9 ms·

This is such bullshit. Snowden still committed a crime, he leaked confidential information belonging to the United States government. An action he knew was ille

by ngoel36 13y ago

This is such bullshit. Snowden still committed a crime, he leaked confidential information belonging to the United States government. An action he knew was illegal. And this is the _sole_ reason why we revere him and the sacrifice he made. The action still holds consequences. When a piece of information is kept confidential, the US Government makes that initial decision to do so. Just because it pisses the public off, that is no excuse for anyone to leak information at will, let alone be pardoned for it. Don't get me wrong. Snowden is a hero, a far braver man than I might have been. But he is still a criminal.

mindcrime 13y ago
Just because it pisses the public off, that is no excuse for anyone to leak information at will, let alone be pardoned for it. I call bullshit. The government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. What is "legal" or "illegal" is bigger than just what Congress, the President or the Supreme Court think. As they say, "An unjust law is no law at all".[1] Certainly an arguable point, but it's one I adhere to, and I think a lot of other HN'ers do as well. As well as a lot of Americans, and, for that matter, a lot of people period. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_iniusta_non_est_lex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_iniusta_non_est_lex
- pfraze 13y ago
  True, but I'm not sure I'd say the laws against leaking government secrets are unjust. I'd say the various monitoring systems are potentially dangerous and unconstitutional, but those issues are separate from Snowden's charge. Also, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that the nature of the leak will factor into his trial, which is where it should be evaluated (right?).
  - drcube 13y ago
    Because secret treason courts are where justice is best served? In the very country being accused of civil rights violations by the defendant? And besides troop movements, names and locations of undercover operatives, and other specific information that could get people hurt or killed, why should the government keep secrets from its citizens for any reason? Or what does "consent of the governed" mean?
    - jasonlotito 13y ago
      > and other specific information that could get people hurt or killed, You've described the loop hole for a slippery slope. And I promise you, the first suggestions would seem so reasonable. After all, you didn't mention the descriptions of the operatives. Or the supplies needed to support the troop movements. Both of which are not specifically described by you, but could easily be used against the troops and agents. Both of which are reasonable to keep secret... But it's still a slope. We think we are here overnight, but we are not. PRISM didn't just happens. It's been in the making for decades before you were born. That's the part we need to realize. Obama didn't do this. Bush didn't do this. Hell, your parents didn't do this. We've all done this, one way or the other. We've all been apart of this.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      > Because secret treason courts are where justice is best served? What secret treason courts? Snowden is not charged with treason, and even if he were, he'd be tried in U.S. District Court.
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    True, but I'm not sure I'd say the laws against leaking government secrets are unjust. I think you have to consider context. To flip it around, the law may or may not be inherently unjust, but breaking it may well be justified in some circumstances. Nominally, this is part of the reason we have juries, and why juries are able to make their determination on any basis they see fit... so they can allow for this kind of "fuzziness" to the law. There's also a reason that prosecutors have discretion in choosing what charges to pursue, what sentence to seek, etc. Now, you can argue that, given our system and all its checks and balances and protections, that Snowden should come home and face a trail in front of a jury of his peers. But you can also argue that, given all the publicity around the case, he's correct in saying that he won't get a fair trail. You could also argue that even a "fair trail" is unfair from the perspective of the individual being judged, if they don't consider themselves guilty of a crime. At the end of the day, this whole idea of "justice" is not black and white, sadly.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- diminoten 13y ago
  You don't get to end-run the justice system by being popular in the eyes of the people.
  - eksith 13y ago
