4 ms·

It says: >Did Snowden break the law? In passing classified information to reporters, he did. The Espionage Act explicitly prohibits such actions. But this viol

It says: >Did Snowden break the law? In passing classified information to reporters, he did. The Espionage Act explicitly prohibits such actions. But this violation surely needs to be balanced against the public service that Snowden carried out in informing the American public about the extent to which their government had been spying on them. I don't think you can say that someone broke real laws and then excuse it because public opinion or a subjective idea of public "service" somehow trumped the laws. The U.S. is a nation of laws. If something doesn't work as expected, laws are changed. The laws are either good or bad, but the nation runs because of these laws. You can debate the merits or lack thereof in what Snowden did, because that is a subjective opinion. You cannot debate the laws he broke. You cannot say "yeah, he broke the law, but...." because then, what is the value of law? It is possible to agree with Snowden's actions while still accepting that he broke laws. As soon as you excuse the law because it doesn't "feel" right, you walk a shaky path to anarchy. I see I am downvoted for this, but ironically it is not because I disagree with Snowden. I support what he revealed. But this article is not proper logic, in my opinion. I think it is interesting that Snowden himself prefers to be punished for breaking these laws, and spend his life in prison, rather than live out a life in another country. He accepts that he broke laws, why doesn't everyone else? Hillary's attitude on this is not "wrong" as the article claims. If you are running for president and think that you can excuse the Espionage Act, of all laws, that to me seems like the wrong attitude.

echion 11y ago
> I don't think you can say that someone broke real laws and then excuse it because public opinion or a subjective idea of public "service" somehow trumped the laws. The U.S. is a nation of laws. If something doesn't work as expected, laws are changed. The usual process is the adversarial legal system in the US, which does allow a fair amount of leeway for changing laws. I think there are a class of bad laws that people think are very difficult to change by this head-on method, however.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
That's exactly how it works. The law does not exist in isolation as an axiomatic rule. The intent and circumstances of an action are all taken into account. Legalism is tyranny, plain and simple. Also, you are allowed to say "Yeah, he broke the law, but we don't give a fuck." It's called jury nullification. As soon as you excuse the law because it doesn't "feel" right, you walk a shaky path to anarchy. The United States hasn't been walking to the path of anarchy, but quite the opposite. We actually need more anarchy.
- walmartian 11y ago
  Yes, but jury nullification will only happen once there is a trial. He must be prosecuted under the law he broke and found innocent.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    The point is the GP's highly simplistic conception of law and the judicial system does not pan out in practice. Also the "shaky path to anarchy" is such a pathetic jab that one is strongly tempted to yell astroturfer.
    - hellofunk 11y ago
      Maybe it seems simplistic, but frankly that is how the world goes round. A person breaks a law and is held accountable. The article suggests Governor Chafee's reaction that, despite the breaking of a major law, Snowden should just come home free, unconditionally, is somehow the correct approach. That, to me, seems both overly simplistic and unrealistic. Clinton properly acknowledges that a law was broken and you can't just casually dismiss that. That seems much more responsible to me. Now, if a president were to later pardon Snowden, that is also allowable by law.
      - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        It seems you revolve around the idea of law being a divine ordinance. That's fine, but also a fringe view. Laws have relevance insofar as the ones subject to it have a consensus, and if there is sufficient interest in the law being enforced. In addition, laws often are dismissed or punitive actions significantly diminished depending on intent, circumstances (political, social or on a case-by-case basis) and perceived justice, the ultimate expression of the latter being nullification which in the U.S. has a notable history. As such, the trite legalism that suggests "the law is the law" as if commanded by a deity and that it must unequivocally be applied to its maximal extent, is the irresponsible and simplistic view.
        11y ago
ryandrake 11y ago
Of course you can argue that other relevant factors should balance out and partially or fully reduce the consequences of breaking a law. This negotiation happens every day in courtrooms throughout the country. If what you said was true, we wouldn't need judges, lawyers, or juries. The judicial system would only consist of fact finders and a robotic judge that looked up penalties in a big dictionary. The law isn't simply a if() statement.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
crdoconnor 11y ago
>I don't think you can say that someone broke real laws and then excuse it because public opinion or a subjective idea of public "service" somehow trumped the laws. What, so hiding Anne Frank couldn't be excused? The espionage act is bullshit and needs to be changed. It's pretty clear that he wasn't spying and what he did shouldn't have been covered by the act.
aburan28 11y ago
Let us all remind ourselves that Clinton is under investigation by the FBI for her email server handling and they recovered classified documents from it
ddlatham 11y ago
The highest law of the land grants the President (for which these people are candidates) the power to pardon people for the breaking of other laws and face reduced or no punishment. That's evidence even enshrined in our own law that there are times that simply applying the consequences of laws can be unjust.
atom-morgan 11y ago
> You cannot say "yeah, he broke the law, but...." because then, what is the value of law? It is possible to agree with Snowden's actions while still accepting that he broke laws. What if the laws are wrong to begin with? Slavery and segregation were both at one point in time laws but I would never say the people who enforced them were right simply because it was a law.
baddox 11y ago
> You cannot say "yeah, he broke the law, but...." because then, what is the value of law? I can and will say that, and then I will say that the value of the laws in question is low (negative, really). You seem to be painting this as a contradiction, as if disliking one particular law implies disliking the fundamental concept of laws. There is no such contradiction.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  In fact, Martin Luther King argued that it's our responsibility to disobey an unjust law.
csuwldcat 11y ago
Your entire comment is founded upon the assumption that the law is the arbiter of right and wrong, and that because it exists, it should be followed - it is not, and we shouldn't. Here's what Jefferson had to say about the law: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." For over 100 years there were laws in the South that made it illegal to racially integrate businesses and public places. It was the government that kept this horrible practice alive; a free market would never have tolerated such inorganic demand suppression (as evidenced by the state of the North). Most people are so trusting of statism and its hamster wheel that they never take the time to actually contemplate what most "laws" really are: subjective shit a group of people decided to write on dead trees and direct squads of soldiers to force on you under the threat of violence.
hellofunk 11y ago
In response to the commenters, we're talking about the Espionage Act, not jaywalking. What message does it send to excuse someone from breaking this law? It's a very important law, do we want anyone exposing national secrets? Giving him a pass on this particular law sets a dangerous precedent. I support what Snowden revealed, but why didn't he go about it legally? Can anyone provide a good reason why he didn't follow whistleblower laws?
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  The Espionage Act, an absurd broadly worded thing that's been used how many times? Contrast that with how many people have recently "leaked" classified info but in contrast with Snowden, those leaks served the interests of some faction in the government. Why haven't there been dozens of others charged under this law?
  - hellofunk 11y ago
    The Act has been used in Wikileaks cases also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning
- dllthomas 11y ago
  "What message does it send to excuse someone from breaking this law?" It sends a message that if, in good conscience, you believe that what we're secretly doing is wrong enough that you need to reveal it to the American people, you can do so without facing inordinate punishment. This is the best possible message we can send! If we are going to have secret programs doing this kind of stuff, this is an important check that we're not being horrendously evil in the world. Remember that we're not polling a random collection of people, but people who have chosen to work on this kind of thing, whose paycheck relies on accepting it, who are regularly thinking about how to make it do more good and less bad and want to believe they're being somewhat competent at that, and people who have already been extensively vetted for security access. If one of those people are sufficiently concerned to raise this kind of alarm, it needs to be raised.
dllthomas 11y ago
One of our laws, in this nation of laws, allows the President to issue pardons - even when "someone broke real laws."
TheCoelacanth 11y ago
If you are running for president and think that you can excuse the Espionage Act then you are exactly right because Article II of the Constitution grants you explicit legal authority to do so.

