Ron Paul on Edward Snowden’s indictment

reply to post by Privateinquotations

his indictment for espionage could reveal (or confirm) that the US Government views you and me as the enemy.

That's the point I'd like to see addressed in this thread.

What laws have been enacted as a direct result of 15 Saudis on American soil?

reply to post by flyswatter

And I will say again, he absolutely did break the law. As I said in the post above, even if you set aside information related to the NSA's snooping activities in the United States, there are still a number of things that he did that were wrong. Even if you were you completely clear him of anything related to the snooping, he's still in a world of hurt. The snooping stuff was not the only thing that he stole and leaked, thats the point.

all of the things you posted are a roundabout way of saying he leaked evidence of wrongdoing. that's what it boils down to. snowden has been charged with three things:

"theft of government property" laughable. it would be like a human trafficking ring charging the police with theft for stealing their "property".

"unauthorized communication of national defense information" also silly. the government would have to argue that unconstitutional programs are protected under "national security".

"giving classified intelligence information to an unauthorized person" the nsa program is highly illegal, it directly contradicts the 4th amendment. i could care less if you're willing to admit that, it is a fact. things cannot be classified to hide their illegal nature.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by flyswatter

 

And I will say again, he absolutely did break the law. As I said in the post above, even if you set aside information related to the NSA's snooping activities in the United States, there are still a number of things that he did that were wrong. Even if you were you completely clear him of anything related to the snooping, he's still in a world of hurt. The snooping stuff was not the only thing that he stole and leaked, thats the point.

all of the things you posted are a roundabout way of saying he leaked evidence of wrongdoing. that's what it boils down to. snowden has been charged with three things:

"theft of government property" laughable. it would be like a human trafficking ring charging the police with theft for stealing their "property".

"unauthorized communication of national defense information" also silly. the government would have to argue that unconstitutional programs are protected under "national security".

"giving classified intelligence information to an unauthorized person" the nsa program is highly illegal, it directly contradicts the 4th amendment. i could care less if you're willing to admit that, it is a fact. things cannot be classified to hide their illegal nature.

The information that he took and leaked was more than just the stuff about the in-country snooping. As I said multiple times, even if you set aside everything related to the NSA snooping in the US issue, everything else still factors in.

"Theft of government property" - taking the documents outside of the secured facility gets him this. Keep in mind, this is not solely dealing with the snooping stuff. The issue is larger than that.

"Unauthorized communication of national defense information" - Again setting aside the snooping stuff, he's still tagged here due to communicating information to non-cleared individuals. he was not authorized to be communicating this information to anyone, hence the charge.

"Giving classified intelligence information to an unauthorized person" - For this, being related to the snooping is irrelevant, but set it aside anyway. He gave non-snooping related documents to uncleared individuals.

Your whole argument relates to the information on the NSA snooping inside the United States. Even if we discard all of that, he still screwed himself by taking and communicating far more than just that information. He did a very good job of shooting himself in the foot.

reply to post by Privateinquotations


Ben Swan hits the nail on the head! He clearly defines the job of a journalist in the U.S.. He's the only reporter that has the guts to go after the truth. People like this are the real heroes in this country. It's people like him that are eventually going to wake-up this country. Nice find Op and great clip!

I agree, Snowden is a hero and a patriot, and did the right thing. What should be concerning Americans and Congressmen is the blatant disregard for upholding the Constitution and the Rights of our Citizens which have been blatantly violated by NSA.

I am sure that King George, called Washington, Jefferson and other founding fathers as traitors, and if England would have won the revolution these "founding fathers" would have been drawn and quartered.

It is time for Americans to understand that we have a group of individuals in our government services are are in fact the enemy of the people, when oaths to uphold the Constitution are violated, these are the real criminals in this issue, Kerry is a Joke, as is Obama and of course the Senate Jester McCain, who sat out the Vietnam War at the Hanoi Hilton, Hero's are seldom taken alive, he is in fact a coward. Adios Amigos. John

reply to post by flyswatter

As I said multiple times, even if you set aside everything related to the NSA snooping in the US issue, everything else still factors in.

like?

"Theft of government property" - taking the documents outside of the secured facility gets him this. Keep in mind, this is not solely dealing with the snooping stuff.

inconsequential. the "property" itself is illegal. find classified data that he leaked which is legal.

