4 ms·

Given the fact the constitution binds the govt and details what rights the govt has I am not sure how the govt has a leg to stand on.

by geggam 7y ago

colejohnson66 7y ago
Because, AFAIK, there’s nothing binding the government from enacting a law against treason or espionage. So they did a century ago. The problem is not that (depending on who you ask). The problem is that they’re abusing “national security” to justify needing secret courts and claiming a legally protected action (whistleblowing[0]) is illegal. [0]: Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act
- geggam 7y ago
  There are fundamental rules in the bill of rights the govt has passed laws to circumvent. Those laws are fundamentally illegal
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    Such as?
    - MereInterest 7y ago
      "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Any law that allows the NSA carte blanche to observe my communication is a law authorizing unreasonable search and seizure, and is therefore unconstitutional.
      - tssva 7y ago
        I'm not aware of any law that gives the NSA carte blanche to observe my communications. Can you site the specific law?
        colejohnson66 7y ago
        The PATRIOT Act is a big one[0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
        jonnybgood 7y ago
        It would be helpful if you could cite specifically where it says the NSA can do this. I don't see it anywhere on the wikipedia page.
        bumby 7y ago
        Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism. [0] Sec. 202. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses. [0] Sec. 217. Interception of computer trespasser communications. [0] "by striking ‘‘wire and oral’’ and inserting ‘‘wire, oral, and electronic’’"[0] Allows federal agents to follow sophisticated terrorists trained to evade detection. For years, law enforcement has been able to use "roving wiretaps" to investigate ordinary crimes, including drug offenses and racketeering. A roving wiretap can be authorized by a federal judge to apply to a particular suspect, rather than a particular phone or communications device. Because international terrorists are sophisticated and trained to thwart surveillance by rapidly changing locations and communication devices such as cell phones, the Act authorized agents to seek court permission to use the same techniques in national security investigations to track terrorists.[1] This was just a cursory look into the Act. To be fair, it looks like there is a judge involved but who knows how rigorous the approval procedure is. It didn't read to me as a 'carte blanche' approval, but again, it may be in the eye of the beholder of the agency/judge. [0] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-107hr3162enr/pdf/BILLS-107hr3162enr.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-107hr3162enr/pdf/B... [1] https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm
    - geggam 7y ago
      Another example... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone 1st amendment ensures the entire US is a free speech zone.
- tssva 7y ago
  The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 only provides protection for government employees which Snowden was not and it also doesn't apply to intelligence agency at least when classified material is involved. The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) of 1998 is the applicable law here and applies to government employees and contractors. It specifies the process of reporting waste,fraud or abuse when classified material is involved and provides protection if the process is followed. Snowden choose not to follow the provided process and therefore is protected under the law.
  - cwkoss 7y ago
    Snowden repeatedly attempted to follow internal processes and was stonewalled. The most fundamental responsibility of his job was to uphold the US constitution. His bosses deserve to be charged with treason, which is why they are working so hard to attack him.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      > Snowden repeatedly attempted to follow internal processes and was stonewalled. There is no evidence of this.
      - cwkoss 7y ago
        The only parties who could provide this evidence are govt agencies who are clearly not pleased with Snowden. Seems kind of silly to expect them to provide evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of contrary evidence, we should take Snowden at his word because none of his releases have been discredited as fabrications and thats the only account we have of the situation.
        lern_too_spel 7y ago
        > we should take Snowden at his word because none of his releases have been discredited as fabrications That's a low bar. He didn't forge any of the documents he released. He did, however, repeatedly lie about what the documents contained and to corroborate hid interpretation, he wildly exaggerated what he was able to do while at the NSA.
maxlybbert 7y ago
Snowden got a job handling classified material. The government only trusted him to handle that material because he signed various contracts that said he would keep the material secret and that he would allow the NSA to read anything he wanted to publish so they could be sure he didn’t accidentally leak something (and, potentially, so they could plan for damage control). This lawsuit is not actually about publishing classified material, but about not giving the NSA a chance to read his book before it was published. Since that’s a contract interpretation issue, and since there’s a law specifically making this contract legal, and since it’s a civil lawsuit (e.g., he can’t go to jail because of this particular lawsuit), I believe the government has a very strong leg to stand on. I’m not saying this is what the law should allow. But I don’t expect the court to rule this law unconstitutional.
- geggam 7y ago
  I believe the whistleblower act does cover this contract as is mentioned elsewhere turning this lawsuit into retaliation by the govt thus illegal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act
- cwkoss 7y ago
  The most fundamental part of his job was to uphold the US constitution. After numerous attempts to stop the constitutional violations of the NSA from within, he chose to uphold the constitution rather than the orders of unelected power hungry spooks. Frankly, hundreds if not thousands of people within the NSA deserve to be charged with treason. I would be shocked if this actually happened, though.
  - chii 7y ago
    Upholding the constitution is not a citizen's job. It is the supreme court's. You can invoke your constitutional rights as a citizen,but you don't get to enforce it on behalf of somebody else, nor do you as an individual, decide what action constitutes a violation.
    - 7y ago

Given the fact the constitution binds the govt and details what rights the govt has I am not sure how the govt has a leg to stand on.

by geggam 7y ago

Given the fact the constitution binds the govt and details what rights the govt has I am not sure how the govt has a leg to stand on.

colejohnson66 7y ago

Because, AFAIK, there’s nothing binding the government from enacting a law against treason or espionage. So they did a century ago. The problem is not that (depending on who you ask). The problem is that they’re abusing “national security” to justify needing secret courts and claiming a legally protected action (whistleblowing[0]) is illegal. [0]: Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act

geggam 7y ago
There are fundamental rules in the bill of rights the govt has passed laws to circumvent. Those laws are fundamentally illegal
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  Such as?
  - MereInterest 7y ago
    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Any law that allows the NSA carte blanche to observe my communication is a law authorizing unreasonable search and seizure, and is therefore unconstitutional.
    - tssva 7y ago
      I'm not aware of any law that gives the NSA carte blanche to observe my communications. Can you site the specific law?
      - colejohnson66 7y ago
        The PATRIOT Act is a big one[0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
        jonnybgood 7y ago
        It would be helpful if you could cite specifically where it says the NSA can do this. I don't see it anywhere on the wikipedia page.
        bumby 7y ago
        Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism. [0] Sec. 202. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses. [0] Sec. 217. Interception of computer trespasser communications. [0] "by striking ‘‘wire and oral’’ and inserting ‘‘wire, oral, and electronic’’"[0] Allows federal agents to follow sophisticated terrorists trained to evade detection. For years, law enforcement has been able to use "roving wiretaps" to investigate ordinary crimes, including drug offenses and racketeering. A roving wiretap can be authorized by a federal judge to apply to a particular suspect, rather than a particular phone or communications device. Because international terrorists are sophisticated and trained to thwart surveillance by rapidly changing locations and communication devices such as cell phones, the Act authorized agents to seek court permission to use the same techniques in national security investigations to track terrorists.[1] This was just a cursory look into the Act. To be fair, it looks like there is a judge involved but who knows how rigorous the approval procedure is. It didn't read to me as a 'carte blanche' approval, but again, it may be in the eye of the beholder of the agency/judge. [0] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-107hr3162enr/pdf/BILLS-107hr3162enr.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-107hr3162enr/pdf/B... [1] https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm
  - geggam 7y ago
    Another example... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone 1st amendment ensures the entire US is a free speech zone.
tssva 7y ago
The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 only provides protection for government employees which Snowden was not and it also doesn't apply to intelligence agency at least when classified material is involved. The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) of 1998 is the applicable law here and applies to government employees and contractors. It specifies the process of reporting waste,fraud or abuse when classified material is involved and provides protection if the process is followed. Snowden choose not to follow the provided process and therefore is protected under the law.
- cwkoss 7y ago
  Snowden repeatedly attempted to follow internal processes and was stonewalled. The most fundamental responsibility of his job was to uphold the US constitution. His bosses deserve to be charged with treason, which is why they are working so hard to attack him.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    > Snowden repeatedly attempted to follow internal processes and was stonewalled. There is no evidence of this.
    - cwkoss 7y ago
      The only parties who could provide this evidence are govt agencies who are clearly not pleased with Snowden. Seems kind of silly to expect them to provide evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of contrary evidence, we should take Snowden at his word because none of his releases have been discredited as fabrications and thats the only account we have of the situation.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        > we should take Snowden at his word because none of his releases have been discredited as fabrications That's a low bar. He didn't forge any of the documents he released. He did, however, repeatedly lie about what the documents contained and to corroborate hid interpretation, he wildly exaggerated what he was able to do while at the NSA.

maxlybbert 7y ago

Snowden got a job handling classified material. The government only trusted him to handle that material because he signed various contracts that said he would keep the material secret and that he would allow the NSA to read anything he wanted to publish so they could be sure he didn’t accidentally leak something (and, potentially, so they could plan for damage control). This lawsuit is not actually about publishing classified material, but about not giving the NSA a chance to read his book before it was published. Since that’s a contract interpretation issue, and since there’s a law specifically making this contract legal, and since it’s a civil lawsuit (e.g., he can’t go to jail because of this particular lawsuit), I believe the government has a very strong leg to stand on. I’m not saying this is what the law should allow. But I don’t expect the court to rule this law unconstitutional.

geggam 7y ago
I believe the whistleblower act does cover this contract as is mentioned elsewhere turning this lawsuit into retaliation by the govt thus illegal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act
cwkoss 7y ago
The most fundamental part of his job was to uphold the US constitution. After numerous attempts to stop the constitutional violations of the NSA from within, he chose to uphold the constitution rather than the orders of unelected power hungry spooks. Frankly, hundreds if not thousands of people within the NSA deserve to be charged with treason. I would be shocked if this actually happened, though.
- chii 7y ago
  Upholding the constitution is not a citizen's job. It is the supreme court's. You can invoke your constitutional rights as a citizen,but you don't get to enforce it on behalf of somebody else, nor do you as an individual, decide what action constitutes a violation.
  - 7y ago