echion 11y ago

> I don't think you can say that someone broke real laws and then excuse it because public opinion or a subjective idea of public "service" somehow trumped the laws. The U.S. is a nation of laws. If something doesn't work as expected, laws are changed. The usual process is the adversarial legal system in the US, which does allow a fair amount of leeway for changing laws. I think there are a class of bad laws that people think are very difficult to change by this head-on method, however.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

That's exactly how it works. The law does not exist in isolation as an axiomatic rule. The intent and circumstances of an action are all taken into account. Legalism is tyranny, plain and simple. Also, you are allowed to say "Yeah, he broke the law, but we don't give a fuck." It's called jury nullification. As soon as you excuse the law because it doesn't "feel" right, you walk a shaky path to anarchy. The United States hasn't been walking to the path of anarchy, but quite the opposite. We actually need more anarchy.

walmartian 11y ago
Yes, but jury nullification will only happen once there is a trial. He must be prosecuted under the law he broke and found innocent.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  The point is the GP's highly simplistic conception of law and the judicial system does not pan out in practice. Also the "shaky path to anarchy" is such a pathetic jab that one is strongly tempted to yell astroturfer.
  - hellofunk 11y ago
    Maybe it seems simplistic, but frankly that is how the world goes round. A person breaks a law and is held accountable. The article suggests Governor Chafee's reaction that, despite the breaking of a major law, Snowden should just come home free, unconditionally, is somehow the correct approach. That, to me, seems both overly simplistic and unrealistic. Clinton properly acknowledges that a law was broken and you can't just casually dismiss that. That seems much more responsible to me. Now, if a president were to later pardon Snowden, that is also allowable by law.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      It seems you revolve around the idea of law being a divine ordinance. That's fine, but also a fringe view. Laws have relevance insofar as the ones subject to it have a consensus, and if there is sufficient interest in the law being enforced. In addition, laws often are dismissed or punitive actions significantly diminished depending on intent, circumstances (political, social or on a case-by-case basis) and perceived justice, the ultimate expression of the latter being nullification which in the U.S. has a notable history. As such, the trite legalism that suggests "the law is the law" as if commanded by a deity and that it must unequivocally be applied to its maximal extent, is the irresponsible and simplistic view.
      - 11y ago