"Unauthorized communication of national defense information" - Again setting aside the snooping stuff, he's still tagged here due to communicating information to non-cleared individuals. he was not authorized to be communicating this information to anyone, hence the charge.

so long as the data he leaked pertains to illegal actions, this charge is bogus.

"Giving classified intelligence information to an unauthorized person" - For this, being related to the snooping is irrelevant, but set it aside anyway. He gave non-snooping related documents to uncleared individuals.

seriously. post something he leaked that was actually classified for a valid reason.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by flyswatter

 

As I said multiple times, even if you set aside everything related to the NSA snooping in the US issue, everything else still factors in.

like?

"Theft of government property" - taking the documents outside of the secured facility gets him this. Keep in mind, this is not solely dealing with the snooping stuff.

inconsequential. the "property" itself is illegal. find classified data that he leaked which is legal.

"Unauthorized communication of national defense information" - Again setting aside the snooping stuff, he's still tagged here due to communicating information to non-cleared individuals. he was not authorized to be communicating this information to anyone, hence the charge.

so long as the data he leaked pertains to illegal actions, this charge is bogus.

"Giving classified intelligence information to an unauthorized person" - For this, being related to the snooping is irrelevant, but set it aside anyway. He gave non-snooping related documents to uncleared individuals.

seriously. post something he leaked that was actually classified for a valid reason.

edit on 27-6-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

US surveillance overseas, for one. Programs in CI dealing with both China and Hong Kong. There is speculation that there were other specific countries detailed (such as NK and Iran), but I havent seen that admitted or proven yet, so I take it with a bit of a grain of salt. All of this is independent of the NSA's in-country snooping operations. Had he kept his leak to information related only to the snooping in the US, he'd have a bit more of a leg to stand on.

If the government isn't doing anything wrong, why are they so fearful that we'll find out what they're doing?

reply to post by flyswatter

US surveillance overseas, for one. Programs in CI dealing with both China and Hong Kong. There is speculation that there were other specific countries detailed (such as NK and Iran), but I havent seen that admitted or proven yet, so I take it with a bit of a grain of salt. All of this is independent of the NSA's in-country snooping operations. Had he kept his leak to information related only to the snooping in the US, he'd have a bit more of a leg to stand on.

so internationally illegal activities! yay, that completely explains everything.

"snooping" makes it sound like the NSA got caught going through our drawers, not perpetrating a massive international rights violation.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by flyswatter

 

US surveillance overseas, for one. Programs in CI dealing with both China and Hong Kong. There is speculation that there were other specific countries detailed (such as NK and Iran), but I havent seen that admitted or proven yet, so I take it with a bit of a grain of salt. All of this is independent of the NSA's in-country snooping operations. Had he kept his leak to information related only to the snooping in the US, he'd have a bit more of a leg to stand on.

so internationally illegal activities! yay, that completely explains everything.

Dont kid yourself, every country with anything remotely resembling an "intelligence community" does this, and every other country knows it. Its no secret. Whether an intelligence operation is against the law or not, that really depends on the countries that they are being deployed by and taking place in.

My point still stands - had he limited his leaks to information related only to the in-country snooping, he might have a point. But he chose to shoot himself in the foot and go far beyond that. That is what will be his downfall.

reply to post by flyswatter

Dont kid yourself, every country with anything remotely resembling an "intelligence community" does this, and every other country knows it. Its no secret. Whether an intelligence operation is against the law or not, that really depends on the countries that they are being deployed by and taking place in.

all the cool kids are doing it, eh? yeah...that doesn't work as an excuse. i asked you to provide something that he leaked that was a legal operation so that a charge might actually be valid. nilch.

My point still stands - had he limited his leaks to information related only to the in-country snooping, he might have a point. But he chose to shoot himself in the foot and go far beyond that. That is what will be his downfall.

your point isn't valid. his leaks are about illegal operations, in-country or not doesn't change that. as we've established, something cannot be classified to hide its illegal aspects.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by flyswatter

 

Dont kid yourself, every country with anything remotely resembling an "intelligence community" does this, and every other country knows it. Its no secret. Whether an intelligence operation is against the law or not, that really depends on the countries that they are being deployed by and taking place in.

all the cool kids are doing it, eh? yeah...that doesn't work as an excuse. i asked you to provide something that he leaked that was a legal operation so that a charge might actually be valid. nilch.

