his unauthorized release of classified information is a punishable offense.

As much as the supporters of Snowden refuse to believe he did anything wrong he has clearly broken two of the items from the law section at the bottom of this post.

The intent is the gray area in this case and to this point their has been no legal ruling that PRISM violated any rules. People will interpret it that way but their still is a process to follow in the legal world. Additionally not everything the NSA was doing in this case can be shown to be illegal so those unauthorized releases can still be ruled illegal if his intent can be proven.

Here are the primary sections around the unauthorized release of classified information:

"federal law prescribes a prison sentence of no more than a year and/or a $1,000 fine for officers and employees of the federal government who knowingly remove classified material without the authority to do so and with the intention of keeping that material at an unauthorized location.53 Stiffer penalties—fines of up to $10,000 and imprisonment for up to 10 years—attach when a federal employee transmits classified information to anyone that the employee has reason to believe is an agent of a foreign government.54 A fine and a 10-year prison term also await anyone, government employee or not, who publishes, makes available to an unauthorized person, or otherwise uses to the United States’ detriment classified information regarding the codes, cryptography, and communications intelligence utilized by the United States or a foreign government.55 Finally, the disclosure of classified information that discloses any information identifying a covert agent, when done intentionally by a person with authorized access to such identifying information, is punishable by imprisonment for up to 15 years.5

Anyone blindly calling him a hero is wrong
Anyone blindly calling him a traitor is wrong.
If the facts of his story are proven true then what he is would be something in the middle.

reply to post by MsAphrodite


And what about the part where Obama swore to uphold the Constitution because PRISM has trashed the fourth amendment. Aren't he and his administration equally as culpable if not more so? In fact, I'd say Snowden IS doing his constitutional duty by blowing the whistle.

You have to ask Is setting up a secret surveillance program that treats all Americans and foreigners as criminals constitutional? More importantly is it morally and ethically correct?

reply to post by opethPA


Glenn Greenwald has pretty clearly articulated Snowden's intent. Snowden has deliberately held back a great deal of the information that he has in his possession. Of course no one in the media or government is making that point. It's obvious when you pay attention to what he has revealed vs. what he is capable of revealing what his intent is and has been thus far.

reply to post by Archie


I just gave you a star because I completely agree with you.
next

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by opethPA

 

Glenn Greenwald has pretty clearly articulated Snowden's intent. Snowden has deliberately held back a great deal of the information that he has in his possession. Of course no one in the media or government is making that point. It's obvious when you pay attention to what he has revealed vs. what he is capable of revealing what his intent is and has been thus far.

The information to this point indicates his intentions may not have been to damage the United States. If the case was ruled now I could see that argument being won which would remove the stiffer penalties.

What cannot in anyway be disputed is this "federal law prescribes a prison sentence of no more than a year and/or a $1,000 fine for officers and employees of the federal government who knowingly remove classified material without the authority to do so and with the intention of keeping that material at an unauthorized location

Again if everything is proven to be what it appears so far then I would hope his penalty for the above offense would be concurrent for all events vs consecutive for each event.