12 ms·

United States Obtains Final Judgement and Permanent Injunction Against Snowden

chrisco255 6y ago
“As this case demonstrates, the Department of Justice will not overlook the wrongful actions of those who seek to betray the trust reposed in them and to personally profit from their access to classified national security information.” And the former FBI director who illegally spied on and framed a duly elected president meanwhile gets to keep his millions from his book deal. The government betrayed our trust and has done repeatedly with none of the perpetrators facing consequences.
kyuudou 6y ago
As much as I agree with Snowden, the USA government will never forgive the betrayal. Snowden acted for the people, not the government, reflecting the reality that the government by and large works for itself rather than the people. I'm sure it wasn't an easy decision for him to make. I would've done the same in the same position, though, but I am a single male without companies, properties, extended family reputations and so forth to protect so it's easy for guys like us to be so "noble". My head will probably asplode if Trump pardons him next term.
- DethNinja 6y ago
  Why would Trump pardon him? Biden vs Trump is all you need to know about state of democracy in the USA.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    Same reason Trump does anything. To own the libs and get some press.
  - snazz 6y ago
    Low odds, but he has suggested that he might: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-snowden/trump-says-he-is-considering-pardon-for-leaker-edward-snowden-idUSKCN25B10Z https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-snowden/trum...
    - kzrdude 6y ago
      He's frequently talking for and against any given issue. And he is not trustworthy, so his word doesn't matter.
      - chrisco255 6y ago
        Trump happens to be a victim of FISA abuse so I wouldn't be surprised. Downvoters: Here is the Inspector General's report on the FBI's abuse of FISA against the Trump campaign: https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf The FBI "persistently deceived a secret court to authorize surveilling a 2016 Trump presidential campaign official".
  - vinay427 6y ago
    > Biden vs Trump is all you need to know about state of democracy in the USA. Why is that all you think you need to know? There are something like 30 other things to vote for on my local ballot that matter and this is true to varying extents in most every place.
    - Mountain_Skies 6y ago
      It's odd but seems to be quite common for people to know the least about the level of government closest to them. Most Americans know who is the president but I'd bet quite a few have no idea who represents them on their city council or county commission.
      - jessaustin 6y ago
        Local news has been destroyed. The newspapers who used to send a reporter to every municipal meeting no longer exist. (Well, there may be papers with the same names, but their new owners only budget enough for wire service reprints.) Other media has not stepped up to fill the role. Municipal officials could themselves put everything online, but they don't actually desire public scrutiny so they don't.
        tssva 6y ago
        I think you will find that the records of most municipal/county meetings are available online. Providing them is required by law in almost every jurisdiction and mostly this is done by making them available online.
        jessaustin 6y ago
        I would draw a distinction between video recordings and whatever the meeting's acting secretary happened to note on a one-page form.
        tssva 6y ago
        My locality broadcasts all public meetings live on local cable networks and streaming on the internet. The videos of these meetings are also available to be watched after the fact. I checked the websites for two of the counties adjacent to mine and they do the same. I'm certain it isn't universal but I'm guessing it is a pretty widespread practice.
  - wombatmobile 6y ago
    Biden v Trump is not a lack of democracy, since voters are able to respond to it in the forthcoming free and fair election.
    - justatdotin 6y ago
      I'm gonna cut off your arm. left or right? Now, don't say you had no choice in the matter.
      - corpMaverick 6y ago
        Look. No one is perfect. We all have our faults. But Trump is deeply flawed in many ways. And he hardly has any redeeming characteristics. If you think both are the same then you haven payed any attention or you are just pretending that your are neutral but in reality you love him. And you are definitely not a leftist. Even Chomsky and Bernie have warned us.
        KnightHawk3 6y ago
        It's going to blow your mind when you find out there's a longstanding movement of people further to the left of Chomsky and Bernie
        mindslight 6y ago
        You're right that there is a significant difference between candidates this time. But just because one of the teams has made their offering even worse does not validate the overall setup. Trump's exceptional terribleness is just another indicator of just how broken our democracy has become, complete with the sizable amount of people continuing to rally behind him out of spite. Although pragmatically I do find myself in the novel position of needing to support the status quo corporate authoritarian, as societal collapse is not conducive to freedom.