My point still stands - had he limited his leaks to information related only to the in-country snooping, he might have a point. But he chose to shoot himself in the foot and go far beyond that. That is what will be his downfall.

your point isn't valid. his leaks are about illegal operations, in-country or not doesn't change that. as we've established, something cannot be classified to hide its illegal aspects.

In country vs. out of country absolutely can change the legality of an action.

Going with your idea here, the US would have a bunch of alphabet soup intelligence agencies that would have to be an open book for anyone and everyone to see. The NSA and CIA would not be able to conduct any sort of intelligence gathering operation, signal intercept, or anything of that sort without first making the operation public information. Are you aware of just how ridiculous that idea is?

reply to post by flyswatter

Going with your idea here, the US would have a bunch of alphabet soup intelligence agencies that would have to be an open book for anyone and everyone to see. The NSA and CIA would not be able to conduct any sort of intelligence gathering operation, signal intercept, or anything of that sort without first making the operation public information. Are you aware of just how ridiculous that idea is?

when did i ever say that all operations should be public? there are valid reasons to classify some information, but that information or operation must be legal. this is not the case with what snowden leaked.

the international reaction to the U.S. spying programs, whether domestic or abroad, are a good indication of their legality.

i'm still waiting for you to show that he actually leaked something that was legal, yet classified. your speculation is meaningless.

reply to post by Privateinquotations


Thanks for the links, Privateinquotations. Both Paul's quote and the interview with Ben Swann hit the nail on the head. When I first heard of the NSA surveillance disclosures, my very first thought was the chilling effect that such a disclosure would have in terms of the First Amendment and freedom of speech in both the press and in regular conversation. I'm really very glad to hear Swann address and broach that particular subject in terms of journalistic freedom. If we have a press and a public that is reluctant to voice views that may be contrary to the government's narrative, then our democracy is as good as dead as our discourse will be self-inhibited. Discourse is fundamental to democracy as it allows for the hashing out of public policy and to provide a check against potential governmental abuse. Eliminating discourse through chill at the individual level is bad but to do so at the press level is intensely destructive for the papers have been and will always be the chief voice from the soap box.

What Swann indicates and I do suspect as being true as investigative journalism is quietly in its death throes (CNN laid off of its entire investigative journalism department over a year ago). This is critically bad in that it has been investigative journalism that has publicly vetted out government programs and activities that have, at times, been utterly reprehensible. It was investigative journalism that revealed the US Public Health Service's Tuskegee syphilis experiment through a leak via a government employee to the NY Times revealing what had been done. In 1974, it was the investigative journalists of the NY Times that first publicly revealed that the CIA was conducting illegal domestic activities and experimentation and it was the press that even led to the investigation of the matter by the Church Committee. These are things that the government did that dramatically affected their constituents and the very people that they were charged with protecting. Imagine if we continue down this path where journalists are journalists no more because they either have a muzzle on their mouths because of their bosses or they have slapped a hand over their mouth on their own out of fear. What atrocities could happen unchecked then or are we going to gamble on the belief that our government would not do such things anymore because this *insert government/agency* isn't like that anymore?

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by flyswatter

 

Going with your idea here, the US would have a bunch of alphabet soup intelligence agencies that would have to be an open book for anyone and everyone to see. The NSA and CIA would not be able to conduct any sort of intelligence gathering operation, signal intercept, or anything of that sort without first making the operation public information. Are you aware of just how ridiculous that idea is?

when did i ever say that all operations should be public? there are valid reasons to classify some information, but that information or operation must be legal. this is not the case with what snowden leaked.

the international reaction to the U.S. spying programs, whether domestic or abroad, are a good indication of their legality.

i'm still waiting for you to show that he actually leaked something that was legal, yet classified. your speculation is meaningless.

Wikipedia has a bit of a list at en.wikipedia.org... and I will work just from that for now. These are things that can be verified through other means if you wish.