    While popularity may be irrelevant, being "right" in the eyes of the people is what justice is all about. After all, the civil rights movement was fairly unpopular for a large part of the U.S. population. Regardless, the legal precedents set during that time were "right" and just.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      You contradicted yourself from one sentence to the next. The population overwhelmingly supported oppressing the black minority. But the legal system disregarded what the large majority thought and did the right thing anyways.
      - eksith 13y ago
        In "eyes of the people is what justice is all about" please replace "people" with "court". Sorry, not enough coffee.
        mpyne 13y ago
        Ah, ok
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- rayiner 13y ago
  They also say, "we are a government of laws, not of men." The government should enforce, and follow, the laws as they are written, not go by what one man or another considers to be "just" or "unjust." And as a practical matter, the majority of Americans think Snowden should be prosecuted.
  - gasull 13y ago
    That's not what this Gallup poll found: http://www.gallup.com/poll/163043/americans-disapprove-government-surveillance-programs.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/163043/americans-disapprove-gover... 44% say Snowden did the right thing, 42% say it was wrong. 53% disapprove Government surveillance. 59% say it was right for the newspapers to publish the info. Also: 31% say he's a patriot, 23% say he's a traitor: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/us-usa-security-poll-idUSBRE95B1AF20130612 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/us-usa-security-po...
    - rayiner 13y ago
      A Pew Research poll found that Americans believe Snowden should be prosecuted, by a substantial margin (54-38): http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/17/americans-say-snowden-should-be-prosecuted-for-nsa-leaks-in-usa-today-poll/2430583 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/17/ameri....
      - gasull 13y ago
        I would like to know the exact question they were asked. It's easy to induce people into answering what you want if you use the right wording.
        danielweber 13y ago
        It can both be a good thing as well as something he should have to answer about in court.
        anigbrowl 13y ago
jimktrains2 13y ago
>Just because it pisses the public off, that is no excuse for anyone to leak information at will, let alone be pardoned for it. Just because the actions documented in the documents are unconstitutional and hence illegal is an excuse to leak documents that were trying to be hidden. FTFY
ekianjo 13y ago
Reporting Constitutional violations should never be allowed to be considered as a crime in the first place. On the contrary, you will find that in many cases the person who reports the violation is protected and not hunted down by the authorities. But when the government is the violator... it goes the other way around.
keefe 13y ago
Not pursuing him sets a bad precedent; we can't allow any "slippery slope" effects in security. The impact on active operations is unclear, but it seems significant. I respect the principle of free information, but I recognize that we're at war and security is a very serious matter.
- amirmc 13y ago
  > "Not pursuing him sets a bad precedent..." A bad precedent to what, exactly? Other people revealing more potentially unconstitutional actions by the Government of the day?
  - keefe 13y ago
    a bad precedent for leaking classified information at a time when serious military operations may be compromised. What right does this one guy have in making that decision and what are the odds that he has enough information to evaluate the consequences of that action? He may be a hero for revealing unconstitutional actions, but that doesn't mean he didn't commit a crime (possibly getting people killed in the process) nor does it mean he should be spared the consequences. I think we live in an international arena where traditional clearcut boundaries have mostly faded and a reality of exponentially increased personal destructive power is that we do indeed need to sacrifice some liberties for security.
    - amirmc 13y ago
      There are two things wrong with your statement. Firstly, you're implying that Snowden revealed info about current military operations. If you read his comments (eg Guardian Q&A), he makes it clear that his issue is with the suspicionless surveillance and that he took steps to avoid revealing more. If he's shared info of the kind you're describing, please point to it. Otherwise there is no precedent set here. Secondly, your approach basically boils down to "Don't get in the way of the Military or Governement. Ever." There are plenty of other countries in the world with similar doctrines, which I find ironic. Also, What d'you think about previous whistle-blower actions in US history, like the Pentagon Papers [1]? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
jrockway 13y ago
It's not "leaking confidential information" if the information is evidence of ongoing criminal activity. Imagine that the government was kidnapping children and grinding them into a paste for use as a new MRE flavor. Would you put the person who told the media about this up for trial on espionage charges? Of course not. You'd use the evidence to convict the people that were grinding up the children. This is the same thing except on a more abstract level of illegality.
