4 ms·

I would agree with you as long as we also indict members of the US state security apparatus in VA and DC and around the world who authorized these programs as w

I would agree with you as long as we also indict members of the US state security apparatus in VA and DC and around the world who authorized these programs as well. I'm not holding my breath.

eli 11y ago
At the least, I think Clapper should be investigated for perjury over lying to Congress. But the fact that other criminal acts are going unpunished doesn't really have any bearing on Snowden's case. The crime Snowden is charged with is the same regardless of who else is charged.
- themeek 11y ago
  The state doesn't think it did anything wrong. All the way up to the president - and don't think the president wasn't aware of these operations - our representatives believe that these capabilities are necessary for the current and future security of the United States (which is, in fact, facing gigantic national security challenges). The state does not want to give up these programs and it does not think that they are wrong. Some members of Congress may think otherwise and some lawyers may think so as well. But the top brass even in the DOJ are mostly on board with these programs. The most the state is willing to do is let Clapper 'retire' from service out of his official capacity and into a role where he can partner with the US government from the private sector and install a new general in his place. As for Snowden, are there not mechanisms in our court system whereby lenience is given to those in special circumstances - whistleblowing laws being one of them? I agree 100% that Snowden should face the music. But he doesn't believe he will get a fair trial in the United States and this is likely the case. So he's asking for amnesty. I think that Snowden should continue asking countries for amnesty until it is clear that the legal circumstance in the United States and the conditions and location of the court he will be charged with (Virginia? Really?) will be a fair one. Mostly this means stronger whistleblower protection laws of the sort the Obama Administration promised but never delivered.
  - eli 11y ago
    What about the trial do you think would be unfair? You can read the indictment here http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-vs-edward-j-snowden-criminal-complaint/496/ http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-vs-edwar...
    - themeek 11y ago
      In the history of Espionage Act cases - the Espionage Act being a wartime temporary restriction of normal constitutional proceedings that survived past its wartime statute - excludes the possibility of arguing a whistleblower case, which is what Snowden would want in this case to argue. It's important to note that Snowden did not disclose these documents - he brought them to journalists, who then worked with the USG to coordinate what could be published to the public. Historical analogies, such as the huge civil rights win in Ellsberg's Times vs. The United States sets a precedence that is not going to stick with Snowden. Ellsberg could not escape the Espionage Act charge but it was dropped by minstrel. This is not going to be a repeat with Snowden - they are going after him with the Espionage Act because they know that it specifically excludes the defense that the leaks were performed in the public interest. History of National Security laws show how opaque the presumed-to-be transparent process of the court are supposed to be. Take for example the Lavabit case, done without a jury with a secret court summons and with evidence that the state promised the judge was there but could not provide to the defense or public for inspection because... national security. All done with only one or two weeks notice and a gag order that made it nearly impossible to find legal representation. This was for Snowden's email provider. Finally, the Virginia court circuit is one filled with lawyers not known for their expertise or lenience in civil rights matters but one with lawyers known for their favoritism of national security. But overall we've got what we need from Snowden and I don't care so very much for me what he does. When I say he shouldn't come home it's prescriptive advice: meaning I would recommend to him - if I were him - that he find amnesty because of the facts listed above.
