Snowden: Traitor or Patriot

[JWBooth]

Foreign. Intelligence. Surveillance. Act.
So what? What's your point? You don't think international spying is nice?
It is rather hard to spy on 7 billion people individually minus 300 some odd million Americans and the citizens of the other Five Eyes, so yes this is entering hyperbole.

United. States. Constitution.

No, I don't think it's nice to spy on innocent civilians around the world, nor do I think it's nice to spy on American citizens here. People have a right to privacy, yes, even non-Americans, and the U.S. government, along with their allies in the Five Eyes, are illegally infringing on that right.

If you don't think it's important then there's nothing I can say to change your mind about that, but let's not pretend it's a legitimate, or intelligent, use of surveillance powers.

FISA is perfectly constitutional, going back long before any panic over 9/11.
United States v. U.S. District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972) (dicta)
United States v. Brown, 484 F. 2d 418 (5th Cir. 1973)
United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974)
Zweibon v. Mitchell, 516 F.2d 594 (D.C. Cir. 1975)
United States v. Duggan,743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir., 1984)
United States v. Nicholson, 955 F.Supp. 588 (Va. 1997)

You are mistaken.

FISA is exactly a legitimate and intelligent use of surveillance powers.

You are mistaken in my thoughts as to its importance. You see, it is I who has concluded that you think FISA is unimportant and that's why you champion a traitor. I, on the other hand, think FISA is of the utmost importance. When I say "So what?" to your remonstration, it is simply because you have provided no compelling argument that has not been addressed in legal precedent long before any Patriot Act mumbo-jumbo.

Oh well that makes it all better, it is all legal, the courts said so.
It doesn't matter that the worst atrocities in history took place under the color of law.

 

[MikeK]

As a fact of law the surveillance programs are both legal and Constitutional.

Or to put it another way, the surveillance programs are not un-Constitutional nor do they violate the law until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

What Snowden allegedly did, however, was illegal, it did violate the law, where the rule of law is paramount regardless the intent or outcome of the violation.

In addition, that no one would ‘listen’ to Snowden, such as his superiors, in no way mitigates the crime he allegedly committed, as it was not his decision to make solely and unilaterally to reveal classified information.

In spite of the maze of convoluted hyperbole rolled out by government lawyers to say up is down and night is day the fact remains wiretapping without a warrant is still illegal, for you, for me, and for government officials. Where the national security factor is concerned, the FISA Court was created to facilitate that exception -- but the criminal, Bush, chose to ignore the protective impediment and Obama has followed suit.

I believe warrantless wiretapping is illegal -- and the ACLU agrees with me.

(Excerpt)

According to the Times, Bush signed a presidential order in 2002 allowing the National Security Agency to monitor without a warrant the international (and sometimes domestic) telephone calls and e-mail messages of hundreds or thousands of citizens and legal residents inside the United States. The program eventually came to include some purely internal controls - but no requirement that warrants be obtained from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as the 4th Amendment to the Constitution and the foreign intelligence surveillance laws require.

In other words, no independent review or judicial oversight.

That kind of surveillance is illegal. Period.

https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/nsa-spying-americans-illegal

(Close)

 

[CorvusRexus]

Snowden: Traitor or Patriot

Neither.

He’s a criminal defendant, innocent until proven guilty.

He should return – or be returned – to the United States to stand trial.

Where he would get a "fair trial".

I do apologize, I just can't imagine the government allowing him one. Oh, they will say it was, just so they can lock him up and try to stop people idolizing him. Nope, rigged jury not made of his peers for him if he comes back.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Snowden: Traitor or Patriot

Neither.

He’s a criminal defendant, innocent until proven guilty.

He should return – or be returned – to the United States to stand trial.

Where he would get a "fair trial".

I do apologize, I just can't imagine the government allowing him one. Oh, they will say it was, just so they can lock him up and try to stop people idolizing him. Nope, rigged jury not made of his peers for him if he comes back.

Of course he wouldn't. He wouldn't even be permitted to make a defense.

If Snowden were arrested today, extradited to the United States, and brought to trial, the rules of evidence would prevent him from arguing that his actions were necessary to reveal governmental wrongdoing. Nor would the jury hear about the legal challenges to the programs he has disclosed.

