He has admitted to and is wanted by prosecutors for disclosing the location and methods of a ham sandwich. Or, in another way of putting it, even though the laws he is accused of breaking are bogus, they still have serious penalties.
He won’t get a fair trial. He will serve the rest of his life in prison. All for disclosing transgressions of more powerful people.
since it will probably be challenged through appeal, can we assume the final destination of this will be the supreme court and if so how do you think the current lame court will fall on this?
What if the only way that Obama could dismantle the security state was to create and enable a “Snowden Incident?”
Not that I believe that’s what happened, but it would make for an interesting scifi plot.
You aren’t one of these conservatives I’ve heard from lately who are wont to PRAISE Putin, are you? Russia “r” our friends? As you know “succor” means “aid” and Russia is aiding Snowden.
Screw the espionage act. Be objective. There is a need for secrets, STATE secrets, and damned good reasons to keep them secret. It is naive to believe otherwise.
No, I am a raging liberal. And Putin sucks. But Russia is neither an adversary nor enemy, even though it is basically a security state led a megalomaniac who makes Kim jong Ill look rational.
And yes, succor means aid.
I work in security services, and I always consult general counsel. They are usually the first I take out to lunch and send birthday cards to.
But it is the responsibility–and this is directly from counsel–to report on abuse, and if that doesn’t work then disclose.
Fortune 50ish, btw, in previous roles.
You conflate private sector abuse and issues of national security. Private (or public) sector employment and NSA (contractor) employment. Private (or public) sector security.
By your measure, is it then ok to go to the Guardian with ANY perceived “abuse”? So any disgruntled “spy” (secret signatories) should publish without fear of repercussion?
Let’s see what is determined “abuse” versus what is deemed “necessary security measures”. This is a singular court decision, and yes not the final venue.
You are correct sir, that is the case. And national security is different than private, except in the case your chain of command is breaking the law. that is what this tussle is about–one side believes sincerely that the law was broken, and the other is using a broken law to say, “no we didn’t”.
So when the SCOTUS rules on this, I think Edward should come back regardless. Buy not before then.
Abuse, no. Illegal activity, absolutely.
Look, our laws are complex and often capricious. And as we see every day even the smartest lawyers and judges in the land get it wrong.
But bulk surveillance of american citizens isn’t in the language nor intent of the patriot act, and snowden is being charged under a law that is so open ended I expect to see a wildly fascinating opinion from Scalia. Not to mention Kennedy.
I doubt that you are trolling on purpose which makes it sort of depressing to watch.
Is that when the US government revoked his passport while in transit through Moscow on his way to Cuba and then South America, forcing him to seek asylum in Russia or some other time? (In other words, he’s only in Russia because the US government knowlingly trapped him there, not because he wanted to be there. He just got lucky that Putin saw a huge PR win in snubbing the USA.)
What countries do those flights pass over? You’re saying that the US wouldn’t force a flight to be stopped and searched like they did to, say, the Bolivian president when they thought Snowden was on his plane? I mean, seriously, we’re willing to force a HEAD OF STATE to have his plane searched and you want to pretend Snowden can just catch a flight to Ecuador? Really?
Cheap tricks aren’t going to work on this site.
Ah, I love that you used National Security and Secret Signatories. You are speaking my language, I appreciate that. National security held up by FISA is legal, but circuit courts and the scotus can over rule if there is standing.
Snowden brings the ability to even have standing. He didn’t sell, provide with malice, or provide without forethought. one could argue secret signatory. But in this case, nope.
This is the kind of “trial” that Snowden has been offered:
In recent cases, prosecutors have convinced courts that the intent of the leaker, the value of leaks to the public, and the lack of harm caused by the leaks are irrelevant, and are therefore inadmissible in court.
When the courts ruled NSA domestic spying illegal last week, it was the plain fact of that surveillance that was most important. But it also means that whistleblower Ed Snowden, cast as a traitor and spy by his critics, is vindicated.
Au contraire, it simply outed another traitorous enemy of America: the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
Snowden is a hero who is protecting you from simpleton assholes like you.
Snowden didn’t “release” anything. News media released the documents, smart guy.
If you’ve not read Greenwald’s No Place to Hide or Seen Laura Poitras’ Citizenfour you are literally not well enough informed to comment.
Er, sorry, but the plane was not stopped and searched. Please consult the link you provided.
And please do as I requested. Check for direct flights from Russia to South America. And then tell me, in your paranoia, that “we” would force down a flight of Russian origin.
You represent this site? Tricks? Because I don’t agree with an article? Grow up. I’ve been around here for YEARS without commenting.
What a horrible fate for us all.
Because he deliberated it’s OK? What did I miss here?
I appreciate your even responses.
That he followed an oath to the American people and unveiled programs that we needed to know about and which are finally, in some quarters, being deemed illegal? We wouldn’t have ever gotten that far if he hadn’t told us about them and given the proof to Greenwald and Poitras. It would have been “oh, you’re just a bunch of paranoid tinfoil hats making things up” when the reality was actually much worse.