      - eli 11y ago
        Regardless of how long ago the law was passed, it intuitively makes sense that it's illegal to publicly disclose national security secrets. This talk of the history of the Espionage Act feels like a lot of hand waving. You make it sound like the government cherrypicked and misapplied some old law in order to stymie Snowden's defense. I don't believe there ever was (nor ever will be) a scenario where leaking national security documents to the press is protected as whistleblowing. This is not specific to the Espionage Act, I don't think "yes I did it, but it was for the greater good of society" is typically a valid defense argument in any criminal case. (And it's offtopic but I disagree with your characterization of the Lavabit case. Lavabit wasn't on trial; they were served with a valid wiretap order that was signed by a regular non-secret non-FISA court judge and based on reasonable evidence. That's how it's supposed to work. I wish all national security cases were pursued that way.)
- _jal 11y ago
  "The crime Snowden is charged with is the same regardless of who else is charged." Nominally true, but this approaches the cliche about the rich and poor alike being banned from sleeping under bridges. So long as the law is unevenly enforced such that (for instance) Clapper is not targeted and Snowden is, the surveillance state retains the structural ability to frame the debate about itself, lie about what it does and severely punish anyone who exposes the lies. That is not a system that promotes democratic oversight, especially oversight of a passel of agencies already armed with massive advantages in evading oversight not typically available to most other agencies, like (enormous) hidden budgets, specially crafted exemptions to sunshine, classification, etc. (And that's before we get to the really creepy things these agencies do.)
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    Heck, we know they hacked the computers of those tasked with overseeing them.
- shit_parade2 11y ago
  It does in fact make a difference when the law prosecutes some but not others. That is how kings and dictators rule, by enforcing 'the law' selectively and in secret.
  - themeek 11y ago
    I'll take this one further and add that selective timing of votes, polls, and application of law are all ways to 'rule by law' but game the system so that the rules have favoritism. Take the recent Visa application process in the US. Let's pretend - and I'm not so sure we would be pretending - that the Visa process isn't 'random' but is prioritized for political purposes. This is one way that the appearance of fairness can be ridden for the pursuit of interests. Even prioritizing police cases (parking tickets) to 'subjects of interest' or prior offenders is a skew of justice if these filters are correlated to any significant degree with political outcome or race/creed. The US will poll citizens in other areas of the world until it is ascertained that the population would vote a certain way - at which point they will call for a vote to be held. This gives the outcome of a vote a sense of legitimacy to those just paying attention to the outcome of the vote - but those who can watch the process of repeated polling alongside influence operations understand just how fine an instrument this can be for deciding political outcomes. This isn't to say any of this is 'wrong'. There's an undercurrent in the language - that's unfortunate. It's first enough to realize that these things are done and they are done sometimes explicitly with a purpose and other times by accident. Being aware is the first step to deliberation.