ryandrake 11y ago

Of course you can argue that other relevant factors should balance out and partially or fully reduce the consequences of breaking a law. This negotiation happens every day in courtrooms throughout the country. If what you said was true, we wouldn't need judges, lawyers, or juries. The judicial system would only consist of fact finders and a robotic judge that looked up penalties in a big dictionary. The law isn't simply a if() statement.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

crdoconnor 11y ago

>I don't think you can say that someone broke real laws and then excuse it because public opinion or a subjective idea of public "service" somehow trumped the laws. What, so hiding Anne Frank couldn't be excused? The espionage act is bullshit and needs to be changed. It's pretty clear that he wasn't spying and what he did shouldn't have been covered by the act.

aburan28 11y ago

Let us all remind ourselves that Clinton is under investigation by the FBI for her email server handling and they recovered classified documents from it

ddlatham 11y ago

The highest law of the land grants the President (for which these people are candidates) the power to pardon people for the breaking of other laws and face reduced or no punishment. That's evidence even enshrined in our own law that there are times that simply applying the consequences of laws can be unjust.

atom-morgan 11y ago

> You cannot say "yeah, he broke the law, but...." because then, what is the value of law? It is possible to agree with Snowden's actions while still accepting that he broke laws. What if the laws are wrong to begin with? Slavery and segregation were both at one point in time laws but I would never say the people who enforced them were right simply because it was a law.

baddox 11y ago

> You cannot say "yeah, he broke the law, but...." because then, what is the value of law? I can and will say that, and then I will say that the value of the laws in question is low (negative, really). You seem to be painting this as a contradiction, as if disliking one particular law implies disliking the fundamental concept of laws. There is no such contradiction.

dllthomas 11y ago
In fact, Martin Luther King argued that it's our responsibility to disobey an unjust law.

csuwldcat 11y ago

Your entire comment is founded upon the assumption that the law is the arbiter of right and wrong, and that because it exists, it should be followed - it is not, and we shouldn't. Here's what Jefferson had to say about the law: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." For over 100 years there were laws in the South that made it illegal to racially integrate businesses and public places. It was the government that kept this horrible practice alive; a free market would never have tolerated such inorganic demand suppression (as evidenced by the state of the North). Most people are so trusting of statism and its hamster wheel that they never take the time to actually contemplate what most "laws" really are: subjective shit a group of people decided to write on dead trees and direct squads of soldiers to force on you under the threat of violence.

hellofunk 11y ago

In response to the commenters, we're talking about the Espionage Act, not jaywalking. What message does it send to excuse someone from breaking this law? It's a very important law, do we want anyone exposing national secrets? Giving him a pass on this particular law sets a dangerous precedent. I support what Snowden revealed, but why didn't he go about it legally? Can anyone provide a good reason why he didn't follow whistleblower laws?

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
The Espionage Act, an absurd broadly worded thing that's been used how many times? Contrast that with how many people have recently "leaked" classified info but in contrast with Snowden, those leaks served the interests of some faction in the government. Why haven't there been dozens of others charged under this law?
- hellofunk 11y ago
  The Act has been used in Wikileaks cases also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning
dllthomas 11y ago
"What message does it send to excuse someone from breaking this law?" It sends a message that if, in good conscience, you believe that what we're secretly doing is wrong enough that you need to reveal it to the American people, you can do so without facing inordinate punishment. This is the best possible message we can send! If we are going to have secret programs doing this kind of stuff, this is an important check that we're not being horrendously evil in the world. Remember that we're not polling a random collection of people, but people who have chosen to work on this kind of thing, whose paycheck relies on accepting it, who are regularly thinking about how to make it do more good and less bad and want to believe they're being somewhat competent at that, and people who have already been extensively vetted for security access. If one of those people are sufficiently concerned to raise this kind of alarm, it needs to be raised.

dllthomas 11y ago

One of our laws, in this nation of laws, allows the President to issue pardons - even when "someone broke real laws."

TheCoelacanth 11y ago

If you are running for president and think that you can excuse the Espionage Act then you are exactly right because Article II of the Constitution grants you explicit legal authority to do so.