Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Edward Snowden


Shady

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 741
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ummm, yeah, he did break the law.

Doesn't every American tourist in Hong Kong carry multiple laptops containing NSA data and documents ? I know whenever I travel, I make sure the airline will let me bring laptops and desktops filled with classified data on the flight, not just the lowest fare !! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't every American tourist in Hong Kong carry multiple laptops containing NSA data and documents ? I know whenever I travel, I make sure the airline will let me bring laptops and desktops filled with classified data on the flight, not just the lowest fare !! :D

I often travel with more than one laptop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should get Putin to protect ALL American's constitutional rights. Obviously the US government is still confused on what the constitution is.

They know its a pain in the ass

Ummm, yeah, he did break the law.

No offence, but youre just trolling now... not even trying to participate in any kind of conversation. And with all due respect, your opinion on legal matters isnt going to mean much to anybody but yourself... maybe Id defer to your judgement if I wanted to know when the muffins were ready or something like that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moving on... a brief description of the WPA is as follows.

The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report agency misconduct.

The origional act provides a reporting structure, and would not protect whistle blowers that went directly to the media. The enhancements passed a couple of years ago allow for media disclosure.

Snowden is charged under the following sections of the espionage act.

18 U.S.C. 641 Theft of Government Property
18 U.S.C. 793(d) Unauthorized Communication of National Defense Information
18 U.S.C. 798(a)(3) Willful Communication of Classified

Now we really dont know anything about what information Snowden gave to who... If he gave up secrets unrelated to "agency misconduct" then he doesnt have much of a legal leg to stand on. If however its determined all that he leaked was information about agency misconduct, then it will be hard to prosecute him on the 2nd and 3rd counts.

That leaves the first count, and whether or not he could be successfully prosecuted for that depends on what is on those laptops. If theres information thats not related to his outing of agency misconduct then hes definately guilty on that count.

If such a trial ever occurs, dont expect a slam dunk case. In order to determine if Snowden was really reporting agency misconduct, the NSA and its practices, and the legality of them will need to get argued in court. To be honest Im a little suprised that the Obama administration would even WANT to drag this guy back home, for what will almost certainly become a public debate on their own policies. Especially since during his campaign Obama made speech after speech about what heroes whistleblowers are, and how his new whistle blower laws would protect them.

"The old rules said if there was a defensible argument for not disclosing something to the American people, then it should not be disclosed. That era is now over," Obama said. "Starting today every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side, not of those who seek to withhold information, but those who seek to make it known."

Obama acknowledged that "personal privacy and national security must be treated with the care they demand," but added that "the mere fact that you have the legal power to keep something secret does not mean you should always use it."

Edited by dre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now we really dont know anything about what information Snowden gave to who... If he gave up secrets unrelated to "agency misconduct" then he doesnt have much of a legal leg to stand on. If however its determined all that he leaked was information about agency misconduct, then it will be hard to prosecute him on the 2nd and 3rd counts.

I'm pretty sure this "legal opinion" is not qualified in any way as well. We all get to express our "unqualified" views if you don't mind.

Snowden would likely plea bargain away for sentencing consideration(s) unless he really wants to be the martyr for his fanboys and fangirls.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Which laws did he break?

In all the reading you've done about this, you haven't come across that information? He broke the law by leaking information about what was going on rather than reporting it through legal channels. As I've said repeatedly now, even his dad recognizes that he broke the law: “At this point I don't feel that he's committed treason. He has in fact broken U.S. law, in a sense that he has released classified information.” Again. Releasing classified information is breaking the law.

Doesn't every American tourist in Hong Kong carry multiple laptops containing NSA data and documents ? I know whenever I travel, I make sure the airline will let me bring laptops and desktops filled with classified data on the flight, not just the lowest fare !! :D

Oh, yes, indeed. We all have NSA data and documents. A visit to a foreign nation just isn't the same unless I bring lots of classified data on the flight. I'm sure it's true of every other nationality, too - it would be just fine with their countries for a citizen to bring such info abroad.

I often travel with more than one laptop.

So do I. And the relevance would be...???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you create a thread on Snowden and then poo poo the replies you get about Snowden saying they are 'Snowden Fanboys'.Sorry, next time I will try to derail the thread and talk about something else.

There's no sense in discussing something with people that won't acknowledge even basic reality. Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you think it is always wrong to break the law?

Not always, but when you do break the law you should stand by your decision. He knew the consequences of his actions.

What secrets exactly has he given up that would really benefit another country?

Is that relevant? When given a security clearance you are also informed about the consequences of giving up information willingly or not, you choose to ignore those once you are breaking the law wether you are giving up vital state secrets or just informing the public what the secret sauce in the rations is and you shall suffer the consequences. Would you say Delisle did not commit a crime as long as the information he sent the Russians was not truly beneficial to them?

As far as I can tell, the only reason the authorities are upset was that he dared to say things that everyone here is claiming are common knowledge.

No, the authorities are pissed off because he committed a crime, ignore him and then every narcissist with a security clearance can get his face out there and make some cash in the process.

Edited by Signals.Cpl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No theres nothing wrong with it what-so-ever. People SHOULD speak up when they see things they think are wrong. Its the morally right thing to do no matter what the law says.

Maybe so but its still a crime and he still has to face the consequences, for all we know he released part of the intelligence he stole and sold the rest. Would this apply then? If I find something that I just need to tell people about and use it as a cover to make some cash what then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say he broke his terms of employment and not the law. The information he had I highyl suspect was not top secret.

Irrelevant if top secret or not, it could be secret or just protected it still is breaking the law because when he received his clearance he would have been informed of the consequences should he release any of the information to a third party without authorization, I am pretty sure it involves some lengthy prison sentence.

The bit about spying on other nations should be a given by everyone. Yes countries spy on each other. The real thing with this is that the US government said they were NOT spying on Americans IN the USA , which in fact they are.

The fact that the US government may or may not be doing something wrong does not mean he can break the law with impunity... there are plenty of avenues he could have followed if he felt the need where he would not have committed crimes and still would have gotten his message across.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US government seems to be able to break the law with immunity. They just forced down the plane carrying the Bolivian president home from Russia, because they THOUGHT Snowden may be aboard. That is nothing les than terrorism and I hope the IC in the Hague will file such charges. I'm a pilot and I'm pissed off at the sheer arrogance. Of course th US hasn't got the balls to be a signatory to that court, because they break so many international laws. If you disagree then just take a moment to ponder this. What wouyld the US do if Bolivia forced Air Force One down with Obama aboard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irrelevant if top secret or not, it could be secret or just protected it still is breaking the law because when he received his clearance he would have been informed of the consequences should he release any of the information to a third party without authorization, I am pretty sure it involves some lengthy prison sentence.

It's strange a whistle blower gets this much attention while the real issue is the NSA. Are people easily distracted by the real issue and go after Snowden's character? There is no legal way Snowden could have revealed this information. But that would be depending on what was in that NDA he signed in order to do the job he did.

Ok, I'll even say that he DID illegally gave information to a foreign country (does not matter which one at this point), but that still does not take anything away of what he exposed. And the focus should remain on the NSA and the spy program. A huge opportunity to call these idiots out has presented itself. Why not take advantage of it?

The fact that the US government may or may not be doing something wrong does not mean he can break the law with impunity...

Well see there is this little snag where the government is able to change the laws to suit it's needs. So all this warrant-less surveillance taking place is now all within the letter of the law. It would not have been legal a decade a go.

there are plenty of avenues he could have followed if he felt the need where he would not have committed crimes and still would have gotten his message across.

There would be NO way he could reveal this info legally by going through the proper channels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...