I would agree with you as long as we also indict members of the US state security apparatus in VA and DC and around the world who authorized these programs as well. I'm not holding my breath.

eli 11y ago

At the least, I think Clapper should be investigated for perjury over lying to Congress. But the fact that other criminal acts are going unpunished doesn't really have any bearing on Snowden's case. The crime Snowden is charged with is the same regardless of who else is charged.

themeek 11y ago
The state doesn't think it did anything wrong. All the way up to the president - and don't think the president wasn't aware of these operations - our representatives believe that these capabilities are necessary for the current and future security of the United States (which is, in fact, facing gigantic national security challenges). The state does not want to give up these programs and it does not think that they are wrong. Some members of Congress may think otherwise and some lawyers may think so as well. But the top brass even in the DOJ are mostly on board with these programs. The most the state is willing to do is let Clapper 'retire' from service out of his official capacity and into a role where he can partner with the US government from the private sector and install a new general in his place. As for Snowden, are there not mechanisms in our court system whereby lenience is given to those in special circumstances - whistleblowing laws being one of them? I agree 100% that Snowden should face the music. But he doesn't believe he will get a fair trial in the United States and this is likely the case. So he's asking for amnesty. I think that Snowden should continue asking countries for amnesty until it is clear that the legal circumstance in the United States and the conditions and location of the court he will be charged with (Virginia? Really?) will be a fair one. Mostly this means stronger whistleblower protection laws of the sort the Obama Administration promised but never delivered.
- eli 11y ago
  What about the trial do you think would be unfair? You can read the indictment here http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-vs-edward-j-snowden-criminal-complaint/496/ http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-vs-edwar...
  - themeek 11y ago
    In the history of Espionage Act cases - the Espionage Act being a wartime temporary restriction of normal constitutional proceedings that survived past its wartime statute - excludes the possibility of arguing a whistleblower case, which is what Snowden would want in this case to argue. It's important to note that Snowden did not disclose these documents - he brought them to journalists, who then worked with the USG to coordinate what could be published to the public. Historical analogies, such as the huge civil rights win in Ellsberg's Times vs. The United States sets a precedence that is not going to stick with Snowden. Ellsberg could not escape the Espionage Act charge but it was dropped by minstrel. This is not going to be a repeat with Snowden - they are going after him with the Espionage Act because they know that it specifically excludes the defense that the leaks were performed in the public interest. History of National Security laws show how opaque the presumed-to-be transparent process of the court are supposed to be. Take for example the Lavabit case, done without a jury with a secret court summons and with evidence that the state promised the judge was there but could not provide to the defense or public for inspection because... national security. All done with only one or two weeks notice and a gag order that made it nearly impossible to find legal representation. This was for Snowden's email provider. Finally, the Virginia court circuit is one filled with lawyers not known for their expertise or lenience in civil rights matters but one with lawyers known for their favoritism of national security. But overall we've got what we need from Snowden and I don't care so very much for me what he does. When I say he shouldn't come home it's prescriptive advice: meaning I would recommend to him - if I were him - that he find amnesty because of the facts listed above.
    - eli 11y ago
      Regardless of how long ago the law was passed, it intuitively makes sense that it's illegal to publicly disclose national security secrets. This talk of the history of the Espionage Act feels like a lot of hand waving. You make it sound like the government cherrypicked and misapplied some old law in order to stymie Snowden's defense. I don't believe there ever was (nor ever will be) a scenario where leaking national security documents to the press is protected as whistleblowing. This is not specific to the Espionage Act, I don't think "yes I did it, but it was for the greater good of society" is typically a valid defense argument in any criminal case. (And it's offtopic but I disagree with your characterization of the Lavabit case. Lavabit wasn't on trial; they were served with a valid wiretap order that was signed by a regular non-secret non-FISA court judge and based on reasonable evidence. That's how it's supposed to work. I wish all national security cases were pursued that way.)
_jal 11y ago
"The crime Snowden is charged with is the same regardless of who else is charged." Nominally true, but this approaches the cliche about the rich and poor alike being banned from sleeping under bridges. So long as the law is unevenly enforced such that (for instance) Clapper is not targeted and Snowden is, the surveillance state retains the structural ability to frame the debate about itself, lie about what it does and severely punish anyone who exposes the lies. That is not a system that promotes democratic oversight, especially oversight of a passel of agencies already armed with massive advantages in evading oversight not typically available to most other agencies, like (enormous) hidden budgets, specially crafted exemptions to sunshine, classification, etc. (And that's before we get to the really creepy things these agencies do.)
- dllthomas 11y ago
  Heck, we know they hacked the computers of those tasked with overseeing them.
shit_parade2 11y ago
It does in fact make a difference when the law prosecutes some but not others. That is how kings and dictators rule, by enforcing 'the law' selectively and in secret.
- themeek 11y ago
  I'll take this one further and add that selective timing of votes, polls, and application of law are all ways to 'rule by law' but game the system so that the rules have favoritism. Take the recent Visa application process in the US. Let's pretend - and I'm not so sure we would be pretending - that the Visa process isn't 'random' but is prioritized for political purposes. This is one way that the appearance of fairness can be ridden for the pursuit of interests. Even prioritizing police cases (parking tickets) to 'subjects of interest' or prior offenders is a skew of justice if these filters are correlated to any significant degree with political outcome or race/creed. The US will poll citizens in other areas of the world until it is ascertained that the population would vote a certain way - at which point they will call for a vote to be held. This gives the outcome of a vote a sense of legitimacy to those just paying attention to the outcome of the vote - but those who can watch the process of repeated polling alongside influence operations understand just how fine an instrument this can be for deciding political outcomes. This isn't to say any of this is 'wrong'. There's an undercurrent in the language - that's unfortunate. It's first enough to realize that these things are done and they are done sometimes explicitly with a purpose and other times by accident. Being aware is the first step to deliberation.