- xtc 13y ago
  A lot of hyperbole in that statement making it really off-base. You may think it's criminal/illegal activity, but the problem is it's completely within the law we have created. Whether or not it should be legal is a different topic. The actions from what we've seen so far are completely legal; what Snowden did is not. It's incredibly simple.
  - newbie12 13y ago
    It isn't that simple. The government's programs are kept secret, even from most of Congress and most of the courts, and certainly from the public. It is very hard to square the sweeping NSA programs with the plain language of the 4th Amendment, which is the highest law of the land.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    In his hyperbolic example, what makes you think that the government has not made grinding up children for MREs legal?
  - wtallis 13y ago
    > You may think it's criminal/illegal activity, but the problem is it's completely within the law we have created. That's a completely unsupported assertion. Clearly what the NSA has been up to is compatible with a small secretive framework of laws and courts, but a large part of the outcry is due to the fact that this framework hasn't been publicly subjected to Supreme Court challenges, so the compatibility with the larger body of law and the constitution is fairly uncertain compared to things like normal law-enforcement procedures. (If PRISM et al had been thoroughly tested at the Supreme Court level, there would have to have been a decision as notorious as Dred Scott or Roe v Wade, and a corresponding movement to amend the constitution in order to overturn the Supreme Court. Neither has happened yet.)
cgag 13y ago
We recognize what he did was a crime, but we agree it was the right thing to do, why is there any reason to punish someone for what we agree is right? Preventing harm to the public is a great reason to leak information, and the people thinking it was the right thing to do seems like an excellent reason to pardon him for it.
jlgreco 13y ago
> "And this is the _sole_ reason why we revere him and the sacrifice he made." What? No, not at all. I appreciate his actions regardless of the legality, would appreciate them whether or not he chose to reveal his identity, and will appreciate them whether or not he is eventually punished by the US government for what he did.
doki_pen 13y ago
I might consider your opinion if I thought he would be treated fairly in trial. If the last few years are any indication, there is no chance of that happening. The POTUS has already said that he is guilty of treason before any trial has begun. Do you realize the outrageousness of that simple fact?
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  ^ Not actually a fact.
- jsz0 13y ago
  Being that he has already confessed on video and presumably there's a good amount of other evidence the government would have nothing to gain from an unfair trial.
  - mayneack 13y ago
    As opposed to all that they gained from their treatment of Bradley Manning.
  - doki_pen 13y ago
    He never confessed to treason.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      He confessed to infiltrating the NSA via B-A-H for the purpose of grabbing material to later leak to the public. He may not have realized it at the time but that's very damning, especially since he went out of his way to get information relating to Chinese hacking activities.
      - doki_pen 13y ago
        [edit: added more] Are we fighting a war with China? From Wikipedia: Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavor. The point is, if we can argue about it, then there should be a fair trial to determine whether or not it was treason. The president and other leaders saying it's treason doesn't lend itself to a fair trial in the future. The appropriate response is "He committed crimes, we will have a trial to determine the extent of those crimes and whether or not it is treason".
mcantelon 13y ago
>Just because it pisses the public off, that is no excuse for anyone to leak information at will, let alone be pardoned for it He alerted the public to the fact that an arm of the state is flagrantly, knowingly violating the Constitution of the United States. That's not crime, that's patriotism. Why isn't James Clapper being charged for lying under oath to Congress about state surveillance?
jasonjei 13y ago
Just because it pisses the public off, that is no excuse for anyone to leak information at will, let alone be pardoned for it. By that logic, anyone who freed slaves in the South during the Civil War shouldn't have been pardoned by the states whose laws they broke and prosecuted to the fullest extent.
Flenser 13y ago
http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst_argument_in_the/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst...