Edward Snowden can get a fair trial in the US. Here's how | Alex Little | Comment is free | theguardian.com

 

[CorvusRexus]

Neither.

He’s a criminal defendant, innocent until proven guilty.

He should return – or be returned – to the United States to stand trial.

Where he would get a "fair trial".

I do apologize, I just can't imagine the government allowing him one. Oh, they will say it was, just so they can lock him up and try to stop people idolizing him. Nope, rigged jury not made of his peers for him if he comes back.

Of course he wouldn't. He wouldn't even be permitted to make a defense.

If Snowden were arrested today, extradited to the United States, and brought to trial, the rules of evidence would prevent him from arguing that his actions were necessary to reveal governmental wrongdoing. Nor would the jury hear about the legal challenges to the programs he has disclosed.

Edward Snowden can get a fair trial in the US. Here's how | Alex Little | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Really? Well, the federal gov't can do just about whatever their greedy hearts desire, I suppose.

 

[MikeK]

Edward Snowden has pissed on the throne of imperial government. He would be a fool to place himself at the mercy of what would be the most elaborately programmed kangaroo court in the history of persecutions. Snowden would be convicted and sentenced faster than Timothy McVeigh was.

 

[jasonnfree]

He acted on principle and put himself on the hit list. He's the messenger so kill the messenger and the problem will disappear.

 

[jasonnfree]

Snowden: Traitor or Patriot

Neither.

He’s a criminal defendant, innocent until proven guilty.

He should return – or be returned – to the United States to stand trial.

Where he'll be locked up in solitary. Maybe forced to stand naked with the light on all the time. The trial may never happen or will happen years from now and then certain testimony won't be allowed.

 

[JWBooth]

Snowden: Traitor or Patriot

Neither.

He’s a criminal defendant, innocent until proven guilty.

He should return – or be returned – to the United States to stand trial.

Sure, he can be fairly tried, fairly convicted, and fairly shot.

 

[Wyld Kard]

Edward Snowden is a great American and a true patriot.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

United. States. Constitution.

No, I don't think it's nice to spy on innocent civilians around the world, nor do I think it's nice to spy on American citizens here. People have a right to privacy, yes, even non-Americans, and the U.S. government, along with their allies in the Five Eyes, are illegally infringing on that right.

If you don't think it's important then there's nothing I can say to change your mind about that, but let's not pretend it's a legitimate, or intelligent, use of surveillance powers.

FISA is perfectly constitutional, going back long before any panic over 9/11.
United States v. U.S. District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972) (dicta)
United States v. Brown, 484 F. 2d 418 (5th Cir. 1973)
United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974)
Zweibon v. Mitchell, 516 F.2d 594 (D.C. Cir. 1975)
United States v. Duggan,743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir., 1984)
United States v. Nicholson, 955 F.Supp. 588 (Va. 1997)

You are mistaken.

FISA is exactly a legitimate and intelligent use of surveillance powers.

You are mistaken in my thoughts as to its importance. You see, it is I who has concluded that you think FISA is unimportant and that's why you champion a traitor. I, on the other hand, think FISA is of the utmost importance. When I say "So what?" to your remonstration, it is simply because you have provided no compelling argument that has not been addressed in legal precedent long before any Patriot Act mumbo-jumbo.

No, you misunderstood, it's the right to privacy that you don't care about. Furthermore, the U.N. Human Rights Committee ruled that the U.S. government's NSA surveillance of people around the world does not conform with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which was ratified by the United States.

The Committee is concerned that, until recently, judicial interpretations of FISA and rulings of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) had largely been kept secret, thus not allowing affected persons to know the law with sufficient precision. The Committee is concerned that the current oversight system of the activities of the NSA fails to effectively protect the rights of the persons affected. While welcoming the recent Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-28, which now extends some safeguards to non-United States citizens “to the maximum extent feasible consistent with the national security”, the Committee remains concerned that such persons enjoy only limited protection against excessive surveillance. Finally, the Committee is concerned that the persons affected have no access to effective remedies in case of abuse (arts. 2, 5 (1) and 17).

http://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServi...B4+VRPkf5gZFbTQO3y9dLrUeUaTbS0RrNO7VHzbyxGDJ/

Do you know what the qualifier "not self-executing" means in the context of ratifying a treaty?
It means the United States creates no remedies through its courts by way of ratifying the treaty.

Do you know what the word "Reservation" means in the context of ratifying a treaty? Are you aware that the United States holds that it is only obliged, in what limited capacity it has agreed, to hold to the treaty when concerning foreign citizens within its borders?

Opening Statement by Matthew Waxman on the Report Concerning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

In addition, it is the long-standing view of the United States that the Covenant by its very terms does not apply outside of the territory of a State Party. We are aware of the views of members of this Committee regarding the extraterritorial application of the Covenant, including the Committee’s General Comment No. 31. While we have great respect for the Committee’s views, as the Committee is aware, the United States has a principled and long-held view that the Covenant applies only to a State Party’s territory.​

It would seem you are mistaken in your definition of "conform".

By what means do you propose to inflict on the United States severing reservations pertaining to this treaty; that being a means which would not nullify the instrument of ratification?

I do care about privacy, specifically the privacy of American citizens. The citizens of the US are understandably upset at the collection of their metadata. That is separate from FISA and the damage Snowden has done to our foreign intelligence. I think as the Snowden leaks continue to undermine our foreign intelligence now and for years to come, long after Obama leaves office, when both parties have had a chance to be in the vice grips of Snowden's treason, more and more Americans will see Snowden for the traitor he is.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Neither.

He’s a criminal defendant, innocent until proven guilty.

He should return – or be returned – to the United States to stand trial.

Where he would get a "fair trial".

I do apologize, I just can't imagine the government allowing him one. Oh, they will say it was, just so they can lock him up and try to stop people idolizing him. Nope, rigged jury not made of his peers for him if he comes back.

Of course he wouldn't. He wouldn't even be permitted to make a defense.

If Snowden were arrested today, extradited to the United States, and brought to trial, the rules of evidence would prevent him from arguing that his actions were necessary to reveal governmental wrongdoing. Nor would the jury hear about the legal challenges to the programs he has disclosed.

Edward Snowden can get a fair trial in the US. Here's how | Alex Little | Comment is free | theguardian.com

It is becoming obvious that your idea of a "fair trial" involves throwing Snowden a ticker tape parade down Broadway and the President issuing a formal apology.

The rest of us prefer the rule of law.

 

[Desperado]

Snowden is a Patriot and a nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize and is way more deserving of it than a certain other recent Nobel Prize winner

 

[CorvusRexus]

Where he would get a "fair trial".

I do apologize, I just can't imagine the government allowing him one. Oh, they will say it was, just so they can lock him up and try to stop people idolizing him. Nope, rigged jury not made of his peers for him if he comes back.

Of course he wouldn't. He wouldn't even be permitted to make a defense.

If Snowden were arrested today, extradited to the United States, and brought to trial, the rules of evidence would prevent him from arguing that his actions were necessary to reveal governmental wrongdoing. Nor would the jury hear about the legal challenges to the programs he has disclosed.

Edward Snowden can get a fair trial in the US. Here's how | Alex Little | Comment is free | theguardian.com

It is becoming obvious that your idea of a "fair trial" involves throwing Snowden a ticker tape parade down Broadway and the President issuing a formal apology.

The rest of us prefer the rule of law.

My idea is finding an opinionated jury, and then having everyone in a courtroom, where all of the facts are presented, and then let the jury vote Snowden innocent because he is a patriot. Your idea is let the gov't handpick a stacked jury and only let Snowden provide so much defense. Then, you could have him shot or executed however creatively you want.

 

[lobato1]

Patriot. The traitors are those in the National Surveillance ... I mean National Security Agency.

But "IF" & only "IF" what Snowden said was true, it would appear to me that the NSA is criminally responsible of not obeying Prez Obama's orders to use the secret courts to obtain warrants for wiretapping & the NSA just never got over the good old days when they, the NSA went berserk wiretapping anybody & everybody.

Best Regards

Lobato1