The following are releases of information from documents received through Snowden:

On June 9, The Guardian revealed Boundless Informant, a system that "details and even maps by country the voluminous amount of information [the NSA] collects from computer and telephone networks."

On June 12, the South China Morning Post disclosed that the NSA has been hacking into computers in China and Hong Kong since 2009.[82]

On June 17, The Guardian reported that the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), a British intelligence agency, had intercepted foreign politicians' communications at the 2009 G-20 London Summit.[83]

On June 20, The Guardian revealed two secret documents, signed by Attorney General Eric Holder, describing the rules by which the NSA determines whether targets of investigations are foreign or domestic.[84]

On June 21, The Guardian made further disclosures about 'Tempora,' an 18-month-old British operation by GCHQ to intercept and store mass quantities of fiber-optic traffic.[85]

On June 23, the South China Morning Post reported that Snowden had said the NSA had hacked Chinese mobile-phone companies to collect millions of text messages and had also hacked Tsinghua University in Beijing and the Asian fiber-optic network operator Pacnet. The newspaper said Snowden provided documents that listed details of specific episodes during a four-year period.[86] ** Please note that I left out a part here that pertains to Snowden's motivations on why he released this information, as it is speculation and opinion. **

The very first item by itself is enough to get him sent to the slammer for a good amount of time. It just gets worse after that.

reply to post by flyswatter

The very first item by itself is enough to get him sent to the slammer for a good amount of time. It just gets worse after that.

...those are all illegal operations. nice try though.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by flyswatter

 

The very first item by itself is enough to get him sent to the slammer for a good amount of time. It just gets worse after that.

...those are all illegal operations. nice try though.

Illegal where? Just because you dont agree with something does not make it illegal. Is there some sort of magical document that tells you that the US conducting these counterintelligence operations outside of the US is illegal? And how on earth could your argument possibly cover the details of operations conducted by another foreign intelligence unit?

Late edit here ... refer to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in regards to what kind of actions are permitted.
uscode.house.gov...
en.wikipedia.org...

All Snowden did was confirm what we suspected from the first place, if he didn't do this the government would still be making jokes about tin foil hat wearing americans who believe that 9/11 was staged.


I don't see them making jokes now.


If someone had hard proof that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the american government, they would be labeled a traitor by our government also and hunted.


Anyone who defends the action of the government must be deeply brainwashed by prior military service or amazingly awful government classes, I guarantee the government isn't concerned about defending you.

reply to post by flyswatter


It'd be illegal in the country in which the information collection would be taking place. In a more traditional scenario, any who were physically caught engaging in such activities while in the host country would be subject to the host country's laws for their acts. They'd be regarded as persona non grata. Just because cyber espionage can take place from the comfort of our own home doesn't mean that the acts aren't illegal in the targeted country. Not to mention that the seeming broad range of the surveillance does not put the US in a favorable light internationally in the slightest and it's going to have ramifications in the international arena. Now, one can blame Snowden for that but, ultimately, considering how broad the surveillance was, it was still our government that chose to do something that, if discovered, would alienate us politically. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

www.zdnet.com...

Originally posted by WhiteAlice
reply to post by flyswatter

 

It'd be illegal in the country in which the information collection would be taking place. In a more traditional scenario, any who were physically caught engaging in such activities while in the host country would be subject to the host country's laws for their acts. They'd be regarded as persona non grata. Just because cyber espionage can take place from the comfort of our own home doesn't mean that the acts aren't illegal in the targeted country. Not to mention that the seeming broad range of the surveillance does not put the US in a favorable light internationally in the slightest and it's going to have ramifications in the international arena. Now, one can blame Snowden for that but, ultimately, considering how broad the surveillance was, it was still our government that chose to do something that, if discovered, would alienate us politically. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

www.zdnet.com...

Owning a gun is illegal in some places. So is being a woman and being in public with your face revealed.

How it would be handled could be entirely dependant on Resident Spy vs. non-Resident Spy. The most that they can do to a Resident Spy is do exactly as you said - declare them as persona non grata and send them home. Non-Resident, yeah ... they have no claim to immunity.

As far as US law goes, there is quite a wide range of things permitted, as shown in the links that I provided to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It would be dumb for me or anyone else to claim that all activities are kosher based on this law, but you can see what it does provide for.