        justatdotin 6y ago
        My comment was not about the candidates. or the parties. it was about what some people are willing to accept as "no lack of democracy". OK let's revise the options: I'm going to amputate either your left arm or your right thumb. It's quite obvious that you should rather lose your right thumb. And I gave you the opportunity to make a choice. If you disagree that this is democracy, then you secretly want to lose your left arm. Definitely not a leftist.
- DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
  > As much as I agree with Snowden, the USA government will never forgive the betrayal. I don't mean to distract from your main point, but IMO the only betrayal was by the NSA/CIA. Snowden was simply upholding his civic responsibilities.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    That depends on your point of view. If you are the government, then Snowden absolutely did betray your trust. Unfortunately it also just happens to be the government that gets to decide what penalties there are for this sort of thing, even though the people were also betrayed by the three-letter agencies.
    - kyuudou 6y ago
      >If you are the government, then Snowden absolutely did betray your trust. And having gotten federal clearance in the past, I remember lots of very forbidding language indicating the extensive penalties that would occur if that clearance was violated. Even the guy who got pardoned by Trump, Kristian Saucier, who took a few pictures inside of a submarine where he worked[1], was basically ruined until pardon - prison, not honorable discharge, etc... 63 months of prison! That's how serious the federales are about enforcing classification and generally, I agree with it. Except in the case of exposing massive unconstitutional abuses of power including the wholesale disregard and contempt for the 4th amendment. 1: https://www.theday.com/article/20180309/NWS09/180309337 https://www.theday.com/article/20180309/NWS09/180309337
  - kyuudou 6y ago
    No worries and I totally agree with you. Snowden had no other choice after the examples of whistleblower after whistleblower after whistleblower tried to follow the rules in place for disclosing the kind of abuse he observed and instead ended up getting railroaded, ghosted and otherwise ruined. It also allowed people like Bill Binney to come out to expand further on those revelations.
  - Hnrobert42 6y ago
    Snowden betrayed everyone whose lives he endangered by breaking his oath. Over half my annual charitable giving goes to the ACLU and EPIC, but that guy can burn in hell.
- TheDesolate0 6y ago
  "next term"? Die, in agony.
pdonis 6y ago
It's worth noting that this judgment does not mean Snowden's book can no longer be published; it is only a judgment against Snowden and in favor of the US government for the money made from the book. Also, it is only the civil lawsuit, and the judgment is not connected at all with the separate criminal charges that have been filed against Snowden.
- spellczeck 6y ago
  Also they misspelled judgment
  - ttul 6y ago
    That depends. During the 19th Century, judgement (with an 'e') became more popular in British writing and is now the common form used in British English. In legal contexts (in Britain), judgment (without an 'e') is the proper spelling. This spelling is also the dominant form in the United States. Thus, perhaps the author of the press release is British.
    - spellczeck 6y ago
      Yeah maybe it’s a fan of old English spelling, or, alternatively, the DOJ is politicized, the folks in charge are allergic to Microsoft Word, and theye donte proofreade their presse releases.
      - thaumasiotes 6y ago
        > Yeah maybe it’s a fan of old English spelling The word would not have existed in old english.
        garbagetime 6y ago
        Are you confusing old English with Old English?
  - bobbylarrybobby 6y ago
jimbob45 6y ago
>Final judgment >District court Any lawyers in here that can explain if this means it can’t be appealed?
- skissane 6y ago
  IANAL but a "final judgement" at District Court level merely means the end of the proceedings at the District Court level. From the District Court level, you have the right to an appeal to the relevant Circuit Court of Appeal. (By contrast, you don't have the right to an appeal from the Circuit Court level to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court gets to decide which appeals it wants to hear and only a small minority get accepted.)
  - bavila 6y ago
    IAAL, and you are correct. Generally, the appellate (circuit) courts do not get involved until a case has been completely adjudicated in a district court. There are many orders that a district court may issue while a case is pending, and it would be incredibly taxing on the appellate system if litigants could complain to the appellate courts about every perceived error that emerges during the case in a piecemeal manner. It is in the interests of judicial economy to ensure that all errors are addressed concurrently as part of a single appeal. So the appellate courts will not take a case on appeal until the district court has issued a final judgment disposing of all issues that are in dispute. The final judgment would typically be issued subsequent to, e.g., a motion to dismiss the complaint, or a jury's verdict. Once that final judgment is filed by the district court, then the case is ripe for appeal to the relevant circuit court (depending on which jurisdiction the district court is located). Then, once the circuit court issues its final judgment, that judgment can in turn be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Note that there are some exceptions to the general rule, in which case a litigant can initiate what's called an interlocutory appeal, which just means that you can appeal from a single order while the underlying case is still pending.
excalibur 6y ago
> “As this case demonstrates, the Department of Justice will not overlook the wrongful actions of those who seek to betray the trust reposed in them and to personally profit from their access to classified national security information.” So POTUS is being arrested when?
- wmf 6y ago
  January 21st we hope.
  - HenryKissinger 6y ago
    January 20th, at noon. John Roberts Jr. gives Joe Biden the oath. Applause. 21 cannon shots. Hail to the Chief plays. Hail to the Chief ends. Cannon fire ends. Applause ends. Biden steps to the podium to give his inaugural address. "My fellow Americans, it is with the deepest humility that I have accepted your verdict. As President of the United States, I commit to enforce justice, to be fair, and to show empathy for all of you. But first, I have one small detail to take care of." Cameras are recording everything. The nation is transfixed. Joe Biden slowly turns sideway. He raises his left hand and points at Donald Trump. "Secret Service, arrest this man." Four agents clad in black suits, wearing sunglasses and earpieces, grab the former president. Trump, 74, tries to resist weakly, but is quickly carried away. The crowd of political dignitaries behind Biden turns their heads in cadence, following the sight of the former president being taken away from view. Biden turns back to face the National Mall. Applause and deafening cheers. The end.
    - kyle_morris_ 6y ago
      This isn't how people are arrested in the United States.
      - HenryKissinger 6y ago
        I know. This is my fantasy.
xg15 6y ago
> In September 2019, the United States filed a lawsuit against Snowden, who published a book entitled Permanent Record in violation of the non-disclosure agreements he signed with both CIA and NSA. The lawsuit alleged that Snowden published his book without submitting it to the agencies for pre-publication review, in violation of his express obligations under the agreements he signed. > The United States’ lawsuit did not seek to stop or restrict the publication or distribution of Permanent Record. Rather, ... the government sought to recover all proceeds earned by Snowden ... Even if you ignore all context regarding Snowden, how does this make any sense? The crime is to make classified information available to the public. Therefore, the government ... does not actually care to retract that information but will instead take your money.
- ry454 6y ago
  Perhaps they don't want to say in the court that Snowden was right. This might matter if things turn around in the future and the key people involved in the surveillance will be tried in a court for "crimes against humanity".
- jariel 6y ago
  The 'crime' in this case is violation of the non-disclosure without submitting for pre-publication review. The book may or not contain sensitive information. It probably does not, otherwise, the government would be pushing to suppress it. It could simply be a legal decision, in that, they may not actually have the ability or right to block it unless it does contain sensitive information, so this is all they can do. Or it could be possible the CIA/NSA for whatever reason actually want the book to be published. Or perhaps there is some kind of unknown policy that specifically forbids those from doing such things from profiting in such a manner and the policy is just being carried out. Nobody at the CIA is going to care about the money involved. It is odd though.
  - philipov 6y ago
    > It probably does not, otherwise, the government would be pushing to suppress it. The information is already released. Pushing to suppress it would be ineffectual while confirming that the book contains sensitive information.
chanfest22 6y ago
> The United States’ lawsuit did not seek to stop or restrict the publication or distribution of Permanent Record [...] Rather [...] the government sought to recover all proceeds earned by Snowden Gotta love America. We're not going after you for whistleblowing on systematically illegal activity by the NSA. We just want your money.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  I'd imagine the book is constitutionally protected speech, whereas profiting from a crime isn't.
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  Probably because this was easier to prove and actually have a trial. It's trivial to show that he didn't seek permission before publish, and violating an NDA is a civil issue. Because trials in absentia are typically not allowed for felonies, I don't think anything can happen with the criminal charges against him until he's physically present.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > We're not going after you for whistleblowing on systematically illegal activity by the NSA. Yes, the US is doing that. Just not in this lawsuit. As I noted upthread, this lawsuit is only the civil lawsuit; there is a separate criminal lawsuit still in progress.
- tempsolution 6y ago
  Another less biased way of looking at it is that this was the easiest option to pursue. Even if they could stop publication in the US somehow, it would still only apply in the US. And it's not like grandma is going to pickup this book in the store. People who are interested will get it, either online, as PDF or order it from another country. There is literally no way to prevent publication world-wide. However, US will probably be a big market and there might be repercussions throughout other countries through political pressure to also collect the proceeds or even ban the book. On the other hand, I also find it curious why Snowden would sell this book to begin with. Kinda undermines his credibility. He is earning a shitload of money through his talks already and the book is essentially a chronicle of a crime he committed. Seems "morally interesting" that he wants to monetize it like that. On the other hand, who cares about morals, but then its just a tad hypocritical.
jonplackett 6y ago
In what way will this actually cost Snowden money? Presumably he had already received some royalties already? Is his publisher US based or elsewhere? Will that affect whether they can actually take these royalties?
- philwelch 6y ago
  I’m sure Putin will keep him housed and comfortable regardless of his legal issues in the US.
ectocardia 6y ago
(Haven't read the judgment or materials, but) this decision seems to be in line with a similar 2001 UK case also involving a spy book and the special remedy of disgorgement of profits [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v_Blake https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v_Blake
iammru 6y ago
I don't think Snowden cares.
- Mountain_Skies 6y ago
  Even if he's on the payroll of a Russian intelligence service, doubt he's immune to wanting to be compensated for the work involved in writing the book. If he's not on their payroll, whatever work he's doing to support himself in Russia, surely some supplemental income would be welcome.
animationwill 6y ago
Doesn't look like this has been asked anywhere on here. Couldn't he just publish internationally for countries who don't care about DoJ injunctions?
- hda2 6y ago
  My thoughts exactly. This ruling is limited to the jurisdiction of this court (i.e. the US). They can demand that Snowden not profit of his book in other countries, but they can't enforce their demands in those contries unless they countries agree (or are /made/ to agree) to submit to the jurisdiction of a foreign court.
aasasd 6y ago
> “Intelligence information should protect our nation, not provide personal profit. This judgment will ensure that Edward Snowden receives no monetary benefits from breaching the trust placed in him.” A second-level breach of trust, huh. Also: > 56 specific speeches Heh.
postmeta 6y ago
Here he comments on his reasoning around not submitting: TLDR; why submit a document criticizing an agency to the agency itself for censorship? https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/edward-snowden-how-getting-sued-resulted-a-bestselling-book-1241196 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/edward-snowden-h...
efitz 6y ago
How should I feel about Snowden? On the one hand, I served in the US military, took an oath, love my country, and value keeping my word. I have little respect for someone who went into a position of trust with intent to betray. On the other hand, his actions brought to light questionable activity by our intelligence service. I just don't know. It seems weird but I kinda don't care what happens to him.
- 0xy 6y ago
  I don't think Snowden got into the military with the intent to betray. In fact, he repeatedly escalated his concerns about illegal behavior to his superiors. Only after those avenues were exhausted did he go public.
  - efitz 6y ago
    But he DID go to work for Booz Allen Hamilton with such intent, by his own public admission [1] "My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," he told the Post on June 12. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago." [1] https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1268209/snowden-sought-booz-allen-job-gather-evidence-nsa-surveillance https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1268209/snowden-...
    - 0xy 6y ago
      His quote does not state that he intended to be a whistleblower at that time at all.
- frickinLasers 6y ago
  The oath is to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. A lot of people seem to be confused about who the real enemies of the Constitution (particularly the Fourth Amendment) are. Put another way: Hopefully you were taught that it is your duty not to obey an unlawful order from a superior. I don't know where you got the idea that he began his career with an intent to leak details of the government's illegal actions. According to him, he came across the report that finally led to the decision purely by accident.
nly 6y ago
He probably should have published a Bitcoin address in the preamble

“As this case demonstrates, the Department of Justice will not overlook the wrongful actions of those who seek to betray the trust reposed in them and to personally profit from their access to classified national security information.” And the former FBI director who illegally spied on and framed a duly elected president meanwhile gets to keep his millions from his book deal. The government betrayed our trust and has done repeatedly with none of the perpetrators facing consequences.

kyuudou 6y ago

As much as I agree with Snowden, the USA government will never forgive the betrayal. Snowden acted for the people, not the government, reflecting the reality that the government by and large works for itself rather than the people. I'm sure it wasn't an easy decision for him to make. I would've done the same in the same position, though, but I am a single male without companies, properties, extended family reputations and so forth to protect so it's easy for guys like us to be so "noble". My head will probably asplode if Trump pardons him next term.

DethNinja 6y ago
Why would Trump pardon him? Biden vs Trump is all you need to know about state of democracy in the USA.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  Same reason Trump does anything. To own the libs and get some press.
- snazz 6y ago
  Low odds, but he has suggested that he might: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-snowden/trump-says-he-is-considering-pardon-for-leaker-edward-snowden-idUSKCN25B10Z https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-snowden/trum...
  - kzrdude 6y ago
    He's frequently talking for and against any given issue. And he is not trustworthy, so his word doesn't matter.
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      Trump happens to be a victim of FISA abuse so I wouldn't be surprised. Downvoters: Here is the Inspector General's report on the FBI's abuse of FISA against the Trump campaign: https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf The FBI "persistently deceived a secret court to authorize surveilling a 2016 Trump presidential campaign official".
- vinay427 6y ago
  > Biden vs Trump is all you need to know about state of democracy in the USA. Why is that all you think you need to know? There are something like 30 other things to vote for on my local ballot that matter and this is true to varying extents in most every place.
  - Mountain_Skies 6y ago
    It's odd but seems to be quite common for people to know the least about the level of government closest to them. Most Americans know who is the president but I'd bet quite a few have no idea who represents them on their city council or county commission.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      Local news has been destroyed. The newspapers who used to send a reporter to every municipal meeting no longer exist. (Well, there may be papers with the same names, but their new owners only budget enough for wire service reprints.) Other media has not stepped up to fill the role. Municipal officials could themselves put everything online, but they don't actually desire public scrutiny so they don't.
      - tssva 6y ago
        I think you will find that the records of most municipal/county meetings are available online. Providing them is required by law in almost every jurisdiction and mostly this is done by making them available online.
        jessaustin 6y ago
        I would draw a distinction between video recordings and whatever the meeting's acting secretary happened to note on a one-page form.
        tssva 6y ago
        My locality broadcasts all public meetings live on local cable networks and streaming on the internet. The videos of these meetings are also available to be watched after the fact. I checked the websites for two of the counties adjacent to mine and they do the same. I'm certain it isn't universal but I'm guessing it is a pretty widespread practice.
- wombatmobile 6y ago
  Biden v Trump is not a lack of democracy, since voters are able to respond to it in the forthcoming free and fair election.
  - justatdotin 6y ago
    I'm gonna cut off your arm. left or right? Now, don't say you had no choice in the matter.
    - corpMaverick 6y ago
      Look. No one is perfect. We all have our faults. But Trump is deeply flawed in many ways. And he hardly has any redeeming characteristics. If you think both are the same then you haven payed any attention or you are just pretending that your are neutral but in reality you love him. And you are definitely not a leftist. Even Chomsky and Bernie have warned us.
      - KnightHawk3 6y ago
        It's going to blow your mind when you find out there's a longstanding movement of people further to the left of Chomsky and Bernie
      - mindslight 6y ago
        You're right that there is a significant difference between candidates this time. But just because one of the teams has made their offering even worse does not validate the overall setup. Trump's exceptional terribleness is just another indicator of just how broken our democracy has become, complete with the sizable amount of people continuing to rally behind him out of spite. Although pragmatically I do find myself in the novel position of needing to support the status quo corporate authoritarian, as societal collapse is not conducive to freedom.
      - justatdotin 6y ago
        My comment was not about the candidates. or the parties. it was about what some people are willing to accept as "no lack of democracy". OK let's revise the options: I'm going to amputate either your left arm or your right thumb. It's quite obvious that you should rather lose your right thumb. And I gave you the opportunity to make a choice. If you disagree that this is democracy, then you secretly want to lose your left arm. Definitely not a leftist.
DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
> As much as I agree with Snowden, the USA government will never forgive the betrayal. I don't mean to distract from your main point, but IMO the only betrayal was by the NSA/CIA. Snowden was simply upholding his civic responsibilities.
- kelnos 6y ago
  That depends on your point of view. If you are the government, then Snowden absolutely did betray your trust. Unfortunately it also just happens to be the government that gets to decide what penalties there are for this sort of thing, even though the people were also betrayed by the three-letter agencies.
  - kyuudou 6y ago
    >If you are the government, then Snowden absolutely did betray your trust. And having gotten federal clearance in the past, I remember lots of very forbidding language indicating the extensive penalties that would occur if that clearance was violated. Even the guy who got pardoned by Trump, Kristian Saucier, who took a few pictures inside of a submarine where he worked[1], was basically ruined until pardon - prison, not honorable discharge, etc... 63 months of prison! That's how serious the federales are about enforcing classification and generally, I agree with it. Except in the case of exposing massive unconstitutional abuses of power including the wholesale disregard and contempt for the 4th amendment. 1: https://www.theday.com/article/20180309/NWS09/180309337 https://www.theday.com/article/20180309/NWS09/180309337
- kyuudou 6y ago
  No worries and I totally agree with you. Snowden had no other choice after the examples of whistleblower after whistleblower after whistleblower tried to follow the rules in place for disclosing the kind of abuse he observed and instead ended up getting railroaded, ghosted and otherwise ruined. It also allowed people like Bill Binney to come out to expand further on those revelations.
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  Snowden betrayed everyone whose lives he endangered by breaking his oath. Over half my annual charitable giving goes to the ACLU and EPIC, but that guy can burn in hell.
TheDesolate0 6y ago
"next term"? Die, in agony.

pdonis 6y ago

It's worth noting that this judgment does not mean Snowden's book can no longer be published; it is only a judgment against Snowden and in favor of the US government for the money made from the book. Also, it is only the civil lawsuit, and the judgment is not connected at all with the separate criminal charges that have been filed against Snowden.

spellczeck 6y ago
Also they misspelled judgment
- ttul 6y ago
  That depends. During the 19th Century, judgement (with an 'e') became more popular in British writing and is now the common form used in British English. In legal contexts (in Britain), judgment (without an 'e') is the proper spelling. This spelling is also the dominant form in the United States. Thus, perhaps the author of the press release is British.
  - spellczeck 6y ago
    Yeah maybe it’s a fan of old English spelling, or, alternatively, the DOJ is politicized, the folks in charge are allergic to Microsoft Word, and theye donte proofreade their presse releases.
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      > Yeah maybe it’s a fan of old English spelling The word would not have existed in old english.
      - garbagetime 6y ago
        Are you confusing old English with Old English?
- bobbylarrybobby 6y ago

jimbob45 6y ago

>Final judgment >District court Any lawyers in here that can explain if this means it can’t be appealed?

skissane 6y ago
IANAL but a "final judgement" at District Court level merely means the end of the proceedings at the District Court level. From the District Court level, you have the right to an appeal to the relevant Circuit Court of Appeal. (By contrast, you don't have the right to an appeal from the Circuit Court level to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court gets to decide which appeals it wants to hear and only a small minority get accepted.)
- bavila 6y ago
  IAAL, and you are correct. Generally, the appellate (circuit) courts do not get involved until a case has been completely adjudicated in a district court. There are many orders that a district court may issue while a case is pending, and it would be incredibly taxing on the appellate system if litigants could complain to the appellate courts about every perceived error that emerges during the case in a piecemeal manner. It is in the interests of judicial economy to ensure that all errors are addressed concurrently as part of a single appeal. So the appellate courts will not take a case on appeal until the district court has issued a final judgment disposing of all issues that are in dispute. The final judgment would typically be issued subsequent to, e.g., a motion to dismiss the complaint, or a jury's verdict. Once that final judgment is filed by the district court, then the case is ripe for appeal to the relevant circuit court (depending on which jurisdiction the district court is located). Then, once the circuit court issues its final judgment, that judgment can in turn be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Note that there are some exceptions to the general rule, in which case a litigant can initiate what's called an interlocutory appeal, which just means that you can appeal from a single order while the underlying case is still pending.

excalibur 6y ago

> “As this case demonstrates, the Department of Justice will not overlook the wrongful actions of those who seek to betray the trust reposed in them and to personally profit from their access to classified national security information.” So POTUS is being arrested when?

wmf 6y ago
January 21st we hope.
- HenryKissinger 6y ago
  January 20th, at noon. John Roberts Jr. gives Joe Biden the oath. Applause. 21 cannon shots. Hail to the Chief plays. Hail to the Chief ends. Cannon fire ends. Applause ends. Biden steps to the podium to give his inaugural address. "My fellow Americans, it is with the deepest humility that I have accepted your verdict. As President of the United States, I commit to enforce justice, to be fair, and to show empathy for all of you. But first, I have one small detail to take care of." Cameras are recording everything. The nation is transfixed. Joe Biden slowly turns sideway. He raises his left hand and points at Donald Trump. "Secret Service, arrest this man." Four agents clad in black suits, wearing sunglasses and earpieces, grab the former president. Trump, 74, tries to resist weakly, but is quickly carried away. The crowd of political dignitaries behind Biden turns their heads in cadence, following the sight of the former president being taken away from view. Biden turns back to face the National Mall. Applause and deafening cheers. The end.
  - kyle_morris_ 6y ago
    This isn't how people are arrested in the United States.
    - HenryKissinger 6y ago
      I know. This is my fantasy.

xg15 6y ago

> In September 2019, the United States filed a lawsuit against Snowden, who published a book entitled Permanent Record in violation of the non-disclosure agreements he signed with both CIA and NSA. The lawsuit alleged that Snowden published his book without submitting it to the agencies for pre-publication review, in violation of his express obligations under the agreements he signed. > The United States’ lawsuit did not seek to stop or restrict the publication or distribution of Permanent Record. Rather, ... the government sought to recover all proceeds earned by Snowden ... Even if you ignore all context regarding Snowden, how does this make any sense? The crime is to make classified information available to the public. Therefore, the government ... does not actually care to retract that information but will instead take your money.

ry454 6y ago
Perhaps they don't want to say in the court that Snowden was right. This might matter if things turn around in the future and the key people involved in the surveillance will be tried in a court for "crimes against humanity".
jariel 6y ago
The 'crime' in this case is violation of the non-disclosure without submitting for pre-publication review. The book may or not contain sensitive information. It probably does not, otherwise, the government would be pushing to suppress it. It could simply be a legal decision, in that, they may not actually have the ability or right to block it unless it does contain sensitive information, so this is all they can do. Or it could be possible the CIA/NSA for whatever reason actually want the book to be published. Or perhaps there is some kind of unknown policy that specifically forbids those from doing such things from profiting in such a manner and the policy is just being carried out. Nobody at the CIA is going to care about the money involved. It is odd though.
- philipov 6y ago
  > It probably does not, otherwise, the government would be pushing to suppress it. The information is already released. Pushing to suppress it would be ineffectual while confirming that the book contains sensitive information.

chanfest22 6y ago

> The United States’ lawsuit did not seek to stop or restrict the publication or distribution of Permanent Record [...] Rather [...] the government sought to recover all proceeds earned by Snowden Gotta love America. We're not going after you for whistleblowing on systematically illegal activity by the NSA. We just want your money.

