5 ms·

What she heard at the briefing would be illegal for her to divulge. By telling us that 1) Snowdon is true, 2) Snowdon was a very small cog and doesn't realise

What she heard at the briefing would be illegal for her to divulge. By telling us that 1) Snowdon is true, 2) Snowdon was a very small cog and doesn't realise the extent of it all, she's going further than all others at that briefing, and hopefully encouraging more whistleblowers to step up (and ruin their own lives).

lifeisstillgood 13y ago
It was illegal for Snowden to divulge. It's just there is a "public interest" defence for him. So should there be for her.
- taejo 13y ago
  She doesn't need a "public interest" defence: as a Representative, she can't be prosecuted for anything she says in the House.
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    Except some speech is now a felony. Neat, huh?
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    "as a Representative, she can't be prosecuted for anything she says in the House." What is your support for this?
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 6, Clause 1 [1] (emphasis added): The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place. [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section6 http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section6
      - BCM43 13y ago
        If I read that correctly she could be charged with treason and a felony.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        That sounds like you are misreading which of the two separate immunities the treason, felony, and "breach of peace" exception applies to.
        BCM43 13y ago
        Yes, it looks like you're correct.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        So as long as they hold the trial on the floor of the house, we're good... More seriously (I hope) that does sound like it should be sufficient protection and I'd love to see her exercise it.
ma2rten 13y ago
2) Snowdon was a very small cog and doesn't realise the extent of it all Only a small part of what Snowdon leaked is public yet.
ajb 13y ago
There are some constitutional protections on speech by congressmen in the course of their duties, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause
- lambda 13y ago
  Yes, but it has an exception for treason and felonies, and disclosing classified information may count as at least a felony, if not treason.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    It's quite explicitly a felony; it's questionable whether it's treason but similar things have been treated as such in the past.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Yes, but it has an exception for treason and felonies There are two separate parts: 1. While they are attending a session they can't be arrested, and 2. They can't be held accountable in any other forum based on the content of any speech or debate in either House. The exception for for treason, felonies, and "breach of peace" applies to the first; the second, is an absolute, unqualified immunity, and, as applied by the Supreme Court, applies to all "legislative acts", which includes quite a bit that is not physically on the floor during a general session of the House.
  - mncolinlee 13y ago
    As numerous commentators have pointed out, treason is a ridiculously high standard that has rarely been met. It has been misapplied so often by politicians using hyperbole that most people don't understand the meaning anymore. It requires not just "aid and comfort" to the enemy, but also "adherence to the enemy" actively waging war against the United States, according to Supreme Court precedent. You cannot accidentally commit treason.
ck2 13y ago
It's called civil disobedience. If a group of congresspeople decided to hold their own briefing with the press, not much could be done and they would be heroes. Someone of color trying to attend a state university or even just sitting at the lunch counter with someone white 50 years ago was also very illegal in this country. Doesn't mean it was right no matter how many thought so at the time and all the arguments they gave for it to continue.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  They could be jailed and prosecuted. The constitution doesn't protect them against felonies, which these would be. ... of course, that wouldn't be the end of it, but good gravy would that be messy times.
  - kenj0418 13y ago
    Assuming they are reading it from the floor of the House (or Senate), it does protect them from being prosecuted: "and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place." They would be subject to whatever punishments their fellow Representatives (or Senators) decided to impose (including possibly expulsion).
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      Ah, right.

lifeisstillgood 13y ago

It was illegal for Snowden to divulge. It's just there is a "public interest" defence for him. So should there be for her.

taejo 13y ago
She doesn't need a "public interest" defence: as a Representative, she can't be prosecuted for anything she says in the House.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  Except some speech is now a felony. Neat, huh?
- dllthomas 13y ago
  "as a Representative, she can't be prosecuted for anything she says in the House." What is your support for this?
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 6, Clause 1 [1] (emphasis added): The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place. [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section6 http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section6
    - BCM43 13y ago
      If I read that correctly she could be charged with treason and a felony.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        That sounds like you are misreading which of the two separate immunities the treason, felony, and "breach of peace" exception applies to.
        BCM43 13y ago
        Yes, it looks like you're correct.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      So as long as they hold the trial on the floor of the house, we're good... More seriously (I hope) that does sound like it should be sufficient protection and I'd love to see her exercise it.

ma2rten 13y ago

2) Snowdon was a very small cog and doesn't realise the extent of it all Only a small part of what Snowdon leaked is public yet.

ajb 13y ago

There are some constitutional protections on speech by congressmen in the course of their duties, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause

lambda 13y ago
Yes, but it has an exception for treason and felonies, and disclosing classified information may count as at least a felony, if not treason.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  It's quite explicitly a felony; it's questionable whether it's treason but similar things have been treated as such in the past.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Yes, but it has an exception for treason and felonies There are two separate parts: 1. While they are attending a session they can't be arrested, and 2. They can't be held accountable in any other forum based on the content of any speech or debate in either House. The exception for for treason, felonies, and "breach of peace" applies to the first; the second, is an absolute, unqualified immunity, and, as applied by the Supreme Court, applies to all "legislative acts", which includes quite a bit that is not physically on the floor during a general session of the House.
- mncolinlee 13y ago
  As numerous commentators have pointed out, treason is a ridiculously high standard that has rarely been met. It has been misapplied so often by politicians using hyperbole that most people don't understand the meaning anymore. It requires not just "aid and comfort" to the enemy, but also "adherence to the enemy" actively waging war against the United States, according to Supreme Court precedent. You cannot accidentally commit treason.

ck2 13y ago

It's called civil disobedience. If a group of congresspeople decided to hold their own briefing with the press, not much could be done and they would be heroes. Someone of color trying to attend a state university or even just sitting at the lunch counter with someone white 50 years ago was also very illegal in this country. Doesn't mean it was right no matter how many thought so at the time and all the arguments they gave for it to continue.

dllthomas 13y ago
They could be jailed and prosecuted. The constitution doesn't protect them against felonies, which these would be. ... of course, that wouldn't be the end of it, but good gravy would that be messy times.
- kenj0418 13y ago
  Assuming they are reading it from the floor of the House (or Senate), it does protect them from being prosecuted: "and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place." They would be subject to whatever punishments their fellow Representatives (or Senators) decided to impose (including possibly expulsion).
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Ah, right.