by ngoel36 13y ago

mindcrime 13y ago

Just because it pisses the public off, that is no excuse for anyone to leak information at will, let alone be pardoned for it. I call bullshit. The government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. What is "legal" or "illegal" is bigger than just what Congress, the President or the Supreme Court think. As they say, "An unjust law is no law at all".[1] Certainly an arguable point, but it's one I adhere to, and I think a lot of other HN'ers do as well. As well as a lot of Americans, and, for that matter, a lot of people period. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_iniusta_non_est_lex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_iniusta_non_est_lex

pfraze 13y ago
True, but I'm not sure I'd say the laws against leaking government secrets are unjust. I'd say the various monitoring systems are potentially dangerous and unconstitutional, but those issues are separate from Snowden's charge. Also, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that the nature of the leak will factor into his trial, which is where it should be evaluated (right?).
- drcube 13y ago
  Because secret treason courts are where justice is best served? In the very country being accused of civil rights violations by the defendant? And besides troop movements, names and locations of undercover operatives, and other specific information that could get people hurt or killed, why should the government keep secrets from its citizens for any reason? Or what does "consent of the governed" mean?
  - jasonlotito 13y ago
    > and other specific information that could get people hurt or killed, You've described the loop hole for a slippery slope. And I promise you, the first suggestions would seem so reasonable. After all, you didn't mention the descriptions of the operatives. Or the supplies needed to support the troop movements. Both of which are not specifically described by you, but could easily be used against the troops and agents. Both of which are reasonable to keep secret... But it's still a slope. We think we are here overnight, but we are not. PRISM didn't just happens. It's been in the making for decades before you were born. That's the part we need to realize. Obama didn't do this. Bush didn't do this. Hell, your parents didn't do this. We've all done this, one way or the other. We've all been apart of this.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    > Because secret treason courts are where justice is best served? What secret treason courts? Snowden is not charged with treason, and even if he were, he'd be tried in U.S. District Court.
- mindcrime 13y ago
  True, but I'm not sure I'd say the laws against leaking government secrets are unjust. I think you have to consider context. To flip it around, the law may or may not be inherently unjust, but breaking it may well be justified in some circumstances. Nominally, this is part of the reason we have juries, and why juries are able to make their determination on any basis they see fit... so they can allow for this kind of "fuzziness" to the law. There's also a reason that prosecutors have discretion in choosing what charges to pursue, what sentence to seek, etc. Now, you can argue that, given our system and all its checks and balances and protections, that Snowden should come home and face a trail in front of a jury of his peers. But you can also argue that, given all the publicity around the case, he's correct in saying that he won't get a fair trail. You could also argue that even a "fair trail" is unfair from the perspective of the individual being judged, if they don't consider themselves guilty of a crime. At the end of the day, this whole idea of "justice" is not black and white, sadly.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
diminoten 13y ago
You don't get to end-run the justice system by being popular in the eyes of the people.
- eksith 13y ago
  While popularity may be irrelevant, being "right" in the eyes of the people is what justice is all about. After all, the civil rights movement was fairly unpopular for a large part of the U.S. population. Regardless, the legal precedents set during that time were "right" and just.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    You contradicted yourself from one sentence to the next. The population overwhelmingly supported oppressing the black minority. But the legal system disregarded what the large majority thought and did the right thing anyways.
    - eksith 13y ago
      In "eyes of the people is what justice is all about" please replace "people" with "court". Sorry, not enough coffee.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Ah, ok
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
rayiner 13y ago
They also say, "we are a government of laws, not of men." The government should enforce, and follow, the laws as they are written, not go by what one man or another considers to be "just" or "unjust." And as a practical matter, the majority of Americans think Snowden should be prosecuted.
- gasull 13y ago
  That's not what this Gallup poll found: http://www.gallup.com/poll/163043/americans-disapprove-government-surveillance-programs.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/163043/americans-disapprove-gover... 44% say Snowden did the right thing, 42% say it was wrong. 53% disapprove Government surveillance. 59% say it was right for the newspapers to publish the info. Also: 31% say he's a patriot, 23% say he's a traitor: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/us-usa-security-poll-idUSBRE95B1AF20130612 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/us-usa-security-po...
  - rayiner 13y ago
    A Pew Research poll found that Americans believe Snowden should be prosecuted, by a substantial margin (54-38): http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/17/americans-say-snowden-should-be-prosecuted-for-nsa-leaks-in-usa-today-poll/2430583 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/17/ameri....
    - gasull 13y ago
      I would like to know the exact question they were asked. It's easy to induce people into answering what you want if you use the right wording.
      - danielweber 13y ago
        It can both be a good thing as well as something he should have to answer about in court.
      - anigbrowl 13y ago

jimktrains2 13y ago

>Just because it pisses the public off, that is no excuse for anyone to leak information at will, let alone be pardoned for it. Just because the actions documented in the documents are unconstitutional and hence illegal is an excuse to leak documents that were trying to be hidden. FTFY

ekianjo 13y ago

Reporting Constitutional violations should never be allowed to be considered as a crime in the first place. On the contrary, you will find that in many cases the person who reports the violation is protected and not hunted down by the authorities. But when the government is the violator... it goes the other way around.

keefe 13y ago

Not pursuing him sets a bad precedent; we can't allow any "slippery slope" effects in security. The impact on active operations is unclear, but it seems significant. I respect the principle of free information, but I recognize that we're at war and security is a very serious matter.

amirmc 13y ago
> "Not pursuing him sets a bad precedent..." A bad precedent to what, exactly? Other people revealing more potentially unconstitutional actions by the Government of the day?
- keefe 13y ago
  a bad precedent for leaking classified information at a time when serious military operations may be compromised. What right does this one guy have in making that decision and what are the odds that he has enough information to evaluate the consequences of that action? He may be a hero for revealing unconstitutional actions, but that doesn't mean he didn't commit a crime (possibly getting people killed in the process) nor does it mean he should be spared the consequences. I think we live in an international arena where traditional clearcut boundaries have mostly faded and a reality of exponentially increased personal destructive power is that we do indeed need to sacrifice some liberties for security.
  - amirmc 13y ago
    There are two things wrong with your statement. Firstly, you're implying that Snowden revealed info about current military operations. If you read his comments (eg Guardian Q&A), he makes it clear that his issue is with the suspicionless surveillance and that he took steps to avoid revealing more. If he's shared info of the kind you're describing, please point to it. Otherwise there is no precedent set here. Secondly, your approach basically boils down to "Don't get in the way of the Military or Governement. Ever." There are plenty of other countries in the world with similar doctrines, which I find ironic. Also, What d'you think about previous whistle-blower actions in US history, like the Pentagon Papers [1]? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