AmericanChopper 6y ago
I'd imagine the book is constitutionally protected speech, whereas profiting from a crime isn't.
Rebelgecko 6y ago
Probably because this was easier to prove and actually have a trial. It's trivial to show that he didn't seek permission before publish, and violating an NDA is a civil issue. Because trials in absentia are typically not allowed for felonies, I don't think anything can happen with the criminal charges against him until he's physically present.
pdonis 6y ago
> We're not going after you for whistleblowing on systematically illegal activity by the NSA. Yes, the US is doing that. Just not in this lawsuit. As I noted upthread, this lawsuit is only the civil lawsuit; there is a separate criminal lawsuit still in progress.
tempsolution 6y ago
Another less biased way of looking at it is that this was the easiest option to pursue. Even if they could stop publication in the US somehow, it would still only apply in the US. And it's not like grandma is going to pickup this book in the store. People who are interested will get it, either online, as PDF or order it from another country. There is literally no way to prevent publication world-wide. However, US will probably be a big market and there might be repercussions throughout other countries through political pressure to also collect the proceeds or even ban the book. On the other hand, I also find it curious why Snowden would sell this book to begin with. Kinda undermines his credibility. He is earning a shitload of money through his talks already and the book is essentially a chronicle of a crime he committed. Seems "morally interesting" that he wants to monetize it like that. On the other hand, who cares about morals, but then its just a tad hypocritical.

jonplackett 6y ago

In what way will this actually cost Snowden money? Presumably he had already received some royalties already? Is his publisher US based or elsewhere? Will that affect whether they can actually take these royalties?

philwelch 6y ago
I’m sure Putin will keep him housed and comfortable regardless of his legal issues in the US.

ectocardia 6y ago

(Haven't read the judgment or materials, but) this decision seems to be in line with a similar 2001 UK case also involving a spy book and the special remedy of disgorgement of profits [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v_Blake https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v_Blake

iammru 6y ago

I don't think Snowden cares.

Mountain_Skies 6y ago
Even if he's on the payroll of a Russian intelligence service, doubt he's immune to wanting to be compensated for the work involved in writing the book. If he's not on their payroll, whatever work he's doing to support himself in Russia, surely some supplemental income would be welcome.

animationwill 6y ago

Doesn't look like this has been asked anywhere on here. Couldn't he just publish internationally for countries who don't care about DoJ injunctions?

hda2 6y ago
My thoughts exactly. This ruling is limited to the jurisdiction of this court (i.e. the US). They can demand that Snowden not profit of his book in other countries, but they can't enforce their demands in those contries unless they countries agree (or are /made/ to agree) to submit to the jurisdiction of a foreign court.

aasasd 6y ago

> “Intelligence information should protect our nation, not provide personal profit. This judgment will ensure that Edward Snowden receives no monetary benefits from breaching the trust placed in him.” A second-level breach of trust, huh. Also: > 56 specific speeches Heh.

postmeta 6y ago

Here he comments on his reasoning around not submitting: TLDR; why submit a document criticizing an agency to the agency itself for censorship? https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/edward-snowden-how-getting-sued-resulted-a-bestselling-book-1241196 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/edward-snowden-h...

efitz 6y ago

How should I feel about Snowden? On the one hand, I served in the US military, took an oath, love my country, and value keeping my word. I have little respect for someone who went into a position of trust with intent to betray. On the other hand, his actions brought to light questionable activity by our intelligence service. I just don't know. It seems weird but I kinda don't care what happens to him.

0xy 6y ago
I don't think Snowden got into the military with the intent to betray. In fact, he repeatedly escalated his concerns about illegal behavior to his superiors. Only after those avenues were exhausted did he go public.
- efitz 6y ago
  But he DID go to work for Booz Allen Hamilton with such intent, by his own public admission [1] "My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," he told the Post on June 12. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago." [1] https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1268209/snowden-sought-booz-allen-job-gather-evidence-nsa-surveillance https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1268209/snowden-...
  - 0xy 6y ago
    His quote does not state that he intended to be a whistleblower at that time at all.
frickinLasers 6y ago
The oath is to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. A lot of people seem to be confused about who the real enemies of the Constitution (particularly the Fourth Amendment) are. Put another way: Hopefully you were taught that it is your duty not to obey an unlawful order from a superior. I don't know where you got the idea that he began his career with an intent to leak details of the government's illegal actions. According to him, he came across the report that finally led to the decision purely by accident.

nly 6y ago

He probably should have published a Bitcoin address in the preamble