jrockway 13y ago

It's not "leaking confidential information" if the information is evidence of ongoing criminal activity. Imagine that the government was kidnapping children and grinding them into a paste for use as a new MRE flavor. Would you put the person who told the media about this up for trial on espionage charges? Of course not. You'd use the evidence to convict the people that were grinding up the children. This is the same thing except on a more abstract level of illegality.

xtc 13y ago
A lot of hyperbole in that statement making it really off-base. You may think it's criminal/illegal activity, but the problem is it's completely within the law we have created. Whether or not it should be legal is a different topic. The actions from what we've seen so far are completely legal; what Snowden did is not. It's incredibly simple.
- newbie12 13y ago
  It isn't that simple. The government's programs are kept secret, even from most of Congress and most of the courts, and certainly from the public. It is very hard to square the sweeping NSA programs with the plain language of the 4th Amendment, which is the highest law of the land.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  In his hyperbolic example, what makes you think that the government has not made grinding up children for MREs legal?
- wtallis 13y ago
  > You may think it's criminal/illegal activity, but the problem is it's completely within the law we have created. That's a completely unsupported assertion. Clearly what the NSA has been up to is compatible with a small secretive framework of laws and courts, but a large part of the outcry is due to the fact that this framework hasn't been publicly subjected to Supreme Court challenges, so the compatibility with the larger body of law and the constitution is fairly uncertain compared to things like normal law-enforcement procedures. (If PRISM et al had been thoroughly tested at the Supreme Court level, there would have to have been a decision as notorious as Dred Scott or Roe v Wade, and a corresponding movement to amend the constitution in order to overturn the Supreme Court. Neither has happened yet.)

cgag 13y ago

We recognize what he did was a crime, but we agree it was the right thing to do, why is there any reason to punish someone for what we agree is right? Preventing harm to the public is a great reason to leak information, and the people thinking it was the right thing to do seems like an excellent reason to pardon him for it.

jlgreco 13y ago

> "And this is the _sole_ reason why we revere him and the sacrifice he made." What? No, not at all. I appreciate his actions regardless of the legality, would appreciate them whether or not he chose to reveal his identity, and will appreciate them whether or not he is eventually punished by the US government for what he did.

doki_pen 13y ago

I might consider your opinion if I thought he would be treated fairly in trial. If the last few years are any indication, there is no chance of that happening. The POTUS has already said that he is guilty of treason before any trial has begun. Do you realize the outrageousness of that simple fact?

anigbrowl 13y ago
^ Not actually a fact.
jsz0 13y ago
Being that he has already confessed on video and presumably there's a good amount of other evidence the government would have nothing to gain from an unfair trial.
- mayneack 13y ago
  As opposed to all that they gained from their treatment of Bradley Manning.
- doki_pen 13y ago
  He never confessed to treason.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    He confessed to infiltrating the NSA via B-A-H for the purpose of grabbing material to later leak to the public. He may not have realized it at the time but that's very damning, especially since he went out of his way to get information relating to Chinese hacking activities.
    - doki_pen 13y ago
      [edit: added more] Are we fighting a war with China? From Wikipedia: Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavor. The point is, if we can argue about it, then there should be a fair trial to determine whether or not it was treason. The president and other leaders saying it's treason doesn't lend itself to a fair trial in the future. The appropriate response is "He committed crimes, we will have a trial to determine the extent of those crimes and whether or not it is treason".

mcantelon 13y ago

>Just because it pisses the public off, that is no excuse for anyone to leak information at will, let alone be pardoned for it He alerted the public to the fact that an arm of the state is flagrantly, knowingly violating the Constitution of the United States. That's not crime, that's patriotism. Why isn't James Clapper being charged for lying under oath to Congress about state surveillance?

jasonjei 13y ago

Just because it pisses the public off, that is no excuse for anyone to leak information at will, let alone be pardoned for it. By that logic, anyone who freed slaves in the South during the Civil War shouldn't have been pardoned by the states whose laws they broke and prosecuted to the fullest extent.

Flenser 13y ago

http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst_argument_in_the/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst...